Apple Calls Out EU for Contradictory App Store Rules Under DSA and DMA

[Bigbuddy1]

What is your explanation for Android’s malware problem and why Apple doesn’t have one? Is Apple better at security than Google? Apple’s users are more sophisticated? Scammers don’t want to target Apple customers?

Using security and privacy as a way to justify your actions regarding Side loading & 3rd party App Stores and deliberately designed protocols for headphones should not give you free license as a justification to boost your market value in that as a company it’s worth
$495 per individual on planet earth and certain individuals don’t think that’s a problem

 

[surferfb]

Using security and privacy as a way to justify your actions regarding Side loading & 3rd party App Stores and deliberately designed protocols for headphones should not give you free license as a justification to boost your market value in that as a company it’s worth
$495 per individual on planet earth and certain individuals don’t think that’s a problem

That didn’t answer the question. Apple’s market value has no bearing on why Android had a malware problem and Apple doesn’t. So I’ll ask again, why, in your opinion, does Android have a malware issue and Apple doesn’t?

 

[Abazigal]

It’s not about if I’m in favour of sideloading or 3rd party app stores but using security and privacy as a justification to put barriers up so you can make more money is just laughable and it’s simply this for everyone on planet earth based on Apple’s valuation that equals to about $495 per person that’s why they are getting regulated

I don’t see the two as being mutually exclusive.

It can be true that Apple is in a position to benefit greatly from a closed ecosystem (similar to Nintendo where they take 30% of game revenue), and that people value this closed ecosystem because they believe that the advantages of being protected from malware is greater than the downsides of not being to sideload an app they may not even miss anyways.

It can also be true that Apple is being regulated by the EU at the behest of businesses and merchants, and that this regulation can be negative consequences on the safety and the security of iphone users. What’s good for businesses and developers aren’t always good for consumers, and vice versa. Apple isn’t always the enemy, and companies like Spotify and Epic aren’t always your friends.

I was there at Cnet 12 years ago when iphone haters were spamming pro-Apple articles with all manner of criticism. One popular argument was that Android was “better” because it was open, and all these supposed “benefits” would lead to users abandoning iOS for android, leaving Apple a husk of its former self. Apple was positioned as one iPhone update away from implosion. Low market and sales share were paraded around as signs of an incompetent product strategy. Simply put, Apple was framed as being weak and vulnerable, dependent on revenue sources that could disappear overnight due to consumers fleeing to the competition.

But we all know how this ended up playing out. Apple’s active install base continued to grow. They continued to sell more iPhones and more hardware (at ever-growing prices too). All while supposed “iphone killers” bit the dust one by one.

As such, the narrative has completely shifted. The press is now infatuated with Apple’s power, its ironclad grip over the App Store, and the idea that Apple users are stuck or imprisoned in a massive walled garden where things like iMessage, Apple Watches, and AirPods force people to remain within Apple’s walls. Government regulators are viewed as the only entity capable of protecting Apple users from Apple.

If anny of you here actually believe this narrative, you are only are setting yourselves up for more failure. Thinking that Apple users are somehow being forced against their will to buy products like Apple Watches and AirPods is nothing more than looking for someone to blame for market failures when the problem is found internally with a bad vision, inadequate corporate culture, and lack of understanding as to what makes Apple unique.

 

[I7guy]

[…]

Sigh first Apple doesn’t have an obligation to protect their users, but their services.
[…]

That’s like saying automakers don’t have an obligation to design safe cars. Only an obligation to design cars in a such a way that their company is protected.

The term gatekeeper is is still simply and ex-anti anti competitive law based on decades of legal precedent regarding TFEU article 101 & 102. Apple and others are still prosecutable even if the gatekeeper terms [….]

The term gatekeeper is not new in the English language. What is new is the crafty way the DMA was cobbled together to hobble Apple.

 

[I7guy]

No it was a comparison in that my mum got an iPhone for security 😂😂😂
If you’re world beating at security as you claim instead of using smoke and mirrors then apple could easily answer the questions the European Union are asking
However I suspect it’s to ask probing questions to reveal the nonsense that apple are hiding behind
as what’s all ready been established is its basic code behind certain products and are just using security as an excuse

You conveniently didn’t comment on the statistics posted and instead doubled down with some generalized hyperbole.

It should be easy for the eu to call out apples allegations of laws at cross purposes. Correct?

 

[Bigbuddy1]

I don’t see the two as being mutually exclusive.

It can be true that Apple is in a position to benefit greatly from a closed ecosystem (similar to Nintendo where they take 30% of game revenue), and that people value this closed ecosystem because they believe that the advantages of being protected from malware is greater than the downsides of not being to sideload an app they may not even miss anyways.

It can also be true that Apple is being regulated by the EU at the behest of businesses and merchants, and that this regulation can be negative consequences on the safety and the security of iphone users. What’s good for businesses and developers aren’t always good for consumers, and vice versa. Apple isn’t always the enemy, and companies like Spotify and Epic aren’t always your friends.

I was there at Cnet 12 years ago when iphone haters were spamming pro-Apple articles with all manner of criticism. One popular argument was that Android was “better” because it was open, and all these supposed “benefits” would lead to users abandoning iOS for android, leaving Apple a husk of its former self. Apple was positioned as one iPhone update away from implosion. Low market and sales share were paraded around as signs of an incompetent product strategy. Simply put, Apple was framed as being weak and vulnerable, dependent on revenue sources that could disappear overnight due to consumers fleeing to the competition.

But we all know how this ended up playing out. Apple’s active install base continued to grow. They continued to sell more iPhones and more hardware (at ever-growing prices too). All while supposed “iphone killers” bit the dust one by one.

As such, the narrative has completely shifted. The press is now infatuated with Apple’s power, its ironclad grip over the App Store, and the idea that Apple users are stuck or imprisoned in a massive walled garden where things like iMessage, Apple Watches, and AirPods force people to remain within Apple’s walls. Government regulators are viewed as the only entity capable of protecting Apple users from Apple.

If anny of you here actually believe this narrative, you are only are setting yourselves up for more failure. Thinking that Apple users are somehow being forced against their will to buy products like Apple Watches and AirPods is nothing more than looking for someone to blame for market failures when the problem is found internally with a bad vision, inadequate corporate culture, and lack of understanding as to what makes Apple unique.

Responsible governments cannot let a company that is worth about $495 per
Every individual on planet earth that’s
8.2 billion individuals to dictate so they have free reign and a license to print money for their own interests and use security and privacy as a smokescreen
And that’s what it’s about and that’s the only number that matters to these governments not 28% market share in mobile or closed ecosystem’s or any other statistic that apple or certain fans of their’s use
It’s about the $495 figure and the dominance that it means

 

[Bigbuddy1]

You conveniently didn’t comment on the statistics posted and instead doubled down with some generalized hyperbole.

It should be easy for the eu to call out apples allegations of laws at cross purposes. Correct?

Again it’s about $495 value per every single human on planet earth & that’s 8.2 billion individuals that’s what it’s about.

 

[I7guy]

Again it’s about $495 value per every single human on planet earth & that’s 8.2 billion individuals that’s what it’s about.

And it’s as relevant as me saying a donut and coffee is $5.

 

[Bigbuddy1]

And it’s as relevant as me saying a donut and coffee is $5.

However you’re $5 donut and coffee company aren’t worth $495 to every individual on planet earth
That’s 8.2 billion people

 

[surferfb]

But it is relevant because this is how these people think and that is why they are getting regulated because of $495 per every human on earth and that’s 8.2 billion individuals
It’s that simple.

It is absolutely irrelevant and doesn’t even make logical sense. That’s not how governments think and how laws are made.

I’d also point out that NVIDIA is worth a trillion more dollars than Apple.

 

[I7guy]

However you’re $5 donut and coffee company aren’t worth $495 to every individual on planet earth
That’s 8.2 billion people

I don’t want to dissuade you from your own thoughts on the matter, or any matter.

If your belief is the DMA exists because $495 / person who are we to change your mind?

But it’s still not relevant to apples claims according to this article.

 

[MilaM]

And it’s as relevant as me saying a donut and coffee is $5.

I think the point they are trying to make is that the insane valuations of some tech companies are a symptom of massive rent seeking that is commonly associated with markets that are extremely inefficient or rigged.

Just look at the 20 billion payment Apple is getting from Google for doing essentially nothing. It's a textbook example of collusion between two big economic players in the space. Show me one example in the traditional economy where something like this would be possible or allowed.

 

[turbineseaplane]

@MilaM

To your point above.
The tech companies, and their behaviors, have frog boiled us all into acceptance of tactics that should not be tolerated.

 

[Bigbuddy1]

It is absolutely irrelevant and doesn’t even make logical sense. That’s not how governments think and how laws are made.

I’d also point out that NVIDIA is worth a trillion more dollars than Apple.

Yes but NVIDIA doesn’t sell smartphones that’s the point

 

[turbineseaplane]

Yes but NVIDIA doesn’t sell smartphones that’s the point

Correct.
All of this is happening around smartphones because of what they are and represent in modern life now (the essential nature of them.)

 

[Bigbuddy1]

I don’t want to dissuade you from your own thoughts on the matter, or any matter.

If your belief is the DMA exists because $495 / person who are we to change your mind?

But it’s still not relevant to apples claims according to this article.

That is what it’s about because as what is routinely pointed out by individuals like yourself and others is iOS has a market share of 28% now no other company due to that would get regulated however as they have a
$495 per every single individual on plants earth then that’s why it is

 

[I7guy]

That is what it’s about because as what is routinely pointed out by individuals like yourself and others is iOS has a market share of 28% now no other company due to that would get regulated however as they have a
$495 per every single individual on plants earth then that’s why it is

In a sense you’re right. The eu couldn’t get Apple on market share. Way too low. So they got them in revenue. Apples customers buy Apple product and services enough for Apple to have record breaking quarters. And Apple is influential. So the eu had no choice in the matter and our a price on apples popularity.

Apple is getting regulated because people pay its prices and the prices of its devs. Thats influence.

 

[I7guy]

I think the point they are trying to make is that the insane valuations of some tech companies are a symptom of massive rent seeking that is commonly associated with markets that are extremely inefficient or rigged.

No rent seeking. Rent seeking is commonly associated with using laws and market conditions in a manipulative attempt to extract additional revenue. The insane valuations are the result of a system that lets this happen. And people who buy products and service. Do you think nvidia could get where it was if its sales were $0?

Just look at the 20 billion payment Apple is getting from Google for doing essentially nothing.

In your opinion it’s doing nothing. In apples and googles opinion there is a reason for it, even if you don’t like it.

It's a textbook example of collusion between two big economic players in the space.

It’s a textbook example of companies who may be competitors making deals for their own reasons.

Show me one example in the traditional economy where something like this would be possible or allowed.

Show me where it is disallowed. Show me what laws are in the books to prevent this. Show me where the regulators and legal system let this slip under the radar.

 

[Bigbuddy1]

In a sense you’re right. The eu couldn’t get Apple on market share. Way too low. So they got them in revenue. Apples customers buy Apple product and services enough for Apple to have record breaking quarters. And Apple is influential. So the eu had no choice in the matter and our a price on apples popularity.

Apple is getting regulated because people pay its prices and the prices of its devs. Thats influence.

It’s smoke and mirrors regarding security and privacy as a justification to print money hence the $495 per every individual on planet earth that’s not influence that’s greed

 

[Bigbuddy1]

No rent seeking. Rent seeking is commonly associated with using laws and market conditions in a manipulative attempt to extract additional revenue. The insane valuations are the result of a system that lets this happen. And people who buy products and service. Do you think nvidia could get where it was if its sales were $0?

In your opinion it’s doing nothing. In apples and googles opinion there is a reason for it, even if you don’t like it.

It’s a textbook example of companies who may be competitors making deals for their own reasons.

Show me where it is disallowed. Show me what laws are in the books to prevent this. Show me where the regulators and legal system let this slip under the radar.

Its to do with value per person on planet earth and the factors behind it

 

[I7guy]

It’s smoke and mirrors regarding security and privacy as a justification to print money hence the $495 per every individual on planet earth that’s not influence that’s greed

It’s smoke and mirrors in your opinion. Not in my opinion. As a matter of fact it’s already been shown in past posts it’s very real.

 

[surferfb]

It’s smoke and mirrors because hiding behind the terms security and privacy just so happens to be a coincidence that for a company with only 28% market share has a value of $495 per every human on planet earth 🤔

That literally has nothing to do with anything and isn’t a logical argument. You can’t refute the statistics I posted above and just say “it’s smoke and mirrors” without evidence.

I provided evidence the security and privacy points are real. Please provide countering evidence they are not.

 

[surferfb]

I think the point they are trying to make is that the insane valuations of some tech companies are a symptom of massive rent seeking that is commonly associated with markets that are extremely inefficient or rigged.

Just look at the 20 billion payment Apple is getting from Google for doing essentially nothing. It's a textbook example of collusion between two big economic players in the space. Show me one example in the traditional economy where something like this would be possible or allowed.

This happens ALL THE TIME in the non-tech space. The “Google pays Apple” structure is literally just a grocery store slotting fee at larger scale. When Kroger does it with cereal, no one screams collusion.

Other examples:

• Chase or Amex will pay literally billions for exclusive co-brand card partnerships. They’re paying for distribution, default loyalty, and privileged positioning.
• Coke or Pepsi pays huge sums to be the exclusive drink “default” in Stadiums, Amusement Parks, Concert Halls, Movie Theaters, etc. The venue isn’t “doing anything.” They’re selling access.

This isn’t some bizarre, never-allowed, “only in tech” situation. The exact same pattern shows up all over the traditional economy: a dominant distributor/platform getting paid by a supplier to become the default point of access.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That’s like saying automakers don’t have an obligation to design safe cars. Only an obligation to design cars in a such a way that their company is protected.

They might have an obligation to make safe cars, but not that the car is safe in relation to the user modifying or integrating non standard things. That’s well without their responsibility.

They can sell us safe tires to the specifications of said car, and if the user have other then it’s not their responsibility 🤷‍♂️

The term gatekeeper is not new in the English language. What is new is the crafty way the DMA was cobbled together to hobble Apple.

Well if it’s news, EU have a few more official languages than English. They could have called it the wombat as its still just squarely in the anti competitive legal understanding and presidency

 

[Johns12]

Can someone answer this question for me. I see comments that if Apple allows apps from other stores, people will sue them if malware is downloaded. There is a large amount of malware, supposedly on Android. Are all those people suing Google?