Apple Challenges 'Unprecedented' €500M EU Fine Over App Store Steering Rules

[Ctrlos]

Except you used Google's anti-competitive agreements with their competitors to justify punishing Apple when you claimed that the problem was a duopoly. Do you not stand by your claim?

Google's control of Play Services requirements is their equivalent of Windows licencing terms. Fork Android all you like but if you want the Google Apps people buy the products for then you have to agree to Google's terms. This is why beyond cosmetic changes there isnt really a difference in the apps and distribution of Android OEMs. Google don't have a monopoly on app distribution but nobody really uses the other stores.

Having a level playing field on app distribution across both platforms is only a good thing, but the idea scenario would be greater choice in OSes. It's a shame we lost Windows Phone and webOS. Its next to impossible to compete. The only company that seems to have managed it is Huawei but they're hardly some startup in Laos.

Both iOS and Android have been dereft of ideas for a long time now. The market needs shaking up some how. Apple and Google won but we lost.

Maybe they lost as well? If the market supported 4-5 OS choices then this thread wouldn't exist. On computers you have MacOS, Windows, ChromeOS and multiple flavours of Linux to choose from and yet you can deploy your service via a web browser and reach everyone.

Perhaps that's the happy medium: no app stores at all and everything as a PWA?

 

[turbineseaplane]

Enhancements and features for later products, etc.

That should be covered by the purchase of that "later product".

 

[delsoul]

Pushing open market and level playing field regulation on totalitarian companies is 100% in favour of consumers.

Open market…on making a company build what YOU want instead of taking your money to buy the competitors product instead? You have it backward, mate! Open market is not fining and forcing someone into shape of how you want them. Open market is letting the money itself talk and either you buy it or you don’t. Totalitarian would be what the EU is doing to foreign businesses. Their way or the highway, zero concessions or negotiation.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Hence the need for Apple/Google to charge for their respective stores.

There's no actual "need" for them to have stores at all!
They are making a fantastic and healthy margin on selling the hardware.
(just like with Macs)

 

[surferfb]

Google's control of Play Services requirements is their equivalent of Windows licencing terms. Fork Android all you like but if you want the Google Apps people buy the products for then you have to agree to Google's terms. This is why beyond cosmetic changes there isnt really a difference in the apps and distribution of Android OEMs. Google don't have a monopoly on app distribution but nobody really uses the other stores.

If no one is using it why is the EU making Apple offer it? Seems like a lot of work if no one is actually going to use it.

Having a level playing field on app distribution across both platforms is only a good thing, but the idea scenario would be greater choice in OSes. It's a shame we lost Windows Phone and webOS. It’s next to impossible to compete. The only company that seems to have managed it is Huawei but they're hardly some startup in Laos.

Both iOS and Android have been dereft of ideas for a long time now. The market needs shaking up some how. Apple and Google won but we lost.

And the DMA makes it even less likely a third competitor will emerge. Because the second they get 10% of the market they have to give their special sauce away to Apple and Google. Can’t differentiate - not allowed anymore.

 

[Ctrlos]

Open market…on making a company build what YOU want instead of taking your money to buy the competitors product instead? You have it backward, mate! Open market is not fining and forcing someone into shape of how you want them. Open market is letting the money itself talk and either you buy it or you don’t. Totalitarian would be what the EU is doing to foreign businesses. Their way or the highway, zero concessions or negotiation.

Due to the lack of consumer choice on OSes (Android or iOS) Apple and Google aren't really competing companies as much as competing levels of infrastructure. The open market has to be at a software distribution level (like on PC and Mac) rather than hardware.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If no one is using it why is the EU making Apple offer it? Seems like a lot of work if no one is actually going to use it.

Counterquestion:
👉 If no one will be using it, why is Apple so unwilling to comply?

It's certainly not hard work - cause the infrastructure for sideloading has existed for a long time. And allowing in-app purchases as Uber are conducting them - or Fortnite did before being banned) does not require any support from Apple at all.

Apple even have a payment solution that seems very price-competitive that they could offer third-party developers.
Uber and others seem happily using it for their in-app transactions (even though they don't have to).

 

[I7guy]

This clearly isn't true. It's about having a level playing field for other retailers to open.

That’s exactly what is happening. It’s not a level playing field. A level laying field is legitimate competition. Forcing a business to give away its assets is not a level playing field.

What innovation? They're choosing bureaucracy over competition, making it harder for other players rather than better for themselves. It is about control, which ultimately lives and dies with Apple.

Correct. It’s apples property. It’s apples innovation. If devs want to enter into a business relationship with Apple, they should. Or if not, not.

They need to decide where they stand: lock down the Mac or open up the iPhone? In the beginning when the iPhone was a satellite to the Mac it didn't matter but now it's the core platform the game has changed.

They are different for two different uses annd use cases. Apple doesn’t have to make that decision because a poster wants them too.

 

[Ctrlos]

If no one is using it why is the EU making Apple offer it? Seems like a lot of work if no one is actually going to use it.

Which makes you wonder why people are so hard in opposing the idea as well. Apple becoming one of many points of distribution doesn't mean they stop distributing.

In reality the entire software market is broken. Regardless of what Apple do, we as consumers don't own any of it, we only buy a licence and purchases are locked to platforms.

In the past the electronics industry would band together and come up with an open format that worked on anything such as DVDs. What we really need European, American and Asian regulators to do is force Apple, Google, Sony et al to come up with an open standard for software development that works on any platform and allows customers to take their apps with them wherever they go.

This way every store competes with every other and nobody has a monopoly on distribution on any platform.

 

[I7guy]

[…]

This way every store competes with every other and nobody has a monopoly on distribution on any platform.

Epic tried in the US and failed. Apple does not have an illegal monopoly with the App Store.

 

[Adysubman]

European Commission meeting minutes:

- we need to raise more money as the travel and expenses of moving HQ every 3 weeks has really gone up in price.

- should we look at European oil companies like Shell for polluting rivers and water ways in third world countries?

- nah they have European employees and if might impact the share price and therefore our pension pots.

- best fine big tech again then if all agree. Apple this time? Then we can fine google or meta next quarter.

 

[AppliedMicro]

And the DMA makes it even less likely a third competitor will emerge

Considering

• the almost 20 years we've observed the smartphone market now without these regulations
• and the early years of the market, where even the biggest, best-supported competitors (Blackberry, Symbian, Windows Phone) faltered
• and the more than 20 years of the desktop operating system market

...there is no indication that they otherwise would anyway.

Because the second they get 10% of the market they have to give their special sauce away to Apple and Google.

No - they can retain their special sauce - they just have to allow for some interoperability.

Case in point: Apple absolutely can retain their secret "Siri" sauce, limiting its availability to their own phones. They don't have to give it away to Google or any other smartphone maker.
They just may be prohibited from leveraging it to gain an anticompetitive advantage on the market for, say, earphones (AirPods).

Can’t differentiate - not allowed anymore.

You're not saying Android and iOS would be same, not differentiated from each other, were it not for their allowed methods of distributing apps to consumers, are you?

 

[theluggage]

1. There are dozens of manufactures each own and control their own fork of the android open source project,
...
Why should Apple be punished because Google has anti-competitive agreements with its horizontal competitors?

The rules apply to Google as well, and the EU has picked plenty of bones with them:

Antitrust cases against Google by the European Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The DMA does not consider whether there is a duopoly or thriving competition. Only size.

It's based on dominance of particular key areas (https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en). Surprise, surprise these companies tend to be large, and "too big to fail". So what if there are 3 or 4 choices in one of these areas? If you do nothing they'll either merge or drive each other out with anti-competetive practices, and certainly make it harder for a new contender to move in.

 

[BaldiMac]

Google's control of Play Services requirements is their equivalent of Windows licencing terms. Fork Android all you like but if you want the Google Apps people buy the products for then you have to agree to Google's terms. This is why beyond cosmetic changes there isnt really a difference in the apps and distribution of Android OEMs. Google don't have a monopoly on app distribution but nobody really uses the other stores.

Great! So we don't have a duopoly on smartphones. Or mobile OS. Or app distribution. So can we drop the whole "duopoly" argument completely!?

Similarly, since you agree that "nobody really uses the other stores", why is that constantly being thrown out as a remedy on iOS? I'm all for regulating iOS to increase competition. I simply think that third-party app stores are a poor way to do that.

Having a level playing field on app distribution across both platforms is only a good thing, but the idea scenario would be greater choice in OSes. It's a shame we lost Windows Phone and webOS. Its next to impossible to compete.

I disagree on your ideal. I think the market has shown that it only has room to support two development platforms. That's why Windows Phone and webOS died. Developers will be less likely to use the latest features and frameworks of each OS in favor of cross-platform crap.

If you want to see more competition, the competition should be at a service level. End Google's anti-competitive agreements for Google Play Services with its own horizontal competitors. Stop them from leveraging its search and advertising monopolies to control the mobile platforms of its direct competitors. Each manufacturer or OS provider should have to develop or license its own services.

 

[icolove]

.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple does not have an illegal monopoly with the App Store.

They have been the "sole provider of an App Store where developers can distribute their apps to iOS users" and "abused its dominant position on (that) market", which "is illegal under EU antitrust rules."

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/ga/ip_24_1161

European Commission meeting minutes:
- we need to raise more money as the travel and expenses of moving HQ every 3 weeks has really gone up in price.
- should we look at European oil companies like Shell for polluting rivers and water ways in third world countries?
- nah they have European employees and if might impact the share price and therefore our pension pots.
- best fine big tech again then if all agree. Apple this time? Then we can fine google or meta next quarter.

The catch: They can only fine noncompliant companies.
Companies have a choice to comply or not.

 

[Kal Madda]

I hope Apple wins on this. The EU is way out of line with this. Apple is right that the EU is essentially trying to dictate how Apple runs their own store, which is well outside of their authority. It’s akin to demanding that Target allow product vendors to take customers aside and pay them directly, bypassing the checkout, and allowing product vendors to cheat Target out of the commissions due them. It’s exactly the same thing here that they’re trying to do to Apple. The EU needs to back off and stop trying to bully American businesses…

 

[icolove]

I hope Apple wins on this. The EU is way out of line with this. Apple is right that the EU is essentially trying to dictate how Apple runs their own store, which is well outside of their authority. It’s akin to demanding that Target allow product vendors to take customers aside and pay them directly, bypassing the checkout, and allowing product vendors to cheat Target out of the commissions due them. It’s exactly the same thing here that they’re trying to do to Apple. The EU needs to back off and stop trying to bully American businesses…

You should read EU antitrust law. The rest of the world isn't America. That American victim... Err corporation, is free to leave the EU.

That analogy though.

 

[BaldiMac]

The rules apply to Google as well, and the EU has picked plenty of bones with them:

Antitrust cases against Google by the European Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yep. Not sure what that has to do with my point.

It's based on dominance of particular key areas (https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en). Surprise, surprise these companies tend to be large, and "too big to fail". So what if there are 3 or 4 choices in one of these areas? If you do nothing they'll either merge or drive each other out with anti-competetive practices, and certainly make it harder for a new contender to move in.

It's not based on dominance, it's based on size. That was my point. I was simply refuting the claim that it was based on the (false) assertion of a duopoly in the market.

 

[turbineseaplane]

If people don't see the evil and anti-competitive practices of Apple, it's because they don't want to.

Yep ... and many of us have such a long rosy colored history with Apple that it's hard to imagine them being such a company. It's like finding out the beloved Uncle from your childhood has developed into a sexual predator.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It’s akin to demanding that Target allow product vendors to take customers aside and pay them directly, bypassing the checkout, and allowing product vendors to cheat Target out of the commissions due them

The checkout isn't circumvented. Even if I want to download my Spotify or Netflix app for the first time, I have to check it out through Apple, as a purchase with my Apple Account.

👉 Maybe Apple should check, why they are checking out so many products for free. Unlike Target, where very few products are free.

PS: ...from what I've heard. I've never been to a Target store. Can any 🇺🇸 American confirm for me whether Target charges (a non-zero amount) for most of the products they carry?

 

[BuffaloTF]

Isn’t the entire point of anti-steering laws to prevent companies from pointing you to their own services, and other services that may be more “risky” than the traditional ones? How the hell do they get tagged for anti-steering when they aren’t steering at all?

 

[djphat2000]

Note enough choice. A duopoly isn't choice - particularly where on duopolist does not directly compete with the other.

This is not the fault or for either company to fix. This happened naturally. Having enough choice isn't some rule we can make up. What is enough for me, isn't enough for you. You only have choice when it's available. You have no choice if neither or only one option exists for which to pick from. The EU rules don't encourage choice or create more choice. It breaks business models into something "else".

Apple could walk away. However, unlikely from the EU market. Then what do you have? You have 1 option. ONE. Your choice goes away overnight. Let's face it. If Apple perfectly followed whatever rule the EU came up with. They WILL LOSE MONEY. Once that starts. It's VERY hard to come back from. They are not going to sell enough devices to make up the difference. They are not going to keep enough paid applications on the store to make up the difference. The big ones will move off the AppStore to where "They" can make more profit. They will have to, because others will. Crappy apps, will get even crappier. The iPhone will suffer and so the experience that comes with having purchased it. Not because Apple can't compete against a 3rd party store. But because they will not be able to enough to keep going. The security the device provides will lessen. The ability to create a high quality experience will drop. Why? Because they will be forced to work with the lowest case denominator 3rd party app JUST as well as they do their own for as long as possible. Everything Apple has done to make the iPhone what it is will change. And it will not be the same thing afterwards.

 

[Kal Madda]

You should read EU antitrust law. The rest of the world isn't America....

That anology though.

And? The point is that the EU’s actions extended beyond the DMA edicts. Apple complied with the edicts, and the EU still is trying to penalize them, and doing so beyond what was actually defined by their own edicts…

Furthermore, of course the rest of the world isn’t America. But the EU is clearly trying to target American tech companies. And the EU doesn’t really have a single successful tech company of their own, I wonder why…?

And the analogy perfectly mirrors the way this works. Apple’s App Store is built on the exact same kind of model as any other store, just on a digital platform. So this same kind of crap the EU is trying to arbitrarily foist on Apple’s store could also be foisted on any other store…

 

[djphat2000]

The checkout isn't circumvented. Even if I want to download my Spotify or Netflix app for the first time, I have to check it out through Apple, as a purchase with my Apple Account.

👉 Maybe Apple should check, why they are checking out so many products for free. Unlike Target, where very few products are free.

PS: ...from what I've heard. I've never been to a Target store. Can any 🇺🇸 American confirm for me whether Target charges (a non-zero amount) for most of the products they carry?

Most items are paid for at any store you go to. And also, at many stores. The local store brand is also cheaper than the big name brands products. So when Spotify or Netflix complain that Apple doesn't have to pay the 30% or whatever fee. The same holds true for any store that makes their own product and sells competitors versions.