What 'substantially more' do those regulations require? Allowing 3rd party app stores is already the fatal blow as far as Apple are concerned. No other regulation matters if that one is included.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple-Commissioned Study Highlights Success of Third-Party Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What 'substantially more' do those regulations require? Allowing 3rd party app stores is already the fatal blow as far as Apple are concerned. No other regulation matters if that one is included.
Here you go, here’s a whole raft of provisions in the EU bill. Side-loading is but a single item.
EU Provisionally Agrees on Law That Would Force Apple to Allow Alternative App Stores, Sideloading, and iMessage Interoperability
European lawmakers have provisionally agreed upon a new law that would force Apple to allow user access to third-party app stores and permit the...
www.macrumors.com
Here you go, here’s a whole raft of provisions in the EU bill. Side-loading is but a single item.
EU Provisionally Agrees on Law That Would Force Apple to Allow Alternative App Stores, Sideloading, and iMessage Interoperability
European lawmakers have provisionally agreed upon a new law that would force Apple to allow user access to third-party app stores and permit the...
Which of those additional regulations do you think will harm Apple more than allowing 3rd party app stores that isn't a regulation based on the behaviour of another company?
Last edited:
What exactly do you mean by supplier? AT&T/Verizon/…? I can get Android devices there. Apple themselves? Should it be law that Apple’s websites need to sell Android phones too?
If you are talking about apps, yes it is equivalent to the McDonald’s discussion. I walk in to McDonald’s (get an iPhone) and I can’t demand the sell Burger King products (third party stores). I need to leave McDonald’s (get rid of my iPhone) and drive 10 miles to the closest Burger King (buy an Android). Different systems, different experiences. Get the system that has the experience you need.
None probably. Now let me ask you a question. What harms Apple more?
Option A:
- Allowing third-party app stores.
Option B:
- Allowing third-party app stores.
- For the the most important software (e.g. web browsers), not require this software by default upon installation of the operating system.
- Ensure the interoperability of their instant messaging services' basic functionalities.
- Allow app developers fair access to the supplementary functionalities of smartphones (e.g. NFC chip).
- Not allow to rank their own products or services higher than those of others (self-preferencing).
- Not allowed to establish unfair conditions for business users.
- Not allowed to pre-install certain software applications.
- Fines in the event of non-compliance.
Option B includes regulations that either don’t harm Apple or are there because of behaviour by another company. Option B needs to include only the regulations created in response to only Apple.
Your notion that Apple would have avoided regulation by voluntarily taking action before hand is nonsense because the regulation is in response to the business practices of multiple businesses, therefore Apple would have needed to collude with those businesses to ensure they all avoided regulation. Apple do not operate in isolation in the market.
Again, what action could Apple have taken to exclude it from the regulations? The only exclusions are for Apple to fall outside of the scope of the regulations, I.e., to not be a gatekeeper or to be under a certain market cap etc.
Last edited:
Umm, I’m pretty sure at least most of those apply to Apple.
In order:
- Safari being pre-installed.
- Messages being required to work with other platforms.
- NFC reader locked down.
- Don’t know if Apple actually self-preferences in the App Store, but (annoyingly) advertising Apple Music and other services in the settings app could qualify.
- Don’t know, Apple may or may not have existing business practices they would qualify as unfair for business users.
- Apple pre-installs all kinds of software.
- And fines are money out of Apple’s pocket.
Not sure where you get the idea that none of those things harm Apple lol.
1) Doesn't harm Apple (might harm the consumer from a privacy perspective if other browsers installed).
2) Messages already does (SMS) but it probably won't harm Apple (might harm the consumer in terms of privacy sending messages that aren't encrypted etc.).
3) Don't think that harms Apple (might harm the consumer from a privacy perspective transactions being visible to another party).
4) Doesn't harm Apple as they don't do this.
5) Don't think this harms Apple.
6) Doesn't harm Apple (pre-installed software is for user convenience not Apple's benefit. In fact the less software Apple has to make, the more than helps them save money!).
7) Only applies if they violate regulations.
And I'm not sure where you get the idea that these things harm Apple in any meaningful way!
By far the biggest harm done to Apple is 3rd party app stores.
The things that make Apple the most money and therefore do the most harm to them if meddled with by regulators are:
Selling hardware
Selling software and services
Commissions.
Last edited:
If they don't harm Apple, then you does Apple do (or not do in some cases) those things? Let's go over one in particular? NFC. Why does Apple have it locked down to Apple Wallet for NFC payments? Because then they can skim off the top from bank transactions by forcing them to use Apple Wallet if they want NFC functionality. Further, it also drives consumers who use the wallet to Apple's own credit card, Apple Card. If Apple is forced to open NFC up for payments, that's reduced cash flows from that one item right there. Much like shouting "I declare bankruptcy" doesn't mean you've actually declared bankruptcy, simply saying "doesn't harm Apple" doesn't mean it doesn't harm Apple.
How much money do they make from that vs the App Store? Would you trade the App Store revenue for the Apple Pay revenue?
Your first suggestion for action Apple could have taken to avoid being included in this regulation was to either reduce the App Store profits to cover costs only or to allow 3rd party app stores.
Reducing the costs alone would not have excluded Apple from this regulation because the regulations cover all sorts of behaviours from a multitude of companies. And allowing 3rd party app stores is precisely what the regulation would require anyway.
Like I said, there is absolutely nothing Apple could have done to avoid the regulators.
Many things Apple do are to protect consumers (it's almost like they've been saying that all along...).
Last edited:
It's not about trading one for the other. It's about losing the App Store revenue (option A) versus losing the App Store revenue and Apple Pay revenue and other sources of revenue (option B). And most of Apple's App Store revenue, needn't have been lost anyway. If Apple actually offered the best store while actually competing (rather than preventing competition and overcharging for what you're offering devs due to lack of aforementioned competition) they would have retained most of their App Store revenue anyway. Look at how many apps are on the Play Store versus not and how Android users get almost all of their apps on the former anyway, even though side-loading is allowed.
I'm not naive enough to just believe everything somebody tells me, especially when their own self-interest is involved. In reality, there probably is some truth to that, but it doesn't mean customer security isn't just a side benefit to the primary purpose of extra money coming in.
But Apple taking option A does not exclude them from the regulation or prevent regulators from regulating everything else.
You seem to be missing this over and over and over again.
There is nothing Apple could have done that would have excluded them from this regulation despite your claims to the contrary.
There are no guarantees here, but it makes it far less likely regulators take action, had Apple and the rest of tech industry taken some meaningful pre-emptive actions on their own. Again let's go back to the speeding analogy, 5 over versus 20 over.
You don't know that. I've already outlined reasonable actions Apple could have taken, but chose not to, to not draw the ire of regulators. Success for Apple here likely would've required actions from other players in big tech as well, since this bill isn't aimed only at Apple, however none of them, including Apple, tried to change their ways to play more fairly. Big tech (Apple included) took a major gamble that regulators wouldn't do anything and that they would get to continue the status quo, rather than hedge their bets and try to take off some of the heat through voluntary reforms. That's a bet they look almost certain to lose at this point.
But we're not talking about the entire industry we're talking about the action Apple could have taken to avoid regulation. Apple has no control over other companies.
You appear to be making a contradictory argument. On the one hand you are saying Apple could have avoided regulation by taking some specific action but then saying the 'rest of tech industry' would also have needed to take action to prevent Apple from being regulated.
So my original point still stands. There is nothing Apple could have done to avoid being regulated.
I'm glad we are finally in agreement on this!
That's not how voluntary compromise works, my friend. You don't just get to do those things that you "want" to do when people increasingly see those things as a net negative to an overall industry. The whole point of Apple doing these things voluntarily is to show that they are willing to compromise on some of the things that they "fundamentally don't want to do" in order to be a good industry neighbor. By avoiding doing those things that they fundamentally don't want to do, Apple is making it crystal clear that the only way that they will become a good neighbor in the tech industry is by regulatory force.
Of course that's how voluntary compromise works. There has to be something in it for both parties else it's not a compromise.
We've actually never disagreed on the point that other companies would've had to take action as well. I mentioned it multiple times and at least as far back as just my third comment in this very long conversation.
Apple-Commissioned Study Highlights Success of Third-Party Apps
I mean anti-competitive in a practical sense, not a legal sense, since the latter is still being adjudicated in many places under existing law. If lawmakers didn't view what Apple and others are doing as anti-competitive, there would be nothing to codify into law in the first place. You don't...
forums.macrumors.com
You've somehow only just now realized that we agree on the point that it would've required action from other tech companies, not just Apple. Simply because others are responsible as well however does not absolve Apple of their part in all of this. Not once did I say Apple alone could have prevented this. There is no contradiction here. Apple had a role to play in heading this off, but they and the other tech companies were greedy and failed to meaningfully act.
Right, so we agree that nothing Apple could have done alone would have prevented this regulation from occurring.We've actually never disagreed on the point that other companies would've had to take action as well. I mentioned it multiple times and at least as far back as just my third comment in this very long conversation.
Apple-Commissioned Study Highlights Success of Third-Party Apps
I mean anti-competitive in a practical sense, not a legal sense, since the latter is still being adjudicated in many places under existing law. If lawmakers didn't view what Apple and others are doing as anti-competitive, there would be nothing to codify into law in the first place. You don't...
You've somehow only just now realized that we agree on the point that it would've required action from other tech companies, not just Apple. Simply because others are responsible as well however does not absolve Apple of their part in all of this. Not once did I say Apple alone could have prevented this. There is no contradiction here. Apple had a role to play in heading this off, but they and the other tech companies were greedy and failed to meaningfully act.
I disagree with the concept of them being greedy. They just operate within the law. Those laws allow them to be really successful. The new laws will allow them to be less successful.
It is not contradictory when you consider Apple's leading role in the industry. Apple is the tech leader that all other players follow. Apple taking specific action would have almost certainly led to other firms doing the same. Conversely, Apple specifically not taking action also leads to other industry players being hesitant to take action of their own. It seems all too often that Apple likes to tout their leadership position in the tech industry only when it suits them, but not when it comes time to accept the responsibility that comes with positions of power.
Of course we agree that Apple alone could not have prevented this. We have never disagreed on this point in the first place. However, action from Apple in addition to action from the other tech companies could have likely prevented this regulation. Apple and the rest of big tech's loss. They should've hedged.
My god you people are so desperate to blame Apple for everything they are now apparently responsible for Google and Facebooks misdemeanours too!
It's pretty clear that the "something in it" for Apple in this case would have been the ability to carry on running a very lucrative tech business without having to face much more onerous regulatory oversight.
What in the regulations will stop them from doing that?
Both the proposed voluntary action and required regulatory action would require Apple to lose revenue from the App Store. Whether done voluntarily or by regulation, they are equally unpalatable to Apple. And even then it would only have had a chance of working if all the other ’big tech’ companies made compromises at the same time! At which point Apple would have sacrificed something for nothing.
An appropriate compromise might have been something like reducing the commission to 15% for devs making under £1m. Apple still makes money and devs take home more money. A compromise. Oh wait…
Last edited:
Yet often major policies coincidentally change at roughly the same time.
Apple announces reduction to a 15% cut on the first $1 million of dev sales.
Announcing the App Store Small Business Program - Latest News - Apple Developer
We believe that small businesses are the backbone of our global economy and the beating heart of innovation and opportunity in communities around the world. Launching January 1, 2021, the industry-leading new App Store Small Business Program is designed to accelerate innovation and help propel...
Google does the same thing less than 4 months later.
Boosting developer success on Google Play
News and insights on the Android platform, developer tools, and events.
Too bad big tech didn't have the foresight to implement some changes before regulations came down on them. You'd think they'd have been sophisticated enough to have seen regulation as being the alternative to inaction, like many of the forum members here.