Apple Confirms iPadOS Will Get Same EU App Changes as iOS This Fall

[Analog Kid]

you blatantly ignored the crux of my last post

What's funny is that I thought I was skipping the pointless bickering to get to the crux of your post. Now that I know the bickering is the crux, I'm far less interested in engaging in it. I've said my piece and you have no intention of holding a conversation that isn't confrontational so discussing nuanced details is meaningless.

Another instance where your assumptions couldn’t be further off-base.

“Samsung's Average Selling Price (ASP) is $295 compared to Apple's $988.”

The full quote is:

"Over 75% of the phones sold by Samsung each year are low-priced models which means its flagship and foldable models account for only 25% of the phones that Sammy ships. As a result, Samsung's Average Selling Price (ASP) is $295 compared to Apple's $988."

No, that doesn't invalidate my assumptions, similar hardware costs the same, but it makes me worry that you somehow think that was a valid comparison in this context...

As we've seen, apparently Apple does plenty of the second. "Oh you want access to iPhone users? You'll have to give us a commission on your sales." Apple absolutely makes iPhone users the product

You have the agency in these relationships misplaced. iPhone users are saying that if developers want access to them, they'll have to gain entry to the walled garden through Apple's APIs knowing that it will cost the developers money rather than the users themselves their data. If iPhone users didn't want to impose that monetary cost on developers, they could opt for the far more prevalent Android ecosystem.

Apple is selling their APIs, not their users.

I'm sorry you don't see the distinction between trading in money and trading in user data, but if you're unable to see the difference it's not worth continuing that discussion.

monopoly [...] monopoly [...] monopoly [...] monopoly [...] monopoly [...] monopolism [...] monopoly

Sadly, addressing the rest of your points requires somehow penetrating the rhetoric you're building with your personal definition of monopoly and I'm going to have to leave that job to someone with more patience than me. I'd refer you to the definition used by the DMA, but the word monopoly doesn't occur even once in that legislation or the government explainer site.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Not what I'm asking.

I'm asking if Apple is putting something in the EULA that affects customers that install apps outside of their app store.

I'm neither condemning nor defending Apple's (or anyone's) position on this.

Probably, but not likely to be enforceable or even legal in

And what connotation is that? The only connotation is that they're a smaller player than the significantly more dominant Google in Europe.

Ok, so we agree on that.

And that.

Apple is the second biggest mobile phone provider in the European market. Google have 1~% market share

Sure, they can affect markets and they also act as the only viable counterbalance to Google at the moment. The existence of a viable minor competitor acts as a check on the major competitor.

They aren’t. Google sells the OS, and Apple sells the hardware that competes against other phone manufacturers.

By forcing Apple to adopt Google's business model, it weakens Apple's position to the benefit of others.

Googles business model is selling the OS to other brands and providing the software integrated services. While they harvest user data.

Sidelong isn’t part of their business model,

There is only one other.


You can be as dismissive as you want and hide your lack of actual knowledge behind ridicule and Cervantian references, but this is how I know you don't understand the DMA. Search the legislation text for the word "monopoly", tell me how many results you get.

search EU lawbooks about monopolies and you won’t find much. It’s all about a dominant player on the market that are entrenched and uses anticompetitive practices to harm the market participants.

Perhaps you should read the 100~ or so points in the preamble to the DMA.

 

[Analog Kid]

Google sells the OS

They do not.

Apple is the second biggest mobile phone provider in the European market. Google have 1~% market share

The fact that Google has 1% share in hardware and 67% share in OS suggests you are, perhaps intentionally, confusing hardware and software discussions with your chart. I was as clear as I could be in how that breaks down. Apple competes with Samsung et al for phone sales, Google subsidizes Samsung. iOS and Android are the two OS models in the market.

search EU lawbooks about monopolies and you won’t find much.

Which is why it's not a relevant term for these discussions about EU law.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I'm going to skip past all the "you said 'minor' which is correct but you said it too nicely" and DMA doesn't mention monopolies but is about monopolies but you don't have to be a monopoly nonsense and cut to this:

It doesn’t mention monopolies because it’s not a legal thing. You can be identified as an entrenched company with 100% market share or 5% market share and you will be completely fine as long as no anticompetitive behavior and specific care is done on your part to not harm the market to further entrench yourself on the cost of others.

You state the obvious like others haven't noticed, but are you thinking through what the impact of change to this market will be? Your tone is derisive enough that I'd be shocked if you bother to read what I write next and let it challenge your view, but maybe someone will.

We could get a second Google, or perhaps a more competitive market on the iOS app distribution platform.

An Apple phone and a Samsung phone cost about the same. Given that the hardware for the two makers is comparable, it's a reasonable assumption that the hardware cost is essentially the same.

But a phone isn't just hardware. There's a lot of software to be developed. Apple develops iOS and all the services it provides. Samsung develops, well, very little. They get Android essentially for free from Google. So Google is subsidizing Samsung sales and they're far more profitable than Samsung is.

So Apple is paying for software development for iPhone and Google is paying for software development for the Android world. How are the companies being paid for this work?

There are two business models right now:

• The user is a customer
• The user is a product

Google mostly pursues the second. The whole reason Android was started is because Google was on the Apple board during the development of iOS and realized that their hegemony in search could be threatened if powerful mobile devices supplanted desktop computing and Google didn't have a foothold there. Google doesn't sell their software for money, they sell it for data and then sell the data for money.

Largely agree with your sentiment, but to the later question Apple can simply offer a better store for the undertakings participating in the EU marketplace.

Apple mostly pursues the first. They sell their software to users and developers for money and let the users and developers keep their data. They also try to interdict developers from taking users data without the user knowing. Apple has been pretty plain spoken about this: they don't need your data because you gave them your money. How does Apple sell their software to developers? Through AppStore fees.

Well Apple would just need to make sure the AppStore is the best software distribution storefront and innovative before steam takes their place.

Or as you later say, ask for higher fees from developers, phones etc etc in any way they deem necessary.

By undermining the AppStore, how is the cost of Apple's software covered? Google couldn't care less how their software gets distributed as long as it does-- more distribution means more data that they can convert to money.

Well that’s competition. They need to be better instead of the only choice.

So by going after the AppStore model, the EU is disproportionately impacting Apple's business model. Do they raise hardware prices to cover the short fall? That would make them even less competitive against Samsung and it impacts customers who use few apps equally to those who use many. Do they quietly suffer the loss of profits? That would make them less competitive against Google and make the dominant market player even stronger and less constrained in their behavior. Do they back away from their privacy oriented stance to make up the shortfall? I think that would be bad for consumers, but the lack of distinction relative to Google also gives Google a stronger position in the market because Google has far better developed machinery for converting data to money.

EU might be disproportionately impacting Apple as they do have a very harmful impact on the market. But this is also true for Google in many other different ways that EU targets them for violating user privacy and antitrust behavior to the brands who use android to discourage any alternatives to the standard Google options.

Further to that, these alternate AppStores won't be motivated to protect user privacy in the same way Apple's is, and gives yet another vector for data driven companies, Google first and foremost, to thrive. Google has chafed at Apple's AppStore restrictions all along, to the point of illegally circumventing them on occasion. The Apple AppStore will shrink in size, not because Apple isn't providing a better product but because the Apple AppStore needs to recover the cost of iOS in addition to the cost of operating the store and the competitors do not so the Apple fees will need to be higher to break even. "User is a product" thrives in a world of many AppStores and

Well EU have many regulations in regards to user privacy. Such as the GDPR and digital services act etc.

And considering these are EU stores they will fall under a very stringent legal protections and obligation on the part of the platform providers.

Apple have actually been praised for their privacy policies and for it to be legally enforced as well.

free or low cost products, "user is a customer" does not.

This is what I mean when I say the DMA is removing competition in the market by undermining one of two business models and preferentially treating the dominant player.

Well that is incidental to the more important factor of having a healthy competitive market in the application intermediary providers and browsers etc etc. such things that are currently stifled by apple.

The market of android and iOS is completely different and unrelated to the goals of the DMA

 

[vipergts2207]

What's funny is that I thought I was skipping the pointless bickering to get to the crux of your post. Now that I know the bickering is the crux, I'm far less interested in engaging in it. I've said my piece and you have no intention of holding a conversation that isn't confrontational so discussing nuanced details is meaningless.

That Apple can still act anti-competitively in the market even though they're smaller than Google? Yes, that is kind of the crux lmao. And you still haven't addressed it because either you agree with me on that statement, or you disagree and it proves that you calling Apple the "minor" competitor was indeed about more than just defining Apple's size relative to Google and were seeking to imply that Apple couldn't act anti-competitively in the marketplace because they're smaller than Google in the EU. That's why we're now half a dozen posts or so from when I asked you and you still haven't given a response to it. You've left yourself stuck between two opposing ideas and siding with one is detrimental to your argument and siding with the other reveals that you were talking out both sides of your mouth.

The full quote is:

"Over 75% of the phones sold by Samsung each year are low-priced models which means its flagship and foldable models account for only 25% of the phones that Sammy ships. As a result, Samsung's Average Selling Price (ASP) is $295 compared to Apple's $988."

No, that doesn't invalidate my assumptions, similar hardware costs the same, but it makes me worry that you somehow think that was a valid comparison in this context...

You move the goal posts with nearly every response, as seen here. First it was:

An Apple phone and a Samsung phone cost about the same. Given that the hardware for the two makers is comparable, it's a reasonable assumption that the hardware cost is essentially the same.

Sorry, but that's wrong. Did you mean that about 25% of Samsung's phones cost the same as Apple's? Because that's not what you said. Not that it matters anyway because on average Samsung brings in far less money for a phone than Apple does. Hence another demonstration on how Apple uses hardware sales to fund software development. This business model goes back at least as far as the OS X days.

You know the great thing about software? You only have to write it once and as many people as you can convince to use it can do so. Notice how the price of macOS (or OS X) decreased from $201 (inflation adjusted 2024 dollars) in 2006 to eventually $0 in 2013 as Apple nearly tripled their market share over that time? You might be in deep wonder at where all the development dollars were coming from if they were charging less and less for the OS every year. When market share continues to increase, the number of dollars spent on development per user becomes miniscule. And this was in a market where macOS market share was still in the single digits by the time it had dropped to $0. Yet you would have everyone believe that Apple would be utterly desperate to find development dollars for iOS when not only has Apple had higher revenue from iPhone sales than from Mac sales since at least 2008, but Apple owns almost 30% of the global mobile OS market and a third of the EU market specifically. That far outstrips anything Apple was ever able to do with the Mac by a wide margin.

Apple Reports Record-Breaking Q3 2011: $7.31 Billion Profit on $28.57 Billion in Revenue

Apple today announced financial results for the second calendar quarter and third fiscal quarter of 2011. For the quarter, Apple posted revenue of...

www.macrumors.com

The reality is that their business model hasn't changed, nor will it be changing. It's the same as it's been for a long time. When Steve Jobs announced the iPhone he quoted Alan Kay with "people who are serious about software should make their own hardware" and that's exactly what Apple does. He did not say "people who are serious about software should engage in rent seeking behavior with their developers." All forcing the App Store upon iOS users in 2024 does is allow Apple to maintain a minor revenue stream to help keep their profits up.

You have the agency in these relationships misplaced. iPhone users are saying that if developers want access to them, they'll have to gain entry to the walled garden through Apple's APIs knowing that it will cost the developers money rather than the users themselves their data.

Bud, I think you've got the agency here reversed. iPhone users aren't telling the developers that, Apple is. iPhone users get zero say in whether a dev has access to them or not.

If iPhone users didn't want to impose that monetary cost on developers, they could opt for the far more prevalent Android ecosystem.

So the only recourse an iPhone user has is to become not an iPhone user? I'm not sure that makes the point that you want it to lol. That doesn't solve the problem for the third of the EU market that is iPhone users.

Apple is selling their APIs, not their users.

No, their APIs come with the $99 developer fee. The users come with the commissions.

I'm sorry you don't see the distinction between trading in money and trading in user data, but if you're unable to see the difference it's not worth continuing that discussion.

Oh I get it. Google sells their users to advertisers. Apple sells their users to developers. The user is still forced into being the product in both cases.

Sadly, addressing the rest of your points requires somehow penetrating the rhetoric you're building with your personal definition of monopoly and I'm going to have to leave that job to someone with more patience than me. I'd refer you to the definition used by the DMA, but the word monopoly doesn't occur even once in that legislation or the government explainer site.

And there's no reason it should. You know what it does say? "An entrenched and durable position in its operations." That definition would capture monopolies automatically. There's no need to narrow the text's scope, leaving creative corporate lawyers a loophole to try to twist the law's intent. We've already seen Apple do that as is and yet here you are complaining that the law doesn't allow for even more of that. 😂

 

[BaldiMac]

Unless the only two competitors split the market exactly 50/50, one will always be "minor" and have "less than half the market". That does not preclude the entity with less than 50% market share from negatively impacting the market or acting anti-competitvely. Many monopoly effects exist in a duopoly market as well and those effects aren't only created by the larger of the two players.

So Apple should be forced to give up its property rights because Google entered into anti-competitive agreements with its horizontal competitors? There are certainly some reasonable arguments for Apple to be regulated, but a duopoly isn't one of them. Especially regulations that benefit Google.

 

[vipergts2207]

So Apple should be forced to give up its property rights because Google entered into anti-competitive agreements with its horizontal competitors? There are certainly some reasonable arguments for Apple to be regulated, but a duopoly isn't one of them. Especially regulations that benefit Google.

Oh, does Apple no longer own iOS anymore? Or the App Store? I guess I must have missed that. And considering that Google has been dubbed a gatekeeper, I'm not so sure that they would agree with you that they benefit from these regulations.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

They do not.

Well then perhaps you would be interested to look in to googles licensing model. Unless recently changed you can’t ship devices with android without them being licensed and includes Google services.

The fact that Google has 1% share in hardware and 67% share in OS suggests you are, perhaps intentionally, confusing hardware and software discussions with your chart. I was as clear as I could be in how that breaks down. Apple competes with Samsung et al for phone sales, Google subsidizes Samsung. iOS and Android are the two OS models in the market.

Well you might find some interesting factoids in the Google v Commission case then.

Such as the Commission’s finding that Google had unlawfully restricted competition from alternative versions of Android via its anti-fragmentation agreements.

The Court’s starting point was that iOS could at best pose an “indirect” constraint on Android because it is not available for license by OEMs. It could not be included in the relevant market, which contained only licensable smart mobile OSs. The Court largely confirmed the Commission’s assessment of the evidence of competitive constraint

Google’s proffered objective justification that the MADA preinstallation conditions were necessary to recoup its investments in maintaining the free Android platform.

Google’s practice of conditioning licenses to Play and the Google Search app (under the MADA) on anti-fragmentation obligations contained in the AFAs/ACCs constituted an abuse of dominance.

Which is why it's not a relevant term for these discussions about EU law.

Indeed as dominant market position and abuse is defined differently and incompatible with the U.S. legal understanding of a monopoly

 

[BaldiMac]

Oh, does Apple no longer own iOS anymore? Or the App Store? I guess I must have missed that.

You didn't miss it. Because it's just nonsense that you made up. It's not all or nothing. Apple is being forced by the EU to give up some of their property rights. I don't know what's controversial about that.

And considering that Google has been dubbed a gatekeeper, I'm not so sure that they would agree with you that they benefit from these regulations.

Some they will, some they won't. Again, it's not all or nothing. For example, Apple being force to allow alternative browser engines would most likely benefit Google.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You didn't miss it. Because it's just nonsense that you made up. It's not all or nothing. Apple is being forced by the EU to give up some of their property rights. I don't know what's controversial about that.

Any evidence of that? What property rights are they giving up?

Is the device not sold to customers? Is the developer agreement not payed for? What IP are you talking about being “given away”

Is there a list of this IP apple allegedly isn’t being paid for anymore through existing licensing agreements they provide?

Some they will, some they won't. Again, it's not all or nothing. For example, Apple being force to allow alternative browser engines would most likely benefit Google.

Well that sounds like Apple failed to compete on the browser market then. Can’t say why safari should be protected from fair competition.

 

[vipergts2207]

You didn't miss it. Because it's just nonsense that you made up. It's not all or nothing. Apple is being forced by the EU to give up some of their property rights. I don't know what's controversial about that.

I can't think of a single place where property rights are limitless. Can you? Do you think they should be limitless? If so, sorry that the EU isn't your libertarian fantasyland. Nor is anywhere as far as I can tell.

Some they will, some they won't. Again, it's not all or nothing. For example, Apple being force to allow alternative browser engines would most likely benefit Google.

And Mozilla. Now we can see three engines compete on iOS instead of Apple forcing everyone to use theirs. Thank you for the fine example of Apple disallowing competition on iOS. If Apple really makes the best browser, they should have no problem competing with alternatives.

 

[BaldiMac]

I can't think of a single place where property rights are limitless. Can you? Do you think they should be limitless? If so, sorry that the EU isn't your libertarian fantasyland. Nor is anywhere as far as I can tell.

Again, that's just nonsense you made up. I never implied rights are limitless. Simply that the DMA forces Apple to give up some of the rights that they previously enjoyed.

And Mozilla. Now we can see three engines compete on iOS instead of Apple forcing everyone to use theirs.

Benefiting Mozilla doesn't preclude benefiting Google.

Thank you for the fine example of Apple disallowing competition on iOS.

Of course. It must be confusing in your black and white world, that I am in favor of allowing browsers to use alternative engines on iOS.

 

[vipergts2207]

Again, that's just nonsense you made up. I never implied rights are limitless. Simply that the DMA forces Apple to give up some of the rights that they previously enjoyed.

So then it's not that Apple has their property rights limited, but is a matter of degree. Ok, so you draw the line in a different spot than I or the EU does. That's fine, sorry the line wasn't drawn where you or Apple would have liked. You win some, you lose some.

Benefiting Mozilla doesn't preclude benefiting Google.

Never said it did. Hence the "and." Especially considering Google themselves will also have to compete with Mozilla.

Of course. It must be confusing in your black and white world, that I am in favor of allowing browsers to use alternative engines on iOS.

Then why are you complaining about it? Pick a lane.

 

[amartinez1660]

No grandpa is forced to use an iPhone or iPad - problem solved.
Also, no grandpa is forced to install apps from alternative app stores.

One deep dive article available online on Hardcore Software does mention that the EU actually requires “security settings” if a feature could entail security risks (at least higher than zero is my guess), meaning that installing from third party app stores has to have a switch to enable it.
However the more secure setting cannot be enabled by default (we know that a system is as secure as their default security settings in practice)

I’m curious for the EU friends over here, is there such a third party App Store option? And if yes, did you have to activate it?

Also curious if/when that feature comes to North America, what will be their default settings.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Increasing competition with more smartphone platforms was never the goal of the DMA. It was to ensure that the two that remained, iOS and Android, weren't able to use their duopoly position in the market in a manner unfair to other businesses and/or consumers. Sorry, if you missed the plot and thought that was the goal.

No, that’s actually my point. That the DMA’s goal from the start was to put in place a structure that would hinder the creation of any NEW technology that would interfere with the growth of the two they’ve chosen. I’m glad to see you agree with that. All their talk about fostering competition was always just that, talk.

The reality that some folks either don't realize or simply choose not to acknowledge is that the market isn't going to bear half a dozen platforms all trying to do essentially the same thing.

I think you meant to say that the market AFTER June 29, 2007 isn’t going to bear half a dozen platforms. Because, before, it was. Even for quite awhile after, it was.

If companies couldn't take a bite out of Apple and Google in the early days, they certainly aren't going to fare any better now with those companies' entrenched market positions.

I’m assuming you’re writing this with a straight face having lived in a time when “no one was going to be able to dig into Nokia’s entrenched market position.” That people lived in a time where they saw a market change like that happen and assume it will never happen again… I guess the biggest difference is, I understand that technologies come and go and something better ALWAYS comes along. That no one today is buying and using the latest Apple II is a clear sign that entrenched market positions aren’t as immutable as people think. Although, I guess with what the EU regulators are doing now, THAT has the ability to really solidify those entrenched positions. Which, of course, is the EU’s goal.

The second Apple/Google/MS/Amazon/Meta view those products as a truly useful and viable thing for the masses, they'll either buy those companies or Sherlock them out of existence with their own products.

Right, because there’s no fairly recent example(s) of a market leader seeing a sea change happen RIGHT in front of their eyes and still allow it to happen, losing their entrenched market position as a result. If technology didn’t work in precisely this way, over and over again, people could be forgiven for not understanding how the market works. But, there’s really no excuse.

Umm, yeah. Kind of a 'duh' on that one. That's exactly what others have said before and what I've reiterated above. There's a snowball's chance in hell anyone has a chance of knocking Apple and/or Google off the smartphone OS throne. It's a mature market and few companies have the resources needed to even attempt it.

I get it, these things have happened before in all sorts of technologies in all sorts of industries time and time again, and, sure, we have volumes of data that indicate that it’s based on customer values changing, companies being aware of those changes and taking the risk that they have the product that might fit those customer values, but TODAY… today is special!! The companies that exist today will exist forever and will have EXACTLY the same prominence (just like IBM and Netscape and Nokia do!), so something HAS to be done and fast!

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I can't think of a single place where property rights are limitless. Can you? Do you think they should be limitless? If so, sorry that the EU isn't your libertarian fantasyland. Nor is anywhere as far as I can tell.

Well their rights isn’t impacted. Apple claims it without evidence or substance.

Again, that's just nonsense you made up. I never implied rights are limitless. Simply that the DMA forces Apple to give up some of the rights that they previously enjoyed.

Well can you point to these right you talk about? Or is it something Apple presumed to have?

Or is it a rental instead of purchasing your phone.

Benefiting Mozilla doesn't preclude benefiting Google.

Benefits safari to have competitors.

So then it's not that Apple has their property rights limited, but is a matter of degree. Ok, so you draw the line in a different spot than I or the EU does. That's fine, sorry the line wasn't drawn where you or Apple would have liked. You win some, you lose some.

Indeed and that line is drawn when money changes hands.

 

[vipergts2207]

No, that’s actually my point. That the DMA’s goal from the start was to put in place a structure that would hinder the creation of any NEW technology that would interfere with the growth of the two they’ve chosen. I’m glad to see you agree with that. All their talk about fostering competition was always just that, talk.

Wow, the DMA may be the most versatile and capable law ever conceived, even having the ability to ignore all logic. It apparently simultaneously destroys Apple’s business, but also locks in Apple’s and Google’s dominance. Amazing!

But seriously, the goal wasn’t to foster competition in the mobile OS market, which your comment seems to imply was the goal. That would be a fool’s errand. The goal was to foster competition and level the playing field in tangential markets, like app distribution, browsers, music/video streaming, and gaming.

I think you meant to say that the market AFTER June 29, 2007 isn’t going to bear half a dozen platforms. Because, before, it was. Even for quite awhile after, it was.

You mean when smartphones were in their infancy and before mass adoption? Of course, the market hadn’t yet matured. The maturation killed off the weakest players and left two standing.

I’m assuming you’re writing this with a straight face having lived in a time when “no one was going to be able to dig into Nokia’s entrenched market position.” That people lived in a time where they saw a market change like that happen and assume it will never happen again… I guess the biggest difference is, I understand that technologies come and go and something better ALWAYS comes along. That no one today is buying and using the latest Apple II is a clear sign that entrenched market positions aren’t as immutable as people think.

Nokia was taken out in a paradigm shift. The tech market transitioned from a paradigm where computing was done almost exclusively on desktops and laptops to one where most computing is done on a device in someone’s pocket. A device that it just so happened, could also make phone calls and text, thus rendering such a device redundant. Apple and Google could certainly be taken out in another such paradigm shift. Meta is clearly hoping for AR/VR to be such an opportunity. What isn’t going to take them out though is someone coming along and trying to launch a smartphone OS that does basically what iOS and Android already do, just with a different company’s logo plastered on the device.

Although, I guess with what the EU regulators are doing now, THAT has the ability to really solidify those entrenched positions. Which, of course, is the EU’s goal.

Great, Apple should be thrilled with the DMA then. Odd that they appear to keep fighting it though…

Right, because there’s no fairly recent example(s) of a market leader seeing a sea change happen RIGHT in front of their eyes and still allow it to happen, losing their entrenched market position as a result. If technology didn’t work in precisely this way, over and over again, people could be forgiven for not understanding how the market works. But, there’s really no excuse.

No need to be cryptic. Just state the example you’re referring to.

I get it, these things have happened before in all sorts of technologies in all sorts of industries time and time again, and, sure, we have volumes of data that indicate that it’s based on customer values changing, companies being aware of those changes and taking the risk that they have the product that might fit those customer values, but TODAY… today is special!! The companies that exist today will exist forever and will have EXACTLY the same prominence (just like IBM and Netscape and Nokia do!), so something HAS to be done and fast!

IBM is a poor example to use if you actually look into it. They spun off their consumer-level PC business in 1992 because a price war that year saw profitability in the space plummet. That spin-off then divided even further into other units, one of them being the consumer Ambra Computer Corporation. I’m sure you’ve heard of them lol. Well that company was defunct 2 years later. IBM also had the Aptiva and PC series computers throughout much of the 90’s. However IBM pulled their computers out of retail sales in 1999, all but ending their participation in the consumer computer market.

Now to put all of this in perspective, the majority of U.S. households didn’t even own a computer until the year 2000 so in IBM’s case, they chose to focus on other areas their business operated in.

Netscape is an interesting point. The browser was essentially killed by Microsoft’s anti-trust actions, which is documented in a landmark case. This actually seems like an argument in favor of the DMA. By the time the MS case was resolved in courts, it was already too late for Netscape. With the DMA the EU can take proactive measures to ensure companies like Apple and Google can’t kill other companies with anti-competitive actions like MS was able to do with Netscape.

Nokia was already covered above.

 

[BaldiMac]

So then it's not that Apple has their property rights limited, but is a matter of degree. Ok, so you draw the line in a different spot than I or the EU does. That's fine, sorry the line wasn't drawn where you or Apple would have liked. You win some, you lose some.


Never said it did. Hence the "and." Especially considering Google themselves will also have to compete with Mozilla.


Then why are you complaining about it? Pick a lane.

It would be a lot easier to follow if you went by what I said instead of inventing nonsense to argue with. I don't have to pick a lane. I can agree with some regulations and disagree with others. I can also recognize that some good regulations may also create some problems.

Well their rights isn’t impacted. Apple claims it without evidence or substance.

Being forced to modify your property is certainly a limitation on your property rights.

 

[vipergts2207]

It would be a lot easier to follow if you went by what I said instead of inventing nonsense to argue with. I don't have to pick a lane. I can agree with some regulations and disagree with others.

It’s not about the regulation broadly. You specifically implied that allowing other browser engines was a bad thing because it helps Google. You then said you support forcing Apple to allow other engines.

I can also recognize that some good regulations may also create some problems.

This isn’t unique to you. There will be some downsides to the DMA. The anti-DMA side claims that the law is useless, has no benefits, and the EU simply seeks to punish Apple and nothing more. The pro-DMA side takes a more well-rounded view and reaches the conclusion that, although it’s not a perfect law, the good outweighs the bad.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Being forced to modify your property is certainly a limitation on your property rights.

Well do they have a right to sell their property anywhere without regulation?

Nobody is forcing Apple to modify their product, but if they don’t like the terms they can just leave

 

[Analog Kid]

We could get a second Google

Or we could get world peace. The question is how likely those outcomes are. I put the effort into giving a detailed account of the mechanism I anticipate which leads to further strengthening of Google and a weakening of their nearest competitor.

I can't think of a lot of situations where governments regulating against success has led to a blossoming marketplace.

Well then perhaps you would be interested to look in to googles licensing model. Unless recently changed you can’t ship devices with android without them being licensed and includes Google services.

The Android OS is free and open source. Google does not sell it, Samsung and others do not pay for it.

Chrome is an unpaid license. I don't know the license terms, but I suspect they involve not interfering with Google's access to data collected by Chrome and its search engine. There is an unpaid license to include Google's branding. This is to be expected-- Google wants to ensure their branding is maintained to their liking.

The Google Mobile Services package is a separate license that is also unpaid in every jurisdiction except the EU. I don't know what the license fees are in the EU because they appear to be separately negotiated with each vendor and undisclosed. The fact that Google is being forced by the EU to charge for GMS and they hide the end result, I'd imagine the fees are a pittance. They often include revenue sharing for search in those deals, so I'm guessing they offset whatever license fee they charge with the search revenue.

So, again, Google doesn't sell their OS and they don't sell Chrome. They don't charge for GMS anywhere but Europe, and what they charge is probably not important compared to the search kickbacks.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

Do you use a computer? If you install a rogue app it can indeed be a nuisance, but in the absolute worst scenario you would just need to reinstall its OS and software from scratch. In no way will this affect your hardware warranty.

This is a GROSS oversimplification and minimization of the consequences of rogue software.

You actually point out the BEST case scenario.

 

[svish]

Good to know. Might be only a matter of time before these changes are implemented worldwide.

 

[BaldiMac]

It’s not about the regulation broadly. You specifically implied that allowing other browser engines was a bad thing because it helps Google. You then said you support forcing Apple to allow other engines.

It's only confusing because you keep making up my side. I didn't imply that the allowing other browsers engines was bad. I specifically said it was good. However, even good regulations can have some negative impacts. In this case, the possibility of extending Google's control of the browser market.

This isn’t unique to you. There will be some downsides to the DMA. The anti-DMA side claims that the law is useless, has no benefits, and the EU simply seeks to punish Apple and nothing more. The pro-DMA side takes a more well-rounded view and reaches the conclusion that, although it’s not a perfect law, the good outweighs the bad.

Again, you made up a ridiculous position that I've never argued in order to make it easier to argue against. It's nothing but a strawman fallacy. Ignore the extremist arguments on both sides.

 

[BaldiMac]

Well do they have a right to sell their property anywhere without regulation?

I never said they did. That doesn't change the fact that the DMA impacts their property rights. You can certainly argue that it's a reasonable restriction. But you are wrong to say that it doesn't affect them at all.