Dont forget the tech that Apple make their A and M series chips came directly from EU (at the time) innovation.
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 Gets EU Warning to Open iOS to Third-Party Connected Devices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I never said corporations were people. A corporation is simply paperwork that organizes a group of people.
That said, what is the max limit of people in a group for the concepts of right and wrong to apply? Or, is it a line of wealth? How wealthy does a group need to be to invalidate right and wrong?
You say that "nothing bad that happens to one of the richest companies in the world should be of any concern to any of us". Would that include a bombing at one of their stores or headquarters? Should we not concerns ourselves because they are rich or because they are people organized as a company?
I absolutely acknowledge that Apple and every other company that operates in the EU is there by choice and they can stop doing business there at anytime they want (legal obligations aside), which is why I included "in order to participate if a region's market" in my post. Maybe I should have said "required" instead of "forced". My concern is not the legality of the situation, I eagerly concede that everything the EU has done is perfectly legal and falls well within the standard model of how governments exercise control. My concern stems from the ethics and to a lesser extent the necessity of the situation.
On the balance, none of this is really important. What we are really talking about is what benefits some "of the richest companies in the world" vs a different group of some "of the richest companies in the world". Also, what inconveniences one group of consumers vs what inconveniences a different group of consumers. But, since these are groups and companies, ig guess there is no need to concern ourselves.
EDIT: Apologies for being snarky.
No need to apologise - I like some good snark, and your replies have a lot more thought and care put into it than many other posts on MR. Even though I disagree with your points, I thoroughly enjoy reading your thoughts.
You chose a pretty crass example for bad things happening to corporations, but let's run with it. If someone bombed a store of company A, that'd be terrible - but I would hope our empathy would go towards the people who suffer from an attack like that, not the corporate institution that might have to lower its sales forecasts.
That's what I mean by, there's no ethical or moral standard that requires someone to concern yourself with any company's trouble - there's nothing human there, it's just a voracious giant that working in a system to ever increase, ever expand, for the benefit of the shareholders.
Which, in turn, is very different from your last point - then, you started talking about groups of consumers. Any group of people actually. Always concern yourself with people, that's what society is about. 👍
So, in your consultant analogy, your only competitor is already sharing all their tools and techniques with you.
I really don't see the problem then.
Samsung, Xiaomi, and the rest are just companies using your competitor's techniques since they got shared.
(It's a competition of platforms, not phone hardware).
Re: monopolism. It's a duopoly between Apple and Google.
Re: "don't force a private entity to do what you want at the expense of the entity and others who prefer the status quo"
I know you don't mean it that way, but just imagine applying that logic to any form of social policy. You can see the problem I'm sure.
All in all, deciding to change things for the greater good, at the expense of certain private entities, and against the will of those who prefer the status quo, is how progress is made.
Actually not, some Galaxy Watches features are only available when paired with Samsung phone.
This looks like another good reason to delay Apple Intelligence in some regions...
And any new features. "Sorry we are still working through the list of demands and dont have time to configure the new features to meet changing requirements ..."
Ship Android in EU on devices.
And let the UK stores sell full fat iOS to whoever that visits or shops online ...
Set region to UK ...
And any new features. "Sorry we are still working through the list of demands and dont have time to configure the new features to meet changing requirements ..."
Ship Android in EU on devices.
And let the UK stores sell full fat iOS to whoever that visits or shops online ...
Set region to UK ...
This is not entirely true, as actually every phone hardware maker of Android phone compiles its own version of Android. Theoretically they should deliver some specified subset of Android functionalities, but this obligation is based on private contract.
Samsung, Xiamoi, and Huawei all use Android-based mobile operating systems and don't control the market and core services/ecosystem to the extent that Apple does. Garmin is simply too small/narrow of a player.
Apple has more hard power than all those other companies except for Samsung, and when it comes to the tech consumer industry, which is the main subject of the DMA, Apple dwarfs Samsung.
You keep bringing up this market share value when it's clear that's not what we're talking about.
And who are these people that "prefer the status quo"? Do you see them out in the streets advocating for less openness?
It is similar issues. The litigation is looking to address many of the same types of issues (app access, operating systems/device compatibility with third party devices, etc.) that the DMA does. The DMA is not as far off from long-standing antitrust/competition laws as some seem to think.
Well, they said 7% of global app store revenue on the Q1 earnings call, and they don't actually specify in their quarterly reports what "Europe" includes. A few financial news websites have a transcript you can read if you don't want to listen to the whole call. However, they do specify it in their annual reports that "Europe includes European countries, as well as India, the Middle East and Africa." You can see that in their 10-K for 2023. Other than the quote below by Luca Maestri, we don't have much of an idea of how much, specifically, the EU makes up Apple's overall revenue. We can only assume that it's some number equal to or lower their than their reported "Europe" revenue.
Luca Maestri: A lot will depend on the choices that will be made. Just to keep it in context, the changes applied to the EU market, which represents roughly 7% of our global app store revenue.
So, again, Apple's competitors, including the number one maker of smartphone handsets in the EU (Samsung) are not impacted by the DMA. Particularly when it comes to this ruling, which concerns itself with interoperability with devices like smart watches.
The quote I was responding to:
Could it be that Apple's competitors are already more or less complaint with the DMA?
Doesn't matter if they're compliant or not. Per the law, they need to inform the EU they are gatekeepers if they meet the metrics to have the law apply to them:
Making a minority player adopt the policies of the participant with over 70% marketshare is not good governance, it is depriving companies and consumers an alternative way of approaching things. If the situation was reversed and Apple had 70% market share, I'd be right there with you. But they don't.
Remember, the people screaming for years that Apple was doomed to irrelevance if they didn't open up are now the ones screaming Apple is so successful and so anticompetitive they need to be regulated like a monopolist despite having 27% market share in the EU. They're not arguing in good faith, they're arguing because they want access Apple's innovations and customer base for free.
A competitor as in one that controls the overall market and core services/ecosystem to the extent that Apple does. The ones you mentioned don't meet those criteria based on local law.
In the 1990s, desktop operating systems like OS/2, Linux, BeOS, DR-OS, etc. were competitors of Windows but weren't U.S./DOJ "targets" for similar reasons as above.
Stop the nonsense. My point, obviously, was about the "anticompetition" basis for the DOJ lawsuit which are quite similar to DMA regulations. Sure, various things can happen in the U.S. just as various things can happen in the EU including Apple pulling out of that market.
Windows had well over 90% of the market when they were targeted! If Apple had over 90% of the market I'd agree regulation is needed. But they have 27%
Well, they may well have that percentage, but whats really the case is they are one of two companies that share almost all of the market. How much either of them have is of little relevance when it's a game of two players. Trying to portray Apple and ios as a bit player is ridiculous.
Apple is big player no doubts. Trying to portray Samsung or Xiaomi as bit players is ridiculous though.
I didnt portray them as anything but ill play along anyway. They merely make handsets and run a fork of Googles Android OS. They're very much bit players when compared to Apple, Google, iOS, Android, AppStore and Google Play - and the amount of control they have on the entire market and associated markets.
You in the 1990s:
Well Microsoft has 92% of the market, and Apple has 6% but what's really the case is they are one of two companies that share almost all of the market, so Apple should be forced to give its competitors a leg up. How much either of them have is of little relevance when it's a game of two players"
Comparing the 90's desktop market at essentially the dawn of modern computing to today, where billions of people carry one of two operating systems in their pocket isn't really relevant I'm afraid.
And here is point where I disagree. They have control on their fork of Android OS and can bake in not DMA compliant solution.
And to be clear, I'm not against DMA per se, I just think that definition/criteria of nominating as gatekeeper are flawed and visible targets specific companies. This undermines honesty and good intentions of this law.
If one removes unrequited love from the situation, then it all suddenly becomes crystal clear.