Apple Gets EU Warning to Open iOS to Third-Party Connected Devices

[surferfb]

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.

If my solutions are better, I don't care that I have access to their worse tools and techniques. They care they have access to mine that are better. You don't see a problem with that?

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.

Again, there is a difference between regulation for the purposes of health, safety, preventing discrimination, and the like and regulations that are established because "the market winner already offers what we want, but we want Spotify to not have to pay Apple for their Intellectual Property even though they have a 27% share in the EU"

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.

Again, it's not for the greater good. It's to try to slow down American companies so European ones can compete.

 

[tmaciak]

If one removes unrequited love from the situation, then it all suddenly becomes crystal clear.

To be crystal clear, I don't mean to exclude Apple as gatekeeper, rather that, in my opinion, all major mobile phone makers, including Apple, Samsung, Xiaomi etc. should be nominated as gatekeepers and follow the same rules and the same checks.

 

[I7guy]

Stop the nonsense.

Nonsense is as nonsense does.

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.

The difference with the DOJ lawsuit and DMA is the EU went straight after apple by some clever languange, threading the needle. No trial required. While it could happen like that in the US there is a DOJ lawsuit that will have to be won.

 

[cupcakes2000]

To be crystal clear, I don't mean to exclude Apple as gatekeeper, rather that, in my opinion, all major mobile phone makers, including Apple, Samsung, Xiaomi etc. should be nominated as gatekeepers and follow the same rules and the same checks.

Why? How is a Xiaomi phone being a gatekeeper? Xiaomi could do what they wanted and it wouldnt affect the market one way or the other, by any significance. It's compatible with Android, and predominately users will be steered towards the preinstalled Google Play store.
Apple on the other hand, make the only phone which is compatible, make the OS, control the only AppStore, and control all of the apis which is how accessories and apps can connect to the OS, favouriting their own apps and accessories, and forbidding competitors access to the same functions they can use, therefore stifulling competition within one of the two mobile ecosystems used by billions of people. Thats very much keeping the gate.

 

[webkit]

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%

Yes, but the others I mentioned were still competitors to Windows yet not U.S./DOJ "targets." Competitors aren't necessarily going to be targets.

In this situation, the EU approach is to look at overall power/market control related to things like core services/ecosystem and not necessarily just straight market or usage share. I think it's appropriate to a large degree give that there are only two major mobile operating systems and Apple has/had especially significant control of one of them (iOS). In the app store market, for example, Apple's App Store is a major player with higher sales than the other major app store (Play Store).

 

[webkit]

The difference with the DOJ lawsuit and DMA is the EU went straight after apple by some clever languange, threading the needle. No trial required. While it could happen like that in the US there is a DOJ lawsuit that will have to be won.

The EU went straight after market power/dominant companies which includes Apple. Apple has used various opportunities and arguments to try to avoid being subject to some DMA regulations e.g., distinct browsers arguments, API control arguments, security justifications arguments, etc.

The DOJ went straight after a market power/dominant company (Apple). Apple has been using various opportunities and arguments to avoid being subject to antitrust regulations and anticompetitive charges (which are comparable to DMA regulations) outlined in the DOJ case.

As I said, several similarities.

 

[surferfb]

In this situation, the EU approach is to look at overall power/market control related to things like core services/ecosystem and not necessarily just straight market or usage share. I think it's appropriate to a large degree give that there are only two major mobile operating systems and Apple has/had especially significant control of one of them (iOS). In the app store market, for example, Apple's App Store is a major player with higher sales than the other major app store (Play Store).

I just fundamentally disagree that the approach is fair, warranted, a good idea, or likely to result in what the EU claims to want. Which is fine, the EU doesn't listen to me (or their own report telling them to cut regulations if they want to compete in tech, but I digress).

What should really scare the DMA defenders though is that the EU Commissioners have shown no ability to accurately foresee the first-order effects of their tech regulations (Really, what a huge privacy win it was to make every website show a pop-up to let users know that websites use cookies to function - rest of the world is super happy with you about that) and definitely not the second-order effects (bang up job mandating Microsoft give kernel access to companies that want it, no issues with that whatsoever - hopefully mandating Apple give access to literally every private API in its OS to whoever asks for it doesn't end up hosing everyone's devices in twenty years). Hell - they say the DMA is about "competition" and one of their biggest "wins" so far is mandating a browser choice screen in iOS that 1) only applies to Safari users 2) is unneeded because it was already able to change the default browser, and 3) literally is only going to result in Chrome getting more marketshare at the expense of Safari (and users' battery life) because it's the only browser most normal users have heard of. Great job, EU, really supporting good user experience, competition, and privacy there!

So I really, seriously doubt that this is going to result in anything other further harming the EU's relevance in tech. Hard to compete when your companies are forced to use years-old technology while the rest of the world is getting the state-of-the-art because companies don't want to bother the regulatory headaches or are afraid they're going to get fined a larger percentage of their revenue than the EU represents if the commission in power decides "the spirit of the law" means your product has to be given away for free.

 

[Krizoitz]

A competitor as in one that controls the overall market and core services/ecosystem to the extent that Apple does

And Apple doesn’t come anywhere CLOSE to controlling the overall market. Their share in Europe is around 35%. Not even HALF.

 

[I7guy]

The EU went straight after market power/dominant companies which includes Apple. Apple has used various opportunities and arguments to try to avoid being subject to some DMA regulations e.g., distinct browsers arguments, API control arguments, security justifications arguments, etc.

The DOJ went straight after a market power/dominant company (Apple).

Apple has a 27% market share in the EU and apple is no doubt influential. But what was said above is likely false given apples low market share. It’s more likely the EU went straight after apple with some clever language by threading the needle.

Apple has been using various opportunities and arguments to avoid being subject to antitrust regulations and anticompetitive charges (which are comparable to DMA regulations) outlined in the DOJ case.

In other words they were within the law.

As I said, several similarities.

Okay, similar with a very low bar.

 

[AppliedMicro]

And Apple doesn’t come anywhere CLOSE to controlling the overall market. Their share in Europe is around 35%. Not even HALF.

Apple has "the most successful mobile platform" and "Numerous studies have shown that iOS users spend more on average than Android users".

Your own words.

Given how they're effectively colluding with Google on internet search and their Play Store terms, Apple of course have a dominant position in the market.

 

[surferfb]

Apple has "the most successful mobile platform" and "Numerous studies have shown that iOS users spend more on average than Android users".

Your own words.

Given how they're effectively colluding with Google on internet search and their Play Store terms, Apple of course have a dominant position in the market.

Not according to the EU's standard definition of 40% market share, they don't.

Market shares are a useful first indication of the importance of each firm on the market in comparison to the others. The Commission's view is that the higher the market share, and the longer the period of time over which it is held, the more likely it is to be a preliminary indication of dominance. If a company has a market share of less than 40%, it is unlikely to be dominant.

Which is why they made up a fun gatekeeper definition that doesn't touch market share. Apple could have .01% market share but as long as they have enough revenue and users, they're to be regulated, because the EU Knows Best!

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Given how they're effectively colluding with Google on internet search and their Play Store terms, Apple of course have a dominant position in the market.

What's the difference between "effectively colluding" and "colluding?"

Your assertion is that a 25% +/- is a dominant position. I find that idea silly. Thus I find the DMA silly.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Your assertion is that a 25% +/- is a dominant position. I find that idea silly. Thus I find the DMA silly.

Your assertion that it's "only 25%" is deceptive, given how Apple accounts for about half of consumer spending on apps and even more on profits. It's an assertion I find silly.

 

[surferfb]

Your assertion that it's "only 25%" is deceptive, given how Apple accounts for about half of consumer spending on apps and even more on profits. It's an assertion I find silly.

Again. Apple could have .01% market share and the DMA would still apply. Which is one reason why it is a silly regulation.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Apple could have .01% market share but as long as they have enough revenue and users, they're to be regulated

Yeah that sounds fair to me. Percentages are pretty worthless to measure market power with when the market consists of hundreds of millions of users.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple could have .01% market share and the DMA would still apply. Which is why it is a silly regulation

It could not.

Because 0.01% market share wouldn't satisfy the user threshold in the European Union.

...which stands at 45 million monthly active users. Just about 10% of the EU overall population. Not anywhere close to 0.01%.

 

[surferfb]

It could not.

Because 0.01% market share wouldn't satisfy the user threshold in the European Union.

Which stands at 45 million monthly active users - or just about 10% of the EU overall population, which isn't anywhere close to 0.01%.

Unless, like iPadOS, the EU says it applies anyway.

But fine, point taken. 10% market share then. Do you really think a company with 10% market share ought to be regulated the same as Google, with 70% (or in the case Apple had 10% of the market, 90%) market share?

Ridiculous! If this was 1995 you'd be sitting here MacOS ought to be regulated just as strictly as Windows. "Because they're a duopoly"

 

[surferfb]

Yeah that sounds fair to me. Percentages are pretty worthless to measure market power with when the market consists of hundreds of millions of users.

"The percentage of users a platform has is a worthless way to measure market power" is certainly a take.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Do you really think a company with 10% market share ought to be regulated the same as Google, with 70% (or in the case Apple had 10% of the market, 90%) market share?

Maybe not "the" same. But it should be regulated when they're in a duopoly and exercise gatekeeping power, yes.
And it doesn't matter what market share split (50-50, 70-30 or 90-10) they have between them.

Duopoly operators of platforms as important as smartphones should not be able to "charge whatever they please" and self-preference their own products and services however they like. Neither should there be only one relevant "open" choice of operating systems.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

"The percentage of users a platform has is a worthless way to measure market power" is certainly a take.

Well, yeah. Europe has what, 740M people in it? If even just 10% of them buy iPhones, that's still 74M people buying iPhones. That's more than the population of France. Saying Apple only has 27% or whatever of the market is minimizing how influential they are.

A market of significant importance should be regulated. Companies that are sufficiently powerful in those markets should have to comply by that regulation.

 

[I7guy]

Yeah that sounds fair to me. Percentages are pretty worthless to measure market power with when the market consists of hundreds of millions of users.

Revenue is even worse

 

[I7guy]

Well, yeah. Europe has what, 740M people in it? If even just 10% of them buy iPhones, that's still 74M people buying iPhones. That's more than the population of France. Saying Apple only has 27% or whatever of the market is minimizing how influential they are.

Finally someone said it. Influential is not the same as dominant. And if 650M bought a phone other than an iPhone and if as claimed iOS is a duopoly with android that makes android dominant and this the eu initial report is bogus.

A market of significant importance should be regulated.

In your opinion so regulate android.

Companies that are sufficiently powerful in those markets should have to comply by that regulation.

Chicken and egg.

 

[shpankey]

Please show me your data supporting this assertion. (Hint, you don't have any data supporting this assertion).

Here's my data: Apple customer satisfaction surveys. Look them up.

My data is iPhone sales. You know actual real meaningful data not some silly survey. There are tons of people in social media and reviews that were extremely happy with the change to USB-C. You are just being intentionally obtuse if you claim otherwise.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

My data is iPhone sales. You know actual real meaningful data not some silly survey. There are tons of people in social media and reviews that were extremely happy with the change to USB-C. You are just being intentionally obtuse if you claim otherwise.

hahaha...iPhone sales prove the point that people don't like Apple? Or that they were waiting to buy usb-c?

Please.

To put a finer point on it, the iPhone 14 sold better, faster than did the iPhone 15 with USB-C.

 

[AppliedMicro]

And if 650M bought a phone other than an iPhone and if as claimed iOS is a duopoly with android that makes android dominant

There can be more than one dominant market participant - and there is.

Revenue is even worse

You could argue how the EU way of measuring it is (as overall firm’s revenue rather than a specific business) is rather crude. Then again, even detractors of the DMA acknowledge that revenue can and will be shifted (“You’re gonna pay higher prices for the phones or XY instead”).

But you know what’s funny? You and @surferfb are all time talking about how it’s Apple right to charge money (revenue!) how they’re entitled to it, and how it would amount to “theft“, if their ability to charge and generate revenue would be legally restricted. It is in fact one your main gripes with the DMA (along with the “consumer choice of a walled garden”):

“What @surferfb said. Apples IP is being given away when it is forced to accept alternative app stores, not to charge it's going rates for use of said ip or even the inability to collect on it's use of said ip from apps that run on it's platform.” (33268887)

“how is Apple allowed to charge developers who are not listing their app on the App Store for the use of Apple's IP? If Apple is not allowed to charge these developers to use its property, how is that not theft of Apple's IP?” (33320860)

Yet when it comes to Apple’s market share, both of you conveniently fail to mention their share of the market’s overall revenue every time, instead pointing to only sold units or users: „But, but… it’s only 27% or something, Apple are such a minority player in Europe!“

Making a fuss about (lost) revenue when it comes to Apple‘s rights
…but denying it as a measure of their market share/power when it comes to their obligations?

👉 That doesn’t quite add up.