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

[surferfb]

It wouldn‘t. Because what operating system you ship on your hardware device isn‘t regulated by the EU.
The iPhone could be totally free/libre hardware and allow for any OS to be installed - if enough people choose iOS, that will be subject to the DMA‘s provisions.

Which, once again, is why it’s a bad law that is clearly targeted to try to slow down innovators so the EU anemic productivity can try to catch up.

Complete FUD, given how - even by your own admission - Apple still gets to review and sign apps distributed through „alternative“ means.

Only until the EU decides Apple is no longer allowed to review and sign apps distributed through alternative means. Doesn’t sound like the “spirit of the law” to me!

I would have thought you knew better (considering you‘ve participating in similar discussions for a while), but:

These “matters of fact” are simply wrong.

Nope, they’re not. Once again you’re letting your selfish desires to have your government bully Apple and the vast majority of its customers cloud your judgement. All because you claim having a choice means you don’t have a choice (I.e, can’t be bothered to run google-less Android) and taking away everyone else’s choice to run a closed system.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The fact of the matter is that adding a bunch of unnecessary code, designed to let programs not vetted by Apple run on its devices, is almost certainly going to make iOS users’ security worse.

The facts of the matter are:

• Such code (designed to run programs not vetted by Apple) has been present in iOS for more than a decade.
• No such code is required to be added because of the DMA.
• Apple still reserves the right to vet apps, regardless of distribution channel chosen for distribution to consumers.
• We have no indication that the EU takes issue with that.

Nope, they’re not. Once again you’re letting your selfish desires to have your government bully Apple and the vast majority of its customers cloud your judgement

All that talk about „selfish desires“ etc. is merely a diversion from the point I made:

The EU does not require Apple to add code to allow apps not vetted by Apple to run.

Doesn’t sound like the “spirit of the law” to me!

The law explicitly allows Apple to take proportionate measures to safeguard the integrity of their platform.

 

[webkit]

The same marketplace restrictions that every company has when releasing their own products and having a "monopoly" in the products they develop. Android has about 70% market share. So in your world of a duopoly that gives android the notable market power and control. Apple is influential because of it's ability to produce a product that people want to buy.

Apple is influential because it has notable market power and control due to its various marketplace restrictions, at least prior to complying with DMA regulations. In the app store market, for example, a reason Apple’s App Store was "popular" is because Apple was blocking alternative iOS app stores thereby making the App Store the ONLY iOS option.

There are others, but as I pointed out previously can ios and android collude? Can they agree to set market prices? Do they stop any competition from entering the marketplace, other than by popularity?

Yes, they can collude in various ways. Some examples:

iOS and Android could collude to set mobile OS prices (or lack of).
iOS and Android could collude to set pre-installed mobile app fees/prices.
iOS and Android could collude to block competitive apps or alternatives (like stores) on their operating systems.

These and other things could be used as a way to stifle competition and innovation.

However, as shown they aren't only mobile app stores, so there is competition. Popularity is not legal reason for regulation.

The existence of competition does not make companies immune to antitrust/competition and regulations. Also, on your topic of collusion, the App Store and Play Store could also collude. Some examples:

The App Store and Play Store could collude to set app store fees.
The App Store and Play Store could collude to block apps in their store.
The App Store and Play Store could collude to require certain types of payment systems.

These and other things could be done as a way to stifle competition and innovation.

The point is if the EU used market share as a metric of control, apple is way down. There is no argument apple isn't influential, of course, a company doesn't have to be big to be influential, but the EU used apples revenue to determine marketshare. It's my feeling the DMA will eventually fall apart.

Market power, influence, dominance, etc. can be based on a variety of things and "market share" can be gauged different ways. A store's market share is typically based on sales/revenue while a browser or operating system's market share is typically based on usage. Given Apple's broad involvement in the mobile tech world, many aspects and factors are (should be) taken into account and that seems to be what the DMA does.

 

[AppliedMicro]

taking away everyone else’s choice to run a closed system.

Where were you and where can I read your complaints about Apple’s enterprise developer program - which allows allowing running apps not vetted by Apple on anyone’s phone - when it was introduced?

Also, where is your condemnation or demands Apple discontinue that program for security reasons - given the documented abuse of it to distribute pirated apps and collect data on users.

Side note: note how Epic’s developer account got banned indefinitely for violation of the developer agreement - why didn’t Google’s and Facebook’s?

 

[surferfb]

The law explicitly allows Apple to take proportionate measures to safeguard the integrity of their platform.

The law also lays out specific metrics that platforms need to meet to have it apply to them. iPadOS does not meet those metrics. The EU applied the law anyway. Letter of the law does not matter, as you’ve told me repeatedly.

 

[surferfb]

Yes, they can collude in various ways. Some examples:

iOS and Android could collude to set mobile OS prices (or lack of).
iOS and Android could collude to set pre-installed mobile app fees/prices.
iOS and Android could collude to block competitive apps or alternatives (like stores) on their operating systems.

And if they did so, governments would be perfectly in their right to go after both companies for antitrust action. However, they’re not. The DMA is a soliton in search of a problem.

 

[I7guy]

Apple is influential because it has notable market power and control due to its various marketplace restrictions

Apple is influential because it has a tightly integrated ecosystem, that is popular and people want to buy their products and services. An they have a monopoly in their own products, like every other manufacturer.

, at least prior to complying with DMA regulations. In the app store market, for example, a reason Apple’s App Store was "popular" is because Apple was blocking alternative iOS app stores thereby making the App Store the ONLY iOS option.

Yes because apple has a monopoly in it's own products and there is no case law that says otherwise.

Yes, they can collude in various ways. Some examples:

iOS and Android could collude to set mobile OS prices (or lack of).

Did they?

iOS and Android could collude to set pre-installed mobile app fees/prices.

Did they?

iOS and Android could collude to block competitive apps or alternatives (like stores) on their operating systems.

Did they?

These and other things could be used as a way to stifle competition and innovation.

In your hypothetical example, the multiple app stores that exist across the platforms(including third party app stores who run on the android platform could collude. But did they?

The existence of competition does not make companies immune to antitrust/competition and regulations.

The lack of competition (however that is define) does also not mean there is any antitrust regulations being broken. Basically there could be or there may not be.

Also, on your topic of collusion, the App Store and Play Store could also collude. Some examples:

The App Store and Play Store could collude to set app store fees.

Did they?

The App Store and Play Store could collude to block apps in their store.

Did they?

The App Store and Play Store could collude to require certain types of payment systems.

Did they?

These and other things could be done as a way to stifle competition and innovation.

In your hypothetical example no laws are being broken if they didn't.

Market power, influence, dominance, etc. can be based on a variety of things and "market share" can be gauged different ways. A store's market share is typically based on sales/revenue

Examples of basing market share on revenue in the tv industry, garden supply industry, washing machine industry, car industry etc. It's not really done that way.

while a browser or operating system's market share is typically based on usage.

Macrumors articles typically show market share in the cell phone industry in percentage by units not percentage by revenue. Sure it may be mentioned as a metric that $ per some metric is shown for some segment, but by and large it's units.

Given Apple's broad involvement in the mobile tech world, many aspects and factors are (should be) taken into account and that seems to be what the DMA does.

The DMA targeted Apple specifically as I have postulated in prior posts. There was no case law, just some needle threading metrics involving revenue.

In the world of cars, if cops followed your logic about hypotheticals, Ferrari owns would be given a ticket because hypothetically they could speed and outrun the cops.

 

[cupcakes2000]

In the world of cars, if cops followed your logic about hypotheticals, Ferrari owns would be given a ticket because hypothetically they could speed and outrun the cops

Apple can opt out of its own app policing system, and frequently does. Did you know that? Specifically with data collection but a few other things have been shown over the years.

So with you wonderful car analogy, Apple is the cop and the ferrari, and so it's all fine, it's everyone else that's to worry.

 

[I7guy]

Apple can opt out of its own app policing system,

Apple is allowed by it's own TOS to update the rules. This is no different than any other company, they all state that in their TOS.

and frequently does. Did you know that? Specifically with data collection but a few other things have been shown over the years.

Yes, things change over the course of time. TOS have to be modified for various reasons.

So with you wonderful car analogy, Apple is the cop and the ferrari, and so it's all fine, it's everyone else that's to worry.

So in my example the EU governing board is the cop and it's everyone else that has to worry.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple is entitled to charge for its services buts its market share in the eu is 27%

It is not for its "services".

Examples of basing market share on revenue in the tv industry, garden supply industry, washing machine industry, car industry etc. It's not really done that way

You are (again) conflating appliance or physical device sales with services.

For markets with physical unit sales (such as washing machines, cars, TVs, smartphones) market share is indeed usually (almost always) measured in percentage of units sold.

But again, iOS and particularly the App Store isn't a "unit sales" business. The App Store and Apple's In-App purchasing service are intermediary services that facilitate transactions between business users (developers) for a large range of widely diversified products/services and provide transaction processing for them.

It's similar to, say, credit cards, payment processing services or banks - for which market share is normally calculated as "percentage of money" (transaction volume, customer deposits/assets) etc.

Or retail businesses that sell whole ranges of different products. such as, for example, hypermarkets. Walmart, Target and Costco don't compare their market share by "number of products sold" - when they carry and sell products from bananas and baking powder to lawn mowers, entirely different and non-comparable in use and price points.

 

[VulchR]

Apple does not represent the United States of America. It's like saying Japan would retaliate for actions against Toyota. The US themselves are investigating Apple on multiple shady business practices.

Sorry but you seem to know little of how trade disputes are resolved. Nations represent their companies. Also, the EU action is not the result of any criminal allegation, nor are the practices of Apple in the US of any relevance here. The issue is whether the EU regulations are designed to give EU companies an unfair advantage over Apple. By driving the interoperability agenda selectivity against Apple, the EU is preventing Apple from distinguishing its products from European products, and that is crassly protectionist. I note that the EU mobile phone manufacturers have not been forced to adopt Apple's standards to 'increase competition'.

 

[VulchR]

us in the UK normally get features long before the EU, glad to be out of the dictatorship, I hope the UK doesnt follow suit, I don’t want an open source iOS that will be disastrous. We don’t even have the 3rd party App Store and I’m definitely happy with that

I think the UK got features earlier than the rest of the EU before Brexit, but I have no evidence of that, just a hazy memory. I am a Remainer 😇, but I have to admit some of the measures the EU is taking against Apple make no sense whatsoever, other than targeting a successful US company with protectionism. I think EU actions will ultimately hurt the consumer. Like you, I hope the UK government thinks more carefully about what it denies its consumers in the name of 'interoperability'.

 

[Heindijs]

I wish the EU would just take on Microsoft and their monopoly they have with Windows. Force manufacturers to use Linux. But whatever, they're cutting their budget towards foss projects so it's just about making money and Apple is their cash cow.

 

[I7guy]

It is not for its "services".


You are (again) conflating appliance or physical device sales with services.

For markets with physical unit sales (such as washing machines, cars, TVs, smartphones) market share is indeed usually (almost always) measured in percentage of units sold.

But again, iOS and particularly the App Store isn't a "unit sales" business.

There is one apple ios app store per iphone. so when we say apple has a 27% market share, it means the apple ios app store is installed on 27% of iphones. App store revenue is based on multiple factors, not the least of which how much consumers are buying. Again popularity should not be a factor.

The App Store and Apple's In-App purchasing service are intermediary services that facilitate transactions between business users (developers) for a large range of widely diversified products/services and provide transaction processing for them.

They are part an parcel of the apple ios app store.

It's similar to, say, credit cards, payment processing services or banks - for which market share is normally calculated as "percentage of money" (transaction volume, customer deposits/assets) etc.

When talking about market share, it's commonly said there are xxx mastercard holders and yyy visa card holders. And these holds transact z sales with a $ volumn of y. But clearly the transaction volume is directly correlated to the number of card holders. Some elite card holders may transact much higher $ values.

Or retail businesses that sell whole ranges of different products. such as, for example, hypermarkets. Walmart, Target and Costco don't compare their market share by "number of products sold" - when they carry and sell products from bananas and baking powder to lawn mowers, entirely different and non-comparable in use and price points.

It's not been a secret for a very long time that Apple rakes in the most profit in the entire smarphone industry despite having a relatively low market share number. There are many reasons for this, and not one of the reasons has to do with being a "monopoly". Apple doesn't set prices in the app store and the revenue they accrue is due to the quality and popularity of apps, not because they are a "monopoly". The EU went after Apple because it's popular, not because they run an illegal enterprise.

 

[cupcakes2000]

the EU is preventing Apple from distinguishing its products from European products,

But that's not what's being demanded. Not in the slightest. Apple is free to make the best products possible, as it frequently does. Apple can distinguish them from a competitor how they see fit. They just are being forbidden to withhold features from competitors that they themselves use freely in order to be better. Obviously if Apple allow other people to delevop apps and gadgets for iOS, then it's most definitely not a fair and level playing field if they then cherry pick the good stuff and chuck the scraps to the underdogs.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Apple is their cash cow.

What a load of codswallop. The odd fine from a single company which may or may not occur depending on how said company reacts is not even a drop in the ocean compared to the financial clout of the EU and the 27 nations that it comprises of. Listen to yourself 🤣 if you're going to lambast something, at least pick at a sensible thread.

 

[surferfb]

But that's not what's being demanded. Not in the slightest. Apple is free to make the best products possible, as it frequently does. Apple can distinguish them from a competitor how they see fit. They just are being forbidden to withhold features from competitors that they themselves use freely in order to be better. Obviously if Apple allow other people to delevop apps and gadgets for iOS, then it's most definitely not a fair and level playing field if they then cherry pick the good stuff and chuck the scraps to the underdogs.

Apple is no longer allowed to develop features to differentiate its products. If it adds a feature, it has to let others add that feature too.

So yes, that is what is being demanded. Giving away its R&D for free. Why on earth should they bother to innovate if Samsung gets to copy the hard work and then undercut Apple on price because they didn’t have to spend money developing the feature?

 

[ProbablyDylan]

EU countries have ~450 mln population, don’t overestimate.

Ah, pardon, I had broadly searched Europe. Still, 10% is 40M+ people. Doesn't change my point.

 

[webkit]

And if they did so, governments would be perfectly in their right to go after both companies for antitrust action. However, they’re not.

The question I had responded to was "can they?" not "do they?"

Colluding is only one of many potential antitrust violations a company can commit.

The DMA is a soliton in search of a problem.

The DMA is an attempted solution to ensure fair and open digital markets by preventing dominant (or "gatekeeper") companies/platforms from stifling competition, innovation, and consumer choice in those markets.

 

[I7guy]

The question I had responded to was "can they?" not "do they?"

Colluding is only one of many potential antitrust violations a company can commit.




The DMA is an attempted solution to ensure fair and open digital markets by preventing dominant (or "gatekeeper") companies/platforms from stifling competition, innovation, and consumer choice in those markets.

The DMA is a targeted solution to neuter the popularity of Apple. If the EU wanted to, it could fund a cell phone startup that could compete on features, price and be open like android, yet be a groundbreaking software design.

And sure we can list all hypothetical infractions a company can commit. It's not a question of can they, it's a question of did they?

 

[webkit]

Apple is influential because it has a tightly integrated ecosystem, that is popular and people want to buy their products and services. An they have a monopoly in their own products, like every other manufacturer.

Yes because apple has a monopoly in it's own products and there is no case law that says otherwise.

It's about Apple blocking or restcitincting competition and consumer choice in the digital markets.

Did they?

Your question was "can they?" not "did they?" and the answer is YES, they can. If they aren't, one reason would presumably be because they are a duopoly and colluding could trigger more antitrust issues for them.

Did they?

Your question was "can they?" not "did they?" and the answer is YES, they can. If they aren't, one reason would presumably be because they are a duopoly and colluding could trigger more antitrust issues for them.

Did they?

Your question was "can they?" not "did they?" and the answer is YES, they can. If they aren't, one reason would presumably be because they are a duopoly and colluding could trigger more antitrust issues for them.

In your hypothetical example, the multiple app stores that exist across the platforms(including third party app stores who run on the android platform could collude. But did they?

Your question was "can they?" not "did they?" and the answer is YES, they can. If they aren't, one reason would presumably be because they are a duopoly and colluding could trigger more antitrust issues for them.

Did they?

Your question was "can they?" not "did they?" and the answer is YES, they can. If they aren't, one reason would presumably be because they are a duopoly and colluding could trigger more antitrust issues for them.

Did they?

Your question was "can they?" not "did they?" and the answer is YES, they can. If they aren't, one reason would presumably be because they are a duopoly and colluding could trigger more antitrust issues for them.

Did they?

Your question was "can they?" not "did they?" and the answer is YES, they can. If they aren't, one reason would presumably be because they are a duopoly and colluding could trigger more antitrust issues for them.

Examples of basing market share on revenue in the tv industry, garden supply industry, washing machine industry, car industry etc. It's not really done that way.

Macrumors articles typically show market share in the cell phone industry in percentage by units not percentage by revenue. Sure it may be mentioned as a metric that $ per some metric is shown for some segment, but by and large it's units.

As I stated, market share can be gauged multiple ways. This can include dollar sales/revenue, unit sales, usage, etc.

The DMA targeted Apple specifically as I have postulated in prior posts. There was no case law, just some needle threading metrics involving revenue.

The DMA "targeted" Apple due to its broad involvement and dominance in the mobile tech world. Many aspects and factors are (should be) taken into account and that seems to be what the DMA does.

The DMA is a targeted solution to neuter the popularity of Apple. If the EU wanted to, it could fund a cell phone startup that could compete on features, price and be open like android, yet be a groundbreaking software design.

And sure we can list all hypothetical infractions a company can commit. It's not a question of can they, it's a question of did they?

The DMA is an attempted solution to ensure fair and open digital markets by preventing dominant (or "gatekeeper") companies/platforms from stifling competition, innovation, and consumer choice in those markets. That's also behind the U.S./DOJ case against Apple.

 

[cupcakes2000]

The DMA is a targeted solution to neuter the popularity of Apple

How can this legislation possibly affect the 'popularity' of Apple? It does nothing whatsoever to stop Apple from doing anything it has been doing. Everything Apple does can stay exactly the same.
All it does is enable others to fairly compete. If Apple are as good as we all know they are, then they will still be at he top of the pile. I for one would like to buy the best things available. Currently that's an iPhone. But accessory wise - we don't know. Because Apple limit its competitors artificially in this space. Same with ios software. Apple's unfair advantage forces them to be best by default, and no-one can tell me here and now that everything Apple makes is the best thing in the world.

Being the best by default is a sham.

 

[I7guy]

It's about Apple blocking or restcitincting competition and consumer choice in the digital markets.

They are not blocking anybody. They own the ios app store. There is no case law that says otherwise.

Your question was "can they?" not "did they?" and the answer is YES, they can. If they aren't, one reason would presumably be because they are a duopoly and colluding could trigger more antitrust issues for them.

Did they?

Your question was "can they?" not "did they?" and the answer is YES, they can. If they aren't, one reason would presumably be because they are a duopoly and colluding could trigger more antitrust issues for them.

Did they?

Your question was "can they?" not "did they?" and the answer is YES, they can. If they aren't, one reason would presumably be because they are a duopoly and colluding could trigger more antitrust issues for them.




Your question was "can they?" not "did they?" and the answer is YES, they can. If they aren't, one reason would presumably be because they are a duopoly and colluding could trigger more antitrust issues for them.




Your question was "can they?" not "did they?" and the answer is YES, they can. If they aren't, one reason would presumably be because they are a duopoly and colluding could trigger more antitrust issues for them.




Your question was "can they?" not "did they?" and the answer is YES, they can. If they aren't, one reason would presumably be because they are a duopoly and colluding could trigger more antitrust issues for them.




Your question was "can they?" not "did they?" and the answer is YES, they can. If they aren't, one reason would presumably be because they are a duopoly and colluding could trigger more antitrust issues for them.

Did they to all of the above? Any company, any person can break any law. It's not that they can, it's that they did.

As I stated, market share can be gauged multiple ways. This can include dollar sales/revenue, unit sales, usage, etc.

As stated apples market share is still 27%. That means I copy of the ios app store for each of the 27% of the people who own ipones.

The DMA "targeted" Apple due to its broad involvement and dominance in the mobile tech world.

Guess we differ on the "why" of it all.

Many aspects and factors are (should be) taken into account and that seems to be what the DMA does.

It seems to me one doesn't have to look too deep to see the why. But each of us will have our own opinion.

The DMA is an attempted solution to ensure fair and open digital markets by preventing dominant (or "gatekeeper") companies/platforms from stifling competition,

That's a circular argument, period.

innovation, and consumer choice in those markets. That's also behind the U.S./DOJ case against Apple.

There is no case law that says apple has to innovate markets outside of it's domain. The DOJ has to win it's case, and as I noted an example, they lost the Time Warner merger lawsuit.

 

[AppliedMicro]

There is one apple ios app store per iphone. so when we say apple has a 27% market share, it means the apple ios app store is installed on 27% of iphones

What?!

Apple's iOS App Store is installed on 100% of iPhones.

When talking about market share, it's commonly said there are xxx mastercard holders and yyy visa card holders

It's not. It's share transaction volume (transactions times amount).
The markets don't care much about issued but unused cards.

It's not been a secret for a very long time that Apple rakes in the most profit in the entire smarphone industry despite having a relatively low market share number.

Exactly. Another factor why Apple isn't a small minority player.

Apple is no longer allowed to develop features to differentiate its products. If it adds a feature, it has to let others add that feature too.

Of course they are allowed to develop differentiating features!

If it adds a feature, it has to let others add that feature too.

No. Interoperability doesn't mean letting others have the same feature.

Example:
Apple is free to develop (or license) the best speech recognition engine in the industry and the most intelligent digital voice assistant feature. They don't have to give that tech to anyone else and can use it to differentiate their iPhones over the competition. They don't have to let any Android developer or competing smartphone manufacturer have that feature.

But they can't weaponise that feature to make their own music streaming technology or service the only one that works with. When you can control the playback or volume with a button, they can't use that to preference their own music server over others.

Ensuring interoperability does not mean giving IP for free to others.

 

[surferfb]

How can this legislation possibly affect the 'popularity' of Apple? It does nothing whatsoever to stop Apple from doing anything it has been doing.

No, it just says any innovations Apple creates have to be offered to competitors who are then free to undercut Apple on price, since they didn’t spend the resources to develop the innovations.

Everything Apple does can stay exactly the same.
All it does is enable others to fairly compete. If Apple are as good as we all know they are, then they will still be at he top of the pile. I for one would like to buy the best things available. Currently that's an iPhone. But accessory wise - we don't know. Because Apple limit its competitors artificially in this space.

In what upside down world are we living in is “not giving competitors access to our property” considered “artificially limiting its competiors”. Is Coca-Cola not giving Pepsi the formula to Coke “artificially limiting its competitors?”

Same with ios software. Apple's unfair advantage forces them to be best by default, and no-one can tell me here and now that everything Apple makes is the best thing in the world.

Being the best by default is a sham.

No. Android exists. Apple does not prevent Google or any of the various flavors of Android from being better. In fact, it appears over 70% of EU citizens believe Android is the best.