Apple Has 'Very Serious' DMA Issues, EU to Enforce Rules 'Soon'

[wbeasley]

No the eu laws are not ‘disgusting’. They are extremely sensible and it was very clear for the onset that Apple was violating them. A number of people said this immediately, Apple thinks they are in the states but in Europe malicious compliance is simply non compliance. One has to abide to the spirit of the law, not just the letter. Apple behaviour was clearly intended to limit and monetise third party stores, which is the opposite of what the law intended. Hence the heavy fines that will come, which will wipe out any profit Apple made with their illegal behaviour.

so clear from the outset that MONTHS after Apple said what they were going to do and released it, the EU now saying it doesnt meet it.

laws arent about the spirit. that's just lazy law constructs.

the DMA does not say Apple can't charge a fee. They granted GateKeepers the right to vet code. They didnt say this was free.

you seem very keen on "wiping out any profit Apple made". i'm guessing you dont want new products to be developed from profits made? you know that's how businesses work. you dont make profit, you dont exist for long.

 

[gnipgnop]

No the eu laws are not ‘disgusting’. They are extremely sensible and it was very clear for the onset that Apple was violating them.

If they're sensible, why is it so easy to show that Spotify and Spotify's users were never harmed at all by Apple's App Store policies? Spotify was the primary driver of this legislation and they never experienced anything other than a smooth upward growth curve from 2008 until today. Spotify's executives were even bragging in the media back in 2016 that the launch of Apple Music had helped increase awareness of music streaming and that their subscriptions were growing faster than ever.

 

[wbeasley]

I'm close to 50. I know how hardware advances.

Apple never promised that, nor would they on their own. That's why I support government forcing businesses to be more consumer and competition friendly. No company should be able to restrict what the end-user does with a product they purchase.

Once it's sold, it's none of their business.

you didnt address much of what i answered you...

the apps you bought would have told you the device they work on.
to buy and install them your hardware and OS installed had to meet those requirements.
the app dev and Apple gave you something that worked. and continues to as long as your hardware works and you keep the OS compatible to the app code.

Apple do not care what you do with your hardware after you buy it. you own it. so it is none of their business already.

but why should they now be forced to assist you in doing something they never intended the device to do?

 

[wbeasley]

[…]
yes they are profitable.

so?

 

[WarmWinterHat]

laws arent about the spirit. that's just lazy law constructs.

Plenty of countries operate with the notion that the spirit of the law is enforceable, and have for hundreds of years. That's not a concept new to the EU.

you seem very keen on "wiping out any profit Apple made". i'm guessing you dont want new products to be developed from profits made? you know that's how businesses work. you dont make profit, you dont exist for long.

This wasn't directed towards me, but I just want to add that I haven't worked at a for-profit company since finishing grad-school almost 20 years ago. The company I currently work for is non-profit 501.c3, and a bit over 200 years old, and has zero public or private shareholders. You don't have to have profit to have a company.

Anyway, this doesn't affect Apple's profit in any meaningful way. In fact, I bet that over time, Apple will make MORE money with an open system over a closed.

 

[trusso]

…of all the things I thought I’d see in this comment section, a critique of using actual quotes in the article title wasn’t even on my top 50.

A good writer must always consider his or her reader.

 

[gnipgnop]

[…]
So was Spotify. Their original model back in 2008 when they were an early adopter of the App Store model was that the free ad-supported version of the app could be downloaded for free from the store and the premium version was only available through signing up on their web site. So none of the money they made from the app was subject to commission from Apple.

 

[gnipgnop]

[…]
Is that the EU's rationale? That they won't go out of business so might as well fine them a few billion regardless of whether it makes any sense or not?

 

[wbeasley]

Plenty of countries operate with the notion that the spirit of the law is enforceable, and have for hundreds of years. That's not a concept new to the EU.



This wasn't directed towards me, but I just want to add that I haven't worked at a for-profit company since finishing grad-school almost 20 years ago. The company I currently work for is non-profit 501.c3, and a bit over 200 years old, and has zero public or private shareholders.

You don't have to have profit to have a company.

i too have worked at non-profit companies as well.

and they act exactly like profit ones. last one used the line "for purpose" to explain the "surplus" on their mandatory reporting. it was a profit. ones who dont profit, dont last. unless donors prop them up. but even then, they use the money to pay management and rental property and buying supplies and marketing and advertising and... just like a for profit company.

 

[q64ceo]

It's the EU's market. It's their rules. Don't like it? Leave.

 

[gnipgnop]

Plenty of countries operate with the notion that the spirit of the law is enforceable, and have for hundreds of years. That's not a concept new to the EU.



This wasn't directed towards me, but I just want to add that I haven't worked at a for-profit company since finishing grad-school almost 20 years ago. The company I currently work for is non-profit 501.c3, and a bit over 200 years old, and has zero public or private shareholders. You don't have to have profit to have a company.

Anyway, this doesn't affect Apple's profit in any meaningful way. In fact, I bet that over time, Apple will make MORE money with an open system over a closed.

The drivers of the DMA legislation were all for-profit companies...billion and trillion dollar ones.

 

[gnipgnop]

[…]
Sure...they say it's about increasing competition. However, as I have pointed out, the main driver of the legislation was Spotify and they never suffered any harm at all from Apple's App Store policies. All the money they made from their app was not subject to commission the vast majority of the time and they bragged in the press back in 2016 that the launch of Apple Music had been beneficial to their subscriber growth by making iOS users more aware of music streaming services.

 

[wbeasley]

[…]
well if they keep adding arbitrary fines they only make business more difficult.

in Australia, the government gave people a choice to setup Self Managed Superannuation accounts.
great, you can have control.
then more and more fees hit and regulations and reporting.
eventually they became so much for most people it wasnt worthwhile.

you keep throwing enough hurdles and eventually someone asks "why am i bothering?"

if you hit Apple with fines, they can easily go "oh it costs us more to do business in the EU so let's jack up prices and make the fines a cost of doing business there. it doesnt hurt Apple as much as it hurts consumers who have to pay more.

 

[PlayUltimate]

The entire act of defending a corporation disgusts me. But I don’t want to delve deeper into this rabbit hole here.

The entire DMA is all about defending some corporation. It just depends on which corporation you want to defend and support. In this particular case it is about defending the desires of Epic, Spotify et al. instead of Apple.

 

[PlayUltimate]

Anyway, this doesn't affect Apple's profit in any meaningful way. In fact, I bet that over time, Apple will make MORE money with an open system over a closed.

Possibly. John Rockefeller didn't become extremely wealthy until after Standard Oil was broken up.

 

[wbeasley]

Sure...they say it's about increasing competition. However, as I have pointed out, the main driver of the legislation was Spotify and they never suffered any harm at all from Apple's App Store policies. All the money they made from their app was not subject to commission the vast majority of the time and they bragged in the press back in 2016 that the launch of Apple Music had been beneficial to their subscriber growth by making iOS users more aware of music streaming services.

you're 110% correct: it isnt about competition at all.

making these rules will not result in an EU phone and app stores. apps wont be cheaper.

the market wont wear a third alternative OS. people have tried new hardware... Rabbit anyone? Huge fail.

and the two existing OSes meet most user needs.
what possible point of difference could a new OS have to entice consumers away?

i dont even seen alt app stores enticing people.
i think they will be a huge failure.
what would make you jump ship to an unknown vendor to buy an app?
a few keep saying "apps that Apple wont allow"... well Apple still gets to notarize every app on their devices. anyone who thinks Apple will approve apps that have low level access to wifi or other hardware will be disappointed.

Spotify are the whiniest company outside Epic.
they must think their customers are stupid even though years of data shows they are capable of downloading an app and subscribing elsewhere. putting another payment link in the app isnt going to solve their business model issues.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Let them have external app stores but give zero APIs and tell them good luck.

 

[wbeasley]

[…]
i went to Apple Music from Spotify because Spotify promised for years they would do high res music and didnt.
And then they used the EU to do their dirty work. i then found a tool to load my Playlists into Apple Music that worked 99% and saved me lots of manual work and headaches.

All those existing Spotify users managed the very simple task of setting up an account and paying outside the app store.
it's not hard. millions did it. doing it in app wont increase their paid user base. a few might pay there instead of outside. but they are the same people, not extras.

 

[gnipgnop]

[…]
Spotify's largest subscriber base is the ad-supported version. They keep 100% of the advertising revenue and the app is free to download from the App Store.

Also, how can you say going to the internet is harmful when the EU is saying anti-steering was harmful? The EU is specifically saying that competition is ENHANCED by sending App Store customers somewhere else when they're already using the App Store.

 

[bcortens]

"...... how Apple should operate within the borders and for the citizens of its member countries..."

If that's the case then why does the EU feel entitled to extort 5% of Apple's global revenue?

Consider a small country, say Singapore, if they were to just fine Apple based on the revenue earned in Singapore it would be peanuts and Apple could ignore it as cost of doing business. If they fine on global revenue suddenly apple has to pay attention.

Global companies are so big that they have to be fined based on global percentages otherwise they can choose not to change their behaviour. Apple isn't some little company with no power and influence, it is one of the most powerful corporate entities on earth, of course global revenue makes sense.

 

[Stevez67]

[…]
It's not harm it's the cost of doing business. Spotify/Epic wants to be on the Apple platform but also wants to have a way of not paying for, or paying less, for the privilege.

 

[wbeasley]

[…]
You know plenty of people are on here whinging about Spotify promising things and not delivering.
they spent a fortune on podcasts that yielded little. didnt attract new customers.
they could have spent that on new features.

their recommendation algorithms were industry leading.
but other services are catching up fast. it's something AI will be able to enhance too.

as i pointed out, millions of people subscribed OUTSIDE the app store. its easy.
doing it in app via alt payment isnt going to be the thing that suddenly makes them profitable. 😉

 

[wbeasley]

Consider a small country, say Singapore, if they were to just fine Apple based on the revenue earned in Singapore it would be peanuts and Apple could ignore it as cost of doing business. If they fine on global revenue suddenly apple has to pay attention.

Global companies are so big that they have to be fined based on global percentages otherwise they can choose not to change their behaviour. Apple isn't some little company with no power and influence, it is one of the most powerful corporate entities on earth, of course global revenue makes sense.

and the EU do not represent every country on the planet... they are not entitled to use their laws in other countries and should not set fines based on sales outside their own borders.

 

[wbeasley]

can someone just come out and state what will make them happy regarding the EU DMA?

given the EU hasnt come out and been clear.

a great CEO where I once worked was very much "dont tell me your problems, tell me the solution and i will empower you to act on that info".

all we've had is complaints from EU backers.

let's hear your detailed solutions to this.

 

[Victor Mortimer]

Not to be too simplistic, but who says that this is true? I am quite happy with the way that the Apple store exists. And, note, no body complained when it first began . . . and the rules have arguably not really change that much. But NOW, after they have created a large and enviable system organically, it is a problem.

Absolutely not true.

I've had a HUGE problem with it from the beginning. My first iPhone was jailbroken within minutes of the box being opened. My iPhone would be jailbroken now if untethered jailbreaks still worked.

It's MY iPhone, NOT Apple's iPhone, and they should have NO say about what software I install on MY iPhone.

I don't care about app stores at all. As far as I'm concerned, Apple's app store could take a 90% cut and only allow fluffy kitten petting apps as long as I can normally install software from any source of my choosing - which would NOT be Apple's stupid app store.