Anti-trust law in the EU does tend to be more focused on impacts to other corporations (ie b2b operations), while, in the US, it tends to be focused on impacts to customers (ie impacts on prices, for instance). EU typically does a good job of crouching it in the language of protecting consumers, but any benefit to consumers is a side effect of its impact on other corporations.
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 Has 'Very Serious' DMA Issues, EU to Enforce Rules 'Soon'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yup, there's a big difference. Same reason that iMessage wound up not being regulated under this law; it didn't have the power unduly control the market. The law is sensible. It doesn't even capture all of Apple and Google, only those certain parts of interest.
All terms are made up when needed. Of course the term didn't exist 15 years ago because iOS was too small, and Windows didn't dictate who could and could not access it. Windows let anyone build a business on its platform without trying to extract fees or impose limits on the type of application that could be deployed. Now we have dominant platforms that are exerting more and more control and influence on public life. Of course now they need regulation.
We develop new regulation all the time when companies start behaving badly or the environment changes.
So, you admit that controlling access to a platform is not universally bad? Because many on this forum think that Apple is obviously evil for this practice.
That said, I could agree with you if we are talking about typical monopolies. But Apple is nowhere close to monopoly power in the EU. They have what, 23% of the marketshare? The DMA is a wholly manufactured standard that is not based on a coherent rational, other than targeting non-EU companies in the tech sector.
They have effective monopoly power, no business that needs to reach their users develops only for Android. No bank is going to try and operate as an Android only bank, no mapping application, no music app, etc... Apple is powerful and able to control market access, marketshare matters less in this case.
Apple has a monopoly on app distribution on iOS and iPadOS devices (and visionOS, but no one cares about AVP).
This has been repeated over and over and over, yet people here continue to ignore it.
So, you agree that all of those on this thread that think it was obvious that Apple was evil, and that Apple should have simply self-regulated, have no understanding of the mechanisms at play here?
And how would Apple, with 23% marketshare, have known what the EU's cutoff would be? Perhaps the EU could have chosen the number 50%; would everyone on this thread who considers Apple evil for not "self-regulating" hold a different opinion if the EU had set the cutoff at 50% marketshare?
The point is, there's no rational basis for treating a company with 23% marketshare like a monopoly. And there's certainly no argument for sayhing they are evil for not self regulating. Unless of course you simply think market economics are inherently evil.
That's a convenient argument to sidestep any coherent argument related to antitrust and monopoly power. "It's the SPIRIT of monopoly!" you say
We ignore it because this is NOT what antitrust and monopoly regulation are about. Go take an economics course or four.
As I said above, and has been stated over and over. Apple has 100% marketshare on iOS, iPAD and visionOS app distribution..
I have a degree in economics (among others, as I'm in medicine now). US antitrust and monopoly law has zero bearing on how any other country, anywhere, handles their markets. It's a non-factor.
Any country or entity is within their right to define monopoly how they see fit.
And this is not a monopoly. I'm not going to argue it with you.
Nice post clipping... you ignored the second half of that sentence.
I would say that yes, there are some bad ideas and practices going on at App Review, they reject perfectly reasonable apps for bad reasons. I know JIT can be used for evil but Apple lets themselves use it and they should also let other devs use it if they meet some criteria and they can always revoke access in the future if they are abusing JIT.
Apple rejects apps arbitrarily that were previously approved.
Apple has convoluted and unnecessarily complex rules that are unfair.
Apple has prioritized maximizing revenue rather than maximizing user experience (if they cared about users not revenue then they would have attacked things like using real money to buy in game currency, using real money to buy loot boxes etc...)
I also think that all of the above bad behaviours are not regulatory worthy in small companies that can be ignored. Hence the second half of the sentence you ignored, when the regulatory environment changes,.
Any company that can effectively control access to some threshold of users (far less than even 25% IMO) should be considered for regulation. Access to iOS is practically mandatory for developing a successful app.
Sure there is. I have given it several times, business success. Targeting iOS is effectively mandatory for an App to be successful.
If the EU decides it is, then it is.
What you think, what Apple thinks, and what the US thinks, is irrelevant.
You continuing to cutout the explanations doesn't make them go away.That's a convenient argument to sidestep any coherent argument related to antitrust and monopoly power. "It's the SPIRIT of monopoly!" you say
A novel question for you. If corporations should be broken up when they get too big and powerful, should the same thing be done to states? Governments use a corporate form, too, and they have a power that private firms lack, namely the monopoly on violence. That implies that the risk of a rogue government is far more dangerous than the risk of a rogue corporation.
Additionally, monopolies generally don’t develop in free markets (there’s a powerful price incentive for other firms to undercut firms that have monopoly prices, and it usually requires state action to enshrine a monopoly or to hobble the market to prevent competitors from entering the space). Even oligopolies and cartels usually don’t last long in a free market (what happens most often is that a member of the cartel decides to break the cartel by undercutting the other members in order to get a larger slice of the pie for themselves). Government interference is typically necessary for monopoly formation (usually by preventing competition from entering the market in the first place or incentivizing industry consolidation, sometimes through use of contracts and subsidies to politically connected businesses).
Perhaps Apple should have complied in full without malicious compliance like ‘technology fee’.
"Handling markets" and what is or is not a "monopoly" generally held in the english language are two different things. The EU is NOT labeling Apple a "monopoly" because obviously, Apple is NOT a monopoly. Hence, the EU created a whole different schema: Gatekeeper.
But it's silly to argue with someone who is trying to claim that Apple is a monopoly in the EU.
The DMA doesn't actually care if they are a monopoly in the economics sense anyway, I say effectively a monopoly because they have the equivalent power as if they had one. Apple has the power to dictate what App developers have to do to be successful in the market of mobile applications. It doesn't matter that they don't have 100% marketshare because they don't need it to dictate what App developers do. iOS is that important.
I'm not claiming it, the EU is. Their definition is what matters.
Either way, the DMA doesn't really care whether monopoly status is reached. It's not a requirement. Under the DMA, one can be a gatekeeper without being a monopoly.
I actually don't necessarily think companies should be broken up. Nor states. It depends on the responsiveness to the needs of the people. Ex: Power companies, they operate more effectively at larger scales and with effective distribution monopolies, because of this they need regulation to ensure they don't exploit consumers.
Similarly with Apple, I think that Apple is better as an integrated unit but they need regulation to prevent exploiting consumers.
I don't think states should be broken up if there is enough responsiveness to local needs of citizens but perhaps power devolution should be considered for those where too much power is being funnelled upwards and local needs are ignored.
So what? YOU think they are bad. Big deal. It's not your company. Not your decision. Or are you saying your opinions on these matters should be universally considered to be true and correct?
I ignored it because outside of a traditional monopoly, I think these are silly attempts to meddle in a companies private matters.
Such a random selection of a number without any basis in traditional market economics.
But hey! In a world in which everyone thinks their opinions should be equal to everyone elses, I get where you're coming from. But not worth arguing with since your opinions are just randomly held.
No. They don't. You use "monopoly" because you're trying to put your argument onto a foundation of legality that it doesn't fit.
Right. So now you're backing off of your use of the term "monopoly" because what matters, now, is an arbitrary standard that has no basis in traditionally held ideas about monopoly practices.
The EU continues to strive for the title of Global Gatekeeper. A Black Hole of Regulations, Government Overreach, and Protectionist Policies that continue to stifle internal EU growth.
This only fuels the changing political arena in Europe. Good Luck.
This only fuels the changing political arena in Europe. Good Luck.