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
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
"Apple pulls out of selling on Earth ... will focus on selling to clients on the Moon and Mars only... shares down in after hours trading"
Standing up to 6 carefully picked foreign companies, using dubious standards that are generally not held to be problematic in the history of market economics.
bcortens
macrumors 65816
Yes they do have that power (you are getting hung up on the word monopoly).
Apple has the power to dictate market success of Apps that is a monopoly like power.
I used effective monopoly but you have also whined about the word "gatekeeper", you don't want them regulated and seem to reject any language around it regardless of how it is framed.
There are practices that are bad for developers of Apps, Apple engages in those practices, to protect healthy competition on mobile platforms (not between mobile platforms) the EU chooses to pass a new law to regulate the companies.
You complaining that a gatekeeper isn't a thing doesn't make it so. The EU passing a law has made it so. The EU has created a new category of regulatable entity called a gatekeeper. You might not like it but that doesn't make it go away. People(including me) have been trying to explain to you why they created this entity. You getting hung up on the words "effectively has a monopoly" or people saying "they have a monopoly on iOS" doesn't matter. those are just labels, they don't change the substance.
cocky jeremy
Suspended
Easy enough. Create a new company all together, Apple leaves the EU, and this newly created company sells all of Apple's products. This company's "global revenue" is only EU countries.
Windows is based on a legacy platform that existed prior to the viability of digital stores just like the Mac. There are all kinds of legacy expectations for desktop/laptop systems based on how those systems developed commercially from the 70s/80s forward.
iOS/iPhone were based on the console model and digital stores that existed on both consoles and PCs. The reality is that Google (and a lot of the tech media) viewed Apple's console approach as a weakness that would ultimately lose out to Android's more Windows-like approach. The expectation was that the mobile market would end up looking very much like the desktop/laptop market, i.e., niche market for Apple. The idea that using the console model for an entirely 1st party device is a form of antitrust abuse never existed prior to 2020.
Because YOU were using the term. I'm not hung up on it; you're misusing it. And now you want to simply move on. Got it.
But then, you DON'T want to move on. You want to call it "the spirit of monopoly" because apparently, you and the EU don't like to be specific in your use of language and laws. I see how that works 😉
WarmWinterHat
Suspended
That's already the case. Apple has a legally separate business entity in Europe, Apple Distribution International Ltd. headquartered in Ireland.
They buy their products from (US) Apple Inc., and sell them in the EU and around Europe. Apple services are re-sold via ADI in Europe.
Last edited by a moderator:
bcortens
macrumors 65816
The decisions and opinions of citizens who choose to elect and talk to government representatives to regulate companies that have an impact on their daily lives matter more than those of the companies themselves.
The EU disagrees, the EU passed a law, traditional monopolies no longer matter in this case.
I've actually tried to spell out my position on what a better version of Apple would do in the other thread on this topic, it isn't a randomly held position but a considered one. I have tried to consider what would be best for Apple and its developers, as well as the regulatory risks involved in various approaches. I care very little for whether or not the DMA is respecting traditional market economic definitions of monopoly because even in traditional market economics single companies could seldom determine success of entrants to entire markets.
It's fine to charge a fee on the app store. That's Apple's store, and it costs money to review, host and take payment for apps. It's also fine to make a profit on services you provide. I never said otherwise. The issue until this spring was that Apple's store was the only place apps could sourced from, and is 100% controlled by Apple, the lawmaker for iOS. This is perfectly analogous to a retail store controlled by the state under communism. You wanted to bring up retail stores, I'm just pointing out the shoe that fits. Yes they "allow" other stores now. I'll get to that.
Onto Windows. Yes, you can make the argument that "someone" is always paid to host software. The question I asked you was whether it would be ok if that "someone" was always Microsoft? Amazon Web Services is not Microsoft. Valve is not Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't get a cut of all software sales on Windows, nor would it be acceptable to for Microsoft to get a cut of all software sales in a market that large (and iOS is just as big). Microsoft gets a cut on sales from their app store, but not from other companies app stores.
In Apples model, Apple always gets a cut (no matter who is hosting the app to be installed) and they are working really hard to keep it that way. While they now "allow" third party stores in the EU because regulations require them to, those stores still have to pay Apple a commission on all their sales....
Third party stores can either use apple payment processors where Apple will take 30% for themselves, or the third party stores can use their own payment processor, but then pay Apple a 17% commission on all their sales. If they fail to give Apple its cut, they can no longer distribute apps on iOS. This is still in line with how communist states act when they allow "independent" operators to open a store, either for a function they don't want to manage or to quell discontent.
In other words, Apple wants 17% for apps they aren't reviewing, hosting, or taking payment for. They continue to operate like a gatekeeper despite the EU law regulating them to act otherwise.
*Note on percentages. Apple has a ton of carveouts they've made over the years, either to cater to large businesses they need on the app store in order to sell phones, to meet local regulations, or in the hopes of avoiding anti-trust regulation. For example, the 17% that Apple takes for doing nothing is "only" 10% if the store qualifies as a "small business". When speaking of the App Store generally, I will use 30% as that's the universally understood fee and the fee Apple would charge on everything if they could (including physical goods -- there's transcripts to this effect).
The EU has never provided proof that the App Store was bad for developers. The reality is that developers chose to create apps for iOS because it turned out to be the most commercially viable platform for mobile. It's no different than game developers choosing to create games for Windows and not for Mac because Windows is the most commercially viable platform for their games. They don't say "Windows and Mac are both open systems so we have to launch the game on both platforms". That's one of the things that is so flawed about the EUs reasoning per iOS and the App Store.
bcortens
macrumors 65816
You didn't like the word gatekeeper, I tried to explain why the word gatekeeper was created by pointing out that the abuse of the powers of a monopoly are the problem not the existence of a monopoly. Apple has effectively the powers of a monopoly in that they can dictate the success of apps, that is what matters. Not whether or not Apple is a monopoly.
I am being specific. I have reiterated several times that it is the power to determine success which is why Apple is deemed a gatekeeper and is in the crosshairs, their market power is enormous irrespective of their market share.
EU citizens didn't vote exclusively on the DMA. Democratic elections are always much more complex than trying to say "this party won, so that's what the people want!"
I actually believe that Apple can play hardball in the EU because more citizens love their Apple products than love the DMA. At least that's a calculation that I think Apple should make.
Fine. Then stop trying to say that "gatekeeper" is "monopoly like."
I agree that the EU can foolishly use no standards to craft random laws to regulate 6 foreign companies. But I do not accept it is a good or moral or rational law.
Apple is doing just fine without your input.
Fair enough. I’m of the opinion that the EU and the US governments both aren’t responsive enough (largely on account of being too centralized and top heavy). Far better 99.9999% of the time to make decisions closer to the people impacted by those decisions, in my opinion. (For instance, should the federal government really be funding major public transportation infrastructure in NYC, just because NYC’s the largest city? There isn’t that much difference between the billions spent on the East Side Access project* and the bridge to nowhere in Alaska in the grand scheme of things.)
I’m a decentralist, and the EU is inherently a centralizing force, so I’m always going to have a core philosophical issue with the EU. That really can’t be helped, I suppose. It would be one thing if the EU limited it to truly international scale issues in Europe, but it wants to be a general European government. I’d rather have more powers devolved to the national governments of Europe (or even the regional governments) than concentrated in the hands of the EU. And that’s even without getting into issues of how technocratic and non-democratic the EU is. Very little of EU policy is up to direct vote by MEPs, and, even then, how much say do constituents really have in the election of their MEPs? (I live in a place where my political vote is basically a drop in a bucket in a sea of single party voters, but that was true before I lived here, too. That can feel very disenfranchising, I don’t feel like my elected officials would even listen to a single word I say, because, to be honest, they don’t need my vote.)
* I say this despite notionally being a beneficiary of the East Side Access project, incidentally. Very few Americans stand to directly or indirectly benefit from it, since most aren’t ever gonna fly to JFK and take the AirTrain then the LIRR into Manhattan, anymore than they’ll benefit from a mile of four lane blacktop out in Wyoming or Montana).
bcortens
macrumors 65816
I bolded part, the fact that it is the most commercially viable is why they are being regulated, there is no real choice anymore. If you want success as an App dev, you have to be on iOS.
Enough devs (even if it was big devs like MS, Spotify and Epic) complained to the EU that Apples practices were bad, Spotify even won a few court cases over Apple's behaviour. I would argue that constitutes at least some evidence that the Appstore has bad practices for devs. Small devs like Steve Troughton Smith and Marco Arment have also been complaining about the practices.
Most small devs can't afford to annoy Apple because of Apple's power, perhaps they should form some kind of Union and use that collective bargaining to force Apple to behave more reasonably.
Most small devs don't want to annoy Apple, since small devs earn more money on the IOS platform than on any other platform. This idea that devs are upset is a wholly manufactured myth by the big companies that are the true beneficiaries of the DMA.
This is political speak to be talking about small developers and consumers. The DMA is about geopolitical powers and large corporations.
It's analogous to the console model. The hardware and OS are both 1st party and the 1st party controls the rules for what software can appear on the platform. If consumers don't like the hardware/OS then it's not a viable platform commercially and app developers will look elsewhere for places to release their apps.
They are clear. It will become crystal clear to Apple also once the EU starts punishing them with fines.
bcortens
macrumors 65816
Devs can't look elsewhere though, not realistically anyway.
iOS has become too successful, and yes part of that is the App Store, however it is now at the point where devs can't realistically choose not to be on iOS if they want to be successful.
It is a problem of collective action, the critical mass of devs needed to leave iOS to make it an optional platform is just too high.
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
It's long past time for mega corps who continue to make a mockery of rules and regulations ... to get punished
I have no clue at all why normal people are running interference on this
It does not benefit you to have corporations running wild, drunk with power
It doesn't even benefit shareholders in the long run.
We should all want an Apple that is forced to compete, grind, actually innovate and win on the merits.
That benefits everyone, even Apple
Rent seeking and monopolizing is lazy business that leads to subpar "everything"
I have no clue at all why normal people are running interference on this
It does not benefit you to have corporations running wild, drunk with power
It doesn't even benefit shareholders in the long run.
We should all want an Apple that is forced to compete, grind, actually innovate and win on the merits.
That benefits everyone, even Apple
Rent seeking and monopolizing is lazy business that leads to subpar "everything"
This x 1000
So often political parties will take a 0.1% lead as a mandate to enforce every plank of their platform, never mind that often, voters are voting for them just because “they aren’t the other guy” (and will vote for their opponents next time because “they aren’t the other guy”). It seems like the radicals control every party, despite being less than 1% of the population.
It’s interesting that Irish people in Northern Ireland tend to vote based on matters of economy and day to day life more than Orange vs Green. That is, they’ll vote for Ulster parties if they think the Ulster party will improve the economy but will vote for an Irish party instead if they’re upset with how the Ulsters have been handling things. Even in that scenario, it’s everyday people who vote and decide elections, but the bluster of the radicals of trying to make every run of the mill election into some major referendum is absurd.
No law that requires a company to follow "the spirt of the law" is clear. Any governing philosophy that thinks an idea like "the spirit of the law" rather than "the letter of the law" is an exercise in biased and unreliable enforcement.
That any of you think this is a good idea cracks me up. It's like governing 101; it has to be a reliable standard or it's simply chaos.
WarmWinterHat
Suspended
Spirit of the Law has existed for hundreds (if not thousands) of years longer than Letter of the law.