IOS is among the most lucrative development markets in the history of the world. DEVS are making more money on IOS than on any other platform.
Again, the myth that this is all about small devs is silly.
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
IOS is among the most lucrative development markets in the history of the world. DEVS are making more money on IOS than on any other platform.
Again, the myth that this is all about small devs is silly.
bcortens
macrumors 65816
If the DMA was a big enough deal parties might campaign on repealing it, they don't.
I have my doubts that this would work. Threatening to pull out is not a realistic bluff because the shareholders would revolt.
It is though, monopoly isn't a magic word that automatically means that it is target of regulation, it depends on the powers that the monopoly has and whether or not they are abusing those powers.
You complained that I had a random opinion, I don't, I gave a rather considered one, your flinging it aside doesn't mean it is less considered. I don't think Apple is doing fine in the Eu right now, we shall see just how not-fine they are doing based on the fines levelled.
As if "rules and regulations" are some golden standard that will lead us all to the promised land. Please. Stop with this reductive nonsense.
Again with the 'monopoly" nonsense. And as for rent seeking, I've read Piketty too 😉
And went away when it became obvious that is an unreliable standard. "Spirit of the law" is like biblical interpreation. Modern democracies should have moved on from it long ago.
WarmWinterHat
Suspended
It never went away. Even the US still uses it.
Traffic laws are a good example.
Last edited by a moderator:
hooptyuber
macrumors 6502
And because of that Windows has always been notoriously riddled with viruses and malware. There's an obvious reason for Apple's walled garden - security - and that has been a big contributor to Apple's tremendous success. All Apple products are far more protected from viruses and malware than Windows and Android are.
Exactly my point. I seriously doubt that most citizen in the EU even understand what the DMA is. Because for now, they see zero reason for or benefit from it. But if Apple plays hardball on it, I think they have more support than the DMA. People love their iPhones. They have no investment nor receive any benefit from the DMA.
And the citizesn would revolt against the EU commisioners if Apple played hard ball. Leaving isn't the only way to do that. Apple could announce a significant price increase, and advertise the reasons for that increase.
Ah, so again, you want to keep calling it "monopoly-like" 🙂 It's not, and your argument suffers every time you use the idea.
You and others keep saying that Apple could never leave the EU because they make too much money there. So which is it? Apple is doing fine or Apple is not doing fine?
Pointing to silly EU regulations as though this is some big weight on Apple is silly.
Yeah sure. Once the fines start coming, things will become clear to Apple as well as you. That is the reason the fines can be upto 5% of global turnover per day that Apple is non-compliant. That comes to nearly a billion USD per day. Apple will understand the letter as well as the spirit of the law clearly and quickly.
Jackbequickly
Suspended
‘Yep and that IS the problem . . . . .
Cross platform development is pretty much the standard these days and iOS always had more than one approach that developers could user per their apps anyway. Spotify was an early adopter of the App Store and only allowed their free ad-supported version of the app on the App Store. That allowed them to keep 100% of the revenue that they generated from advertising and premium subscriptions. Epic originally created Fortnite for consoles and Windows PCs. Porting it to iOS and Android later on was done to maximize revenue as both platforms combined were about 12% of their total revenue from the game.
So you've got two of the most prominent developers that have complained about Apple's practices and neither one of them was harmed by Apple's console style approach to iOS/iPhone. Spotify had a way around paying Apple any money at all right from the start and Epic viewed iOS as much further down the priority list than consoles/Windows.
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
But it’s letter of the law that’s codified. Also, spirit of the law gets abused, as well. In the US, the spirit of constitutional law is to limit excessive government power (the whole regulatory apparatus flies in the face of that, and much of the COVID response violated letter of the law - ie restrictions on first amendment rights to protest or to gather for religious functions - as well as spirit of the law). Unfortunately, both terms tend to get used and abused to suit the momentary needs of the people in power. Enforcing letter of the law instead of spirit is a core protection against abuse of power on the part of governments.
In the United States, no one knows exactly what’s a felony crime. Part of the problem is the size of the US Code, but it gets worse once regulatory law is applied. It’s impossible to know what’s a criminal act because these regulations are shifting sands (changing on the will of unelected bureaucrats and political appointees) and aren’t gathered in a central register (and, if they were, they’d be too large to be read, they’d be write only laws). Letter of the law is what’s enforceable because spirit of the law is too vague, it’s like a bad teacher playing a game of “guess the answer I’m thinking of”. We have written law for a reason, it’s a protection against government abuse. (And spirit of the law often tortures the definition of letter of the law to twist it 180°. The USSR had constitutional protections for religious freedom and freedom of speech, but clearly that’s not the law the regime enforced.)
Spirit of the law interpretation is a one-way ticket to government malfeasance and corruption. When the force of the law can simply decide what the law means or doesn't mean, then law has no basis in anything that is reliable. Good luck with that standard.
Look, can the Eu act like a thug? Can the EU blackmail Apple? Of course.
But Apple has cards to play as well. If you don't think they do, you're delusional.
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
There's simply no way to write out every possible situation and permutation -- spirit of legislation always has been and always will be part of the consideration.
It has to be -- as one can't codify every little unforeseen edge case and potential nuance.
Apple knew full well what they were doing when they tried to "comply" but make sure they still got paid exactly the same amount of money.
To me they should be punished HARD for that type of behavior.
It's actively and intentionally malicious
WarmWinterHat
Suspended
My wife is a attorney and deals with these constantly. Spirit of the law is extremely common with lower charges.
For example, you can get an OWI while sitting behind the wheel of an autonomous vehicle, even though the law says operating said vehicle. At the time, the computer was "operating" the car, not the person, but it doesn't matter. Many lawyers have tried and failed to use this, but the courts always follow the spirit of the law. The letter of the law hasn't been changed in my state.
I'm not going to dig into more specifics, because it's not my field and I'm not going to bug her for more examples, but a quick consult with her says that spirit of the law is alive and well and is brought up in many of not most criminal cases.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is a long read but it talks about spirit and the letter of the law. All courts, especially the European courts, focus on the spirit of the law. If there is a law and Apple says it does not understand the intent of the law, then it is Apple's problem. Mere words will not explain the intent of the law to Apple because whatever explanation the EU gives, Apple will interpret it to its advantage. When will Apple stop this and start adhering to the intent of the law? When they are afraid of fines that can pile up so that it does not have the option to use time wasting tactics. That is why most countries are opting for ex ante regulation. Also, that is the reason why more than half a dozen countries are bringing laws that are similar. The writing is on the wall for Apple. It is up to Apple whether it sees the writing and adjusts its behavior to get ahead of it or get broken up.
I agree with you, but I wouldn't even make the concession on the term gatekeeper. The tech industry didn't make up the word, it's been a word for a very long time. They are guards placed at a gate that provides access to an area that is otherwise walled off. Obviously "walled" digital markets are new because digital markets themselves are new. Apple's been said to operate a wall garden since basically the beginning of the iPhone however.
Walled gardens have gates, and with the iPhone, Apple is the keeper of said gate. By using the gatekeeper as the term for the thing they are regulating, the EU just called something by its name.
Spotify wanted to have their cake and eat it, too. They wanted the subscription visibility of an in-app purchase (as well as users’ trust in Apple’s approach to in-app purchases) but didn’t want to pay Apple’s fees for App Store in-app purchases.
Then again, Spotify made so many bad money decisions that they’ve dug their own grave. They severely undervalued their own product by introducing an ad supported tier that does 95% of what people want out of Spotify, then they further undervalued it by trying to cross-promote bundles with every other streaming provider under the sun. Then there’s the whole matter of discriminatory pricing in the third world. Spotify’s whole business strategy was clearly 1) get a bunch of users, 2) find a company to acquire them, and 3) profit. Flaws to that plan? They focused too much on user acquisition and too little on profitability, then they raised too much VC money that overinflated their market capitalization (no one was going to acquire Spotify for the amount they’d been valued at). Finally, they got too into bed with the EU, which would make them a poisoned fruit for any US tech firm to purchase. (Can you imagine the EU regulatory pressure a US firm looking to acquire Spotify would be placed under?)
Right. And it is through this that bias and personal animus is introduced into the legal framework. It is this attitude that allows police officers and prosecutors to incriminate minority populations at rates much higher than average.
As I say, it's a terrible standard.
I'm well aware of the practice. I think it's a terrible practice.
Well, then. That settles it. Walled gardens have gates. Perfectly clear legal standard.
/s
hooptyuber
macrumors 6502
Yes, it's so much better to have governments running wild, drunk with power. Government power is enforced by police, military, imprisonment - by the barrel of a gun. Yeah, let's give them more power. Daddy Government is always right. Sure, it's better to live under a tyranny than let Apple take a percentage from app developers.
The amount of submissive, servile, boot-licking on this forum pledged toward governments is absolutely mind boggling.
Implying that shareholders haven't benefitted from Apple's policies is particularly ludicrous considering their stock price just hit an all-time high.
Forced to compete? “Grind”? Apple was nearing bankruptcy in 1997 when Jobs returned. He and Apple went on to invent the smart phone as we now know it and have been market leaders ever since. They've competed and innovated very very well while few others have been able to challenge them on their products' merits.
DaPhox
macrumors 6502
So any government can make up a new meaning of a word & youll happily go for it? Use common sense & consequent thinking & dont be easily fooled. Do you by any chance happen to know what ”mono” means?
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
What you advocating for?
We can't write one set of rules, one single time, that work "forever"
The world changes .. technology moves along .. actors start acting differently .. preferences of a citizenry adjust with more information ... definitions and laws have to change too
Rules could have been written about this space when the iPhone launched in 2007 and they'd be wildly out of date and inadequate today
Governing bodies "govern" ... and that involves updates and changes as things move along
Corporations have to adjust to that ... or refrain from selling in said market
End of story
Nobody is forcing Apple to keep selling in the EU (or any other jurisdiction)