Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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?

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Rules could have been written about this space when the iPhone launched in 2007 and they'd be wildly out of date and inadequate today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)
 
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

Rules could have been written about this space when the iPhone launched in 2007 and they'd be wildly out of date and inadequate today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
So…. Do you know what ”mono” means?
 
I personally don’t plan on side loading apps. But at what point is Apple just going to have to open up iOS to be like macOS where I can download any app I wanted from any source without Apple involvement.

That was the intent of the regulation, I think. Not those "alternate app stores".

And yes. I want the option to side load too. Not to be able to get IAP fests from Epic's own store.

Don't know what it would be useful for now, but I'm sure useful apps will show up in time.
 
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.
Well to make a funny remark regarding the democratic vote for the DMA, it might surprise you.
When the vote happened we had 705 MEP in parliament

The Digital Services Act was adopted with 539 votes in favour, 54 votes against and 30 abstentions. Total 622

The Digital Markets Act – with 588 in favour, 11 votes against and 31 abstentions. Total 630
IMG_5397.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lyrics23
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.
Seems quite the stretch to call enacting laws for fair markets “tyranny.”
 
So what does it mean?
It means EU doesn’t have a law regarding monopolies and is therefore mute.

Eu targets dominant companies that have a abused their position.
In United Brands, the Court of Justice of the European Union provided the following legal definition of dominance under Article 102 TFEU:​
“a position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enables it to prevent effective competition being maintained on the relevant market by affording it the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumers.”​
Dominance is a legal requirement to establish an abuse of a dominant position. Dominance reflects possession of a substantial degree of durable market power, typically defined as power to price above competitive levels, power to exclude, and ability to act independently of competitors and consumers.​
While direct evidence may be used to prove dominance, the most common approach is the assessment of market shares and entry barriers within a defined relevant market. Having a dominant position is not in itself a violation of competition law, but it is necessary for a finding of abuse. Dominance is not part of US antitrust law, which instead requires possession of monopoly power.
Here you can read more https://www.concurrences.com/en/dictionary/dominance-notion
 
It means EU doesn’t have a law regarding monopolies and is therefore mute.

Eu targets dominant companies that have a abused their position.
Dominance is a legal requirement to establish an abuse of a dominant position. Dominance reflects possession of a substantial degree of durable market power, typically defined as power to price above competitive levels, power to exclude, and ability to act independently of competitors and consumers.​
While direct evidence may be used to prove dominance, the most common approach is the assessment of market shares and entry barriers within a defined relevant market. Having a dominant position is not in itself a violation of competition law, but it is necessary for a finding of abuse. Dominance is not part of US antitrust law, which instead requires possession of monopoly power.
Here you can read more https://www.concurrences.com/en/dictionary/dominance-notion
You just posted word salad to deceive you, which is the whole point. Haha. This forum is UNBELIEVABLE. Cant make this up! What does ”mono” mean?
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
So much anti DMA nonsense goes on here.

What scares me is the mentality of some of the posts that clearly show willingness to transfer their property rights over to the likes Apple ... to the point that actually offer their children for free to be gun down in pointless wars to defend something that its not theirs. It's all around here in peoples posts, read it. All while word hitting people that are actually standing for fundamental property rights that are being attacked yet should be present in a fully digital world.

You don't really own one thing unless you are able to sell it strictly according to state laws. If to sell it, you need the approval from another company. Heck if it’s not even yours to SELL as per state laws but by someone else laws how is it yours? As far as property ownership goes you would live in a virtual experience mate.

Apple supplies you, let's say, some material for you to build your thing. In return, they require you to perpetually hand over the cash register of what you have created to them. Otherwise live your product, your clients, behind. Let me tell you a thing ... Apple itself would never agree with such a deal, Steve Jobs would never agree with such a deal for Apple when building the iPhone ... Imagine in the beginning Apple suppliers proposing such deals for their materials to be used in the iPhone. Why? Well probably because they are way smarter then most posters around here. The fully understand the principle above.

It's a deal based on property transfer. I provide you with the materials, you build it, you transfer the property to me for cashing purposes, I cash it and hand over to you 70%-85% of the cash. Furthermore, I may change what I give you in cash anytime. You do not like it? Bit it.

Why do you think Apple stocks are going up?

Still this kind of deals happen. It's ok to happen in small scale as it does not affect anyones but the ones in play. But at a large scale is a mass property transfer scheme that put into jeopardy the entire notion of property and other rights, economies, over which the Democracies are built.

The devs around here defending this practice look way less smart than they think they are. At least when it comes to the world they are defending to their children. Basically they want to be turned and payed like Musicians. Because what is being implemented is a mandatory agency model, not only for software, but any service that makes use of software. How much money do actually musicians get with this model? I heard not much at all ... maybe you can start jamming code in the subway in 2 or 3 decades if this ideas goes through.

Correction: You would really need to be a very poor musician to accept such a deal. I supply you with say just a Guitar and whatever music you make with it, I hold the cash register. Oh, but this guitar does not emit any sound without speaker ... oh can sell that to you. Sounds good?

How have we reached to this state of affairs in terms of business perception for the general population? Simple, by doing this with one hand in the back and with the other hand reaching not you, but your clientes, the ones that come to listen to you, with a "magical" device, say a "magical speaker". Oh, let’s not forget the constante play on your own and everyone’s insecurities ... Security and Privacy.

Simply put, this mass property transfer scheme built on top of software and hardware might be ok for the US population. With the recent Capitol invasion kind looked more latin like America then the United States of America I knew. I was honestly shocked. But given the anti gov show here it's not surprising. But will not happen in the EU.

I understand that some of you around here may be shareholders. Ive read some accusing the EU of being corrupt. Come on, just state that in a disclaimer. But wait ... if this grows in an America ... next is your property. Heck, maybe a future Apple will only sell their stock through the App Store, after all they have created the stock, and then require you give them back your cash register on such stocks, no need for SEC or anything like that ... and call this ... disruptive innovation.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
What scares me is the mentality of some of the posts that clearly show willingness to transfer their property right over to the likes Apple

It's insanity, I totally agree

I'm not convinced those defending this have thought about the logical conclusions of accepting this reality

It does not end well, nor in the favor of normal "people", and certainly not in favor of Devs who basically become slaves to corporate whims
 
It's not even legal gymnastics.

The Law is just poorly thought out and written, with almost zero understanding about technology and what goes into an OS to make it secure and functional. APIs, Private keys, server side technology, Access to the file system, photos messages etc. Hell even FaceTime, and FaceID/TouchId All of which the EU seem to think companies should be able to use freely without understanding how.

It's just utterly inept. Written by dozens of committees with barely any tech knowledge and talking at cross purposes sometimes.

Don't get me wrong I agree with some of it. Internet Gatekeepers should be watched. But also companies should be paid for their technology that they developed. Epic for example just want access to the Billion potential clients for free. They wrapped it up in Free market BS... but they stand to make Billions $$$...
Epic could have done what Scopely do. In app purchases and link to an epic account where you purchase through the site.
 
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).

Apple makes money from people and developers that’s it. Microsoft AWS Alphabet etc make money from corps. I mean you can pretty much get Windows for free and Microsoft doesn’t care they get money from SQL, Windows Server, Azure etc. Apple has none of that. If Apple doesn’t get money from developers they have the option to get money from end users and that’s not gonna cut it to continue being a leading smartphone.

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"

Apple makes money because it’s popular and it gets money from making a place the world wants to be. If Apple was gone tomorrow people magically think a bunch of tiny companies are gonna pop up and have every App Apple has over decades. Apple either gets money from developers or people. Saying mega corps owe Apple nothing and thinking Apple will continue to be able to provide something of value doesn’t make sense.

I don’t want to get to the point where everything is extremely fragmented. Oh store xyz takes these three apps nfc payments and nothing else because they are the cheapest. The ecosystem that’s exists today is because there are big players saying 50% of people use this I need to support it. In this magical world where there are no big players fragmentation will be forever rampant. Oh your traveling? Here is the 20 apps that need your information. Oh you like/need apps here are the 80 app stores that need to store payment information to have those apps. Oh your card got compromised you need to update 80 stores. PayPal, Apple Pay, Google wallet are big so they are generally accepted. Break them up and suddenly everything is its own bubble it’s not as great as people make it out to be.
 
The European laws aren't about apple customer rights. They are about businesses being limited in various ways within dominant platforms.

The EC isn't saying the DMA compliance is insufficient because they did a street poll of iPhone users. They are fielding complaints from European developers who say Apple's changes still leave them frustrated.

Treating Spotify as an example: why should I care about whether they are taking credit card numbers in the application vs opening a browser? Would the option to take them in-app without any payment to Apple have convinced Spotify to not do their last two price increases? Will they roll those prices back down if they get the ability take credit card #s in-app?
Disagree with you on the first two paragraphs. Developers get crushed by AAPL. Now, I agree that Spotify is horrible for musicians and the public.

But most developers don't act like Spotify, and they deserve to not be crushed by AAPL. I think Tim needs to look at how to make all stakeholders happy not just his shareholders.
 
It's a no-brainer. The $0.50 CTF was completely non-compliant. Anybody with half a brain who read the text of the DMA knows this.

It's clear Apple wants to take this to the courthouse rather than legitimately abide by EU rules. I get it, Apple hates sideloading and alternative app stores because they lose that 30% cut. If Apple wants to play in the EU, they have to abide by the law.

Nope. It's not. Not legally. The Eu are incapable of writing laws without mutliple committees and it ends up a mess... which it is.

The flip is that OTHER appstores wan to make money by providing nothing at all to the users or the developer. I am a developer and happy to pay my 15% ( I'd like to get to the 30% level ). I have a potential 1 Billion customers provided by apple with a huge API library, support, storage for 15%... When it was on disk I got no back up, huge costs making and distributing media and retail took half straight off.... where wa the the EU then... oh yeah backing the Retailers. not the creators.

Make no doubts that Epic and others are purely in it for the Free ride. I say screw them.. Let them have it for free... they just cannot use ANY Advanced APIs. The EU can't command Apple to release Open source.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.