Sure...and that's the ideal situation for Apple. Dev what you want. But you can't use Xcode or any APIs apple crated or owns. Want an AR app.. No AR kit for you. Make it using the raw camera and sensor data.
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
Sure...and that's the ideal situation for Apple. Dev what you want. But you can't use Xcode or any APIs apple crated or owns. Want an AR app.. No AR kit for you. Make it using the raw camera and sensor data.
In the US, the Supreme Court in Oracle vs Google decided that APIs can't be locked down and can be freely used, with or without permission of the parent company.
They can also be copied and duplicated at will, again without any permission or notification required.
Last edited by a moderator:
A$$le makes money when they SELL an phone, as well as Microsoft selling a Windows copy.
A$$le makes money from their cloud services, as well as Microsoft selling their cloud services.
Too complex for you?
So, the global revenue would be based on only that company. Far smaller hit to Apple.
EU won't fall for that. They can count it however they like, and likely count the entity plus it's parent company and all subsidiaries since Apple Inc. owns 100% of the European entity.
Apple also shifts a lot of US profit into their European entity for tax reasons, and lists profit globally.
Just use whatever number Apple shares with the public: "Worldwide revenue is X"
I am not reading through all that BS, but what if Apple just decided to release new stuff absolutely last in the EU? Concentrate on markets that do not seem to have an issue with the way Apple operates and then once everything is off and going in those markets, then release the "special needs" devices to the EU.
I’m curious what would happen if Apple were to do this. Would Apple leave the EU and be back in six months after public outcry from people who can no longer access their Apple devices/services? This may be a way of getting the public to side with Apple and force the EU to change its stance.
What would happen is they would get sued in the US for screwing over shareholders, and Apple would lose, badly. The board would be gone, Tim would be gone, and the new executives would reopen the market.
That's leadership malpractice and could open them up to criminal charges.
A really great point about why EU perhaps chose worldwide revenue
Let Apple play all the tax evasion tricks it would like -- no need to worry about it here with a simple fine structure
You're describing Chief Executive malpractice
Complying with regulations is the only play
Samsung will just copy them if they do, and bribe the EU to keep going after them. How do we know that's not why all this started in the first place? lol
Wouldn't it depend on the profitability. Let's not overlook that the changes to the App Store that the DMA is requiring will lower Apple's profitability. And with potential fines, it may make sense for them to leave. If the EU makes 7% of Apples profit and Apple is being fined 5% of its revenue. Apple will be losing $$ in the EU.
The alternative, and what shareholders would (likely) argue in court, is that if Apple had followed the law, there would be no fine whatsoever. They would lose potential profit by leaving, and that's all that really matters as they would be no reason other than taking their ball and going home; there is no legitimate legal reason.
It's still an option.
Don't forgot that Japan is now requiring an open ecosystem, too and alternate app stores. Are they going to leave Japan for the same reason? Apple has over 60% there. India is talking about it, as well.
Pretty soon, there will be no where left to leave.
Last edited by a moderator:
whenever this topic comes up, I see a lot of people arguing that apple is not following the “spirit” or the “intent” of the law. guys, we know that’s not how laws work right??? legally, “malicious compliance” is still compliance. if apple follows the law to the letter, but the EU is not happy with the implementation, that means they didn’t make the law specific enough or close all the loopholes. which is their own fault, lol. i can’t sue somebody because i didn’t like the spirit of how they talked to me unless they committed an actual crime
Spirit of the Law is absolutely a thing, is often brought up and enforced, in the EU, US, and elsewhere. The example my wife, an attorney, gave me was getting an OWI in a self-driving car. The law says you can't "operate" the vehicle under the influence (hence Operating While Intoxicated). Well, if self-driving was activated, you aren't operating the vehicle, the computer is. Guess what? The court doesn't care that you're not violating the letter of the law, and you will be convicted because you were violating the spirit. It's especially common in European courts.
Letter of the law is how it's written. Spirit of the law is the reasoning why it was enacted. Courts can and will follow the reasoning.
Another example is the shift in the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution in the spirit of the authors, not in the literal text.
Last edited by a moderator:
Childish to spend billions building and promoting and supporting your product and being forced to give it away to competitors with no compensation. That’s exactly what steering is. It like Walmart being forced to allow Target to setup a table inside Walmart giving out Target coupons to customers willing to turn around and go to their store instead.
Incorrect and particularly mistaken in this situation which is fluid and rules are being actively crafted and tweaked to accomplish the "spirit" the EU is looking for here.
Apple aren't dumb
They have been seeing what they can get away with, not working to make changes to comply with what the EU is looking to accomplish (more actual competition)
The EU isn't amused and I don't blame them
Apple is wasting a lot of everyones time
Eu have 26 legal languages. If you follow only the letter of the law you won’t get far. It’s very important to follow the spirit of the law and understand its intention. Being Strictly textualist is unusable.
This is why EU relies heavily on teleological interpretation of law.
Definition of Teleological Interpretation
- Definition of Teleological Interpretation:
- Teleological interpretation is a method used by courts to interpret legislative provisions in light of their purpose, values, and goals.
- It is applied by European national constitutional courts, the European Court of Human Rights, and most notably, the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
- Significance in the EU Legal Order:
- Teleological interpretation is highly significant in the EU legal system.
- According to General Advocate Miguel Poiares Maduro, it goes beyond a mere purpose-driven interpretation of legal rules. Instead, it represents a systemic understanding of the entire EU legal order.
- Application by the ECJ:
- The ECJ uses teleological interpretation to achieve the objectives set by the Treaties, especially those related to greater integration.
- The Court considers not only the teleological interpretation of individual provisions but also their interpretation within the broader context of the EU legal order.
- Consideration of Multilingual Legislation:
- When interpreting community law, the ECJ takes into account that Community legislation is drafted in multiple languages.
- All language versions are equally authentic, and teleological interpretation helps avoid misconceptions arising from differences in language texts.
- ECJ Cases Illustrating Teleological Interpretation:
- In the “CILFIT case,” the ECJ emphasized that every provision of Community law should be interpreted in the context of EU law as a whole, considering its objectives and evolution.
- Another case demonstrating teleological interpretation is the van Gend en Loos case (C-26/62), where the ECJ established the principle of direct effect of Treaties in Member States’ legal orders based on teleological reasoning.
I'm not sure where the idea that the US is top heavy comes from. it's de-centralized to a fault. States have so much autonomy that they have to duplicate most of the federal functions, and state and local politics consistently get in the way of developing federal policy. The bloat is in the middle, not the top. It's biggest issue is money in politics though. For many things, it doesn't matter who you vote for because corporations are paying both sides anyway, and practically writing the laws themselves.
You may feel that the federal government shouldn't be subsidizing transit in NYC, but that's really better for everyone else than the alternative. Major cities consistently contribute more in tax revenue than they get back in funding. If that money stayed local, they'd have no problem building transit infrastructure. It's the rural infrastructure that wouldn't see funding.
The EU can only regulate big tech because they have centralized economic power to this extent, otherwise multi-national corps would walk all over them. I'm not versed enough to discuss how democratic it is, but the desire for a strong cohesive economic bloc arose from a real need.
Apple holds no control over my life but that which give them in the most limited fashion. I chose, freely, to buy and use their products. That's how a market works.
Apple has no police force, no courts, no governments to force me to choose them.
That you fear Apple on this issue and not the EU simply says you and I have radically different values. I'm good with my values, and don't concede any ground to your and yours relative to the moral or logical or ethical position I take on this issue.
Having worked in the legislative process, I don't equate representative votes and constituents feelings any where near a 1:1 relationship.
The point remains; I believe (I could be wrong) that more people in the EU love their Apple products than love or even care about the DMA. Apple has clout on this issue. To say it doesn't would be naive. To pretend that the EU commissioners hold all the cards is naive.
The outcry would be from Apples major shareholders.
The notion of Apple leaving a market the size of the EU is pure fantasy. They will poke the bear a bit, get slapped with a few huge fines and then will make adjustments until they are compliant. Just like Google did.
IOS has been among the most profound methods to generate revenue for developers. This idea that developers are angry with Apple in any significant numbers is a made up story that runs rampant here on MacRumors, and almost nowhere else.
iOS is unlike MacOS on purpose and the success of the iPhone proves that the market finds Apple's value proposition extremely, well, valuable
People have various ideologies that iOS shouldn't be the way it is, but its market success is proof that their value proposition isn't just self serving but that is has genuine value to its users.
Last edited:
Then stop equating the DMA as some godsend written by angels to do nothing but bless the masses.