This fantasy that the EU can do anything it wants and that Apple and its shareholders will just accept it is a fiction you're spinning. Apple has power in this fight too. The EU is not untouchable.
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
This fantasy that the EU can do anything it wants and that Apple and its shareholders will just accept it is a fiction you're spinning. Apple has power in this fight too. The EU is not untouchable.
I think it has problems, but I like where the DMA is headed and I, a shareholder and consumer, support it.
Why? I think it's the right thing to do, and I think it will increase Apple's market share and profit in the long-term.
Which only shows how much of a mess "the spirit of the law" arguments are. You're giving a government the power to essentially decide without any checks and balances what the "spirit of the law" is.
It's like the telephone game, where you whisper a saying in someone's ear, they have to whisper it to the next and so on. It creates nonsense.
It's a utopian dream that I place no faith in.
The idea that the EU Can do anything without repercussions is pure fantasy.
That should be the gold standard. The MacOS security model is resilient and flexible.
The idea that Apple can operate their business as they wish and without repercussions is pure fantasy.
No it can't do anything it wishes, but in the case, the can and will.
Apple is free to leave if they don't like it.
I clearly concede that the EU can make a mess in whatever way it chooses to. I grant that they have the power to pass laws that Apple must deal with.
I just don't share your fantasy that the EU knows what it is doing.
Yes IT IS a fantasy a company can run its business as it pleases? You make it sound like a good thing?
Yes, because "as it pleases" is run rough-shod over everyone, increase prices, reduce competition, to win at all costs and eliminate competition, with zero conscious. The market suffers and consumers suffer.
Society, citizens and healthy fair competition (should) come before business interest. Businesses operate at the pleasure of the populace.
I don't trust the government, but I trust corporations far less.
There is ample history you can read to learn all the problems with that over the years
Regulation was borne out of necessity to protect other parties and create a market where competition can exist
Every market has regulations. Obviously. But reducing this discussion down to regulate or don't regulate is Reductio Ad Absurdum.
Regulation can go much too far. Which I believe to be the case with the DMA.
What would you propose or accept as sensible regulation then?
What's your point here? Apple is a $3 trillion company and has $65 billion in spare change (cash and cash equivalents on hand). They are ridiculously fine. They don't need App Store revenue either.
Third party apps have enabled Apple to sell literal billions of devices that they wouldn't have been able to sell without an app market. They make gobs of money from hardware (highest margins in the industry) and their first party services (iCloud, Apple music). They can choose to branch out into other industries if they want. Microsoft being more diversified is not a justification for anything.
My point is pretty simple: there's no justification for why Apple should ever feel entitled to a cut of every single digital transaction in a market with 2 billion active devices in it, and we certainly don't have to let them get it. They made their profit on the devices already, the app store revenue is literally the gravy on top. You're honestly just arguing against your own best interests, even you don't see it.
The success of the iPhone isn't down to the how it handles the app installation. It was successful before the App Store was even a thing.
Therefore ALL regulations are necessary? I can think of at least dozens of them which are not. Probably even hundreds given time….
interesting how many comments here speak of a brain washed attitude. It shows how big corp like Apple controls people opinions and beliefs wholeheartedly, especially in the USA. Similarities to religions are not far fetched anymore.
So far as I can tell, most of those fines toward Google are still locked into appeals.
And given that Apple successfully appealed the Irish Tax issue, whose to say wherein the success lies.
...but even more importantly than any of that are the unknown long-term effects of the steps the EU is taking. Winning at implementing the DMA is not winning in the long term. That's yet to be seen.
First, you don't go after the company that has 23% marketshare if you want to increase competition to the market leader. That's just silly.
Regulation can also go not far enough. Which I believe to be the case before the DMA.
It's this attitude, that Government should decide not only for companies, but for consumers, what practices are good or not. As it stands now, Apple only has a 23% marketshare. And there has been no proof that Apple is harming the market in any way. Indeed, if you want more competition, you'd let Apple work to eat away at Google who has an overwhelming marketshare.
The idea that you are going to decide what a business in a healthy market should or shouldn't do is silly. And why I find all of you arm-chair CEO's to be ridiculous.
The government have always had that power considering they are the one who writes the law that later gets interpreted by the courts.
The commission can enforce the laws under judicial review. The commission isn’t able to impact the court. The spirit of the law is the stated goal and intention that is written in it( the preamble) as Wel as what the foundational principles of EU is and the mission statement it must push for.
As well as connected laws and what they entail.
The Court of justice is the only ones who can create judicial precedent of how things are interpreted.
Its not utopian, it’s been successfully implemented for close to a 80 years now in EU and even longer in other European states.
As well as being heavily used to interpret international law, especially when it comes to treaties.
Spirit of the law= goal/intention of the law= legislative purpose of the law.
It’s really quite confounding that people are surprised or angry that the government has the ability to create and enforce new laws. Laws and regulations have been malleable and subject to change essentially as long as governments have existed. I imagine similar praises and complaints were discussed by folks in the U.S. in 1890 with the passing of the Sherman Act.