Apple Has 'Very Serious' DMA Issues, EU to Enforce Rules 'Soon'

[Timo_Existencia]

Only by virtue of the fact that Apple is the only one doing what they’re doing.

This is simply not true. The biggest? Yes. But all sorts of businesses run a walled-garden approach. And not just in tech. McDonalds is a walled garden. The Gap is a walled garden.

There is nothing illegal or immoral about building a business on this model. Open systems are simply another way of doing business. This attempt to paint it as universally and obviously bad is a hacked-together talking point trying to fool unsuspecting readers of your opinions.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Other companies and their core platform services comply by (among other things) allowing installation of third-party apps. This is an obvious and verifiable fact.

Show me the EU law that says that a company must allow third party access to their store. If you're just referring to Android here, then duh. But there's nothing in EU law that mandates this universally.

 

[dampfnudel]

or a lot of EU residents would make a trip to UK and buy what they want... a boom for UK tourism.

I’m not so sure there would be a “boom” for the UK. There probably would be a boom for Android phones. Anyway, the only way Apple would leave the EU would be if Apple went out of business.

 

[Infinity Vortex]

This is simply not true. The biggest? Yes. But all sorts of businesses run a walled-garden approach. And not just in tech. McDonalds is a walled garden. The Gap is a walled garden.

Selling your own burgers or jeans isn’t a walled garden. There are no walls. I can eat McDonalds on Monday, Burger King on Tuesday, Culver’s on Wednesday, Steak ‘n Shake on Thursday, and so on, with no barriers to doing so. If I have an iPhone I can gets some apps from Apple, but yet if I want apps from someone not on the iOS store, I have to go buy another phone. That’s a huge barrier.

Similarly, say I’m an entertainment company wanting to have kids meals toys to promote my new movie. If I can’t come to agreeable terms with McDonalds I could go to Burger King or Wendy’s to try to strike a deal. Regardless of which restaurant I go with I can still reach the same public because as we’ve established above, the public is free to buy from any one of those places, or even all of them. There aren’t McDonalds or Gap customers in the way that there are Apple customers. The situations are not at all the same.

There is nothing illegal or immoral about building a business on this model. Open systems are simply another way of doing business. This attempt to paint it as universally and obviously bad is a hacked-together talking point trying to fool unsuspecting readers of your opinions.

Perhaps not in all cases or locations. This is incorrect for a company the size of Apple as determined by EU law that is in force.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Selling your own burgers or jeans isn’t a walled garden. There are no walls. I can eat McDonalds on Monday, Burger King on Tuesday, Culver’s on Wednesday, Steak ‘n Shake on Thursday, and so on, with no barriers to doing so. If I have an iPhone I can gets some apps from Apple, but yet if I want apps from someone not on the iOS store, I have to go buy another phone. That’s a huge barrier.

You just want to keep slicing it in a way that only applies to Apple; which is exactly my point. Several of you on here are claiming that walled garden business models (Gaming platforms, Spotify, Amazon.com, etc) are all variations on the theme.

IF Apple isn't providing a library of apps that are compelling to users, Apple would have a problem selling their phones. This idea that you must buy a new phone and it would be too prohibitive is simply a myth. People make phone buying decisions all the time. And Apple has to compete in that market place. This is a problem the market already accounts for.

Similarly, say I’m an entertainment company wanting to have kids meals toys to promote my new movie. If I can’t come to agreeable terms with McDonalds I could go to Burger King or Wendy’s to try to strike a deal. Regardless of which restaurant I go with I can still reach the same public because as we’ve established above, the public is free to buy from any one of those places, or even all of them. There aren’t McDonalds or Gap customers in the way that there are Apple customers. The situations are not at all the same.

No analogy is ever perfect. But walled garden models exist, and they aren't illegal in the EU. Apple's practices are not illegal excepting in the case of the randomly designated "gatekeeper" status.

 

[thewill586]

EU made laws to target US tech companies. They scoped it with the words, “digital market,” which means legacy market dynamics and also industries where the EU have a monopoly can’t be used for reference. So, all these posts about Target, Gap, and brick’n’mortar store fronts don’t matter.

EU is treating Apple differently. It is a comply or be fined. Instead of spending so much time drafting abstract laws, EU should just institute an additional tax on $1T companies’ EU-based revenues and earmark those funds for EU general expenses, EU tech start-up seed money, and EU tech subsidies (help spotify to increase market share).

 

[Infinity Vortex]

You just want to keep slicing it in a way that only applies to Apple; which is exactly my point. Several of you on here are claiming that walled garden business models (Gaming platforms, Spotify, Amazon.com, etc) are all variations on the theme.

Again it only applies to Apple today because they’re the only ones doing this at the scale are and with the impact that they have. If Google or MS were to try the same, they’d get smacked down too.

IF Apple isn't providing a library of apps that are compelling to users, Apple would have a problem selling their phones. This idea that you must buy a new phone and it would be too prohibitive is simply a myth. People make phone buying decisions all the time. And Apple has to compete in that market place. This is a problem the market already accounts for.

Compared to simply walking into McDonalds instead of Burger King, or vice-versa, it absolutely is.

No analogy is ever perfect.

Sure agreed. This analogy isn’t even in the same ballpark though.

But walled garden models exist, and they aren't illegal in the EU. Apple's practices are not illegal excepting in the case of the randomly designated "gatekeeper" status.

So then they are in fact illegal there. It’s also not random. Other large tech companies were named gatekeepers as well. To be even more specific, much like iOS, Android and Windows operating systems were identified as gatekeepers as well.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

People would stop buying iPhones.

I get the impression many of the American posters here don’t realise this or think Apple pulling out of the EU (which they suggest) would harm anyone other than Apple. It’s not like there aren’t other popular smartphones on the market besides the iPhone and consumers would simply gravitate towards other brands with minimal fuss.

 

[Force11111]

It's not about Apple alone.

I hope American economy and American companies being fairly paid for their work is more important to US than the EU.

They’re the most valuable company in the world. They make phones.

Trust me they’re fairly paid.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

you want iOS to be MacOS?

right...

Android on an iPhone giving a user the choice would perfectly meet EU demands.
Choice, competition ... and leaving iOS as users know and like.

Would erode Apples brand and leave them having to support an OS they didn't write.

The very definition of cutting their nose of to spite their face and almost zero chance of it ever happening.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You just want to keep slicing it in a way that only applies to Apple; which is exactly my point. Several of you on here are claiming that walled garden business models (Gaming platforms, Spotify, Amazon.com, etc) are all variations on the theme.

IF Apple isn't providing a library of apps that are compelling to users, Apple would have a problem selling their phones. This idea that you must buy a new phone and it would be too prohibitive is simply a myth. People make phone buying decisions all the time. And Apple has to compete in that market place. This is a problem the market already accounts for.

No analogy is ever perfect. But walled garden models exist, and they aren't illegal in the EU. Apple's practices are not illegal excepting in the case of the randomly designated "gatekeeper" status.
EU made laws to target US tech companies. They scoped it with the words, “digital market,” which means legacy market dynamics and also industries where the EU have a monopoly can’t be used for reference. So, all these posts about Target, Gap, and brick’n’mortar store fronts don’t matter.

EU is treating Apple differently. It is a comply or be fined. Instead of spending so much time drafting abstract laws, EU should just institute an additional tax on $1T companies’ EU-based revenues and earmark those funds for EU general expenses, EU tech start-up seed money, and EU tech subsidies (help spotify to increase market share).

Sigh Spotify doesn’t fit the criteria in any shape or form. They don’t have a walled garden, and as you will se below Amazon etc have been targeted for the same anticompetitive action.

And the fact you need to buy another product is evidence that they aren’t the same relevant market. And as we try and point to you, it’s about the market access of other companies. Example Apple preventing other sellers of beats headphones to be sold on amazon(and then agreeing to it) was anticompetitive.

Eu isn’t treating apple differently, brick and mortar stores have the same kind of limitations, same with Amazon and Apple when they had an exclusive dealing regarding the beats headphones reselling.

Walmart tried to do the same thing in EU but was just slapped with antitrust charges as they wrongly thought they could do the same tactics as in the USA, not realizing they aren’t legal.

Italian Competition Authority condemns Amazon and Apple for discriminatorily limiting access to Amazon Marketplace

On 16 November 2021, the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”) imposed a fine of € 68.7 million on Amazon and € 134.5 million on Apple for infringing…

www.lexology.com

Why Walmart Failed in Germany and Europe: The Main Reasons

ecomclips.com

 

[PlayUltimate]

They’re the most valuable company in the world. They make phones.

they actually are not. Microsoft has been ahead of them most of the year and Nvidia is up there as well.

 

[mode11]

Would erode Apples brand and leave them having to support an OS they didn't write.

The very definition of cutting their nose of to spite their face and almost zero chance of it ever happening.

Some people seem to think their iOS preferences are more important than others'; if someone else wants something different to them from iOS, that person should just buy an Android phone. Every iOS user's preferences are equally valid; some want fewer app restrictions, some don't. But those whose preferences happen to align with Apple's corporate interests aren't automatically right.

 

[davide_eu]

Going to repeat my question:

Are you suggesting Apple split off their EU App Store business into a separate, independent(ly operating) company?

And then apply the CTF to that store too!

 

[AppliedMicro]

Show me the EU law that says that a company must allow third party access to their store.

I didn't say "their store".

But the DMA allows for app installation without using the OS developer's store.
Going back to your original post:

nothing Apple is doing is illegal or even frowned upon in the EU for every other company but Apple

No one has the audacity to charge a core technology fee like Apple does, as a way of anticompetitively steering businesses and consumers to their own store.

EU is treating Apple differently. It is a comply or be fined

They're treating Apple the same as every other gatekeeper (or company subject to competition laws): They comply or risk getting fined.

It's just that Apple - compared to other gatekeepers - shows much less willingness to comply in good faith.

This idea that you must buy a new phone and it would be too prohibitive is simply a myth

Switching from iOS to Android does mean buying a new/different phone. And spending quite a lot of time to set it up, let alone get used to it. Denying that is ridiculous.

IF Apple isn't providing a library of apps that are compelling to users, Apple would have a problem selling their phones.

Yes. But here's the thing:
Apple can still sell a ton of phones without providing the most compelling library and quality of apps.

👉 It is in fact in Apple's interest to degrade the quality of apps to users:

• Managing one's Spotify subscription in-app is compelling to users.
• So is paying for a Spotify subscription that's subject to 5% or so payment processing costs - instead of 30%.

Because higher commissions mean less revenue for Spotify - and price increases, less innovation or worse service to its users over the long term. A service that pays 30% will be less compelling than a similar service that only pays 5%, over the long term.

The motive for Apple is very clear: A more expensive or degraded Spotify experience props up their own competing Music service (as evidence by its increasing market share).

And that may make them more money than providing the best, most compelling library of apps that they could.

 

[avkills]

You're describing Chief Executive malpractice

Complying with regulations is the only play

I never said Apple didn't need to comply; but Apple can certainly release new stuff later in the EU if they want to.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I never said Apple didn't need to comply; but Apple can certainly release new stuff later in the EU if they want to.

They can - and they are going to lose out on sales and market share as a result.

This is petulant schoolyard bully logic - not rational business decision type of logic.

PS: Sometimes coinciding with the delusional ("EU citizens will, in masses, blame the EU commission for receiving Apple products later/at higher pricing and make its bureaucrats and politicians quickly reverse their stance on the DMA!")

 

[mode11]

I never said Apple didn't need to comply; but Apple can certainly release new stuff later in the EU if they want to.

And this helps Apple how? By pissing off their customers, hoping they'd then put pressure on EU bureaucrats to cut Apple some slack?

Are they trialling this strategy already by releasing AI features later than the competition?

 

[avkills]

And this helps Apple how? By pissing off their customers, hoping they'd then put pressure on EU bureaucrats to cut Apple some slack?

Apple already does this in other countries and markets; not for everything, but for some things they do.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple already does this in other countries and markets; not for everything, but for some things they do.

Cause they either have more work at localising functionality cut out for them.
Or to stagger the release of new products to soften the initial supply scarcity (which will quickly wane off).

Again, as has been asked already: What (favourable thing?) would they be trying to achieve with this?

 

[wbeasley]

1. Apple is obviously taking the piss out of the DMA, being every bit as passive-aggressive and foot-dragging as one would expect. As a corporation, they are practically duty-bound to fight anything that might impact their profits.

2. The EU obviously need to impose huge fines, because nothing else would have any effect on Apple's behaviour. If there's no meaningful penalty, they might as well not bother with legislation.

The EU are a bit ahead of other regions, but similar initiatives are springing up elsewhere, including in the US. Apple's had a good run of it, and made trillions of dollars, but they don't get to seek rent for the rest of time - and neither would Google, if they didn't already allow alternative app stores / sideloading.

do you pay tax? do you push your claim to the limit to maximise a return?
what's the difference here?

the EU wrote some vague directives. Apple interpreted them and made changes, quite significant ones.

It's a bad as someone saying "i cant tell you what I want but I'll know it when i see it".
those are the worst customers.

Why do your personal needs outweigh the EU’s need to make sure their markets are operating fairly?

My personal needs (and every other purchaser of iOS devices) who are happy with the way the device worked and approved apps outweighs your needs because we knew and agreed with what we bought.

Do we like every single thing? would we like more? sure.
But we happily spent the money knowing the limits anyway.

You have a choice. Buy that Android device that lets you install anything.
We dont have a choice now to keep the iOS secure device we want because the EU forced changed.

The EU says it is all for consumer choice. They have taken OUR CHOICE AWAY.

 

[Infinity Vortex]

do you pay tax? do you push your claim to the limit to maximise a return?
what's the difference here?

It’s certainly true that most people seek to pay as legally little tax as possible. Conversely, it would appear Apple is doing less than it legally needs to do to comply with the law. Apple is free to do as little as it legally needs to, same as with my taxes.

My personal needs (and every other purchaser of iOS devices) who are happy with the way the device worked and approved apps outweighs your needs because we knew and agreed with what we bought.

Do we like every single thing? would we like more? sure.
But we happily spent the money knowing the limits anyway.

You have a choice. Buy that Android device that lets you install anything.
We dont have a choice now to keep the iOS secure device we want because the EU forced changed.

The EU says it is all for consumer choice. They have taken OUR CHOICE AWAY.

You answered a question that wasn’t asked. I didn’t ask about my needs. I asked about the EU’s needs to ensure their market is operating fairly. You could in fact posit the same question about India and Japan as well. Or even the U.S. DOJ. This questioning of Apple’s business practices is hardly unique to the EU, contrary to the claims that this is nothing more than a shakedown by the EU.

 

[wbeasley]

Well..

Apple is breaking
Article 5
Point 3, 4, 7 8
Article 6
Point 7, 12

For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply as stipulated in the Digital Markets act and in relevance to Apple:

Spoiler: Definition

​

​

Obligations for gatekeepers
1. The gatekeeper shall comply with all obligations set out in this Article with respect to each of its core platform services listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9).

Spoiler: Do and don’t obligations

4. The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.


7. The gatekeeper shall not require end users to use, or business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service, a web browser engine or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services.

8. The gatekeeper shall not require business users or end users to subscribe to, or register with, any further core platform services listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) or which meet the thresholds in Article 3(2), point (b), as a condition for being able to use, access, sign up for or registering with any of that gatekeeper’s core platform services listed pursuant to that Article.

Article 6

7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper.

Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.

12. The gatekeeper shall apply fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9).

A quick glance shows Apple is complying...

Is Apple charging to communicate with users? They already could link to their website from an app.

Apple is not telling app devs they cant put apps in other stores and charge different prices.

Apple is still allowing all the APIs that AppStore apps can access (not private APIs which no one but Apple can).

12. is so vague. it's hard to even see how that is perceived as violated.

 

[wbeasley]

It’s certainly true that most people seek to pay as legally little tax as possible. Conversely, it would appear Apple is doing less than it legally needs to do to comply with the law. Apple is free to do as little as it legally needs to, same as with my taxes.


You answered a question that wasn’t asked. I didn’t ask about my needs. I asked about the EU’s needs to ensure their market is operating fairly. You could in fact posit the same question to India and Japan as well. Or even the U.S. DOJ. This questioning of Apple’s business practices is hardly unique to the EU, contrary to the claims that this is nothing more than a shakedown by the EU.

stop expanding the reach of this thread... it is about what the EU is doing.

show me where Apple is breaking the law not just pushing the limits.

 

[Infinity Vortex]

stop expanding the reach of this thread... it is about what the EU is doing.

show me where Apple is breaking the law not just pushing the limits.

Apple does still have time to make changes to iOS before charges are announced by regulators, and the EC is expected to make an announcement in the "coming weeks."

I’m not the regulator so I’ll have to see what they say in their investigation that’s due to conclude soon. They’re certainly more qualified than you or I to outline if and how Apple may be breaking the law.