Again, using slippery language to avoid the point. Perhaps you should follow the spirit of what I'm saying
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
Not if you’re a music streaming company those (and many other markets represented by EU industries) are excluded.
The EU does, too, which is why as companies got to a certain size, they were all pushed out of the EU by regulations. Kinda shortsighted to let those valuable companies go elsewhere, though.
In what way is it slippery? End users aren’t licensing anything, unable to purchase anything, it’s not social media.Again, using slippery language to avoid the point. Perhaps you should follow the spirit of what I'm saying
Spotify is the same as Netflix, Disney plus, AppleTV, Amazon prime etc.
They have nothing related with a digital store front, or even store for that matter.
This is a two-way road.
Spotify may all of a sudden find itself in hot water in the US.
EVERY company has a monopoly over their trademarked products. That’s how businesses work. While it’s technically correct to define a “market” however one may like, when speaking of monopolies, if a “market” a company is accused of being a monopolist of, includes any of that company’s trademarks, then that’s an absurd definition of “market”. It’s not so much that it’s ignored, more that it’s nonsensical. This is why the EU avoided using the term and instead created “gatekeeper”.
Having a monopoly over distribution in the “oil” market, not absurd.
Having a monopoly over distribution in the “electricity” market, not absurd.
Having a monopoly over distribution in the “McDonald’s Big Mac” market, absurd.
In reality, Apple does very well only out of the USA/Canada, UK and maybe Japan. Elsewhere, such as the in rest of Asia or Latinamerica, Android dominates just like in the EU with a 60% or greater marketshare.
Except app distribution IS NOT A TRADEMARKED PRODUCT, it’s a business segment.
The UK used to be Apples biggest European market, not sure if it still is? I’m seeing a lot more people in my circles using Androids in recent years though so not sure how representative that is. I think people would be a bit annoyed initially of the iPhone wasn’t available, myself included, but once people use something else I think we’d adapt and move on.
But you can't dispute that this is how it would be presented.
Which was my point.
The UK isn’t part of the EU, it’s a different animal, so no, it’s not representative of what happens in the EU.
Libertarians tend to think any rules are tyranny.
As an aside, I’ve got hardcore libertarian buddy who LOVES his Hoa. Figure that one out…
China benefits from a closed device and apple does their every bidding when it comes to censuring feee speech and pulling apps because they don’t want to lose that revenue.
Last edited:
Based on existing comments, EU is one of those “countries” which are “stealing proprietary US technologies” through regulations. (Yes, EU is not a country but just roll along)
I am fully aware of “those countries” you are referring to. But Apple can’t just pull out of those markets out of spite, moral high ground or even national security either, as the consequence would be severe: massively disrupted business activities, job losses, diplomatic consequences and so on.
I’m genuinely curious about the Broadcom thing. You got any links where I could read up?Let’s not.
As market leader in the cloud virtualisation sector (VMware held almost 45% of the virtualisation market in 2023) and the only viable option in some specific cloud sector applications which must be certified by software or service providers. Broadcom should be regarded as a Gatekeeper under the terms of the DMA and its actions should be seen as those of a dominant player as it forces ‘take it or leave it’ terms on customers. CISPE calls on regulators to swiftly examine Broadcom’s actions and call it to account.
Maybe the DMA should do something useful to the world. If you don’t understand what Broadcom has done to technology companies globally I’ll gladly have a discussion about it.
They certainly appear to be breaking the law based on Vestager’s comments. Are they actually? Guess we’ll find out soon enough. I’m willing to change my view if the findings say as much. Can the same be said for you and your views? 🤔
The analogy is apt. It’s the same type of label and thought process.
Sometimes you have to distill conversations down to a lower level I guess.
Not as heavy as all of the cognitive dissonance used to prove otherwise. And I guess it’s not a stretch that out jaywalker can morph into more serious stuff now that they are no longer law abiding citizens.
We’ll see where this ends up.
Does it really matter where it ends up? Seems you’ll just say any finding that they broke the law is but a mere jaywalking ticket. Never mind that not only did Apple have to pay a fine for the anti-trust violation but they had to cease their illegal business practice as a result. If that ends up being the case here that means not only a big fine but an end to the CTF as well.
As it seems you are going back 12 years to prove apple “broker the law”. And because they did once they’ll do it again. Guilty until proven innocent.
We’ll see where this ends up. Don’t you believe apple is going to appeal?
Not about guilty until proven innocent. It’s about showing that “Apple always complies with the law” is false.
I have no doubt they will.
It’s not false. Sometimes things happen even if you do things by the book. There’s the intentionality aspect of it.
Yup.
Breaking the law isn’t breaking the law? Sounds like Orwellian doublespeak.
Apple thought it was operating within the law. This is corporate America, stuff happens. This doesn’t render my statement false.
It is relevant because the UK shares the same consumer laws as the EU. We have not severed ties completely so all our environmental initiatives and consumer laws fall under ‘Retained Consumer Law Regulation 2020’.
I also referred to the UK as a European market as the UK is still a European country.
Well, it would have saved this person from being cheated of his life savings. But I suppose he could have simply chosen to just ”not install malware”.
Nearly 2,000 victims fell for Android malware scams, at least S$34.1 million lost in 2023
The majority of victims were aged 30 to 49, and were most frequently targeted on Facebook and Instagram.www.channelnewsasia.com
A lot of things tend to be package deals. There’s good in bad, and bad in good and I wish people here would acknowledge that rather than pretend that sideloading is pure upside with zero drawbacks at all.
The original attack vector they describe (click a link, download an app package) wouldn't work (or at least be shut down extremely quick) with the app notarization that Apple requires for all apps. The final versions rely heavily on social engineering and can be deployed against Apple users right now by directing them to install an app through Testflight. Third party stores don't change much.
Edit: I should comment on your last point, because it is a fair one. I will freely acknowledge downsides when they warrant a mention, but the messaging and indoctrination from Apple regarding the security benefits of a locked in store requires strong push-back. Allowing other app sources can potentially open up new attack vectors, but that risk is relatively minor and very manageable for Apple who has decades of experience in this area (and ready built tools to deal with threats).
Furthermore, if you look at Android, their biggest source of malware is in the Play Store itself. The security picture is a lot more complicated than: "it's best if one party reviews all the apps and has complete control over what gets in and what doesn't."
While you may think I'm downplaying security, I have my own wish as well: that people recognize that Apple's primary motivation is profit. Always. There's no other way to become a $3 Trillion company than to make profit central and core to everything they do. They talk about user protection and privacy because first it's profitable to them, then because it's a value that leadership holds, not the other way around. That's why google is the default search engine on iOS. If they valued security before profit, duckduckgo would be default search engine and Apple would charge nothing for it. Instead Apple charges Google $20 Billion annually to be default search and collect browsing data on all users who don't actively change it.
Any discussion about third party app stores (and security) has to start with profit motive, because that is by far Apple's greatest motivator. Open sourcing iMessage would have increased the user security on iOS (by basically doing away with SMS completely). They backed away from that plan when they realized it was more profitable to keep iMessage as iOS exclusive. They got a second chance with RCS and refused to engage with it at all, and almost killed it through non-support. Carriers never supported it because they knew Apple wouldn't add it. Google had to build their own servers to keep the idea alive. Now they are finally adding it under threat of legal action and laws written against them (lost profits), but still doing the minimum. The security angle can only be appropriately discussed after Apple's profit motive is accounted for. If people can't acknowledge this most obvious fact, I'm not going to trust their insights on security tbh.
Last edited: