Apple Intelligence Features Not Coming to European Union at Launch Due to DMA

[JimmyHook]

…and within 10 years becoming the most profitable company in the world. They were handsomely compensate.

Who said that it’s shocking? 🤔

American companies ruthlessly exploiting their property and favouring their own services isn‘t shocking at all.
It’s just nothing governments shouldn’t let stand unregulated and letting continue after more than a decade, given how important these platforms have become.


It’s not about competition with or between phones.
It’s about third party developers/services being able to fairly compete on the two dominant software platforms.


Apple allowing or even offering Android on iOS doesn’t change anything at all.
It’s not about that the OS phones come with.


It’s not about that either.
Services like Spotify being useable on desktop PCs doesn’t isn’t important.

Mobile phones are arguably the most important platform on which there are used (and should be able to compete fairly) - and the DMA acknowledges that.


No one else can compete.
Not in the EU, not in Japan, the UK or the U.S.
Microsoft failed, BlackBerry failed.
The market positions are entrenched - just as Windows’s position is for desktop OS.

Funny, when Nokia was the dominant player on the planet, and they locked down their custom OS, decided which services could use mobile data, not a peep from the EU. When Research In Motion was the dominant player, same story. Not a peep. Now I’m told that a company with 20 percent market share is the problem? That these EU developers can’t compete, even with full unfettered access to a platform that has 80 percent market share? Lololololol. Cry me a river.

Also, thanks for your xenophobic anti-American remarks. You just showed your true colors. Because it’s not like there aren’t European companies exploiting people and resources, am I right? Take your xenophobic garbage elsewhere, it has no place in modern society.

Side note: seems odd that podcast creators on Spotify’s platform are forced to sign an agreement letting Spotify use AI to clone their voice for multi-language distribution, and they lose rights to the content. Not a peep from the EU, despite being the dominant music service.

 

[surferfb]

You - again and as so many others - fail to recognise that the competitive situation for both supermarkets and grocery manufacturers is not the same as for digital content and services on mobile devices. They are much different:

• market concentration
• barriers hindering consumers to switch
• market entry barriers for businesses
• barriers on manufacturers directly selling to consumers
• technical dependence on platforms provided in a duopoly

It’s not that we don’t recognize your argument - we just disagree that your point is a good one. Of course it’s not exactly the same, but it’s a good analogy that points out the absurdity of the EU’s position.

There are plenty of markets where almost all of the same issues arise. The closest is console video games - I think that hits every single one of your bullet points. Why isn’t the EU demanding that EA be able to sell the latest F1 game for PS5 without giving Sony a cut? Should Nintendo be forced to allow Leisure Suit Larry to run on the Switch?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Well to take Spotify as the first example, they rip of artists and fail to pay them anything with less than a certain number of downloads because they don’t want to pay transaction fees

I still fail to see how that invalidates any of my arguments as "baseless" or contradicts them.
I mean, they are "but what about"...

And I actually tend to agree with you on this one: The argument can be made that they're a gatekeeper in music streaming ("if you don't exist on Spotify, you don't really exist as an artist" for many people). That certainly warrants closer regulatory scrutiny.

That said, artists can distribute their work to me - an iOS users - in many other ways. Amazon Music, Bandcamp, Youtube Music. They've got choice.

Spotify or iOS game developers - they can't (in a sensible way, e.g. as a native app), unless they choose between Apple - or nothing.

Epic take a 12% cut of every game sale they host. The hypocrisy is vomit inducing.

Well, for starters it's much less than Apple's 30%.
That puts Apple's rates in perspective.
In any case, Epic isn't a gatekeeper like Apple.

If you choose not to distribute through the Epic game store, you can still reach every iPhone and Android user (all of the market of smartphone users) by doing it through Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Same as on the Desktop: If you don't like Epic, choose Steam, GOG, or run your own store: You can still sell to every Windows, macOS or Linux user.

If you don't agree with Apple's (a single company's terms) though: Whoops, you will be precluded from reaching 25-30% of smartphone users and a user base accounting for about 50% (half) of mobile app spending.

You would trust them to put an unreviewed app on the App Store?

As a simple matter of fact, their installed user base for Apps unreviewed by Apple (or Google/Microsoft) is many millions!?

 

[Beautyspin]

Of course I pay with credit cards for things like restaurant and groceries. That doesn’t mean I want to give it out to a random developer I don’t know anything about for a subscription that will persist in perpetuity. I don’t know how hard they’ll make it to cancel the subscription, if they’ll sell my transaction data to a data aggregator, etc.

I much prefer Apple to handle that for me. They’ve earned my trust. But the EU is taking that option away from its citizens.

For your sake, I hope DOJ does not break up Apple after winning the Antitrust litigation. Otherwise, you will have a CC but nowhere to spend the money. A phone, but nowhere to buy the apps. I think you get the drift.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Funny, when Nokia was the dominant player on the planet, and they locked down their custom OS, decided which services could use mobile data, not a peep from the EU. When Research In Motion was the dominant player, same story.

We don't live in 2007 anymore.

You do realise that smartphones "ran some apps" back 10 or fifteen years ago (on Symbian) and exchanged some messages on Blackberry (just like they do on WhatsApp today, still a proprietary messenger).

Whereas smartphones have become important commercial platforms for a whole range of purchases/services in many areas of life.

There was just much less reason to regulate this nascent industry back then compared to today. That's how antitrust works: The technically same (or similar) thing isn't regulated in the same way - based on size, market penetration or concentration.

Also, thanks for your xenophobic anti-American remarks.

👉 STOP IT!

It's not xenophobic at all. But I believe that there are several reasons why American "Big Tech" (though it's not only big tech/IT) has been as successful, lucrative and powerful as it is today. And one reason is the regulatory climate in the U.S. European legislators and lawmakers are more proactive in their approach to regulation, while the U.S. tends to do it after the fact - or not at all. Also, the U.S. tends to view "winners take it all" in markets far more favourably than the E.U., which has a more skeptical stance towards that.

Side note: seems odd that podcast creators on Spotify’s platform are forced to sign an agreement letting Spotify use AI to clone their voice for multi-language distribution, and they lose rights to the content. Not a peep from the EU, despite being the dominant music service.

Yeah, as I already said above, I tend to agree with you on that one.
I'm just much less passionate about it personally, cause I don't use Spotify.
Artists should lobby the EU to take a look on it.

That said, as I said above:
Artists can distribute their work to me - an iOS user - in many other ways. Amazon Music, Bandcamp, Youtube Music. They've got choice.
Spotify or iOS game developers - they can't (in a sensible way, e.g. as a native app) distribute their product/service to me, unless they choose between Apple - or nothing.

 

[AppliedMicro]

There are plenty of markets where almost all of the same issues arise. The closest is console video games - I think that hits every single one of your bullet points. Why isn’t the EU demanding that EA be able to sell the latest F1 game for PS5 without giving Sony a cut? Should Nintendo be forced to allow Leisure Suit Larry to run on the Switch?

As I said: The technically same (or similar) thing isn't regulated in the same way - based on size, market penetration or concentration.

Gaming consoles are largely used for just gaming. While they technically could support many of the functions of an iPhone, they aren't used much in practice for the breadth of commercial offerings that Smartphones are. E.g. in-store card payments, ride hailing, banking transactions, even Music or video (most people have a separate TV or cable/streaming box to do that).

 

[JimmyHook]

We don't live in 2007 anymore.

You do realise that smartphones "ran some apps" back 10 or fifteen years ago (on Symbian) and exchanged some messages on Blackberry (just like they do on WhatsApp today, still a proprietary messenger).

Whereas smartphones have become important commercial platforms for a whole range of purchases/services in many areas of life.

There was just much less reason to regulate this nascent industry back then compared to today. That's how antitrust works: The technically same (or similar) thing isn't regulated in the same way - based on size, market penetration or concentration.

👉 STOP IT!

It's not xenophobic at all. But I believe that there are several reasons why American "Big Tech" (though it's not only big tech/IT) has been as successful, lucrative and powerful as it is today. And one reason is the regulatory climate in the U.S. European legislators and lawmakers are more proactive in their approach to regulation, while the U.S. tends to do it after the fact - or not at all. Also, the U.S. tends to view "winners take it all" in markets far more favourably than the E.U., which has a more skeptical stance towards that.

Yeah, as I already said above, I tend to agree with you on that one.
I'm just much less passionate about it personally, cause I don't use Spotify.
Artists should lobby the EU to take a look on it.

That said, as I said above:
Artists can distribute their work to me - an iOS user - in many other ways. Amazon Music, Bandcamp, Youtube Music. They've got choice.
Spotify or iOS game developers - they can't (in a sensible way, e.g. as a native app) distribute their product/service to me, unless they choose between Apple - or nothing.

No, I won’t “stop it.” You are the one who singled out American companies in your argument, pretending like EU companies aren’t also ruthless.

Also, a musician can pick which platform to publish on. I noticed how your performed a subtle false equivalence (musician > iOS developer). Let’s try a real equivalence, musician > app developer. Yes, APP DEVELOPERS can choose what platform to develop for.

 

[surferfb]

For your sake, I hope DOJ does not break up Apple after winning the Antitrust litigation. Otherwise, you will have a CC but nowhere to spend the money. A phone, but nowhere to buy the apps. I think you get the drift.

As someone who has a decent amount of insight into this sort of thing professionally - let’s just say I am not concerned about the DOJ winning that case.

 

[AppliedMicro]

You are the one who singled out American companies in your argument, pretending like EU companies aren’t also ruthless.

Singling out American companies (which admittedly I did) isn’t xenophobia (1, 2).

Let’s try a real equivalence, musician > app developer. Yes, APP DEVELOPERS can choose what platform to develop for.

Consumers usually use but one smartphone which runs either iOS or Android.

Not distributing through Apple means the game developer can’t reach me.
Not distributing through Spotify means the music artist can still reach me.

Consumers can easily use and switch between streaming platforms: if a song isn’t on Spotify, they can stream it on YouTube Music, Soundcloud, Bandcamp or elsewhere, even for free.
Whereas consumers are committed to their choice of smartphone, and (usually) won’t switch smartphones in the short to mid term for just one app.

A music distributor isn’t a gatekeeper in the same way Apple is for applications. Cause people don’t (have to) commit to a music streaming service as they commit to a software application store (by their choice if phone).

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

The DMA was basically designed to make Apple’s business model illegal. They could have just banned requiring IAP, or required alternative app stores, but instead they banned potentially everything. It was obvious that restrictions on private APIs would cause major problems.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The DMA was basically designed to make Apple’s business model illegal.

No.
It only bans particular forms of exclusion of third parties.
It doesn’t make business models of providing integrated and/or better software illegal.

👉🏻 What is and makes Apple‘s business model, in your opinion?

instead they banned potentially everything

If Apple’s entire business model is restricting others prohibiting them access and prohibiting them access, that’s now being restricted by law.

It was obvious that restrictions on private APIs would cause major problems.

It was obvious that Apple would try to spin it that way.

👉🏻 Remotely sharing or controlling the screen of an iPhone was not made illegal. Securely authenticating a user and transmitting data is a problem that has been solved.

 

[flashy-cat]

Fook the EU, so glad I voted for brexit 👍

 

[AppliedMicro]

Fook the EU, so glad I voted for brexit

But did you vote for the DMCC Act?

 

[flashy-cat]

But did you vote for the DMCC Act?

The UK people weren’t offered an opportunity to vote on the DMCC Act, so no.

 

[one more]

Apple should just release a stripped down dumb phone for EU users, and leave the good stuff to everyone else.

Genius, followed by a dumb phone for the US, UK, China, Japan, Turkey and all other countries currently working on similar laws.

Come back Nokia, mon amour! 😉

 

[m4mario]

this is complete and utter bantha poodoo!

nothing in our dma says apple can't bring it to our markets in the way they've announced it at wwdc in fact I would say and hazzard a guess with them offering an external ai processor from the start, in this case OpenAI's ChatGPT, it is already in complete compliance with the spirit of the DMA. Add to that the fact they spent a long time going on about their private cloud compute and then I assume it's also in compliance of GDPR and even goes beyond what GDPR stipulates.

So, this is just Apple being spiteful for their other troubles with eu lawmakers, the spotify case and the epic thing....

The only way to meet the changing whims and wishes of these regulators is to not make features available at all. It is becoming impossible to do business with EU. Even if there is nothing in the DMA yet preventing Apple from bringing these features. If Apple implements it, they will have to stand in front of a clueless tribunal who will ask them to change it to whatever they feel as fit and fine Apple in the process.

 

[Philip_S]

they can not do anything to be ‘spiteful’ or ‘punish the EU.’ They have a Board of Directors with a duty to maximize shareholder value.

They can engage in a fairly mild form of capital strike to try to get a more favourable regulatory environment long-term, especially in a company like Apple where the board has demonstrated to the market that they can be trusted to make longer-term plays.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The only way to meet the changing whims and wishes of these regulators is to not make features available at all.

No. The other option is complying with the law - with self-preferencing your services.

If Apple implements it, they will have to stand in front of a clueless tribunal who will ask them to change it to whatever they feel as fit and fine Apple in the process

The EU wasn‘t „out to get“ Apple. And they won‘t fine them without giving them the opportunity to address and remedy any anticompetitive violation of the DMA.

Apple on the other hand really does seem to be „out there“, bent on opposing the legislation (and its objectives), trying to circumvent and find loopholes in it.

Edit: On second thought, given how much Apple has antagonised the EU and virtually every other stakeholder in DMA legislation, I believe the EU now is „out to get them“ in making an example by proving that they can and will enforce the legislation.

 

[koil]

Let’s try a real equivalence, musician > app developer. Yes, APP DEVELOPERS can choose what platform to develop for.

This argument doesn't work because users aren't in general choosing their mobile phone based on what apps are available.

It's an idiotic argument for many reasons, but it doesn't even work in the most basic sense.

 

[MilaM]

This argument doesn't work because users aren't in general choosing their mobile phone based on what apps are available.

It's an idiotic argument for many reasons, but it doesn't even work in the most basic sense.

The vast majority also don't carry around two phones, one Android and one Apple, to shop for the best price in app stores.

 

[Philip_S]

The EU will probably demand that Apple opens up Apple Intelligence to every company in the EU so that they can make their own version of Apple Intelligence without having done any of the work.

Since Apple aren’t paying “Open”AI for the chatGPT backend, and the system is designed to allow other companies to be used as the backend (eg in China) there’s no obvious good reason not to let people point it where they like, as with search engines.

 

[vantelimus]

hat kind of illogical conclusion is this that I should get an android because I'm content with my current iPhone?

Others have said exactly that. If Apple doesn’t release all the new features, they will not buy Apple again. It isn’t my logic. It is that of the irrational Apple haters who pretend they live in the EU.

 

[Xano]

they will work out a solution, other wise sales will sink in EU.

 

[Craptastic]

The way ya’ll are fighting about this is insane 🤣

 

[m4mario]

No. The other option is complying with the law - with self-preferencing your services.

The EU wasn‘t „out to get“ Apple. And they won‘t fine them without giving them the opportunity to address and remedy any anticompetitive violation of the DMA.

Apple on the other hand really does seem to be „out there“, bent on opposing the legislation (and its objectives), trying to circumvent and find loopholes in it.

Edit: On second thought, given how much Apple has antagonised the EU and virtually every other stakeholder in DMA legislation, I believe the EU now is „out to get them“ in making an example by proving that they can and will enforce the legislation.

Apple loves their customers in EU. I think you are talking about EC, who has made it difficult for companies to do business in EU. Apple has not antagonised EC. Apple users (even in the EU) are annoyed at EC for trying to change an ecosystem that has worked so well for them. Apple share holders are annoyed that EC wants Apple technology for free. Americans are annoyed at EC for wanting American tech for free.

Loop holes can exist in existing widespread laws. App Store change requirement was specifically directed at Apple and Apple complied with every single line of it. And now EC is not happy? The problem is EC can't directly state Apple can't make money from SDKs. But they worded the regulations hoping that Apple won't have a way to make money. But Apple found a way while following every single word in it. That's why they are not happy. And now they want to change the regulations. This just shows the EC are out to get American companies with ever changing regulations. How can Apple release any new technology there when they know EC is definitely going to ask them to change it within a specific time or else face fines?