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

[chmania]

None of EU citizens rights are affects in this.

That's why we voted them in, to look after our rights. My Mac and my iPhone is mine, and I'd do whatever I want with it. Have look at a Chinese guy doing something interesting to an iPhone 15 pro, which Apple didn't (or couldn't).

If anything, the EU is standing in the way of EU citizens buying the products and services they want, in they form they want it.

If you could imagine, what we have over here...

If they were looking out for EU citizen’s interests, ... And that’s representing citizens? That’s ruining it for citizens.

Nice to have someone over there caring for our rights!
But, you have to understand that we voted them in, and that's our collective 27 country citizens' problem, and we'd vote them out, if they won't look after our rights.

 

[surferfb]

I used to share this opinion for many years. But I think Apple's and our interests have been diverging slowly over the years. This is what happens when two huge companies dominate a market where there is practically no hope of a another competitor emerging.

In 2006 Symbian had 67% of SmartPhone market share and Windows Phone had 14%. As we all know, it was clearly impossible for someone to come in and disrupt that.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I used to share this opinion for many years. But I think Apple's and our interests have been diverging slowly over the years.

Agreed

This used to be true, 15 years ago, when Apple was more of an upstart and had product focused design and leadership
It all changed when Tim took over and the iPhone took off

At this point, "Apple" may as well be called "iPhone Co"

Everything else pales in comparison and it totally changed how they approached what and how they focused on the R&D side and product side.

 

[robvalentine]

Given that every other AI company has pretty much launched, this is just apple throwing their toys out of the pram because the EU have forced the, to make a better product, more usable comminication device (side loading, usb-c RCS etc.).

Even if their Side loading solution is nothing but a cash cow. ANyone saying but apple provides the infrastructre, Windows, Android, and even MACos prove that wrong.

 

[MilaM]

In 2006 Symbian had 67% of SmartPhone market share and Windows Phone had 14%. As we all know, it was clearly impossible for someone to come in and disrupt that.

But could you side-load apps on Symbian and Windows Phone? Was there an exclusive Symbian Store? Also, how big do you think the "app economy" was back then? Again a not very good comparison.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Cell phones existed without third party ecosystems for years.

They didn‘t sell for many hundreds of dollars in massive quantities.

How the heck are you going to collect a fee on some of the transactions where price is determined after the fact.

Really? Seriously? 🤣🤣🤣

Have you not read the newest article? 🤷‍♀️

Are you as naive to believe Apple, in their insatiable greed and brazenly felt entitlement for commissions, let that stop them? They have already come up with a „solution“ and made it public:

https://developer.apple.com/support/music-streaming-services-entitlement-eea/

Even for sales outside of apps and happening days after linking out.

 

[surferfb]

But could you side-load apps on Symbian and Windows Phone? Was there an exclusive Symbian Store? Also, how big do you think the "app economy" was back then? Again a not very good comparison.

None of that has anything to do with Apple being able to be disrupted. If someone builds a significantly better product, Apple will fall by the wayside. If someone makes an amazing AI app that can't run on Apple due to Apple's security/privacy restrictions, people will start switching to Android. A Chinese company could release an amazing, AI-powered OS. All of you claim there is no competition, but there clearly is.

Developers just want to be able to sell to iPhone customers because they are the only ones who actually spend money on apps, largely because APPLE HAS MADE BUYING APPS SAFE through their approach, without compensating Apple for creating that market or using Apple's tools and services.

 

[MilaM]

If someone builds a significantly better product, Apple will fall by the wayside.

And how many decades do we have to wait for that? Should we in the meantime let Apple and Google rent seek without competition? You can do that in the US if you want. Your government, your rules.

 

[I7guy]

They didn‘t sell for many hundreds of dollars in massive quantities.

Of course not. In those days pre 2007 the market was different.

Really? Seriously? 🤣🤣🤣

Have you not read the newest article? 🤷‍♀️

Are you as naive to believe Apple, in their insatiable greed and brazenly felt entitlement for commissions, let that stop them? They have already come up with a „solution“ and made it public:

The EU is attempting to turn apple into a free public utility. But you are responding to something I wasn’t addressing.

https://developer.apple.com/support/music-streaming-services-entitlement-eea/

Even for sales outside of apps and happening days after linking out.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The digital book can be used on the device, taking advantage of the tools and services and OS Apple developed.

It can be used on other devices, too. Like an Amazon Kindle.

If it is a product that can be used/enjoyed used on-device (eBook, Music, TV Show, Gems for Game) then the fee is charged

Obviously. Being (usually) consumed on the same device is what enables Apple‘s extortionate scheme.

Apple is benefiting by having Uber in the App Store

Of course. And Uber could also (though less convenient, with degraded but reasonable user experience) do it outside of Apple‘s store, with a web app.

That‘s Apple‘s scheme of

• having their cake (benefitting from having native apps that provide superior alternatives to web apps for goods/services not consumed on-device, i.e. where developers have considerable negotiating power of taking their business out of the app store)
• and eating it, too (charging third parties on transactions for goods/services that usually are consumed on-device, whose developers can‘t „escape“ having a native app on the store and can hardly take their business elsewhere)

It makes sense for digital services to have a platform fees where as selling real products and services can’t and should not be charged a fee.

From a macroeconomic perspective, they’re an economic ineffiency and loss to society.
From Apple’s point of view, they make sense of course: Opportunistic pricing where they think they‘d get away with it.

It’s up to Apple to decide how to monetize their services

Absolutely.
Unless restricted by law and regulation.
And we need more laws and regulation.
And fines to uphold and enforce them.
Particularly against Apple.

If Apple charged for Uber rides, you would have another complaint about them.

Not really, no.

👉🏻 It would, finally, be a truly fair and non-discriminating pricing model. And perfectly illustrate show how Apple are overreaching in their entitlement to charge others and leeching off other’s companies‘ products and services.

We just need legislation to let Uber and others clearly show and itemise Apple‘s commission charge, rather than Apple forcing them to „bake it into“ their consumer-facing pricing.
I couldn’t wait for that - and consumers‘ and the media‘s reaction to that!

 

[ender78]

Absolutely. 👍🏻 Undistorted from Apple undercutting them by not paying commissions or prohibiting them from communicating to customers.

I want it this way, I don't want the App vendor to know who I am. I don't want them to have the option. Right now I get what I want, you want to take that away from me.

 

[ender78]

I used to share this opinion for many years. But I think Apple's and our interests have been diverging slowly over the years. This is what happens when two huge companies dominate a market where there is practically no hope for another competitor emerging.

We have these duopolies because the cost of building the platforms costs hundreds of billions of dollars. The last thing that developers want is the need to develop for 12 different platforms.

 

[surferfb]

It can be used on other devices, too. Like an Amazon Kindle.

Obviously. Being (usually) consumed on the same device is what enables Apple‘s extortionate scheme.

Of course. And Uber could also (though less convenient, with degraded but reasonable user experience) do it outside of Apple‘s store, with a web app.

That‘s Apple‘s scheme of

• having their cake (benefitting from having native apps that provide superior alternatives to web apps for goods/services not consumed on-device, i.e. where developers have considerable negotiating power of taking their business out of the app store)
• and eating it, too (charging third parties on transactions for goods/services that usually are consumed on-device, whose developers can‘t „escape“ having a native app on the store and can hardly take their business elsewhere)

From a macroeconomic perspective, they’re an economic ineffiency and loss to society.
From Apple’s point of view, they make sense of course: Opportunistic pricing where they think they‘d get away with it.

Absolutely.
Unless restricted by law and regulation.
And we need more laws and regulation.
And fines to uphold and enforce them.
Particularly against Apple.

Not really, no.

👉🏻 It would, finally, be a truly fair and non-discriminating pricing model. And perfectly illustrate show how Apple are overreaching in their entitlement to charge others and leeching off other’s companies‘ products and services.

We just need legislation to let Uber and others clearly show and itemise Apple‘s commission charge, rather than Apple forcing them to „bake it into“ their consumer-facing pricing.
I couldn’t wait for that - and consumers‘ and the media‘s reaction to that!

Your comment was "there isn't a sane reason" that Apple charges 30% for digital goods and did not charge for physical goods. I gave you a perfectly sane reason. Keep moving those goalposts!

 

[AppliedMicro]

Your comment was "there isn't a sane reason" that Apple charges 30% for digital goods and did not charge for physical goods. I gave you a perfectly sane reason

You are absolutely right and I take back and modify my earlier comment:
There is no sane acceptable reason why selling a physical book should cost nothing and an ebook 30%.

 

[I7guy]

I used to share this opinion for many years. But I think Apple's and our interests have been diverging slowly over the years. This is what happens when two huge companies dominate a market where there is practically no hope for another competitor emerging.

This is what happens when competitors are lazy and rent an operating system instead of developing their own. Dont blame or penalize apple for producing wildly popular products people want to buy.

 

[I7guy]

You are absolutely right and I take back and modify my earlier comment:
There is no sane acceptable reason why selling a physical book should cost nothing and an ebook 30%.

The reason is it’s apples platform and a divide was created years ago and has stood the test of times.

 

[breenmask]

Then they will sink so that they can no longer supply more scam apps. It is once and done. Not like Apple's Appstore which keeps surviving even though there is an unending supply of scam apps.

Again, there's nothing special that these indie stores are doing during review process compared to App Store. There's only so many thing you can check at review time.

Saying "well the livelihood of a small App Store is dependent on a good review process" doesn't make the review process architecturally better than what Apple is doing.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Again, there's nothing special that these indie stores are doing during review process compared to App Store. There's only so many thing you can check at review time.

Saying "well the livelihood of a small App Store is dependent on a good review process" doesn't make the review process architecturally better than what Apple is doing.

The entire point is that there would be multiple stores and the viability of any given Store would depend upon them tending it well and keeping it appealing for devs and customers alike

Basic competition 101 stuff here

 

[breenmask]

...which invalidates Apple's claims how it's only them that are (supposedly) able to keep users secure.

probably need to post the exact quote from Apple. you're missing a lot of nuance.

 

[ender78]

You are absolutely right and I take back and modify my earlier comment:
There is no sane acceptable reason why selling a physical book should cost nothing and an ebook 30%.

The physical book and every copy have a hard cost. They require resources to print, house, move, deliver. The e-Book has very marginal costs of storage and delivery. The cost of distributing 1 million books digitally is only marginally higher than that of distributing 1000. That is why it's acceptable, the margin is significantly higher.

 

[JimmyHook]

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

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).

Consumers are aware of the platform limitations when they buy the device. They have free will. Apple never forces anyone to pick iOS and iPhone

 

[JimmyHook]

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.

They aren’t? You are telling me that if all major devs stopped developing for iOS, and people’s precious social media apps weren’t available, they’d still pick iPhone? Lolololololol

 

[NT1440]

They aren’t? You are telling me that if all major devs stopped developing for iOS, and people’s precious social media apps weren’t available, they’d still pick iPhone? Lolololololol

Back here in reality, iOS is the platform big devs want to be on because the metrics show clearly that its the platform whose users actually do spend money on.

Marketing classes consistently highlight that your ideal target demo is the type of user that Apple has curated, ones who are willing to spend for perceived value.

 

[vantelimus]

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

Sure it is if you don’t apply the same reasoning to European companies or try to write it off as “Oh that was 2007”. You use a double standard and were called on it.

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.

Game developers choose their platforms. They can choose to develop cross platform by deploying on browsers, either running in the browser directly or connecting to a server using a browser-based client. In other words, the game developer can still reach me. They choose not to. Thus, your argument is special pleading.

Dark pattern - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

👉🏻 Making the System Settings app appear as if there‘s misconfiguration with red dots, for example.

Despite my steadfast refusal and many OS updates, it‘s been showing me this stuff even today:

View attachment 2391509

I don't wish to be insulting here, but red dots in Apple's UI mean there is a message for you. It has nothing to do with misconfiguration. You don't think your email, calendar, messages, etc. apps are misconfigured when there is a red dot with a number indicating the number of messages waiting for you. What could possibly be your reason for concluding this red dot means misconfigured? You made a BS charge that Apple is using dark advertising patterns with no evidence and have to make up something. Your example is, quite frankly, disingenuous BS.

 

[vantelimus]

That's why we voted them in, to look after our rights. My Mac and my iPhone is mine, and I'd do whatever I want with it. Have look at a Chinese guy doing something interesting to an iPhone 15 pro, which Apple didn't (or couldn't).

How much money did he save by buying specialized equipment and tearing phones apart to learn how to do that upgrade? The difference in cost between a 128MB and 1TB phone is $500. If you want to risk bricking your phone by breaking something, you can do that to your heart's content. No one is stopping you. It's your phone. Apple isn't responsible if you have a problem later.