Android, by the way, was also created in the US...and, mostly implemented in China and South Korea. Android doesn't really need to compete with iOS, as there's no competition.
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 Intelligence Features Not Coming to European Union at Launch Due to DMA
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Bink is a fork of WebKit, so it is still largely Webkit, so browsers are running either Webkit or Gecko.
The DMA has, I believe there are six gatekeepers (Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta and Microsoft). Apple is the one whining the most.
It need not be open. It just need to be open enough to encourage competition. Lot of open systems are safe and secure. Apple's privacy stand is only to keep the consumer data to itself so that it can preference its ad platform. Look how they wanted to implement CSAM and then hastily went back due to the backlash? Their ATT has been considered illegal in many countries and challenged in them by the governments.
Interoperability does not compromise security. WhatsApp is interoperable across platforms. So is Signal and dozens of other messaging apps.
Why are you worried about the Apple revenue? It is not your money, after all.
Why did the other poster worry about market share increase as it’s not there money either?
Perhaps you can characterize it as simple. What behavioral marketing, economics, and psychology have shown is that people prefer a small number of choices and that once a decision is made, they don’t really want to revisit and make that decision again. The former is why a few small brands dominate any category. The latter accounts for brand loyalty.
The EC proponents can flog the economic benefits of competition all they want. The science shows that humans don’t want the number of choices required to make capitalism efficient. So, it seems strange that in this case, where capitalism is actually working, people would want to destroy a huge part of its value (choice, economic value, and innovation) for a definition of competition that only increases the potential for fraud, theft, and violation of property rights. It seems to many have either forgotten or never learned the old maxim: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.".
Last edited:
If lots of systems are open, safe, and secure (presumably Android being one), then users have choice. Forcing Apple to change their system removes that choice. So, you are willing to sacrifice choice and value to consumer for your definition of competition. I'm okay with you limiting yourself all you want. I don't think the world benefits by changing the market into a competition between undifferentiated mediocre products specified by committees of politicians.
You might as well pass a law forcing Coca Cola to open its recipe and require all soft drinks to taste like Coca Cola. Then anyone could compete in the soft drink market. Of course, you would lose variety. Pepsi and Dr. Pepper drinkers would be upset. But, who cares about them when you believe you will benefit by getting the Coke you want for a cheaper price?
Wrong. This would be fraud and would have been uncovered during the discovery step at the Epic vs Apple lawsuit.
Clearly if you believe that, I have nothing more to say to you as that's a ridiculous take.
Please show me any link to a document or article saying that they even considered Apple's annual reports about the store.
Clearly if you believe that they considered such fictional reports, I have nothing more to say to you as that's a ridiculous take.
The same thing might happen in the case of iOS too. For instance, on Android, there is a store (F-Droid) that hosts only open-source apps. It is also used to host systemwide ad blockers, which cannot be there in the official PlayStore because that will be undermining their free-with-ads apps. (I do not know if that is still the case). Samsung has Samsung stores. Amazon has a store of its own. If apps are available on both, then people will use the official store. It is Apple's responsibility to ensure that apps are available on the official store. Until now, they had the policy of my way or the highway. With 3rd party stores, Apple has to behave better with the developers. Apple is worried.
Capitalism? That's where the business owns you! And, Stockholm Syndrome kicks in.
They should be banned outright!
Diabetes, high blood pressure, kidney problems etc, etc...
While I may not particularly care about it, I’m not deciding it for anyone else.
Apple is free to add features iOS as it pleases and deems useful for competing with others.
Well, for one thing, Apple actually benefits from third-party developers “making a living” - cause they’re charging commission on purchases of their products. Unlike for (most of) their own apps.
Apple certainly can add features to their own products.
They’re like… the richtest company in the world and they control the platform.
The real “threat” here isn’t “small” developers “forcing” use of their inferior products.
It’s the other way round: it’s the biggest companies in the world shoving inferior products down user’s throats - cause they have all of the pricing and platform power. And highly paid lawyers to boot.
Okay... so you are against capitalism.
And you are for a total nanny state that limits your freedoms.
It is funny that you are the one who said "It is again, about the right of the consumer, and his ability to decide for himself, not to live in a controlled environment, as in communism" and now you are advocating the state limit the rights of the consumer to decide for themselves the products they want and you are panning capitalism. You are all over the place, with no discernible principles, willing to say anything to denigrate and hurt Apple.
We have the measure of you now. You don't care about competition or rights or any of the other rhetoric you throw about in your arguments. You just want to punish Apple and open up the system so that privacy and security can be compromised at will by authoritarian politicians whom you think will force everyone to conform to your preferences.
Last edited:
Starting out with a supposedly “scientific” premise…
It seems less strange, once you drop your wholly unscientific premise that it “only” increases potential for violation of property rights.
Also, the DMA — or its proponents here — do not want to destroy the value of capitalism, as you put it. They want to regulate and/prevent a few specific instances of business behaviour that run counter to free market competition:
Namely gatekeepers like Apple
- denying choice other businesses and consumers
- unilaterally pricing their services at rates that are way above the economic value they provide
- stifling innovation by other businesses by preferencing their own competing product
When there’s so little competition, even lack of a potential for competition in markets as big as mobile apps, the system is broken.
When basically all the housing stock in the country is provided by one or two companies setting up (just slightly more or less) gated communities, housing regulation is warrante.
…whereas you willingly submit and give up your freedoms to a rent-seeking nanny corporation.
One that is more highly valuated than entire countries‘ economies in the world.
…because that means freedom and enables choice and competition.
You‘ve perverting the very meaning of deciding for themselves.
Lack of choice in apps and payment methods isn‘t „consumers deciding“.
Lack of retro gaming emulators isn’t „consumers deciding“.
Lack of interoperability for messengers (blue vs. green bubbles) isn‘t consumers deciding.
👉 The law enables consumers to decide - and other businesses to offer products in fair competition that consumers can decide from/among. It abolishes particular anticompetitive practices from gatekeepers that are designed to inhibit free choice.
It stops being well-working and beneficially valuable capitalism, once a company becomes as big and as powerful to be able to operate as and become a quasi-government of their own.
Last edited:
You'd have to live in the EU to understand it. It's democracy, not capitalism -- it is pro-consumer.
No, not with $s, but with our own currency. And, we have many currencies in the EU.
Democracy is a form of government; capitalism is a form of a market to perform transactions in.
The way things play out, what I suspect Apple will end up doing is basically withhold new iOS features from the EU market for a period of 1-3 years until their internal APIs are robust enough to be made publicly available to developers (remember that it took like 4 years for the HomePod to be opened up). After all, Apple wouldn't want to be accused of favouring its own apps over third party ones.
You all want Apple to play fair with others, you all get fair play. Now everyone in the EU is on the same level, and everyone starts out equally behind.
There's also quite the beautiful parallel between Apple and the EU when you think about it.
Apple aggregates the best customers in the world, which it uses as leverage to get developers to jump through whatever hoops Apple wants them to. Not all developers do, obviously, but Apple is clearly hoping that enough will such that this will ultimately not matter.
In the same vein, the EU is using its population base as leverage, and is essentially betting that Apple values the access to this market enough that they will ultimately capitulate to the terms of the DMA (and whatever legislation they might put out in the future). Just as there are developers who ultimately decide not to release apps for iOS, it does not seem inconceivable that Apple may just decide to leave the EU one day. I clearly don't think Apple should, but I won't hold it against Apple if they do.
This is a very high stakes game of bluff both sides are playing. There is a non-zero chance that Apple deciding to leave the EU results in a domino effect of other US tech giants electing to do the same as well, which in turn leads to the EU deciding to water down the DMA enforcement terms in a bid to get them to stay. Do they really want to cede the entire market EU market to Google? That would surely be a boon for competition. 😏
Think about it. The EU threatening to fine Apple a percentage of their global revenue makes sense only within the context that the EU views themselves as the regulator of the world's technology, even though they claim that the DMA applies only to their own internal markets, and so it makes sense to me that Apple is specifically going out of their way to fork iOS just for the EU and essentially build a wall around the region. And if Apple is doing this, then the fine should simply apply only to their revenue within the region, not the world.
For those who argue that a fine needs to be excessive to force Apple to capitulate, why then don't we chop off people's hands for shoplifting? After all, the severity of the punishment shouldn't matter if you don't see yourself ever breaking the law, right?
And if Apple ends up incurring more fines than their profit in the EU region, what then is the incentive for continuing to operate in the region, if it's proving to be a net loss? May as well just pick up your ball and leave. Same for other corporations like Facebook and Microsoft. You can argue that this would simply cede the market to other competitors, but then they too would be subject to the DMA's terms, and end up suffering the same fate, so why bother?
What I want to say is - Apple's far from being out of the count, and I wouldn't be in a hurry to bet against Apple. Not today, or any other day. 🙂
You all want Apple to play fair with others, you all get fair play. Now everyone in the EU is on the same level, and everyone starts out equally behind.
There's also quite the beautiful parallel between Apple and the EU when you think about it.
Apple aggregates the best customers in the world, which it uses as leverage to get developers to jump through whatever hoops Apple wants them to. Not all developers do, obviously, but Apple is clearly hoping that enough will such that this will ultimately not matter.
In the same vein, the EU is using its population base as leverage, and is essentially betting that Apple values the access to this market enough that they will ultimately capitulate to the terms of the DMA (and whatever legislation they might put out in the future). Just as there are developers who ultimately decide not to release apps for iOS, it does not seem inconceivable that Apple may just decide to leave the EU one day. I clearly don't think Apple should, but I won't hold it against Apple if they do.
This is a very high stakes game of bluff both sides are playing. There is a non-zero chance that Apple deciding to leave the EU results in a domino effect of other US tech giants electing to do the same as well, which in turn leads to the EU deciding to water down the DMA enforcement terms in a bid to get them to stay. Do they really want to cede the entire market EU market to Google? That would surely be a boon for competition. 😏
Think about it. The EU threatening to fine Apple a percentage of their global revenue makes sense only within the context that the EU views themselves as the regulator of the world's technology, even though they claim that the DMA applies only to their own internal markets, and so it makes sense to me that Apple is specifically going out of their way to fork iOS just for the EU and essentially build a wall around the region. And if Apple is doing this, then the fine should simply apply only to their revenue within the region, not the world.
For those who argue that a fine needs to be excessive to force Apple to capitulate, why then don't we chop off people's hands for shoplifting? After all, the severity of the punishment shouldn't matter if you don't see yourself ever breaking the law, right?
And if Apple ends up incurring more fines than their profit in the EU region, what then is the incentive for continuing to operate in the region, if it's proving to be a net loss? May as well just pick up your ball and leave. Same for other corporations like Facebook and Microsoft. You can argue that this would simply cede the market to other competitors, but then they too would be subject to the DMA's terms, and end up suffering the same fate, so why bother?
What I want to say is - Apple's far from being out of the count, and I wouldn't be in a hurry to bet against Apple. Not today, or any other day. 🙂