Apple is now the 5th company that is being under this regulation, guess who the other 4 are:
Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft and Amazon
What does that tell you?
Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft and Amazon
What does that tell you?
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 Loses Appeal Against German Regulatory Controls
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I should have said it is Brussels that hates the United States. My favorite country in the EU is Italy.
"discounts the value of a business model that puts user privacy and security at its core."
I don’t know much about the case but I’m inclined to agree with this because I do think governments generally prioritize control and lobbyists high above user privacy.
I buy Apple for two main reasons—privacy(/security) and convenience. If governments have legitimate reasons to regulate, fine, but if they claim it’s for the consumer but they compromise the main reasons I choose to buy Apple, then they are decidedly anti-consumer.
I don’t know much about the case but I’m inclined to agree with this because I do think governments generally prioritize control and lobbyists high above user privacy.
I buy Apple for two main reasons—privacy(/security) and convenience. If governments have legitimate reasons to regulate, fine, but if they claim it’s for the consumer but they compromise the main reasons I choose to buy Apple, then they are decidedly anti-consumer.
Apple isn't afraid of competition. They just aren't stupid enough to actively help the competition.
'Everyone', apparently doesn't include me. I'm indifferent about them and think it's a great idea.
How are they 'not actively helping competition'? If they’re using their power to lock down ecosystems and restrict competitors, isn’t that actively prohibiting competition? And are those actions in line with democratically formed German laws, or do you just believe corporations should operate above them?
Don’t get me wrong, I think those attached bottle tops are a pain but I also think it’s a good idea.
Apple isn't the only company around. You're free to use whatever else you want. It's their ecosystem. They should lock it down however they see fit. If you don't like that, use something else. It isn't their job to help competitors. It wasn't long ago Apple was the "little guy" entering into making phones. They didn't whine and complain. They worked hard and made themselves the largest company on Earth. Maybe if these other companies put as much effort into their products lines as they did crying about Apple, maybe they'd be successful themselves.
So let me get this straight, you’re saying Apple should be free to lock down its ecosystem however it wants because 'it’s theirs,' but at the same time, you acknowledge that competitors can’t succeed because they’re locked out? That’s the whole point of antitrust regulation. Apple isn’t just competing; it’s setting the rules to ensure others can’t compete.
And funny enough, Apple became big thanks to antitrust regulation against Microsoft in the 90s. But now that they’re on top, suddenly regulation is ‘unfair’? Their real innovation wasn’t technology, it was convincing people like you that monopolistic control is just ‘good business.’
Wondering if this feels like direct middle finger or like “bring it on” to POTUS who threatened tariffs if they regulate US tech companies with laws he disagrees with.
Trump fires back at EU tech regulation
Donald Trump's administration is defending US tech giants against EU regulations. Brussels says it is 'determined to apply them.'
www.lemonde.fr
Since Germany’s EU, this ruling has to apply to all of EU, right?
No, it means Germany takes itself and its democratically formed laws seriously and doesn’t wait for permission from the U.S. to regulate companies operating within its borders. If the U.S. wants to be a safe haven for unchecked corporate power, that’s their problem, Germany is choosing to uphold fair competition.Wondering if this feels like direct middle finger or like “bring it on” to POTUS who threatened tariffs if they regulate US tech companies with laws he disagrees with.
Trump fires back at EU tech regulation
Donald Trump's administration is defending US tech giants against EU regulations. Brussels says it is 'determined to apply them.'
Since Germany’s EU, this ruling has to apply to all of EU, right?
The world doesn’t exist to serve American corporate interests, nor to cave to a leader who governs by tantrum and threatens democracy to protect billionaires.
No. EU member countries still have their own laws and regulations.Wondering if this feels like direct middle finger or like “bring it on” to POTUS who threatened tariffs if they regulate US tech companies with laws he disagrees with.
Trump fires back at EU tech regulation
Donald Trump's administration is defending US tech giants against EU regulations. Brussels says it is 'determined to apply them.'
Since Germany’s EU, this ruling has to apply to all of EU, right?
This will happen more now thanks to Donald. Your president is turning your country into one of the most disliked in the world.
Android exists. Samsung, Huawei, Google, Xiaomi, and dozens of other smartphone manufactures exist. Make a compelling product with features that Apple doesn't offer and compete that way.
Apple did not "become big" thanks to antitrust regulation against Microsoft in the 1990s. Revisionist history.
Unless the EU doesn't like their tax laws, in which case those laws are deemed "illegal state aid".
Competition isn’t just about existing, it’s about having a fair chance to compete. Apple controls its entire ecosystem, blocking alternative app stores, banning sideloading, forcing developers into its payment system, and setting artificial barriers that keep competitors at a disadvantage. Telling companies to ‘just make a better product’ is ridiculous when Apple rigs the playing field to ensure they never get a fair shot.
/
Apple survived the 90s because of antitrust action against Microsoft. That’s not ‘revisionist history,’ that’s just history. Microsoft was forced to stop anti-competitive practices that crushed smaller competitors, including Apple. Without that intervention, Apple would have likely faded into irrelevance long before the iPhone ever launched.
What a ridiculous statement.
I'm not at all saying competitors can't succeed. The problem is they don't want to do the work. They want to piggyback off of Apple's success. It's lazy. If your product relies on another company giving you a free ride on their products, you're a lazy bum that deserves to fail.
You fail to understand the real issue here. Nobody is asking Apple to 'help competitors' or give anyone a 'free ride.' The problem is that Apple isn't merely competing, it's controlling the rules of the competition itself. You talk about 'hard work,' yet overlook how Apple's success was directly enabled by antitrust action against Microsoft. Apple's early growth wasn't some heroic underdog story; it was the direct result of regulations that stopped monopolies from crushing competitors.
Today, Apple is exactly where Microsoft was, locking competitors out of its ecosystem and preventing real innovation from having a fair chance. You're contradicting yourself by saying competitors should 'work harder' while supporting Apple's efforts to keep them from competing fairly. True competition means fair rules apply equally, not just when it's convenient.
Antitrust laws don't exist to give free rides. They ensure that no corporation, no matter how successful, can rig the game to block future innovation.
Literally the EU is doing so. The DMA says, and I quote:
“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”
If Apple introduces a new feature, it has to allow others to freeload off of it immediately or they're in violation of the EU's law.
Anyone is able to make an amazing app for Android that Apple won't allow, to make a compelling hardware product that interacts with Android and those phones. Apple has no control over android or other manufacturers. They're not stopping any innovation. They just want to be fairly compensated for the work they do to create and maintain iOS and the APIs that allow developers' apps to function. But developers want all of that for free.
Again, the idea that the antitrust decision at Microsoft allowed Apple to survive is revisionist history. At best it may have helped indirectly, but Apple's success has far more to do with Steve Jobs coming back than anything the DOJ did.
Don’t talk rubbish. Microsoft in the 90’s was top of the pile for software running PC’s. It was their browser & the only preference of using their browser they got slapped down for.
Remind me what Apple is top in, or even near to top in vs Android, aside from making boat loads of cash?
I feel ultimately Apple just has to cave to EU. Crying Uncle will only make things for the company on global scale in current political climate. Canada’s already boycotting American companies including Apple. They don’t want boycott from EU countries, that would take huge hit.
The latter part, the current president doesn’t believe in at all. For him, his viewpoint is that American companies has only has to follow American laws even in other countries. His threat of tariffs to countries that punish American companies signal exactly that, and he wants the world to serve only American interest. To me, that’s trying to take over the world. (I could go on and on, but that’s for another topic outside MacRumors)
But doesn’t most of EU member countries have similar and reciprocal laws? So if one law applies to one EU country, then the court in other EU countries will likely follow in path.
You’re factually incorrect. Microsoft wasn’t just penalized for pushing their browser, it was penalized because it abused its dominant platform (Windows) to eliminate competition by limiting consumer and developer choice. Apple today controls the most profitable mobile ecosystem through the App Store, where it strictly forbids alternative app stores, blocks sideloading, and requires developers to use its payment systems. Apple completely dominates the premium smartphone market, pulling in the vast majority of industry profits, not just ‘boatloads of cash.’ That’s exactly what antitrust regulation targets: not successful businesses, but companies that leverage their dominant market position to unfairly restrict competition and innovation. If Microsoft's behavior warranted intervention in the 90s, Apple's practices today undoubtedly do as well.
Antitrust laws exist to preserve fair competition, not to interfere with it. Not enforcing antitrust laws is what actually distorts the market by allowing monopolies to crush competitors and control consumer choice.
You misunderstand the DMA completely. It’s not about “freeloading” off Apple’s work, it’s about preventing Apple from using its control over the dominant iOS ecosystem to actively restrict competition. Interoperability doesn't mean Apple provides technology for free, it simply means they can't intentionally lock others out. Apple can still be compensated for its work; they just can't abuse their power to crush competitors. If your product can only succeed by actively blocking others, it's not innovation, it's monopolistic protection.
As for your second point: No one denies Steve Jobs’ importance. But ignoring the impact of antitrust enforcement against Microsoft is what's revisionist. Microsoft was actively suppressing competitors, including Apple, by abusing its Windows monopoly. The antitrust case directly forced Microsoft to back off, giving Apple crucial breathing room to innovate. Without regulation leveling the playing field, Jobs' return alone wouldn't have been enough.