Apple Loses Appeal Against German Regulatory Controls

[surferfb]

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.

I understand the DMA perfectly well, I’ve been commenting on it and researching it for over a year now. I vehemently disagree with your interpretation of it. It’s a law written to attack integration as an acceptable business practice wrapped in a bow of “it’ll make things better for consumers” to make it palatable for those not paying attention when in actuality it has already made Apple’s products and services worse for the vast majority of consumers.

From example, the EU is reportedly demanding Apple give away AirDrop to Android. For free. That’s not opening competition, it’s theft of Apple’s hard work that Apple uses to differentiate its products.

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.

I just fundamentally disagree with that assertion.

First, the situations are totally different. Microsoft has 90% of the desktop PC market, Apple has 25-50% of the smartphone OS market, depending on country. Apple doesn’t have the ability to crush its competitors the way Microsoft did. There’s a reason the EU didn’t use existing antitrust law to go after Apple, it’s because Apple has nowhere near the market control to warrant the use of those types of law. 30% market share in the EU is nowhere near Microsoft’s control.

Secondly, most of the Microsoft case was about thing that had nothing to do with Apple, like how Microsoft prevented OEMs from shipping other competing software browsers, and required them to pay for things like Windows licenses even if the computer wasn’t shipping with windows. Could you argue that Microsoft was less aggressive because of the scrutiny and that allowed Apple to thrive? Sure, I guess. But I think it’s quite the stretch to suggest Apple owes its success to antitrust enforcement where the vast majority of the case and remedies didn’t impact Apple at all.

But you don’t have take my word for it. Not that AI is the end all and be all of knowledge, but given it was trained on the entire internet, probably a pretty good idea of the internet’s thoughts on the matter. I asked ChatGPT, and this is the response I got:

Microsoft’s antitrust case may have helped Apple indirectly, but Apple’s success was largely driven by Jobs’ leadership, product innovation, and market strategy—not just Microsoft’s legal troubles.

It’s an interesting discussion, but attributing Apple’s resurgence purely to Microsoft’s struggles is too simplistic.

Claude:

Apple's resurgence in the 1990s was influenced by Microsoft's antitrust situation, but it was just one of several crucial factors.

Apple's turnaround was primarily driven by:

- Steve Jobs' return in 1997 and his radical restructuring (cutting product lines by 70%)
- The introduction of the iMac in 1998, which was a commercial success and design breakthrough
- The development of Mac OS X, providing a modern foundation for Apple's software
- The "Think Different" campaign that revitalized Apple's brand image
- The opening of Apple retail stores starting in 2001
- The iPod launch in 2001, which began Apple's transformation into a consumer electronics company

The Microsoft antitrust case may have created a more level playing field, but Apple's own strategic decisions under Jobs' leadership were the primary drivers of its remarkable comeback.

 

[Dutch60]

I should have said it is Brussels that hates the United States. My favorite country in the EU is Italy.

If by “Brussels” you mean the European Union, I disagree again. The European Union doesn’t hate the US at all. Who brought you to this idea? Trump? (I know he said ridiculous things about the EU). If so, please check and check again; he’s the definition of a notorious lying, manipulating, power hungry dictator. Playing, intimidating and changing media and even the whole legal system in the US. Unfortunately less and less Americans get to know about checks and balances. Hence my earlier comment on the US becoming a country ruled by a dictator.

 

[TechnoTiger3000]

I understand the DMA perfectly well, I’ve been commenting on it and researching it for over a year now. I vehemently disagree with your interpretation of it. It’s a law written to attack integration as an acceptable business practice wrapped in a bow of “it’ll make things better for consumers” to make it palatable for those not paying attention when in actuality it has already made Apple’s products and services worse for the vast majority of consumers.

From example, the EU is reportedly demanding Apple give away AirDrop to Android. For free. That’s not opening competition, it’s theft of Apple’s hard work that Apple uses to differentiate its products.


I just fundamentally disagree with that assertion. Most of the case was about thing that had nothing to do with Apple, like how Microsoft prevented OEMs from shipping other competing software browsers, and required them to pay for things like Windows licenses even if the computer wasn’t shipping with windows. Could you argue that Microsoft was less aggressive because of the scrutiny and that allowed Apple to thrive? Sure, I guess. But I think it’s quite the stretch to suggest Apple owes its success to antitrust enforcement where the vast majority of the case and remedies didn’t impact Apple at all.

But you don’t have take my word for it. Not that AI is the end all and be all of knowledge, but given it was trained on the entire internet, probably a pretty good idea of the internet’s thoughts on the matter. I asked ChatGPT, and this is the response I got:



Claude:

I appreciate your effort, but your walls of text have become unreadable, I’m not here to debate essays.

To keep it simple: No one claimed Apple's comeback was solely thanks to the Microsoft antitrust case. Even your Claude, acknowledges it was "one of several crucial factors." And that's exactly the point: antitrust actions are crucial because they create the conditions under which innovation can thrive. Apple benefited from that environment; now others deserve the same chance.

You're free to feel differently, but I'm done debating historical facts.

 

[surferfb]

I appreciate your effort, but your walls of text have become unreadable, I’m not here to debate essays.

To keep it simple: No one claimed Apple's comeback was solely thanks to the Microsoft antitrust case. Even your Claude, acknowledges it was "one of several crucial factors." And that's exactly the point: antitrust actions are crucial because they create the conditions under which innovation can thrive. Apple benefited from that environment; now others deserve the same chance.

You're free to feel differently, but I'm done debating established historical facts.

I concur that we’re not going to agree on this when we both think the other is misstating basic historical facts to make their argument.

Have a good one!

 

[Andy_2341]

As long as you don’t wreck the Apple Ecosystem, go ahead Germany. That’s my only concern with any government looking into anything remotely related to the way the ecosystem is.

 

[rehkram]

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’?

And funnily enough, before that, Microsoft became big thanks to their antitrust suit against IBM in the 80s. I call it 'Karma'.

 

[0049190]

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.

No. The EU is not one country. It’s a group of 27 countries. There are EU laws that cover all member countries. Equally each country is free to make their own laws independently.

In the US you have state laws and federal laws. I think state laws can be different in each state whereas federal laws cover all states.

EU wide laws can only be enacted by the European Parliament not by individual member countries.

 

[subjonas]

I appreciate your effort, but your walls of text have become unreadable, I’m not here to debate essays.

To keep it simple: No one claimed Apple's comeback was solely thanks to the Microsoft antitrust case. Even your Claude, acknowledges it was "one of several crucial factors." And that's exactly the point: antitrust actions are crucial because they create the conditions under which innovation can thrive. Apple benefited from that environment; now others deserve the same chance.

You're free to feel differently, but I'm done debating historical facts.

You basically said to your debate opponent, “I’m not going to read your post but you’re wrong”. That’s bad faith.

From your posts, I understood your general thesis which you restated above. But what I didn’t see in your posts were specifics that backed up your thesis. My questions are:
- How specifically was Microsoft holding Apple back from success?
- How specifically did regulation against Microsoft allow Apple to become successful?
- Are you maintaining that without that regulation Apple would not be successful today?
- How specifically is Apple holding back other companies from being the next Apple/Microsoft?

 

[Lioness~]

You're free to feel differently, but I'm done debating historical facts.

I appload you - I have shaked my head and laughed numorous times of the pattern here of debating facts that anyone can google.
Why does it even exist here one can wonder - I think it is some kind of besserwisser mentality in some part of the male popularity mostly.
Then people apologize if the don't get all facts 100% right, oh I have been guity for done that too.
But what a weird pattern, and even a sadder reason to live in the past and debate facts googled up. Or it might be some dudes that think they are fooling ppl that they are smart carrying these facts in there mental hard-drive?

 

[TechnoTiger3000]

You basically said to your debate opponent, “I’m not going to read your post but you’re wrong”. That’s bad faith.

From your posts, I understood your general thesis which you restated above. But what I didn’t see in your posts were specifics that backed up your thesis. My questions are:
- How specifically was Microsoft holding Apple back from success?
- How specifically did regulation against Microsoft allow Apple to become successful?
- Are you maintaining that without that regulation Apple would not be successful today?
- How specifically is Apple holding back other companies from being the next Apple/Microsoft?

If you read my words as written, you would see that I never refused to read his post. I pointed out that it had turned into an unnecessarily long essay, which is not the same thing. The use of the word "unreadable" in this context does not mean I was physically unable to read it, but that it had become overly drawn out and difficult to engage with meaningfully. Your attempt to twist that into bad faith is nonsense.

I have already outlined my argument multiple times, and I am not going to restart the debate just because someone new decided to jump in. Your questions have already been answered, not just by me but by antitrust rulings and historical analysis. If you actually want to understand this topic, do your own research. I am not here to spoon-feed history to you.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Given what’s going on in America and China, the Europeans need to invest significantly to build and grow their own tech companies.

This. The fact that they’re still attempting to tie their digital future to a phone that could be disallowed to even be sold in the EU is fascinating.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

If their own apps aren't also controlled the same way, yes.

If their own ad platform captured data on and tracked users across multiple different applications, then “Ask Not To Track” would be required. Their ads work on the App Store and that’s it. There IS no cross App Tracking, thus, no need to ask NOT to track across apps.

If other ad platforms would, by default, NOT track across apps, then the pop up wouldn’t be required. The only problem here is that “Ask Not To Track” has been wildly effective because people don’t want to be tracked. Ad networks that track people across apps want to continue to do so without telling French citizens about it. Looks like the government thinks it’s ok for non-French ad companies to track their citizens without their knowledge.

 

[TechnoTiger3000]

This. The fact that they’re still attempting to tie their digital future to a phone that could be disallowed to even be sold in the EU is fascinating.

Enforcing local laws is not tying the EU’s digital future to a company or product. It is Apple that is tying its business model to a walled garden that does not comply with EU law. If they refuse to adjust, that is their decision, not the EU’s problem.

Europe values democracy over corporate control. If Apple cannot operate without locking out rivals, that is a flaw in their EU business, not in the law.

 

[MrSkoTA]

That’s a nice anti-european "meme".

The American invention is by a company whose boss likes to do archaic salutes on stage, and the Chinese ones are just male fantasies.

European regulations aren’t always well thought through, but at least they aren’t handing everything over to technocrats for them to later hurt the people, as currently on display in the inventive USA.

You do realize that democrats have done the same stupid salute right!?! It’s not always Nazi to do something like that. It’s just ridiculous to make stupid cr@p up that doesn’t exist!

 

[MrSkoTA]

How can Germany be allowed to account for 2 Billion devices that are worldwide when making decisions for 1/50th of that population!?!

 

[rehkram]

How can Germany be allowed to account for 2 Billion devices that are worldwide when making decisions for 1/50th of that population!?!

Your implication here is that the whole world must become subsumed into the technocracy. I say "Good for Germany! Just say No!"

 

[rehkram]

You do realize that democrats have done the same stupid salute right!?! It’s not always Nazi to do something like that. It’s just ridiculous to make stupid cr@p up that doesn’t exist!

What's ridiculous is you twisting yourself into a pretzel to try to whitewash an event that we all confirmed with our own eyes. Sorry, but "it's just Elon being Elon" doesn't cut it. Same applies to the other guy.

 

[DownUnderDan]

Given what’s going on in America and China, the Europeans need to invest significantly to build and grow their own tech companies.

I think thats inevitable at this point, but will take some time.

 

[TechnoTiger3000]

Your implication here is that the whole world must become subsumed into the technocracy. I say "Good for Germany! Just say No!"

I believe I agree with your point 100%, but I think technocracy means something different than what you intended. Maybe I’m wrong.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Enforcing local laws is not tying the EU’s digital future to a company or product. It is Apple that is tying its business model to a walled garden that does not comply with EU law. If they refuse to adjust, that is their decision, not the EU’s problem.

Europe values democracy over corporate control. If Apple cannot operate without locking out rivals, that is a flaw in their EU business, not in the law.

Not fostering the creation of software and hardware devices that companies in the region own and control (and, more importantly, that their consumers want to buy) is tying their digital future to companies outside the region. In the current climate, if the US government says Google and Apple are forbidden to do business in the region, well, then their App Store problems go away overnight! And, since they’ve already driven out all the tech companies that COULD have done this for them, there’s no backup plan.

And, the walled garden model? The EU were the ones that approved it! The way the App Store was doing business was approved by EU regulators. They had an opportunity to block the sale of the phone and implement these requirements back then. But, because they didn’t, they had to make up “gatekeeper” so that it LOOKS like they’re not reneging on their prior agreements. And, interestingly enough “gatekeeper” was crafted to exclude Nintendo and Sony’s businesses that are tied to their walled gardens. And, a wide swath of other industries where companies tie their business models to walled gardens.

As we’ve recently seen, if a region has the will to restrict the sale of new Apple devices to that region until Apple meets their demands, Apple readily capitulates. Because Indonesia doesn’t need iOS, they blocked the sale of new phones from Apple until their demands were met. Would the EU ever do the same? Never, because they need the iPhone as a part of their digital future.

 

[rehkram]

I believe I agree with your point 100%, but I think technocracy means something different than what you intended. Maybe I’m wrong.

You could be right. There is no all-encompassing term for what is developing. I think of it as an overlay stratum that extends out of its original national boundaries to overlap other non contiguous states.

Since this new stratum has a ready-made communications infrastructure built into it, it is immensely powerful, more powerful than ever envisaged by its original creators.

Due to the potential power of this overlay, once they have understood the potential threat, a sovereign state's natural reactions include regulation, which is what we're primarily discussing.

What other choices do nation states have in the face of other states and disparate bad actors (think 'cults') manipulating their populations?

The choices are few. You can exert control through regulation, or you can do nothing and be subsumed into a (yet another) new world order potentially controlled by:

• nations other than your own
• quasi-religious cults
• oligarchs
• marketers
• hackers of the worst type
• criminals
• political ideologies
• fanatics
• warmongers
• other threats yet to be identified

Sound familiar? What has developed up to now is a mix of all of the above. It's almost funny to think that this has developed mostly by accident with nobody at the main driving wheel, because there is no main driving wheel. This is Marshall McLuhan's "the medium is the message" on steroids.

That is what I'm trying to describe in a single word, and failing to do so because that word does not yet exist. Maybe we can just call it a total mess, or come up with a new, catchy and all-encompassing term.

 

[Powerbooky]

Sometimes I wonder why lawyers haven't sued all companies that have some device that is running software and do not allow competitors on their hardware. And with "some device" I mean coffee makers, cars, televisions... almost all have their own closed software. Especially "smart" TV's have software that slowly becomes useless after 2-3 years - no easy way to "update" it with 3rd party software for every customer.

 

[rehkram]

Ssshhh... you'll give them ideas... Lawyers work for their clients, they don't sue people without them.

Seriously though, it's hard to think of another use of a coffee maker apart from making coffee. Maybe we can tie it into the global conspiracy somehow? I'm thinking of the toaster conspiracy theory. Kind of a matching set of kitchen appliances.

Bottom line, the internet supports high bandwidth two way communication. The appliances you mention do not, other than tracking usage if it's a so-called smart device. I guess at some point it might become a problem but not yet.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Sometimes I wonder why lawyers haven't sued all companies that have some device that is running software and do not allow competitors on their hardware. And with "some device" I mean coffee makers, cars, televisions... almost all have their own closed software. Especially "smart" TV's have software that slowly becomes useless after 2-3 years - no easy way to "update" it with 3rd party software for every customer.

It’s because what the EU is doing is wholly improper. Most governments know that punishing success means that companies in those countries are either a. not successful or b. go somewhere else where success is NOT punished. And the EU regulators have done a great job on both counts because their tech companies aren’t world class AND, those companies that had promise were driven out of the EU to be successful elsewhere. They have literally regulated themselves out of the digital economy and they believe, I think erroneously, that they are in a position to dictate how companies do business worldwide.

The reason why companies are working with them is because they were suckered into thinking that the way they can operate in the EU was defined a LONG time ago. If the EU had presented these ideas to these companies back BEFORE the companies started doing business in the region, it’s likely the EU wouldn’t even have a digital economy as strong as the rest of the world. BUT, now that they know that the EU’s not really a trusted partner anymore, those companies doing business there are complying with current devices and restricting the introduction of new features and pulling back those features that would force them to give their competitive advantage to EU companies. And, those companies that have NOT entered the region yet are fully aware of what happens if citizens in the EU turns out to like their products. There’s plenty of easier money to make elsewhere.

If a future company creates a set of devices that people in the US, Japan, India and other places are buying BECAUSE they’re tightly integrated and work wonderfully well together, they won’t even consider releasing that product in the EU. SO the regulators have driven out the companies that used to be in the EU and now they’re working on restricting any NEW companies doing business in the EU. I wonder if they’ll ever come to recognize that?

 

[Powerbooky]

...

If a future company creates a set of devices that people in the US, Japan, India and other places are buying BECAUSE they’re tightly integrated and work wonderfully well together, they won’t even consider releasing that product in the EU. SO the regulators have driven out the companies that used to be in the EU and now they’re working on restricting any NEW companies doing business in the EU. I wonder if they’ll ever come to recognize that?

So far I haven't met any EU politician having some sense of... like anything. Oh well... they do care about their pay check and the bribes. More than 75% of the people running around in the EU/Brussels are lobbyists (bribing).

But really... ever since the 80ies, so many electronics manufacturers that existed in Europe (and US) have either moved away/outsourced the work/sold the business to Asia or South America. Lower labour costs, less or no environmental legislation and easier bribing. The EU and all its predecessors haven't done anything to make them stay.