Side loading did not fail to create competition, but even if it did, it's a philosophical thing - you should be allowed to do what you want with your device after you buy it, within moral capacity and civil law of course.
Reading the arguments Apple used to bend over backwards such as how they interpret free and to communicate etc
You're talking in circles.
Are you following our conversation? Because the question I posed to you had nothing to do with steering.
It's not fear mongering. Everything I listed is a fact of the DMA. You can argue it's "worth it" for the supposed benefits to competition, but you can't deny
The EU has said that Apple must allow developers to display offers via push notifications that make noise, even if the user has declined notifications and has the device muted. Here's the text:
Do you agree that should be allowed? If yes, how is that any different than the EU mandating pop up ads in Safari? Or do you agree the EU is wrong here?
No personal relationship at all. I've never been to Cupertino, don't own any stock, and as far as I know, I don't know anyone who has ever worked for Apple, outside of a college roommate who was a Genius at the local store years ago.
Sure it did. Outside of China, third-party stores combine for less than 5% share after 15 years. That's akin to Mac in Microsoft's heyday.
That's exactly the problem. The EU competition commission's mission isn't to pick what philosophy that they like best for app distribution, that's between the consumer and the platform owner.
Yep. Some of the DMA is well thought out. Some is not.
But that text never implies the user will be notified even with his device muted, of course it would be terrible to mandate such a regulation even if your phone is set to DND. Otherwise yeah notifying the customer should be allowed through push notifications, but I'd remove this in incognito mode
Yes it does:
If the EU didn’t want to get involved then they shouldn’t have written a law that involves them dictating which APIs Apple must give competitors to. It’s government intervention at its worst.
The EU should focus on building up a home-grown competitor to Android and iOS. That would actually increase competition without forcing Apple to give its IP away for free. Instead they pass a law that will actually make it more difficult for a third competitor to emerge. (Because again, they’re bad at their jobs and not qualified to be doing this!)
You’re asking for something completely unrelated to anything I have stated or referencing for.
I am, why did you ask an unrelated question to what’s originally said? Considering you responded to something related to steering.
It means Apple shouldn’t get in the way with the offering of a contract. Currently Apple is steering when it’s explicitly told they can’t steer whatsoever.
Then Apple should cooperate with the regulators or leave the market. Eu sets principles, while Apple wants their homework done forthem
Eu don’t care to do any such thing as it’s not its objective. EU don’t care about competition between iOS and Android. They care about competition ON iOS and Android.
Are you serious?
Nearly every regulation in existence has had the net effect of maintaining the status quo and limiting competition. Even now, the regulations on opening up iOS to alternative stores are mostly empowering stores that were already in place. (Epic?) Where is the new competition? Where are the new store fronts? Where are the start-up opportunities? If you take a look at the lauded US break-ups of Standard Oil and ATT, it only took a few years for one of the "new" companies to dominate again. And there was little long term benefit to consumers.
The DMA Doesn't Care About Market Structure - It Cares About Fair Competition
EU has never tried to break up major companies as it’s not something that they perceive as a good tool, they've consistently used fines and behavioral requirements instead. So using US breakup failures to predict EU regulatory outcomes is comparing apples to oranges. The DMA is less than 8 months old and Apple hasn’t even complied yet. Epic store wasn’t even a thing on mobile devices. Altstore has just barely become a thing, same with appDB.
And I posit that is an incredibly stupid way to promote competition that will actually do the opposite, as shown by the history of EU regulation. It’s does the opposite of ensuring fair competition.
Again, they’re focused on the wrong problem and won’t solve the problems they’re trying to solve, but will instead lead to homogeneous offerings that stifle innovation.
Samsung isn’t a “gatekeeper” because the EU excluded them when making up the idea. That’s the only reason. It has nothing to do with competition. If Samsung used its own software rather that’s Google’s then they’d absolutely be a gatekeeper.
And the DMA makes that job even harder.
The EU’s approach treats platforms as replaceable commodities. That hurts consumers and leads to no one winning at all, which I suspect is the goal in the first place.
Give me examples where it’s unfair competition
What’s the wrong problem? They aren’t trying to make more OSs. And they don’t care about it as that’s for the market to see.
Samsung was designated gatekeeper and provided evidence to the contrary. They simply don’t conduct anticompetitive behavior currently on their devices.
Nope, be competitive instead of lazy with anticompetitive practices.
Platforms aren’t replaceable commodities. But services are. And If Apple wants to maintain the AppStore they must be competitive or steam or epic can replace them.
Giving away IP for free to its competitors is unfair!
Regulating the completion inside of iOS and Android without considering that the two compete against each other is as silly as the government regulating Walmart and declaring they must offer Apple Pay because it’s unfairly punishing Apple to not, without considering Target next door does offer payments by Apple Pay and customers who feel strongly about using Apple Pay can just go shop next door and get 99% of the same products.
The EU wrote the law in such a way to predetermine who was as gatekeeper and what was anticompetitive. They predetermined the result to solve a problem that they made up and didn’t actually exist.
It’s Apple’s Property, they should be able to run it however they want absent an actual monopoly. THEY HAVE COMPETITION. If customers don’t like it they will switch to the competition. The EU and its defenders have a problem with the fact that customers like it, and are therefore outlawing it. They don’t know better than users.
Apple is competitive except in your mind.
Because the government has artificially decided that Apple isn’t allowed to run its business, that is in a distant second place. State control of markets never works out.
The value of the platform to developers is certainly relevant to a fair price for accessing the platform.
To make a point that the value of the platform to developers should matter. Just because the commission doesn't feel Apple is entitled to charge for that value does not mean it doesn't exist.
They can license it. It’s fairly straightforward.
No stor within EU can refuse to allow ApplePay in the store or any payment platform that accepts NFC must include ApplePay. If it supports visa or Mastercard it doesn’t matter what bank or credit firm that delivers the card.
Well it’s not apples property when it’s sold to consumers 🤷♂️. It’s ex anti regulation based on antitrust case law and written to target a specific anticompetitive behavior.
Then nothing will change when the platform is opened up for competitive payment processing and stores because Apple is so competitive. And youngish have nothing to worry over.
Apple can run its business. But EU doesn’t need to allow Apple on its market. Our rules or no sales.
That’s the initial acquisition value you can calculate. If you thing something more should be included then include it. It still must be quantifiable. Stating something as valuable doesn’t make it valuable. The court requires evidence so they can evaluate your claim
You claim in EUs regulatory history. They have an incredibly successful antitrust trackrecord of increasing competition.
And yet it wasn't included in your calculation. Again, you're talking in circles. You're using the EU method to justify the EU method. You're asking for a value that is generally determined by in part by how much people are willing to pay for, while dismissing that Apple has demonstrated over more than a decade that it's fees were reasonable enough to grow a massive app industry over more than a decade.
How did Apple compete 'unfairly'? They started with nothing. And despite that developers flocked to this new platform. The rules were established when the store was launched and have stayed relatively the same. But now, it is considered to be unfair. Why?
How do you calculate this? How can anyone? Why do people shop at 7-11 or any convenience store when everyone knows that the prices are often 2X what can be found at a grocery store? Can anyone quantifiably prove that the value of convenience is worth 2X? Likewise, how can you determine what the initial acquisition value might be when, if it wasn't for the tools and platform that Apple provides, there would be no product. According to you, Apple is supposed to determine a value when value is based solely on the user. Epic saw tremendous value in being on the Apple platform; to the point that they filed lawsuits. How should that value be quantified?
The value Apple provides in this regard can be related to other factors such as the first payment you do in the store, developer fees or something else. But considering in this case regarding steering and allowing alternatives payment options and offer to be made it’s limited to the initial customer acquisition.
That’s up to the company to determine. Saying value or just gesturing to some abstract notion isn’t evidence of a monetary value. It must be quantifiable. The fact someone is willing to pay something doesn’t equal it’s value
