With India being the only reasonable exception, as Indians worldwide make more than 20% of the world population.
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 Says India's Antitrust Case Against It Is 'Copy-Pasted'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It’s entertaining to imagine what the revenge fantasy would accomplish. Let’s play it out a little. Apple decides the angry posters are right, enough is enough and they’re pulling sales out of the EU market. Oh nos!
So how hostile does it get? If EU customers hop on a train to buy iPhones in nearby countries, does Apple interfere with that? Does it go after functionality of older devices or just newly sold?
If Apple were to get outright hostile, pulling entirely out of the EU market and sabotaging devices still in the region, how would the EU respond?
No bad answers. Have fun with it.
So how hostile does it get? If EU customers hop on a train to buy iPhones in nearby countries, does Apple interfere with that? Does it go after functionality of older devices or just newly sold?
If Apple were to get outright hostile, pulling entirely out of the EU market and sabotaging devices still in the region, how would the EU respond?
No bad answers. Have fun with it.
surferfb
macrumors 68030
They’re obviously not going to do it, but if they pulled out of the market then the DMA doesn’t apply anymore. In order for the DMA to apply the product has to be offered in at least 3 EU countries, so in the entirely unrealistic scenario Apple pulls out, if users go to Switzerland or the UK Apple doesn’t care; they’re not offering iPhone in the EU so they don’t have to follow the regulations.
Again, there is no universe where they pull out of the EU outside of something like a “thou shalt break encryption” demand from regulators, and probably not even then, so it’s a moot point.
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
Apple has accused Indian antitrust investigators of "copy-pasting" claims from its rivals and failing to conduct their own analysis, arguing the regulator's findings against it should be thrown out.
In a June 25 submission to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) reviewed by Reuters, Apple escalated its long-running dispute with the regulator, where Match and a group of Indian startups are among its opponents. The CCI's investigators privately concluded in 2024 that Apple had engaged in "abusive conduct" on the App Store and wrongly mandated the use of its own payment system.
Apple has denied the allegations. The company said it is a "minuscule player" with under 6% of India's smartphone market, and argued the investigation's conclusions rest on rivals' claims rather than the CCI's independent work. It warned that "forced alterations to Apple's carefully designed App Store could disrupt its integrated business model," and that remedies would "create regulatory uncertainty and could deter investments in India's digital economy."
In its submission, Apple provided tables intended to show the CCI's investigation team had simply reproduced filings from opponents in the case, including Match, Walmart's Indian payments app PhonePe, and Indian rival Paytm. "The DG [Director General] made no effort whatsoever to independently verify or critically assess these statements, often parroting them verbatim," Apple said.
Apple also claimed the CCI "blindly replicated" a graphic on worldwide consumer spending on mobile apps and games drawn from a 2024 EU ruling against the company, despite India facing different market conditions. In its own case, Google argued that Indian investigators had copied parts of a European ruling, but it had little effect on the final ruling resulting in forced changes to promotion of Android.
Apple is also arguing that officials failed to grant it "a single opportunity to record its statements and provide oral evidence" during the probe, in contrast to Google, which it says was given several chances to defend itself.
The regulator has accused Apple of stalling the case for more than two years by withholding responses and pursuing a parallel challenge to India's antitrust penalty law, which allows for fines of up to 10% of a company's turnover over the previous three years. That law lets India base any penalty on global rather than local turnover, the basis on which Apple has estimated its potential exposure at as much as $38 billion. Apple is separately contesting in a New Delhi court whether the law, which took effect in 2024, should apply to the full 2022–2024 period in question.
Apple had refused to supply global financial documents for that period before agreeing to cooperate in early June 2026, ultimately submitting only its local Indian turnover after requesting a "final extension" that ran to June 25, which was the same day it filed its copy-pasting accusation.
The dispute comes as India grows ever more central to Apple's business. The country is set to make 26% of the world's iPhones in 2026, up from 6% four years ago.
Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Article Link: Apple Says India's Antitrust Case Against It Is 'Copy-Pasted'
Isn't "copy & paste" sort of what Apple did with large chunks of the Invites App?
Seemed like that was a shameless knockoff of Partiful.
What's good for the goose ...
Crocodile tears are being shed for poor Apple here.
BC2009
macrumors 68020
due to the large salary gap in India, only a small percentage of that large population can afford an iPhone. between 1% and 5% of India’s population can buy a new (not used) iphone.
and regardless, it is extortion to go after a percentage of global revenues
BC2009
macrumors 68020
Revenue and profit are very different things. Apple booked its profit in Ireland by paying the Irish subsidiary a large percentage of the revenue. You cannot fake revenue. It is just the sum total of retail sold at the cash registers or to the resellers.
Yeah, and if they’re successful breaking up the App Store monopoly… ummm, then they’ll be left with the Google ACTUAL monopoly. Hooray?
BC2009
macrumors 68020
the government of the parent company cares and may impose sanctions against the extorting company in retaliation.
People are seeing the DMA affect Vision Pro availability in the EU. France and Germany are the two countries chosen (Can’t imagine how they got all those regions to agree to allow France and Germany to still get tech while they don’t.) People who still want it will go the gray market route. It hurts sales, but as the lion’s share of the sales are via France and Germany anyway how much sales are hurt will be a rounding error.
I’m waiting to see what happens with the iPhone Ultra. New device, new technologies that the EU may, at one day in the future, say are illegal. Just offer it in France and Germany (along with the MacBook Ultra) and they’re in the clear according to the DMA rules.
Samplasion
macrumors 6502a
You've made your position clear about sideloading time and time again, and I can guess what you think of lower commissions for devs, but why is rollback to any version a bad thing? It's a thing on all other platforms, to some extent.
surferfb
macrumors 68030
Downgrade attacks are a real thing. Someone forces a device back to a version with a known unpatched vulnerability, then exploits it.
It also means there’s no fragmented install base running ancient vulnerable versions the way you see on Android.
I may be wrong, but “actual monopoly” seems to imply that Google does not allow sideloading fir Android apps in India. That is not really the case though, unless the June 19 article in the Times of India is fake news …
Google sets Android sideloading deadline: verification rules go live September 30
Google has finally put dates on its Android sideloading overhaul, confirming that developer verification protections will reach the first users on September 30, 2026. The rollout begins in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand before a global expansion across certified Android devices in 2027.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Interesting … I did not know there was direct connection between the DMA and AVP availabilty. So the EU had to convince the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and another 22 countries to shut up and not protest the exception for GER and FR? Could it be that Apple decided which region gets the AVP, which not? Really curious because the article at bottom does not at all mention the DMA which commenced in March 2024.
These three regions are German speaking (Switzerland + French, Italian, Swiss German):
The AVP is not available in Switzerland, Switzerland is not in the EU.
The AVP is not available in Austria, Austria is in the EU.
The AVP is available in Germany, Germany is in the EU.
I searched in a variety of ways but no source for the DMA-AVP connection came up. Apple’s own September 2025 press release on the impact of the DMA does not mention the AVP. Apple announced availability for GER and FR, i.e. “select countries”, in November ‘24, after the DMA had gone into effect. I would be grateful for a link to a source with a perspective on “People are seeing the DMA affect Vision Pro availability in the EU.”
Apple Vision Pro Available Countries (April 2026)
Discover the Apple Vision Pro available countries. Find out where it's accepted, supported, and when it may arrive in more regions worldwide.
surferfb
macrumors 68030
Apple has not come out and say there is a direct connection, however the text of the DMA does state (emphasis mine):
1. An undertaking shall be designated as a gatekeeper if:
(a) | it has a significant impact on the internal market; |
(b) | it provides a core platform service which is an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and |
(c) | it enjoys an entrenched and durable position, in its operations, or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future. |
2. An undertaking shall be presumed to satisfy the respective requirements in paragraph 1:
(a) | as regards paragraph 1, point (a), where it achieves an annual Union turnover equal to or above EUR 7,5 billion in each of the last three financial years, or where its average market capitalisation or its equivalent fair market value amounted to at least EUR 75 billion in the last financial year, and it provides the same core platform service in at least three Member States |
It’s reasonable to assume that Apple only releasing the AVP in only two EU countries could at least partially be related to not wanting visionOS to be declared a gatekeeper the way iOS and iPadOS were.
maxoakland
macrumors 68000
Maybe governments wouldn’t be able to copy paste antitrust lawsuits if Apple didn’t violate antitrust everywhere
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
There are no antitrust lawsuits as Apple hasn’t violated antitrust statues anywhere.
“Actual monopoly” means what actual monopoly actually means. 🙂I may be wrong, but “actual monopoly” seems to imply that Google does not allow sideloading fir Android apps in India. That is not really the case though, unless the June 19 article in the Times of India is fake news …
Google sets Android sideloading deadline: verification rules go live September 30
Google has finally put dates on its Android sideloading overhaul, confirming that developer verification protections will reach the first users on September 30, 2026. The rollout begins in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand before a global expansion across certified Android devices in 2027.
An actual monopoly is a market structure where a single company or entity is the sole supplier of a specific good or service, completely dominating the market with no viable substitutes. Limiting access to sideloading is actually the smaller issue. However, since it’s primarily financial interests pushing for this to occur in different regions (financial interests that have no desire to creating new hardware/OS’s to delight customers), they’ll make solidifying Google’s smartphone OS monopoly sound like success. And, when Google makes it harder on sideloading, some will wish they had funded local competition that could provide the features users in the region desire.
Yes Apple read the details of the DMA where it states the criteria for gatekeeper designation. One of those criteria is that the feature/service/device has to be available in 3 or more regions. Which means if a device is only available in two regions, no additional regulation. And it doesn’t take a genius to understand that many companies could make 80 to 90% of their current revenue just selling to France and Germany, so it essentially means a company can limit a service to France and Germany and, even if wildly successful, they wouldn’t come under gatekeeper designation. And Apple has decided to only have the Apple Vision Pro available in France and Germany (where it’s available at all Apple Stores and the retail sites for those regions).
Vestager was seen as a rising star at the time and it’s conceivable that no one wanted to be on the bad side of the person that MIGHT be in a position to be against them in the future. Either that, or they were pushing to get this adopted so quickly (it was adopted MUCH faster than GDPR), that the people tasked with making the decision for their country overlooked this obvious carve out for France and Germany.
If the Apple Vision Pro or future Apple glasses are distributed more widely in the EU, then perhaps it’s not the case. If they stay limited to France and Germany, then it’s Apple’s attempt to limit the exposure of these new product lines/services/features to EU fines. I’m certain that, if the DMA had passed before the iPhone was introduced in the region, they’d have done the same.
Why go through that trouble. Just do a global replace of a few words and that's it.
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
Thanks for excerpting the DMA Gatekeepers Designation section paragraphs 1 and 2(a).
Paragraph 2(b) is also important.
Selling the AVP in 3 member states is not a sufficient condition for gatekeeper declaration as you know. Market capitalisation of 75 billion € in the last financial year may apply, idk, but certainly not the annual turnover criterion.
Let’s put the €4k AVP at €5k (adding app and peripheral sales). For visionOS to generate €7.5 billion in each of three consecutive years would mean that 1.5 million units sell each year. No way — not even close, in light of the fact that worldwide barely 600k units have been sold in 2 years 4 months.
Paragraph 2. (b). where it provides a core platform service that in the last financial year has at least 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and at least 10 000 yearly active business users established in the Union …
45 million monthly active visionOS end users? Nope.
You replied “It is reasonable to assume” that Apple does not want to run the risk of gatekeeper declaration for visionOS by making it available in more than two countries.
In my view and based on numbers, it is unreasonable to assume that visionOS will be a core service and declared a gatekeeper, even if it were sold in all 27 member countries — ever.
Yes, but because they figured that’s where it could be profitable (which it hasn’t).
It remains a speculation.
To be subject to fines requires a DMA violation. The DMA only applies to gatekeepers. Like the Mac and the AW, the AVP is not a gatekeeper.
I had replied to this post of yours:
Unregistered 4U said:
People are seeing the DMA affect Vision Pro availability in the EU. France and Germany are the two countries chosen (Can’t imagine how they got all those regions to agree to allow France and Germany to still get tech while they don’t.)
Who is “People”??
Spinned whichever way, there is absolutely no proof that the DMA affects the availability of the AVP in the EU. To say “can’t image how they got all these regions to agree … “ implies that there was some sort of arrangement between the EUC and the 25 non-AVP-availability countries, almost as if the EUC conspired to keep those 25 countries quiet.
The reason for Apple to limit sales of the AVP is not to shield visionOS/AVP from potential gatekeeper declaration if available in three or more countries. The two+ country criterion is not the only one that determines gatekeepers status. In DMA chapter II, Article 3, Designation of Gatekeepers, you will see numbers in paragraph 2. (a) and (b), i.e. criteria the AVP which has only sold about 600k units worldwide will never meet, not even if it were sold in 27 instead of 2 EU countries.
surferfb
macrumors 68030
The market cap and annual turnover apply to the company as a whole, not the product/service in question. So, actually these do apply to visionOS, even in its “flop” state.
Unlike the above, the active user is by product, not by company, so you are correct there. However, I would note that iPadOS does not have anywhere close to 45 monthly active EU end users in the EU. In fact, Apple disclosed iPadOS has 23 million active users in the EU - half(!) of what is written into the law to have it apply and yet the EU declared the DMA still applies under the “it doesn’t matter what the law says, we get to decide” provision written into the law. Vestager even bragged about iPadOS not meeting the quantitative thresholds in the press release announcing iPadOS was a gatekeeper. Banana republic stuff that should embarrass everyone defending the EU and DMA. Literally “it doesn’t matter what the law says, we decide even though we’re not compitent enough to write a regulation that applies to everyone we mean it to apply to”
Meanwhile, the one EU consumer tech company of note, Spotify, has over 175 million active users in the EU and the law doesn’t apply to them because the EU specifically exempted music streaming while having the law apply to video streaming sites like YouTube. But I guess encouraging competition isn’t important when it’s an EU company leading the market.
Embarrassing, third-world level corruption.
I agree that this is reasonable assumption now, with the benefit of hindsight. However, I don’t think that was necessarily a reasonable assumption when Apple was planning the market strategy for visionOS. I suspect Apple was hoping it would be a hit and that the law might apply, especially once you consider the above “iPadOS doesn’t meet the thresholds we wrote into the law but we’re making the law apply anyway” corruption noted above. And once it was clear visionOS wasn’t a massive hit, expanding it to further countries wasn’t worth the cost.
Last edited: