Apple Says India's Antitrust Case Against It Is 'Copy-Pasted'

[Unregistered 4U]

It remains a speculation.

It’s not speculation that she was aiming for higher office, she had literally made a bid for EC President in 2019 and campaigned in 2023 for the presidency of the European Investment Bank. It’s not speculation that France and Germany opposed her (And not speculation that the DMA includes wording that favors two large economically powerful regions, like France and Germany). It’s also not speculation that the DMA was passed WAY faster than the GDPR was. The only speculation is because no one knows why 25 countries would sign legislation that favors two largest regions over the other 25.

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.

There is definite proof that Apple has made decisions regarding the delivery of services to the EU region based on the DMA. It is your assertion that, while Apple has taken steps to reduce potential exposure caused by those new services, the same company that made that decision has NOT taken steps to reduce potential exposure caused by those new devices. When Apple releases their next new devices, it will be interesting to see if they’re made available widely in the EU. I’m sure that, if they’re not available, that also will not be proof. 🙂

 

[Unregistered 4U]

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.

I don’t believe Apple ever expected visionOS to be a massive hit. It literally couldn’t be as the screens required for it weren’t being made in more than 500,000 pairs a year (and I can’t find anything that clearly indicates the volume has increased). It is STILL notable, though, that the Apple Vision Pro supports French, German, Italian, Spanish as well as English while not even being available in Italy or Spain. Being in two more countries where the localization is already done would mean more sales, even if those sales are smaller. Especially when they’re available in Singapore, Hong Kong and Canada… Apple believes they’d sell more (of the admittedly small number they have to sell) in those countries than Italy or Spain?

The localization is done, there are stores in those regions and there’s no additional “cost” other than the marginal cost of perhaps shipping to someone that’s PAYING for the shipping. Providing sales to, say, Australia, an economy smaller than Italy and about the same as Spain seems very intentional. I’m interested in whether or not they do this with other new product categories in the future. I’m of the opinion that if the EU had told Apple in 2007 that limiting sales to France and Germany would help them to avoid regulation, they would have done so.

 

[maxoakland]

Any law that bases its penalties on a company's global revenues rather than its revenues within that jurisdiction is extortion, plain and simple.

No it’s not. Basing it off global revenue is smart because it actually makes the penalty hurt. It’s a problem in America that the fines are less than the profit made for illegal behavior so companies just consider it the cost of doing business

This is a great solution to that problem

 

[surferfb]

No it’s not. Basing it off global revenue is smart because it actually makes the penalty hurt. It’s a problem in America that the fines are less than the profit made for illegal behavior so companies just consider it the cost of doing business

This is a great solution to that problem

It may be a great solution to that “problem” under the “ends justify the means” school of thought, but it’s still wrong.

 

[turbineseaplane]

If fines don’t hurt they are ineffective and become just a cost they absorb and ignore.

It’s not great but options are limited it would seem.

 

[maxoakland]

It may be a great solution to that “problem” under the “ends justify the means” school of thought, but it’s still wrong.

How is it wrong? Your alternative would be to continue fining them less than they reap in profits from violating the law?

How is that not wrong?

 

[BaldiMac]

How is it wrong? Your alternative would be to continue fining them less than they reap in profits from violating the law?

How is that not wrong?

The math isn’t that hard here. Fining them based on EU revenue can still keep them from profiting on EU sales. Thus disincentivizing violating the law.

 

[surferfb]

How is it wrong? Your alternative would be to continue fining them less than they reap in profits from violating the law?

How is that not wrong?

Yes, as @BaldiMac put it, base it based on EU revenue. 10% of EU revenue not enough to matter? Nothing stopping the EU from starting at, say, 50% of EU revenue. Then, if the conduct continues or there are multiple offenses raise it up to 75% or 100%. If it continues after that, you could even add in language about criminal sanctions for executives if you want.

Plenty of ways to do it without sanctioning revenue that wasn’t earned in the EU and therefore the EU shouldn’t have any right to go after.

 

[BaldiMac]

Yes, as @BaldiMac put it, base it based on EU revenue. 10% of EU revenue not enough to matter? Nothing stopping the EU from starting at, say, 50% of EU revenue. Then, if the conduct continues or there are multiple offenses raise it up to 75% or 100%. If it continues after that, you could even add in language about criminal sanctions for executives if you want.

Plenty of ways to do it without sanctioning revenue that wasn’t earned in the EU and therefore the EU shouldn’t have any right to go after.

But that’s the trick. 10-20% of (global) revenue for a fine seems reasonable to people. But the unfairness of the fine is laid bare when you realize 10% of global revenue is more than 100% of EU revenue.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I think the points above are all good.

I’m just not sure there’s gonna be much sympathy for exactly what the fine structure is, as people are pretty tired of these companies just trouncing on rules when they feel like it and eating any fees or fines.

They have become way too acclimatized to shoot first and deal with any minor repercussions later as a way of doing business.

 

[I7guy]

In the case of the DMA I think if the law was fair and well written there imo wouldn’t be a problem. But when everything becomes a Robin hood affair and regulations with holes in them, it becomes unfair to companies doing business there. Especially since Apple has been selling there for a few years.

Thus fine on global revenue is just plain overreach and badly written regulations. Governments can and do write bad laws and act in bad faith. I mean here in the US it’s rainbows and unicorns.

 

[maxoakland]

Yes, as @BaldiMac put it, base it based on EU revenue. 10% of EU revenue not enough to matter? Nothing stopping the EU from starting at, say, 50% of EU revenue. Then, if the conduct continues or there are multiple offenses raise it up to 75% or 100%. If it continues after that, you could even add in language about criminal sanctions for executives if you want.

Plenty of ways to do it without sanctioning revenue that wasn’t earned in the EU and therefore the EU shouldn’t have any right to go after.

Why does it matter if it’s EU revenue or global? Seems like you’re really hung up on that

 

[surferfb]

Why does it matter if it’s EU revenue or global? Seems like you’re really hung up on that

I don’t really care; of all the issues I have with the DMA this is one of the smallest.

But, to answer your question, because it is incredibly unfair and penalizes companies for being worldwide.

As a thought experiment, assume there’s a EU-only company that obtains gatekeeper status, has a similar number of EU users as Apple, and commits an identical App Store violation as Apple. EU Company would get fined less purely because it isn’t a global company. Assume €360B of global revenue (€50B earned in EU) for Apple and €50B global revenue (all €50B earned in the EU) for the hypothetical company.

So they both get a 10% fine. Apple gets fined €36B and the EU company €5B. The same offense, with the same EU market impact, and the same “harm” to EU citizens and Apple gets fined €31 BILLION more than the EU company purely because it exists outside the EU and the other doesn’t. How on earth is that fair? Make it a higher percentage of EU revenue and you can have a similarly-sized fine without the unfairness. But 50%, 75%, and 100% sounds reasonable a lot more extreme, and makes it obvious the punishment is far, far, far disproportionate to the “crime” so the EU doesn’t want to do that.

(And before anyone jumps in to say I got the mechanics of how the fines work wrong: I’m aware of how the mechanics work and that this is a gross simplification but the end result is the same; and I’d argue the way the mechanics work are actually more unfair than what I described).

(Also edited to fix a boneheaded math mistake - definitely shouldn’t try to post before my coffee 🤣)

 

[I7guy]

I think the points above are all good.

I’m just not sure there’s gonna be much sympathy for exactly what the fine structure is, as people are pretty tired of these companies just trouncing on rules when they feel like it and eating any fees or fines.

They have become way too acclimatized to shoot first and deal with any minor repercussions later as a way of doing business.

I think people are pretty tired of the EU and some of the policies as well and are very surprised when some regulations come around that seem fair and reasonable - unlike the DMA which is neither.

 

[maxoakland]

I don’t really care; of all the issues I have with the DMA this is one of the smallest.

But, to answer your question, because it is incredibly unfair and penalizes companies for being worldwide.

As a thought experiment, assume there’s a EU-only company that obtains gatekeeper status, has a similar number of EU users as Apple, and commits an identical App Store violation as Apple. EU Company would get fined less purely because it isn’t a global company. Assume €360B of global revenue (€50B earned in EU) for Apple and €50B global revenue (all €50B earned in the EU) for the hypothetical company.

If you’re saying the company has less users overall, it’s not punishing it for being global. It’s reasonable that a company with less users would pay less of a fine because also means they likely make less profits (if they’re in the same business)

And fining them a noticeably painful amount of profits is what will make them change their behavior

So they both get a 10% fine. Apple gets fined €36B and the EU company €5B. The same offense, with the same EU market impact, and the same “harm” to EU citizens and Apple gets fined €31 BILLION more than the EU company purely because it exists outside the EU and the other doesn’t. How on earth is that fair?

It’s fair because the global company makes a ton more money than the EU company and can afford the fine. Which means a smaller fine could easily just be the cost of doing business as it too often is

Make it a higher percentage of EU revenue and you can have a similarly-sized fine without the unfairness.

There’s nothing unfair about fining a company based on their total profits. What you’re saying is like complaining it’s unfair to fine a massive company more than a tiny one “just because they’re so much bigger”

Remember: the goal of a fine is to get companies to stop a behavior.

 

[BaldiMac]

It’s fair because the global company makes a ton more money than the EU company and can afford the fine. Which means a smaller fine could easily just be the cost of doing business as it too often is

Again, that's simply not how the math works for a business. If a fine makes you lose money doing business in a region, you don't just keep losing money as the cost of doing business. You either withdraw from the region or you make changes to avoid being fined.

Remember: the goal of a fine is to get companies to stop a behavior.

Exactly. So there's no need to fine a company more than it takes to make them lose money in the region. Otherwise, you've changed the goal to generating revenue for the region.

 

[surferfb]

If you’re saying the company has less users overall, it’s not punishing it for being global. It’s reasonable that a company with less users would pay less of a fine because also means they likely make less profits (if they’re in the same business)

In my hypothetical they had the same number of EU users. Which is what should matter, since the EU’s ridiculous regulations only apply in the EU.

And fining them a noticeably painful amount of profits is what will make them change their behavior

Base the fine on EU profits and I have no issue. (Well with the fine structure at least, the law is still terrible). It’s basing the maximum fine on the global revenue I have an issue with. Set it at 50-75% of EU revenue and that will still be painful.

It’s fair because the global company makes a ton more money than the EU company and can afford the fine. Which means a smaller fine could easily just be the cost of doing business as it too often is

Same conduct, same number of users, same “harm” - €31B higher fine because a company is successful elsewhere where the innovation killing regulations don’t apply. There is no universe where that is fair.

But then again the DMA clearly isn’t about fairness to begin with, so I guess that tracks.

There’s nothing unfair about fining a company based on their total profits. What you’re saying is like complaining it’s unfair to fine a massive company more than a tiny one “just because they’re so much bigger”

Yes, I do think that’s unfair. If the conduct is the same, impacts the same number of users, causes the same “harm” to the region’s citizens then the fine should be the same.

Remember: the goal of a fine is to get companies to stop a behavior.

There are plenty of ways to do that without fining based on global revenue. There’s a reason countries don’t tax a company’s global profits but rather the profits made in that country. Same thing should apply here.

 

[maxoakland]

Again, that's simply not how the math works for a business. If a fine makes you lose money doing business in a region, you don't just keep losing money as the cost of doing business. You either withdraw from the region or you make changes to avoid being fined.

Yeah, people keep saying that and yet Apple had to pay high fines to Europe still wants to make money off Europe's population. I guess it must be worth it. And if they want to make money off Europe's people, they have to follow Europe's laws.

The same is true for every other country in the world.

Exactly. So there's no need to fine a company more than it takes to make them lose money in the region. Otherwise, you've changed the goal to generating revenue for the region.

Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it true. The most important part of a fine is that it impacts the company's bottom line enough to change their behavior. We can see the effects of fines that *don't* do that all over society and that's why I'm glad countries are finally wising up.

No more letting companies break the law with just a slap on the wrist as a bribe. It's time for real consequences that actually hurt.

 

[maxoakland]

In my hypothetical they had the same number of EU users. Which is what should matter, since the EU’s ridiculous regulations only apply in the EU.


Base the fine on EU profits and I have no issue. (Well with the fine structure at least, the law is still terrible). It’s basing the maximum fine on the global revenue I have an issue with. Set it at 50-75% of EU revenue and that will still be painful.

Sounds to me like you just have a problem with the law and the idea that governments would dare to hold a company accountable. For your specific complaint about global vs. local revenue, you have no real justification other than the way it "should" be.

But it isn't. And it's time to accept that. Countries will fine corporations based on global revenue and you can complain about it all you want but that won't change it.

Same conduct, same number of users, same “harm” - €31B higher fine because a company is successful elsewhere where the innovation killing regulations don’t apply. There is no universe where that is fair.

It's completely fair. And you're giving your game away by calling these necessary protections "innovation killing regulations". You obviously have a problem with regulation and that's coloring your idea of what is "fair" or not

But then again the DMA clearly isn’t about fairness to begin with, so I guess that tracks.

Yes, I do think that’s unfair. If the conduct is the same, impacts the same number of users, causes the same “harm” to the region’s citizens then the fine should be the same.

There are plenty of ways to do that without fining based on global revenue. There’s a reason countries don’t tax a company’s global profits but rather the profits made in that country. Same thing should apply here.

Nope. Taxes and fines are two completely different things and their purposes are also completely different. The purpose of taxes is to fund the government and its programs including things like roads, agencies, military, education, and safety nets

Corporations pay taxes because they use and benefit from all of those things.

A fine is a punishment designed to stop behavior. A fine exists to enforce the rule of law.

You're right that countries could make the fine high enough to punish Apple without calculating global profits. But you don't have a real argument for why it's wrong to fine based on global profits other than "it's not fair". Life isn't fair. Ask the homeless.

 

[surferfb]

Sounds to me like you just have a problem with the law and the idea that governments would dare to hold a company accountable. For your specific complaint about global vs. local revenue, you have no real justification other than the way it "should" be.

Yes, I have a (many) problem(s) with the law. No, I don’t have a problem with “the idea that governments would dare to hold companies accountable.” I just don’t think 1) that’s what happening here or 2) Apple needs to be held accountable for anything the DMA claims to fix.

But it isn't. And it's time to accept that. Countries will fine corporations based on global revenue and you can complain about it all you want but that won't change it.

Never said my complaints would change it. I still think it’s wrong, am allowed to complain about it, and think those who are doing it and defend are putting their desires over fairness.

It's completely fair. And you're giving your game away by calling these necessary protections "innovation killing regulations". You obviously have a problem with regulation and that's coloring your idea of what is "fair" or not

It’s not fair; whether or not I agree with the underlying regulation has nothing to do with it. You’re letting your desire to force Apple open cloud your judgement over what’s fair.

Nope. Taxes and fines are two completely different things and their purposes are also completely different. The purpose of taxes is to fund the government and its programs including things like roads, agencies, military, education, and safety nets

Corporations pay taxes because they use and benefit from all of those things.

A fine is a punishment designed to stop behavior. A fine exists to enforce the rule of law.

I understand the difference between taxes and a fine. I still don’t think basing a fine on a corporation’s global revenue when the conduct is limited to one region is warranted.

If the current US administration decided that they were going to tax major EU corporations’ global profits rather than just US profits to help pay for our defense of the EU you’d be rightly outraged. Because the US has no right to tax that money. Just like the EU has no right to base fines off of revenue earned outside the EU

You're right that countries could make the fine high enough to punish Apple without calculating global profits. But you don't have a real argument for why it's wrong to fine based on global profits other than "it's not fair". Life isn't fair. Ask the homeless.

Never said life was fair. I do have an argument why that’s wrong: the same conduct with the same “harm” should be fined the same. That is the way fines generally work - my parking ticket isn’t higher than yours just because I have a nicer car.

 

[I7guy]

Yes, I have a (many) problem(s) with the law. No, I don’t have a problem with “the idea that governments would dare to hold companies accountable.” I just don’t think 1) that’s what happening here or 2) Apple needs to be held accountable for anything the DMA claims to fix.


Never said my complaints would change it. I still think it’s wrong, am allowed to complain about it, and think those who are doing it and defend are putting their desires over fairness.


It’s not fair; whether or not I agree with the underlying regulation has nothing to do with it. You’re letting your desire to force Apple open cloud your judgement over what’s fair.


I understand the difference between taxes and a fine. I still don’t think basing a fine on a corporation’s global revenue when the conduct is limited to one region is warranted.

If the current US administration decided that they were going to tax major EU corporations’ global profits rather than just US profits to help pay for our defense of the EU you’d be rightly outraged. Because the US has no right to tax that money. Just like the EU has no right to base fines off of revenue earned outside the EU


Never said life was fair. I do have an argument why that’s wrong: the same conduct with the same “harm” should be fined the same. That is the way fines generally work - my parking ticket isn’t higher than yours just because I have a nicer car.

The bolded is what these governments are doing with these global fines and some are cheering. If the same was done to them they would be up in arms.

 

[BaldiMac]

Yeah, people keep saying that and yet Apple had to pay high fines to Europe still wants to make money off Europe's population. I guess it must be worth it. And if they want to make money off Europe's people, they have to follow Europe's laws.

The same is true for every other country in the world.

Again, in my proposal they are fined enough to lose money in EU (not Europe). You can't "make money" in a region if you are losing money in a region.

Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it true.

No, math makes it true.

The most important part of a fine is that it impacts the company's bottom line enough to change their behavior. We can see the effects of fines that *don't* do that all over society and that's why I'm glad countries are finally wising up.

No more letting companies break the law with just a slap on the wrist as a bribe. It's time for real consequences that actually hurt.

Why would Apple continue operating illegally in the EU if the EU continued to fine them 100% of the revenue they generated in the EU?

 

[maxoakland]

Yes, I have a (many) problem(s) with the law. No, I don’t have a problem with “the idea that governments would dare to hold companies accountable.” I just don’t think 1) that’s what happening here

You don’t think this fine will hold Apple accountable for breaking the law?

Never said my complaints would change it. I still think it’s wrong, am allowed to complain about it, and think those who are doing it and defend are putting their desires over fairness.

Again you default to fairness because you have no real evidence to support your claims.

It’s not fair; whether or not I agree with the underlying regulation has nothing to do with it. You’re letting your desire to force Apple open cloud your judgement over what’s fair.

If you really want to talk about fair, let’s talk about fair. Is it fair that Apple users don’t get to choose to install apps from any source? Is it fair we had to wait over a decade to install emulators? Is it fair Apple used its power to force developers to pay them fees on every in app purchase? Is it fair developers couldn’t even *talk* about that rule to their users? Is it fair developers have to deal with Apple’s infamously bad app review service? Is it fair users have to use Apple’s App Store for “security” reasons but the App Store is filled with scam apps and clones of existing apps that are hard to tell apart? Is it fair Apple can use their platform advantage to stifle innovation and competition? Is it fair Apple gets to decide what I get to do with my phone?

Nope. None of that is fair. But you don’t care about that, do you?

I understand the difference between taxes and a fine. I still don’t think basing a fine on a corporation’s global revenue when the conduct is limited to one region is warranted.

Well, that’s your opinion. Obviously the law says otherwise

If the current US administration decided that they were going to tax major EU corporations’ global profits rather than just US profits to help pay for our defense of the EU you’d be rightly outraged. Because the US has no right to tax that money. Just like the EU has no right to base fines off of revenue earned outside the EU

Again, we’re talking about fines and not taxes. You’re just muddying the waters by repeatedly bringing taxes into the conversation

Never said life was fair. I do have an argument why that’s wrong: the same conduct with the same “harm” should be fined the same. That is the way fines generally work - my parking ticket isn’t higher than yours just because I have a nicer car.

And that’s unfair. If you make more money than me, you should pay more for your fine. Otherwise it means a parking ticket is like paying a minute of work for a wealthy actress and an entire day of work for a poor single mother

You think that’s fair?

 

[turbineseaplane]

Related to the debate above, I've long felt the US should shift to progressive fines based on income, starting with things like civil infractions (e.g., speeding tickets).

To not do that just allows those with more resources to live above the laws or concerns about violating them.

That has basically become the problem of our time. People or firms with resources that dwarf any ability to reign in undesirable (or even illegal) behaviors. It can be antitrust all the way down to just stringing out legal proceedings with endless resources. Society ends up harmed.

 

[surferfb]

If you really want to talk about fair, let’s talk about fair.

Only going to respond to this part because otherwise it’s going to be too long. But suffice it to say no, I don’t think these fines “hold Apple accountable”, and yes the EU has the authority to fine Apple whatever they want for whatever terrible reasons they want, but that doesn’t make it right, moral, or a good idea. And that taxes are a good analogy precisely because your only defense is “that’s different because of…. reasons”.

Is it fair that Apple users don’t get to choose to install apps from any source?

Yes because Apple wrote the software, advertised this restriction as a key selling feature and value proposition for years and you could have purchased Android if that bothered you.

Is it fair we had to wait over a decade to install emulators?

Yes, because Apple wrote the software, and shouldn’t be forced to enable piracy (which is what emulators are used for 99.9999% of the time) and you could have purchased Android if that restriction bothered you.

Is it fair Apple used its power to force developers to pay them fees on every in app purchase?

Yes because Apple wrote the software, created the platform and user base, and deserves to be compensated for building that platform, user base, and software. And no one is forcing developers to write for Apple if they have issues with it.

Is it fair developers couldn’t even *talk* about that rule to their users?

Yes, because they could talk about that rule. They just weren’t allowed to use Apple’s property to tell customers “buy cheaper elsewhere”

Is it fair developers have to deal with Apple’s infamously bad app review service?

Yes because Apple wrote the software, created the platform and user base, and deserves to be compensated for building that platform, user base, and software. And no one is forcing developers to write for Apple if they have issues with it.

Is it fair users have to use Apple’s App Store for “security” reasons but the App Store is filled with scam apps and clones of existing apps that are hard to tell apart?

Yes because Apple wrote the software, created the platform and user base, and deserves to be compensated for building that platform, user base, and software. And no one is forcing developers to write for Apple if they have issues with it.

Also, will someone in one of these threads defending the EU please explain why Android has more malware and scams if it isn’t because of the App Store model? And if it is indeed because of the App Store model why everyone has to throw that away when you could just pick Android?

Is it fair Apple can use their platform advantage to stifle innovation and competition?

They don’t do this - you’re thinking of the EU. But yes, it’s Apple’s platform and they should get to decide how it works. And it’s definitely not fair (or a good idea) for a regulator to force them to give their competitors access to their platform’s innovation for free.

Is it fair Apple gets to decide what I get to do with my phone?

They don’t. You’re free to jailbreak and do what you want. It’s not fair to obligate Apple to help you do that. Or to make their OS less safe and secure for everyone because you can’t be bothered to use Android.

Nope. None of that is fair. But you don’t care about that, do you?

All of it is fair. You knew what you were buying when you bought it and developers knew what they were developing for when they signed the developer agreement.

What’s not fair is the EU taking safety and security away from everyone who wants it because they ideological zealots and are upset the free market values what Apple offer.s