Apple should just make a superior product. They have nothing to worry about if their watches or whatever are truly better.
If they can't make a better product, then their product strategy is a failure and they should be forced to face that.
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 New EU Interoperability Rules 'Bad for Our Products and Our Users'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple should just make a superior product. They have nothing to worry about if their watches or whatever are truly better.
If they can't make a better product, then their product strategy is a failure and they should be forced to face that.
Actually there isn’t. Trump can make executive orders that impact the government and that is basically it. Everything else goes through our elected representatives before he can sign it. Our media plays up the drama of our situation because it is profitable. Our government is intentionally designed to be inefficient and that is a good thing for freedom. Our pendulum government will swing the other way soon and not much will actually change despite parts of the public panicking on the news.
Last edited:
And why should they go above and beyond if their competitors get to take advantage of that hard work for free? It actually puts Apple at a competitive disadvantage.
Imagine if Apple didn’t have to spend any money developing the Apple Music algorithm and could just take the output of Spotify’s without paying them anything. They could pay artists more AND undercut Spotify on price. Why would Spotify do anything to make its algorithm better? Apple would just get the results for free and Spotify just spent a bunch of money to make its competitor better without being able to exclusively take advantage of the improvement.
That’s what happening here. And bunch of you are saying “it’s not theft because Spotify still owns the algorithm, Apple is just getting the output of it via an API so it’s kosher.” Or “The EU didn’t say Spotify couldn’t stop selling music subscriptions and turn into a company that licenses its algorithm to others, so it’s not theft”, “Apple needs Spotify’s algorithm to compete, it’s not fair that Spotify preferences itself” and “Spotify should just focus on making a better algorithm, they don’t have anything to worry about if their competitors get their special sauce for free”.
Give me a break.
Last edited:
Your post is nothing but pure selfishness. You're demanding that a government STEAL from one private company and give to another private company to make your life better. What you should demand is a company that makes a product that you want. Then buy from them. But the markets decide.
I'm 100% positive that you can wrap your mind around free enterprise and capitalism the way it should be.
Privacy concerns didn’t stop Apple from having millions of users’ iCloud data hosted and (to the extent that they’re E2E encrypted) accessible by third-party companies.
…as does their developing and distributing iOS put them at a massive competitive advantage.
Now imagine Spotify spending millions, billions of dollars of developing their algorithm and licensing audio content - and then being unable to sell subscriptions through their own app - unless they’re forking over 30% of revenue to their biggest competitor. Puts Spotify at a massive competitive disadvantage.
I want fair competition on the market for music streaming services.
So does the European Union.
👉 If and when such services compete on a level playing field, I’ll gladly agree government need not (and should not) intervene with such complicated regulation as the DMA.
Last edited:
Can you wrap your head around that free enterprise and capitalism are supposed to ultimately provide value and serve people and society - not only its private owners?
Duopolies (such as the one Apple and Google have with their entrenched positions in the market for mobile operating systems and app stores) prevent others from making the products “we” want.
Nope. There's absolutely nothing wrong with requiring a company to open up its technology. Why would it be wrong?
If it was wrong, you'd think cell phones, television, and the cotton gin were wrong. But you don't, because it's not
The same reason it’d be wrong if the EU said it was legal for me to take your computer without paying you, or for Sony to make a Star Wars movie without paying Disney, or that Spotify has to let Apple use its music algorithm. It’s theft. Apple creates an idea and should be allowed to profit from that idea without having to give it away to those competing against it for free.
What? That’s quite possibly the most non-sentinel argument I’ve seen in this thread.
Eli Whitney patented the cotton gin, and the widespread infringement of his patent was a driving factor to the US passing a more robust patent system to protect people and companies who came up with innovative ideas. So pretty much the opposite of what you said.
I suppose @maxoakland does not command monopoly power over computers that you could use.
Theft is illegal.
Legally required access rights are not.
Last edited:
Apple doesn’t have monopoly power on anything other than its own product.
I know android existing is super inconvenient to your arguments, but it does, and nothing is stopping anyone from using it to make the Apple Watch killer or next amazing app idea. That’s how the free market works, not giving away others’ work for free.
Going to have to agree to disagree on that. Just like it’d be theft if Spotify was forced to give access to its algorithm to Apple, it’s illegal to force Apple to give AirDrop to its competitors.
Spotify provides a service and should be allowed to allowed to profit from marketing that service to consumers without having to give pay away to those competing against it for nothing.
They have monopoly power (to set prices) in the market for distribution of applications and digital content for smartphones.
It’s not. Apple isn’t deprived of using AirDrop. They just have to provide interoperability.
And that evidently isn’t “illegal”. It’s a requirement by law (in the EU) - so by definition not illegal.
You just don’t like it or believe it’s justified.
No they don’t. Plenty of app stores exist, some made by the world’s largest companies, Amazon, Google, and Samsung. Web apps exist, Spotify provides digital content without paying Apple anything.
The existence of other stores does not negate Apple having monopoly power. And the fact that Apple’s commission pricing (with regards to “large” operators like Spotify) has remainedunchanged for 15+ years is strong evidence of that.
Web apps aren’t a viable alternative for providing a digital music streaming service.
And why should they? The developed the app, their algorithm, licensed the content and operate the servers (or paid for that service). Apple isn’t involved in that at all.
Does Apple develop the technical platform for Spotify’s app to run on? Yes.
But since Apple (together with Google) successfully “duopolised” the market for mobile operating systems and application stores, certain limitations are imposed on them by law.
And the fact that the commission pricing is largely the same in the open ecosystem where there is free and open competition in app stores is incredibly strong evidence that you’re wrong.
It’s not.
Other providers provide the payment services relevant to Spotify for a small fraction of Apple’s price.
…with the exception of markets that they’ve cornered.
If there were more of competing mobile platforms with relevant market share, I’d agree that Apple should be allowed to set terms and prices as theirs as they please.
Last edited:
Looks like Google’s commissions are the same to me.
30% is not a cornered market. Again ANDROID EXISTS. I’m so sorry for your argument’s sake that it does. But it does, and has a vast majority of the marketshare.
Looks like collusion to me.
Exclusive control over access to a large part of the market (about half of mobile app spending), user base (20-30% of users) and the entire population (nearly everyone is a smartphone user) should not be left unregulated to single company in terms of service and pricing.
30% of users and 50% of their spending volume is a lot.
And when two firms control almost all of the market, acting and pricing very much the same, the market is cornered. In this instance, the App Store and Play Store have divided market between themselves - they’re not even competing with each other.
It’s not about theoretical alternatives existing or not. A simple question can rather be asked:
👉 Can firms (developers) reasonably ignore a certain core platform service and still have a viable business model?
Last edited:
Android is open. You mean to tell me Amazon Samsung couldn’t lower prices and convince developers to switch? Or even an enterprising startup? Come on.
And that doesn’t even consider the jail time both company’s executives would be risking.
And unless a company is an actual monopoly, they shouldn’t be forced to give away their work to their competitors for free. It’s immoral.
Anyways it’s late here, and must be unbelievably late there, so I’m calling it a night. I’ll see you on the next thread!
We can agree to disagree.
That said, competition law and regulation usually do not require an “actual monopoly“ as in “literally/virtually no alternative exists” as justification for government/regulatory intervention.
They rather take into account and assess market dynamics and firms’ power to unilaterally set prices and business terms.
👉 What would be stopping Apple from charging 40%, 50 or 70% commission starting tomorrow?
- Customers abandoning the Apple App Store and buying their apps (and subscriptions) elsewhere? They can’t.
- Switching to Android? That’s (too) expensive, when they just committed to the platform by spending a thousand Euros on a phone.
- Google? The same Google that’s been mirroring Apple’s pricing for 15 years - and a business partner of Apple that pays them billions of dollars each year (And while yes, alternative stores are allowed to exist, Google maintains their grip on third-party developers through Play Services - just a tad “softer” than Apple but not much less effective)
- Another, third operating system platform? There just is no such ecosystem compelling for users to switch (due to lack of third-party apps. A Catch-22)
Last edited:
👍
Also agreed. But I’d argue 30% is way too low for such a drastic intervention. Heightened scrutiny? Sure. Limiting commissions to be in-line with “industry standards”? I think they’re already at the industry standard but fine. Even while I’d be against it, “you have to open APIs in these areas 3 to 5 years after introducing a new feature” would be a decent attempt at a compromise - it’d do a lot to ease my fears about chilling innovation. But “you invent an incredibly amazing new feature for your devices and you have to let your competitors have it immediately” is way, way, way too far.
Customer outrage, developers pulling their apps from the store and telling their consumers why, negative press, etc.
I 100% agree it’s not an ideal situation, but I just feel the EU’s law is so wildly disproportionate an unfair. Had the EU limited itself to app stores like Japan did, or put a cap on commissions, or required alternate payment processors I would have grumbled about it, but would be up late arguing with you
.Now I’m really and truly going to bed. Have a great day tomorrow and see you in the next thread!
It’s not about the algorithms
It’s to do with Apple having an advantage over the competition by deliberately having software that connects to their product better because they own the operating system & no company can compete with that