So true. And if @vantelimus did a little research, they would realise that the mixed economy method of most EU states, most of the west in general in fact, also applies to the US. The US itself also regulates capitalism in the same manner, albeit less.
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
These laws were all passed because the EU wants in on the profit. If the local telcos were still in control and able to charge a commission, the EU would not have passed the DMA.
Of course, Apple has not cornered the market. They are a 20% to 30% player, with lots of other companies like Google, Samsung, etc. owning the other part of the market. If only Nokia, Ericsson, and Siemens hadn’t ceded their dominant market share (worldwide about 50% in 2000) to smart phones by failing to innovate and compete, the EU would not be concerned about iPhone’s 30% share.
There are not lots of other companies controlling the two major mobile os platforms. There are two. Google’s Android and Apples iOS. Just because other companies are ‘allowed’ to use Android, doesn’t make it a separate OS. It doesn’t matter that Android has more market share, it matters that there are only two. It doesn’t matter where they’re based either. They happen to be in the US is all.
They have, together with Google.
And Apple are estimated to account for about half of the consumer spending on mobile apps. More than the 20-30% of user base. As you said yourself: their customer base has a higher ability and willingness to spend (as you understand).
Yes.
And if Nokia and Ericsson and the telcos applied similar gatekeeping business models, Apple wouldn’t have access to telecommunications infrastructure to leech off and deliver their services to customers for free.
Basic functionality is in the eye of the beholder. Sending messages from a phone to a watch isn’t basic functionality, nor is filtering those messages. The first connected digital watch came out in 1982, the Seiko Data 2000. It took 30 years before digital watches started integrating with smart phones and for those watches to have messaging systems. I would hardly call that basic. Another thing I would call not basic is having my messages private and securely kept out of the hands of third parties. I’m happy that Apple’s ecosystem provides that feature. I’m also happy to pay a premium for it. I’m happy to not have to worry about 3rd-party apps socially engineering me in to letting it have access to an EU mandated API.
Last edited:
You have to ask yourself how Apple was able to create a minority customer base that spends disproportionately more on apps. Hint: It is because they provided value that smart, affluent customers want. It isn’t just that the value outweighed the “disadvantages” of a closed ecosystem, the closed ecosystem is the value the customers are choosing. We like the security and privacy.
That didn’t happen by accident. It was Steve Jobs’ most brilliant business maneuver that forced the market open using market competition — not government legislation.
Perhaps. But by not letting anyone else compete, this is assured. You have no possible way of knowing either way.
What’s you mean not letting anyone else compete? Android exists and has a 70% marketshare in the EU. So we do absolutely know.
If Apple is preventing the Metas and Garmins of the world from making amazing experiences, why aren’t they doing it on Android and showing us what we’re missing?
Why isn’t Samsung?
Again you are wrong on so many levels
Apple are the owner of the operating system
There is no problem with that
The problem is Apple are releasing products for said operating system that are competing directly with competitors that’s fine.
However the problem is Apple’s products have access to software that allow their products to seamlessly integrate with the OS that other companies can’t use
So then that gives Apple an unfair advantage over every other product
Because the difference is the Apple products have seamless integration with the OS that in turn gives them the advantage over the competitors & if all companies had access to that then the individual product would stand on its on two feet
Uh... yeah, having a socialist mentality, by definition, kinda means you don’t like capitalism. Thanks for admitting it.
Competing within the ecosystem is exactly that. Saying there is second ecosystem next to it is simply strawman. It’s irrelevant. Apple tightly controls its own ecosystem for its own benefit, stifling any competition. If it didn’t allow any other accessories or applications to run other than its own, then at least it would be honest. As it stands it says, hey, here we are - use this! Do that! Just we won’t let you do it as well as us. That way they can be the best by default with pretend competition.
You are admitting a whole lot more than I with that statement, my friend.
It’s not irrelevant at all. You EU defenders act like it’s simply impossible to switch to the ecosystem that does everything you want Apple to do. And you’d rather ruin what the rest of us love, stifle innovation, making Apple’s products worse and immorally give away another company’s hard work for free than admit Android is better for you.
How selfish.
You can market to Apple customers. You are free to take out ads targeted to them. You know, you can even target by device type with Google ads. Taking out an ad on Google and targeting iOS devices is a great way to reach Apple customers since Google is the default search engine on iOS. Why else do you think Google would want to pay Apple $10 billion per year for the privilege? If you don’t want to give Google the business, take out ads on any other site using targeted advertising … no one is stopping you except maybe the EU.
Your argument is absurd. Apple owns its mailing list, just like every other company owns its own mailing list. The list of customers is an asset which is monetizable in the $1.2 trillion advertising and direct marketing industry.
Yes, Apple has a minority of the smartphone market in the EU. No one said it was small. That’s your strawman.
EU defenders? Wut. I just don’t like being rinsed by greedy corporations. I don’t want corporations running the world. I want my device to be able to do and contect to what I want, and I don’t want want Apple deciding for me what’s best. Becuase their decision isn’t really about what’s best for me, it’s about what’s best for them. And I don’t care about them. How about that for selfish.
Believe it or not, Apple truly believes it’s doing what’s best for the majority of its users. If you don’t agree with that then maybe Apple isn’t for you.
If you don’t like how Apple is “rinsing” you, the correct response is to buy from a company that does do that, not “have the government give away their tech like something out of the USSR and continue to give them money”.
Yeah, it is, by definition, selfish to demand that companies alter their products and forfeit their IP rights so that you can have what you want. It is even more selfish because your demand directly conflicts with what I want and you don’t care.
You have an ecosystem in android that does what you want. And you are spoiled for choice on hardware manufacturer that supports the android ecosystem. Please. Buy one. Have what you want. But don’t be selfish and tell those of us who want the Apple ecosystem that we can’t have it because it doesn’t align with your politics.
Why do you ‘love’ not having other options to go with your Apple stuff? Why do you ‘love’ apps that barely work verses apples own, half baked apps. Do you ‘love’ Siri? Or do you think, if one could add a 3rd party version, Apple wouldn’t try much harder?
Do you ‘love’ paying 300 quid for headphones which are barely better than 50 quid equivalents, other than the fact they actually are able to work properly with the OS?
I have one, thanks. I would like it to work better with my Mac and my iPad. Why on earth doesn’t it? It’s to stop you buying one in the hope that it would.
And politics has nothing to do with it. It’s my money, and ends up being my property. I want to use it how it I want. That’s no more or less selfish than you demanding the opposite.
Stop trying to bring personal attacks into a disagreement about a phone OS.
So your property rights matter, but Apple’s don’t?
Good. Capitalism and competition has allowed you have the phone you want. Does your Android phone work better with a Windows box? Maybe you should get one of those if it does. Better yet, buy a Surface Pro tablet. Get a machine that works well as both a tablet and a desktop. Wow… capitalism and competition are giving you so many choices. Why do you want to take my choices away from me?
But, I’m not demanding the opposite. The opposite would be for me to demand all systems be closed. I’m not doing that. I’m arguing for choice. You have an ecosystem that does exactly what you want. Buy it. Please. Stop trying to deny me my choice.
It is not a personal attack. You are arguing for legislation and government action. That is politics, again, by definition!
I have plenty of options to use with my Apple stuff. I use Bose headphones every day. They work great with my iPhone, iPad and Mac. Would it be nicer if they paired as easily as my AirPods? Sure, I guess, but not at the expense of chilling future innovation by requiring Apple to give those innovations away for free.
While it’s a whole other topic, I think Apple is working as hard as they can on Siri. I don’t think the ability slot in another assistant would change Siri’s trajectory.
These so called innovations are exactly inspired by what others do in the same field. You would find Apple a whole lot more innovative if they had any competition whatsoever within their ecosystem. No one is asking them to give up their secrets, merely offer a way in to compete on the same playing field. It’s very similar to how I can use a universal remote with a ‘closed’ TV or other box. Does that somehow stifle the tv industry? No. Does it invigorate the remote control industry? Yes.
None of this affects apple negatively- except their bottom line and their own ability to produce better goods. Everything about this affects the consumers ability to choose whilst not being limited to Apples whims.
It’s not hard enough. Siri is next to useless.