I7guy
macrumors Westmere
None of that matters or helps when I buy a car and get”a lousy deal”. Everything you mentioned is pre sale or post sale.
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 UK App Store Steering Rules Would Be 'Highly Intrusive'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nonsense. Much or all of it can help because the laws/regulations can make the car shopping and buying process easier, more fair, more transparent, etc. to the customer. Although nothing is perfect, without those laws/regulations the process would be much worse for consumers.
Why are the euros so obsessed with heavy regulations when they don’t make anything of relevance themselves?
Could be why they make nothing of relevance in 2026 🧐
Could be why they make nothing of relevance in 2026 🧐
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Nonsense. It’s all well and good to have regulations that protect the public at large from fraud, however there are no regulations that guarantee a ”good deal”. And why not? Maybe there should be regulations that make for guaranteed retail pricing.
Edit: odometer laws were mentioned. Does that stop a dealer from rolling back the odometer? No, it makes it easier to prosecute. Similarly, because Apple strives to keep the App Store “safe as possible” does that mean a miscreant app will never get through?
Last edited:
Please note:
The “suggested” link for the German MRP takes you the PMYNT newswire main page which today has at the top an article with the title “Freightos Enterprise Debuts as Global Freight Procurement Option for Large Shippers”. When you scroll down a bit, you get a link for Charles Schwab which is s company. I continued srolling the main page but can’t seem to find the suggestion by Andreas Schwab.
surferfb
macrumors 68030
No idea how the wrong link got pasted there. Here is a link to the article in question:
US Security Council Urges EU To Stop Singling Out American Tech Firms | PYMNTS.com
The U.S. National Security Council (NSC) told the European Union to stop using the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to target American technology giants, the
www.pymnts.com
The U.S. National Security Council (NSC) told the European Union to stop using the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to target American technology giants, the Financial Times reported, citing sources.
“We are particularly concerned about recent comments by the European Parliament rapporteur for the Digital Markets Act, Andreas Schwab, who suggested that the DMA should unquestionably target only the five biggest U.S. firms,” according to a June 9 email seen by FT.
He said it more than once too, here is another quote from Herr Schwab.
"Let’s focus first on the biggest problems, let’s go down the line – one, two, three, four, five – and maybe six will be Alibaba. But let’s not start with number seven to include a European gatekeeper just to please Joe Biden.” That was after he successfully got the market cap and annual revenue thresholds raised to avoid hitting European companies.
U.S. regulatory inaction opened the doors for the EU to step up on internet | Brookings
It is time for a Western Digital Alliance that harmonizes the rules that will govern the internet on both sides of the Atlantic, Tom Wheeler writes.
www.brookings.edu
Last edited:
He goes on saying:
“Even if one believes regulation is necessary, a more nuanced approach is surely called for. Luckily, the European Parliament and the Council remain free to correct the Commission’s oversights and pursue a more restrained vision of regulation.
Dec 17, 2020 - 16:00 Last updated: Dec 18, 2024 - 16:08”
This was before the DMA went into effect, it appears. So far it seems, Parliament and Council have not ordered the Commission to revise regulation pertaining to Apple and Google. But who knows, maybe the Man in DC will “reach out” to Parliament and Council and ask them in his oh so “tarifficly” cooperative and polite way to “regulate” the Commission …
Thanks. - PYMNTS wants me to agree to their data sharing terms and FT wants my money first. But no worries, I have no doubts whatsoever that your references are correct. I was also interested in the respective contexts.No idea how the wrong link got pasted there. Here is a link to the article in question:
US Security Council Urges EU To Stop Singling Out American Tech Firms | PYMNTS.com
The U.S. National Security Council (NSC) told the European Union to stop using the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to target American technology giants, the
The U.S. National Security Council (NSC) told the European Union to stop using the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to target American technology giants, the Financial Times reported, citing sources.
“We are particularly concerned about recent comments by the European Parliament rapporteur for the Digital Markets Act, Andreas Schwab, who suggested that the DMA should unquestionably target only the five biggest U.S. firms,” according to a June 9 email seen by FT.
He said it more than once too, here is another quote from Herr Schwab.
"Let’s focus first on the biggest problems, let’s go down the line – one, two, three, four, five – and maybe six will be Alibaba. But let’s not start with number seven to include a European gatekeeper just to please Joe Biden.” That was after he successfully got the market cap and annual revenue thresholds raised to avoid hitting European companies.
U.S. regulatory inaction opened the doors for the EU to step up on internet | Brookings
It is time for a Western Digital Alliance that harmonizes the rules that will govern the internet on both sides of the Atlantic, Tom Wheeler writes.
Guaranteed retail pricing? You mean something like price fixing? There are actually laws against that which is a reason MSRP has an "S" in it for SUGGESTED. The reality is that there can be a lot of variables when it comes to pricing which can make it difficult to set so-called guaranteed prices in all circumstances, markets, sources, etc.
That's like arguing that laws regarding violent crime don't make streets safer because people still commit violent crimes. Laws and regulations are meant to try to deter certain types of behaviors. When that doesn't work, yes, lawsuits, prosecutions, etc. can become necessary whether criminal or civil.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
You’re right. Then back to Apple they are charging what their service is worth to them. What the market will bear.
So in essence buying a car is one of the worse processes ever. And while there are a cadre of regulations that serve to protect the consumer it doesn’t really help them get a good deal. Circling back to Apple why is it anybody’s business what they charge for fees and commissions?
I think we’re in agreement. Car buying for the most part is a bad experience and the customer sales process is the Wild West and no regulations to prevent getting screwed over by the dealership. Apple may or may not have run afoul of one or more antitrust regulations and the outcome remains to be seen.
Help them get a good deal? As mentioned, there are many laws and regulations meant to provide protections and guidance for consumers but as far as getting a "good deal", it's up to consumers to do their homework, research, etc. to find the "best deal" (which is not necessarily the lowest price) they can. The government isn't there to handhold absolutely every aspect.
As long as Apple is following laws and not engaging in anticompetitive behavior, it's not necessarily "anybody's business" what Apple charges. However, it can become a government’s business if the company's pricing/fees violate pricing laws e.g., price fixing, predatory pricing, bid rigging/collusion, price discrimination, etc.
Nuno Lopes
macrumors 65816
Conspiracy theories. UFO and Alien stories are back and with very large audiences, I know.
Still here are the facts about large companies:
EU controlled companies in the U.S.: 856 large, majority-owned U.S. affiliates in 2022.
U.S. companies in the EU: 12.000+ large U.S.-controlled enterprises
Homework: Amongst the 12k+ how many do not fit the DMA criteria?
What do you conclude? I wonder if it played it wrong security wise, considering the late American animosity and modus operandi.
Out of curiosity, don't feel shy in naming that one company. I guess it wouldn't help your argument, that is why you left it out, but have a shot. Nevertheless leaving it our kind of made you conspiracy theory looking even more, well conspiracy theory, its a decision choice I know.
Last edited:
Nuno Lopes
macrumors 65816
They both operate in the EU along with other 12k plus large American companies do in many critical aspects? The number the other way around are nowhere close. Never once I saw a problem with that. We have been partners in values and economics for many many many many decades. But to be honest considering the way politics are going I wonder if such openness was a naive mistake?
Was it? All things considered what do you think?
Last edited:
surferfb
macrumors 68030
We have the guy who helped write the law specifically saying The DMA “should explicitly target the five biggest US firms” and “we shouldn’t include an European one.” He successfully lobbied to increase the size standards so EU firms wouldn’t be hit. The law doesn’t apply to Spotify despite applying to YouTube, and meanwhile the EU declared the law does apply to iPad despite iPad not meeting the numerical thresholds written into the law to have the law apply.
But sure, it’s a conspiracy theory. 🙄
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Nuno Lopes
macrumors 65816
Yes, Google and Apple work in the tech industry. As for being American, they are amongst 12k+ other companies.
Last edited:
Nuno Lopes
macrumors 65816
Iam not interested in discussing conspiracy theories. Tell us who this guy is. Of course companies can lobby—isn’t that the American way?
Now to the facts: YouTube Music, Apple Music, Spotify, Tidal, and thousands of other tech services have not been designated under the DMA. YouTube has, but YouTube and YouTube Music are not the same service.
The last time I checked, Epic wasn’t on the list either—but, hey, you absolutely hated Epic. Just to say that EU is above fiefdoms of this kind.
As for the iPad, I suppose its designation comes down to iPadOS and its close ties to the iOS used on the iPhone. They were, after all, once named the same.
Even so, macOS has not been designated under the DMA. Neither have the Apple Watch, Apple TV, or many other Apple technologies.
The DMA does not regulate everything a company produces. It applies to specific platform services and technologies that one may market, in particular interoperability with other services and technologies. Tech used also by other American companies in the EU space, not just EU companies. This happens across any industries, say for instance cell phone antenas, routers, automobiles and .... have parts regulated ...
PS: As for iPadOS, it is true that it did not meet the quantitative thresholds. However, those thresholds create a presumption; they are not the DMA’s only route to designation. Article 3(8) expressly allows the Commission to designate a service following a qualitative market investigation. The Commission concluded that iPadOS is an important gateway through which businesses reach consumers and that Apple has an entrenched and durable position in that market.
Last edited:
surferfb
macrumors 68030
I already did, in a reply to you upthread.
The European Parliament’s Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) report on the DMA, explicitly advocated for changing the DMA’s thresholds to keep U.S. firms within scope while exempting most EU competitors - which led to amendments to the DMA. The report's author, Andreas Schwab, a German MEP, suggested the DMA should "unquestionably" target only the five biggest U.S. firms.
He also said “Let’s focus first on the biggest problems, let’s go down the line – one, two, three, four, five – and maybe six will be Alibaba. But let’s not start with number seven to include a European gatekeeper just to please Joe Biden.”
This isn’t some lobbyist. He’s a European Member of Parliament who was the lead negotiator for the law. And he was unquestionably saying out loud that the law should apply to US companies and not EU ones, and then he took actions in parliament to that effect. (And note the EU doesn’t deny that he said any of it, their response was the quote was “cherry picked.”)
Yes, because if they included music streaming as a service covered by the law, then Spotify would get hit. My point is they didn’t want EU companies to get hit. If a few American tech services get through because of that, it is what it is.
The 31% difference between Spotify’s EU market share (56%) and its largest competitor’s (Apple Music, 25%) is more than Apple’s entire market share in phones in the EU (27%). But sure, I guess it’s just a happy coincidence that the one consumer tech service where an EU company dominates doesn’t require the DMA to protect consumers and business users despite the leading company’s massive power over their market.
The Mac (and the other items you mention) don’t come anywhere close to the quantitative thresholds to have the law apply. Despite the “doesn’t matter what the law says; what we say goes” clause, the EU would be laughed out of court if they tried to make the law apply to MacOS, and the EU knows it. The law does apply to windows, and if MacOS has more European users then the law would apply.
I never claimed it did. My claim is the law was targeted at large US tech companies and was intentionally written to avoid EU ones. My claim is not “the EU wanted to harm all US companies” or “the EU wanted to regulate everything US tech companies make” - it is the law was intended to hamstring US companies.
First, a law that says “here is when the law applies to you, but we’re including a clause that lets us say “the law we wrote doesn’t matter, what we say goes” is absolutely banana-republic government.
Secondly, do you not think Spotify is an “important gateway through which businesses reach consumers and that Spotify has an entrenched and durable position in that market”?
Last edited:
What is the scandal here? This is very specific legislation to go after companies that abuse their dominant position to the detriment of free market forces. From the EU's perspective it's completely logical to focus their efforts and go after the largest offenders first. The EC's budget for market regulation is limited and no match for the deep coffers big tech has to employ lobbyists and lawyers.
surferfb
macrumors 68030
The law should apply equally to everyone. If the EU had the law apply equally and were just focusing enforcement on the large American companies that would be one thing (still would be wrong, but more justifiable), but they exempted it from applying to Spotify entirely. Not “we’ll get to them later” - the law has to be rewritten or amended if it is to apply to them.
To quote @Unregistered 4U upthread
That is no way to run a government. I think the fact that Apple's competitors don’t have to operate under the same rules as Apple in the EU is wrong. If it's bad when Apple does it, then surely it's bad when anyone else does it too, right?
But that's not how the law works. Apple's has to give things to competitors, but competitors don't have to give anything back to Apple. Spotify gets to use Apple's IP for free, but Apple isn't allowed to requie Spotify to make it easy for users to move their playlists, listening history, etc. over. Sennheiser gets to use Apple's headphone pairing technology for free, but Apple doesn't get access to Sennheiser noise cancelation algorithms for free.
That's wrong, and it’s a far greater perversion of the free market than anything Apple has ever done.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Twisting the facts again. Where does the law say that Apple has to give proprietary algorithms (like noise cancellation) to competitors for free?
surferfb
macrumors 68030
The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper.
Hardware and software integration is a very large part of what differentiates Apple's products from its competitors' products. The EU has said "that is illegal for you, Apple, but not for others." If Samsung introduces live translation features on its headphones, they are not required to let other headphone manufacturers user it. But Apple has to let Samsung use it if Samsung wants. If Samsung wants, they can introduce an AI assistant on their phones in the EU without having to let Apple have the same access. But Apple isn't allowed to do that; if they offer a system-wide AI feature then if Samsung wants its AI to have full access to Apple's customers, then they get that.
As we've seen, Apple is forced to take what differentiates its products and give it to competitors in the EU. Easy pairing technology and live translation are two huge examples. Why should Sennhauser get Apple's translation feature for free? I mean, I know the EU is behind in tech, but are their companies so inept that they are incapable of writing a translation feature into their app? Why should Apple have to do that work for them? If Apple makes it easy to pair its headphones, why should Sennheiser get that feature for free? It should be Apple's decision what features it uses to differentiate its products from the competition, not some bureaucrat's.
They don't get the translation feature for free. Apple only has to give a competitor access to operating system APIs so that they can recreate their version of live translation if they want to. I highly doubt that Sennheiser want's to be in this business though. It's hard to make money from something that large players just give away for free.
And how is easy pairing a huge feature? Why do you defend Apple for withholding it from competing headphone manufacturers? This is a textbook abuse of market dominance to gain market share in the accessories market that is not even Apple's core business.
Last edited:
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Sure Senheiser programs the app but piggy backs on apples R&D. They essentially get Apple’s IP all they have to do is integrate the process into their app.
To me that supports exactly what surferfb is saying. Senheiser is doing the translation or has their translation in their app…do they?
And if they don’t all they need to do is display the results.