Apple to Allow iPad Users in EU to Download Apps From Third-Party App Stores From September 16

[webkit]

I guess if we are taking hypotheticals…where is it said that because two companies have agreements the agreements are illegal?

Stop with the nonsense. I never said that because two companies have agreements the agreements are illegal.

There is a grey area which you are not acknowledging. And that is that at some point in time every major company has a ruling against them. It makes me chuckle that that one ruling out of nine was found for and that is the only ammunition.

Stop with the nonsense. There is no grey area. Statements that "agreements" between parties and/or the existence of alternatives make Apple (or anyone else) automatically immune to antitrust/competition laws are inaccurate.

One never knows how things will turn out.

Stop with the nonsense. Nothing in my statement made it "very relevant" that cases may have been lost in the past.

Do you have some case law that supports your assertion? And by the way true duopolies like visa vs Mastercard or Pepsi vs coke are not really problematic unless they collude in some fashion. The so-called operating system duopoly, iOS vs android isn’t really an issue as iOS doesn’t collude with android.

What assertion? YOU said that the App Store/Play Store isn't an app store duopoly and that iOS/Android isn't a mobile OS duopoly. What did YOU base those conclusions on?

Colluding is not the only reason companies that are part of duopolies can face antitrust charges/litigation. Regardless, that has had nothing to do with my question regarding YOUR comment that the App Store/Play Store isn't an app store duopoly and that iOS/Android isn't a mobile OS duopoly. What did YOU base those conclusions on?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Who deserve access to Apple’s customers, (who pay for apps in large part because Apple made them feel safe doing so after the cesspool of viruses on open OSes in the 1990s and early 2000s), using Apple’s property, for free, without following Apple’s (with one or two exceptions, entirely reasonable) rules

„Deserve“?
Let‘s look at it differently:

It‘s 2024.
Consumers expect to be able to listen to audio content on the go.
Podcasts and streamed content - just they used to be able to listen to the radio for free.
Storing files and audio playback has been very basic functionality of computers for decades.
So has the ability to make purchases in or from applications and unlock functionality with license keys.

Apple is the creator of one of just two preeminent operating systems (for mobile devices) that have significant market share - and control access of many other businesses to millions of consumers.

Does the operating system developer deserve to control all application-related access and digital transactions between businesses and its consumers?
Does an operating system developer deserve to force all such transactions to go through their own trandaction/payment processing system?
Does the operating system developer deserve to prohibit an application from telling its customers that there’s more or new functionality available and/or point to that developers own website and shop?
Does the operating system developer (that has significant market share) „own“ its customers and users?

Do they deserve to charge Spotify 30% commission for merely mentioning their ad free plan in the Spotify app and linking to their web site to subscribe?
When Apple has neither produced nor licensed the content Spotify provides to its users - nor delivered it through consumers through its content delivery network?

👉🏻 Hell bloody no!

Fair competition isn’t one company being forced to pay 30% commission to the other.
And 30% is obscenely disproportionate to the contribution Apple makes towards Spotify in providing their service.

The madness must be stopped now.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Do you have some case law that supports your assertion?

Common sense, basic economic knowledge and observwtion are enough. Some things don‘t need „case law“ to conclude. Especially since it’s just a rhetorical trap you‘re setting up to detract by „Decision‘s not final“, „It‘s only one count out of x they lost“ etc. Or to move the goalposts yet again by saying „but there‘s so many smartphone manufacturers!“.

I said it a couple of days ago: I don‘t get why it‘s so hard to acknowledge.
Particularly since a duopoly is not even illegal or Apple „guilty“ of it.

We could discuss the merits of allowing and having such a duopoly - or as we can call it by a friendlier term - a „consolidation“ in the market. Which, as I’ll readily acknowledge does also have its benefits for consumers - and business users (third-party developers) alike.

But the discussion whether it‘s a duopoly is inane. Just get over with it.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Again, iOS is 27% of the market in the EU

It‘s considerably more in terms of mobile app spending (about 50% in Europe by all indications).

Plenty of competition, and in any sane world, nowhere near the level to require regulation

There isn‘t „plenty of competition“ in operating systems for smartphones - or application stores.

There’s Google/Android/Play Store with a handsome majority of installations and users.
And there‘s Apple/iOS/App Store with higher average user spending in mobile apps, accounting for about half of all such spending.
Everything else is irrelevant in the European marketplace - and you know it.

And since it is a duopoly, the relevant operators should be regulated. Doesn‘t matter if Apple has only 20% of the market - they should nevertheless be regulated (even though I don’t care for some provisions the DMA makes).

 

[surferfb]

It‘s considerably more in terms of mobile app spending (about 50% in Europe by all indications).

I don't care how many times you cite that statistic, it's absolutely irrelevant for purposes of this discussion. The DMA doesn't care either. Case and point: If I opened an App Store on Android that rocketed overnight to be the number one App Store on all smartphones - taking 75% of mobile app spending, leaving Apple with 10% and Google Play with 15%, not one thing would change with how the DMA applies to Apple. Because in theory, all that matters are Number of Users and Company Revenue. But not actually, because as we've established, number of users actually doesn't matter - the EU will just do a "market investigation" and say "even though the law we wrote doesn't actually apply to you, we say it does, so too bad."

And since it is a duopoly, the relevant operators should be regulated. Doesn‘t matter if Apple has only 20% of the market - they should nevertheless be regulated (even though I don’t care for some provisions the DMA makes).

We've also already established that if Android was three different smartphone OSes, each with a different vibrant, competitive app marketplaces, not one thing would change with regards to how the DMA applies to Apple. The fact that there is a duopoly DOES NOT MATTER for DMA purposes.

So either, I am right, and the DMA was written in such a way to punish large (almost exclusively American) tech firms for being successful, or your regulators are so incompetent they can't write regulations to actually address the issues they claim to be fixing. And speaking for myself, while I'll call Vestager and Breton a lot of things, incompetent isn't one of them.

 

[I7guy]

Stop with the nonsense. I never said that because two companies have agreements the agreements are illegal.

And I never said the reverse. To those who look for antitrust in everything the point is not everything one believes is illegal is illegal.

Stop with the nonsense. There is no grey area.

There is plenty if grey area as I explained. You don’t agree, meh.

Statements that "agreements" between parties and/or the existence of alternatives make Apple (or anyone else) automatically immune to antitrust/competition laws are inaccurate.

Nobody said that. But agreements aren’t always illegal.

Stop with the nonsense. Nothing in my statement made it "very relevant" that cases may have been lost in the past.

Nonsense is as nonsense does I guess. The point is it’s irrelevant if the doj is preparing a case. They have to win it.

What assertion? YOU said that the App Store/Play Store isn't an app store duopoly and that iOS/Android isn't a mobile OS duopoly. What did YOU base those conclusions on?

Each manufacturer offers up its software. There is no market manipulation between iOS and android.

Colluding is not the only reason companies that are part of duopolies can face antitrust charges/litigation. Regardless, that has had nothing to do with my question regarding YOUR comment that the App Store/Play Store isn't an app store duopoly and that iOS/Android isn't a mobile OS duopoly. What did YOU base those conclusions on?

If there were two manufacturers of cell phones I might agree, but with hundreds of vendors offering software, there is oligopoly.

 

[I7guy]

Common sense, basic economic knowledge and observwtion are enough. […]

The answer is no, I understand it’s subjective.

 

[webkit]

And I never said the reverse. To those who look for antitrust in everything the point is not everything one believes is illegal is illegal.

Stop the nonsense. You disagreed with my statement "If Apple is in violation of antitrust/competition laws they absolutely should be charged e.g., if they restrict alternative app stores in the EU. It doesn't matter if customers knew at the time they purchased an iPhone that the App Store was the only app access option."

I reiterated that it doesn’t matter in antitrust/competition laws if customers knew at the time they purchased an iPhone that the App Store was the only app access option. Your response was that it may not matter in some places and some places it does matter but never provided examples where it supposedly does matter.

There is plenty if grey area as I explained. You don’t agree, meh.

Stop the nonsense. Nothing you stated showed grey areas. There is no grey area regarding my statement.

Nobody said that. But agreements aren’t always illegal.

Stop the nonsense. No one is saying agreements are always illegal.

Nonsense is as nonsense does I guess. The point is it’s irrelevant if the doj is preparing a case. They have to win it.

Stop the nonsense. Nothing in my statement made it "very relevant" that cases may have been lost in the past.

Each manufacturer offers up its software. There is no market manipulation between iOS and android.

Stop the nonsense. That proves nothing about whether or not a duopoly can exist.

If there were two manufacturers of cell phones I might agree, but with hundreds of vendors offering software, there is oligopoly.

Stop the nonsense and explain (e.g., market share? revenue?) how you concluded that the App Store/Play Store isn't an app store duopoly and that iOS/Android isn't a mobile OS duopoly.

 

[I7guy]

Stop the nonsense. You disagreed with my statement "If Apple is in violation of antitrust/competition laws they absolutely should be charged e.g.,

And is apple in any violation if any antitrust law? No they aren’t. And stop with the nonsense about the anti steering provision which amounts to to basically nothing-a jaywalking ticket.

if they restrict alternative app stores in the EU. It doesn't matter if customers knew at the time they purchased an iPhone that the App Store was the only app access option."

That’s your opinion. Customers have a decent return period for phones. Don’t like it return it.

I reiterated that it doesn’t matter in antitrust/competition laws if customers knew at the time they purchased an iPhone that the App Store was the only app access option.

It should matter and customers should return the phone if the phone does not meet their expectations.

Your response was that it may not matter in some places and some places it does matter but never provided examples where it supposedly does matter.

It doesn’t matter in the US and supposedly matters in the EU.

Stop the nonsense. Nothing you stated showed grey areas. There is no grey area regarding my statement.

There are plenty of grey areas. Apple losing one of nine points in the lawsuit proves it’s not all or nothing. That middle is a grey area.

Stop the nonsense. No one is saying agreements are always illegal.

No you said because there are agreements doesn’t make them legal. Nonsense is as nonsense does.

Stop the nonsense. Nothing in my statement made it "very relevant" that cases may have been lost in the past.

The doj does not win every lawsuit. So the fact the doj is preparing a lawsuit against apple means nothing, unless they win.

Stop the nonsense. That proves nothing about whether or not a duopoly can exist.

There is no dupoly. Hundreds of manufacturers distribute software by google. There is no artificial barrier other than time, money and expertise to build another operating system. Attributes that are needed to start a new business.

Stop the nonsense and explain (e.g., market share? revenue?) how you concluded that the App Store/Play Store isn't an app store duopoly and that iOS/Android isn't a mobile OS duopoly.

See above.

 

[cupcakes2000]

There is no dupoly

Google Play and AppStore.
iOS and Android (+ compatibles).

Name the other players in these two games.

 

[I7guy]

Google Play and AppStore.
iOS and Android (+ compatibles).

Name the other players in these two games.

Can iOS and android collude? Can they price fix? Do hundreds of manufacturers participate in this App Store endeavor?

 

[cupcakes2000]

Can iOS and android collude? Can they price fix? Do hundreds of manufacturers participate in this App Store endeavor?

Can’t you just answer the question rather than asking another question? What are the other players in these two games?

 

[I7guy]

Can’t you just answer the question rather than asking another question? What are the other players in these two games?

Be honest here. You have hundreds of manufacturers distributing one product because they want to and another manufacturer distributing their product. And that’s what people are calling a duopoly.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Be honest here. You have hundreds of manufacturers distributing one product because they want to and another manufacturer distributing their product. And that’s what people are calling a duopoly.

You have two appstores. One controlled by Apple, the other by Google. You have two operating systems. One controlled by Apple, the other by Google. Apple doesn’t license their os out and are the only manufacturers of compatible handsets. Google does license their os so there are plenty of Android compatible devices.
There are two players controlling the smartphone app market and the same two players controlling the smartphone operating system market. It’s hard to tell why on earth you refuse to see that.

 

[I7guy]

You have two appstores

There are actually more than two app stores. Maybe not as prevalent but still exist.

. One controlled by Apple, the other by Google.

Do app stores distribute themselves. Or do they need a manufacturer to carry them?

You have two operating systems. One controlled by Apple, the other by Google.

Do operating systems exist by themselves, or do they need a hardware to make them run. Who makes the hardware? (other than Qualcomm)

Apple doesn’t license their os out and are the only manufacturers of compatible handsets. Google does license their os so there are plenty of Android compatible devices.

With hundreds of manufacturers.

There are two players controlling the smartphone app market

Can app stores exist without hardware? Who make the hardware. It’s not like pepsi vs coke or visa vs mastercard. Physical companies tangible products that can collude and fix prices.

and the smartphone operating system market. It’s hard to tell why on earth you refuse to see that.

App stores do not exist in a vacuum unlike Pepsi, coke, master card and visa.

 

[cupcakes2000]

There are actually more than two app stores. Maybe not as prevalent but still exist.

Do app stores distribute themselves. Or do they need a manufacturer to carry them?

Do operating systems exist by themselves, or do they need a hardware to make them run. Who makes the hardware? (other than Qualcomm)

With hundreds of manufacturers.

Can app stores exist without hardware? Who make the hardware. It’s not like pepsi vs coke or visa vs mastercard. Physical companies tangible products that can collude and fix prices.

App stores do not exist in a vacuum unlike Pepsi, coke, master card and visa.

Ok then. I can’t be wasting anymore time speaking to someone who only answers questions with different questions. Thats just talking in circles and that’s just not productive.

I hope that you find peace somehow with Apples new reality. 👋

 

[I7guy]

Ok then. I can’t be wasting anymore time speaking to someone who only answers questions with different questions. Thats just talking in circles and that’s just not productive.

I hope that you find peace somehow with Apples new reality. 👋

Your point about two app stores is to bolster the notion of regulation. Across all hardware that are smartphones I don’t deny the majority that belongs to those app stores.

a duopoly is usually something bad and to be regulated. This is not the case here. Nobody has cited any case law on if these two entities are an legal duopoly.

 

[surferfb]

Your point about two app stores is to bolster the notion of regulation. Across all hardware that are smartphones I don’t deny the majority that belongs to those app stores.

a duopoly is usually something bad and to be regulated. This is not the case here. Nobody has cited any case law on if these two entities are a legal duopoly.

The bigger point is the DMA doesn’t care if they are a duopoly or not. So the whole THEY’RE A DUOPOLY MUST REGULATE argument is a red herring.

If there were 5 vibrant platforms to DMA would still apply to Apple because it’s based on number of users (unless you are ipadOS) and revenue, not number of competing platforms in the marketplace.

 

[webkit]

And is apple in any violation if any antitrust law? No they aren’t. And stop with the nonsense about the anti steering provision which amounts to to basically nothing-a jaywalking ticket.

Stop the nonsense. Is the issue that you don’t understand what the word "IF" means?

That’s your opinion. Customers have a decent return period for phones. Don’t like it return it.

Stop the nonsense. It had nothing to do with customers liking or not liking something, being able to return, etc.

It doesn’t matter in the US and supposedly matters in the EU.

You clearly don't understand the point that was being made.

There are plenty of grey areas. Apple losing one of nine points in the lawsuit proves it’s not all or nothing. That middle is a grey area.

Stop the nonsense. There are no grey areas. The point remains that suggestions that "agreements" between parties and/or the existence of alternatives somehow make Apple (or anyone else) automatically immune to antitrust/competition laws are inaccurate.

No you said because there are agreements doesn’t make them legal. Nonsense is as nonsense does.

Stop the nonsense. What I said was that just because there are agreements doesn't automatically mean they are immune to antitrust laws and regulations.

The doj does not win every lawsuit. So the fact the doj is preparing a lawsuit against apple means nothing, unless they win.

Which has nothing to do with the point that was being made.

There is no dupoly. Hundreds of manufacturers distribute software by google. There is no artificial barrier other than time, money and expertise to build another operating system. Attributes that are needed to start a new business.

None of that proves there is or isn't a duopoly. What has become clear is that you have zero basis for your conclusions that the App Store/Play Store isn't an app store duopoly and that iOS/Android isn't a mobile OS duopoly. Otherwise, you wouldn't keep posting so much extraneous nonsense.

 

[webkit]

The bigger point is the DMA doesn’t care if they are a duopoly or not. So the whole THEY’RE A DUOPOLY MUST REGULATE argument is a red herring.

If there were 5 vibrant platforms to DMA would still apply to Apple because it’s based on number of users (unless you are ipadOS) and revenue, not number of competing platforms in the marketplace.

What is shows is that the DMA is achieving what antitrust/competition laws are meant to achieve which is preventing dominant (e.g., duopoly) companies from unfairly wielding too much power and control in given markets. That's not just some coincidence.

 

[I7guy]

Stop the nonsense. Is the issue that you don’t understand what the word "IF" means?




Stop the nonsense. It had nothing to do with customers liking or not liking something, being able to return, etc.




You clearly don't understand the point that was being made.




Stop the nonsense. There are no grey areas. The point remains that suggestions that "agreements" between parties and/or the existence of alternatives somehow make Apple (or anyone else) automatically immune to antitrust/competition laws are inaccurate.




Stop the nonsense. What I said was that just because there are agreements doesn't automatically mean they are immune to antitrust laws and regulations.




Which has nothing to do with the point that was being made.




None of that proves there is or isn't a duopoly. What has become clear is that you have zero basis for your conclusions that the App Store/Play Store isn't an app store duopoly and that iOS/Android isn't a mobile OS duopoly. Otherwise, you wouldn't keep posting so much extraneous nonsense.

You're trying to smash a round peg into square hole by making up your own definition of duopoly. You offered no case law on the subject only some vague notions on what a "duopoly" is. Collusion? No. Price fixing? No. Other app stores, albeit not as popular yes. Consumer harm? Citation. Competition? Yes. https://www.samsung.com/us/apps/galaxy-store

 

[wbeasley]

There is no duopoly:

The 11 best Google Play Store alternatives for apps and games

Why stay Google restricted when there are plenty of amazing digital media marketplaces available for our apps and games

www.androidpolice.com

11 alt Android stores. Plus you can install APKs yourself.

Google Play and AppStore.
iOS and Android (+ compatibles).

Name the other players in these two games.

 

[AppliedMicro]

So either, I am right, and the DMA was written in such a way to punish large (almost exclusively American) tech firms for being successful

You are wrong for saying it’s about punishing, you’d wrong it’s about American, and you’re wrong about it’s about being successful. It’s about preventing large companies and their digital platforms from choking competition and establishing uncontestable power on their respective markets.

 

[cupcakes2000]

There is no duopoly:

The 11 best Google Play Store alternatives for apps and games

Why stay Google restricted when there are plenty of amazing digital media marketplaces available for our apps and games

www.androidpolice.com

11 alt Android stores. Plus you can install APKs yourself.

Slightly misleading title, Google Play mirrors/front ends are not alt appstores , rss style manual app trackers are not alt appstores. Nor is installing your own apk.

The gaming and specialist open source only stores are very niche, all must be searched for and then one must go through hoops allowing the installs.

Region/device locked app stores, are the closest thing but then they're not very widespread or available to all devices, so aren't really alternatives.

None are the same thing as the preinstalled in every device, all encompassing and baked in Google play or Appstore.

 

[wbeasley]

They are still options.
So it’s not a duopoly as you stated…