Again why are YOU entitled to the option between two open operating systems and my brother (who lives in Germany) is not entitled to the choice of a closed system.
You DMA defenders are acting so incredibly selfishly it’s mind boggling.
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 to Allow iPad Users in EU to Download Apps From Third-Party App Stores From September 16
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You DMA defenders are acting so incredibly selfishly it’s mind boggling.
He can voluntarily confine himself in Apple's walled garden by limiting his purchases to Apple's App Store.
And so can businesses that only want to sell through that store.
"Closed" platforms inherently are a lack of choice.
Because it is good for competition, consumer choice and society.
Lawmakers should entitle businesses and consumers to have that choice.
(That's an opinion, not an indisputable fact, of course)
Until an app he wants or is forced to use leaves. You mean to tell me if Meta pulled WhatsApp out of the App Store he’d be able to live in Germany without it? What about his bank’s app?
THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT CHOICE. Android exists. You are the ones supporting taking that choice away from citizens.
...which is why and when he can choose another app.
There are lots of apps - but only few app stores or operating system to choose among.
Not enough.
I, for example, dislike Android for other reasons (i.e. Google's data collection policies).
Duopoly markets suffer from lack of choice. The choice of closed systems (of not having choices) isn't anything I care for - or government should be careful about maintaining in duopoly markets.
Nor is choosing to be incarcerated an expression of freedom.
Last edited:
Again, you’re just acting incredibly, incredibly selfishly.
“If I don’t get my way the government should force others to do what I want”.
I’d like Apple to release a ring product so I get the benefits of their health features and still be able to wear my mechanical watches. I don’t want to wear an Oura ring or a Samsung ring. You don’t see me asking the US government to force Apple to make that product because “I don’t have a choice” even though there are options that do what I want.
It's not so much about me as about the greater good.
Apple isn't the only company able to make a great ring product.
Somebody may, in fact, make a better ring than Apple.
It's good for you and for competition in the "ring product" market if that ring works well with your existing devices.
It's not good for you nor the "ring product" market if you depend on your iPhone as a most important platform product. ...and that platform developer (Apple) is able to a commanding share of the "ring product" market merely through successfully excluding or disadvantaging the competition with exclusionist policies in their gatekeeping platform product (iOS).
But you see me advocating for fair competition in unrelated markets and prohibiting gatekeepers like Apple from leveraging their (monopoly/duopoly) power in one market (smartphone software) in other markets ("ring products") by disadvantaging the competition and withholding integration and interoperability from them.
Because I do not want to live in a world where "everything digital" (mobile) is eventually made, policed, taxed and controlled by a bipolar duopoly of American tech companies.
It’s about targeting apple specifically.
If you want to see a great example of competition by government intervention look at the oligopoly of cell carriers in the US. It takes years to manifest the low bar of what is defined by “competition”.
And that is perfectly okay. Don’t buy into one.
No it’s not. What’s mine is yours is not a viable corporate strategy.
No they shouldn’t.
Okay.
It's not about taking it away from anyone - it's about fair sharing.
A viable political opinion and strategy.
Fair sharing to the EU is what’s mine is forced to be yours. What I’ve built you can use for free. Denial is also a river in Egypt.
It’s never viable when it’s forcibly removed.
No, not really.
Take Spotify and their wish to market their services to consumers or make transactions with them in their own app, free from using Apple's in-app purchasing service. It doesn't take away iOS from Apple, their ability to sell and market it, or make it "Spotify's".
Apple control a duopoly product, iOS (with the other relevant option being Android), and they should be legally obliged to reasonably share that platform with others.
That’s exactly what the DMA. I don’t expect any person who supports the DMA to acknowledge that.
They should have been a gatekeeper but…
Some cherry picking going on.
“What I want is for the greater good, what you want isn’t, so I’ll have the government force Apple to take away your choice”.
Agree! And if another company makes a great ring product I’ll seriously consider it, because I’m not giving up my mechanical watches. But I’m not going to say “Apple must release one because it’s for the greater good” even if it would be good for society if more people wore devices with health sensors.
If there is another platform where the maker of the ring product can showcase how good it can be without Apple’s restrictions then the market will reward that product, that platform, and Apple will lose market share among those who consider ring products an important consideration when choosing phone platforms. That’s how the free market works. Not by forcing companies with 27% market share to do what you want when the market leader already does.
Again, forcing a company with 27% market share to make things easier on their competition (that already allows what you’re asking for) is not fair competition. It’s the government picking winners and losers. Your neighbors to the east tried that in the twentieth century, didn’t turn out well for them or their economies.
The DMA isn’t going to do a single thing to change the fact that Google and Apple, won the smartphone battle. And Google is open. It does what you want. You can even install a version of Android that doesn’t use google’s services! Why you won’t do that, I don’t know.
But instead of choosing that - you’re forcing your preferences on everyone else, while arguing with a seemingly straight face that the choice you have is actually not a choice, because, unlike every other human being on the planet, you shouldn’t have to compromise when make decisions about what products to use, and therefore you need to have the government force a private entity to help its competitors and take millions of users’ preferred choice away.
There ARE other alternatives. You just don’t like them.
Crazy talk? I suppose “the way business works” is crazy talk to some? Every product you’re currently using is a result of crazy talk. The iPhone itself wouldn’t exist for folks to be complaining about without “crazy talk”.