Did they put a gun to your head and force you to buy your iPhone and then force you to buy apps? I think your definition of “forced” isn’t the dictionary definition of forced. #postmodernism
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 Be Fined Over $500 Million in EU Music Streaming Probe
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You might be onto something very big here. I found this secret website, nobody seems to know about it. This conspiracy is much larger than anybody thought possible
.
You might be onto something very big here. I found this secret website, nobody seems to know about it. This conspiracy is much larger than anybody thought possible
What are you on about?
yes... which was why I made my original comment about the philosophical conundrum over whether a platform owner has the right to charge rent for said platform after spending billions to create and maintain it.
I'm too simple to know the answers, so my role is to just ask questions and play the devil's advocate
When the app store went live most people did not have a smart phone. It was still a nitch market.what circumstances have changed?
from the moment the App Store went live, there were apps developed using Apple tools, verified against rule set, while handling payments and updates seamlessly. that still exists today.
Epic tried to cheat the system and behaved against the rules of the store. Apple stood up to them.
It's not just about Spotify but they play a large part of the group complaining to EU lawmakers.
Ask anyone under 30 if game consoles are a niche product
The gaming industry is bigger than the movie industry now.
The hardware is more than capable of doing more than the game OS let them do. As mod chips show.
Yet some on here want to make this only about iPhones.
Why limit the fight for device access?
Now days everyone has a smart phone. It is almost needed to work in todays world that you have a smart phone. It is very different than game consoles.
No - it’s what happens when companies are looking for cheap product differentiation despite selling relatively expensive products - and nickel-and-dime their customers with proprietary ports and accessories.
They’re targeting more than one company.
And again, there’s an objective lack of competition in mobile OS and application stores - contrary to music streaming services, for example.
That said, if Spotify are so dominant that they can dictate their terms and conditions to artists, then maybe it’s time regulators step in.
False analogy. Coupons are rebates from the manufacturer, not instructions on how to buy the product directly.
This topic is still based on a rumor only, amazing the traction it generates. The EU commission and Apple have not made any statements concerning this story.
I'm pretty sure Apple will be fine. Their development cost for the platform isn't billions of dollars every quarter.yes... which was why I made my original comment about the philosophical conundrum over whether a platform owner has the right to charge rent for said platform after spending billions to create and maintain it.
I'm too simple to know the answers, so my role is to just ask questions and play the devil's advocate
Yea the law is an immutable fact, you having a moral issue with it is a separate issue you would have to take up with the legislature, and no the law isn’t about the specifics but the intention of it.
The lens of the CJEU’s multilingual ‘jurisprudence’ (case law). To fully understand that jurisprudence one needs to take account of the linguistic and cultural compromises involved in its making and its history:Ordoliberalism: What We Know and What We Think We Know.
EU legal understanding and the ECJ are heavily influenced by Ordoliberal principles.
This entails interested in protecting competition, but not competitors or ensuring there was a particular number of competitors in the market.
Ordoliberals protect competition through protecting economic freedom, They also looked at abusive behaviour as behaviour that prevented or departed from competition on the merits.
What is understood as protecting competition in some jurisdictions (most notably the US within the Chicago tradition) is markedly different to what the Ordoliberals consider protecting competition.
in 1957 competition on the merits is being discussed with harm to consumers as an indirect aim of competition law.
And This isn’t EU’s first anti competitive rodeo as they have an extensive experience with it.
And as I answered before, you don’t have a shred of evidence of protectionism but a poor understanding of EU through the Chicago lens of economics.
Letter: Europe has an unrivalled record on antitrust
Olivier Guersent Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
FEBRUARY 7 2024
Opinion piece:The great US-Europe antitrust divide
Rana ForooharFEBRUARY 5 2024
associate editor at the Financial Times
Analogies to physical stores are not very useful, but I can tell you for sure that there is nothing stopping (and I've seen it done many times) producers to advertise their own web store on their packaging: "Hey, go to our webstore at <address> to get sweet deals". AFAIK, no physical store require the producer to pay 30% of the revenue from their own webstore.
Google's fine was €4.34 Billion, almost 9 times higher than Apple's.
What a give away statement. I don’t think anyone is here ‘to spite Apple’. Plenty of people really heart Apple enough to assume the rest of the world hates Apple and by extension (somehow) themselves also.
I dont know what your country is like, but in many other countries it’s not only extremely inconvenient to not use your phone for stuff, but also next to impossible. I’m talking transferring funds, bank second factors, digital id. It’s ok that your experience is what it is, but if you don’t know what someone else’s experience is than you cannot possibly comment on it.
Nobody is going to die, no. But let’s try not to get too hyperbolic about it all.
I am in north America and am able to access all important life functions multiple ways. That people can’t isn’t a technical blockage it’s a planning blockage. I understand people aren’t going to die (at least from not having an iPhone) but let’s not make a circular argument.
Fascinating. I remember a point in my life when I thought laws and bibles and court decisions and Plato and Socrates were all immutable facts. But alas, I kept thinking hard, and poof…I learned that there’s nothing that is an immutable fact.
Idk how the situation in Scandinavia is, but at least middle-europe you get Apple stuff at discounts. So people buying Apple products at RRP are just dumb.
It's about as silly as yours is naive. Do you really think Spotify didn't lobby individuals in the EU Commission to get the result they wanted for this EU company against the most valuable company in the world? Not a single complaint from Spotify about Google because Spotify made a sweetheart deal with them. This is a direct attack against Apple from Spotify, because Apple refused to give them special treatment. You can't see that?
The EU Commission are hypocrites and are doing it solely based on EU companies, they are not interested in anyone else and especially not customers. This is business driven and has very little (or no) impact on customers.
Whilst I did not say it was just physical stores (I just included them), you have just used a physical store example, which you explicitly said is not very useful to support your view. Is it useful or not? Again, you are missing the point.
However, your link, whilst referring to business practices relating to Google Search Engine only, does not relate to the EU view on protecting their EU companies based on payments in the App Store. HOWEVER, the article does provide a link to the Reuters story on just that. This story relates to Questionnaires sent to EU companies to help determine whether Googles payment systems have negatively impacted on their business.
The EU are protecting EU companies against Google and Apple, thus are not providing an open market. Which is my point all along. They are making their own walled garden within the EU, something they are apparently against when it done by Apple, or in this example, Google.
Hypocrites.
Very true. That's pretty much what Plato thought. The world we know, is not the world at all. - The World of Forms
you still have a choice. no one is forcing you to buy either phone OS or a phone at all.
you want a phone. you dont need a phone.
because there are many benefits carrying one around has for you.
that's not the same as putting a sticker saying "you can buy this item cheaper at..." in your own store.
everyone has a phone BY CHOICE. and what phone they buy.
hardware specs on games consoles are up there with phones. they are very comparable and the games market is worth billions. it's not niche.
of course the smart phone market was small at the start. like everything. a new product... few buyers. iPads created the tablet market. IBM famously said way back there would only be a need for about 7 computers (or something similar). And then questioned who would want one at home... your calculator has more brain power than the lunar lander had.
when the app store was introduced it created a whole environment of app devs who didnt need big companies to make apps available. Apple gave them tools and training materials and a store with payments handled and marketing. the positives of this has generated billions. it's a model that has worked and keeps gaining momentum. it isnt broken.
What do you think the law being fact means? It’s not up to Apple or lawyers to interpret the text of the law according to its contextual guidelines , that’s the sole discretion of the court of justice.
And the law isn’t going anywhere unless the commission repeals it
There’s numerous cases where the ECJ completely disregard the literal text of the law,
additional use of comparative, systematic or teleological interpretation (this is also most favored by the ECJ)
give up your smart phone completely for a month or 2 and by that I mean you are limited to only a dumb phone with th 12 keypad and tell me how that goes.
It is not the same thing it was in 2010. It is a very different world were you can assume for the most part everyone has a smart phone. That was not the case in when the app store went live. Back then not having a smart phone was the norm. Now an adult no smart phone is different. The world has change a lot in in the last 10-15 years.
20 years ago it was not expect everyone had a cell phone. By 2010 you just assumed everyone has a cell phone. Now we assume everyone has a smart phone.
You still can not assume everyone as a game concol and more important can not guess which one. I can guess your phone OS in 2 guess and be right 99% of the time. Different world.
Rules change as that choice is not the same as it used to be. Now you more or less need a smart phone in today's world. Hell we are seeing kids younger and younger getting smart phones. I dont agree with it but I can fully expect by the time my daughter in jr she most likely will have a smart phone.
Simply having a choice does not negate antitrust laws nor mean dominant or duopoly players should be allowed to engage in antircompetitive behavior. Because iOS and Android have significant power, control, influence, etc. in the mobile OS market they face additional antitrust scrutiny.