Apple to Let EU Users Set New Defaults for Multiple Apps, Delete App Store, Photos, Messages and More

[I7guy]

The point is that Apple doesn't own other companies' iOS apps or alternative app stores. Again, Apple's situation would be about having a "monopoly" on the distribution of other companies' products (apps).

Devs typically contract with apple to distribute their wares, the same way other companies contract with stores such as Costco.

 

[I7guy]

The DoJ has found just that - and the EU has fined them for abuse of dominant market position.

There is no finding in the doj investigation. The doj actually has to win. And the status of the eu fines ongoing. A claim is not a win.

We’ll see their findings ultimately confirmed, narrowed down or rejected in courts.

That’s correct.

Not by European revenue though.

Oh so now it’s revenue and not market share? As I said, “needle threading”.

 

[wbeasley]

The point is that Apple doesn't own other companies' iOS apps or alternative app stores. Again, Apple's situation would be about having a "monopoly" on the distribution of other companies' products (apps).

Of course Apple doesn’t own app created by other devs. How obvious is that?

And Apple doesn’t limit them to only putting those apps on Apples App Store. A high percentage exist on both Android and iOS. There are plenty of dev tools that let you target both versions of OS from one set of code. Cross platform stuff.

Devs choose price.
And countries they support release to.
And when they update.
How much more dev and buyer choice do you need?

And even when devs don’t like the limits Apple puts, they are free to make apps for Android or Windows or Macs or game consoles.

This has worked for over a decade.
Plenty of small devs love the App Store and find it makes money they couldn’t achieve any other way. A sole trader get a free tools and training material for a $99 a year fee. No marketing or returns or payments to worry about.

If the duopoly was so bad, a third player would have emerged by now to fill the gap. The fact the market doesn’t support a third platform says it must be working well enough for the vast majority of customers.

 

[webkit]

Devs typically contract with apple to distribute their wares, the same way other companies contract with stores such as Costco.

The difference is that Costco doesn't have control of the product distribution market to the degree that Apple has control of the apps distribution market.

 

[webkit]

Of course Apple doesn’t own app created by other devs. How obvious is that?

The point of that is Apple's market control is about the distribution of other companies' products and not their own products (going back to the comment “So apple has a monopoly on it's products the same way Honda has monopoly on their products”).

And Apple doesn’t limit them to only putting those apps on Apples App Store. A high percentage exist on both Android and iOS. There are plenty of dev tools that let you target both versions of OS from one set of code. Cross platform stuff.

Apple limits, except in the EU for now, where developers can sell/offer their apps for the important iOS market to ONLY the App Store.

Devs choose price.
And countries they support release to.
And when they update.
How much more dev and buyer choice do you need?

Choice of where they can offer their apps for the important iOS market besides the App Store, how those apps are paid for, what apps are allowed, etc.

This has worked for over a decade.
Plenty of small devs love the App Store and find it makes money they couldn’t achieve any other way. A sole trader get a free tools and training material for a $99 a year fee. No marketing or returns or payments to worry about.

Computer OEMs selling machines with Windows operating systems has existed for a long time too but that doesn't mean it was always fair or that Microsoft anticompetitive behavior should always be allowed.

If the duopoly was so bad, a third player would have emerged by now to fill the gap. The fact the market doesn’t support a third platform says it must be working well enough for the vast majority of customers.

The "duopoly" itself isn't necessarily bad (whether it be Windows and macOS or Android and iOS or others), it's the restrictions and anticompetitive behavior of the "duopoly" players that can be bad.

 

[Hank001]

Yes, that over-processing starts looking like an overdose of a makeup, compared to Samsung shots, for example.

Can you suggest any good free current alternatives?

[cough] Adobe [cough] LightRoom is actually quite nice. Even without getting all the paid features. Not really 'my company of choice', but the Lr app has quite a lot of options without paying anything. It's also the only app I was able to find that can shoot in the 3:2 AR (which I like as my monitor is 3:2).

 

[I7guy]

The difference is that Costco doesn't have control of the product distribution market to the degree that Apple has control of the apps distribution market.

That’s up for debate and if there are any anticompetitive issues going on, of which none are found.

 

[I7guy]

[…]

The "duopoly" itself isn't necessarily bad (whether it be Windows and macOS or Android and iOS or others), it's the restrictions and anticompetitive behavior of the "duopoly" players that can be bad.

If any.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Apple would have had a more proportional response imo to an escalating set of regulations. It could be the EU is left without american tech as the proportionality of the regulations ramp up. it's not about being life threating as @AppliedMicro first started down the path of the app needed for existence.

I don't think the EU would require Apple to sell the App Store ever. But it may suspend its sales until full compliance is achieved in order to speed the process. At the moment its compliance is under appreciation ... will see.

Now, make no mistake. The EU market is way more important to Apple than the iOS device, basically a smartphone, is to the EU infrastructure (iPad included). From communication infrastructure to business infrastructure.

You fail to understand that EU regulatory concerns is in keeping the components of its network and OEMs/Vendors policies around them, Net Neutral as its guiding principles. This has proven to be great platform of principles and regulations for businesses and consumers. Apple itself is a beneficiary of these regulations. But not only Apple, all tech companies and businesses that turned digital are relying on the Internet for their products and services. Maybe that’s the Apple has issue with?

Apple approach to their new internet connected devices, iOS et al, is the opposite of those principles. Through peoples devices it unilaterally discriminates and vets data, businesses models and business itself through the devices people use to access such Infrastructure. It goes to the extent of requiring entities to hand over their cash register. Android smartphones do that also, yet more discrete, but still. Internet devices operating in such manner at a small scale, this does not distort the network values, at a large scale it does. Hence the multiple complaints around the globe against vendors of these kinds of devices.

We aren't talking about games or TV entertainment only. We are talking about health car, transportation, banking, education (books, video classes ...), electricity grids, communication tools, you name the Industry that does not rely on the Internet to conduct businesses. End-users devices are one of the building blocks of such infrastructure. Net Neutrality principles was never considered a barrier to innovation, security & privacy, business. Quite the contrary it has proven to be a great catalyzer. Which is precisely the argument of Apple is making, it is saying that it is, it saying that those principles are extremely dangerous to users and businesses, the way I see it. Just because there are many that comply and have complied to Net Neutral practices, principles and regulations it does not justify their stance on the matter.

All vendors except Apple have found ways to be rewarded for their tech and services, their creations and inventions, within those principles. From end-user devices to PAAS and so on. Apple is the only one I know of that finds it extremely difficult to be properly rewarded in such circumstances ... and its only Smartphone ... No wonder TC dropped smart cars. Their latest policies still are still highly discriminatory with no consumer/user intervention.

Now this kind of vendors behavior have not been illegal at the device / OS level considering that there was no regulatory framework beyond ISPs and their tech, to these type of vendors. Regulations left the devices users use to connect to the infrastructure alone on those matters, considering that most were operated in line with such principles already (windows, macOS, Linux, …). DMA comes to close this loop hole when it comes to end users devices and their underlying OSs. Not for all, just for the ones that reach a given market share threshold.

Understanding this is crucial to understand the EU stance the way I see it. Many proponents of the free enterprise have been understating this since the Internet became the business backbone of everything, even before. Not all, but there was a consensus on the matter. It was that consensus that allowed Tech Giants to flourish, Apple included … shareholders included. Now … is being undermined by some of these Giants as it no longer serves their particular business growth models … scorpion and frog complex … i suppose … Internet fiefdoms with their End User Internet devices / App Stores and competition amongst those and only those seam to be now the their motivation to pave their better future.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

In fact, there's strong hints that the gatekeeper definition was written specifically to avoid naming Spotify as a gatekeeper. This European professor thinks it was.

Why not use the standard "dominant" market position that the EU has used for decades for antitrust action, and instead make up a "gatekeeper" term? According to the EU's anti-trust website:

So why didn't they use that 40% standard as the baseline in the DMA? And instead invented company revenue and monthly active user standards? I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Apple's marketshare in the EU smartphone market is under 30% and Spotify's share of the EU streaming music market is 56%.

There’s nothing of this in it. And notice that Article 101/102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Both of these articles are ex-post enforcement mechanisms, meaning they apply after anti-competitive behavior has occurred.

While The Digital Markets Act (DMA) is primarily an ex-ante regulatory framework. This means that it imposes rules and obligations on digital “gatekeepers” before any anti-competitive behavior occurs, with the goal of preventing such behavior from happening in the first place. The focus is on proactively regulating market behavior, rather than reacting after harm has been done (which would be an ex-post approach).

In EU antitrust law there’s no baseline % for anything. Having a Dominants market position isn’t illegal or punishable.

Perhaps you should read a bit first on your own link.

What is an abuse of dominance?​

Holding a dominant position on any given market is not in itself illegal. However, a dominant company has a special responsibility to ensure that its conduct does not distort competition.

But here you have the document you can read that lines up the guidelines.
GENERAL APPROACH TO EXCLUSIONARY CONDUCT

Communication from the Commission - Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty [now Article 102 TFEU] to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings. The 2008 Guidance on enforcement priorities set out the Commission's enforcement priorities with regard to exclusionary abuses of dominance in order to provide greater clarity and predictability as regards the Commission's general framework of analysis in determining whether to pursue as a matter of priority certain cases of exclusionary conduct.​

A. Market power

9.

The assessment of whether an undertaking is in a dominant position and of the degree of market power it holds is a first step in the application of Article 82. According to the case-law, holding a dominant position confers a special responsibility on the undertaking concerned, the scope of which must be considered in the light of the specific circumstances of each case (2)

10.

Dominance has been defined under Community law as a position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking, which enables it to prevent effective competition being maintained on a relevant market, by affording it the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and ultimately of consumers (3). This notion of independence is related to the degree of competitive constraint exerted on the undertaking in question. Dominance entails that these competitive constraints are not sufficiently effective and hence that the undertaking in question enjoys substantial market power over a period of time. This means that the undertaking's decisions are largely insensitive to the actions and reactions of competitors, customers and, ultimately, consumers. The Commission may consider that effective competitive constraints are absent even if some actual or potential competition remains (4). In general, a dominant position derives from a combination of several factors which, taken separately, are not necessarily determinative

And you can read examples of abuse you can’t do if you have a dominant position.
IV. SPECIFIC FORMS OF ABUSE
A. Exclusive dealing
(a) Exclusive purchasing
(b) Conditional rebates
B. Tying and bundling
(a) Distinct products
(b) Anti-competitive foreclosure in the tied and/or tying market
(c) Multi-product rebates
C. Predation
(a) Sacrifice
(b) Anti-competitive foreclosure
D. Refusal to supply and margin squeeze

I understand there is regional bias playing into this.

An allegation this is not. It’s an opinion based on the the factors as I see them. What I see is: if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck etc.

Stating an opinion doesn’t require a citation. But there must be a grain of truth to it based on the responses.

It’s a landmark consumer decision only due to the crappy nature of it. And yes, it’s a cash grab.

I would say there’s no regional bias anywhere( nothing you have pointed to or anyone for that matter)

Stating an opinion requires something that supports the existence of said opinion unless it’s made up of thin air.

You say it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, yet the legislation have zero wordings that implies that American app developers will will be punished more than EU developers.

Developers selling apps or making alternative AppStore’s will have the exact same baseline in the DMA even if they are EU, USA, Korea, Japan or African based.

tame?

by fining Apple based on WORLDWIDE income?

hardly... and well beyond the financial impact of sales within their border...

Well the fines are intended to be punitive so you don’t do it again, the financial cost of the fine being larger than all the profits done the illegal way getting lost, and encouraging legal compliance instead of ”cost of doing business”.

 

[MilaM]

And that’s exactly what we need: Possible competition to be enabled. And Apple feeling it - by making their own offer or service more competitive. That‚s just what they did.

Exactly this!

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Don’t require evidence of an opinion — of which if the shoe fits.

Okey you keep saying this, but considering I and other can’t perceive this, it would help if you provided at least personal evidence you used to form your opinion. If it’s something that is written in another EU law I’m willing to take that L, but there’s nothing implicit or explicit in the DMA that benefits any particular developers from specific countries.

Example there some things i actually would agree with you regarding the DSA and developers regarding phone numbers etc in essence as a double edged sword.

But there you at least provided evidence supporting your opinion with something concrete.

100% you do, provide the “whatever” is within the regulatory framework. there are thousands upon thousands of “whatever’s” that are perfectly legal to sell. Notice I said legal.

I mean example you can sell a defective product, misleading or something that violates their user privacy non-consensual ( stares at you Meta/Google/spotify GDPR violations)

Maybe not required but nonetheless it is there. More evidence though of the sinister intent of the DMA.

Nope, there’s nothing regarding this present. Perhaps your thinking of the consumer laws such as Council Directive 85/374/EEC passed in 1985? And amendment Directive 1999/34/EC passed 1999 and Directive 2011/83/EU?

All kind of predates the DMA by a few decades.

Keep saying the DMA isn’t a cash grab but a consumer landmark decision, neither of which seems to fit.

Well whoever claims it’s a landmark consumer decision should read it again as this isn’t its intended purpose, even if some of its impact will have a potential positive or negative impact on consumers depending on your philosophical percussion and end goal.

 

[wbeasley]

The point of that is Apple's market control is about the distribution of other companies' products and not their own products (going back to the comment “So apple has a monopoly on it's products the same way Honda has monopoly on their products”).




Apple limits, except in the EU for now, where developers can sell/offer their apps for the important iOS market to ONLY the App Store.




Choice of where they can offer their apps for the important iOS market besides the App Store, how those apps are paid for, what apps are allowed, etc.




Computer OEMs selling machines with Windows operating systems has existed for a long time too but that doesn't mean it was always fair or that Microsoft anticompetitive behavior should always be allowed.




The "duopoly" itself isn't necessarily bad (whether it be Windows and macOS or Android and iOS or others), it's the restrictions and anticompetitive behavior of the "duopoly" players that can be bad.

Disagree with every response

 

[wbeasley]

What really surprises me most is how much time and effort the EU DMA supporters are putting into increasingly straw-clutching arguments...

I mean I would have thought they'd all be too busy playing Fortnite by now to do anything else...

 

[JFLECHUGA]

There’s nothing of this in it. And notice that Article 101/102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Both of these articles are ex-post enforcement mechanisms, meaning they apply after anti-competitive behavior has occurred.

While The Digital Markets Act (DMA) is primarily an ex-ante regulatory framework. This means that it imposes rules and obligations on digital “gatekeepers” before any anti-competitive behavior occurs, with the goal of preventing such behavior from happening in the first place. The focus is on proactively regulating market behavior, rather than reacting after harm has been done (which would be an ex-post approach).

In EU antitrust law there’s no baseline % for anything. Having a Dominants market position isn’t illegal or punishable.

Perhaps you should read a bit first on your own link.

What is an abuse of dominance?​

Holding a dominant position on any given market is not in itself illegal. However, a dominant company has a special responsibility to ensure that its conduct does not distort competition.

But here you have the document you can read that lines up the guidelines.
GENERAL APPROACH TO EXCLUSIONARY CONDUCT

Communication from the Commission - Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty [now Article 102 TFEU] to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings. The 2008 Guidance on enforcement priorities set out the Commission's enforcement priorities with regard to exclusionary abuses of dominance in order to provide greater clarity and predictability as regards the Commission's general framework of analysis in determining whether to pursue as a matter of priority certain cases of exclusionary conduct.​

I would say there’s no regional bias anywhere( nothing you have pointed to or anyone for that matter)

Stating an opinion requires something that supports the existence of said opinion unless it’s made up of thin air.

You say it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, yet the legislation have zero wordings that implies that American app developers will will be punished more than EU developers.

Developers selling apps or making alternative AppStore’s will have the exact same baseline in the DMA even if they are EU, USA, Korea, Japan or African based.

Well the fines are intended to be punitive so you don’t do it again, the financial cost of the fine being larger than all the profits done the illegal way getting lost, and encouraging legal compliance instead of ”cost of doing business”.

Excellent information!!

 

[I7guy]

[…]

I would say there’s no regional bias anywhere( nothing you have pointed to or anyone for that matter)

There is. Why the disconnect between fines and market share. Why does the eu state 20% of global revenue and yet not acknowledge the minority share of iPhones worldwide. It’s because the dma is an anti-American tech piece of legislation.

Stating an opinion requires something that supports the existence of said opinion unless it’s made up of thin air.

That’s what differentiates an opinion from fact.

You say it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, yet the legislation have zero wordings that implies that American app developers will will be punished more than EU developers.

[..\]

Bingo.

 

[I7guy]

Okey you keep saying this, but considering I and other can’t perceive this, it would help if you provided at least personal evidence you used to form your opinion. If it’s something that is written in another EU law I’m willing to take that L, but there’s nothing implicit or explicit in the DMA that benefits any particular developers from specific countries.

It’s my opinion it’s the entire dma that is biased. The biggest tell is the fine vs market share.

Example there some things i actually would agree with you regarding the DSA and developers regarding phone numbers etc in essence as a double edged sword.

But there you at least provided evidence supporting your opinion with something concrete.

I mean example you can sell a defective product, misleading or something that violates their user privacy non-consensual ( stares at you Meta/Google/spotify GDPR violations)

Nope, there’s nothing regarding this present. Perhaps your thinking of the consumer laws such as Council Directive 85/374/EEC passed in 1985? And amendment Directive 1999/34/EC passed 1999 and Directive 2011/83/EU?

All kind of predates the DMA by a few decades.


Well whoever claims it’s a landmark consumer decision should read it again as this isn’t its intended purpose, even if some of its impact will have a potential positive or negative impact on consumers depending on your philosophical percussion and end goal.

 

[I7guy]

I don't think the EU would require Apple to sell the App Store ever. But it may suspend its sales until full compliance is achieved in order to speed the process. At the moment its compliance is under appreciation ... will see.

That might be the best solution. Suspend the App Store. Or have apple pull the eu App Store and let the eu go android.

Now, make no mistake. The EU market is way more important to Apple than the iOS device, basically a smartphone, is to the EU infrastructure (iPad included). From communication infrastructure to business infrastructure.

If theme decides to make an untenable business climate American tech could leave.

You fail to understand that EU regulatory concerns is in keeping the components of its network and OEMs/Vendors policies around them, Net Neutral as its guiding principles. This has proven to be great platform of principles and regulations for businesses and consumers. Apple itself is a beneficiary of these regulations. But not only Apple, all tech companies and businesses that turned digital are relying on the Internet for their products and services. Maybe that’s the Apple has issue with?

Crappy regulation is crappy regulation.

Apple approach to their new internet connected devices, iOS et al, is the opposite of those principles.

Again crappy regulation is….

Through peoples devices it unilaterally discriminates and vets data, businesses models and business itself through the devices people use to access such Infrastructure. It goes to the extent of requiring entities to hand over their cash register. Android smartphones do that also, yet more discrete, but still. Internet devices operating in such manner at a small scale, this does not distort the network values, at a large scale it does. Hence the multiple complaints around the globe against vendors of these kinds of devices.

We aren't talking about games or TV entertainment only. We are talking about health car, transportation, banking, education (books, video classes ...), electricity grids, communication tools, you name the Industry that does not rely on the Internet to conduct businesses. End-users devices are one of the building blocks of such infrastructure. Net Neutrality principles was never considered a barrier to innovation, security & privacy, business. Quite the contrary it has proven to be a great catalyzer. Which is precisely the argument of Apple is making, it is saying that it is, it saying that those principles are extremely dangerous to users and businesses, the way I see it. Just because there are many that comply and have complied to Net Neutral practices, principles and regulations it does not justify their stance on the matter.

All vendors except Apple have found ways to be rewarded for their tech and services, their creations and inventions, within those principles. From platform devices to PAAS and so on. Apple is the only one I know off that it’s finding it extremely difficult to be payed in such circumstances ... and its only Smartphone ... No wonder TC dropped smart cars. Their latest policies still are still highly discriminatory with no consumer/user intervention.

Now this internet device vendors behaviour have not been illegal at the device / OS level considering that there was no regulatory framework beyond ISPs and their tech, to these type of vendors. Regulations left the devices users use to connect to the infrastructure alone on those matters, considering that most were operated in line with such principles already (windows, macOS, Linux, …). DMA comes to close this loop hole when it comes to end users devices and their underlying OSs. Not for all, just for the ones that reach a given market share threshold.

Understanding this is crucial to understand the EU stance the way I see it. Many proponents of the free enterprise have been understating this since the Internet became the business backbone of everything, even before. Not all, but there was a consensus on the matter. It was that consensus that allowed Tech Giants to flourish, Apple included … shareholders included. Now … is being undermined by some of these Giants as it no longer serves their particular business growth models … scorpion and frog complex … i suppose … Internet fiefdoms with their End User Internet devices / App Stores and competition amongst those and only those seam to be now the their motivation to pave their better future.

In the above word salad, all of what you mention that is important to life can be done without an iPhone. You trying to explain the rational of these bad laws dont make these laws better. Why does the dma specify fines of 20% of global revenue but not acknowledge a minority market share. The dma is biased against American tech and was written in such a “needle threading” way to ensure American tech.

 

[webkit]

That’s up for debate and if there are any anticompetitive issues going on, of which none are found.

What's not up for debate is that Costco doesn't have control of the product distribution market to the degree that Apple has control of the apps distribution market.

A U.S. District judge in California in 2021 did rule Apple engaged in anticompetitive behavior regarding its app store.

If any.

Of course "if any." As I stated above, a U.S. District judge in California in 2021 did rule Apple engaged in anticompetitive behavior regarding its app store.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

That might be the best solution. Suspend the App Store. Or have apple pull the eu App Store and let the eu go android.

Suspend the App Store is not a good solution considering the tie with the device. But the sale of the device as first measure closer to the last would be more adequate. I would find it even preferable than going for 20% of whatever revenue. But this is all hypothetical.

As for all going Android if that is the case ... who knows. Maybe Windows Mobile or Symbian 10.0 will be back who knows.There are businesses interested in making money rather than getting a hold on other businesses cash registers and business models through users devices.

If theme decides to make an untenable business climate American tech could leave.

Wow. I think you maybe extrapolating Apple specific hurdles with the regulations with other companies operating and profiting so well as they should in the EU, including outstanding companies rooted in the US of course. Still, if such distopia comes in place, it will be interesting to see American tech pulling from the EU due to regulatory concerns yet stay in China and Russia. This is not the Middle East you know that right?

Grab the Popcorn and sell our stocks if anyone would like to buy it still if that happens.

But I fail to see how EU citizens would go Android / Google, Epic, Microsoft ... and all that jazz that Apple proponents do not love with as you say American Tech pulling from the EU. I think this may as well be more of a specific Apple proponents problem than anything else.

In the above word salad, all of what you mention that is important to life can be done without an iPhone.

Life can be done without most things. That is a fact of life. That may as well be your salad, don't know. But I think we all agree on that. A tautology is a crappy observation.

If such salad was the end of mine, then I would have written exactly that. Please don't touch my salad and accept it for what it is.

Now, you may of course disagree with Net Neutrality principles behind many Internet regulations in the EU, including now its formulation extending it from ISP and their tech to end-user devices / OS under the DMA... as Apple heads do. I'm ok discussing that.

Now discussing tautologies is pointless.

Why does the dma specify fines of 20% of global revenue but not acknowledge a minority market share.

I suppose that is because fines aren't meant to be a financial revenue but a deterrent.

But I don't agree with the formulation of the fine as it exposes it to unnecessary criticism. If the regulation is regional, then its formulation should be all the way regional in principle. The way I see it a fine of at most X% of the revenue generated in the EU, or suspend iPhone sales in the EU, even more specific than revenue in general, would follow such principle, when the current formulation does not.

 

[wbeasley]

What's not up for debate is that Costco doesn't have control of the product distribution market to the degree that Apple has control of the apps distribution market.

A U.S. District judge in California in 2021 did rule Apple engaged in anticompetitive behavior regarding its app store.




Of course "if any." As I stated above, a U.S. District judge in California in 2021 did rule Apple engaged in anticompetitive behavior regarding its app store.

"The trial ran from May 3 to May 24, 2021. In a September 2021 ruling in the first part of the case, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decided in favor of Apple on nine of ten counts, but found against Apple on its anti-steering policies under the California Unfair Competition Law."

and what came of the ONE single finding?

well earlier, in a higher Court...
"Apple's anti-steering policies, which prevent any app from directing or informing its users to a different storefront outside of Apple's iOS one to make purchases, were brought into question as related to potential antitrust charges. Anti-steering policies had been deemed acceptable in practice in the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court case Ohio v. American Express Co."

and

"Judge Rogers also ruled against Epic, requiring them to pay Apple $3.6 million, 30% of the revenue that was withheld to Apple related to their attempts to bypass the App Store,[63] and further stated that Epic did violate its contractual terms as a developer with Apple in how they deployed the update to Fortnite in August 2020 that instigated events, such that Apple may block Epic in the future from providing apps to the App Store.[70] Rogers stated that Apple's single offense against California's law was not sufficiently severe to justify Epic's rulebreaking.[66]"

and

"With the Supreme Court's refusal to hear either appeal, the case ended with all charges dismissed exception for the anti-steering charge. To implement this, Apple allowed developers to include "metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms", but required that developers give Apple 27% of all sales made within seven days of being directed to these sites, which Apple described as a "reasonable means to account for the substantial value Apple provides developers, including in facilitating linked transactions".[84] In addition, the App Store posts a warning screen stating that Apple is not responsible for any security or privacy issues related to third-party payment systems when clicking through to one of these systems.[84] Sweeney stated that these changes are in bad faith compliance with the court orders, maintaining a 27% anti-competitive tax and a "scare screen" that are intended to dissuade developers from using third-party payment systems. Epic filed its request to Rogers in March 2024 to enforce the anti-steering provision that she had outlined for Apple."

so it wasnt the huge win you are making it out to be.

 

[webkit]

so it wasnt the huge win you are making it out to be.

"Huge win"?? I simply said that "a U.S. District judge in California in 2021 did rule Apple engaged in anticompetitive behavior regarding its app store" which is correct. It was an example of an "if any."

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Devs typically contract with apple to distribute their wares, the same way other companies contract with stores such as Costco.

Except that there's alternatives to Costco. We've gone back and forth about this already - the brick and mortar retail analogy doesn't work.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

There is. Why the disconnect between fines and market share. Why does the eu state 20% of global revenue and yet not acknowledge the minority share of iPhones worldwide. It’s because the dma is an anti-American tech piece of legislation.

Well to understand this you need to know some history, the EU when founded was around the Coal and steel industries in the 50s, and if we fined them only on local revenue they would not have been impacted at all considering they where industrial giants and kind of important for the European states ( and colonies) of the day.
Original 6 members(ECSC) this was 12 in the EEC in the 80s, and 15 in the 90s. compared to 27 of today.

1. The legal framework of the ECSC and EEC included provisions for imposing fines that were intended to be punitive and corrective. This framework evolved over time to become more structured and rigorous.

2. Early Days: ECSC and EEC​

European companies between 1950-1990

1. Thyssen AG: €10 million (1957) ≈ €100 million for price-fixing.
2. Hoesch AG: €8 million (1960) ≈ €85 million for market allocation.
3. Krupp: €7 million (1963) ≈ €75 million for cartel activities.
4. Usinor: €6 million (1965) ≈ €70 million for anti-competitive practices.
5. Arbed: €5 million (1968) ≈ €60 million for price-fixing.
6. Cockerill-Sambre: €4 million (1970) ≈ €55 million for market allocation.
7. British Steel: €3.5 million (1973) ≈ €50 million for cartel activities.
8. Voestalpine: €3 million (1975) ≈ €45 million for anti-competitive practices.
9. Riva Group: €2.5 million (1978) ≈ €40 million for price-fixing.
10. Salzgitter AG: €2 million (1980) ≈ €35 million for market allocation.

1. ECSC Era (1952-2002):
   • During the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) period, fines were primarily based on the severity and impact of the anti-competitive behavior. The fines were significant but not explicitly tied to a percentage of the company’s revenue. The focus was on ensuring fair competition in the coal and steel industries.
   • EEC Era (1957-1993):
     • Similarly, during the European Economic Community (EEC) period, fines were determined by the nature and gravity of the infringement, the duration of the anti-competitive behavior, and its impact on the market. The fines aimed to be punitive and corrective but were not calculated as a specific percentage of revenue.
     • Transition Period: 1990s to Early 2000s

2. Increasing Fines: 1990-2002​

   • Throughout the 1990s, the European Commission began imposing larger fines to enhance the deterrent effect. These fines were still based on the severity and impact of the violations but started to reflect a more structured approach.

European companies between 1990-2002

1. Volkswagen: €102 million (1998) ≈ €170 million for restrictive distribution practices.
   Revenue: €69.6 billion in 1998
   Percentage: ~0.2%
2. Tetra Pak: €75 million (1991) ≈ €150 million for abuse of dominant position in liquid packaging.
   Revenue: €6.5 billion in 1991
   Percentage: ~2.3%
3. ABB: €70 million (1998) ≈ €117 million for participating in a heating pipes cartel.
   Revenue: €23.5 billion in 1998
   Percentage: ~0.5%
4. UCAR: €50.4 million (2001) ≈ €80 million for participating in a graphite electrode cartel.
   Revenue: €1.2 billion in 2001
   Percentage: ~6.7%
5. Hoechst AG: €99 million (2003) ≈ €160 million for participating in a sorbates cartel.
   Revenue: €15.6 billion in 2003
   Percentage: ~1.0%
6. Mercedes Benz: €72 million (2001) ≈ €115 million for violating rules on car distribution.
   Revenue: €136.4 billion in 2001
   Percentage: ~0.1%
7. SGL Carbon: €80.2 million (2001) ≈ €128 million for participating in a graphite electrode cartel.
   Revenue: €1.2 billion in 2001
   Percentage: ~10.7%
8. Knauf: €85.8 million (2002) ≈ €137 million for participating in a plasterboard cartel.
   Revenue: €2.5 billion in 2002
   Percentage: ~5.5%
9. Degussa AG: €118 million (2002) ≈ €188 million for participating in a methionine cartel.
   Revenue: €6.5 billion in 2002
   Percentage: ~2.9%
10. BPB: €138.6 million (2002) ≈ €220 million for participating in a plasterboard cartel.
    Revenue: €3.5 billion in 2002
    Percentage: ~6.3%

• Notable Cases: Significant fines during this period included those against companies like Volkswagen and Tetra Pak for restrictive practices and abuse of dominant positions. These fines were substantial but not yet tied to a percentage of global turnover.
• Regulation (EC) No 1/2003

1. Introduction of Percentage-Based Fines:​

   • The major shift occurred with the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, which came into effect on May 1, 2004. This regulation empowered the European Commission to impose fines of up to 10% of a company’s total annual global turnover for breaches of EU competition law.
   • Rationale: The rationale behind this change was to ensure that fines were significant enough to serve as a strong deterrent. By linking fines to a percentage of global turnover, the EU aimed to impose penalties that reflected the economic impact of the violations and discouraged large multinational companies from engaging in anti-competitive behavior.

European companies between 2002- today

1. British Airways and Iberia: €799 million (2010) ≈ €1.02 billion for participating in a cargo cartel. Revenue: €14 billion (combined) in 20101
   Percentage: ~5.7%

1. Daimler: €1 billion (2016) ≈ €1.14 billion for participating in a truck cartel. Revenue: €153.3 billion in 20162
   Percentage: ~0.7%
2. Scania: €880 million (2017) ≈ €1.01 billion for its role in the truck cartel. Revenue: €12.8 billion in 20173
   Percentage: ~7.8%

1. Deutsche Bank: €725 million (2013) ≈ €870 million for participating in the Libor interest rate rigging. Revenue: €31.9 billion in 20134
   Percentage: ~2.7%

1. Saint-Gobain: €880 million (2008) ≈ €1.15 billion for participating in a car glass cartel. Revenue: €43.8 billion in 20085
   Percentage: ~2.6%

1. Philips: €463 million (2012) ≈ €570 million for participating in a cathode ray tube cartel. Revenue: €24.8 billion in 20126
   Percentage: ~1.9%

1. Volvo/Renault: €670 million (2016) ≈ €760 million for participating in a truck cartel. Revenue: €33.4 billion in 20167
   Percentage: ~2.3%

1. Iveco: €495 million (2016) ≈ €560 million for participating in a truck cartel. Revenue: €25.9 billion in 2016
   Percentage: ~2.2%
2. H&M: €35.3 million (2020) ≈ €38.5 million for GDPR violations related to employee monitoring. Revenue: €18.9 billion in 2020
   Percentage: ~0.2%
3. Telecom Italia (Tim): €27.8 million (2020) ≈ €30.3 million for GDPR violations related to unwanted promotional calls. Revenue: €15.8 billion in 2020
   Percentage: ~0.2%

These measures collectively aimed to maintain fair competition and prevent monopolistic practices, even before the more formalized approach of fines based on a percentage of turnover was introduced.

These fines reflect the EU’s efforts to maintain fair competition and prevent monopolistic practices during that period

American companies wasn’t even on the map to punish, as it’s just what naturally developed as more power moved to EU, things become more procedures become codified.

Why should market share have any relevance to the size of your fine? Especially when the market doesn’t tell you much compared to revenue.

It becomes much harder to play long term investments by eating local symbolic fines. You no longer can include the breaking of the law as cost of business but be incentivized to be more law abiding if the risk is years of profits getting wiped out for knowingly breaking the law.

It’s simply that “dissuasive/ deterrent” fines are intended to be substantial enough to ensure that companies take compliance seriously and do not simply factor the fines into their operating costs.

That’s what differentiates an opinion from fact.

Bingo.

An opinion based on nothing sounds like faith, while your interpretation of som facts, such as the meaning of a word, sentence or legal text is an opinion.

Or is your opinion just made up of make believe? Like aliens are grey/ green or that Unobtainium is an indestructible element that tastes like cheddar cheese?

It’s my opinion it’s the entire dma that is biased. The biggest tell is the fine vs market share.

Well I could argue it’s biased against large companies, and America is especially hit as you have mostly large ones.

Even tho I would argue it’s not the intent but side effects considering it’s similar to how it’s always been done. Just look how large telecommunications companies, oil companies or any other large dominant industries and firms where handled in europe (by the ECSC & EEC that predates EU)

In The US they where broken up, while in The EU’s regulatory framework they instead requires incumbent operators to provide access to their networks to competitors, ensuring a level playing field.

• U.S.: Antitrust enforcement and structural remedies (e.g., breakups).
• EU: Regulatory oversight and behavioral remedies (e.g., access requirements).

 

[BaldiMac]

Well to understand this you need to know some history, the EU when founded was around the Coal and steel industries in the 50s, and if we fined them only on local revenue they would not have been impacted at all considering they where industrial giants and kind of important for the European states ( and colonies) of the day.
Original 6 members(ECSC) this was 12 in the EEC in the 80s, and 15 in the 90s. compared to 27 of today.

1. The legal framework of the ECSC and EEC included provisions for imposing fines that were intended to be punitive and corrective. This framework evolved over time to become more structured and rigorous.

2. Early Days: ECSC and EEC​

European companies between 1950-1990

1. ECSC Era (1952-2002):
   • During the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) period, fines were primarily based on the severity and impact of the anti-competitive behavior. The fines were significant but not explicitly tied to a percentage of the company’s revenue. The focus was on ensuring fair competition in the coal and steel industries.
   • EEC Era (1957-1993):
     • Similarly, during the European Economic Community (EEC) period, fines were determined by the nature and gravity of the infringement, the duration of the anti-competitive behavior, and its impact on the market. The fines aimed to be punitive and corrective but were not calculated as a specific percentage of revenue.
     • Transition Period: 1990s to Early 2000s

2. Increasing Fines: 1990-2002​

   • Throughout the 1990s, the European Commission began imposing larger fines to enhance the deterrent effect. These fines were still based on the severity and impact of the violations but started to reflect a more structured approach.

European companies between 1990-2002

• Notable Cases: Significant fines during this period included those against companies like Volkswagen and Tetra Pak for restrictive practices and abuse of dominant positions. These fines were substantial but not yet tied to a percentage of global turnover.
• Regulation (EC) No 1/2003

1. Introduction of Percentage-Based Fines:​

   • The major shift occurred with the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, which came into effect on May 1, 2004. This regulation empowered the European Commission to impose fines of up to 10% of a company’s total annual global turnover for breaches of EU competition law.
   • Rationale: The rationale behind this change was to ensure that fines were significant enough to serve as a strong deterrent. By linking fines to a percentage of global turnover, the EU aimed to impose penalties that reflected the economic impact of the violations and discouraged large multinational companies from engaging in anti-competitive behavior.

European companies between 2002- today


These measures collectively aimed to maintain fair competition and prevent monopolistic practices, even before the more formalized approach of fines based on a percentage of turnover was introduced.

These fines reflect the EU’s efforts to maintain fair competition and prevent monopolistic practices during that period

American companies wasn’t even on the map to punish, as it’s just what naturally developed as more power moved to EU, things become more procedures become codified.

Why should market share have any relevance to the size of your fine? Especially when the market doesn’t tell you much compared to revenue.

It becomes much harder to play long term investments by eating local symbolic fines. You no longer can include the breaking of the law as cost of business but be incentivized to be more law abiding if the risk is years of profits getting wiped out for knowingly breaking the law.

It’s simply that “dissuasive/ deterrent” fines are intended to be substantial enough to ensure that companies take compliance seriously and do not simply factor the fines into their operating costs.


An opinion based on nothing sounds like faith, while your interpretation of som facts, such as the meaning of a word, sentence or legal text is an opinion.

Or is your opinion just made up of make believe? Like aliens are grey/ green or that Unobtainium is an indestructible element that tastes like cheddar cheese?


Well I could argue it’s biased against large companies, and America is especially hit as you have mostly large ones.

Even tho I would argue it’s not the intent but side effects considering it’s similar to how it’s always been done. Just look how large telecommunications companies, oil companies or any other large dominant industries and firms where handled in europe (by the ECSC & EEC that predates EU)

In The US they where broken up, while in The EU’s regulatory framework they instead requires incumbent operators to provide access to their networks to competitors, ensuring a level playing field.

• U.S.: Antitrust enforcement and structural remedies (e.g., breakups).
• EU: Regulatory oversight and behavioral remedies (e.g., access requirements).

Hah! "To understand why the EU feels entitled to fine 20% of global revenue, you have to understand that the EU has issued fines before" is quite the patronizing take.