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

[Sophisticatednut]

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

Even tho this have been a thing since 1962….?
EEC Council: Regulation No 17:

Article 15

Fines

2. The Commission may by decision impose on undertakings or associations of undertakings fines of from 1000 to 1 000 000 units of account, or a sum in excess thereof but not exceeding 10 % of the turnover in the preceding business year of each of the undertakings participating in the infringement where, either intentionally or negligently:

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

Well if you knew how the fines work you would know it states ” up to max 20% ”
after multiple offenses. Before this it’s max 10%.

Would you rather it was unlimited with no maxim roof on the fine? If you don’t want to get fined don’t break the law. Just like if you sped on the road in Finland don’t complain the fine is a percentage of your yearly income/ net worth.

A d since when is there a limit on the maximum fine can be levied by a government? Is there some law stating this?

Nothing prevents a fee equating to your 10% global revenue without this limit being written in place…

 

[I7guy]

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.

Is degree the problem? Who makes the line in the sand?

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

What was that ONE finding?

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 ONE finding was what?

 

[I7guy]

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.

There are also alternatives to the iOS App Store. For example I can get my daily dose of the WSJ multiple ways.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Is degree the problem? Who makes the line in the sand?

The government, in this case the European Union.

There are also alternatives to the iOS App Store. For example I can get my daily dose of the WSJ multiple ways.

And that's great for what the WSJ produces. How about developers making games? Are they supposed to go back to flash so that it runs in the browser? Oh right about that...

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

well ignoring the text has been formulated like this since 2003, and even arguably 1962

1962
2. The Commission may by decision impose on undertakings or associations of undertakings fines of from 1000 to 1 000 000 units of account, or a sum in excess thereof but not exceeding 10 % of the turnover in the preceding business year of each of the undertakings participating in the infringement where, either intentionally or negligently: (a) they infringe Article 85 (1) or Article 86 of the Treaty ; or
2003
Article 23
Fines
2.
For each undertaking and association of undertakings participating in the infringement, the fine shall not exceed 10 % of its total turnover in the preceding business year.

Where the infringement of an association relates to the activities of its members, the fine shall not exceed 10 % of the sum of the total turnover of each member active on the market affected by the infringement of the association.

4.
When a fine is imposed on an association of undertakings taking account of the turnover of its members and the association is not solvent, the association is obliged to call for contributions from its members to cover the amount of the fine.

Where such contributions have not been made to the association within a time-limit fixed by the Commission, the Commission may require payment of the fine directly by any of the undertakings whose representatives were members of the decision-making bodies concerned of the association.

After the Commission has required payment under the second subparagraph, where necessary to ensure full payment of the fine, the Commission may require payment of the balance by any of the members of the association which were active on the market on which the infringement occurred.

However, the Commission shall not require payment under the second or the third subparagraph from undertakings which show that they have not implemented the infringing decision of the association and either were not aware of its existence or have actively distanced themselves from it before the Commission started investigating the case.

The financial liability of each undertaking in respect of the payment of the fine shall not exceed 10 % of its total turnover in the preceding business year.

Competition rules in EU 2018~ wayback machine
If you infringe the EU's competition rules, you could end up being fined as much as 10% of your annual worldwide turnover.

DMA 2024
In the non-compliance decision, the Commission may impose on a gatekeeper fines not exceeding 10 % of its total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year where it finds that the gatekeeper, intentionally or negligently, fails to comply


2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 of this Article, in the non-compliance decision the Commission may impose on a gatekeeper fines up to 20 % of its total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year where it finds that a gatekeeper has committed the same or a similar infringement …

It seems the rage is closer to 62 years too late if not 21 years at a minimum.

 

[BaldiMac]

Well if you knew how the fines work you would know it states ” up to max 20% ”
after multiple offenses. Before this it’s max 10%.

Would you rather it was unlimited with no maxim roof on the fine? If you don’t want to get fined don’t break the law. Just like if you sped on the road in Finland don’t complain the fine is a percentage of your yearly income/ net worth.

A d since when is there a limit on the maximum fine can be levied by a government? Is there some law stating this?

Nothing prevents a fee equating to your 10% global revenue without this limit being written in place…

Well since the post you responded to was about basing it on global revenue as opposed to EU revenue and NOT about whether the EU can issue fines, bringing up the history of fines in the EU is irrelevant.

You're arguing a strawman here. No one claimed the the EU is prevented from issuing the fine. Simply that basing it on global revenue is out of proportion to the EU's jurisdiction. Laying claim to revenue generated in other countries is messed up.

The EU could have obtained the same results by threatening to fine a company 2-300% their annual EU revenue. But they know that any reasonable person would see that as ********. So they couched it it terms of global revenue to make it more palatable. And, I'm sure entirely coincidentally, it would have less of an impact on companies primarily in the EU.

 

[surferfb]

Honest question for DMA defenders:

If Apple leadership went insane and decided "We've been doing some thinking, and we think Steve had it right with the first iPhone, so starting with iOS 19, there will be no more App Store, no more third party apps, and we're going to aggressively sue anyone who tries to distribute Apps for our platforms from here on out for infringing on our IP - if you want to build an app for iPhone, it has to be a web app" - should/would they be allowed to do that? Or do developers deserve to be able to write apps for iOS no matter what?

 

[I7guy]

The government, in this case the European Union.

There was no line. Just a set of (bad) regulations called the dma that singled out American tech notably apple.

And that's great for what the WSJ produces. How about developers making games?

There are multiple platforms like hundreds.

Don’t Are they supposed to go back to flash so that it runs in the browser? Oh right about that...

Don’t penalize apple because flash went down the tubes.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Well since the post you responded to was about basing it on global revenue as opposed to EU revenue, bringing up the history of fines in the EU is irrelevant.

Well the history is more that the concept of local or international revenue has always been seen as the same and inseparable.

You're arguing a strawman here. No one claimed the the EU is prevented from issuing the fine. Simply that basing it on global revenue is out of proportion to the EU's jurisdiction. Laying claim to revenue generated in other countries is messed up.

It’s not laying claims, it’s putting a maximum number the fine can be of a company’s revenue. But if you’re okay with small and medium companies potentially being fined 200%of their yearly revenue according to the severity, length of time the violations happened and the punitive damages racking up, that’s you. But I would rather have a maximum amount.

The EU could have obtained the same results by threatening to fine a company 2-300% their annual EU revenue. But they know that any reasonable person would see that as ********. So they couched it it terms of global revenue to make it more palatable. And, I'm sure entirely coincidentally, it would have less of an impact on companies primarily in the EU.

It would be easier just not having a maximum revenue sealing for the fine.

And I would say the history is relevant if fines haven’t ever been limited to local sales.

You’re all 60 years too late

 

[BaldiMac]

Well the history is more that the concept of local or international revenue has always been seen as the same and inseparable.

It’s not laying claims, it’s putting a maximum number the fine can be of a company’s revenue. But if you’re okay with small and medium companies potentially being fined 200%of their yearly revenue according to the severity, length of time the violations happened and the punitive damages racking up, that’s you. But I would rather have a maximum amount.

It would be easier just not having a maximum revenue sealing for the fine.

And I would say the history is relevant if fines haven’t ever been limited to local sales.

You’re all 60 years too late

Again, no one ever suggested a maximum for the fine in this conversation. You're just making that up.

And of course, the DMA doesn't apply to "small and medium companies", but you know that.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Honest question for DMA defenders:

If Apple leadership went insane and decided "We've been doing some thinking, and we think Steve had it right with the first iPhone, so starting with iOS 19, there will be no more App Store, no more third party apps, and we're going to aggressively sue anyone who tries to distribute Apps for our platforms from here on out for infringing on our IP - if you want to build an app for iPhone, it has to be a web app" - should/would they be allowed to do that? Or do developers deserve to be able to write apps for iOS no matter what?

Well it would suck as an Apple fan. And the iPhone market share would implode in EU.

Suing would be impossible tho in EU as no Ip violation would be made. If jailbreaking isn’t illegal then no amount of side loading will be illegal.

Not even Nintendo can sue

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Again, no one ever suggested a maximum for the fine in this conversation. You're just making that up.

I never said anyone suggested it. But you should understand what you’re asking for in criticizing the maximum x%. Just because it says 10-20% maximum fine doesn’t mean the fine will come close to that

But If you remove the percentage then it can be unlimited. In the same sense that you can get 5 lifetime sentences in the USA for the crimes committed.

And of course, the DMA doesn't apply to "small and medium companies", but you know that.

Oh sorry my mistake, I thought of all fines in general.

Well would you be happier with no limit instead?

 

[surferfb]

Well it would suck as an Apple fan. And the iPhone market share would implode in EU.

Suing would be impossible tho in EU as no Ip violation would be made. If jailbreaking isn’t illegal then no amount of side loading will be illegal.

Not even Nintendo can sue

Honestly confused by this. Apple can’t sue for IP infringement in the EU? I don’t mean individual users, but Cydia or whoever is offering ways to install apps on iOS. They’d be using Apple’s IP to install apps, would they not? Apple can't do anything to stop it?

Again, this is a rhetorical question, because the shareholders would have Tim Cook's head about 15 seconds after he thought the idea, let alone tried to implement it.

 

[BaldiMac]

I never said anyone suggested it. But you should understand what you’re asking for in criticizing the maximum x%. Just because it says 10-20% maximum fine doesn’t mean the fine will come close to that

But If you remove the percentage then it can be unlimited. In the same sense that you can get 5 lifetime sentences in the USA for the crimes committed.

Oh sorry my mistake, I thought of all fines in general.

Well would you be happier with no limit instead?

Again, I'm not criticizing the maximum fine, simply that it is based on global revenue instead of EU revenue. No, I don't want "no limit" as that's just a false dichotomy that you set up. I was quite clear, but you're just focused on your strawman.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

They’d be using Apple’s IP to install apps, would they not? Apple can't do anything to stop it?

Has Apple historically gone after jailbreakers, or Altstore even, for sidestepping them?

 

[surferfb]

Has Apple historically gone after jailbreakers, or Altstore even, for sidestepping them?

I literally said it's a rhetorical question. Just trying to figure out where DMA defenders think Apple's IP rights begin/end.

 

[BaldiMac]

I literally said it's a rhetorical question. Just trying to figure out where DMA defenders think Apple's IP rights begin/end.

I think you meant hypothetical. Rhetorical is when you don't expect an answer.

 

[surferfb]

I think you meant hypothetical. Rhetorical is when you don't expect an answer.

You're absolutely right. I've been up since 4:45am with a 3 year old who couldn't sleep. I've fired myself for making the error. 😂

 

[BaldiMac]

You're absolutely right. I've been up since 4:45am with a 3 year old who couldn't sleep. I've fired myself for making the error. 😂

I'd rather collect 20% of your global revenue.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Honestly confused by this. Apple can’t sue for IP infringement in the EU? I don’t mean individual users, but Cydia or whoever is offering ways to install apps on iOS. They’d be using Apple’s IP to install apps, would they not? Apple can't do anything to stop it?

Essentially think if you had a computer (Mac?) in an alien language, and while you don’t know how to operate it as you can read it, you can observe it’s function and figure out what things does. Just because you figure out how to use the software functions and even make shortcuts based on your inputs doesn’t mean you have actually violated any protections. And if you then sell this alienOS software helper you’re in the clear as it only contains your inputs and data but none of the alien computer’s software.

Observing software in a clean room and figuring out how it works and reverse engineering it is fully legal.

Apple already tried to go after cydia and similar services in the jailbreak community for violating their copyright and was throw out in the U.S. courts.

While in EU
The SAS Institute claimed that World Programming had copied SAS' software manuals and used SAS Learning Edition licenses to reverse engineerthe program for their competing statistical analysis software.

Since World Programming lacked access to the SAS Institute's source code, the European Court of Justice the court considered the merits of a copyright claim based on observing functionality only. The European Committee for Interoperable Systems say that the case is important to the software industry.

The EU Court of Justice ruled that copyright protection does not extend to the software functionality, the programming language used and the format of the data files used by the program.

It stated that there is no copyright infringement when a company which does not have access to the source code of a program studies, observes, and tests that program to create another program with the same functionality

Again, this is a rhetorical question, because the shareholders would have Tim Cook's head about 15 seconds after he thought the idea, let alone tried to implement it.

It’s a fair question, but yes the issue is that it’s that cydia isn’t using any of their IP. All the Ip is fully contained on devices and the app simply calls out software functions from the OS natively.

Again, I'm not criticizing the maximum fine, simply that it is based on global revenue instead of EU revenue. No, I don't want "no limit" as that's just a false dichotomy that you set up. I was quite clear, but you're just focused on your strawman.

That’s fine, but perhaps this is the disconnect. The fines aren’t global, and they aren’t based on EU revenue or local revenue ether. So your request doesn’t make much sense.

There’s no numerical value for the fines in any of the laws. The fines are based on the crime and is disassociated from where any revenue is made.

Especially when fines are punitive in nature.

 

[BaldiMac]

Essentially think if you had a computer (Mac?) in an alien language, and while you don’t know how to operate it as you can read it, you can observe it’s function and figure out what things does. Just because you figure out how to use the software functions and even make shortcuts based on your inputs doesn’t mean you have actually violated any protections. And if you then sell this alienOS software helper you’re in the clear as it only contains your inputs and data but none of the alien computer’s software.

Observing software in a clean room and figuring out how it works and reverse engineering it is fully legal.

Sure. But what does that have to do with the hypothetical presented? If Apple removes the ability to install apps, third parties don't have a right to modify iOS to restore that functionality.

Apple already tried to go after cydia and similar services in the jailbreak community for violating their copyright and was throw out in the U.S. courts.

That never happened.

While in EU
The SAS Institute claimed that World Programming had copied SAS' software manuals and used SAS Learning Edition licenses to reverse engineerthe program for their competing statistical analysis software.

Since World Programming lacked access to the SAS Institute's source code, the European Court of Justice the court considered the merits of a copyright claim based on observing functionality only. The European Committee for Interoperable Systems say that the case is important to the software industry.

The EU Court of Justice ruled that copyright protection does not extend to the software functionality, the programming language used and the format of the data files used by the program.

It stated that there is no copyright infringement when a company which does not have access to the source code of a program studies, observes, and tests that program to create another program with the same functionality

It’s a fair question, but yes the issue is that it’s that cydia isn’t using any of their IP. All the Ip is fully contained on devices and the app simply calls out software functions from the OS natively.

Again, reverse engineering APIs and modifying the OS are to very different things.

That’s fine, but perhaps this is the disconnect. The fines aren’t global, and they aren’t based on EU revenue or local revenue ether. So your request doesn’t make much sense.

There’s no numerical value for the fines in any of the laws. The fines are based on the crime and is disassociated from where any revenue is made.

Especially when fines are punitive in nature.

Again, you're just making stuff up. You are well aware that we are discussing the fact that DMA fines can be up to 20% of annual global revenue.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Has Apple historically gone after jailbreakers, or Altstore even, for sidestepping them?

They have tried. But they have always been shutdown.

On October 28, 2012, the US Copyright Office released a new exemption ruling. The jailbreaking of smartphones continued to be legal "where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of [lawfully obtained software] applications with computer programs on the telephone handset

https://www.reuters.com/legal/apple-loses-bid-revive-us-copyright-claims-over-ios-simulation-2023-05-08/

Jailbreaking iPhone apps is now legal

Library of Congress and Copyright Office allow for several exemptions to copyright law, including one that lest users break into their iPhones to download unauthorized apps.

money.cnn.com

 

[webkit]

Is degree the problem? Who makes the line in the sand?

It usually is part of the problem, yes. The "line in the sand" is typically decided by regional (country, state, etc.) lawmakers and/or courts.

What was that ONE finding?

The ONE finding was what?

The anticompetitive anti-steering piece where Apple had prohibited app developers from informing customers about ways to pay for their apps and subscriptions outside of the App Store.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Sure. But what does that have to do with the hypothetical presented? If Apple removes the ability to install apps, third parties don't have a right to modify iOS to restore that functionality.

Unfortunately there’s no legal recourse as no crime is committed.

Apple is just simply not required to enable the function. Third parties are in full legal clear to try.

That never happened.

Well it did, they tried. There a bunch of cases around 2010-2012 time period.

Apple loses bid to criminalize iPhone jailbreaking

www.computerworld.com

Apple Fails in Bid to Dismiss Cydia Creator's Amended Antitrust Lawsuit

Apple has lost a bid to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit filed against it by Jay Freeman, creator of an alternative App Store known as Cydia for...

www.macrumors.com

Again, reverse engineering APIs and modifying the OS are to very different things.

Indeed and nothing shows this is illegal in anyway.

Again, you're just making stuff up. You are well aware that we are discussing the fact that DMA fines can be up to 20% of annual global revenue.

And remove the max 10% and 20% words and absolutely nothing changes except how high the fine can be.

They exist as safety railing so fines don’t become to high.

Just how you can’t be sentenced for 300 years here as there’s a maximum limit on how much time you can be served.