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 Let EU Users Set New Defaults for Multiple Apps, Delete App Store, Photos, Messages and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It‘s not a legal finding by a court of law - but the DoJ clearly found it. They don‘t go out on a whim to sue companies in such a concerted action with states.
The difference between
- selling one make or model among or a few that you produced yourself, among many competing products in the same category
- vs. distributing all products in a given category (iOS apps, with iOS forming a duopoly with Android) including all made by other developers
should be obvious.
Sales of Honda Accords in a competitive market are an appropriate comparison to sales of smartphones - except: you don‘t commit to using a certain „ecosystem“ or networks of roads in buying that car.
Market share in terms of revenue.
A common measure. Companies and developers wanting to sell apps want to make money - so they’re going where the money is. Not where non-paying „users“ are. And so can - and regularly is - market share determined: as percentage of all sales revenue in the market.
Of course they should!
Sales of iPhones would just reflect the value Apple is getting from having third-party apps on their platform in little to no time.
I don‘t hink they could legally do that, to be honest.
Companies could try to withdraw from the EU just pro forma and just shift their revenue to other jurisdictions, as way of trying to circumvent the DMA. Don‘t forget: the DMA isn‘t about Apple - it covers other businesses too.
Last edited:
That's pretty funny.
"I don't think they could legally fine that much, but I support the regulation setting the fine as that much as long as they call it something else. Note: I have no basis for my thought that they can't fine that much."
That's quite the argument!
That's just something you made up as FUD, of course. Revenue generated in the EU is generated in the EU. It can later be offset to shift it to other jurisdictions on the books for business reasons, but that doesn't change where it was generated.
Well they do and they don’t always win.
Your ecosystem is the dealership in this case.
Still no getting around that apple is a minority business worldwide , however influential. But yeah I get it, thread the needle some more.
Of course I have a basis for my thought: I don‘t believe a fine for more revenue than a company makes is going to stand in court.
That’s how it should be - but not necessarily how it is.
Very simp We just imagined it on this thread:
Imagine Apple shut down their European App Store tomorrow - they are certainly allowed to.
What are European iPhone owners going to do? They‘ll „move“ their Apple ID to another jurisdiction and make purchases abroad, using a fake foreign address. Maybe in the US, UK, Turkey - or Liechtenstein (an EEA country with low VAT and corporate tax rates). Some place where Apple operate and consumers can reasonably obtain a local payment method. Could be Apple gift cards.
Since Apple doesn’t really check customers‘ address or IP address in selling digital content to them, the revenue gets booked in a non-EU jurisdiction.
Fining and „controlling“ Apple is very simple due to their EU hardware sales. But how do you fine a company that only provides digital products or services?
Last edited:
You made a legal claim. What's the legal basis?
As far as you restating your claim as the basis for your claim, that's just circular reasoning.
More FUD. Complete and utter nonsense.
Fines must not be proportionate to the infringement and aim intended. Any court will consider that.
https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/85df68c6-a8db-4662-b988-08e3287a1936_en
When you have nothing to say, no point or argument to make:
👉🏻 resort to killer phrases, insults and ad hominem arguments.
👏🏻
Great! So do you agree that 2-300% of annual EU revenue is disproportionate to the infringement?
I already clearly responded when I explained how bookkeeping works. You responded with a fantasy unrelated to the discussion. Calling your arguments nonsense is not an insult or an ad hominem argument.
Since we're getting pedantic here: Yes, Disney can prevent you from making private copies. DVD CSS or BluRay AACS is entirely legal, both in the EU and the US. Now if those encryption systems have vulnerabilities that can be exploited for copying and as long as the copies you make are for your own private home use (i.e. you aren't going torrent or resell your unencrypted copy) then that is entirely legal, as well.
But, we're not talking about any of that.
No one is arguing that. The IP of Apple, the copyrightable part, is the software code running on the hardware. It's the interaction of developers code with Apple's software that is the contention point. Not that Apple owns the developers Apps or IP. The US has already established, way back in the very early 80's, that consumers own the hardware that manufactures sell to the public. For that matter, they established that anyone could develop for that hardware once it is sold to the public. This was Atari Corp. vs Activision Inc. But, the court, (and subsequent challenges) allow the development of software and hardware that can lockout code execution. Just to be clear Epic v Apple was the latest in a 40 year history of challenging this code lockout precedence. And the US Supreme Court, once again, decided to leave the precedence in place.
The US Supreme Court, obviously, does not speak for, much less bind, any part of the EU or it's members or citizens. But the EU clearly does follow suit and also allow software and hardware that can lockout code execution, otherwise we'd have seen a prohibition of such activity. Moreover, they clearly even allow complete ironfist despotic monopoly control: see video game consoles. Where the EU differs is that they've decided to say under certain circumstances -- 3rd party stores must be allowed to exist, but they've clearly not prohibited Apple from continuing with using code lockout, nor have they said that Apple can not be compensated for the use of its IP / software / hardware though these 3rd party stores.
So with that said, do you know what happened after Atari lost its lawsuit?
There are specific reasons why Apple is allowed to monopolize and dictate use of their product. But, clearly you don't care. That's fine, everyone has their own opinions. The US and EU both have very similar opinions, they just don't align with yours.
Be that as it may, even if what you hypothicise was legal -- the public has all the option in the world themself to reject that car and not drive it. There are many other cars they can choose from that don't have such restrictions or mandates. Just as app developers are more then able to embrace Andriod's ways to increase their end of the day take home pay: 3rd party app stores, (make their own app store), 3rd party payments, direct installs (sales) from the developers website to the consumers Android phone. It's not like Android doesn't have a 70-80% worldwide market share and millions more consumers, compared to Apple's 20-30%. Not to mention just have a far easier time getting apps approved (or updates approved).
Last edited:
I would say so, yes.
That said, purely "digital" companies could, at least in principle, try to shift basically their entire business away - it seems reasonable to be able to fine them on worldwide turnover.
It's not a fantasy. Non-compliance with EU obligations on sales of digital goods/services - which aren't shipped through customers but as digital data instead - has been and is a real thing:
https://kluwertaxblog.com/2023/02/1...xes-in-the-european-union-what-can-we-expect/
https://www.paddle.com/blog/eu-vat-compliance-for-us-software-sellers
https://blog.payproglobal.com/eu-vat-compliance-changes-for-saas-and-software-sellers
I've done it myself: I have purchased software while residing and being located in Europe - without applicable European VAT being charged. The (American, I believe) seller just didn't care, took my money - and that was it.
If, just hypothetically, Apple were to close shop (the App Store) in Europe tomorrow, consumers would look for another avenue to purchase their apps - namely from other countries' App Store storefronts. The EU would of course try to pressure Apple into verifying their customers residency more stringently. But if Apple just turned a blind eye, how would the EU enforce it, and how would they ultimately get their money and penalise Apple?
Last edited:
Then we agree! Basing fines on up to 20% of global annual revenue is unreasonable and should be illegal.
Hey, If you want to give your data to Goole, go right ahead.
WhatsAPP?? Only idiots use it.
WhatsAPP?? Only idiots use it.
I was trying to find legal opinions about the question you call lockout code earlier. Since I'm not a lawyer in this field, I had a hard time to find the right search terms, though. Is "lockout code execution" the technical term that lawyers use? Do you happen to know online resources where one could learn more about "lockout code execution"?
If what you write is true, how can the EU then even mandate third-party stores in your opinion?
Last edited:
No analogy is perfect. But if what you write about lockout code execution is true, then car manufacturers could indeed program their cars in way that resemble my hypothetical example. The point I'm trying to make is, how ridiculous Apple's restrictions are if you see them throught the lense of other items we use every day.
I'm not sure what term the US court used at the time. If that's not the term - I'm sure the Epic v Apple case documents would reveal what lawyers and the court refer to it as. As far as learning about it - Start with say Wikipedia's entry on Nintendo's Checking Integrated Circuit (CIC) or 10NES system. It's a very early of the implementations of such a device or system.
It's up to the EU to determine what they will and won't allow. They clearly have allowed code lockout to exist, not just for Apple and Android, but also for Microsoft (Windows phones), as well as, the all prior and present video game console makers. If they felt as you did that this was a bridge to far, anti-competitive, or illegal - it would be prohibited. But, they've decided to set some new rules for that modify what they previously allowed and now mandate a 3rd party app store. Unless I'm mistaken, they still allow Apple to be compensated for the use of their platform.
And drivers of, or developers for, such cars would be more then free to reject those and choose another automobile to drive.
Point is: It's been 20 years since the iPhone was introduced. If the "grass is greener" -- the options and payment arrangements are better, app approvals are easier and less arbitrary, the end of day take home pay is better, and just way more consumers to sell too ... then why haven't developers just migrated to Android.
The way iOS is described is a hellscape: initial App approval being draconian, update approvals not much better, with very little profit to be made once Apple's cut and businesses own expenses (salaries, development, infrastructure, etc) are deducted, Apple constantly trying to sherlock or undermine, and bans or delisting being arbitrary and effectively unappealable.
So why stick around year after year after year -- when as critics point out Android has all the necessary options, a larger market share, far easier and less stressful road to app approvals.
Why hasn't Apple been free marketed to heck by the developers, leaving behind the blind hypnotized apple sheep.
This has nothing to do with grass is greener. Consumers can choose Pixels over iPhones. But to sell their products and services, many companies have to be present on both platforms, it does not matter if they like the policies of Apple or Google or not. Say you're Uber. Your whole business is dependent on being present on all relevant mobile platforms. They don't have the power to tell all their customers to stop using Android instead of iPhones. That's the definition of a Gatekeeper and why regulation of the access to these customers is warranted in my opinion.
The Nintendo vs. Atari case is intersting, but I'm not sure it's comparable to the current ecosystem. If I understand it correctly, Atari lost the case because of patent infringment. Which would mean that eventually they would have been allowed to circumvent the lockout device after the patent expired. But I'm not certain that I understand the circumstances correctly.
read SurferB's response...
you know full well that it isnt a good analogy. you just think repeating it often makes it true. it doesnt.
have you admitted yet the EU doesnt allow unrestricted reverse engineering and modifying someone else's code?
You'll want to look further back, though. Atari v Activision is were the precedence was started. In the late 70's Atari was selling the "2600" or "VCS" which was part of the 2nd generation of video game systems. It was the generation which mostly popularized the interchageable game catridge. The previous generation mostly had built in games and weren't expandable. That said, all games were still developed only by the manufacturer.
The 2600 was very successful for Atari. Succesful enough that the programers felt jilted. They were being paid a salary and not given bonuses or compensation for the success and sales of the games they were creating. They were also not being credited anywhere as the actual developers.
So a number of them left Atari and formed their own company "Activision" to develop games for Atari's 2600 so that they could credit themselves and capture all the monetary success of the games they created for themselves. Atari was not happy about this and very not happy when Activisions games ended up being higher quality and therefore more successful then Atari's own. Atari sued to close their business and assume all proceeds and IP that Activision created -- on grounds that they took company secrets (the knowlege of how to program for the 2600) with them. It's more neuonced then that, but its the gist. Atari developed the system therefore they they claimed they owned the hardware and the rights to program that hardware. No one gets to program for their hardware except them.
The judge didn't agree, at all. Atari owned the right for the design and manufacture of the hardware and they owned anything that their programmers developed for them. But because the hardware will literally run any commands that are presented to it, it's open game for anyone to program for it. Not only that, but they don't owe anything to Atari, nor can Atari demand anything: payments or contracts. For practical purposes, 3rd party development was deemed legal, or legalized, however you want to look at it.
The implication being if you can find a way to prevent the execution of arbitrary code - then you can charge / require payments or license agreements. But, as the 2600 hardware was cast in stone, its fate was sealed.
or perhaps Uber says "people use both OSes on their phones so we should have an app that reaches as many as possible"? Hence they write the app...
And Uber dont get charged a fee for use by Apple. The app connects people for services. Not product.
Oh, here we go again.... why are shopping apps different to streaming apps?...
Because Apple says so.
You know that, the app devs know that. Spotify is still #1 music streamer even with that in place and pays Apple nothing for the app hosting or downloads...
I’m so old I remember when Apple’s iPhone business model was going to doom the company unless they opened up immediately.
Now it’s so anticompetitive it has to be regulated out of existence.
What’s funny is that the exact opposite argument was just used some time back to argue why companies like Facebook and Google held Apple by the literal balls. That they could simply “choose” to withhold their apps and services from iOS, resulting in customers abandoning their iPhones in favour of android handsets. And now you are all saying that it’s the opposite, that Apple holds all the power in this relationship and that these services cannot afford to not serve iOS users.
Which is which now?
Just like how in the past, people pointed to Apple’s closed ecosystem and argued that it would lose to android’s more open platform. Apple stuck to their guns and went on to carve out a small but profitable niche of the smartphone market while commanding the lion’s share of profits in the sector. So now, the argument shifts to how Apple is now a big bully and government intervention is needed to protect iOS users from themselves.
That’s in part what irritates me. That the arguments being put forth keep flip-flopping to whatever paints Apple in the worst possible light at any one time.
There simply does not seem to be any sense of internal consistency to me.
That contradicts some people’s claims that the DMA mena „Apple‘s IP is being given away for free“.
What's funny is that, from the tens of thousands of app developers on iOS you had to resort to cherry-picking these two: Facebook and Google, which are designated and regulated as gatekeepers themselves.
Of course they wield some power. Of course they have some leverage over Apple. That is why they’re designated as gatekeepers. That’s not true for almost all of the other, non-gatekeeper developers.
It‘s not at all inconsistent: Apple is not the only gatekeeper company in digital markets. There are a handful of gatekeeper companies that wield outsized market power over the rest of the digital economy. And among them are not only Apple but also Alphabet and Meta - both of which operate their own respective (almost) monopolies in online search, social networks and messenger apps.
And they’re holding each others‘ balls, so to speak. Apple locking out Facebook and Google or the latter withdrawing would be …well, not mutually assured destruction maybe, but a lose-lose situation.
Other businesses „having to be on“ a platform and depending on it is just as true for Google Maps and Google search. If you operate a restaurant or tourist attraction or something, being delisted on Google Search and Maps is almost the equivalent of not existing and closing your doors and business in today‘s world.
Side note: I'd arguably include Spotify on my watchlist for such gatekeepers - were it not for Apple and Google successfully marketing their own competing music services.
That’s in part what irritates me. That the arguments being put forth keep flip-flopping to whatever paints Apple in the worst possible light at any one time.
When you’re attempting to disprove someone’s claim that „many companies have to be present on both platforms, it does not matter if they like the policies“ by pointing to no one else than Google and Facebook, two of the world‘s richest, most influential companies on the internet, both of which operate such platforms themselves…
It‘s frankly irritating. And looks inconsistent a (counter-) argument.
Last edited: