Nah. I pop back in here every now and again. The anti-trust is of particular interest, but I find the stupid arguments that some people are using to be even more interesting.odd how members that have been around more than a decade, only a handful of comments over the years, and now suddenly every second post...
you'd almost think they were sleeper IDs that some people switch between when their regular account gets too many warnings or booted
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
Please read up the DMA. You’re sorely mistaken on what it does if you think it “just prevents Apple from locking down devices” (which, even if that was all it did, is ABSOLUTELY a violation of Apple’s property rights - again developers don’t own iOS, they license it, and Apple is entirely within their rights to ask for compensation for that use. You can argue the violation is warranted for the “greater good”, but you can’t argue it’s not a violation).
The CTF is Apple’s proposal to monetize iOS in the EU now that it is not allowed to monetize iOS in its preferred method (making everyone use the App Store and taking 15-30% of sales/in app purchases). It appears the EU is going to say that isn’t allowed either (although they haven’t come out and said it isn’t allowed yet).
The doctrine is being reevaluated, particularly with regards to digital platforms.
It's not a violation of their rights, it's a legal limitation or obligation imposed on them. And giving other parties rights against the gatekeepers.
"Property rights" aren't god-given and they don't allow their owners to operate their property in every way they please. There have always been obligations and limitation on property rights "with the greater good in mind".
Of course they do.
They clearly state that the law imposes legal limitations and obligations on gatekeepers like Apple.
It's a legal limitation - not an illegal violation of rights.
They don't.
I just booked a flight using an app on my iPad - and I'm pretty sure Apple didn't take 15-30% commission.
Because it unfairly preferences their own App Store (under "legacy" T&C) vs. other stores/marketplaces.
Seems obvious to me.
If Apple eliminated their own "legacy" terms and started charging app developers the same true "core" fees regardless of their chosen channel of distribution (Apple's App Store, a third-party app marketplace or the developer's web site), I don't see a legal issue in monetising their iOS operating system with regards to the DMA.
Last edited:
That simply isn't true as it is the most used messaging platform in Europe, 'nearly' everybody uses it, even those who who use iPhone. It is cross platform and has been popular since 2009 because it handles group messaging so much better than SMS and iMessage.
The thought process is strange. How does one have blinders in and not see what is really going on.
I was explaining the legislation in the context of what led to Apple prevailing in its lawsuit against Epic in 2021. Whatever happens today or in the future does not change that.
I always felt that Apple would be better off just charging developers 30% regardless of where their app is sold, but the challenge would be in auditing developers' sales receipts to make sure that they are paying Apple their fair share.
Let's simplify in that case then and just make all sales/download go through Apple's App Store anyway, shall we?
Well, you were the one asking for developers to be treated the same regardless of whether they sold their app inside or outside the iOS App Store.
A CTF would be easier and less invasive for Apple to administer, but it’s clear you are not a fan of that, so let’s just go with a flat percentage rate for everybody.
No, I actually would be a fan of that.
I couldn't wait for Apple to charge it on their own store.
And I can't wait for the EU forcing Apple to make exactly that choice: charge it everywhere or nowhere.
They do charge it on their own store if you elect you use the new terms in the EU.
That’s like Costco charging itself slotting fees for its Kirkland brand.
It‘s not.
If Costco derived the popularity of their stores (platform) by giving away most of their shelf space for free (as in „free to download“ apps), stocked products in all of their stores for flat $99 “supplier membership” for free - and let manufacturers sell their products at prices they - not Costco - choose, for a commission… then yes, it’s be “like it”.
Last edited:
It seems the those in favor of the dma mistakenly think it means (dismantle apple).
You guys fervently are biased in your thinking, but yeah that’s what it means.
Are we arguing the principle that not allowing 3rd party stores anti-competitive regardless of the circumstance? Or that just Apple denying 3rd party stores is anti-competitive?
So you're argument is that I should be able to force any platform to support third-party stores? Holy crap! I can't imagine any rational argument to support that.
Yet, that's what you're arguing.
Correct me here, but just above to my question asking you "is it the the principle that not allowing 3rd party stores [is] anti-competitive" or instead is it, "just Apple denying 3rd party stores [that] is anti-competitive", you said "First one."
If that's your opinion -- that's fine. Everyone is allowed their own opinion. But monopolies are not illegal just on their own. The US FTC's own guide to antitrust says, "it is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge "high prices," or to try to achieve a monopoly position by what might be viewed by some as particularly aggressive methods." "The law is violated [section 2, Sherman Act] only if the company tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly through unreasonable methods." And, Epic's case vs Apple was heard in trial court, reviewed by the appellete court, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined any further review. Which clearly indicates they don't feel Apple's monopoly is otherwise unreasonable. (outside of the aformentioned anti-steering provisions)
I mean, you could say that the US legislature or the FTC "just doesn't get it" in not legislating mandatory 3rd party app stores and/or that the US judicial system is rigged / judges were paid off / ignorant or dumb, in not declaring Apple's lockout anti-competitive. But, the EU and its member countries just legislatively passed what should be fairly comprehensive reform in their DMA. And, I don't think I'm remiss in stating, that they don't share your opinion.
They, for sure, share part of it -- they've mandated that Apple provide a 3rd party market space. But, they allow Apple to set requirements for being able to operate one, as well as, allow Apple to collect their cut of App revenue generated though those 3rd party market spaces. Now, what fees and charges are acceptable for Apple to charge, obviously, will be eventually determined (if Apples present fee structure for 3rd party store sales is unreasonable). But, they for sure didn't outright prohibit Apple from collecting anything.
But, not only that they allow video game system manufactures to maintain their 100% complete iron fist monopoly over their hardware -- that is any 3rd party developer that wants to use their video game platform has sell their games though said video game manufacturer. Sure, developers and publishers have the option to sell video games in a physical retail store or online though, say, Amazon.com, but the distribution of the game to get to those retail stores or Amazon.com, 100% goes though Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo so that they get 30% of the revenue of the game sales to those retail stores. Which is no different then what Apple does with iOS app sales (in the rest of the world).
Last edited:
That's not what it does. It's not "forcing them to support", as if it were requiring to them perform an action. Instead, they are being required to refrain from an action.
So you're argument is that I should be able to force any platform to support third-party stores? Holy crap! I can't imagine any rational argument to support that.
Good luck getting game consoles to support that model. LOL.
And when the arguments come back "but game consoles are sold at a loss and made up by game sales...", um, no, Nintendo were very upfront that the Switch would not be sold at a loss...
The whole Gatekeeper definition currently is just to target the big guys but if the EU win there, the game consoles should be worried as they will be the next cash cow ready for milking...
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope. That’s certainly not what you said or what the EU is doing. Apple is being forced to perform an action - add support for third party app stores.
Do you not stand by your post?