The epic vs Apple case didn’t use the above market definition. Of course one can define a market to backfit their assumptions.
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 VP Referred for Criminal Contempt After 'Outright Lies' in Epic Games Ruling
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I didn't say that it did, I was responding to the notion that things don't always need regulation even if they are essential. My point was that if a market was perceived as having one entity stifling competition governments would likely step in to regulate that market.
When did the iPhone vanish completely from the world? When did the internet stop working forever?
Well, that’s all that your cited statistic proves, that smartphones are popular, not essential. Whether or not people assume you have a smartphone or not is irrelevant, it has no bearing as to whether the aforementioned regulation/ruling is good. Furthermore, there are many companies that produce smartphones. Apple is hardly the only one in that product category.
A. You are shifting ground. You first claimed that Apple is a monopoly, now you claim it doesn’t matter if Apple is a monopoly when it becomes clear that isn’t a defensible position… As to your claims that it doesn’t matter whether or not Apple is a monopoly because consumers don’t always own both, and developers are supposedly under some burden to support both, I have already pointed out the issues with this argument. No one is forcing developers to support both platforms. There are many apps that have opted to support one or the other rather than both. And developers can provide web apps, this is platform agnostic and completely self-hosted, so developers wouldn’t have to pay commissions to either platform. Xbox Game Pass opts to go this route, I see no reason an app like Spotify could decide to do the same, in fact, they already offer a web app. They could easily decide that iOS users use the web app if they didn’t want to pay App Store commissions. They are not obligated to offer a native iOS app if the burden were too great to their business…
The reason companies like Spotify don’t want to do that is because they benefit heavily from Apple’s platform and the added exposure to users it provides. They’ve benefited greatly from the App Store. Some such companies essentially want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to reap all of the benefits of Apple’s services, but then they don’t want to pay for those services. They expect to be able to benefit from prime shelf-space and the additional reach and promotion of their product that provides in Apple’s store, but then cheat Apple out of their commission when customers go to checkout… It is not good business, nor would that be fair to Apple who is leasing them store space…
B. You think the current terms are arbitrary, but I’m sure that they are not. Businesses have good reasons for the terms they put in place when leasing their property to vendors, you calling those terms “arbitrary” doesn’t make it so…
C. It is not the government’s proper scope of authority to tell private businesses they can’t collect commissions from vendors leasing their store space. You can try to couch this in as many rosy terms as possible, but reality here is that a judge is trying to dictate to a company how they must or mustn’t collect commissions from vendors using their platform/store. This is not the judges authority to do. Judges are not lawmakers, they are supposed to uphold existing law. This judge is not upholding existing law, there is no existing law on the books saying companies can’t have terms for use of their storefronts, or that companies can’t collect commissions from vendors using their storefront. Otherwise, if such a law did exist, where are all the lawsuits against Etsy, Amazon, Walmart, Target, etc. for collecting commissions on products sold in their stores? This judge is acting like she is the law, when she is not. At the very best, this is her engaging in extremely “creative” interpretations of the law. This is well outside her scope of proper authority, and well outside of even real “law-makers” scope of proper authority. At the end of the day, if the only required criteria to fall under such legal persecution is a judge determining you are “an entity which is doing everything it can to ensure it is always standing between the customer and the seller”, then pretty much any business that leases store space could be arbitrarily determined to be included in that. Does Target do “everything they can to ensure they’re always standing between the customer and the seller” because customers deal with Target employees when purchasing products, and Target collects a commission on sales? Because vendors aren’t allowed to deal directly with Target customers and take direct payments bypassing Target’s checkout line? Where’s the burden of evidence for such claims? The problem is, that’s an extremely subjective criteria, and our legal system is not intended to be based on the whims of judges… Judges are not supposed to act as petty tyrants…
I said Apple was a Monopoly in all the ways that matter and that I do stand by. I said it didn't matter if they were a monopoly in the smartphone device market because, from the developer perspective, there is no smartphone app market, there is an iOS market and an Android market. Apple has a monopoly and controls the iOS market.
W.r.t. web apps, they aren't as capable as native apps, and while I think many native apps could be just fine as web-apps that doesn't mean that they all could.
Apple already decided that the benefit to them is greater if Spotify, Netflix, Amazon etc... are in the store and pay them nothing than requiring them to pay. You keep saying these apps are cheating Apple. But it is Apple that set the original terms that allowed monetized apps to exist on the store without paying Apple any money. Did Apple set themselves up to be cheated?
You're sure the reasons aren't arbitrary? Wow didn't know you had a direct line to Phil Shiller and Tim Cook.
I mean the word arbitrary in the sense that they are designed not to obtain compensation for their IP (which you keep claiming is a big deal) but that the rules are setup to extract as much revenue as they can without scaring away the few big developers Apple can't bully. The rules aren't fair is, I suppose, a better way to put it than arbitrary. The rules are harsher for small devs and game devs than anyone else. The big devs that Apple can't bully have repeatedly gotten the rules changed to suit them while small devs don't have that power.
You keep trying to make this analogous to a physical store, it isn't.
It is totally in the scope of a governments authority to tell a private business they can't collect commissions if they so desire.
No commissions ≠ giving away IP for free or property for free. It just means that commissions are not deemed a fair way of collecting compensation for that IP. I keep bringing up the CTF because I think a tweaked version of the CTF would actually work well as an IP fee.
Power utilities and telecoms could, in your world, charge a commission of all users of their services, all iPhone apps and payments that occur on that iPhone would have to share a commission with the telecom. We won't connect your factory to the power grid unless you pay us a percentage of your revenue etc... I would hope the government would step in if they tried to do this.
Apple runs a store that by Apple's own choice allows free apps that pay them nothing. When I leave the store with my product why should I pay Apple more money? The App belongs to the third party, not to Apple, the design, the layout, the code, its all the third parties property. Sure it requires an iPhone but that doesn't mean that it is identical with the iPhone. The iPhone that was already paid for by the customer the app is trying to interact with.
If Apple wants a fee for IP they can split that out separately and charge everyone for it (like a better version of the CTF), what they should not be allowed to do is require a share of all transactions that take place via an iPhone.
If I use my banking app to pay a bill should Apple get a cut? Why not? They use Apple's IP and are boosting their business by adding nice budgeting features to their app that allow in-store and on-the-go updates.
I can subscribe to Spotify on the web on my Mac, should Spotify require an additional subscription to use the iOS app?
A. Developers don’t have to support both, and they often don’t support both iOS and Android, so your claims here are meaningless. And saying “Apple has a monopoly on the iOS market” is absurd, it’s like saying “Walmart has a monopoly on the Walmart market”, or “Target has a monopoly on the Target market”. Vendors don’t have to distribute through Target, Walmart, or Apple…
B. Apple shouldn’t be expect to host all apps for free into perpetuity. That’s an unreasonable expectation. Just like Walmart shouldn’t be expected to host vendors products for free.
C. I never claimed to have a direct line to either. And it’s only your opinion that the terms are unfair/arbitrary. Many developers find the terms to be fair. And small developers and indie game devs actually pay a very low commission, and have many benefits afforded to them with Apple’s terms, so there’s no argument for the claim that the rules are somehow the “most harsh” for them…
D. It is mostly analogous to a physical store in fundamental principle, it’s essentially a similar business model in another media…
E. It is not in government’s proper scope of government authority to tell companies
F. Apple’s to oranges comparison. Energy companies and telecoms provide a service that doesn’t include hosting or leasing property and providing marketing and greater customer reach to their customers. Stores do. Different business models with different ways of collecting revenue and entirely different considerations in operation, maintenance, etc…
G. Again, Apple allows certain apps to not pay them commissions within certain terms, mostly non-profit apps and apps that sell physical goods not redeemed within the app. But apps that distribute for free but then charge for app functionality, Apple collects a commission on, as they should… Otherwise, all apps would be “free” with in-app purchases, and Apple wouldn’t be able to profit from their store…
H. Bank apps aren’t selling digital goods that are redeemed within the app. Banks don’t really even “sell” goods in that sense in the first place…
I. And you can choose to subscribe to Spotify on the web on your iPhone as well. There’s no one forcing you to use the native app for that. If you do, Spotify is benefiting from Apple’s services, and so should pay a commission for those services…
Kal Madda, you know damn well Apple is not like Target or Walmart, you can't come up with a competitor to Apple out of thin air. If Target goes out of business, don't worry. You will have many other stores to buy from.
Your analogy doesn't work because for Target and Walmart, you can often buy their products straight from the source. You can even buy from smaller shops, which are much more accessible and socially engaging than whatever you do on the app store. Meanwhile any competitor outside Android phones will probably not be allowed in North America if not for a major external policy change.
So Apple allowing certain apps to "not pay commission" is an exception that opens doors for favouritism and preferential treatment, look at Amazon Prime for instance. And yeah you can "choose" to sign up on their websites, but marketing campaigns aggressively push you to use THEIR apps (note how super apps are also profoundly disliked by tech influencers because "they are too complicated!!") so at the end of the day I'd say apple knows what they're doing.
Your analogy doesn't work because for Target and Walmart, you can often buy their products straight from the source. You can even buy from smaller shops, which are much more accessible and socially engaging than whatever you do on the app store. Meanwhile any competitor outside Android phones will probably not be allowed in North America if not for a major external policy change.
So Apple allowing certain apps to "not pay commission" is an exception that opens doors for favouritism and preferential treatment, look at Amazon Prime for instance. And yeah you can "choose" to sign up on their websites, but marketing campaigns aggressively push you to use THEIR apps (note how super apps are also profoundly disliked by tech influencers because "they are too complicated!!") so at the end of the day I'd say apple knows what they're doing.
They’re both essentially the same kind of business model. So they are, indeed, comparable for purposes of this discussion…
Of course you can’t come up with a competitor out of thin air, that requires hard work and good business management, which is exactly what Apple had to do when they were starting out of a garage… You can’t just come up with a competitor to established brands like Walmart or Target out of thin air either. Newcomers in any industry have to have a good product and put in the work to grow their business, and if managed properly, it can become the next Target, Apple, etc…
And no one is preventing a competitor from making smartphones running a different OS, in fact, several have popped up over the years. There are Linux phones, Harmony OS, etc. And these are definitely allowed in the US, the government doesn’t ban any other phone OSes from entering the market. But if government can be allowed to overreach here and try to dictate how private businesses can collect commissions from vendors, then similar government overreach like that wouldn’t be too far out of the question…
And you can go buy software straight from the source as well if you so choose. No one’s stopping anyone from going directly to Spotify’s storefront (their website), and purchasing a subscription there. Spotify chooses that the value Apple’s platform adds to their business justifies the cost of Apple’s commission. If they didn’t want to pay Apple’s commission, they could simply not use Apple’s store and services. They could either just support Android, or tell iOS users to use a web app like Xbox Game Pass does. But apparently Spotify finds value in Apple’s service, so continue to use it… Just like when vendors decide to lease store space in Target or Walmart, they could try selling their product on their own, but they benefit greatly from the visibility that Target and Walmart provide to their products, it’s the same thing.
We’ve already been over that territory, apps like Amazon aren’t selling digital goods you redeem inside the app (like app functionality, features, etc., they’re selling a physical product you’re ordering. However, apps that do sell digital goods redeemed within the app, Apple does collect a commission on, otherwise all paid for apps would just distribute for “free” and then add in-app purchases for functionality, which would cheat Apple out of the commission due them for their hosting and services if Apple weren’t allowed to take commission on such purchases. Apple chooses to allow some apps to distribute for free such as non-profits, but that doesn’t mean Apple should be expected to foot the bill for millions of apps in the App Store into perpetuity. Apple is providing vendors services, vendors shouldn’t be allowed by government overreach to skirt paying Apple’s commission for those services…
Last edited:
Yes you can import and use a Huawei phone in the US and the police isn't gonna stop you for this, but it's a technicality because most people get their phones via carrier deals and that's where the restrictions come into play.
You get a Huawei Mate X6 or something for $1500 and then realize you pretty much have no repair support, customer service, or accessories unless you either know Mandarin or are a repairman and can figure it out. I also don't see Linux phones being widely available. There's no reason for Samsung and co to make Linux phones since it's probably not profitable.
America's industrial policy comes into play here by looking at the smartphone market. The flagship offer is way less varied than in the EU, China, or India, with basically only iPhones, Samsungs and Pixels widely available. CDMA networks, less tech regulation, and corporate culture are other layers.
There are plenty of phone options, and plenty of people choose other brands. Apple is hardly the only phone manufacturer or only company in the market, heck, Apple doesn’t even have a market majority in many cases. They’re one of several (I do mean several) options out there.
You clearly don’t know what the American market is like if you think Apple, Samsung, and Pixel are the only products sold in the US…. There are all kinds of other brands that sell in the US…
Et tu ?
www.rockpapershotgun.com
Fortnite players receive $126 million more in refunds from the FTC over Epic's "deceptive billing practices"
The Federal Trade commission has issued $126 million more in refunds to Fortnite players receive over Epic's "deceptive billing practices".
www.rockpapershotgun.com
Tough french fries. Consumer rights are legitimate.
Businesses have rights. Consumers don’t have the right to force a company to offer a product they don’t want to sell. If consumers don’t like the product offerings of a company, they can shop elsewhere. It’s Apple’s platform, and Apple’s product, they can determine what product they want to sell. And it is far outside of the proper scope of government authority to force companies to sell a product and/or provide services to other businesses for free…
Elected government has that power.
The European Union is its own jurisdiction, they can determine what business practices are allowed and what are restricted. Apple is free to leave if it doesn't like it.
It's not. Companies can get nationalised - just as other may get privatised. Government has the authority to tell companies what products to sell or services to offer - or impose restrictions on them. Particularly if they provide a service (or important infrastructure) on which a majority of citizens rely on - or many businesses and large part of its internal market.
That is by no means restricted to the European Union. Just as I'm the United States of America (Washington DC) have ample regulations on insurance, finance, infrastructure and similar services. Provided by private companies.
You may disagree on the particular scope, reach or implementation of regulation. And the European and the US of A obviously do not fully agree in detail - just as the both of us don't.
But again: It absolutely happens. Companies get told what they can offer and how. And sometimes at which price. If they want to offer their (other) products and services in the market at all.
Just as Apple had little issue with outsourcing their iCloud in services in China mainland 🇨🇳 to a Chinese company, as required by regulation). Or cellular operators are capped in roaming charges in Europe: Government telling them at which price.
Again: Europe 🇪🇺 is the market - they make the rules.
If Apple
doesn't like it, they're free to leave.It's as simple as that.
"But, but but... that's why you lack innovation, have no large digital companies, can go back to Nokia phones, what are you going to do without iOS an Android, blablabla" - it all doesn't change that.
Last edited:
I’m not a fan of that either. Though, I will note that this isn’t a “law” but a threat of tariffs. Still, I ardently disagree with it. As I have said before, claiming “some legislators in the US does x, so y must be acceptable” isn’t a relevant or valid argument… Because there are definitely legislators in the US who also try to act outside of the proper scope of government authority as well…
No it does not. That is totalitarianism…Elected government has that power.
The European Union is its own jurisdiction, they can determine what business practices are allowed and what are restricted. Apple is free to leave if it doesn't like it.
It's not. Companies can get nationalised - just as other may get privatised. Government has the authority to tell companies what products to sell or services to offer - or impose restrictions on them. Particularly if they provide a service (or important infrastructure) on which a majority of citizens rely on - or many businesses and large part of its internal market.
That is by no means restricted to the European Union. Just as I'm the United States of America (Washington DC) have ample regulations on insurance, finance, infrastructure and similar services. Provided by private companies.
You may disagree on the particular scope, reach or implementation of regulation. And the European and the US of A obviously do not fully agree in detail - just as the both of us don't.
But again: It absolutely happens. Companies get told what they can offer and how. And sometimes at which price. If they want to offer their (other) products and services in the market at all.
Just as Apple had little issue with outsourcing their iCloud in services in China mainland 🇨🇳 to a Chinese company, as required by regulation). Or cellular operators are capped in roaming charges in Europe: Government telling them at which price.
Again: Europe 🇪🇺 is the market - they make the rules.
If Apple
It's as simple as that.
"But, but but... that's why you lack innovation, have no large digital companies, can go back to Nokia phones, what are you going to do without iOS an Android, blablabla" - it all doesn't change that.
It is outside the proper scope of government authority for governments to force businesses to provide access to their property/platform for free, or dictate what prices businesses can charge for access to said platform…
“Companies can get nationalized”. You know what we call that? Socialism, Communism, government-overreach. Not proper scope of government authority…
It doesn’t matter whether the market is in the EU or not, it is not within the proper scope of government authority to do so. And this is essentially rule at an arbitrary whim. I don’t believe this is even consistent with the EU’s own laws.
And regardless, it is a serious issue when the very legislators who pushed for the “law”, and are in charge of enforcing it cannot tell companies whether proposed changes will comply or not. Companies have spent time and resources trying to work with the EU to make changes that would comply with the “law”, but receive contradictory feedback from the commission, don’t receive timely feedback when trying to implement changes before deadlines, and have even be told by the commission that they can’t promise proposed changes will comply, because they may decide later that they don’t! This is not good, and is virtually impossible to comply with…
If you want to discuss this further, please kindly move this back to the “unprecedented 500m” thread, as it’s more difficult and confusing to juggle two discussions in two threads.
Totalitarian is this:
👉 Believing you somehow
- "own" all of your human "subjects"
- and the way they get/buy all of their software/media content
- and all of the little traders and enterprises in your fiefdom
- and that you deserve to exercise total control over all the transactions between them
- just because you developed the bloody operating system they're using.
That is just the disingenuous way Apple is trying to spin it.
Apple can - and does - consult the best legal professionals.
And they received feedback more than early enough.
They never had an honest intention to comply in good faith.
(Which seems not to be isolated to just one jurisdiction).
They've had about as much intention of complying in good faith as Epic had in 2020 to comply with Apple's developer agreement.
America has price controls for milk. Welcome to socialist America, baby!
Also cigarettes and sometimes gasoline, depending on where you are.
- Apple has never claimed to “own” their customers. Nor have they ever called them “subjects”…
- Apple owns their own platform, if users decide that Apple’s platform is the only way they get/buy all of their software/media content, then that’s on the customer…
- Apple has never claimed to own the traders or enterprises that do business with their platform. They merely control and own their platform, and can apply terms and conditions for granting other enterprises access to their property…
- Apple does not exercise control over “all the transactions” between customers and enterprises, only the transactions that occur on their property…
- And yes, you darned right they developed the operating system. They put all of the blood, sweat and tears into creating it, nobody else did. They put in all of the resources, and continue to put in all of the resources. It’s their property, and they can choose to grant or restrict access to it as they please…
Yes, there are many socialist kinds of regulations in the US as well, and legislators trying to work outside the proper scope of government authority. Just saying “it happens in the US too” doesn’t make it right…
Exactly 👍
If users decide. So let the users decide. Through where they're buying their software/content from.
If users decide that, Apple can have 99.9% or 100% of the market for software, digital transactions, and digital content for iOS users. Completely legal. Even in the EU.
But the choice should not be tied to purchase of phone or use of operating system.
Actions speak louder than words.
They haven't called them - but that's what they're implying with their demands for commissions on transactions between them and other businesses.
...and Spotify's app is Spotify's property.
Just like Fortnite is Epic's.
Netflix' app is theirs.
So is Uber's.
European legislators have made a decision and settled the issue in law:
Software applications made by others are not Apple's property or "turf".
When I provide electricity or internet to your home (or business), the transactions you make through that connection do not happen on my property. They stay between you and whoever you're communicating with. Even if that communications is supported by ("runs ons") my service.
...within the framework of the applicable law.
Property rights aren't boundless.
Welcome to a society (and jurisdiction) that cares about more than just about the biggest and most powerful corporations.
Last edited:
A. Users can already decide. They can decide to buy Apple’s product or not…
B. No, they just apply terms for granting other businesses access to their property…
C. Spotify does not have an inherent right to create an iPhone app. They own their business, but when creating an iPhone app (a booth on Apple’s property), they must abide by the terms and conditions that Apple sets because they are operating on Apple’s property…
D. European legislators have attempted to strip away the basic rights of one business to prop up others, which is unjust, and outside of the proper scope of government. You will never convince me otherwise, and round and round we can go on this ad infinitum…
E. Again, if you wish to continue this discussion, kindly move it to the other thread.
Yes. And now they can decide (choose) even more:
Decide to buy Apple's product or not.
And decide where to get/but their digital content and applications from: Apple - or someone else.
The choices have been untied - which benefits consumers.
Which are now required - by law - to be nondiscriminate (in Europe).
And Apple's terms and conditions must abide by the guidelines set by law (and the law's intent).
Anticompetitive conduct by a dominant firm is not a "basic right". And no, they haven't restricted them to "prop up" other businesses - they have restricted Apple's ability to heep them down and gain an unfair advantage.
Markets should be contestable and competitive. That's what it's about. If Apple Music - a service provided from a company of American (non-European) origin takes over the streaming market from Spotify, that's totally fine with the Digital Markets Act - as long as such competition happens on a level playing field.