Apple's Latest App Store Changes Satisfy EU, No More Fines Coming

[djphat2000]

Just a question. Why is it OK for developers to pick who or what they want to develop for. For how much, and for what products. But not for Apple to get any developer to develop for them? Why are the laws bending to force Apple to allow practically anything on the platform they built. But not for all developers TO develop for that platform and other platforms? Why is the burden on Apple?

In a world where Apple allowed everyone on, and made it totally free to be on the platform. Would we get every app there is to get? Every game, productivity, Ai, blah blah blah. At the lowest possible price? Or, would we get another "mac" type of computer device with basically the same amount of apps there but, just on mobile?

Apple could solve this by making a mobile mac. Just a very small "laptop-esk" device. It's got the ability to call. But the majority of the device is just a laptop (very small) and runs macOS. Oh wait...... They already have this.. Its called a laptop.. And these are phones.. So, it's a different product that's made for a different purpose. I mean, you're not going to NFC your laptop to a terminal to pay for something right? And you're not going to need to open up a whole laptop to make a phone call right? Yeah, so it's a phone first, and computer second. I could say the same for the watch. Its small enough to use for those type of things. As you wear it and take it everywhere you go. A laptop has its purpose and a watch or a phone has its purpose. They don't fully do the same things simply because they can't. So treating them differently is well, the right thing to do. No?

Hence the need to secure it as they do. You're carrying around a device that is always connected to a network. Either public/private Wi-Fi, bluetooth, or a cellular network. Your private information is stored on these devices (Watch/phone). Either your credit card, your health information, the majority if not all of your contacts, pictures, websites, application data, and on and on. Yes, you can have all that on a laptop/desktop too. But, you generally have access to more protection products or the OS itself to help you out with security. And the horsepower to run that in the background. Not so much on a tiny device. Nothing like having a security product eat up 10% or more of your CPU/RAM just to keep you protected. Wouldn't it be easier and better to just not have to use such things? By not allowing the same type of access to the device? If the door isn't there to enter, well you can't run it and you are by default protected. Problem solved no? One place to get apps, one way "IN". So ensure the safety of the way in, and the apps that could get in. Problem solved right? You get a device that runs apps and its self very well, with little worry about getting affected by rogue applications.

Maybe I'm the crazy one, but I very much don't understand why others don't understand the basic nature of what these devices are. And why Apple created it the way they did. As if they knew ahead of time that they would create some kind of cash cow and could milk it for eternity. Take the lion share of money developers would generate in perpetuity. The same developers that have been with them forever..... Like how many developers where their before the AppStore? Is it more or less than post iPhone? Is it the same amount even?
Does it cost more to develop for an iPhone than it does for a mac? Say the same exact application. And take in differences on limitations for a phone vs a desktop/laptop. Is it harder? Or if we are just talking costs, which costs more for developers? Maybe there are justifications there that I'm not aware of.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I think by now the change off Lightning would likely have happened anyhow, EU or not.

I may be wrong, of course, but that'd be my guess.

No, you’re right. Apple said that Lightning would be the connector for the decade and 10 years to the month (and over a year ahead of the EU mandate) they stopped releasing new phones with Lightning. Understanding that new silicon has a couple year lead on the new hardware it’s going to be a part of, they had targeted that year for USB-C on iPhone years out.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Just a question. Why is it OK for developers to pick who or what they want to develop for. For how much, and for what products. But not for Apple to get any developer to develop for them? Why are the laws bending to force Apple to allow practically anything on the platform they built. But not for all developers TO develop for that platform and other platforms? Why is the burden on Apple?

Apple’s already taking steps to ensure there’s less of an EU burden on them in the future. For example, the AVP is only available in France and Germany because as long as it’s available is less than three regions, it’s not a gatekeeper device. In the future, Europeans will likely have to buy their future devices from France and Germany as it’s a simple way to still serve the largest portion of the market while still having it available for other folks that want to deal with the trouble of buying in one country and selling in another.

 

[Shirasaki]

"no more fines coming"??? 😆😂🤣 Please, the EU will always find another dozen or two ways to fine any successful company.

American definition of “successful” of course. Nothing wrong with that but EU people may beg to differ.

 

[Jeeve Stubbs]

This is just the end for now. Once the EU starts needing more money, they’ll be back after Apple like usual.

Need money and don't want to hike taxes? Fine foreign companies like the EU and/or tariff foreign countries like Trump. That's the new economic model for governments - the powerful ones at least.

 

[delsoul]

Need money and don't want to hike taxes? Fine foreign companies like the EU and/or tariff foreign countries like Trump. That's the new economic model for governments - the powerful ones at least.

I’d say the difference is EU fines people because they’re broke and can’t compete on a global scale. The US is fining others because they aren’t paying their fair share, once again the EU at fault. Definitely seems like either way it’s paying off for both approaches

 

[turbineseaplane]

The US is fining others because they aren’t paying their fair share

The US is fining their own citizens ... and disproportionately the least well off bear the brunt of it.

..all to fund a tax cut for the very well off.

It's abhorrent.

Link

 

[Jeeve Stubbs]

I’d say the difference is EU fines people because they’re broke and can’t compete on a global scale. The US is fining others because they aren’t paying their fair share, once again the EU at fault. Definitely seems like either way it’s paying off for both approaches

The EU is broke? Compared to the near-bankrupt US government, it's in rather good shape. The EU can't compete on a global scale? You're either kidding or don't know what you're talking about. Let's see:

• Global trade: the EU is the leading trade partner for 80 countries, accounts for 16 % of global trade in goods and services, is the second largest exporter and importer of goods in the world, and has the largest network of trade agreements, covering 76 countries.
• Clean technologies: the EU is a global leader in the development of wind turbines, electrolyzers, and low-carbon fuels. More than one-fifth of the world’s clean technologies are developed in the EU.
• Innovation and digital: the EU provides a stable framework for tech companies through data regulations, cyber resilience policies, and AI legislation. Countries like the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, and Finland rank among the most competitive globally according to the Global Competitiveness Index.
• Finance: the EU is the world’s largest investor and the top recipient of foreign direct investment.
• Luxury: EU brands hold 70% of the global luxury market share. Brands like Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Cartier, Hermès, Chanel, and Prada, to name but a few, are renowned for heritage, artisanal quality, and innovation. Europe drives high-value tourism, with nearly half of the world's affluent tourists choosing Europe for its luxury offerings.
• Food and drink: the EU is the world’s largest exporter of food and drink products, with exports exceeding €182 billion. It enjoys high standards in quality, safety, and sustainability, and a strong internal market and supply chain integration. European food and beverages are renowned and demanded worldwide, and drive exports and tourism.
• Cars: the EU is home to world-leading car brands such as BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Porsche, Ferrari, and Lamborghini. They represent engineering excellence, design innovation, and heritage, making Europe the epicenter of luxury automotive manufacturing.
• Tourism: the EU remains the world’s top tourist destination, known for cultural richness, historical sites, and diverse experiences.

As for the EU not paying its fair share, you're just repeating the Trump mantra and can't even give examples supporting your claim. Apart from insufficient NATO spending, on which I definitely agree with you, the EU has been competing fairly with the US, and imposing a 15 % tariff on us when we don't is not the best example of being fair. It sounds more like frustrated retaliation for some of the US products being less attractive than their European counterparts, making the latter more expensive to US customers in order to give your local products an artificial price advantage.

 

[djphat2000]

Apple’s already taking steps to ensure there’s less of an EU burden on them in the future. For example, the AVP is only available in France and Germany because as long as it’s available is less than three regions, it’s not a gatekeeper device.

How crazy is that. They have to limit sales, and ensure they are not successful with this product. Just to avoid gatekeeper status. On a product they know is not meant yet for mass market adoption. Imagine if they did this with the first iPhone. The world as we know it wouldn't be the same.

In the future, Europeans will likely have to buy their future devices from France and Germany as it’s a simple way to still serve the largest portion of the market while still having it available for other folks that want to deal with the trouble of buying in one country and selling in another.

I'm sure the developers then will say to the EU "Your limiting my ability to sell and compete!". Oh wait... LOL 🤣

 

[amartinez1660]

It would be nice if you could back up your claims.
At least once.

Because what you're saying is clearly false. The EU doesn't constantly change the rules, nor does it act „in bad faith“.

Wake up, already.
You're not defending your poor sick brother from an evil dictator, you're defending a profit-driven company from having to comply with "laws“.

Let me suggest to take a look at this, it goes into some history of DMA style regulation and goal post shifting (has been shifting since more than 20 years).

Building Under Regulation [215.]

An essay on the EU Digital Markets Act and Apple’s Update on apps distributed in the European Union (and some personal history)

hardcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com

And just the fact that the metrics for being designated a gatekeeper is carefully crafted to catch certain companies while almost none (or actually none?) of the EU tech ones makes it a moving goal post.

 

[djphat2000]

Let me suggest to take a look at this, it goes into some history of DMA style regulation and goal post shifting (has been shifting since more than 20 years).

Building Under Regulation [215.]

An essay on the EU Digital Markets Act and Apple’s Update on apps distributed in the European Union (and some personal history)

hardcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com

And just the fact that the metrics for being designated a gatekeeper is carefully crafted to catch certain companies while almost none (or actually none?) of the EU tech ones makes it a moving goal post.

"Frankly, if a company can’t be a gatekeeper of its own product, then what is a company?"
Exactly... 👏

 

[Jeeve Stubbs]

Let me suggest to take a look at this, it goes into some history of DMA style regulation and goal post shifting (has been shifting since more than 20 years).

Building Under Regulation [215.]

An essay on the EU Digital Markets Act and Apple’s Update on apps distributed in the European Union (and some personal history)

hardcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com

And just the fact that the metrics for being designated a gatekeeper is carefully crafted to catch certain companies while almost none (or actually none?) of the EU tech ones makes it a moving goal post.

I don't know about that. EU tech companies (Alcatel, etc.) are far behind the US and Asian giants worldwide and even in the EU itself. Today the top race is pretty much between Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, and Google. The rest are smaller and/or regional players.
Also, as a Canadian and European myself, I can tell you that our cultural landscape has changed dramatically since the arrival of these companies which strongly favor US music, movies, series, and networks in their devices and services. Just to give you an example, 30 years ago, about half of Quebec's top 20 songs chart was either Quebec or francophone singers. Now, there's only 2 out of 20 (and one of them, Charlotte Cardin, sings mainly in English). The rest is, you guessed it, American or anglophone. This isn't due to a lack of local talent, but to a lack of visibility on all these modern devices which shape people's tastes just like local radio, TV stations, and record stores did in the 20th century. You buy a TV set, turn it on, and all you see on the main page is American. You really have to dig deep to find something local. So that's why countries outside the US are trying to pass stricter laws and regulations, not because they want to exclude US stuff (we're not Russia or China…) but to have a fairer playing field. I know it's hard to understand from a US standpoint, but this is not something that's going away. As for goalpost shifting and trying to favor your own guys, the EU isn't perfect, but when you look at the current US administration…

 

[djphat2000]

" This isn't due to a lack of local talent, but to a lack of visibility on all these modern devices which shape people's tastes just like local radio, TV stations, and record stores did in the 20th century. You buy a TV set, turn it on, and all you see on the main page is American. You really have to dig deep to find something local. So that's why countries outside the US are trying to pass stricter laws and regulations, not because they want to exclude US stuff (we're not Russia or China…) but to have a fairer playing field. "

I just wanted to capture something here in what I quoted of your post. Just to point out that this situation is part of what happened due to globalization. In this particular space. The US dominates the world, and has marginalized local variants in the same or similar space. Where as manufacturing moved from being pretty local to each country, over to China. And pretty much all semiconductor (CPU/GPU) moved to Taiwan, etc. The US gets lots of timber/wood from Canada. And we both benefit from the lower cost of labor in Mexico, and being so interconnected by both land and sea.

This isn't the fault of anyone. And generally isn't something you can wish or legislate away to make it be more fair. Unless that "thing" is doing something illegal, the better product/solution/etc should be OK to continue.
Any given country could attempt to improve in any given area provided they fund/invest in it. You want to be a tourist hot spot? Well, you're going to have to invest in hotels and in things people will want to see. You want to build cars? Well, you're going to have to train people and build factories and invest in startups that have good ideas on how to build it locally and/or with locally produced materials. Also, the people of that country will have to want to do that "thing". In the US, many will not be able to work for iPhone manufacturing. They may not pay well enough. We may not have enough skilled labour to do it at scale. While in Canada, you may have talent but no/few places for that talent to showcase itself. Or people in the industry to hear that talent and get them to a label etc.

You can attempt a Trump style tariff on goods from another country to try and curb it within your own. But, depending on what you're placing a tariff on. It can often be worse, as you don't have a local replacement and or it's just more expensive to replace it locally. You can do the EU way and try and force a company to basically make a different product or product configured differently than the one thats currently being made. Altering it to allow for more local business to "compete" with it. But if the people are not asking for it. It will generally go badly for everyone involved. As the post linked states pretty clearly. You end up with a worse off product and people don't "use" the other options anyway.

 

[Jeeve Stubbs]

I just wanted to capture something here in what I quoted of your post. Just to point out that this situation is part of what happened due to globalization. In this particular space. The US dominates the world, and has marginalized local variants in the same or similar space. Where as manufacturing moved from being pretty local to each country, over to China. And pretty much all semiconductor (CPU/GPU) moved to Taiwan, etc. The US gets lots of timber/wood from Canada. And we both benefit from the lower cost of labor in Mexico, and being so interconnected by both land and sea.

This isn't the fault of anyone. And generally isn't something you can wish or legislate away to make it be more fair. Unless that "thing" is doing something illegal, the better product/solution/etc should be OK to continue.
Any given country could attempt to improve in any given area provided they fund/invest in it. You want to be a tourist hot spot? Well, you're going to have to invest in hotels and in things people will want to see. You want to build cars? Well, you're going to have to train people and build factories and invest in startups that have good ideas on how to build it locally and/or with locally produced materials. Also, the people of that country will have to want to do that "thing". In the US, many will not be able to work for iPhone manufacturing. They may not pay well enough. We may not have enough skilled labour to do it at scale. While in Canada, you may have talent but no/few places for that talent to showcase itself. Or people in the industry to hear that talent and get them to a label etc.

You can attempt a Trump style tariff on goods from another country to try and curb it within your own. But, depending on what you're placing a tariff on. It can often be worse, as you don't have a local replacement and or it's just more expensive to replace it locally. You can do the EU way and try and force a company to basically make a different product or product configured differently than the one thats currently being made. Altering it to allow for more local business to "compete" with it. But if the people are not asking for it. It will generally go badly for everyone involved. As the post linked states pretty clearly. You end up with a worse off product and people don't "use" the other options anyway.

Don't get me wrong: I think globalization has more benefits than drawbacks. I love my Japanese video game systems, US cell phone, French food, German car, etc.
That said, the EU, Canada, and many other countries outside the US agree that culture and language, which are their very soul, should not be left to the same laissez-faire approach than standardized products and services like cars, tech, finance, and so on. Food, safety, and immigration are also sensitive topics, even in the US. This is, in part, why international negotiations are often long and complex, something a local real estate tycoon may have a hard time understanding. He has found he can't just buy Canada, because Canadians are proud and independent even though they like the US. Or make a deal between Russia and Ukraine in 24 hours because wars and national issues are way more complex than buying a house. Or persuade Britain to buy hormone-grown meat because Britons, who went through a mad cow disaster, don't take health issues lightly.
And sorry, but US songs and movies aren't "better" than local ones, just different. If you go to your local supermarket and see products A and B well in sight on the shelves, with product C hidden away on a low or high shelf, don't be surprised A and B will sell better even though C may be just as good a product. If on top of this, A and B happen to be foreign products and C is a local one, it would only be fair for authorities to legislate that A, B, and C must be displayed in an equal manner, so that customers, not the store, decide which one they prefer and want to buy.
The idea is not to attack powerful US big businesses for the sake of it, but to make sure they give a fair chance to local content as well as theirs, and compete in a strong but respectful manner with local competitors.

 

[djphat2000]

Don't get me wrong: I think globalization has more benefits than drawbacks. I love my Japanese video game systems, US cell phone, French food, German car, etc.
That said, the EU, Canada, and many other countries outside the US agree that culture and language, which are their very soul, should not be left to the same laissez-faire approach than standardized products and services like cars, tech, finance, and so on. Food, safety, and immigration are also sensitive topics, even in the US. This is, in part, why international negotiations are often long and complex, something a local real estate tycoon may have a hard time understanding. He has found he can't just buy Canada, because Canadians are proud and independent even though they like the US. Or make a deal between Russia and Ukraine in 24 hours because wars and national issues are way more complex than buying a house. Or persuade Britain to buy hormone-grown meat because Britons, who went through a mad cow disaster, don't take health issues lightly.
And sorry, but US songs and movies aren't "better" than local ones, just different. If you go to your local supermarket and see products A and B well in sight on the shelves, with product C hidden away on a low or high shelf, don't be surprised A and B will sell better even though C may be just as good a product. If on top of this, A and B happen to be foreign products and C is a local one, it would only be fair for authorities to legislate that A, B, and C must be displayed in an equal manner, so that customers, not the store, decide which one they prefer and want to buy.
The idea is not to attack powerful US big businesses for the sake of it, but to make sure they give a fair chance to local content as well as theirs, and compete in a strong but respectful manner with local competitors.

Songs and movies are too subjective to be able to say one is better than another. Everyone will have their own opinions on such things. We can agree that US based media (Songs/Movies/Social) are more popular, even if it isn't better necessarily better than any other countries example of it. Just that the US does dominate in that space is due to its popularity and of course how much is produced by the US.

If any country produces a better product. Generally it is sold in more places across the globe. I don't know if Samsung or LG make a better refrigerator or stove than say GE or Electrolux or Bosch. I do know that we in the US and I'm sure Canada see many of those brands and the options they provide us as consumers is generally a wider array of features, styles and prices. Some are arguably better than others or offer more for the same or lower price points. But, that generally doesn't mean the locally produced product is going to be cheaper, more expensive or better/worse than another brands offering. So long as we have options, then generally we the consumer will decide which works best for them.

Just that when it comes to certain items which can include food or clothing. There are items that one country simply can't produce. Or they can't do so at a competitive price point. I'm sure almost any country can produce bread. But, they may not produce enough of the raw materials that goes into making bread to be cost competitive with say another country and business that do so for much less and maybe make it arguably better. So because of that you see less locally produced options in a store than you do of imported brands. You're not going to grow Pineapples in Canada or England. So you don't have a choice in a locally produced version, you have to import. From where you import, you may have more options. But generally that's is the way it goes. Same for clothing. Most countries that have a clothing business get the materials from other countries OR they simply import the whole finished goods from someplace in Asia. As they have the raw materials and the infrastructure to produce it a price points not worth even trying elsewhere.

Culture and trying to keep your domestic manufacturing or production aside. There are just too many instances where the people of that country have to actually buy something. And when the local product is too much or simply not available. Or possibly not as good, again this is opinion. There isn't much other choice. Trump trying to bring back manufacturing to the US is both noble and delusional. Some of the jobs don't exist here any more for a reason. It either costs too much to do it. We don't have the will or want to do it anymore. OR to even attempt it would be such a long process to reach that goal. You would have cut your nose to spite your face in the process. Rasing tariffs on the rest of the world might sound like a good idea to raise money to help pay off this national debt. But, that just turns into a tax for the consumer. Which are already facing higher inflation and pay that doesn't keep up with it. Sorry to rant on that part, I'll stop it there. But, to the reasons why you see many other options rather than locally produced options isn't necessarily up to the store that sells it. They all have to sell what is selling. And don't really have the ability to "try" and sell something that may not sell as well as another product. I very much doubt they are not putting locally produced items on the shelf because they don't want to. They don't because it's not selling as much as another product. And that is up to the consumer.

 

[Jeeve Stubbs]

Songs and movies are too subjective to be able to say one is better than another. Everyone will have their own opinions on such things. We can agree that US based media (Songs/Movies/Social) are more popular, even if it isn't better necessarily better than any other countries example of it. Just that the US does dominate in that space is due to its popularity and of course how much is produced by the US.

If any country produces a better product. Generally it is sold in more places across the globe. I don't know if Samsung or LG make a better refrigerator or stove than say GE or Electrolux or Bosch. I do know that we in the US and I'm sure Canada see many of those brands and the options they provide us as consumers is generally a wider array of features, styles and prices. Some are arguably better than others or offer more for the same or lower price points. But, that generally doesn't mean the locally produced product is going to be cheaper, more expensive or better/worse than another brands offering. So long as we have options, then generally we the consumer will decide which works best for them.

Just that when it comes to certain items which can include food or clothing. There are items that one country simply can't produce. Or they can't do so at a competitive price point. I'm sure almost any country can produce bread. But, they may not produce enough of the raw materials that goes into making bread to be cost competitive with say another country and business that do so for much less and maybe make it arguably better. So because of that you see less locally produced options in a store than you do of imported brands. You're not going to grow Pineapples in Canada or England. So you don't have a choice in a locally produced version, you have to import. From where you import, you may have more options. But generally that's is the way it goes. Same for clothing. Most countries that have a clothing business get the materials from other countries OR they simply import the whole finished goods from someplace in Asia. As they have the raw materials and the infrastructure to produce it a price points not worth even trying elsewhere.

Culture and trying to keep your domestic manufacturing or production aside. There are just too many instances where the people of that country have to actually buy something. And when the local product is too much or simply not available. Or possibly not as good, again this is opinion. There isn't much other choice. Trump trying to bring back manufacturing to the US is both noble and delusional. Some of the jobs don't exist here any more for a reason. It either costs too much to do it. We don't have the will or want to do it anymore. OR to even attempt it would be such a long process to reach that goal. You would have cut your nose to spite your face in the process. Rasing tariffs on the rest of the world might sound like a good idea to raise money to help pay off this national debt. But, that just turns into a tax for the consumer. Which are already facing higher inflation and pay that doesn't keep up with it. Sorry to rant on that part, I'll stop it there. But, to the reasons why you see many other options rather than locally produced options isn't necessarily up to the store that sells it. They all have to sell what is selling. And don't really have the ability to "try" and sell something that may not sell as well as another product. I very much doubt they are not putting locally produced items on the shelf because they don't want to. They don't because it's not selling as much as another product. And that is up to the consumer.

Your (interesting) rant is fine with me I generally agree with you and, of course, not everyone can produce everything everywhere, or at least with the same efficiency, and that's why I was saying I appreciate globalization. In Canada, people my age or older can still remember the time when pretty much every device offered in stores here was North American: cars, appliances, TVs, video game systems, you name it. Now there's LG, Miele, Kia, and so on. Same for hockey players. But again, my point is that sometimes laws must be passed to maintain a level playing field and avoid having another country's culture overwhelm yours, not because yours is inferior but because of that country's companies aggressively pushing forward their own stuff via standardization and algorithms, as they do back home, without much regard for adaptation to where they do business. A company's goal, whatever they say, is to make as much profit as possible, and that profit is often enhanced by selling the same product everywhere. Henry Ford, the king of standardization, made a fortune selling his cars in any color you wanted as long as it was black. Today, many companies would probably not bother translating their manuals or OSDs or websites, and adapt to local safety rules and standards if it weren't for legislation in that regard. You can tell just by looking at what happens when there's a regulation gap, like smart TVs. 30 years ago in Canada, you bought a TV, turned it on, and got all the locally aired channels right away through VHF/UHF, with maybe a couple of US ones if you were near the border. Now, you turn your brand new TV on, and there's hardly anything Canadian on display even though we still have all our channels, programs, and so on: what you see is Disney+, Apple TV, Netflix, Nickelodeon, and all those US media offering US content mostly. Want to watch the CBC, CTV, TVA, Véronique Cloutier shows (the local Oprah Winfrey), and other maple stuff? Good luck. You'll have to read the manual first and then fumble through the menus to, maybe, find some Canadian content. This is a TV example, but I could give you many other examples like Apple Music, etc. All in all, there's a serious problem of visibility for non-US content when we let companies like Apple do as they please, which is why we have to regulate this. The fact that half of our top songs chart was local when there was plenty of extremely talented American singers speaks volumes of our local talent's quality and capacity to compete if given the same chance. Fortunately, there's enough political will to stand up to these powerful players and act, as we saw recently in Quebec when some US companies complained because of the French language laws that force them to adapt their products and services (as is the case in many parts of the world, but for some reason they only complain here). It's easy to imagine what these companies would (or would not) do without those laws.

 

[djphat2000]

Your (interesting) rant is fine with me I generally agree with you and, of course, not everyone can produce everything everywhere, or at least with the same efficiency, and that's why I was saying I appreciate globalization. In Canada, people my age or older can still remember the time when pretty much every device offered in stores here was North American: cars, appliances, TVs, video game systems, you name it. Now there's LG, Miele, Kia, and so on. Same for hockey players. But again, my point is that sometimes laws must be passed to maintain a level playing field and avoid having another country's culture overwhelm yours, not because yours is inferior but because of that country's companies aggressively pushing forward their own stuff via standardization and algorithms, as they do back home, without much regard for adaptation to where they do business.

Generally speaking, companies can't force their way into another country and just take over a market. Or dominate the region with their products/services. People in that country have to purchase something first. And if they like it enough, they keep purchasing it. We usually want as much variety as possible and a spread of prices to pick from based on anyones needs. Sometimes its works out where you have a local producer and lots of externally produced products and services to pick from. Not always of course. However, what wins out has to be what people pick. Can't please everyone. Governments can control with with tariffs or VAT or outright prevent it from being sold. But, if the people want it. They tend to find ways to get it. Or a local entrepreneur will step up and try to do it.

A company's goal, whatever they say, is to make as much profit as possible, and that profit is often enhanced by selling the same product everywhere. Henry Ford, the king of standardization, made a fortune selling his cars in any color you wanted as long as it was black. Today, many companies would probably not bother translating their manuals or OSDs or websites, and adapt to local safety rules and standards if it weren't for legislation in that regard. You can tell just by looking at what happens when there's a regulation gap, like smart TVs. 30 years ago in Canada, you bought a TV, turned it on, and got all the locally aired channels right away through VHF/UHF, with maybe a couple of US ones if you were near the border. Now, you turn your brand new TV on, and there's hardly anything Canadian on display even though we still have all our channels, programs, and so on: what you see is Disney+, Apple TV, Netflix, Nickelodeon, and all those US media offering US content mostly. Want to watch the CBC, CTV, TVA, Véronique Cloutier shows (the local Oprah Winfrey), and other maple stuff? Good luck. You'll have to read the manual first and then fumble through the menus to, maybe, find some Canadian content. This is a TV example, but I could give you many other examples like Apple Music, etc. All in all, there's a serious problem of visibility for non-US content when we let companies like Apple do as they please, which is why we have to regulate this. The fact that half of our top songs chart was local when there was plenty of extremely talented American singers speaks volumes of our local talent's quality and capacity to compete if given the same chance.

Some sensible legislation to solve this would be to enforce some kind of local/regional specific features. So when you turn on a TV its region (for you being in Canada) would be more Canadian specific. Since the TV has the ability to be region specific (date and time, and local TV stations being available to show on it). However, like you said these devices are made in a standard fashion. To have a universal default configuration. Which is why you see it ask you for Language and which region you live in, time zone etc. A simple law that states it should show "locally accessible content" first. Then show you all the 3rd party services (Disney, HBO, etc) after. This would be relatively cheap to implement. However, the over the air stuff back in the day can't be solved in this manner. Those channels are all digital in the US now. Not sure about CA. And unless you have an antenna to pick those channels up. Nothing a TV manufacturer can do about that. Even if it was produced locally. This is still a different issue than say the EU trying to force Apple to change their whole business model. Want something shown that is region specific, shouldn't be too hard to do. Changing how applications pay or are paid for. That's vastly different.

Fortunately, there's enough political will to stand up to these powerful players and act, as we saw recently in Quebec when some US companies complained because of the French language laws that force them to adapt their products and services (as is the case in many parts of the world, but for some reason they only complain here). It's easy to imagine what these companies would (or would not) do without those laws.

They only get so powerful because we the people of any country. Purchase those products. They can't get big without us making them so. Since every company's job is to make money. They know they can only do so if they are able to cater to the markets they serve. When they have demand for something, they tend to move in that direction. Governments can put up the guidelines to follow, but the people are the final decision makers. As they shop with their currency. If they don't, the company either adapts or leaves the market. Government regulation should be to help protect local markets and businesses for sure. Incentivize the population to buy local or home grown products where and whenever possible. But, when you don't have a locally produced product. The EU could bring in handset manufactures to partner with. Invest in a device that runs Android (in this case of phones). But, is as open as possible. Following all the crazy rules they want it to follow. And subsidies the device further if need be. To gain market share with in the EU. To help fund this, tax Apple/Google/Meta/etc. a bit more but allow them to remain for the most part as they have been. People in the end get to decide what they want to do with their money.

 

[amartinez1660]

I don't know about that. EU tech companies (Alcatel, etc.) are far behind the US and Asian giants worldwide and even in the EU itself. Today the top race is pretty much between Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, and Google. The rest are smaller and/or regional players.
Also, as a Canadian and European myself, I can tell you that our cultural landscape has changed dramatically since the arrival of these companies which strongly favor US music, movies, series, and networks in their devices and services. Just to give you an example, 30 years ago, about half of Quebec's top 20 songs chart was either Quebec or francophone singers. Now, there's only 2 out of 20 (and one of them, Charlotte Cardin, sings mainly in English). The rest is, you guessed it, American or anglophone. This isn't due to a lack of local talent, but to a lack of visibility on all these modern devices which shape people's tastes just like local radio, TV stations, and record stores did in the 20th century. You buy a TV set, turn it on, and all you see on the main page is American. You really have to dig deep to find something local. So that's why countries outside the US are trying to pass stricter laws and regulations, not because they want to exclude US stuff (we're not Russia or China…) but to have a fairer playing field. I know it's hard to understand from a US standpoint, but this is not something that's going away. As for goalpost shifting and trying to favor your own guys, the EU isn't perfect, but when you look at the current US administration…

To add to your point and what @djphat2000 alluded to.
I’m from South America, I kid you not how intense are South American people with their music, food, customs, family, soap operas, you name it.
Sure, there are now McDonald’s and Best Buy’s everywhere, but that’s not the bulk of the culture. Only what they do best that we don’t do at all (like tech).

When I go to Florida I don’t even speak Spanish nor eat “American food” on their own American soil. Heck I don’t even speak English even in Texas of all places (that’s more Central America and Mexican if you will), since landing in Dallas or Houston the airport speakers make the updates in English and Spanish.
This “those companies are eroding the playing field” is more a choice of the people after all.

But even then, if you offer the option to buy between a South American phone (if they make a local one) or any other known phone brand… trust you me, we will likely choose an Apple, Samsung, Google, etc phone hands down.

(But I’m a fake Latin… I don’t like dancing and disdain that reggaeton music, now, let me hide so I don’t get crucified)