Dutch Regulator Says Apple Shouldn't Force Dating Apps to Offer Separate App for Alternative Payments

[Sophisticatednut]

Which is an insane, anti-consumer idea. I really doubt it will happen.

It’s not, I recommend you read the policy. It’s to curtail anti competitive behavior of monopolies and gatekeepers.

DMA has not been passed yet. If/when it passes, we will see how things play out, but right now everything Apple is doing is 100% within their rights.

It was passed in December 14 2021 by the EU parliament The approved text will then become Parliament's mandate for negotiations with EU governments, planned to start under the French presidency of the Council in the first semester of 2022.

Apple is under investigation for their AppStore under current law so we will see if they have been breaking the law for the last 10 years.

Which is an insane idea that could essentially fracture the internet, and confirms my fears about DMA- that it’s a poorly thought out, anti-American piece of garbage as opposed to any kind of good faith “competition“ law.

That has nothing to do with the DMA. And the failure is 100% on the US government not EU for its authoritarian abuse of private information

Two solutions exist
1: USA starts respecting privacy and rule of law
2: us companies must use EU servers, that the US government doesn’t have any jurisdiction over.

EUCJ commented data transfer agreement was invalid, citing concerns the U.S. surveillance regime might not respect the privacy rights of citizens in EU.

EU-U.S. data flows could face 'massive disruption' - Irish regulator

One of the European Union's most powerful data regulators has warned companies may yet face massive disruption to translatlantic data flows as a result of an EU court ruling last year, despite efforts by policymakers to avoid that outcome.

mobile.reuters.com

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Nope. You said they would have the same responsibility that they do now and that they would have control of the app being uploaded.

I said that apple would have the exact same responsibility over the app and it’s payment system as they have over The Amazon store, Uber, and thousands of other apps not using apples IAP system and with zero insight from apple

Again, you are confusing the payment provider and the developer. Please stop. I'm not questioning the security of the transaction.

I’m not. I’m saying the payment provider replaces apples responsibility. Such as the amazon store you can now download.

Exactly my point. As I said, they would be responsible for policing fraud without the ability to see the fraudulent transactions. More work, less pay.

They don’t need to see transactions to know if an app is fraudulent. Just as I don’t need to klick a link in an email to know if it’s spam and fraudulent.

Less work and less pay.

 

[BaldiMac]

I said that apple would have the exact same responsibility over the app and it’s payment system as they have over The Amazon store, Uber, and thousands of other apps not using apples IAP system and with zero insight from apple

If you can't acknowledge the difference between digital and physical goods than you are acting in bad faith.

I’m not. I’m saying the payment provider replaces apples responsibility. Such as the amazon store you can now download.

No, it doesn't. The payment provider doesn't distribute the app.

They don’t need to see transactions to know if an app is fraudulent. Just as I don’t need to klick a link in an email to know if it’s spam and fraudulent.

Less work and less pay.

That's ridiculous. You can't honestly believe that.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If you can't acknowledge the difference between digital and physical goods than you are acting in bad faith.

Legally speaking there is no difference. It’s classified as goods irrespective of how you get it. Or a service. Apple have already stated they will allow reader apps to do this making it irrelevant by apple sown actions

No, it doesn't. The payment provider doesn't distribute the app.

Apple doesn’t distribute In app purchases ether. This is an irrelevant distinction to try and give apple more responsibility than they actually have.

That's ridiculous. You can't honestly believe that.

ACM agrees with me. There is nothing that shows apple MUST have access to payment information to keep users safe. Apple failed to provide evidence for significant security risks to users.
Link to translated ruling

25.2
Apple's assertions that consumers (3) face significant security and fraud risks in carrying the charge and 4) also lose other functionality associated with IAP API and that 5) seriously and irreversibly damage Apple's reputation as the most secure and reliable technology platform, neither succeed. Payment services are widely offered by a significant number of professional parties. These parties compete with each other and are well aware of the risks of a bad name in security. In addition, Schedule 1 providers have been using their own payment system for years without increased security or fraud problems. To the extent Apple believes there is a risk of reputational damage, it already takes that risk by allowing Schedule 1 apps (and some specific Schedule 2 apps) to settle payments outside of the IAP API environment. Furthermore, if payment outside the IAP API were to lead to greater security risks, it is unlikely that this would negatively affect Apple rather than the dating app providers. This is also apparent from the Kien study. Finally, the group of dating app users is a very small minority compared to the total group of buyers of apps in the App Store. Major effects of the burden on Apple's reputation are therefore highly unlikely. With regard to the loss of functionalities, Apple is mainly talking about functionalities such as "parental control" and "family sharing" that are not relevant for dating apps. Match Group correctly points out in this regard that the charge will only prohibit Apple from forcing dating app providers to use the IAP in the Dutch Store Front. Apple is free to continue to offer the IAP (and other related features) and try to convince dating app providers of its benefits.

 

[BaldiMac]

Legally speaking there is no difference. It’s classified as goods irrespective of how you get it. Or a service. Apple have already stated they will allow reader apps to do this making it irrelevant by apple sown actions

Legally speaking, you're just making stuff up and saying "legally speaking".

Apple doesn’t distribute In app purchases ether. This is an irrelevant distinction to try and give apple more responsibility than they actually have.

Apple distributes the app.

ACM agrees with me. There is nothing that shows apple MUST have access to payment information to keep users safe. Apple failed to provide evidence for significant security risks to users.
Link to translated ruling

"Other people agree with me" isn't an argument. It's a logical fallacy. It is ridiculous to argue that Apple being able to see fraudulent transactions doesn't help it to find fraudulent apps.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

It’s not, I recommend you read the policy. It’s to curtail anti competitive behavior of monopolies and gatekeepers.

How is the App Store being a separate company from Apple a good thing? It makes no sense.

It was passed in December 14 2021 by the EU parliament The approved text will then become Parliament's mandate for negotiations with EU governments, planned to start under the French presidency of the Council in the first semester of 2022.

It hasn't been made a law yet, so it is not in effect. Hopefully it never is.

Apple is under investigation for their AppStore under current law so we will see if they have been breaking the law for the last 10 years.

The fact that Apple has had this business model for 10+ years, including when they had zero market power and numerous OS competitors, and the App Store cut has never went up, and that Apple retains minority market share in a competitive market with many OEMs, strongly contradicts the idea that Apple is any kind of monopoly, or has abused market power. But if EU wants to retroactively declare Apple's business model invalid (kind of how they fined Google over Chrome on Android)- well I wouldn't put it passed them. EU's "principles-based approach" to antitrust, coupled with a desire to kneecap US tech companies, translates to a model where they can basically make stuff up if they think something is unfair. Meanwhile the US uses a rules-based approach where you must prove Apple has broken a specific law such as the Sherman Act. The only way to put Apple in violation of the Sherman Act is to restrict the relevant market to iOS and say Apple has a monopoly over their own product, which is idiotic. This is why Epic will lose big time.

That has nothing to do with the DMA. And the failure is 100% on the US government not EU for its authoritarian abuse of private information

Two solutions exist
1: USA starts respecting privacy and rule of law
2: us companies must use EU servers, that the US government doesn’t have any jurisdiction over.

EUCJ commented data transfer agreement was invalid, citing concerns the U.S. surveillance regime might not respect the privacy rights of citizens in EU.

EU-U.S. data flows could face 'massive disruption' - Irish regulator

One of the European Union's most powerful data regulators has warned companies may yet face massive disruption to translatlantic data flows as a result of an EU court ruling last year, despite efforts by policymakers to avoid that outcome.

mobile.reuters.com

OK great. I guess EU citizens can't connect to websites hosted in the US because then their data IP address will be sent to the US. It doesn't affect me. It's just an idiotic BS policy. EU is trying to exert control over US internet. How about they make their own private Internet like China and totally separate from USA? That's the logical extension of this.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Legally speaking, you're just making stuff up and saying "legally speaking".

EUCJ made a ruling last year making it clear that they are the same.

Apple distributes the app.

Not relevant

"Other people agree with me" isn't an argument. It's a logical fallacy. It is ridiculous to argue that Apple being able to see fraudulent transactions doesn't help it to find fraudulent apps.

Outside when this “other people” is the regulatory body related to the laws.

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge

And Apple being able to see fraudulent transactions isn’t evidence that apple must be the one to handle it. As I said, apple failed to prove this.
This is also a logical fallacy

 

[BaldiMac]

EUCJ made a ruling last year making it clear that they are the same.

Yet another "ruling" that you take out of context to prove something we aren't discussing.

Not relevant

It's certainly relevant that a store is responsible for what it sells.

Outside when this “other people” is the regulatory body related to the laws.

Nope. An "Appeal to Authority" is still a logical fallacy. Especially when you shift the goalposts between the IAP in the EU and dating apps in the Netherlands without distinction.

And Apple being able to see fraudulent transactions isn’t evidence that apple must be the one to handle it. As I said, apple failed to prove this.
This is also a logical fallacy

You're moving the goalposts again. We were discussing whether Apple's IAP made it easier for Apple to identify fraud. And, yes, Apple would necessarily be involved in handling fraudulent apps distributed through the App Store.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

How is the App Store being a separate company from Apple a good thing? It makes no sense.

It would make it impossible for apple to favor their own programs and removing anti competitive actions. But it all depends on what apple does.

It hasn't been made a law yet, so it is not in effect. Hopefully it never is.

It will be. It’s just a question of how the legal text will be drafted.

The fact that Apple has had this business model for 10+ years, including when they had zero market power and numerous OS competitors, and the App Store cut has never went up, and that Apple retains minority market share in a competitive market with many OEMs, strongly contradicts the idea that Apple is any kind of monopoly, or has abused market power. But if EU wants to retroactively declare Apple's business model invalid (kind of how they fined Google over Chrome on Android)- well I wouldn't put it passed them.

Well the laws have been implemented for over a decade. A monopoly isn’t illegal, just don’t abuse the dominating position.

EU's "principles-based approach" to antitrust, coupled with a desire to kneecap US tech companies, translates to a model where they can basically make stuff up if they think something is unfair. Meanwhile the US uses a rules-based approach where you must prove Apple has broken a specific law such as the Sherman Act. The only way to put Apple in violation of the Sherman Act is to restrict the relevant market to iOS and say Apple has a monopoly over their own product, which is idiotic. This is why Epic will lose big time.

Eu works exactly the same, we just have stronger anti competitive laws. On iOS apple have a monopoly on IAP solutions. But we will se what their new investigation will find.

OK great. I guess EU citizens can't connect to websites hosted in the US because then their data IP address will be sent to the US. It doesn't affect me. It's just an idiotic BS policy. EU is trying to exert control over US internet. How about they make their own private Internet like China and totally separate from USA? That's the logical extension of this.

IPs aren’t private information.
Private information means things related to you as a person.

Perhaps the us government should stop spying on people without a court order or the ability to appeal such actions.

EU isn’t trying to control US internet, it just wants to protect EU users privacy from the US government. It’s not our fault the US government implemented the patriot act

 

[BaldiMac]

It would make it impossible for apple to favor their own programs and removing anti competitive actions. But it all depends on what apple does.

That doesn't answer the question. Why is that good and who is it good for to have the App Store run as an independent company?

 

[theotherphil]

Another fine without reply. Apple have probably decided this $50M shakedown is the cost of doing business in NL.

 

[BaldiMac]

Another fine without reply. Apple have probably decided this $50M shakedown is the cost of doing business in NL.

I'm interested to see where this goes. The ACM's last reply seemed more about pride than competition. If this is about competition, why would they require Apple to offer Apple IAP? If this is about Dutch law, why would they force Apple to distribute the modified app in other countries?

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

It would make it impossible for apple to favor their own programs and removing anti competitive actions. But it all depends on what apple does.

They could still favor their own apps within the OS. But making the App Store a separate company doesn't make sense. Apple checks the apps for malware, makes StoreKit API, but someone else runs store? I don't think it will happen, even with DMA. Very bad idea.

It will be. It’s just a question of how the legal text will be drafted.

Probably. It is still a bad law.

Well the laws have been implemented for over a decade. A monopoly isn’t illegal, just don’t abuse the dominating position.

Apple has had the same business model for a decade, yet none of this has ever come up. Suddenly they are in violation? Makes no sense. They don't have a monopoly (maybe 30% share in Europe) but even if they did, they are not abusing it, since they had the same policy 10 years ago when they had no market power. If they were abusing their position they would have increased commissions as their market share increased.

Eu works exactly the same, we just have stronger anti competitive laws.

No, it's a very different regulatory approach. Principles-based (EU) will oppose all "anti-competitive" behaviors whether there is a specific law against them or not. Rules-bases (US) will see if specific statutes were violated. Like the difference between IFRS (principles-based) or US GAAP (rules-based) accounting. US Sherman Act is a strong antitrust act, Apple just has not violated it all.

On iOS apple have a monopoly on IAP solutions. But we will se what their new investigation will find.

iOS is not a market. It is one product in a thriving smartphone market of many Android flavors.

IPs aren’t private information.
Private information means things related to you as a person.

OK so you can't give credit card info to a US site I guess. It's stupid. And who says IP address isn'y next?

Perhaps the us government should stop spying on people without a court order or the ability to appeal such actions.

Amen to that.

EU isn’t trying to control US internet, it just wants to protect EU users privacy from the US government. It’s not our fault the US government implemented the patriot act

GDPR rollout has been poorly thought out and implementations like this are destructive. Basically can't have servers outside the EU because US gov might do something. Patriot Act is trash, but it expired in 2020:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/yes-section-215-expired-now-what

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yet another "ruling" that you take out of context to prove something we aren't discussing.

Nothing in the ruling is out of context. We have multiple case laws enforcing that software is goods. Software sold with perpetual licensing is a standard sale of goods. Nowhere does EU law say software is different from goods but EUCJ have interpreted it as software and physical goods downloaded or purchased on physical disk is still classified as sales of goods. The delivery mechanism isn’t relevant.

It's certainly relevant that a store is responsible for what it sells.

And Walmart isn’t responsible for purchases done on an Xbox. And apple soon isn’t responsible for reader app subscriptions as stated by them

Nope. An "Appeal to Authority" is still a logical fallacy. Especially when you shift the goalposts between the IAP in the EU and dating apps in the Netherlands without distinction.

The ACM ruling uses EUCJ case law to support the case. Eu regulations affect national laws and hinges on EUCJ rulings and EU laws. You can read it as public information on the ACM ruling and apples objections.

You're moving the goalposts again. We were discussing whether Apple's IAP made it easier for Apple to identify fraud. And, yes, Apple would necessarily be involved in handling fraudulent apps distributed through the App Store.

Yes again we don’t know this. You can assume it as it’s logical but you base it strictly on no data. Apple must provide evidence that they must have access to this information, it could just as well be within the margin of error as irrelevant.

We have again and again seen some of the highest earning apps have been fraudulent that existed for months on the store

Popular 'Authenticator' app for iOS facing copycats, as App Store review complaints continue - 9to5Mac

2FA app Authenticator by 2Stable is being copycatted by scammers as questions about Apple's long-time flawed App Store review process raises.

9to5mac.com

And such as the multi million dollar scams.

Developer exposes another multimillion dollar scam app on the App Store - 9to5Mac

While Apple claims the App Store has "the apps you love" in a place "you can trust," a developer has shown time and time again that this is not true.

9to5mac.com

 

[theotherphil]

Why wouldn’t you target Apple? A big “evil” American company who’s income means these fines are pocket change. A “quick” payday for the ”regulator” and the perception that they’re doing something useful. Lol

 

[BaldiMac]

Nothing in the ruling is out of context. We have multiple case laws enforcing that software is goods. Software sold with perpetual licensing is a standard sale of goods. Nowhere does EU law say software is different from goods but EUCJ have interpreted it as software and physical goods downloaded or purchased on physical disk is still classified as sales of goods. The delivery mechanism isn’t relevant.

Great. Software is a type of good. No one is arguing that fact. That doesn't mean it has to be treated the same as any other good. Like I said, you're taking a ruling out of context to prove something that we aren't discussing.

And Walmart isn’t responsible for purchases done on an Xbox. And apple soon isn’t responsible for reader app subscriptions as stated by them

If the Xbox was fraudulent, Walmart is certainly responsible for selling it. And it's a hit to their reputation.

The ACM ruling uses EUCJ case law to support the case. Eu regulations affect national laws and hinges on EUCJ rulings and EU laws. You can read it as public information on the ACM ruling and apples objections.

It's still an appeal to authority.

Yes again we don’t know this. You can assume it as it’s logical but you base it strictly on no data. Apple must provide evidence that they must have access to this information, it could just as well be within the margin of error as irrelevant.

We have again and again seen some of the highest earning apps have been fraudulent that existed for months on the store

Popular 'Authenticator' app for iOS facing copycats, as App Store review complaints continue - 9to5Mac

2FA app Authenticator by 2Stable is being copycatted by scammers as questions about Apple's long-time flawed App Store review process raises.

9to5mac.com

And such as the multi million dollar scams.

Developer exposes another multimillion dollar scam app on the App Store - 9to5Mac

While Apple claims the App Store has "the apps you love" in a place "you can trust," a developer has shown time and time again that this is not true.

9to5mac.com

Comparing Apple to perfect isn't a practical standard. Your first link is about copycat apps. And your second link seems to be about fraudulent reviews.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

EU commission They could still favor their own apps within the OS. But making the App Store a separate company doesn't make sense. Apple checks the apps for malware, makes StoreKit API, but someone else runs store? I don't think it will happen, even with DMA. Very bad idea.

Is it a bad idea? Yes but it will enforce it if pushed. And sure they might still favor apps in the OS, but their apps would be forced to comply to the same rules as everyone else and pay the same 30% cut etc without being able to subsidize it with AppStore revenue.

Apple has had the same business model for a decade, yet none of this has ever come up. Suddenly they are in violation? Makes no sense. They don't have a monopoly (maybe 30% share in Europe) but even if they did, they are not abusing it, since they had the same policy 10 years ago when they had no market power. If they were abusing their position they would have increased commissions as their market share increased.

The EUCJ and the commission is a regulatory body. They don’t conduct audits but rely on reporting by the market. Such as when Spotify filed an anti competitive complaint that is the catalyst for this whole investigation. But as they say, where there’s smoke there’s fire.

No, it's a very different regulatory approach. Principles-based (EU) will oppose all "anti-competitive" behaviors whether there is a specific law against them or not.

No, it will try and go after it under existing laws. They can’t judge something without breaking existing laws. And when encounters they will propose new regulations to deal with problems they identify.

Rules-bases (US) will see if specific statutes were violated. Like the difference between IFRS (principles-based) or US GAAP (rules-based) accounting. US Sherman Act is a strong antitrust act, Apple just has not violated it all.

Is Sherman act is very weak in EU comparison, here you can read how anti trust drastically differs.

How US and EU Competition Law Differ

U.S. and European competition laws diverge in numerous ways that have important real-world effects. Understanding these differences is vital, particularly as lawmakers in the United States, and the rest of the world, consider adopting a more “European” approach to competition. In broad terms...

truthonthemarket.com

iOS is not a market. It is one product in a thriving smartphone market of many Android flavors.

Well the courts seems to disagree.
Both the EU commission in a preliminary objections and ACM did as well

OK so you can't give credit card info to a US site I guess. It's stupid. And who says IP address isn'y next?

Of course you can as you actively provide it. And IP addresses are public information not related to you. The difference is all the information Facebook collects on you, all the information google harvests etc etc are still your information that you have no legal recourse to object to if the US government wants to access it they can force US companies to provide it. EU Hospitals can’t by law use US servers as the safety of patients confidentiality can’t be assured. Same with Apple iCloud falls in this.

The problem is the Us government being able to force us companies to do illegal things

GDPR rollout has been poorly thought out and implementations like this are destructive. Basically can't have servers outside the EU because US gov might do something.

Actually it’s okey as long as the host nation have similar legal protections as EU to user privacy. So a us company could use servers by another company not under US authority in a non US state

GDPR could have been better, that is why they actually have taken inspiration from apples privacy implementations in the AppStore. And the fact that 99% of iOS users actively press NO on being tracked is also seen as a strong indicator that consumers value privacy if they can chose

The EU Has a Plan to Fix Internet Privacy: Be More Like Apple

Lawmakers want all websites to use a similar “Ask App Not to Track” function, but Apple's system might not be as clear-cut as once believed.

www.wired.com

Patriot Act is trash, but it expired in 2020:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/yes-section-215-expired-now-what

Well the original ruling was in July 2020

ECJ invalidates EU-US Privacy Shield

Companies must forthwith cease all data transfers backed by the EU-US Privacy Shield and examine alternatives.

www.pwc.de

The biggest problem that just happened is that EU can’t use Standard Contractual Clauses as US laws essentially invalidates such terms.

iTWire - Meta threatens to pull Facebook and Instagram from Europe if it can't share data with the US

Meta states in an SEC filing it is considering leaving Europe if it can no longer exchange data from European users with the United States, following the Schrems II decision. This story is evolving, and since publication a response from Meta has been received which confirms the company is...

itwire.com

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Is it a bad idea? Yes but it will enforce it if pushed. And sure they might still favor apps in the OS, but their apps would be forced to comply to the same rules as everyone else and pay the same 30% cut etc without being able to subsidize it with AppStore revenue.

If the App Store is separated from Apple (which won't happen), that will be a last-ditch attempt after opening up side-loading. In which case Apple won't have to be in the store and pay a 30% cut. Put it on their website. It's a moot point because it won't happen, and nowhere, even in DMA does it say covered platforms can't have an app store. Only bill that would say that is actually in the US (with our "weak" antitrust ahem), the Ending Platform Monopolies Act. No chance of passing.

The EUCJ and the commission is a regulatory body. They don’t conduct audits but rely on reporting by the market. Such as when Spotify filed an anti competitive complaint that is the catalyst for this whole investigation. But as they say, where there’s smoke there’s fire.

The fact that companies have started to complain about the policies Apple has had for ten years doesn't make them illegal now, or then.

No, it will try and go after it under existing laws. They can’t judge something without breaking existing laws. And when encounters they will propose new regulations to deal with problems they identify.

Which existing law? Apple has 30% market share. Reason they are writing DMA is because Apple is currently not in violation.

Is Sherman act is very weak in EU comparison, here you can read how anti trust drastically differs.

How US and EU Competition Law Differ

U.S. and European competition laws diverge in numerous ways that have important real-world effects. Understanding these differences is vital, particularly as lawmakers in the United States, and the rest of the world, consider adopting a more “European” approach to competition. In broad terms...

truthonthemarket.com

Sherman Act is not weak. Issue is that since Reagan years, regulators have taken the "consumer-harm" view of antitrust- basically, it's only antitrust if it directly raises prices. That is started to change and you will se more aggressive enforcement.

Well the courts seems to disagree.
Both the EU commission in a preliminary objections and ACM did as well

Of course you can as you actively provide it. And IP addresses are public information not related to you. The difference is all the information Facebook collects on you, all the information google harvests etc etc are still your information that you have no legal recourse to object to if the US government wants to access it they can force US companies to provide it. EU Hospitals can’t by law use US servers as the safety of patients confidentiality can’t be assured. Same with Apple iCloud falls in this.

If I upload info to Facebook, I gave them it. But it needs to be stored in EU. How is that different from a credit card?

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Well the courts seems to disagree.
Both the EU commission in a preliminary objections and ACM did as well

This is my primary issue with the DMA, Competition and Innovation Act, and Epic trial: iOS is not a product, it is a feature. These bills take the view that Apple has a monopoly because it ships a product in a commoditized market with a unique feature.

Apple does not have a platform (iOS), Apple has a product (iPhone). Apple is not a software company, Apple is a hardware company. Apple does not license its OS, Apple has no OEMs. Apple should not be considered a peer company to Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, Apple should be considered a peer company to Samsung, Huawei, and BBK. And it should be regulated as such.

Samsung makes phones that have styli, foldable displays, and a custom Android UI. Huawei makes phones without GMS and a custom Android fork. BBK makes phones (OnePlus) that cater to enthusiasts and are easy to root. Apple makes phones with an A-series chip, Lightening port, and custom operating system. These are all valid attempt to compete in a cutthroat, commoditized market. Apple should not be penalized or be held to different standards because it has invested billions of dollars into unique feature, especially when Apple is nowhere near market dominance- Samsung is currently the largest OEM, for a bit it was Huawei, and BBK is either ahead of or right behind Apple.

I have zero issue with regulation of Apple, but it needs to be fair. Examples:
Law 1: "No phone manufacturer can restrict third party software only to their proprietary store"- Fair? YES! This law applies equally to Apple, Samsung, BBK, and everyone else.
Law 2: "No digital platform owner may restrict third parties from having access to features that its own products and services can access"- Fair? NO! This law does not treat Apple equally. Under this law, Samsung would be able to make a pair of headphones that work seamlessly with its Galaxy phones using special software, but if Apple wants to do the same with its iPhones, it must let others use the API to create their own products to compete with AirPods. This is not fair and puts Apple at a cost disadvantage compared to its smartphone peers. It must invest billions into its hardware to compete with them but is not allowed to recoup its investment without sharing its work with others for free.

Any law that treats Apple like Google or Microsoft just because they both make operating systems is making a huge mistake that will only harm consumers. Apple's vertically integrated business model is key to their success. Viewing iOS as something separate from the iPhone itself is forcing Apple to the adopt the openness of being an OS vendor, a business model Apple is not interested in and in fact has failed at (90's). Rather than being penalized for successfully innovating in the smartphone space, Apple should be celebrated for creating unique features that enhance consumer choice.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That doesn't answer the question. Why is that good and who is it good for to have the App Store run as an independent company?

It would be good for the market and consumers as it forces apple to follow the same rules as everyone else. But this is what happens with repeated anti trust breaking and not the end goal.
You are free to read the MDA text to understand it instead of me having to tell you about it in different words.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

It would be good for the market and consumers as it forces apple to follow the same rules as everyone else.

As I said above, DMA does not make Apple follow the same rules as everybody else. It makes Apple follows special rules, while its competitors don't have to. Does the DMA stop Samsung from having the Galaxy Store or Huawei from having the App Gallery? No? Then why is Apple not allowed to have its App Store?

 

[BaldiMac]

It would be good for the market and consumers as it forces apple to follow the same rules as everyone else. But this is what happens with repeated anti trust breaking and not the end goal.
You are free to read the MDA text to understand it instead of me having to tell you about it in different words.

Again, you didn’t answer the question. Why is it good for consumers? Which consumers is it good for? Certainly not all of us.

And, again, this is about market power, not following the same rules as everyone else. It’s literally about changing the rules for Apple because they’re big.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

And, again, this is about market power, not following the same rules as everyone else. It’s literally about changing the rules for Apple because they’re big.

Not just because they’re big, because they have successfully vertically integrated. Apple is not even the largest OEM in Europe.

 

[dk001]

Another fine without reply. Apple have probably decided this $50M shakedown is the cost of doing business in NL.

Makes you wonder just how much is Apple making from the NL.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If the App Store is separated from Apple (which won't happen), that will be a last-ditch attempt after opening up side-loading. In which case Apple won't have to be in the store and pay a 30% cut. Put it on their website. It's a moot point because it won't happen, and nowhere, even in DMA does it say covered platforms can't have an app store. Only bill that would say that is actually in the US (with our "weak" antitrust ahem), the Ending Platform Monopolies Act. No chance of passing.

You miss understand. It would essentially mandate iOS must allow side loading and the current store could forced to be structurally separated as an independent company. Sure apple can make a new store again if they want and still need to compete with the original AppStore. They would also still be forced to allow side loading.

I’m just saying that is what it can, if apple would continue to not change it would happen just as with standard oil. But apple will likely cave or leave.

The fact that companies have started to complain about the policies Apple has had for ten years doesn't make them illegal now, or then.

Well that’s why an anti competitive probe have been launched to investigate how accurate it is. But it’s been established that apple have had illegal practices. Anti steering rules and taking 30% of Spotify subscriptions but not apple music etc.

Which existing law? Apple has 30% market share. Reason they are writing DMA is because Apple is currently not in violation.

The reason they wrote the DMA is to make it easier to deal with anti competitive behavior of large companies without the need to go through semantics games taking year just to stall.

The DMA introduces new rules for certain core platforms services acting as “gatekeepers,” (including search engines, social networks, online advertising services, cloud computing, video-sharing services, messaging services, operating systems and online intermediation services) in the digital sector and aims to prevent them from imposing unfair conditions on businesses and consumers and to ensure the openness of important digital services.

Sherman Act is not weak. Issue is that since Reagan years, regulators have taken the "consumer-harm" view of antitrust- basically, it's only antitrust if it directly raises prices. That is started to change and you will se more aggressive enforcement.

Its extraordinary weak as the bar is very hard to hit.

Contrary to EU two separate elements have to be established in order to characterize a violation of article 102 TFEU: “a dominant position” and “abuse”.

European Commission executive vice president Margrethe Vestager wrote in announcing the action against Amazon, “We do not take issue with the success of Amazon or its size. Our concern is a very specific business conduct”—Amazon’s use of its data to privilege its own products over those of other sellers.

If I upload info to Facebook, I gave them it. But it needs to be stored in EU. How is that different from a credit card?

Facebook collect information that they processed that you can’t erase. Credit cards can be stored, erased or just temporarily used.