The EU law is the same for Apple, Google, Microsoft...and also for Huawei, or any other. That's the difference.
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.
Epic Games and Spotify Say Apple's Latest DMA Changes Are 'Illegal' and 'Deliberately Confusing'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have no idea what that has to do with what you quoted or anything we've discussed.
You’ve got to realize you just used an ad hominem fallacy. It is rhetoric that works with people who hate Apple for their own twisted psychological reasons or the EU “nationalists” who support legislation written very explicitly and obviously to penalize foreign companies. However, it is bad reasoning.
The value that changes hand is quite literally the game/ software you give out. It has a numerical value, the IP, copyrighted content etc etc
Well it is, because you have to remember is it worth loosing 1,2 or 3 years of profits as a worst case scenario, leaving the EU would also mean they give up 50 years of potential massive profits.
Imagine if Apple pulled out of EU in 2008 because they where fined for something similar and opted to leave. Now compound the profits lost between 2008 and 2024
it sucks indeed but I value my privacy and like having the option to deny access.
and a lot of companies did implement an intentionaly annoying policy to encourage you to click yes.
And what personal information do the museum and restaurants ask for?
Like name, Last name, phone number/email for getting the receipt/confirmation?
You elect people who make laws for the EU...
It's above a countries government really.
Which is why Brexit happened...
but not for Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo when a threshold on their systems manages to stop them being considered gateholders.
it's all a bit arbitrary. Isn't it?
And then we get those arguing the fines imposes are 1,2 or 3 years profits on Apple...
Um, wasnt this about the consumer? And how exactly do those fines get back to the consumer when the EU holds the money?
Face it, this is about power, control and money from external sources.
Um, wasnt this about the consumer? And how exactly do those fines get back to the consumer when the EU holds the money?
Face it, this is about power, control and money from external sources.
Well you have a point, it’s still a double edged sword.
The fact we in EU can’t use, Apple intelligence or facebook Llama, doesn’t mean someone else are willing and able to take enormous market shares in EU because they chose to be careful.
Example Microsoft Copilot or openAI( or any number of other companies I’m unaware of) can with the DMA provide us with these apps.
And the fact that we potentially lose service from big companies means that we might also see great products from smaller companies that simply couldn’t survive if they had to fight Apple, meta, Google, Amazon and Microsoft head on.
I would say most Apple users have suffered having a terrible Siri experience as we haven’t had the option to use something actually better.
Well it’s also worth pointing out Google search have actually been getting worse over the years, and it’s not even related to the DMA. https://www.businessinsider.com/goo...am-affiliate-links-duckduckgo-bing-2024-1?amp
And yes sometimes actions will get worse for companies when it comes to protecting consumer privacy rights first before profit making decisions.
- That browser might be bad for your battery but you like it for its super good at blocking adds? Or it might be even better considering the random. Browser tends to be Firefox, chrome or a fork such as bing and brave.
- This is already illegal and regulated for decades, and would just go to a consumer rights court who would force the company to pay back.
- Unless the child can steel your card information and verify the transactions with the eIDAS that is on your phone, this is currently an impossible scenario because of current banking regulations.
- Again this is also in practice close to impossible because of current banking regulations. They can steel all the banking information they want, but without you opening up an eIDAS verification on their device in person it’s also unlikely to do anything useful as nothing can be approved.
I understand the scary fraud card is very emotionally effective, but the data simply doesn’t match the picture you paint.
ECB and EBA publish joint report on payment fraud
The European Central Bank (ECB) is the central bank of the European Union countries which have adopted the euro. Our main task is to maintain price stability in the euro area and so preserve the purchasing power of the single currency.
People haven’t forgotten, it just became safer in EU. while it’s been a steady increase in fraud and identity theft in the USA
I think we can be proud of 0.02% or 0.008%
Sony and Nintendo don’t meet the criteria. They don’t enough users or revenue to be a summed to be gatekeepers.
Microsoft was designed a gatekeeper, but the Xbox is still an irrelevant platform and fails to meet the criteria
- Eh no it’s just as an hypothetical showing that just because you loose profits by a year doesn’t mean you abandon 10 or 50 years of profits.
- It’s about the market… the consumer isn’t the main focus. Fines goes back to the member states to invest in whatever they want.
- Weird and super wrong.
and the rules keep changing... Sony and Nintendo should be worried what the future holds for them...
Eh no… the rules have stayed the same.and the rules keep changing... Sony and Nintendo should be worried what the future holds for them...
You need to be an entrenched company, and your service/ goods you’re selling must be an entrenched position as it’s declared by the founding treaty of EU 102.
If you meet specific criteria within the DMA you are assumed to be this unless proven otherwise, something Samsung and Microsoft did.
Members, who get elected to a given country's governing body are much more important than who gets elected the EU parliament. Any EU law has to be agreed by all member countries. The EU is not a higher-government, not like US federal government. The EU is Union of sovereign countries, not a united states.
Looking back, it's good that it happened.
Well we elect people in EU parliament.
And we elect heads of states who are the EU council, and we elect our governments ministers(elected members of parliament) who are the council of EU.
- EU council (heads of government) appoints commissioners( who makes laws)
- Council of EU ( government ministers) negotiate over the proposed law ( that was proposed by the commission)
- Eu parlament ( elected representatives) negotiate over the laws ( that was proposed by the commission)
- Laws can’t pass without consent of parliament and council.
Well thank goodness for that. Who knows what would happen if UK was allowed to continue their influence.
Last edited:
Seriously? 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ Whilst one element of the reason, it paled in significance to other factors.
I mean, the DMA is a new law the EU came up with to rein in US tech giants when they realised that existing laws were largely toothless against them.
Nothing is stopping the EU from similarly revising the law in the future to also include consoles, or coming up with a new law altogether for whatever reason.
For Brits or for other Europeans, do you mean?Looking back, it's good that it happened.
I'm 100% convinced it was a bad thing for everyone.
Last edited:
in what way?Members, who get elected to a given country's governing body are much more important than who gets elected the EU parliament. Any EU law has to be agreed by all member countries. The EU is not a higher-government, not like US federal government. The EU is Union of sovereign countries, not a united states.
Looking back, it's good that it happened.
even you know it's an arbitrary number and can change.
like any law, at any time.
depending on the views of the day...
Well no as it’s based on legal precedents from the Supreme Court and decades of antitrust litigation by the commission.
The commission is the ones who are responsible for enforcing laws with judicial oversight by the court, but they also write laws that is according to the Will of the member states.
Essentially think of the US senate would appoint the executive branch that then writes laws that then also needs to be approved by congress ( senate & house?)
Well primary law prevents them.
Essentially this law makes it that it’s assumed a company that meets some criteria’s are assumed to be covered by article 102 unless proven otherwise.
Instead of EU commission needing to prove they are entrenched and classified as dominant position, the company would need to prove they aren’t ( as have been done multiple times even when they meet the criteria)
Well that’s true for any legal system in the world. You can amend your constitution any day if the government wanted it.
actually that's not true...
a majority vote is required to change the Constitution (in Australia and other places).
most proposed amendments fail the public vote.
So a government cant just change things on a whim.
By EU Laws are obviously a lot more malleable...
No, if primary EU law is to be changed it needs 100% support by the 27 states. We would need a treaty reform.
We tried to implement a constitution and it failed because two members voted no
The DMA is a regulation, and it functions of primary law
now you are just arguing against your original comment...
(edit) and saying it is a regulation means it could very easily be amended any time in the future which was to point a few of us were making...