Sorry I’ll try and make it harder for others to understand the right point of view.
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 vs. Apple Takes a Twist As 35 US States and Department of Justice Weigh in to Back 'Fortnite' Maker
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
1-3) Politics at the statehouse level is not the same as politics at the Congressional level. Not to mention I'm sure these states realize the massive power disparity between them and Apple. One that does not exist between the federal government and Apple.
4) It's not that the federal government wants no changes, it simply wants any changes to be fair and well thought out. Some quotes from your own source.
"We have also been clear that we oppose efforts specifically designed to target only U.S. companies where similarly situated non-U.S. companies would not be covered."
"The United States is concerned that substantially only U.S companies will be in scope if the Parliament’s proposal to raise the threshold to 8 billion euros in annual turnover and a market capitalization of 80 billion euros is adopted in the final DMA."
"The EP’s proposed scope would exclusively target U.S. companies, not just when the law is implemented, but for years to follow. The United States continues to note that it will be important that the EU implement the law in a non-discriminatory fashion and ensure appropriate coverage for all appropriate firms."
"Elsewhere, Washington also hits out at the Parliament for raising the maximum fines that can be leveled for breach of the rules, supporting the Commission's proposal to limit the fines to 10 percent of worldwide annual turnover."
"And while the DMA negotiations themselves have moved along at a breakneck speed, the U.S. wants the EU to avoid a rushed timeline — providing at least 12 months for implementation and three months for notification requirements, when gatekeepers will be responsible for notifying the Commission that their business falls within the rules' scope."
"Washington does, however, believe that the Commission should be the sole enforcer of the new measures and says that there should also be effective harmonization between EU and national rules."
Don't confuse not liking the EU's DMA precisely as it exists at this moment, with the feds being against any and all change in the EU or elsewhere.
Last edited:
You mean your point of view.
Last edited:
Which American politician is comparable to Hitler?!
EDIT: I’m really curious who you are referring to. Joe McCarthy?
Yes. When Senator Joe McCarthy Defended Nazis shows something even darker than his well known anti-Communism.
"Relegated to the status of a backbencher after Democrats took control of the Senate in 1949, McCarthy was thirsting for a cause that would let him claim the spotlight. The cause that this ex-Marine and uber-patriot picked—as an apologist for the Nazi perpetrators of the bloodiest slaughter of American soldiers during World War II—would, more than anything he had done previously, define him for his fellow senators and anybody else paying close attention."
Make Mine Freedom (1948) warned against "ism" - The worker is obviously Communism and perhaps the Farmer as well. The politician (State concentration Camp #5) and factory owner seem to be more along the lines of Fascism. The irony is the cartoon ignored the abuses of Capitalism (as depicted in The Jungle and Midnight is a Place)
I’m referring to legal ways such as Lawsuits or by making it illegal as they tried for a while. Or not honor their warranty etc.
As contract laws are written you must be able to read it, be written in an understandable and clear way and be precented for a consumer to read BEFORE a purchase is made. It’s the equivalent of buying a house and then need to sign a contract of an EULA. It has no legal reason to Be expected to be binding for consumers. Otherwise it’s just A standard transfer of ownership and not a license.
Absolutely agree, hence why I would rather different payments systems could be allowed to be used for In app purchases.
The Software Incubator Ltd v Computer AssociatesI suppose you’re referring to this:
EU highest court says software licence terms can be ignored
In 2012 the European Union's highest court, The Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU) in the case UsedSoft v Oracle made the following…www.lexology.com
More a referense to this judging of software to be equal to goods irrespective of how it’s provided
And your lunk refers to upheld the right of first sale on software
Meaning you have a righ to resell a license as any goods and transfer the same rights
What I’m referring to is the need for the terms and conditions must be precented before the conclusion of the contract over klick wrap
This apple doesn’t fulfill as its displayed after the purchase contract is concluded
It’s still obligated to fulfill the contract irrespective if it’s sold to someone else as it need to work as advertised so apple is still stuck.
Eu ruling have extremely much influence irrespective where apple is located. If apple wants to sell to EU consumers it must follow the local laws.
Eu isn’t trying to make Apple do anything but follow the agreements they and everyone else signed to have a universal industry standard
You are free to do so as long as it’s done fairly. If apple didn’t want any apps to run on it but their own it would be completely fine. The problem is when you allow others to enter and doesn’t treat them equally
This is also fine, the problem is still you have a store for anyone to sign up and clearly stated rules of conduct, this forces you to treat them equally
It’s a question of regulating the market and interest of consumers. EU and European nations are not very interested in corporations “freedom” but the health of the market, competition and consumer protections. Companies don’t have rights like in America.
Why do you think EU ordered Microsoft to stop including internet explorer and provide consumers with a choice of competing web browsers.
Because we aren’t interested in American style capitalism and have different laws with different intentions. Nobody is redefining anything
It’s just a misunderstanding, when billion dollar companies bring forth lawsuits it’s always interpreted in consumers interest
For example to right of first sale was between two companies, but the results made it so consumers have the right to sell their software license irrespective if the EULA forbids it
Perhaps. StilL we will se how the market will react to not owning their things.
The Federal government has let companies far smaller than Apple do whatever they darn well please. Can you say Comcast and local monopoly, neighbor? /s. How many people have been yelling for something to be done about local cable monopolies and the federal government does jack.
Look at the money being wasted on corn ethanol when it has been shown hemp ethanol is far more cost effective (and you can't get high off hemp so don't waste our time with that BS) Heck, sage grass is even better. But thanks to the Big AG lobby (which is slightly smaller than Apple) our tax dollars go to this nonsense.
And while all of those are certainly valid concerns, many of which I share in fact, that doesn't magically mean Apple is not.
Correct, and doesn't mean it is either.
What the EU is primarily interested in is tearing down American tech companies. If the EU has its own tech giants they would be showered with advantages, unfair subsidies etc (cough*Airbus*cough). This is why Apple has to be really careful about antitrust in the EU. In the US, Congress is completely inept and the California delegation doesn’t really want to regulate them. Meanwhile the EU is just itching to knock Apple down a few notches, especially when Spotify, one of the largest European tech companies, is one Apple’s loudest critics.
Yes, thank you for letting it be known that you agree that those other issues are red herrings and are unrelated to and have no bearing on the issue at hand.
Last edited:
Actually Spotify has both Morgan Stanley (7.3%) and Tencent (9.1%) as part owners so it isn't entirely an EU company.
It being a core part is not an argument to abuse their position.
They can keep their APIs to themselves, but it would be questionable if they didn’t allow third party developers use the same thing as apples own apps.
Example if only Apple Music could play in the background but pandora, YouTube or Spotify etc wouldn’t be allowed to use it would definitely be seen as anti competitive
If apples apps can use it then other competing apps should as well.
It will completely depend. OS level is not equivalent to application level
As I said before, if apple is ready to use them in their public apps then there’s no reason for developers not to be allowed to use them
Agee, especially if apple cares for their market to grow and customers to be happy.
EU isn’t interested in tearing down American companies, they are free to exit the market at anytime. But EU is tired of American companies thinking they can do whatever they want, not care about regulations, consumer rights etc and not pay taxes as every other eu company does. Eu generally just allow companies to go bankrupt and almost never save them irrespective of their importance contrary to the USA.
If USA think EU treats any company with unfair subsidies they are free to bring it to the WTO as both still fighting about Airbus and Boing
Abusing their position? Apple got to their position by doing this! Consumers like it.
Where I agree is that paid apps should not have privileged APIs. So yes Apple Music and TV+ should not have advantages over Spotify and Netflix. This sort of privileging on Apple's part adversely affects those who use competing services. But when Apple takes a paid feature (like Astropad) and integrates it into the OS for free that helps consumers.
Apple is a vertically integrated firm. There is no difference to them between the OS or its bundled apps (again, exception is paid apps like Music which are available on other platforms and clearly are not OS-dependent).
Apple would argue that WebKit is an integral part of iOS so they should be able to block other web engines. Competitors would argue Safari is an app and they should have the same access. There is no clear place to draw the line, but when you're talking about Apple, it's the wrong question. Apple makes unified products. Asking them to divide up their OS and features across arbitrary lines in the sand to allow other parties greater access to the platform (a platform that, need I remind you, Apple built) is an attack on Apple products' unique value preposition.
Even if it's a security risk? Apple needs to have certain privileges as the OS maker. Why should any app developer be able to demand the same?
Apple's customers appreciate its ability to leverage its vertical integration.
American tech companies absolutely pay taxes to Europe. And EU is huge on subsidizing and "picking winners and losers"- literally how they built Airbus up over the years. Then they accuse the US of subsidizing Boeing for paying Boeing for government contracts, which is not all equivalent. Of course, EU is free to do what they want in their territory. As am I free to point out that they are massive hypocrites. And the US government is free to (and should be much more aggressive when they) push back against Europe's blatant attempts to hurt and stifle successful US companies, whether through discriminatory, targeted legislation or unfair subsidies.
Just for giggles I looked online to see what people in Europe thought about the EU holding itself together. "In France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Slovakia, Romania, Greece, the Czech Republic and Poland, a majority of people surveyed thought EU disintegration was a “realistic possibility” in the next 10 to 20 years."
Such wonderful optimism. /s. Seriously most times the EU comes off as less dysfunctional than the US with its regional squabbling so I wonder why the people in the EU have such a dim view of its future.
I may be wrong here, but the3 EU reminds me kind of what would happen if we became 50 Countries instead of being 50 States.
Well the EU is kind of like what the US was before the Civil War when "The United Starts are..." was correct grammar and a state threatening to succeed from the Union every so often because there was some Federal law they didn't like was normal. At least the EU isn't the dysfunction mess the US was under the Articles of Confederation.
I understand the logic behind this "fairness", but I feel it's also an extreme position to take. We know that Apple uses private APIs all the time, and the reason for this may be less due to them wanting an edge over the competition, and simply Apple not being able to make these APIs robust enough for public use, with documentation and everything.
That said, I do wish that Apple would enforce the use of their public APIs more robustly. Looking at how Google dragged their feet on incorporating split-screen with their google drive apps, or how PIP is only now coming to YouTube, or how many video streaming apps don't yet support these basic features. In the same vein, Spotify has been complaining for the longest time about how they are being treated unfairly by Apple, but they don't bother supporting the iOS features that are available (like airplay 2, or native ATV support).
HBO's native player is a laggy mess. Prime is atrocious. Instagram still doesn't have an iPad app, and they screwed over the third party apps that did by withholding their own API. In general, I can't help but notice it's often the largest companies who make the most noise, while also sporting apps with possibly the worst UI imaginable and the slowest support, compared to third party apps like Apollo, Fantastical and Tweetbot (who are fast to incorporate these new features). Heck, there are a plethora of third party Apple Music apps like Soor and Marvis if you are not a fan of the stock design, and Apple is totally fine with that.
I think that if these companies really want to complain, they should at least demonstrate that they are in the very least making an effort to create the best apps (and by extension, the best experience) possible on iOS (starting with supporting all the iOS features available) before pointing an accusing finger at Apple and going "I have done everything possible on iOS, and want to do more, and Apple is in the way".
Instead, I see them do the bare minimum on iOS, and I am like "Are you even trying?"
Apple:
Use the API's we say you have to use. We have custom APIs and development tools that you can't have.
Ran into this when my team (work) was wondering what we could do with WatchOS for work apps.
Had some cool thoughts but .... Can understand the concern Apple has however if we could get access to the same tools ...
Use the API's we say you have to use. We have custom APIs and development tools that you can't have.
Ran into this when my team (work) was wondering what we could do with WatchOS for work apps.
Had some cool thoughts but .... Can understand the concern Apple has however if we could get access to the same tools ...
The way I see it is, once Apple has brought something over to another platform they have confirmed is a separate product from their OS. At that point, using private APIs is basically a form of anticompetitive (although not currently illegal) tying. Spotify should have all the same access that Apple Music does, even if they don't take advantage of it.
Unlike other things devs have complained about, this actually harms consumers. Apple is incentivized to make using Spotify a worse experience for its own users. Personally I would like to see Apple banned from bundling any paid services into their devices. It's anticompetitive but unlike "sherlocking" it doesn't help consumers.
What do you mean by bundling? I pay for Apple’s services the same way I would have paid for Spotify or Netflix.
Apple Music should not be integrated into Music App. Should need to be downloaded separately and compete on merits.
Wouldn’t keeping it a separate app make it a worse experience for users? I get your concern about Apple having an edge because of all the default, preinstalled apps, but I feel it’s their right as the platform owner.
And well, too many people toss around the term “unfair” too liberally when what they really mean is “not to my benefit”.
Spotify has roughly 3 times as many paying subscribers as Apple Music... and infinitely more free listeners (since Apple Music doesn't have a free tier at all)
And I would bet a lot of Spotify customers use iPhones.
So obviously downloading an app isn't the big barrier of entry that you think it is...
Even if you had to download the Apple Music app separately... you'd be downloading it from the same store that you download the Spotify app from.
And again... it's not a difficult task.
I hear what you're saying... that it might be "unfair" that Apple's music service comes pre-installed on every iPhone.
But like I said... downloading an app is pretty easy. It's common and it happens a lot... billions of times a year.
Last edited:
My concern is that with Apple Music too closely integrated into the platform, Apple will make things a worse experience for those who don’t use it- and they have. Can’t make Spotify default music player. Music app focuses on streaming and still no easy way to add music you own to it. Etc.
US antitrust law has traditionally focused on whether harm is being caused to consumers.
When Apple “sherlocks” they add free new features to users, with extra functionality only they as hardware OS maker can do. Even though this can hurt third parties, I fully support Apple’s right to this and oppose bills that limit this.
It‘s very different when Apple favors its own paid services, though. This creates perverse incentives for them where they want to make their service better at the expense of others. As a consumer, I would be better off if there was a degree of separation between Apple the device maker and Apple the digital services maker, so that Apple is inclined to create the best experience for all users, not just their subscribers. I really wish Apple would get out of the services business entirely. It’s just a huge conflict of interest between that and the best user experience. I hate buying an expensive new device and getting periodic reminders in settings to “active my three free months of AppleTV+ and Apple Arcade.“ If the government wants to pass laws that limit Apple’s ability to do this, I’m all for it. It would improve competition and the user experience, as opposed to other proposals that sacrifice consumer interests for that of developers.
Well, I don’t think Apple connecting subscription services to their OS is to my benefit at all. Apple tax=no OEM crapware. That’s the deal.