And how many competitors do you imagine will exist in a market where every device manufacturer has to have their own OS? We had half a dozen viable ones at one time, but developers and consumers made it clear the market wouldn't support that many.
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.
EU Approves Landmark Legislation to Regulate Apple and Other Big Tech Firms
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As many as device manufacturers make an OS and ecosystem that people want to buy. We don't currently know as we've never tried it with google not engaging in dumping.
The first thing we should do is outlaw software dumping. android should then be split off into its own company with an appropriate license fee when it gets sold to OEMs. With the ability to make money from creating and selling an operating system other players will start to enter the market to create operating systems they sell to OEMs.
Being stuck with only 2 smartphone operating systems is not a fait accompli. We can do something about it with regulations instead of just putting our feet up and accepting that these are the only 2 options we can have. And once you solve the problem of there only being 2 operating systems, all of the other issues simply melt away.
This is why I keep banging the drum to say we are not addressing the actual problem.
Last edited:
You continue to ignore over and over again that smartphones are useful because of the applications they run, not because its a shiny brick with a slick looking OS. Say it with me, "developers will not waste resources on creating apps for devices with tiny pieces of market share and consumers will not buy phones that have no desirable or must-have apps." There's a giant gaping hole in your argument that you refuse to address.
Meanwhile the actual problem is Apple using their rightful success in the smartphone market as an anti-competitive cudgel against others in separate markets in which they seek to compete, like music streaming and banking for instance. Nobody is trying to deprive Apple of what they've earned in the smartphone market. What they're trying to deprive Apple of is the ability to use that success as an anti-competitive tool in other areas of commerce.
As apple has not been found to be guilty of anti-trust, these draconian regulations were ratified to solve a problem that didn’t exist.
Well create regulations that force developers to make their apps available on all platforms then. Something like, if your app is designed for cross-platform functionality, it must be available to all platforms (whether that be via an app or the web). Problem solved.
Do you realize new laws are sometimes required in order to remedy issues? Let's go back to the late 19th century in the U.S. The Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 did not yet exist. There were no doubt people at the time arguing the same thing you are, that "these companies are following the law and are not doing anything wrong." Those laws were passed in response to things that were going on that may have been technically legal before those laws' passing. You may not see a problem and that's your right to that perspective, but a lot of others do see a problem and are happy to see the EU tackling it.
So instead of slapping a couple of the world's most valuable companies with safeguard regulations, you'd seek to impose onerous constraints on millions of small developers that may not even have the resources to do such a thing. Thankfully the EU is placing the burden on those who can most afford to carry it. And as much as some people want to complain that the new law is stupid and burdensome, the alternative ideas I'm seeing are doubly so.
I don’t have to agree with the laws.
Laws evolve, times change. That doesn’t mean each law is good, just or solve the intended purpose.
Yes, some see an issue some don’t.
Nobody said you did.
Your last line just about sums it up.
And I want regulations that benefit me as well as developers and other businesses. The difference here is that I see these regulations as benefitting me (were I an EU citizen) and you see them as not benefitting you.
Dumping is about selling a product for notably less in one country than another but if something is "free" everywhere, it's not really dumping. Predatory pricing is similar but applies to domestic instead of international pricing/trade.
In general, things like freeware and open source software are not considered violating these antitrust laws just because they’re made available for free.
The astonishing thing is: there’s decades of proof for that in the desktop operating system market.
General-purpose operating systems that run are “converging” markets. Consumers and developers are converging onto two or three platforms and that’s that.
Let’s start with Apple’s developer tools/SDK then, shall we? Oh, and the App Store access/service and free Apps too, of course, all of which they they’ve been “dumping” and giving away for (almost) free.
After all, the system, API and tools don’t create themselves. Free Apps don’t review and host themselves. And …aren’t they exactly what’s so often been cited as justification why Apple should be entitled to a commission on all platform sales?
Keep using the AppStore then. When have you ever needed to figure out legitimate payment methods when doing purchases online?
4-5 European companies might be classified as gatekeeper. Two are going to be declared that.
Fines are meant to hurt to stop them from being broken. It’s not part of doing business
Good, glad we agree there is room for all opinions. Most people do not get everything they want in life. I want regulation that benefit me. These regulations do not. I want the government to back off. Like death and taxes, these types of laws are coming unfortunately. Like death and taxes, I dont have to like these laws.
The most effective vector for attacking a user IS the user. Right now, iOS users, try as they might, can NOT click on a URL and sideload an application from outside the App Store. Right now, they cannot be contacted by a malicious actor walking them through the steps to install a “helpful” app that’s actually capturing everything on their phone. iOS in combination with the App Store, does, quite effectively, protect against stupid users. It doesn’t stop people from speaking their username and passwords, it doesn’t stop people from texting or emailing their account details, but it absolutely protects them from some of the most serious Windows-type exploits… it prevents them from handing over control of their device.
And if I want to use a platform that isn't fragmented across multiple app stores and payment systems? If the utility of a smartphone is in the applications it supports but I no longer have a choice of platform that gives me a full spectrum of applications through a common, trusted portal?
My ability to choose a platform that meets my needs has been curtailed just so we can have yet another android look-alike. Android is open sourced-- go fork it and create the OS you want. If there was a demand for it, someone would have.
I always need to figure out legitimate payment methods online. I focus my transactions through a very limited number of trusted portals.
This is where a citation would be useful.
Punishment should fit the crime. 20% of worldwide annual revenue is not fitting. It's more than the total revenue Apple draws from the EU. Overreach plain and simple, and a cash grab.
Why not prevent import of the products? Even when they discus "other remedies" they only discuss solutions that don't prevent import of or access two the "illegal" products and services. The reason is that they know banning imports will anger their constituents deprive them of a revenue stream.
So if they can't exist because developers and consumers won't support it, why does the EU think they're going to force a change with legislation?
Let's not forget there are many AppStores available:
The Ultimate List of Mobile App Stores (2025)
Find out which app store or online marketplace you should submit your app to and ensure your app can compete successfully against other apps.
buildfire.com
If you want access to multiple AppStores there is a path to that outcome. If you don't like other parts of Android but want multiple AppStores you can create an Android fork or launch a new OS, but as you say nobody cares enough to do that. There's only one platform I can choose without all that nonsense, and the consumer is being denied that choice.
There is now less choice in the market for reasons most consumers don't care about.
Not necessarily. Facebook, Signal etc would not have to make themselves communicate with iMessage, just the other way around. Apple must give them that option.
It makes far more sense for them to want to keep their apps separate.
It seems the world has the competition it wants in each layer. There's a huge amount of money on the table for a company that can address an unserved consumer demand, so plenty of motivation to try if they thought it would catch on. Look at Apple-- a company on its death bed a few years earlier obsoleted the existing players.
There aren't more options because people are sufficiently happy with the world as it is.
That's not a change the EU is seeking to make, so to answer your question, no they don't think they're going to force that change with legislation. Propping up other OS's was a half-baked suggestion by another user. What the EU is seeking to do and is capable of doing is keeping the big tech companies from abusing their dominant positions in the market.
Your mistake is assuming this is only about third-party app installation. There are about a dozen other listed reasons outside of third-party app installation for why this law exists.Let's not forget there are many AppStores available:
The Ultimate List of Mobile App Stores (2025)
Find out which app store or online marketplace you should submit your app to and ensure your app can compete successfully against other apps.
If you want access to multiple AppStores there is a path to that outcome. If you don't like other parts of Android but want multiple AppStores you can create an Android fork or launch a new OS, but as you say nobody cares enough to do that. There's only one platform I can choose without all that nonsense, and the consumer is being denied that choice.
Cite your sources.
Last edited:
By talking them into giving access to your iCloud account, you pretty much do.
They aren’t forcing the emergence of other OS. But they’re denying the anticompetitive abuse and price-setting of the ones that exist.
I don’t like Android and Google’s data collection but I like Apple very much. And sideloading or purchasing apps directly from developers.
So I currently have no “good” choice of OS.
I hopefully gain more choice by that legislation soon.
So I as a consumer will get more choice.
So Apple is using their 30% market share to put Citibank out of business? They've used their 30% market share as a cudgel to get 15% market share in music streaming?
Apple doesn't have a dominant position in Europe.
Not only, but this is what people keep whining about the most.
European Union lawmakers have approved landmark legislation to heavily regulate Apple, Google, Meta, and other big tech firms.
The Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA) were proposed by the European Commission in December 2020. Now, collected in a "Digital Services Package," the legislation has been formally adopted by the European Parliament and seeks to address "gatekeeper" big tech companies.
Apple is almost certain to be classified as a "gatekeeper" due to the size of its annual turnover in the EU, its ownership and operation of platforms with a large number of active users, and its "entrenched and durable position" due to how long it has met these criteria, and will therefore be subject to the rules set out in the DMA. Under the DMA, gatekeepers may have to:
- Allow users to install apps from third-party app stores and sideload directly from the internet.
- Allow developers to offer third-party payment systems in apps and promote offers outside the gatekeeper's platforms.
- Allow developers to integrate their apps and digital services directly with those belonging to a gatekeeper. This includes making messaging, voice-calling, and video-calling services interoperable with third-party services upon request.
- Give developers access to any hardware feature, such as "near-field communication technology, secure elements and processors, authentication mechanisms, and the software used to control those technologies."
- Ensure that all apps are uninstallable and give users the ability to unsubscribe from core platform services under similar conditions to subscription.
- Give users the option to change the default voice assistant to a third-party option.
- Share data and metrics with developers and competitors, including marketing and advertising performance data.
- Set up an independent "compliance function" group to monitor its compliance with EU legislation with an independent senior manager and sufficient authority, resources, and access to management.
- Inform the European Commission of their mergers and acquisitions.
The DMA also seeks to ensure that gatekeepers can no longer:
- Pre-install certain software applications and require users to use any important default software services such as web browsers.
- Require app developers to use certain services or frameworks, including browser engines, payment systems, and identity providers, to be listed in app stores.
- Give their own products, apps, or services preferential treatment or rank them higher than those of others.
- Reuse private data collected during a service for the purposes of another service.
- Establish unfair conditions for business users.
The Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires platforms to do more to police the internet for illegal content, has also been approved by the European Parliament.
The DMA says that gatekeepers who ignore the rules will face fines of up to 10 percent of the company's total worldwide annual turnover, or 20 percent in the event of repeated infringements, as well as periodic penalties of up to 5 percent of the company's total worldwide annual turnover. Where gatekeepers perpetrate "systematic infringements," the European Commission will be able to impose additional sanctions, such as obliging a gatekeeper to sell a business or parts of it, including units, assets, intellectual property rights, or brands, or banning a gatekeeper from acquiring any company that provides services in the digital sector.
So far, Apple has heavily resisted attempts by governments to enforce changes to its operating systems and services. For example, Apple simply chose to pay a $5.5 million fine every week for months in the Netherlands instead of obey orders from the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) to allow third-party payment systems in Dutch dating apps.
EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager has set up a DMA taskforce, with about 80 officials expected to join, but some lawmakers have called for an even bigger taskforce to counter the power of big tech companies. The Digital Services Package now simply needs to be adopted by the European Council before coming into force in the fall.
Beyond the European Union, Apple's ecosystem is increasingly coming under intense scrutiny by governments around the world, including in the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, and more, with a clear appetite from global regulators to explore requirements around app sideloading and interoperability. Further cooperation is expected between governments around the world on the issue and experts are anticipating a "brutal battle" between Apple and global regulators.
Article Link: EU Approves Landmark Legislation to Regulate Apple and Other Big Tech Firms
