EU Approves Landmark Legislation to Regulate Apple and Other Big Tech Firms

[vipergts2207]

Definition of dominant as an adjective:
“most important, powerful, or influential.”

Because Apple clearly wasn’t dominant, they created a term “gatekeeper” that would arbitrarily allow them to propose changes that Apple’s simple “lack of dominance” would not allow. They’ve clearly arbitrarily defined a classification based on “which company they want to impact”. And, antitrust laws don’t target the biggest companies just for being big. They target dominant[/] companies that are using their dominance illegally. Applied against Apple, then, these aren’t even antitrust rules. By the simple fact that Apple’s not dominant. It’s more like “consumer success” rules.


The thing is, historically, it’s NOT a fine line. When a company makes a product people want to buy, developers want to support and that benefits each in a way that continues it’s success, that’s “how business is done”. If a business sets up exclusivity rules to restrict apps being in other app stores, OR buys up and shuts down smartphone competitors, that’s NOT a fine line, it’s anti-competitive and should be punished for what it is.


“behavior has long covered a variety of potential business activities.”
So, I’ve actually provided a few that are clearly anticompetitive behaviors (not in quotes, actually proven to be). I’m guessing your using “anticompetitive” in quotes must mean “being successful in the market such that consumers buy your products over your competitors”. Which does certainly align with the EU’s recent rules.

And, again, Apple has no dominant position in the EU. You should probably use the EU coined term “gatekeeper” or put quotes around “dominant” so as to clearly portray that Apple is “dominant” in only “putting Apple logos on their products and services”.

See definition 1b.

Definition of DOMINANT

commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others; very important, powerful, or successful; overlooking and commanding from a superior position… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I put dominance in quotes because different countries/regions and even cases/rulings can define dominance differently. In the case of the EU, I think they have defined dominance ("gatekeepers") more specifically than most.

You put “dominance” in quotes to indicate that the definition you’re using is in no way related to the actual definition of dominance, and that’s fair. “Dominance” can be defined in whatever way anyone wants to, they can say a 3 inch worm is “dominant” to a 10 inch worm because “dominance” in that case is being defined as something that’s “considerably smaller”. Dominance, as an english translatable word that may have analogs in other languages does not have the same meaning as the EU’s “dominance”. Which, of course, is why they’re using their made up “gatekeeper” instead.

When it comes to monopolies, monopoly power, duopolies, dominance or whatever, it is not defined by share percentage a company has of their own product (e.g., 100% of iOS) but rather share percentage they have of a particular market (e.g., Apple's iOS has 57% share of mobile OS in the United States).

You do realize that, as a rationale for their recent actions, the EU is indicating that the problem is that Apple has a 100% monopoly on Apple iOS apps, right?

“European regulators tend to take the view that the relevant market is “iOS apps,” and here Apple has a 100% monopoly on their sale and distribution.”

 

[Analog Kid]

Just because Google is bigger doesn't make Apple not a dominant player.

Yes it does. Right click the word "dominant" and select "look up" from the context menu.

And if as you say, most people don't care, they aren't going to care about these changes in the first place. Only a vocal minority actually cares about having "an option that only allows apps from a single source." Most people don't care one way or the other.

Reread the thread here for context. The argument has been that if people really cared, they wouldn't buy iPhones and the market would decide-- there are other other solutions that give them multiple app stores. Your view is that for many people it's a secondary or tertiary consideration, ie. not top priority. I argue, that more people who want to have a single source will choose iPhone than Android, and those who don't want a single source but choose iPhone anyway don't really care that much.

So, with that as context, the people, like me, who buy iPhone because of the convenience and trust factor are having that option outlawed. There were two business models, now there is one. Less choice. Full stop.

If you bought Android, you really don't care that much. If you bought iPhone but kinda wish you had multiple app stores but not so much that you'd change your choice of phone, some fraction of those people might be marginally more gratified.

 

[Analog Kid]

Is that what’s being done here? Last I checked having a third of a market isn’t a small share. Most competitors would consider ownership of one third of their relevant market a roaring success.

Yes, that's what's being done here. 30% is not dominant, it is not close to monopoly power, and it is not close to being an effective cudgel in giving them a monopoly in another market.

As you say, they're being targeted merely for being successful.

 

[vipergts2207]

Yes it does. Right click the word "dominant" and select "look up" from the context menu.

Look up the definition I posted above.

"very important, powerful, or successful"

Reread the thread here for context. The argument has been that if people really cared, they wouldn't buy iPhones and the market would decide-- there are other other solutions that give them multiple app stores. Your view is that for many people it's a secondary or tertiary consideration, ie. not top priority. I argue, that more people who want to have a single source will choose iPhone than Android, and those who don't want a single source but choose iPhone anyway don't really care that much.

So, with that as context, the people, like me, who buy iPhone because of the convenience and trust factor are having that option outlawed. There were two business models, now there is one. Less choice. Full stop.

If you bought Android, you really don't care that much. If you bought iPhone but kinda wish you had multiple app stores but not so much that you'd change your choice of phone, some fraction of those people might be marginally more gratified.

The problem is the you have zero data showing the breakdown of iPhone users who chose iPhone specifically because it has a single source for apps, iPhone users who chose an iPhone for their primary concerns but still wish they could install from third-party sources, and iPhone users who don't give a crap one way or the other. If that many people actually care about getting their apps from a single place then that will be reflected in the market by hoards of iPhone users refusing to move off of the iOS App Store for their apps and companies responding to that by continuing to offer their app on the App Store.

Yes, that's what's being done here. 30% is not dominant, it is not close to monopoly power, and it is not close to being an effective cudgel in giving them a monopoly in another market.

As you say, they're being targeted merely for being successful.

Not monopoly. Duopoly. Which markets would not consider controlling over 30% of a market enormously successful, i.e. a dominant player? I would imagine the EU sees a company as being able to unilaterally control what 30% of consumers are able to do as a significant issue. Not to mention Apple's actions outside of the EU have the ability to impact businesses based in the EU. If the EU's new law results in Apple making these changes globally and the curbing of Apple's anti-competitive actions in the U.S. where Apple has over half the market then that is potentially to the benefit of EU companies and developers as well.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Yes… yes it does. Considering GSM died decades ago at this point. And it works on CDMA. And W-CDMA, aka UMTS, which is what replaced GSM and is what we called “3G” for so long. And LTE, which is 4G. And NR, which is 5G.

It doesn’t take two seconds to look this stuff up. The reason why I said it is BECAUSE previously I took the few seconds to look it up previously (when someone else had said the same thing). :0)

“[SMS] allows users to send and receive messages of up to 160 characters (when entirely alpha-numeric) to and from GSM mobiles. Although most SMS messages are sent from one mobile phone to another, support for the service has expanded to include other mobile technologies, such as CDMA networks and Digital AMPS.”

It was, initially, GSM only because only GSM had it as a feature. Other non-GSM networks adopted it and, with it as a firmly expected feature, all future iterations have included it as well.

Google, since it now controls RCS, (which is merely a standard) does not require a mobile network. In fact it circumvents it entirely and routes the data to Google’s servers… but hey, maybe I’m getting too technical for you.
[/quote]
Google does not control RCS. TWO seconds using Google’s search engine would show…
“RCS is a new online protocol that was chosen for adoption by the GSM Association in 2008 and is meant to replace the current texting standard SMS (Short Message Service), which has been around since the 1990s.”
That’s the GSM Association that were a part of the creation of SMS that have created a new protocol to replace… the current texting standard… SMS.

I feel that your interest in RCS might even come close to mine. When I first heard about it, it seemed like something that was on the edge of being rolled out by the GSMA and being great. Since then, carrier after carrier has refused to but in the effort/money to make it a thing (as they’d all have to do it for it to be worth it). At the carrier level, it would have been SMS, the next generation. That Google has picked it up ISN’T a sign of strength. That carriers are willing to “let Google handle that RCS thing” isn’t a ringing endorsement of the solution. It’s a recognition by the carriers, that they can literally “do nothing” and continue to make big money on shuttling tiny text messages around.

Google’s solution is, because it’s not at the carrier level, is “just another app”. Like WhatsApp, like Signal, like Telegram. And, as a result, it’s no better than any of those, it’s just one more icon with data that’s secured within itself and not shared with any other network. My fear is that Google’s efforts are the last gasp of RCS and that, once they fail at it like they’ve failed at literally every messaging effort they’ve tried, the carriers aren’t going to be proposing anything even remotely as close to the ubiquity of SMS anytime soon (not without first figuring out how to seriously upcharge for it).

 

[darkpaw]

Why? Very simple. So I don’t need to have 10 apps to communicate with 10 different groups. And instead use one with superior functionality and usability. I would erase messenger, WhatsApp, Supertext, viber immediately and use signal or iMessage exclusively

But you can do that already. Just tell everyone to use iMessage. If the end result is that everyone you contact uses one app, then why not all pick the same app?

 

[webkit]

Definition of dominant as an adjective:
“most important, powerful, or influential.”

Because Apple clearly wasn’t dominant, they created a term “gatekeeper” that would arbitrarily allow them to propose changes that Apple’s simple “lack of dominance” would not allow. They’ve clearly arbitrarily defined a classification based on “which company they want to impact”. And, antitrust laws don’t target the biggest companies just for being big. They target dominant[/] companies that are using their dominance illegally. Applied against Apple, then, these aren’t even antitrust rules. By the simple fact that Apple’s not dominant. It’s more like “consumer success” rules.

By dominant, I was referring to a major player in a market e.g., part of a duopoly or oligopoly. One definition of a duopoly is "a scenario in which two companies dominate the market for a product or service." Apple (with iOS) and Google (with Android) would qualify, for example, in mobile OS as they have nearly 100% share of that market not just in Europe but globally.

So, yes, Apple in at least in some cases (like the mobile OS market) does have a dominant position in the EU and elsewhere.

“behavior has long covered a variety of potential business activities.”
So, I’ve actually provided a few that are clearly anticompetitive behaviors (not in quotes, actually proven to be). I’m guessing your using “anticompetitive” in quotes must mean “being successful in the market such that consumers buy your products over your competitors”. Which does certainly align with the EU’s recent rules.

And, again, Apple has no dominant position in the EU. You should probably use the EU coined term “gatekeeper” or put quotes around “dominant” so as to clearly portray that Apple is “dominant” in only “putting Apple logos on their products and services”.

Again, Apple in at least in some cases (like the mobile OS market) does have a dominant position in the EU and elsewhere.

You put “dominance” in quotes to indicate that the definition you’re using is in no way related to the actual definition of dominance, and that’s fair. “Dominance” can be defined in whatever way anyone wants to, they can say a 3 inch worm is “dominant” to a 10 inch worm because “dominance” in that case is being defined as something that’s “considerably smaller”. Dominance, as an english translatable word that may have analogs in other languages does not have the same meaning as the EU’s “dominance”. Which, of course, is why they’re using their made up “gatekeeper” instead.

By dominant, I was referring to a major player in a market e.g., part of a duopoly or oligopoly as defined by a particular country/region which can sometimes vary.

You do realize that, as a rationale for their recent actions, the EU is indicating that the problem is that Apple has a 100% monopoly on Apple iOS apps, right?

“European regulators tend to take the view that the relevant market is “iOS apps,” and here Apple has a 100% monopoly on their sale and distribution.”

They are identifying/defining companies that have dominant positions. Those companies are subject to the list of EU requirements that are meant to make certain things related to, in this case, their operating systems less restrictive or anticompetitive. What you quoted was an opinion on or assessment of the situation, not an actual legislative position. Otherwise, one could argue that every company has a monopoly but that's not what they are doing here.

 

[djphat2000]

The laws aren’t retroactive, they start applying to any company at a specific date. Meaning the goods they sell must follow the new requirements. Or do you honestly believe that if I started selling a car with led paint would still be legal to sell just because i did it before the ban on lead?

But that did not mean the cars that already had the lead paint on it had to be stripped and repainted either.
The cars sold after the lawn didn't have lead paint on it.

So by said logic, the iPhones/iOS sold before the law, remain. And Apple can get back to the EU's rules with a "new" iPhone/iOS when it's ready.

 

[vipergts2207]

But that did not mean the cars that already had the lead paint on it had to be stripped and repainted either.
The cars sold after the lawn didn't have lead paint on it.

So by said logic, the iPhones/iOS sold before the law, remain. And Apple can get back to the EU's rules with a "new" iPhone/iOS when it's ready.

Apple would not be able to update iOS in the EU without acceding to the requirements of the new law because at that point they've released a new OS. Which means that what you're saying is essentially inconsequential because Apple would need to update iOS to meet most of the requirements anyway.

Do you want half a dozen donuts or 6? Doesn't matter, it's all the same.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It's more than just "a few other changes". They are being forced to open up Messages. That kills a huge competitive advantage for Apple.

What would Zoom be worth if they were forced to open up Zoom?

If zoom was forced to open up they might be forced to provide a good service? It’s almost like being locked in is every messaging providers main selling point instead of being better🤔
iMessages biggest selling point is, other iMessage users.
Facebook messages biggest selling point is other message users….
WhatsApp’s biggest selling point is other WhatsApp users… how weird, it’s almost like features aren’t the selling point but just how many locked in users you have and how many friends you have in it.

I am not going to read all the comments, but how can it be a "secure enclave" if every developer has access to it. So much of this is just dumb overreach.

Easy, same way websites have access to login with Apple on your phone.

Why can't the competition come up with their own phones? Then they can use whatever payment method they like. Why is the EU forcing Apple to include products from the competition?


Are they going to force McDonald's to allow Whoppers to be sold in their stores next?
It's unfair that McDonald's locks out Whoppers, right?

You might have a point if McDonald’s sold anything else but their own burgers.
Apple is selling their burgers next to other burgers in their store. It just happens that Apple is the only one who can use Serrano ingredients

RE: competition

Let's be clear... Apple didn't choose to be one of only two mobile operating systems today.

Apple simply ended up there because most of the other older mobile platforms died out.

That's capitalism, right? Every market has winners and losers. Survival of the fittest and all that jazz.

But it's almost like Apple is being punished today because Symbian, Blackberry, Palm, WebOS, and Windows Mobile sucked so bad 10-15 years ago.

Maybe the EU should have tried to save those weaker companies all those years ago. Then there might be some competition today.

🤣

First of, EU don’t save companies, they let them fail, going bankrupt in EU is practically game over, compared to the USA where you can just reorganize or get a government bailout.

No way to do it ONLY in the EU. As with any privacy/encryption/sideloading scheme, once it’s out there in any way, it’s effectively available to anyone in the world that wants to obtain and use the method. As that would materially affect how the App Store works worldwide, I doubt that’s something Apple will do.

It’s easy, one iOS model for EU iPhones and another for other models.

Same way Apple Watches with EKG was only active on specific manufacturing models.

I can see how the model in the EU changes, though. Developers are no longer allowed to deploy their Apps to an open App Store, they must submit them to Apple and Apple could license them for submission on the store.

That’s super illegal to do that in EU

In the EU, it would just be a first party store. While there are interesting ways to remain in the EU market while being in compliance (and, really, compliance is left to the companies to do for themselves, not difficult to make that work), they’re all a good amount of work which will cut into revenue continually (as, with every change, they’d have to have a separate set of tests to execute to validate those other set of requirements).

A developer selling an app on the AppStore or somewhere else at the same time is non of apples business.

Well, in this instance, there has been no decisions by any court that determined iOS or Android are guilty of anything. This commission just went ahead and came up with a set of rules to destroy iOS.

They have been deemed guilty of a dominant position.

I wonder if the following can allow Apple to circumvent this insanity:

• Do not "sell" iPhones in the EU.

That works

• Only offer them for "lease".

Wouldn’t work the second they purchase it. Leasing isn’t renting

• Since the customers don't "own" the product, Apple can only dictate what the customers can do to their "leased" devices.

Apple can only dictate over rented things.

True but it would hurt the EU MORE than Apple!

It’s would have zero impact as EU don’t have tax revenue.

People will prefer Apple Pay, sure, but if you don't think companies will take advantage of new opportunities to block it, you're crazy. Why wouldn't companies take advantage of a new opportunity?

It’s illegal to do that. If a payment terminal supports NFT, then they must allow everyone to use it.

How? How can they require something if side-loading and full hardware access are required? By asking nicely? You use the word "require" when there's no basis for it. Apple will have no ability to require anything.

Easy, if it requires admin privileges it will be blocked as iOS doesn’t allow administrator privileges. If it needs user permission and they press no it will be blocked

It's not about restricting iMessage to Apple devices. It's about forcing me to accept Facebook or Snapchat messages when, right now, I can prevent that by not installing those apps. That choice will be removed from me, the consumer.

That’s a weird choice. Nothing stops Apple from adding a button that blocks unknown contacts from other services.

Developers are locked out of using Android phones to create pay alternatives by Apple? If that was the case that would TRULY be anti-competitive… if Apple was, in some way, in direct control of what developers could do on Android phones. Of course, if that were the case, maybe Apple would have a greater percentage of the market in the EU. As it is, they’re far less than 50% of the phones.

And, as a result, must be stopped?

Market share have zero relevance as we have talked about before. Apple having 50% or 5% market share is treated exactly the same. Only market impact is relevant.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

But that did not mean the cars that already had the lead paint on it had to be stripped and repainted either.
The cars sold after the lawn didn't have lead paint on it.

So by said logic, the iPhones/iOS sold before the law, remain. And Apple can get back to the EU's rules with a "new" iPhone/iOS when it's ready.

You know how you need to accept new terms and services to update iOS? Or how you need to accept facebooks new TOS to use their service or be forced to stop using it?

That would be the same thing here. Any OS update will need to follow the new law.

Essentially Apple needs to accept EUs new TOS to be allowed to continue to use their services.

 

[pastrychef]

If zoom was forced to open up they might be forced to provide a good service? It’s almost like being locked in is every messaging providers main selling point instead of being better🤔
iMessages biggest selling point is, other iMessage users.
Facebook messages biggest selling point is other message users….
WhatsApp’s biggest selling point is other WhatsApp users… how weird, it’s almost like features aren’t the selling point but just how many locked in users you have and how many friends you have in it.

That's your opinion.

I love Messages and find no problems with it. I can also send and receive message from Android users via Messages.

 

[Analog Kid]

Look up the definition I posted above.

"very important, powerful, or successful"

When your argument hinges on the alternate definition in one dictionary, you may not be on the most solid ground but, if we just substitute "very important, powerful or successful" for you use of dominant above, it makes your whole position much more subjective (very is grey, most is clearly delineated) and calls into question why Apple should have their technology ripped open in this way.

The problem is the you have zero data showing the breakdown of iPhone users who chose iPhone specifically because it has a single source for apps, iPhone users who chose an iPhone for their primary concerns but still wish they could install from third-party sources, and iPhone users who don't give a crap one way or the other.

How much data do you have about the number of people who are suffering under the current regime?

Again, and I keep making this point, there is an asymmetry in the remedy being applied. If you want a choice of app stores, you have a platform you can choose. With this new law, you no longer have a platform to choose if you want a walled garden. A choice of business model has been destroyed in the name of adding a feature that the people on that platform haven't prioritized.

If that many people actually care about getting their apps from a single place then that will be reflected in the market by hoards of iPhone users refusing to move off of the iOS App Store for their apps and companies responding to that by continuing to offer their app on the App Store.

You're acting like the world will be the same, and these types of regulations will have no impact on the ecosystem. Like saying "if you don't want to use hydropower, you can still use coal" and ignoring that building the dam floods the valley.

The power of the ecosystem has been the equivalent of collective bargaining. If a developer wants access to iOS users, they need to work within the system. Once the EU allows developers to divide and conquer the iOS userbase, that benefit will wither. All it takes is for Microsoft or Adobe to launch their own store. For many people, those apps are necessary and will force an exception, and once that happens the walled garden is no more.

From that point forward we-- both consumers and developers-- will all need to manage multiple stores, multiple update services, try to remember what rules each store enforces, multiple payment systems... I try to buy everything through the Mac AppStore but simply can't because not everything is available there.

Rewrite the law requiring all developers for iOS to make their apps available through the Apple AppStore in addition to whatever other platforms they choose and your statement becomes more valid, but it will probably still be impossible to close your eyes and pretend nothing changed.

Not monopoly. Duopoly. Which markets would not consider controlling over 30% of a market enormously successful, i.e. a dominant player? I would imagine the EU sees a company as being able to unilaterally control what 30% of consumers are able to do as a significant issue. Not to mention Apple's actions outside of the EU have the ability to impact businesses based in the EU. If the EU's new law results in Apple making these changes globally and the curbing of Apple's anti-competitive actions in the U.S. where Apple has over half the market then that is potentially to the benefit of EU companies and developers as well.

I don't consider 30% dominant. We've been over that. I'd consider it "significant but not controlling".

Specifically that means Apple is not able to unilaterally control what 30% of consumers are able to do, because that implies those consumers aren't Apple customers by choice and therefore can't become non-Apple customers by choice which is clearly incorrect.

 

[djphat2000]

The problem is the you have zero data showing the breakdown of iPhone users who chose iPhone specifically because it has a single source for apps, iPhone users who chose an iPhone for their primary concerns but still wish they could install from third-party sources, and iPhone users who don't give a crap one way or the other. If that many people actually care about getting their apps from a single place then that will be reflected in the market by hoards of iPhone users refusing to move off of the iOS App Store for their apps and companies responding to that by continuing to offer their app on the App Store.

Why do we have to make that "happen" so we can find out?
If you already have the option of an iPhone or Android. Knowing one can have a 3rd party store, and side-loading is possible. Yet pick the iPhone anyway. Why do we need to prove it by forcing those options on the iPhone? Why should Apple have to follow this law because "some" folks that continue to purchase a product that does not have those features. Knowing full well there is another product that does? Why are we applying these rules for the MINORITY of iPhone/iOS users? For those users it's pretty clear. Apple does not make a perfect phone for YOU. Maybe, just maybe. They should look for a phone that is a closer fit for their hard earned money.

And if enough of them do that, Apple may cease to exist. Someday.

Not monopoly. Duopoly. Which markets would not consider controlling over 30% of a market enormously successful, i.e. a dominant player?

Microsoft, Amazon, GOOGLE! I don't think any of them would consider 30% "dominant".

I would imagine the EU sees a company as being able to unilaterally control what 30% of consumers are able to do as a significant issue.

Weak argument. As Apple will never be the dominant player in the EU and or Asia. Android is already too big and on WAY more devices. And Apple is not trying to be open and or sell to the lowest common denominator.
If Apple sold a $100 (US) phone or gave away a phone. And or sold buildable phones, super camera phones, gaming phones, foldable phones, chunky battery thick phones, etc. Maybe they would have the marketshare needed to dominate. But, they sell what 4 different models of phones?

 

[vipergts2207]

When your argument hinges on the alternate definition in one dictionary, you may not be on the most solid ground but, if we just substitute "very important, powerful or successful" for you use of dominant above, it makes your whole position much more subjective (very is grey, most is clearly delineated) and calls into question why Apple should have their technology ripped open in this way.

One definition is no more "alternate" than the other unless we're talking about archaic definitions, which we're certainly not here.

How much data do you have about the number of people who are suffering under the current regime?

I don't have any, but I'm not the one going around pretending like I know for a fact everybody agrees with me.

Again, and I keep making this point, there is an asymmetry in the remedy being applied. If you want a choice of app stores, you have a platform you can choose. With this new law, you no longer have a platform to choose if you want a walled garden. A choice of business model has been destroyed in the name of adding a feature that the people on that platform haven't prioritized.

I don't know what else to say to get you to realize that this is far bigger than consumers simply getting third-party app installations on iOS. You're blind to the anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices the big tech companies are using, but others and the EU are not.

You're acting like the world will be the same, and these types of regulations will have no impact on the ecosystem. Like saying "if you don't want to use hydropower, you can still use coal" and ignoring that building the dam floods the valley.

The power of the ecosystem has been the equivalent of collective bargaining. If a developer wants access to iOS users, they need to work within the system. Once the EU allows developers to divide and conquer the iOS userbase, that benefit will wither. All it takes is for Microsoft or Adobe to launch their own store. For many people, those apps are necessary and will force an exception, and once that happens the walled garden is no more.

From that point forward we-- both consumers and developers-- will all need to manage multiple stores, multiple update services, try to remember what rules each store enforces, multiple payment systems... I try to buy everything through the Mac AppStore but simply can't because not everything is available there.

Rewrite the law requiring all developers for iOS to make their apps available through the Apple AppStore in addition to whatever other platforms they choose and your statement becomes more valid, but it will probably still be impossible to close your eyes and pretend nothing changed.

If things change then that's because consumers disagree with your position that you purport that everybody shares. If consumers flock to stores outside of Apple's then clearly most other consumers don't actually hold the same convictions that you do. If that indeed turns out to be the case, then thankfully the EU will have stepped in to allow consumers that choice.

I don't consider 30% dominant. We've been over that. I'd consider it "significant but not controlling".

You still haven't said which market a 30% market share wouldn't be a huge success in to backup the idea the Apple is not dominant. And while you might not consider it a dominant position, the EU certainly does, which is what actually matters.

Specifically that means Apple is not able to unilaterally control what 30% of consumers are able to do, because that implies those consumers aren't Apple customers by choice and therefore can't become non-Apple customers by choice which is clearly incorrect.

Choosing to become an Apple customer and Apple having the ability to control what you can do with your iPhone are not mutually exclusive. If Apple made it so that iPhone users couldn't navigate to the Samsung website, they could do that whether consumers wanted Apple to do that to their iPhones or not.

 

[vipergts2207]

Why do we have to make that "happen" so we can find out?
If you already have the option of an iPhone or Android. Knowing one can have a 3rd party store, and side-loading is possible. Yet pick the iPhone anyway. Why do we need to prove it by forcing those options on the iPhone? Why should Apple have to follow this law because "some" folks that continue to purchase a product that does not have those features. Knowing full well there is another product that does? Why are we applying these rules for the MINORITY of iPhone/iOS users? For those users it's pretty clear. Apple does not make a perfect phone for YOU. Maybe, just maybe. They should look for a phone that is a closer fit for their hard earned money.

And if enough of them do that, Apple may cease to exist. Someday.

Because the EU sees anti-competitive and anti-consumer actions in what big tech is doing. And maybe you should stay on the iOS App Store for all of your apps if you don't want to install apps from elsewhere.

Microsoft, Amazon, GOOGLE! I don't think any of them would consider 30% "dominant".

Those are companies not markets, so you'll have to expand on this thought a bit if you want to make a coherent point.

Weak argument. As Apple will never be the dominant player in the EU and or Asia. Android is already too big and on WAY more devices. And Apple is not trying to be open and or sell to the lowest common denominator.
If Apple sold a $100 (US) phone or gave away a phone. And or sold buildable phones, super camera phones, gaming phones, foldable phones, chunky battery thick phones, etc. Maybe they would have the marketshare needed to dominate. But, they sell what 4 different models of phones?

A dominant player, not the dominant player. There are no requirements to be the biggest and baddest in order to be the former.

 

[Analog Kid]

I don't have any, but I'm not the one going around pretending like I know for a fact everybody agrees with me.

It's funny that you say that. I've been pretty careful to explain that different people have different priorities and have accepted your view that some iPhone users may like other app stores and side loading as a secondary or tertiary priority.

I guess if reading my comments has you feeling like everybody agrees with me I must be making a pretty dominant argument.

I don't know what else to say to get you to realize that this is far bigger than consumers simply getting third-party app installations on iOS. You're blind to the anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices the big tech companies are using, but others and the EU are not.

Ok, then drop the alternate AppStores and side loading from the law.

You can say anti-consumer and anti-competitive, but there's no actual data to back that up. You raised music and banking as places Apple is trying to leverage their "dominant position" but, again, Apple is a 30% player in smartphones who has a 15% percent share in music streaming and I'd be shocked if it's single digit percentages in banking.

As a consumer, I personally feel this law is gutting the pro-consumer policies of Apple and leaving me, a non-EU citizen, with a less consumer friendly product.

If things change then that's because consumers disagree with your position that you purport that everybody shares. If consumers flock to stores outside of Apple's then clearly most other consumers don't actually hold the same convictions that you do. If that indeed turns out to be the case, then thankfully the EU will have stepped in to allow consumers that choice.

You're just repeating your mantra for comfort at this point. This in no way addresses the block of my text you put it below.

You still haven't said which market a 30% market share wouldn't be a huge success in to backup the idea the Apple is not dominant. And while you might not consider it a dominant position, the EU certainly does, which is what actually matters.

You still seem to have it in your head that Apple needs to lose control of their technology solely because they're successful. Success is not domination. Apple is a successful smartphone maker. Where you and I disagree is that I don't believe success is a reason to have your wings clipped.

Is the EU concerned about Apple versus Google, or is the EU concerned that the EU has no smartphone industry to speak of and are taking protectionist measures. This essentially turns their technologies into public utilities-- as someone else called it: tech socialism.

I think it's this kind of regulation that got the EU into the position they're in-- I used to be a strong advocate for the types of environmental and consumer protection laws they created. Now though, they've gotten less right and more righteous-- just making massive changes to the business landscape on timelines too short for business to adapt to. If you aren't in the EU, can at least get started selling outside the EU, but they've handicapped their own industry and now need to level the playing field by seizing others'

Choosing to become an Apple customer and Apple having the ability to control what you can do with your iPhone are not mutually exclusive. If Apple made it so that iPhone users couldn't navigate to the Samsung website, they could do that whether consumers wanted Apple to do that to their iPhones or not.

They are mutually exclusive-- if I can choose to become an Apple customer and Apple starts to implement policies I don't like (such as blocking access to samsung.com for whatever reason), I can choose to no longer be an Apple customer.

Do you really feel so helpless in your own life that you believe differently?

 

[vipergts2207]

It's funny that you say that. I've been pretty careful to explain that different people have different priorities and have accepted your view that some iPhone users may like other app stores and side loading as a secondary or tertiary priority.

I guess if reading my comments has you feeling like everybody agrees with me I must be making a pretty dominant argument.

Ok, then drop the alternate AppStores and side loading from the law.

You can say anti-consumer and anti-competitive, but there's no actual data to back that up. You raised music and banking as places Apple is trying to leverage their "dominant position" but, again, Apple is a 30% player in smartphones who has a 15% percent share in music streaming and I'd be shocked if it's single digit percentages in banking.

As a consumer, I personally feel this law is gutting the pro-consumer policies of Apple and leaving me, a non-EU citizen, with a less consumer friendly product.



You're just repeating your mantra for comfort at this point. This in no way addresses the block of my text you put it below.



You still seem to have it in your head that Apple needs to lose control of their technology solely because they're successful. Success is not domination. Apple is a successful smartphone maker. Where you and I disagree is that I don't believe success is a reason to have your wings clipped.

Is the EU concerned about Apple versus Google, or is the EU concerned that the EU has no smartphone industry to speak of and are taking protectionist measures. This essentially turns their technologies into public utilities-- as someone else called it: tech socialism.

I think it's this kind of regulation that got the EU into the position they're in-- I used to be a strong advocate for the types of environmental and consumer protection laws they created. Now though, they've gotten less right and more righteous-- just making massive changes to the business landscape on timelines too short for business to adapt to. If you aren't in the EU, can at least get started selling outside the EU, but they've handicapped their own industry and now need to level the playing field by seizing others'



They are mutually exclusive-- if I can choose to become an Apple customer and Apple starts to implement policies I don't like (such as blocking access to samsung.com for whatever reason), I can choose to no longer be an Apple customer.

Do you really feel so helpless in your own life that you believe differently?

You know, for all the words exchanged in various threads, the crux of the disagreement is that the EU as well as myself and others see what Apple is doing as anti-competitive. The countless questions as to why does the EU have to do this or that to Apple can be answered by the reason of stopping Apple’s anti-competitive actions.

Go bullet point by bullet point on the news article and ask what Apple is doing that the EU seeks to stop and you’ll get specific answers to what exactly their anti-competitive actions are. I’ll give you an example.

• 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."

While Apple allows their Wallet app to access NFC for payments they won’t allow other card issuers or wallets that same access for use within their own apps. Apple is using their position in the smartphone market to limit what their competitors in the unrelated banking sector can do on the devices their banking customers or would-be customers are using. If you don’t see that as anti-competitive that’s your prerogative, but it’s also the EU’s prerogative to do something about it when they hold the opposing stance.

Some of us have spent many months in various threads pointing out all the anti-competitive things that were going on only to be told by folks who believe Apple can do no wrong that these things were all kosher. Now that regulators are taking concrete actions rectifying the things folks on here pointed out, Apple’s relentless defenders who were closing their eyes, plugging their ears and going “lalalalala I can’t hear you” are now going all surprisedpikachu.jpg when the reality was right in front of them entire time.

If Apple can exist as one half of a duopoly, control a third of the EU market and over half of the U.S. market, and commit the kind of actions they have without you calling at least some of it anti-competitive, then we simply have a fundamental disagreement over what it means to be anti-competitive and no amount of exchanged words will resolve that difference.

 

[Analog Kid]

You know, for all the words exchanged in various threads, the crux of the disagreement is that the EU as well as myself and others see what Apple is doing as anti-competitive. The countless questions as to why does the EU have to do this or that to Apple can be answered by the reason of stopping Apple’s anti-competitive actions.

Go bullet point by bullet point on the news article and ask what Apple is doing that the EU seeks to stop and you’ll get specific answers to what exactly their anti-competitive actions are. I’ll give you an example.

• 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."

While Apple allows their Wallet app to access NFC for payments they won’t allow other card issuers or wallets that same access for use within their own apps. Apple is using their position in the smartphone market to limit what their competitors in the unrelated banking sector can do on the devices their banking customers or would-be customers are using. If you don’t see that as anti-competitive that’s your prerogative, but it’s also the EU’s prerogative to do something about it when they have an opposing stance.

The vast majority of the words in these threads are about AppStores and sideloading. Frankly, that’s my primary concern. As I’ve said, take that out of the law and then the rest of the law will appear more relevant to talk about.

Most people just aren’t impacted by access to the NFC in the same way. I’m largely ambivalent about such things, myself. Just as earlier, if the law permitted Apple to require to use their native applications in addition to whatever other 3rd party applications companies want to, I’d be less opposed.

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the banking sector in this case. I can’t think of any industry more anti-competitive and parasitic than the credit card companies. I have plenty of cards with NFC in my physical wallet that don’t allow other uses of the chips, meanwhile I have multiple cards in my Apple wallet that all use the same NFC interface. I don’t see why Apple can’t also maintain control of the hardware they produce.

Particularly the Secure Enclave. That’s a limited resource, and opening it up for arbitrary use seems counterproductive.

Does Android allow app access to the NFC?

 

[vipergts2207]

The vast majority of the words in these threads are about AppStores and sideloading. Frankly, that’s my primary concern. As I’ve said, take that out of the law and then the rest of the law will appear more relevant to talk about.

Most people just aren’t impacted by access to the NFC in the same way. I’m largely ambivalent about such things, myself. Just as earlier, if the law permitted Apple to require to use their native applications in addition to whatever other 3rd party applications companies want to, I’d be less opposed.

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the banking sector in this case. I can’t think of any industry more anti-competitive and parasitic than the credit card companies. I have plenty of cards with NFC in my physical wallet that don’t allow other uses of the chips, meanwhile I have multiple cards in my Apple wallet that all use the same NFC interface. I don’t see why Apple can’t also maintain control of the hardware they produce.

Particularly the Secure Enclave. That’s a limited resource, and opening it up for arbitrary use seems counterproductive.

Does Android allow app access to the NFC?

What other use would the chip in a credit card conceivably have outside of acting as the method to make a payment for the issuer? Smartphones are used as multi-purpose devices. Credit cards are used as one thing and one thing only, as a method of payment.

I don’t know if Android does or not. If not, then this EU law will hit them there as well.

 

[GTDaveMac]

You are aware of the GDPR which protects you from these things that you mention?

Hahahaha. No.

 

[GTDaveMac]

I assume it will be like e-mail. Companies will have to make their protocols available to everyone, such the yes, you can DM someone from Instagram to Apple Messages.

This is probably the biggest benefit I see here to the actual users. Everything else mainly benefits other companies.

So remove all security and encryption. Yeah, great idea.

 

[SpotOnT]

So remove all security and encryption. Yeah, great idea.

Don't look at me, I am not the one creating these regulations.

But why do you think the tech companies won't be able to create an encryption standard? If the whole engineering community can agree on standards to build the world we live in, surely software developers can manage to create some standard for interoperable communication.

Although, I guess if the EU is going to require that every Tom, Dick and Jane have access to the secure enclave, encrypted messaging might be the least of our concerns.

 

[Nermal]

Although, I guess if the EU is going to require that every Tom, Dick and Jane have access to the secure enclave, encrypted messaging might be the least of our concerns.

"Access to" does not necessitate free rein. Any app that can store data in the SE will presumably only be able to read back its own data. It is, after all, supposed to be secure.

Of course, whether this is even practical with existing hardware still remains to be seen. I have no idea how much storage space the SE has and whether it's already mostly taken up by Apple's stuff.

Edit: It seems there are already APIs for storing keys in the SE.