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

[webkit]

You’re premise is a straw man. “Whatever they want” includes, exploding batteries, toxic materials, over the limit SAR? Or does whatever they want include a locked ecosystem, proprietary messaging and cloud storage? The answer is yes to the latter, provided they got to where they are legally.

I was referring to business activities that would/could typically be regulated by antitrust laws and regulations; not safety, environmental, etc. issues.

If a company should be able to do whatever they want (again, not counting safety, environmental, etc. issues), what role do you think antitrust laws and regulations should have regarding existing monopolies, duopolies, oligopolies or just companies in general?

 

[turbineseaplane]

I was referring to business activities that would/could typically be regulated by antitrust laws and regulations; not safety, environmental, etc. issues.

If a company should be able to do whatever they want (again, not counting safety, environmental, etc. issues), what role do you think antitrust laws and regulations should have regarding existing monopolies, duopolies, oligopolies or just companies in general?

Most people I see in here arguing against basically anything related to anti-trust simply haven't thought through the implications of that.

In reality, we are already mired in the impacts of toothless antitrust enforcement here in the USA and innovation and competition in tech has completely stagnated.

It's one of those seeing the forest through the trees issues

A lot of what I see here boils down to "I love Apple - yay Apple - don't hurt my beloved Apple" .. and most of the critical thinking about broader implications stops right about there..

 

[djphat2000]

Existing laws sometimes aren't specific or clear enough especially as new or charging markets, technologies, etc. come into play. I see the EU legislation as following the intention of existing antitrust regulations; it is just being a bit more specific as to how things are to be assessed. It would be kind of like if an existing law said that you can't speed and then sometime later, a law is introduced that states you can’t drive over 60 mph on these particularly types of roads. While the 60 mph law is essentially "new", it is still the essence of the original speeding law.

But I think in this instance, the laws were specific enough. Remember, you have to (or rather you should) do something wrong first. "Its a nice business you have here. Shame we you will have to move it cross town and more or less change everything about it. But, it's still nice. Don't mine your new neighbors. They will just be poking around for a bit, for any loose ends and bits and such. Help them if you can it will go a lot smoother for you, and them. Yeah, by the way can you let me the keys to the safe mate? I've got to a have a look round to make sure everyone elses stuff can fit. You wouldn't mind if they rearranged it a bit right? No issues moving this register? Of course not, you're a swell lad."

I don't think anyone whom owns a successful business would want the outcome handed to them like this.
It's not like we just found out there is high concentrations of lead in the phone, and the radio antenna causes cancer.

How is it to be determined if companies have "stamped out" competition or are "abusing their power"?

Sometimes when the bigger companies buys out the smaller one.
If Apple tried to buy Spotify (Like Elon Musk trying to buy Twitter). Like when Nvidia wanted to buy ARM. Or if there is blatant copying of another companies product. You can argue Tile vs AirTags. There are instances when one company purchasing another is fine. Say AT&T when they bought DirectTV or Tuner. Trying to expand there company in different areas that they can't currently do on their own. Doesn't always work, but sometimes it does.

Apple buying Beats could have been looked at, but they wanted each other.
Basically we have mechanisms for identifying this. It would be nice if they moved a bit quicker in some instances, but there is a system in place. When Apple filed suit against Samsung for copying the look and feel of the iPhone (and won). That's usually how it makes headlines. But it wasn't like a government entity was looking at phone A and then phone B saying "hummm, they look a lot a like. I think I should say something about this".

How do we know that Google or Apple's dominance hasn't negatively impacted certain markets or competitors?

We do know. Because the 2 didn't exist in a vacuum. It did negatively affect other companies. They didn't adapt or change fast enough to compete. This unfortunately is normal. We don't always get the outcome we want. If we did, I don't think Microsoft would be in existence today, IMHO.

Should regulations just apply to dominant companies or should it be all companies?

Regulations should function as the rules of the road, for everyone. It's not like we don't know what a bad evil company looks like. Big or small. Just that when they are big, they can move markets in bad ways. Which if they "do". They should be punished.

If only dominant companies, how should that be determined?

I believe it should apply to all. Again rules of the road, so there is certainty. Most business have a 10 year plan. If you have rules changing very often many business can't adjust. It takes time to move the ship. It's hard enough to envision your product making it to market at a time that is most optimal for it to succeed. Price points, features, places its sold in, local laws you have to follow. All the marketing and distribution, and on and on. For some government to say "Hey, just before you release that, we are creating a new law that says you can't do that. I know we already reviewed it, but we just thought about it and came up with new rules to make it not possible, sorry".

How should anticompetitive behavior that stifles or stamps out competition be determined?

I believe it's the Federal Trade Commission in the states. I"m sure the EU has something similar. And most likely many local countries (unless you had all that over to the EU?).

It seems to me this is where laws and regulations come in. They can be used as a guide for to help companies determine if they may have a "case" regarding anticompetitive behavior. They can also be a guide for companies to determine if their own business activities may be considered anticompetitive in a particular country/region.

Yes, which is why I'm complaining about the given situation we find ourselves in. It's not like Apple just showed up and didn't have to go through all that red tape before being able to sell a product in the EU, or anywhere in the world in which they currently sell. All of this was already hashed out. And if there was a problem, it should be caught.

 

[I7guy]

I was referring to business activities that would/could typically be regulated by antitrust laws and regulations; not safety, environmental, etc. issues.

If a company should be able to do whatever they want (again, not counting safety, environmental, etc. issues), what role do you think antitrust laws and regulations should have regarding existing monopolies, duopolies, oligopolies or just companies in general?

And this is exactly why this conversation goes around in circles. Is anti trust a proprietary messaging system? A locked ecosystem? Etc.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I say that because there isn't anything stopping Samsung from making an OS from scratch if they wanted to. Other than their own desire to do so. Or allowing their device to be more "open" than Apple. Or any other handset maker from having any variation on it they see fit to make.

While that is true theoretically, it isn't true in practice.
No new smartphone operating system will successfully emerge in developed markets and gain meaningful market share anymore - unless it it supports iOS or Android apps. At which points it has basically become iOS and Android.

Apple or Google and I'm just making what I always made. Made improvements, didn't stamp out any other competitors from doing what they do.

Arguably they did. They stamped out any chances of competition by way of patent litigation early on in the smartphone wars - up until a point that "mutual destruction" through such litigation assured (so to speak), and they found an arrangement that amounts to the duopoly we're still having today.

Apple and Google are like $5-6 Trillion dollar companies between them. I'm sure someone will come along and want a piece of that pie. That's what capitalism is about. You get to try and if your successful

You don't.
Just as no one has succeeded to topple Microsoft from their Windows/Office dominance over the last 35 years.
It's a chicken and egg problem: Microsoft's position is hardly assailable by virtue to the ecosystem of first- and (more importantly) third-party apps.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Sometimes when the bigger companies buys out the smaller one.

What's wrong with bigger companies buying smaller ones? How is that abuse of power? That is perfectly legal - happens all the time. If it didn't, Apple likely wouldn't even have the multitouch iPhone and iPads they've been selling as we know them.

so there is certainty. Most business have a 10 year plan. If you have rules changing very often many business can't adjust. It takes time to move the ship. It's hard enough to envision your product making it to market at a time that is most optimal for it to succeed. Price points, features, places its sold in, local laws you have to follow. All the marketing and distribution, and on and on. For some government to say "Hey, just before you release that, we are creating a new law that says you can't do that. I know we already reviewed it, but we just thought about it and came up with new rules to make it not possible, sorry".

You know what...

👉 That is exactly the situation the 10'000 or more business users are potentially facing with Apple's app store rules and their monopoly on consumer app distribution:

I've more than once compared Apple and its operating of iOS and the App Store to acting like a quasi-government ruling over their territory: They'll make the rules, and they police them. Just... even more unilaterally, more dictatorial than most real governments.

"Yeah, your app may have been in the store for months or years... but we just changed our minds and Apple Developer Program License Agreement and updated our App Store Review Guidelines. So yeah, your app will be out from now on, cause we don't like your content or functionality anymore. Goodbye and good luck!"

(PS: Why don't you switch to some other OS/store to sell your apps - or just create your own!?)

👉 When a democratically elected government (which is debatable whether the EU is one, but that's another matter) is reining a handful of the biggest, most powerful and valuable mega-corporations in the digital space by carefully regulating certain behaviour/aspects of their business and preventing them from acting unilaterally and monopolising their products, their unilateral rewriting of the rules is supposed to government overreach and not ok.

👉 But when a trillion dollar for-profit company like Apple (can) do it, wield the same unilateral power against thousands smaller business users reaching millions of customers through that platform, that's just fine?! They should be able to do as they please unlimitedly as reward for their business success, because they, you know, created the platform. And if we carefully curtail that power, it would disincentivise innovation?

 

[Beautyspin]

Mine and I'm sure many others.

The statement is purely anecdotal. There is no survey that shows that majority of the users want this or any other feature.

Which is why they can pick another brand/platform.

We do not have to. Governments are going to make Apple do it anyway and Apple's stranglehold on the control it has over many things on iPhone will be coming to an end.

Does anyone have any numbers to share on what any bank pays Apple to be on/in the wallet? I'm sure its minuscule but, just to be sure. I actually work for a bank and we will be "finally" adding our card to ApplePay. After not doing so for a few dumb reasons. Cost wasn't mentioned to me as one of them however. The main one was to use their own product or rather the one our major vendor/partner used. Which I don't believe will go away, just that ApplePay will be added to the options.

This might still happen even after NFC is allowed on the iPhone. It is just that Apple will be one of the many providers so the banks will be able to dictate the terms rather than the other way. Poor Apple.

Yes they will. But not on Apple's platform. Unless they choose to allow it.

Unfortunately, that is no longer for Apple to demand. Once they start getting fined 10% of their worldwide revenue, they will rush to make all the changes.

Because they choose to do so.
I hate to say this as it sounds cruel but, they don't have to do what you want. They build it the way "they" want it to be. Because they made the thing.

Are you suggesting Apple made NFC? Also, Apple is selling the phone to public and hence they are subject some laws. If Apple made products only for their use, then it is fine. Apple can set the rules. However, once they start selling stuff to the public, they can no longer set the agenda. They have to abide by the laws that the government sets. Otherwise, crippling fines beckon Apple.

Apple is taking the risk of you liking what they made enough to purchase. They are also taking the risk that the "Apple" approach of simplifying a technology (Such as NFC) to any of these CC/bank companies. Will prove to be the safer, more secure and EASIER way for both the banks and the consumer to use. Its' also not like we suddenly removed physical credit/debit/bank cards with their own built in NFC/TapToPay and secure chips. If you don't like the Apple way or want to subscribe to using it. You still have an option that works 99% of the time. Your banking app is still most likely free to download and costs the banks nothing on the AppStore. Or you can pick Android.

I think it is time for you to realize that it is no longer Apple's choice to allow or not allow access to NFC for other apps.
Apple did not invent anything related to NFC. It does have several patents related to Apple Pay, though. So, banks may decide to go for their own solutions rather than use Apple Pay. Governments will keep hitting Apple until it submits to the government regulations. I no longer have to be subjected to Apple's way or highway. I no longer have to use Android for stuff that I can do with iOS. iOS will be forced to change. Apple should see the headwinds and get ahead of them and change voluntarily or they will be forced to make the changes kicking and screaming.

 

[Beautyspin]

That applies to any phone you use to pay with. The per-transaction fees are also present on Samsung Pay.

Yes, but it is not there if the banks use their own App.

Your bank gives you a Visa debit card, and when you go to a store and pay for something, the transaction fee is included in the total price you pay. If you bought something for $100.00 on your card the day before Apple Pay came onto the market, it didn't suddenly cost $100.01 the next day, and if it did then the people not using Apple Pay were being charged the same fee and the store was pocketing that bit of the fee they didn't then have to pass onto someone else.

If the fee were inconsequential, all the banks would have jumped onto Apple Pay. The fact that there are still banks hesitating to join Apple Pay shows that, for the banks, the fee is substantial. This is especially true as the margins are very thin. If banks could save this fee and still be able reach all the customers, then they could spend the money on bettering the app.

What data has been leaked from Apple Pay? Where is the evidence of Apple being a "leaking sieve"? AFAICS, Apple Pay is pretty secure.

Apple and Meta Gave User Data to Hackers Who Used Forged Legal Requests

Apple Inc. and Meta Platforms Inc., the parent company of Facebook, provided customer data to hackers who masqueraded as law enforcement officials, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.

www.bloomberg.com

Well, if NFC is open on Android, what are the innovations that have come out in Android-land?

It is easy to imagine what the consequences of opening the NFC to all would be. In countries which Apple has not deemed to be good enough for Apple Pay, there is no other option for the people there. Imagine what would happen if NFC were available to the local vendors. Assume you are in one such country. You have bought an iPhone for the full price, which includes the price of the NFC technology. However, you are not able to use NFC because Apple did not consider your country good enough for Apple pay to be launched. What are your options? If NFC were open to all, then some local vendor could come up with solutions that would be locally suitable.
Answering your specific question about what Android has come up with, just search for country specific NFC solutions and they will all be Android (some search string like "nfc payments in "country name""), except for a few rich countries where Apple pay exists.

Payment terminals are open to all, not Mastercard and Visa. I can't pay via the Visa network with my Mastercard, but I can pay via the Visa network on a terminal that accepts Visa, and I can pay with my Mastercard on a terminal that accepts Mastercard.

They will not work on Apple Pay either because just being on Apple Pay will not change their network.

 

[Beautyspin]

But I think in this instance, the laws were specific enough. Remember, you have to (or rather you should) do something wrong first. "Its a nice business you have here. Shame we you will have to move it cross town and more or less change everything about it. But, it's still nice. Don't mine your new neighbors. They will just be poking around for a bit, for any loose ends and bits and such. Help them if you can it will go a lot smoother for you, and them. Yeah, by the way can you let me the keys to the safe mate? I've got to a have a look round to make sure everyone elses stuff can fit. You wouldn't mind if they rearranged it a bit right? No issues moving this register? Of course not, you're a swell lad."

The earlier laws were ex-post. The EU’s first antitrust case against Google, for example, kicked off in 2010, was decided in 2017, and confirmed by the courts in 2021. With the DMA, European policymakers are shifting to an ex-ante approach that builds on the previous cases brought by the European Commission. Instead of drawn-out legal battles, European policymakers are attempting to write self-executing rules for gatekeepers. European antitrust enforcers have attempted to maintain competition in the digital economy by bringing a long list of antitrust cases against major tech companies. These laborious, time-consuming cases have secured some important legal victories, but on the whole, they have failed to counteract with the necessary speed and force the strong tendencies toward concentration in digital markets.

You will get more clarity from the following. You will see that a lot of thought has gone into the making of the law. They are trying to correct the situation that has very uncertain outcomes due to the large network effects that any solution will have.

The EU's experimental approach in overhauling competition rules | Brookings

Getting it right will require EU policymakers to adopt rigorous enforcement and oversight regimes.

www.brookings.edu

French National Assembly’s report on ex ante regulation: objectives and difficulties of the DMA – Competition Forum

competition-forum.com

https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP/WD(2021)66/en/pdf

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The earlier laws were ex-post. The EU’s first antitrust case against Google, for example, kicked off in 2010, was decided in 2017, and confirmed by the courts in 2021. With the DMA, European policymakers are shifting to an ex-ante approach that builds on the previous cases brought by the European Commission. Instead of drawn-out legal battles, European policymakers are attempting to write self-executing rules for gatekeepers. European antitrust enforcers have attempted to maintain competition in the digital economy by bringing a long list of antitrust cases against major tech companies. These laborious, time-consuming cases have secured some important legal victories, but on the whole, they have failed to counteract with the necessary speed and force the strong tendencies toward concentration in digital markets.

You will get more clarity from the following. You will see that a lot of thought has gone into the making of the law. They are trying to correct the situation that has very uncertain outcomes due to the large network effects that any solution will have.

The EU's experimental approach in overhauling competition rules | Brookings

Getting it right will require EU policymakers to adopt rigorous enforcement and oversight regimes.

www.brookings.edu

French National Assembly’s report on ex ante regulation: objectives and difficulties of the DMA – Competition Forum

competition-forum.com

https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP/WD(2021)66/en/pdf

Entire markets can rise and crash and burn during the span of one case. 10 years is an astronomical time period when anti competitive practices are challenged. In essence Google had 10 years to reap the sow of their labour until the government came knockin. Any fine would pale in the scale of the profit they can make illegall, the harm they can do and the strength they get.

its like taking a bank robbery but allowing him to continue until the case is done. It’s the greatest incentive to break the law and get a slap on the wrist 10 years later.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It is just that Apple will be one of the many providers so the banks will be able to dictate the terms rather than the other way. Poor Apple.

I don‘t see why the banks would or should „dictate“ the terms.
I‘d rather call it negotiation - or markets at play.

Apple is free to offer a consumer-friendly turnkey solution at competitive prices (not take-it-or-leave-it pricing anymore).

 

[mrochester]

I don‘t see why the banks would or should „dictate“ the terms.
I‘d rather call it negotiation - or markets at play.

Apple is free to offer a consumer-friendly turnkey solution at competitive prices (not take-it-or-leave-it pricing anymore).

Apple already offer that service. The trouble will be if the banks take the anti-consumer move and stop supporting Apple Pay and switch to their own solution. Then consumers will either be forced to stop using Apple Pay or have to start switching banks to a one that does. It’s a lose lose situation for consumers.

 

[webkit]

Most people I see in here arguing against basically anything related to anti-trust simply haven't thought through the implications of that.

In reality, we are already mired in the impacts of toothless antitrust enforcement here in the USA and innovation and competition in tech has completely stagnated.

It's one of those seeing the forest through the trees issues

Yes, I think more need to appreciate how a company's dominance can stifle competition, innovation, etc.

 

[webkit]

But I think in this instance, the laws were specific enough. Remember, you have to (or rather you should) do something wrong first. "Its a nice business you have here. Shame we you will have to move it cross town and more or less change everything about it. But, it's still nice. Don't mine your new neighbors. They will just be poking around for a bit, for any loose ends and bits and such. Help them if you can it will go a lot smoother for you, and them. Yeah, by the way can you let me the keys to the safe mate? I've got to a have a look round to make sure everyone elses stuff can fit. You wouldn't mind if they rearranged it a bit right? No issues moving this register? Of course not, you're a swell lad."

One of the purposes of antitrust laws and regulations is to prevent dominate companies from using their market power to stifle competition and/or innovation in their dominant or related markets. The EU simply took that a step further and more specifically defined what makes a company "dominant" and what types of business activities are viewed as anticompetitive such as restricting browser or browser engine access, app store access, payment system access, etc. There have been cases in the past that shows how the EU does and has felt that some of what Google, Apple and others have done is "wrong" and the EU has finally decide to put something in writing that better articulates this.

Sometimes when the bigger companies buys out the smaller one.
If Apple tried to buy Spotify (Like Elon Musk trying to buy Twitter). Like when Nvidia wanted to buy ARM. Or if there is blatant copying of another companies product. You can argue Tile vs AirTags. There are instances when one company purchasing another is fine. Say AT&T when they bought DirectTV or Tuner. Trying to expand there company in different areas that they can't currently do on their own. Doesn't always work, but sometimes it does.

Apple buying Beats could have been looked at, but they wanted each other.
Basically we have mechanisms for identifying this. It would be nice if they moved a bit quicker in some instances, but there is a system in place. When Apple filed suit against Samsung for copying the look and feel of the iPhone (and won). That's usually how it makes headlines. But it wasn't like a government entity was looking at phone A and then phone B saying "hummm, they look a lot a like. I think I should say something about this".

Apple has acquired a number of companies over the years that have helped build and expand the company to what it is today.

Why should achieving dominance organically be any better or worse than doing it through mergers/acquisitions? The end result for both is essentially the same i.e., market dominance that potentially stifles competition. Regulations for a dominant company, however it may have ultimately been achieved, should be the same.

We do know. Because the 2 didn't exist in a vacuum. It did negatively affect other companies. They didn't adapt or change fast enough to compete. This unfortunately is normal. We don't always get the outcome we want. If we did, I don't think Microsoft would be in existence today, IMHO.

We don't know e.g., there may be several companies that have wanted to create new mobile OS software, browser engines, etc. but because of Apple's and/or Google's dominance in those markets and/or restrictions on being able to compete in those markets, have been unable to or chosen not to.

Regulations should function as the rules of the road, for everyone. It's not like we don't know what a bad evil company looks like. Big or small. Just that when they are big, they can move markets in bad ways. Which if they "do". They should be punished.

I believe it should apply to all. Again rules of the road, so there is certainty. Most business have a 10 year plan. If you have rules changing very often many business can't adjust. It takes time to move the ship. It's hard enough to envision your product making it to market at a time that is most optimal for it to succeed. Price points, features, places its sold in, local laws you have to follow. All the marketing and distribution, and on and on. For some government to say "Hey, just before you release that, we are creating a new law that says you can't do that. I know we already reviewed it, but we just thought about it and came up with new rules to make it not possible, sorry".

So, you don't think there should be stricter rules or requirements for companies that dominate a particular market even though potential actions of those dominant companies have a much greater chance of stifling competition?

 

[webkit]

And this is exactly why this conversation goes around in circles. Is anti trust a proprietary messaging system? A locked ecosystem? Etc.

It can be if a company's "dominance" in a particular market unfairly stifles competition in that market or related markets. Microsoft's dominance in desktop OS in the 1990s and restrictions on browser access, for example, on Windows was viewed as anticompetitive behavior. Similarly, the EU’s legislation today states that a company's dominance and restrictions on things like browser or browser engine access, app store access, payment system access, etc. is anticompetitive behavior.

 

[I7guy]

It can be if a company's "dominance" in a particular market unfairly stifles competition in that market or related markets. Microsoft's dominance in desktop OS in the 1990s and restrictions on browser access, for example, on Windows was viewed as anticompetitive behavior. Similarly, the EU’s legislation today states that a company's dominance and restrictions on things like browser or browser engine access, app store access, payment system access, etc. is anticompetitive behavior.

So essentially the answer to my question is no because there hasn’t been any (recent) finding in a court of law. Thank you. And while it will be what it will be, have you noticed nobody has convinced any other poster with a different point of view?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So essentially the answer to my question is no because there hasn’t been any (recent) finding in a court of law. Thank you. And while it will be what it will be, have you noticed nobody has convinced any other poster with a different point of view?

The DMA and DSA is built on legal precedents and existing laws. They are just codifying findings as fixed requirements instead of going through a 10 year legal battle and making the ability to make legal checklist you can do in less than two months.

 

[I7guy]

The DMA and DSA is built on legal precedents and existing laws. They are just codifying findings as fixed requirements instead of going through a 10 year legal battle and making the ability to make legal checklist you can do in less than two months.

The answer is still no. Legal precedents are like dominoes though. It’s amazing how fast they fall should one be found invalid.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The answer is still no. Legal precedents are like dominoes though. It’s amazing how fast they fall should one be found invalid.

Considering these can’t legally be found invalid as there is no higher court to rule on them. Unless you count new legislation.

And legal precedent isn’t a new law.

 

[webkit]

So essentially the answer to my question is no because there hasn’t been any (recent) finding in a court of law. Thank you.

There doesn’t necessarily have to be a past finding in a court of law (recent or otherwise) for illegal activity to be occurring now. Also, a finding or conclusion in one case doesn't necessarily mean a different finding or conclusion can't be reached in another very similar case. Even in the exact same case, rulings can be overturned on appeal.

This EU legislation seems to be in line with typical antitrust and anticompetitive regulations, it just happens to be more specific about how things like dominance is defined. While I may not agree with everything in the legislation as written, I think removing some of the vagueness is a good thing and they've finally done that.

And while it will be what it will be, have you noticed nobody has convinced any other poster with a different point of view?

I can't speak to who has or hasn't been convinced of something but I don't see how that is particularly relevant.

 

[I7guy]

There doesn’t necessarily have to be a past finding in a court of law (recent or otherwise) for illegal activity to be occurring now. Also, a finding or conclusion in one case doesn't necessarily mean a different finding or conclusion can't be reached in another very similar case. Even in the exact same case, rulings can be overturned on appeal.

This EU legislation seems to be in line with typical antitrust and anticompetitive regulations, it just happens to be more specific about how things like dominance is defined. While I may not agree with everything in the legislation as written, I think removing some of the vagueness is a good thing and they've finally done that.

It’s easier to craft regulations than try to convict in a court of law.

I can't speak to who has or hasn't been convinced of something but I don't see how that is particularly relevant.

It’s relevant to the comment of going around in circles.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

There doesn’t necessarily have to be a past finding in a court of law (recent or otherwise) for illegal activity to be occurring now. Also, a finding or conclusion in one case doesn't necessarily mean a different finding or conclusion can't be reached in another very similar case. Even in the exact same case, rulings can be overturned on appeal.

This EU legislation seems to be in line with typical antitrust and anticompetitive regulations, it just happens to be more specific about how things like dominance is defined. While I may not agree with everything in the legislation as written, I think removing some of the vagueness is a good thing and they've finally done that.





I can't speak to who has or hasn't been convinced of something but I don't see how that is particularly relevant.

The DMA and DSA are separate from anti trust laws. They do two parallel but different tasks.

Just how the FDA do one job and the cours do another.

 

[djphat2000]

While that is true theoretically, it isn't true in practice.
No new smartphone operating system will successfully emerge in developed markets and gain meaningful market share anymore - unless it it supports iOS or Android apps. At which points it has basically become iOS and Android.

This is an opinion. But to be fair. If the rules keep changing. I'll agree with your statement. As who would want to compete? What's the incentive to try if you could in the end be too big to go on?

Arguably they did. They stamped out any chances of competition by way of patent litigation early on in the smartphone wars - up until a point that "mutual destruction" through such litigation assured (so to speak), and they found an arrangement that amounts to the duopoly we're still having today.

It works both ways. There are patent trolls that don't do anything other than sue. But due to how it works, I can't be blind to the fact they have the right to do it. Again, you don't always get what you want. Its' not always fair.
We should all wish that the patent offices got their $#!T together and sorted things out correctly before any litigation would ever be needed.

You don't.
Just as no one has succeeded to topple Microsoft from their Windows/Office dominance over the last 35 years.

Which oddly enough surprises me to this day that they are not the leaders in the mobile space. But that is their mistake.
They came at the right time, and dealt with the right companies and had/have the right approach when it came to Windows OS. They didn't want to make the whole widget (how things are changing now of course). They wanted to sell the OS and there apps to as many computer companies as possible. And saw to it that they could through licensing. This sounds to me just like Google and Android. And its working for them almost the same.

Apple wanted to sell the whole widget, and felt that their product was better (arguably so at the time and for many to this day). If Apple had licensed the OS in the 80's maybe they could have competed more broadly against Microsoft. Different approach. But to say no one could isn't correct. Like how many Linux distro's are there out there these days? I have about 20% of the VM's in my environment are linux (CentOS, PhotoOS). Go back to 2000, we had zero. We had zero until about 2012. Is it a take over? No, but other OS's serve a purpose and Microsoft can't be on everything. Their OS just isn't that good to make that remotely possible.

It's a chicken and egg problem: Microsoft's position is hardly assailable by virtue to the ecosystem of first- and (more importantly) third-party apps.

For the desktop, it will be hard to exceed their current position. But ChromeOS is free if I am not mistaken, and runs on almost anything. Same can be said for all the linux distro's out there. If Apple ever wanted to take over the planet, they could license macOS for intel/AMD hardware. Apple would have the most impact to take market share from Microsoft. They already have enough software to make plenty of people happy enough to switch. Without having to pay for the hardware. I'm not saying that would ever happen. I'm just saying that your incorrect to say no-one could do it.

The statement is purely anecdotal. There is no survey that shows that majority of the users want this or any other feature.

Just stating again my point that we don't need these rules. For the majority of people out there. They wouldn't use it. Just making holes in the OS for a sliver of the market that would occasionally to regularly use it.

We do not have to. Governments are going to make Apple do it anyway and Apple's stranglehold on the control it has over many things on iPhone will be coming to an end.

I guess for some people governments can do no wrong.

This might still happen even after NFC is allowed on the iPhone. It is just that Apple will be one of the many providers so the banks will be able to dictate the terms rather than the other way. Poor Apple.

Apple doesn't have to sell iPhones. Can't make me.

Unfortunately, that is no longer for Apple to demand.

It will always be. They can comply or they can stop selling the device. Or they can stop selling the device with any NFC tech. Now what? They could just straight up disable it, or remove it from the EU model.

Once they start getting fined 10% of their worldwide revenue, they will rush to make all the changes.

I'd very much like to see the EU charge anyone a fine that goes on world wide sales. They are drunk to even suggest this.

Are you suggesting Apple made NFC?

No... seriously this is your question?

Also, Apple is selling the phone to public and hence they are subject some laws.

Did Apple break any laws that existed when they placed NFC tech in the iPhone? I'm sure they had to register it in every EU country before selling it. Someone read it (maybe, governments can be slow), and didn't say a law was broken by them not allowing direct access to the tech.

If Apple made products only for their use, then it is fine. Apple can set the rules.

I'm sure there are going to be rules and regulations to follow for anything Apple makes even for internal use only.

However, once they start selling stuff to the public, they can no longer set the agenda. They have to abide by the laws that the government sets. Otherwise, crippling fines beckon Apple.

They can design anything they want. Those plans get submitted for approval with whatever government agencies around the world before any devices get sold. It has to comply BEFORE it's sold. Laws have been abided to as they were. EU and other governments wish to change the laws, and we are arguing about the fairness of these laws.

I think it is time for you to realize that it is no longer Apple's choice to allow or not allow access to NFC for other apps.

It will always be up to Apple to do what they wish with the devices they make. No government can make Apple do anything they don't want to. If they choose to comply, that's Apple's ability to do so. If they choose not to, they can deal with the loss and or any consequences from that choice too. Neither the EU or the US are dictatorships. Or full socialists taking over industry whenever they want.

Apple did not invent anything related to NFC.

Never said they did.

It does have several patents related to Apple Pay, though. So, banks may decide to go for their own solutions rather than use Apple Pay.

They could. But, and here is the BUT. Apple has lots of paying customers. And banks like money.

Governments will keep hitting Apple until it submits to the government regulations.

They can try.

I no longer have to be subjected to Apple's way or highway.

Ok. I didn't know they had you in some kind of prison.

I no longer have to use Android for stuff that I can do with iOS.

So just use Android.

iOS will be forced to change.

Or cease to exist in the EU.

Apple should see the headwinds and get ahead of them and change voluntarily or they will be forced to make the changes kicking and screaming.

I doubt anyone is going to kick or scream at Apple. I'm sure many of you wish that was the case.
They will make a strategic decision to do what they feel is best for their company. That may or may not include leaving the EU over this BS. Or selling you scraps. Or just selling less.

 

[djphat2000]

One of the purposes of antitrust laws and regulations is to prevent dominate companies from using their market power to stifle competition and/or innovation in their dominant or related markets. The EU simply took that a step further and more specifically defined what makes a company "dominant" and what types of business activities are viewed as anticompetitive such as restricting browser or browser engine access, app store access, payment system access, etc. There have been cases in the past that shows how the EU does and has felt that some of what Google, Apple and others have done is "wrong" and the EU has finally decide to put something in writing that better articulates this.

Should you get pulled over for speeding 10 years later after they changed the law to make the speed you traveled at higher than the speed now allowed? From what I understand of this law, Apple would already be over the speed limit. They are breaking the law before the law takes affect.

If the law was set at or just above what Apple is currently doing. At least that would provide them the ability to change willingly.

Apple has acquired a number of companies over the years that have helped build and expand the company to what it is today.

So long as it wasn't done illegally or corruptly I have no issue with them doing this.

Why should achieving dominance organically be any better or worse than doing it through mergers/acquisitions?

If your a mom and pop shop or built something out of your garage. And grew as demand grew to your product/service. I view that differently than a bunch of rich folks pooling their money together to buy companies they have zero expertise in, with the intent to dominate a market or run them into the ground.
This isn't to say Apple didn't purchase many companies over the years but, I think you get my point.

The end result for both is essentially the same i.e., market dominance that potentially stifles competition. Regulations for a dominant company, however it may have ultimately been achieved, should be the same.

So then the issue is that once any company starts to dominate we need to cripple them?
This can't be right. I guess we move away from capitalism then.
I think it should be about how they got to that position and what they are doing in that space.
Has any of these governments thought of what happens if Apple went away? What's the impact to society then?

We don't know e.g., there may be several companies that have wanted to create new mobile OS software, browser engines, etc. but because of Apple's and/or Google's dominance in those markets and/or restrictions on being able to compete in those markets, have been unable to or chosen not to.

That's the risk. You take it or you don't. Now if Google or Apple did something illegal to prevent you from starting up or trying. That's a different thing. But computers existed before Apple tried their hat at it. Cellphones and smartphones existed before Apple and Google tried their hat in it.

So, you don't think there should be stricter rules or requirements for companies that dominate a particular market even though potential actions of those dominant companies have a much greater chance of stifling competition?

We can't minority report what possible competition could would should come if Apple or any company didn't exist. Or because they are the size they are etc. We are not fortune tellers.

I have a question for you.
Do you think intel would have shifted as much as they have recently if it wasn't for Apple? I'm sure AMD helps to prod them here and there. But, they both are in about the same boat. AMD fairing better. But, Apple leaving intel was the anvil that broke the ants back in my humble opinion.
Now, even Microsoft is moving to ARM based chips. Now, these companies are tying to compete with Apple. They are innovating.

Competition comes when one or a few companies does something that changes things up, freaks people out, does unexpectedly well. Then someone else comes up with an alternative or something similar. Sometimes it better, or worse or anywhere in-between. I think there is plenty of innovation in the mobile space. Plenty of handset makers doing all kinds of new things with the technology we have available.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Like how many Linux distro's are there out there these days? I have about 20% of the VM's in my environment are linux (CentOS, PhotoOS). Go back to 2000

...and there was Mandrake and Yellow Dog Linux and SUSE, with distributions for PowerPC Macs.

I'm sure there's been others. Plus, of course, the large variety for x86 computers. Though hardly anymore relevant in the desktop market than today, in the grand scheme of things.

Server use has been and still is a different matter.