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

[AppliedMicro]

We use the same OS! I don't get to pick an OS that doesn't have that new opening. We all get to use it.

You get to use the same OS as before.

Take sideloading: requires no technical change to the OS.
No one forcing you to download from non-App Store sources either.
No one forces you to use non-Apple Pay payment applications on your phone either.

it's not air, water, food, or shelter. It's not even fuel or energy. You know, the important things in life. Which by my last account, practically every single government is doing a bang up job regulating to perfection.

Governments are regulating much more than just the bare essentials to survive and sustain oneself.
Since you're working for a bank, I don't have to tell you that. In fact, I can guarantee you: Your employer would make much more money if only they were subject to less or no (very specific!) regulation.

And I would argue I need my car more than my phone and my computer. And I make a living with computers. And I would argue I need my car more than my phone and my computer. And I make a living with computers. But to get to work, for me anyway. I need a car. To each is own.

You get around or commute by car - I do it by public transit. I'm often at stations where there's no one and nothing telling me how to get from point A to point B (definitely not once a transfer is needed). And I'm in places where there's no paper maps to buy.

No problem, I'll just look it up online - so my phone is an important thing in life.

I work for a bank. I call BS on this one. We have a website. We have mobile apps for banking. We don't require you have a mobile phone to setup an account with us. We still have bank by phone, as in call.

Yes, I know that US are technologically a decade behind the curve on consumer/retail payments.

Most new "challenger" banks in Europe don't work without a mobile app. Even legacy banks are moving their 2-factor authentication systems to mobile apps - some of them (and increasing) exclusively, the others require a physical TAN generator - which sucks as a user experience and is a waste of electronics. And without 2-factor authentication you aren't going to make many online payments anymore.

I understand there are many banks that don't even have a physical location. And unless the EU plans on phasing out physical locations to bank at. I think you still have a choice to use it or not.

I can live and do (and waste time doing) banking like we did 50 years ago.
I can carry dedicated little calculator-like machines with me, just to make a secure online card payment.

Thanks to technology I don't have to.

 

[avz]

It will happen worldwide. No government has any sympathy for bigtech.

You might have unknowingly touched on a true reason behind the attack on a big tech. Big tech companies simply do not need banks or any governments and with the rise of the AR/VR can literally have a "state within a state" of their own. No sane government would want this.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The law picks on the most popular by consumer choice. It will be worse for many, many more than its good for. It will be worse for consumers, most devs, the ecosystem.

The law picks the most influential not popular. Notice how windows with a 90%~ is market share have zero impact from the DMA?

The only part is the DSA that mandates contracts and TOS must be clear and precise.

Notice that what can be good for consumers and businesses can be completely different for what’s good for the market.

Selling goods at a loss to kill competition is good for consumers and the business in question, but terrible for the market

 

[Beautyspin]

There is a community that likes to build their own PC's, build their own Hackintosh's, rockets.
I'm pretty sure you can do whatever you wish to the iPhone you bought. Apple doesn't sell you a device with that in mind.
People pay for Amazon firesticks that gets them any Movie, channel or station worldwide. With a monthly subscription to the pirate-shop to boot. The alternative is called Cable or finding a satellite provider. People will do whatever they can get away with. Same as your EU.

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? People who want Jailbreaking is a sizeable community because they want more than what Apple offers. You make statements based on anecdotal evidence whereas the popularity of jailbreaking shows that people want more.

I'm agreeing with you on that. Since success is fluid, let's keep the laws that way. Wouldn't want Apple to get even more successful with these new laws in place.

The limits are not fluid. This is a first attempt, so they have decided on these limits through discussions. These limits may be revisited based on the impact of the regulations. They are not specific to Apple, but GAFAM probably.

I'm loving the EU more and more. Must be nice having so much free time on their hands to pay so close attention to what Apple is doing.

It must be a good feeling to be a company that is in the crosshairs of so many governments in the world for being anticompetitive. Apple must be thinking that it is an achievement. That feeling would evaporate once they get fined 10% of their annual worldwide revenue. Trust me.

You don't say. Well, nothing like throwing $#!T at the wall to see what sticks. I'm sure it will get sorted out over time. It will all be fine.

Yes. It will be sorted out over time and things will get better, but only for consumers. Not for Apple, though.

So just like if someone decided to compete with another product? I'm not believing this one. No one will dethrone Apple's dominance. Someone(s) will create a black market to import the contraband iPhones into the EU.

It is not a majority in the EU even now. So not sure what you meant by Apple's dominance. It is a majority in just a handful of countries.

I've said many times, I'm not Apple. I can't tell you what they will or will not do. None of us here "are" Apple either. We are all guessing/presuming what they will do (educated or not). Based on the rules set forth by these governments. And being that Apple is an American company, and they do a lot of good which I don't see anyone on your side of the argument pointing out. Only the negatives.

Past actions show that Apple would bend over backwards to protect its market/revenue share. Not sure why you think it will be different this time around.

They are a business/company publicly traded, so they have to make a profit if they are to continue operating. Their board may not see the value in staying in the EU with the laws that are coming. The folks that run the company may come up with clever ways to operate within the laws that are coming. And the EU can tac the ship yet again.
People here complain that there is a lack of innovation. And that Apples walled garden is too restrictive, and they don't let you do this and they don't let you do that. Blah blah blah. Meanwhile, your other device manufactures ALL copy Apple. So I have no doubt that if Apple left the EU or lowered their sales etc to be under the laws requirements. That some other company would fill the void. You're just going to be left with that other company filling the void, while wishing Apple was more available. You will get less choice, and more crap. You're welcome.

If you think the board will agree to Apple taking 25% haircut on revenue and income because Apple feels it has been wronged is laughable. Remember, this is the same board that agreed to handover the data and encryption keys to Chinese Government, which means the suggestion is even more laughable. Even now, with Apple freely available, not everyone is buying iPhones.

16 major iOS 14 features Apple 'borrowed' from Android and Google

Plus one bonus feature for Apple's HomePod

www.androidpolice.com

Twenty features you didn’t know Android and iOS stole from each other

Android and iOS have taken plenty of ideas from each other, resulting in two operating systems that are much more similar than they used to be.

www.popsci.com

Ah yeah its a selling point for them. Elon wanted to sell electric cars, so he is.
I didn't say give away their software, I said access to the hardware same as Apple has. And I don't agree with that.
The access they have via the Wallet App in my opinion is how it should be and how it currently is. Access via the limited means provided.

Then you must be happy with the decision to give access to hardware the same as Apple has not been left to you or Apple. The EU took it away though the regulation.

Nothing stopping you from going to those shops to jailbreak the devices after you purchased it. Why should Apple have to write software that allows direct access? Why should the craft the OS to all what you wish? If you wanted it to do that, you can go jailbreak it. Or just buy and Android device that already lets. you. Lived this life for many decades on the Mac.

Apple does not have to help write software so that one can jailbreak it. It just needs to write software such that it obviates the need for a jailbreak. Once it gives access to all those features that it has kept for itself, the need for jailbreak goes away. Not sure how iPhones can be compared to Macs in this regard.

It's not incompetence. Its a choice and a philosophy. It is simply easier and "better" in their approach to protect the device. Limit access in and out while also allowing the device to function in an easy to use way. A 2 year old or a 102 year old can use their device.

If Apple stuff is so easy to use, there would not be so many tutorials available on the net for accomplishing such simple tasks and Android phones would not sell so much.

I expect Apple to do what is best for Apple and its shareholders.

Even I am expecting the same and hence predict Apple capitulating. They may kick and scream for optics, but they know the writing is on the wall.

I'm not saying Apple is entitled either. They made a product based on the rules at the time, and continued to follow those rules. If they broke any rules, they got nailed for it. These "new" sets of rules I'm not agreeing make sense or are right, but the EU is free to implement it and see what happens. I'm saying Apple doesn't have to do anything Apple doesn't want to do in the EU. If they choose to leave or lessen their EU businesses they are free to do so. And I expect Google in pick up the slack and the EU to see Android go to 80-90% dominance.

Based on past actions, Apple will bend over backwards and comply with the rules once the fines start. They tried this a test case in Netherlands against dating apps and found that they had to pay incremental fines and still comply. So, I am not sure if Apple still has the stamina to withstand 10% fines on Annual worldwide revenue, 5% daily fines on worldwide daily revenues, and so on.

 

[I7guy]

The law picks the most influential not popular. Notice how windows with a 90%~ is market share have zero impact from the DMA?

The only part is the DSA that mandates contracts and TOS must be clear and precise.

Notice that what can be good for consumers and businesses can be completely different for what’s good for the market.

Selling goods at a loss to kill competition is good for consumers and the business in question, but terrible for the market

Apple is popular by choice, not by law. The law picks on success. The law will eventually water down the iOS ecosystem in the EU, if in fact apple decides to continue to do business there.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I work for a bank. I call BS on this one. We have a website. We have mobile apps for banking. We don't require you have a mobile phone to setup an account with us. We still have bank by phone, as in call.
I understand there are many banks that don't even have a physical location. And unless the EU plans on phasing out physical locations to bank at. I think you still have a choice to use it or not.

I don’t think any bank allows the use of a phone call to set up banking anymore, let alone access it without using a physical device or electronic or electronic banking on your phone

This is the opinion. We disagree on the reasoning to regulate. Not that regulation isn't a good thing when used correctly. I see no reason to regulate a company with 30-35% marketshare. I see no reason to treat them as a power-hungry greedy monopoly. When they are not. I see no reason to regulate them more because they "could" or "might" abuse their market power. When they have not done so.

They aren’t treated as a power hungry monopoly. Read the legal text and you will see they have identified behaviors and actions and harmful trends they want to prevent and walked backwards when making the regulations.
This is Ex-ante regulations, meaning it is to prevent harm before it is caused

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple is popular by choice, not by law. The law picks on success. The law will eventually water down the iOS ecosystem in the EU, if in fact apple decides to continue to do business there.

If this is true, then why isn't Microsoft affected and picked on for being successful? Why is Apple affected more than Microsoft?

Could it be because apple have a bigger negative effect on the market?

 

[webkit]

Apple is popular by choice, not by law.

I'd say it's a little of both. If not for antitrust laws, Apple may not have been in a position to be able to enter the phone market and try to compete. Early companies may have established a stranglehold on that market and discouraged or blocked anyone else from even trying.

 

[I7guy]

I'd say it's a little of both. If not for antitrust laws, Apple may not have been in a position to be able to enter the phone market and try to compete. Early companies may have established a stranglehold on that market and discouraged or blocked anyone else from even trying.

Isn’t that the point of antitrust? To make sure sure there is fair competition? Not to break a natural monopoly, eg Honda has a monopoly in accords.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Isn’t that the point of antitrust? To make sure sure there is fair competition? Not to break a natural monopoly, eg Honda has a monopoly in accords.

Nope, it’s absolutely not the point of anti trust laws to break up monopolies. As a monopoly isn’t bad by definition

 

[I7guy]

Nope, it’s absolutely not the point of anti trust laws to break up monopolies. As a monopoly isn’t bad by definition

I disagree as shown by epic vs apple YGR initial ruling.

 

[webkit]

Isn’t that the point of antitrust? To make sure sure there is fair competition? Not to break a natural monopoly, eg Honda has a monopoly in accords.

Antitrust laws have multiple purposes. If a major/dominant company engages in anticompetitive behavior, a result could be the breakup of that company but other outcomes can be less severe. Usually the "guilty" company changes their anticompetitive behavior in order to avoid facing harsh consequences like the breakup of the company. This is a reason we need antitrust laws and regulations. Otherwise, we'd end up with major/dominant companies being able to freely engage in anticompetitive behavior thereby stifling competition and innovation.

If not for antitrust laws and regulations, Apple probably wouldn't have been able to (or tried to) enter the phone business.

 

[I7guy]

Antitrust laws have multiple purposes. If a major/dominant company engages in anticompetitive behavior, a result could be the breakup of that company but other outcomes can be less severe. Usually the "guilty" company changes their anticompetitive behavior in order to avoid facing harsh consequences like the breakup of the company. This is a reason we need antitrust laws and regulations. Otherwise, we'd end up with major/dominant companies being able to freely engage in anticompetitive behavior thereby stifling competition and innovation.

If not for antitrust laws and regulations, Apple probably wouldn't have been able to (or tried to) enter the phone business.

The operative word is "IF". Unfortunately, this conversation is going around in circles as anti-trust should be applied to prevent illegal monopolies, but not legal monopolies.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I disagree as shown by epic vs apple YGR initial ruling.

The context here is EU. Eu don’t care about US laws or it’s rulings.

And what are you disagreeing with?
The purpose of anti competitive laws as they are in USA or EU?

Being anti natural monopoly or being anti abused position of power?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The operative word is "IF". Unfortunately, this conversation is going around in circles as anti-trust should be applied to prevent illegal monopolies, but not legal monopolies.

But there is no legal or illegal monopolies.

In Eu 100% of every monopoly is legal. You can’t by legal definition have an illegal monopoly. Hence this makes no sense what you’re saying

 

[I7guy]

The context here is EU. Eu don’t care about US laws or it’s rulings.

Which is why this landmark ruling, imo, will cause I slow downward spiral of tech innovation coming from outside the EU.

And what are you disagreeing with?
The purpose of anti competitive laws as they are in USA or EU?

I think this regulation is far-overreaching and as said above will have some type of tech chilling effect.

Being anti natural monopoly or being anti abused position of power?

Seems like a natural monopoly is perfectly legal at least in the US.

 

[I7guy]

But there is no legal or illegal monopolies.

In Eu 100% of every monopoly is legal. You can’t by legal definition have an illegal monopoly. Hence this makes no sense what you’re saying

In the US there is that distinction. The app store thus far is a legal monopoly contrasted as some of the rulings of the past of illegal monopolies.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

In the US there is that distinction. The app store thus far is a legal monopoly contrasted as some of the rulings of the past of illegal monopolies.

Well in EU there is no distinction, and I can’t really say what point there is to have one

 

[I7guy]

Well in EU there is no distinction, and I can’t really say what point there is to have one

Point is as I’ve said before the EU law is overreachi g and the tech in the EU moving forward will be a reflection of that.

 

[webkit]

The operative word is "IF". Unfortunately, this conversation is going around in circles as anti-trust should be applied to prevent illegal monopolies, but not legal monopolies.

Of course there's an "IF" as that is how laws and regulations work. An individual or company will be charged and prosecuted IF they are found to have violated a law. The "law" here is spelled out in the EU legislation and once it goes into effect, legal actions can/will be taken against companies in violation.

 

[I7guy]

Of course there's an "IF" as that is how laws and regulations work. An individual or company will be charged and prosecuted IF they are found to have violated a law. The "law" here is spelled out in the EU legislation and once it goes into effect, legal actions can/will be taken against companies in violation.

Apple it seems has a legal monopoly even in the EU. That’s why the need to regulate posts, messaging, app stores, nfc, etc. the death of innovation in the EU and they will have caused it themselves.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple it seems has a legal monopoly even in the EU. That’s why the need to regulate posts, messaging, app stores, nfc, etc. the death of innovation in the EU and they will have caused it themselves.

It’s not why they need to regulate anything. It’s the abuse of a dominant position. As long as they act fairly they won’t have anything done to them.

Apple does things unfairly by preventing natural competition.

Microsoft doesn’t do anything and gets zero regulations forced upon them.

The key to innovation is lower barriers of entry. Every phone manufacturer could use any phone network makes it easier to have more great products.

If NFC is open for everyone to use it becomes easier for something to become a standard or new innovative ways. Having 20 difrent NFC technology active and locked will lower the innovation companies using it.

Almost all technology we use today came from being open. All things that was closed almost always ends up lost to history.

Edit: why reinvent the wheel when you can continue the work of those who came before you? Improve on existing designs.

That’s how everything works at its most efficient.

 

[I7guy]

It’s not why they need to regulate anything. It’s the abuse of a dominant position. …,

What the EU calls abuse the US calls a natural monopoly. these overburdened regulations will cause a tech ice-age in the EU, imo, over time.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

What the EU calls abuse the US calls a natural monopoly. these overburdened regulations will cause a tech ice-age in the EU, imo, over time.

What the USA calls a natural monopoly EU wouldn’t care to touch.

You can have a dominant position with 10% market share or 100% market share it only matters if they impact the market in a negative way. I think you lack an understanding of what dominance even mean and how abuse is measured.

Holding or acquiring a dominant position is not unlawful under EU competition law. A dominant company infringes article 102 of the TFEU only if it abuses its dominance to restrict competition.

Article 102 of the TFEU does not define the concept of abuse. Instead, it lists four categories of abusive behaviour:

• article 102(a) prohibits directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
• article 102(b) prohibits limiting production, markets or technical developments to the prejudice of consumers;
• article 102(c) prohibits applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; and
• article 102(d) prohibits making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations that, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

Here is a link going over examples and explanations of how it works. Feel free to pick examples you agree or disagree with.

In brief: abuse of dominance in European Union

A quick look at the key legal and regulatory provisions governing abuse of dominance in European Union, including the types of conduct that constitute abuse and available defences.

www.lexology.com

 

[I7guy]

What the USA calls a natural monopoly EU wouldn’t care to touch.

You can have a dominant position with 10% market share or 100% market share it only matters if they impact the market in a negative way. I think you lack an understanding of what dominance even mean and how abuse is measured.

Holding or acquiring a dominant position is not unlawful under EU competition law. A dominant company infringes article 102 of the TFEU only if it abuses its dominance to restrict competition.

Article 102 of the TFEU does not define the concept of abuse. Instead, it lists four categories of abusive behaviour:

• article 102(a) prohibits directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
• article 102(b) prohibits limiting production, markets or technical developments to the prejudice of consumers;
• article 102(c) prohibits applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; and
• article 102(d) prohibits making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations that, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

Here is a link going over examples and explanations of how it works. Feel free to pick examples you agree or disagree with.

In brief: abuse of dominance in European Union

A quick look at the key legal and regulatory provisions governing abuse of dominance in European Union, including the types of conduct that constitute abuse and available defences.

www.lexology.com

You misunderstand. It’s not about misunderstanding, it’s about not agreeing.