Without government regulation (or the threat of it), they wouldn’t even be around and exist.
Microsoft would have wiped them from the face of the earth 20 years ago.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EU Approves Landmark Legislation to Regulate Apple and Other Big Tech Firms
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Microsoft would have wiped them from the face of the earth 20 years ago.
You’re conflating things. You’re argument is that regulation and anti-trust is good and by extension much more regulation and much more anti-trust must be much better.
If the government told apple in 2008 what is being regulated today…apple would provide a one-fingered salute.
You conflate rules for big businesses and small businesses.
Apple in 2008 wouldn’t have the same rules. But Sony Ericsson, Microsoft, HTC, Motorola etc might have had it depending on their influences.
Microsoft would absolutely have had rules forced upon them. Just like the browse
They are and have been.
Antitrust law regularly requires abuse of a dominant position. Small businesses typically don’t have one - whereas big businesses often do (at least in the same sectors/markets).
Apple in 2008 was a niche mobile phone maker.
They aren’t anymore today.
And the relevant markets for competition law and regulatory bodies has shifted from „all mobile phones“ to „smartphones“ and their operating systems and application download stores.
That’s why Apple is now subject to different rules than they used to be 15 years ago. They‘ve become dominant.
Apple generally hasn’t been convicted of anti-trust. No large company has ever not done at least one thing, but apple is fairly clean.
These rules are nothing more than the Robin Hood effect. Take from the rich and give to the poor.
Nope. My argument would be pretty much the same as the EU‘s:
1. Smartphones and their OS have become increasingly important and vital parts to communicate and organise their lives.
(something djphat2000 continuously argues against by contending that one can and did „survive“ without them in the past)
2. So did they become platforms for businesses that many of them can’t realistically can‘t ignore.
3. There is too high a market concentration and lack of competition in smartphone OS and mobile application stores.
4. „Just develop your own smartphone OS and phone isn’t a realistic, viable choice for any company. Even Microsoft and Amazon failed at it. No one is realistically going to compete without the App ecosystem of either iOS or Android - at which point your OS basically has to become one of them to compete. At which point you’d still be dependent on Apple or Google and have to play by their rules (well, maybe Huawei in China. But little signs outside of that).
👉 And that‘s why their business practises should be regulated.
To a limited degree - and that’s what the EU is doing. They aren’t telling Apple to license their OS to other manufacturers. They are, finely-tuned, regulating gatekeepers‘ conduct where it’s detrimental to competition.
👉 The bottom line is this: Two companies doing the same thing aren’t the same thing. And they shouldn’t be, in competition law. It does matter how big and successful you‘ve become. Governments shouldn’t meddle in every market, product or platform business. They should let the competition play out. But (!): there is a point when businesses and their practices become too important or dangerous to society and the economy overall. Or even just potentially would, if you let them do what they want. And that’s when and why governments should, exceptionally, regulate them.
We probably disagree on where and when that line is crossed.
Not at all.
If they‘d want to do that, they could just institute taxes or tariffs.
Last edited:
Apple is quite literally the youngest of them all when it comes to dominating a market.
Apple’s is no different from Microsoft, Google or amaZon etc. they all target profits and will break the law and get away with it for as long as possible
Well... Apple arguably the most rabid fanboys of them all.
(the sort that would actually demand Apple made their products more expensive, have less functionality and more limitations)
Last edited:
Imagine what would happen if we didn’t have antitrust laws and regulations. Most of the apps probably wouldn't exist because those companies wouldn't have bothered to try if they had to create their own OS and device, just like most phone makers wouldn't have bothered to try if they had to create their own cellular network and carrier business..
Antitrust laws and regulations help foster competition and innovation as long as dominant companies follow them. Sometimes companies don't follow them and regulators need to step in.
Government regulations preventing or limiting companies from creating a stranglehold in markets Apple wanted to pursue definitely helped Apple. Apple wouldn’t have near their success without the regulations.
My point was... there are almost two million apps in the App Store.
And that's before Apple was being investigated for anti-trust.
Apple being evil... but there's still a ton of developers on board. Apple must not have been that evil.
I guess after all the anti-trust dust is settled... we'll finally be able to download and install emulators in iPhones. So we have that to look forward to.
That sort of thing can be said about any dominant company.
Many many computer makers, retailers, software developers and consumers were buying Windows, selling Windows or making software for Windows but that didn't mean Microsoft wasn't engaging in anticompetitive behavior.
by definition there is. Every NFC banking, emulator, web browser etc.
They all work on iOS but are hindered for policy reasons.
Apple have a stranglehold on iOS consumers freedoms.
And we can allow this without changing a single line of code in iOS. Just change AppStore policy or other serverside changes like signing apps.
The rules are different for small and big businesses.
Same with Apple, they act just like Microsoft
No.
Because it’s a legal monopoly and apple has the last say.
No they don’t. There is android if freedom is cared about.
Proof? (Don’t know why I’m asking, the definition of “proof” is a little loosy goosy at times)
It's not the "monopoly" that is illegal, it's the anticompetitive behavior. Some feel that a company with a dominant position in mobile OS restricting access to that OS creates a stranglehold in those restricted product or service markets and this stifles competition and innovation in those areas. Fortunately, we have antitrust laws and regulations that try to prevent this from happening too much.
But being restricted in those areas is what consumers want. It creates a safer more private product. Consumers don’t want another android, and making iOS more android like REDUCES competition.
Consumers want more privacy. They want to minimise the amount of data that leaks to different companies and developers. They don’t want Google, Facebook, TikTok etc, to have their data or to use their data to sell advertising. All of this behaviour needs to be stopped at the OS level, which is what Apple does with its control. And consumers love that.
I don’t want my banks to be able to bypass Apple Pay because they can use NFC themselves. I don’t want apps I currently get from the App Store and have Apple breathing down their necks to make sure they use my data responsibly moving to other stores where there is no oversight. This all makes the product and experience worse for me, the consumer.
Last edited:
Yes, and predatory pricing (temporarily) brings lower prices which is also something consumers like but that doesn't mean it's good for the market or competition or innovation in the longer run.
It can also push Apple to spend some more of their billions to make iOS more open, flexible and adaptable while still being safe and secure. A better overall product pleasing a wider audience (from consumers to developers) than it does now.
But regulators aren’t going after predatory pricing. If its such an issue, why not regulate against it?
But that’s a risk that may not pay off. We may all end up with a worse product with the good stuff regulated away, especially when you have people making this strange assumption that spending more money on something automatically makes it better, safer etc.
How easy will it be to revoke these regulations when it’s shown to be detrimental to consumers so we can have the good stuff back again? Or are we damned forever? Or are we not bothered that these regulations will be detrimental to consumers as long as developers get their way?
There is no anticompetitive behavior. Because it’s been alleged doesnt mean it’s been proven.
My point was that just because some consumers may like something (such as lower prices or a restricted "walled garden") doesn't mean it's good for the market or competition or innovation in the longer run, or that a company isn't engaging in anticompetitive behavior.
There's always that risk. However, I have confidence that Apple has the talent and resources to make it work. I think there's a very good chance this could ultimately result in a better product appealing to more people, and it will help foster competition, innovations, etc. in related markets.
It seems pretty clear based on the EU legislation. If someone is going 90 mph in a 55 mph zone, they are still speeding regardless of whether they were caught, ticketed, etc. Apple is "speeding" here.
However, if you want to use "alleged" for now that's fine too. This discussion has been a mix of broader generalities, narrower specifics, etc. anyway. It's possible that Apple may end up complying or pulling business out of the EU before this legislation goes into effect and therefore won't be in violation at that point.