That's regulating it to death.
That's the EU doing fine surgery to nail Apple. (or not if they pull out)
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
Without also recognizing what would be the case if there was no Apple in the equation? If Apple isn't there to stifle anything. You would have Android. And then what?
I've said the same thing about mobile OS's. It doesn't mean someone couldn't try and innovate a new mobile OS.
And I think they are doing this incorrectly.
Yes - which is starting to acknowledge reality and truth. Mobile OS have become a basic … sort of commodity for people and business to consume content and conduct their communication and business on.
You can repeat that as many times as you want: it’s irrelevant. Here’s the thing:
👉 The Digital Markets Act is not about phones, their manufacturing or sale.
It’s about digital platform services, their operation and business practices. It doesn’t matter that there’s dozens or hundreds of hardware manufacturers when 99% of devices come with the smae (two) platform services.
The death of innovation in the EU is acknowledged.
It's very relevant if Apple decides the EU is hostile and can't do further business there.
It’s not. Quite the contrary.
Preventing businesses and people from installing software and accessing hardware isn’t innovation at all. It’s either a security measure and/or mere money-grabbing. And Apple is certainly overdramatizing the security angle. In any case, it hinders innovation.
And for their innovation in mobile OS, Apple has been and still is compensated by billions in hardware (and software) sales.
You’re trying to portray it as if the EU took away all the ability of “innovators” to be compensated for their workm innovation and IP - which it doesn’t.
There’s no signs if them doing that. Especially since they’re raking in billions in that area.
Also, regarding sideloading for example, the US has quite similar legislation in the pipeline.
Last edited:
This regulation will kill innovation. I can’t see companies deploying anything but the tech with lowest common denominator to the EU.
It won’t kill innovation. Because innovation will still be rewarded by and in markets.
And there’s billions of dollars to make, in the EU smartphone / mobile app space alone.
Again, you’re trying to portray it as if no obe could earn or be rewarded for their innovation - which is just not true. The EU is merely regulating specific business practices in a few select “core platform services” - that’s all. And you totally ignore how it will open up opportunities for developers and businesses to provide services and products with more freedom on the platform - that gives them room to innovate.
You’re seem to be living in and portraying a black-and-white world.
Last edited:
Antitrust legislation is largely supposed to be about keeping "big" companies in line, and this has been the case for ages. It's not about "small" companies, other than perhaps protecting them from the effects of anticompetitive behavior of the larger companies.
A lot of the companies on that page didn't/don't make mobile phones e.g., are/were a brand of a larger phone maker, licensed their name to a phone maker, etc. Plus, a number aren't even in the phone business anymore or in business at all. That page does not accurately reflect the current/active mobile phone market nor does it reflect the phone market in every country/region. Regardless, and as I already stated, Apple can be considered as having a dominant position in mobile phones (hardware) in various countries/regions.
As I’ve also already stated, it's really the mobile OS market that is relevant to things like browser engine, app store, etc. access. There, Apple (iOS) and Google (Android) are clearly part of a duopoly.
Apple's dominance is apparent multiple ways.
If Android was the only mobile OS and its business was being conducted like Apple with iOS (a "walled garden"), they too would be stifling competition and innovation in many related markets.
Anything is possible but to encourage more competition and innovation, there should be less restrictions from dominant companies such as Apple with iOS in the mobile OS market.
Multiple operating systems is not a good solution especially if all of them were allowed to operate as "walled gardens" or each software product/service had to have its own OS and device. That would stifle competition in so many different markets.
You're arguing in favor of shifting the burden to those least able to carry it. Not surprised the EU didn't go that direction.
Frankly it doesn't ever have to matter to you. You don't get a say on the matter.
I think you mean JFK.
What does that have to do with drastically slowing the velocity of app innovation?
Or more likely, countless devs fold because they're unable to meet the requirements of such regulations.
Sorry, the EU isn't going with this beat-around-the-bush, convoluted solution.
Apple had a $106 billion market cap when the iPhone launched. Apple didn't have a resource problem.
K
Last edited:
This line of thinking is completely illogical.
"Due to the new requirement that we allow third-party app installations, the billions of dollars we make in the EU selling smartphones and the associated accessories is now worthless and irrelevant."
-Tim Cook according to you apparently
Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007 and the App Store in 2008 as, arguably, an innovator.
Both businesses which they were able to operate free from regulation (for anti-competitive conduct) for 15 years.
In doing so, they became the most valuable company in the world, by market cap.
Whereas in 2007 they weren’t even among the top 30 in the U.S. alone).
So… it took lawmakers 15 years to regulate and open up access to these platforms a bit. This isn’t really different than pharmaceutical patents, which have a validity of 20 years in most countries (but, as drugs have to go through testing and approval before being able to be marketed, so translate to shorter exclusivity in the market). And exclusivity periods for approved drugs are shorter.
Do I believe that such a posteriori (but narrowly defined) regulation will prevent companies from innovating and marketing their innovations in the EU?
No.
Both businesses which they were able to operate free from regulation (for anti-competitive conduct) for 15 years.
In doing so, they became the most valuable company in the world, by market cap.
Whereas in 2007 they weren’t even among the top 30 in the U.S. alone).
So… it took lawmakers 15 years to regulate and open up access to these platforms a bit. This isn’t really different than pharmaceutical patents, which have a validity of 20 years in most countries (but, as drugs have to go through testing and approval before being able to be marketed, so translate to shorter exclusivity in the market). And exclusivity periods for approved drugs are shorter.
Do I believe that such a posteriori (but narrowly defined) regulation will prevent companies from innovating and marketing their innovations in the EU?
No.
Why don't other companies simply compete in this 'free from regulation' market?
why not? just let EU citizen use android, HarmonyOS, UbuntuOS, or whatever open OS.
No because Apple would still like to make billions of dollars from selling smartphones and not have their customers switch to Android. Apple only offering “lowest common denominator tech” is an impediment to that. And roll your eyes all you like, but that’s effectively what you’re saying.It’s cause and effect of this regulation.
Last edited:
Because AAPL likes $$$. Driving away your customers with ridiculous fees is counter to gaining customers and making money.
That’s not the point I’m making. Apple does not want that, right? But if they go and charge users for every individual item then they’re just pushing users to switch to another platform.
Network effects.
The value of an operating system (or its application store tied into it) increases with the number of its users - and the number and breath of software applications available.
In operating systems, that’s often the dominant factor effecting their popularity. They are a market that will have users converge onto very few popular option that will account for almost all of the market (see Windows as a desktop computer OS).
In other, simpler words:
Hardly anybody will use an OS with few applications.
Hardly anybody will develop applications for an OS with few users.
No operating system vendor will (or can) develop all possible applications consumers are expecting themselves.
That’s why both Blackberry and Microsoft failed with their mobile OS.
Despite both being technically competitive on their own (but lacking third-party applications).
Last edited:
How is it regulating it to death when android needs and makes zero changes? Only change is what google can tell other companies to do
Regulations should be precise to target specific results
Regulators already targeted and identified apple in 2011. This isn’t out of the blue but something that have been worked on for over a decade. It just took time to do the proper legwork
I'm in no way stating they should all be wall gardens. Only that Apple be allowed to be one because you have open alternatives already. If everyone was closed, it would be chaos.
I'm also stating that if Apple was factored out of the equation, as it currently stands. You/me/we only have Google Android as an alternative. What then? Not if they also went to a closed model. But stayed exactly as they are.
I'm in favor of business taking risks. And providing some funding and or tax breaks in order to take those risks.
Actually, you're very wrong on that. We get to vote in this country.
Correct!
Are we not getting innovation these days? Is it not fast enough, quality enough, life changing enough? I'm failing to see what we are not getting because of the limitations of the AppStore or lack of direct access to NFC on one brand of phone?
Then it must amaze you we have macOS native based games at all. Who are these developers making apps for us?
Suit yourselves.
Microsoft was worth more and their mobile platform failed. Plus they existed before Apple in that space.
It's not just about resources.
If the EU wants more development/innovation and more open standards. FUND IT.
If enough folks are fed up with the lack of options and control over the devices they purchase. You would already have the demand for something "else" or "new" within the EU market. They should tax the large dominate companies. Use that to fund an innovation grant to those developers that are not large (by whatever euro amount they wish to define that). And lend it to those companies so they can staff and get the resources they need at either low cost, long term loans or free grants for freelancers. Invite the programers and entrepreneurs of the world to come to Europe and code. Work for a start up, or an already established developer shop and create the next big thing. Right here in the EU.
So you're from the EU?
I think you either the missed the point or perhaps you forgot your own argument. The comment about slowing the velocity of app innovation pertains to the paradigm you're specifically asking for where devs have to support every platform out there. "These days" the velocity of app innovation is just fine because devs can support whatever platforms they choose and are not forced to support platforms with negligible numbers of users. What devs need is new ways of being able to innovate, including by forcing Apple open up the hardware.
Some devs make macOS games because they have the resources and believe they will make a return on their investment. Not to mention macOS has a sizeable userbase. That's a very different scenario from devs being forced to support a multitude of platforms that have few users and will generate no return for them. How does a dev make money by investing $150k on development for a platform with 10k users of which maybe 3% will use their product. They're supposed to recoup the $150k investment and turn a profit from 300 users?
Actually if you follow the comment chain back you'll see that this point in particular is specifically about resources and a lack thereof.
Again with a convoluted mess that doesn't actually accomplish the goal of reigning in Apple's anti-competitive activities. You can only come up with these ideas by trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist while ignoring the problem that does. The EU isn't trying to increase development and innovation, they're trying to tamp down on anti-competitiveness by big tech.
Last edited:
Businesses should absolutely not be granted a tax break. They can go and get a loan or investment as everyone else.
That’s the question. We don’t know what we lose.
The NFC chips is accessible, apple just prevent apps on the store from using it.
And it’s a barren wasteland for a reason. Ether games won’t be made at all or they are ported through some wine program. Very few games are natively run
No but with resources you can afford to throw away a few billions on a high risk high reward gamble.
This isn’t a communist state, that’s completely in the private markets hands to solve. EU only referees the market.
And they would do what? The barrier to entry to the OS market is so great that Eau have opted to regulate the market they occupy to encourage invocation between developers. Not OS/phone manufacturers.
All companies are already taxed at a flat rate. Big or small. And it’s not the states business to fund developers. EU regulates the market to be fair, they don’t have the job to save companies or help failing ones.
USA might have the mentality to save companies that fails, EU have the mentality to let them fail. Bankruptcy is often the endgame.
Again, this isn’t a communist utopia, the government isn’t here to save you, it’s the markets job to do these things. Or go to a bank/investors