I think you're projecting. If you don't like Apple's choices.. *buy something else!*
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 Consumer Group Summarizes How Apple Fails to Comply With DMA
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's only 7% of Apple. Time to say FUEU.
That's the crux of all of this. Anyone who wanted a completely open system that allowed them to do whatever they wanted could have bought an Android phone years ago. Yet they choose to buy a closed system and then complain it's closed? And then repeatedly bought the closed system over and over? I don't get it.
Last edited:
You know what’s better? Vote with your $$$.
It’s better than the anti American tech regulation.
It’s about choice, which is fine. It’s an annoyance if you have to jump through these hoops just to stick with your normal defaults but it’s equally annoying if you want to use a different browser etc by default. As long as Apple aren’t forced to make these options display with every update then im happy for these things to exist. To be clear, I won’t be changing any defaults but I’m all for others to do so.
That is so true!!
But also, a feature that I think is missing is restore from backup, but ONLY the apps you want. I don't want safari and Settings app and other OS level things to be downloaded. I want to start a new iPhone, but it has data from a couple of apps I want.
I don't like and never buy any Microsoft products, and Microsoft has zero power to compel me to do so.
Governments have armies and police and courts, and I can't simply opt-out of participation with a government.
You hit the nail on the head here.
This is mostly true. What's also true is that this summary by the group is simply their opinion: "we have detected various examples of possible non-compliance from the companies in question, with likely negative consequences for markets and consumers alike."
That means these are not official interpretations of the law. Some are in line with the EU's preliminary investigations, but others might not be. Maybe the BEUC is correct, but as an independent organization (but largely EU-funded), their opinions hold no legal standing.
The bigger issue is that the regulations were created in part because of the lobbying of corporations (e.g., Spotify and Epic). Consumers and groups like the BEUC were not the ones calling for the DMA. It was mostly pushed by various companies (e.g., Spotify).
Even the EU group promoting the DMA highlights that it's more about the companies than the consumers:
They bury some of the potential benefits for consumers. Again, it's more about the "small" companies than it is about consumers. Since that is the case, it weakens any argument that the DMA is inherently good for consumers. It’s mainly about which corporations get which piece and size of the pie. Any benefit to consumers might be incidental.
Last edited:
It's not about "MY" choice. Which is that in a world where I increasingly care about privacy and security, I choose Apple precisely for their walled garden. If YOU don't want that, you have a lot of choices available to you.
No one is forcing apple to sell in the EU. Just move to the USA, problem fixed, or contact your politicians.
All the people here with "soo much better to have choice, it's zero cost" ignore the tens of thousands of lines of code that are needed to support all this choice, and the bugs that they introduce. From my side, the EU can go… build its own phone (to not use sweat words).
You didn't answer my question. How can the populace legally push back, directly, against a corporation? Not via the market, but via the legal system?
There has to be a check on corporate power. They are not above the populace, nor above the governments, and not above the law. They are low on the totem pole of entities that matter.
All the demands sound pretty reasonable actually. 👍
I'm all for the EU tearing Apple a new one every Monday, force them to act competitive.
Nobody is ignoring anything. They are purposefully sidestepping salient points because of the blinders being worn. And believe that creating competition by taking a businesses thriving business model is the way to really create competition.
In what sense? There are all sorts of legal avenues available to a consumer who has been harmed by a product or a corporation.
But saying "I want my product to do y and it only does x" is a problem for the marketplace, not for the courts.
Competition doesn't exist without a referee.
And all those so-called "demands" are best left to the marketplace.
No, corporations make decisions by money, which in a free market means the consumer holds all the power (with some exceptions). Politicians make decisions sometimes by their voter base, sometimes by lobbyists, sometimes by other agendas. Politics is much more convoluted.
Again, Apple has about 25% marketshare. If this were a game with a referee, Apple is losing the game.
If a consumer discretionary for profit corporation is legal in its dealings, you buy another product that suits you better.
There already are dozens of laws in the books regarding all sorts of things.
No, but many companies operate within the law or have minor transgressions at most. You making it seem like apple operates above the law is nonsense.
For being low in the totem pole there is a lot of regulation and enimus directed toward them. But from a company you care about. Problem solved.