EU Likely to Charge Apple With Anti-Competitive Behavior This Week

[farewelwilliams]

How did Apple FanBoys used to say?
There are enough alternatives out there, I you don't like it, move along.

Same applies here, if Apple don't like the rules of EU market, move along.
Simply as that... hahaha

Ok so does this mean anytime an "Apple Fanboy" brings up "if you don't like it, move to Android", you're going to stop complaining?

Or are you only satisfied with "moving along" when it suits your argument?

 

[ForkHandles]

Have to because of guns and gulags and choose to...those are pretty different.

No organization represents the people...they represent their own interests and special interests. We just vote to make us feel like we are running things.

Walmart’s infamous closing down of all corner shops buy undercutting prices and then opening one central store was pretty bad for the people but you’re right, no gulags.
The EU structure is quite impressive, it doesn’t really have a party system within its central council or commission. It is very centred on ensuring fair and free trade across 27 sovereign nations, that is its purpose.

 

[Gog2495]

> Does what's best for the consumer and for developer
> Gets charged a fine for doing the right thing.

Pretty stupid, EU.

You're kidding right?!

 

[farewelwilliams]

You're kidding right?!

No. One store makes it better for most developers and consumers.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

1.3X isn't nearly 2x as big. The EU does have a larger population that the US, but the EU just doesn't swing that much weight in this.

Countries within the EU are not on the same page(e.g. Ireland) and the crazy EU bureaucracy leadership means that next year it's likely that someone will be leading the EU that will just dismiss all this. With the UK gone the EU has a new power imbalance that will need fixed. I'm sure Germany will want to get new treaties signed that enshrine their power over the EU bureaucracy. Germany is already unilaterally vetoing doling out more money to the EU.

By my calculations it was 1.54x (including the UK) so rounding would make it 2x

 

[iPadified]

Being that Apple is not the dominant platform I hardly call them anti competitive. Clearly sounds like EU is catering to the whinges who refuse to innovate and want to use someone else services for free.

No, they cannot ignore the complainer. They must take it to court unless there is a prior court ruling to lean against. This is how organisations are supposed to behave in the framework of democratically accepted laws. Everything else is corruption. Not that EU is completely free of corruption but taking things to court its to play by the book.

 

[iPadified]

This is the same EU that this week filed to sue a manufacturer of a life-saving vaccine provided at cost, that they don’t want to use themselves anyway.

So breaking a contract is OK as long as EU is involved? Yeah right...

 

[Shirasaki]

How did Apple FanBoys used to say?
There are enough alternatives out there, I you don't like it, move along.

Same applies here, if Apple don't like the rules of EU market, move along.
Simply as that... hahaha

This.
Apple can leave the market if they find meeting regulatory requirements cost way too much. Nobody is needing Apple for anything.

 

[jlc1978]

Part of the EU project is to inject money into the poorer nations through development grants. By making neighbouring countries richer they hope to increase overall EU GDP and make currency even stronger. The ancillary benefit is that poorer nations will come to the more wealthier ones for assistance with infrastructure.

I get that, and in general it's a good idea. In practice, however, in some cases since countries, with the Euro, no longer had the benefit of a a weak currency, say the Escudo vs the Mark, they no longer had the advantages of a weaker currency.

An added issue is the bailing out of countries that were not very fiscally responsible, something the Germans no doubt won't want to do over and over.

They say that communism is exemplified by all consumers having to go through only one supplier.
Capitalism, as Bezos shows, is able to produce very similar results if left unchecked.

However, in capitalism, others are still free to enter and compete, and in many cases do at the margins rather than taking on every line of business.

Broadly I am in favour of an organisation representing the people having the power to investigate such matters.

I agree, allowing companies unchecked ability to drive markets leads to bad results.

Walmart’s infamous closing down of all corner shops buy undercutting prices and then opening one central store was pretty bad for the people but you’re right, no gulags.

People complain about Walmart but in the end chose to shop there and not at their local store, because they want cheaper prices. The consumer is also at fault in that scenario, because their actions result in the local store's demise.

The EU structure is quite impressive, it doesn’t really have a party system within its central council or commission. It is very centred on ensuring fair and free trade across 27 sovereign nations, that is its purpose.

It is, however the very structure makes it hard to reach consensus and often one country can derail something until it gets what it wants. Even within the EU, countries take actions to shore up domestic industries at the expense of other countries in the bloc. The are very much a confederation, with all the advantages and challenges.

 

[page3]

So breaking a contract is OK as long as EU is involved? Yeah right...

AZ haven’t though, that’s the point.

 

[ForkHandles]

I get that, and in general it's a good idea. In practice, however, in some cases since countries, with the Euro, no longer had the benefit of a a weak currency, say the Escudo vs the Mark, they no longer had the advantages of a weaker currency.

An added issue is the bailing out of countries that were not very fiscally responsible, something the Germans no doubt won't want to do over and over.



However, in capitalism, others are still free to enter and compete, and in many cases do at the margins rather than taking on every line of business.



I agree, allowing companies unchecked ability to drive markets leads to bad results.



People complain about Walmart but in the end chose to shop there and not at their local store, because they want cheaper prices. The consumer is also at fault in that scenario, because their actions result in the local store's demise.



It is, however the very structure makes it hard to reach consensus and often one country can derail something until it gets what it wants. Even within the EU, countries take actions to shore up domestic industries at the expense of other countries in the bloc. The are very much a confederation, with all the advantages and challenges.

It is very hard to reach a consensus, but that in itself is a real positive. Only laws that everyone can live with get made.
in the UK it was never presented like that, more that the ‘Germans’ were running the whole outfit for their own benefit. So we ostracised ourselves like proper eejits.
That’s populism for you!!!

 

[Shirasaki]

Yep, and we know Apple is too greedy to give up a market.
They are even worse than Google at this, they love to spread Human Rights marketing blah blah, Privacy marketing blub blub, etc. At the same time they support China, and choose to stay in their market, despite knowing whats going on there.
Google (not better at many cases), at least has shown more moral at this one.

Confirmed: Google Terminated Project Dragonfly, Its Censored Chinese Search Engine

Atherton Research's Principal Analyst and Futurist Jeb Su reviews Google's recent admission that it canceled its secret project to launch a Chinese a censored search engine codenamed Dragonfly that filters out websites and search results about human rights, democracy, religion, and more.

www.forbes.com

Apple is a populist and plays the good privacy guy in the public, but they have many many other ways to use your data in an anti-competitive way to create new services, apps, devices, predict trends based on third party apps downloads and access, and kill competion that way, just to name a few.
It starts with webservice logs, appleid activity+login+logs, and goes over to *NOT* End2End encrypted iCloud backups, which they probably scrape though to join that data with other collected services data, data analytics at finest level.

Just to complete the image...

Apple's MacOS caught sending user data to Apple every time an app is opened

Apple's supposed commitment to privacy falls short.

reclaimthenet.org

Apple lets some Big Sur network traffic bypass firewalls

Firewalls are “100% blind” to ~50 Apple apps and processes under undocumented change.

arstechnica.com

Apple removes 39,000 game apps from China store to meet deadline

Apple removed 39,000 game apps on its China store Thursday, the biggest removal ever in a single day, as it set year-end as deadline for all game publishers to obtain a licence.

www.reuters.com

...and probably much more, uncovered yet.

The network one is rather interesting. This means I need to setup an external firewall running Linux to block certain traffic from or to those apps. Glad that I’m aware of those now.

 

[Rob_2811]

I’ve been telling some of you for months that regulation was coming.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

So breaking a contract is OK as long as EU is involved? Yeah right...

Good luck with that one Did you read the contract? Which ever civil servant agreed to 'best reasonable endeavours...' now has to prove what those are and why Astra-Zeneca did not employ 'best reasonable endeavours...'.

It is not like this was a great contract and it wasn't know already https://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-was-warned-eus-astrazeneca-contract-lacked-teeth-documents/

 

[Nuno Lopes]

If it's capped at 30% because of apple that's a benefit to the developers. Remove the cap and what would they get charged?

Because it's a store, and just like very other store that sells something adds a markup?

Hello.

1. I‘m almost 50 years of age, has a business owner, never heard of a business settings a price to the benefit of the payer. Only charity like organizations … is Apple a charity? Maybe day should get tax benefits from that no?

2. Again, never heard of a Store that forces sellers into install devices on their products they sell so that when the actual actual seller sell, the bill is money and the billing to some other entity. There are a few exceptions such as fairs and franchises, is Apply franchising?

3. Never heard of a Store that charges for products and services that it does not produce, distribute or even actually sell. For instance, say a eBook App in the App Store. The App sells eBooks, but than its forced into transfering the final part of the sales to the App Store for it to collect 30%, just like that. If they don’t, they are banned, and cannot service THEIR customers. Honestely, never heard of it.

It maybe like every other store, unfortunately never met those.

EDIT: Maybe in fairs … franchising kind of business agreements. But mostely I’ve seen in movies, you know, those movies where devices enter into shops and take a share of revenue with no option of not paying in exchange of safety. Both for the store owner and their customers. Just saying, this came to my mind just now. The world has indeed gone mad.

 

[Ethosik]

Never heard of a Store that charges for products and services that it does not produce, distribute or even actually sell. For instance, say a eBook App in the App Store. The App sells eBooks, but than its forced into transfering the final part of the sales to the App Store for it to collect 30%, just like that. If they don’t, they are banned, and cannot service THEIR customers. Honestely, never heard of it.

I can’t sell a product at Target without giving them SOMETHING.

 

[jlc1978]

It is very hard to reach a consensus, but that in itself is a real positive. Only laws that everyone can live with get made.

Of course, rules are often watered down to the point the lack real teeth to become merely recommendations; or may never get made even if there are compelling reasons for a common set of rules. Look at the EU's attempt the develop a framework for C19 vaccination certificates as an example.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I can’t sell a product at Target without giving them SOMETHING.

True. But don’t understand the comparison. In the in an in app purchase the customer is not at “Target” its in your in your shop, your place, the place that you have invested and built, that your customer decided to go to using the device of their choice. That is why it is called IN-APP-PURCHASE, no IN-APPLE-STORE purchase.

Is the app no where near “Target” if not for the App Store intrusive payment and billing device that you need to install in your app/shop.

EDIT: Its more like someone going to your shop, they like wha they see, want to buy and than you need to say … “sorry you need to go to Tesco to pay and than comeback with a receipt of payment and I give your the product”. The Miracle of the digital materials.

 

[Ethosik]

True. But don’t understand the comparison. In the in an in app purchase the customer is not at “Target” its in your in your shop, your place, the place that you have invested and built, installed your customer device of their choice. Is no where near Target if not for the App Store intrusive device that you need to install in your app/shop.

iTunes billing does not go through the company of the product. It goes through Apple. I have had issues before, even needing refunds. This was all done via Apple. The company of the apps were not involved. So yes it does cost Apple to staff those customer service reps for iTunes billing.

 

[alex2792]

What took so long? The anticompetitive garbage Apple pulls with their App Store would make Bill Gates blush.

 

[jlc1978]

Hello.

1. I‘m almost 50 years of age, has a business owner, never heard of a business settings a price to the benefit of the payer. Only charity like organizations … is Apple a charity? Maybe day should get tax benefits from that no?

I have no idea what you are saying here.

2. Again, never heard of a Store that forces sellers into install devices on their products they sell so that when the actual actual seller sell, the bill is money and the billing to some other entity. There are a few exceptions such as fairs and franchises, is Apply franchising?

Well, WalMart sells phone plans that a third party services but Walmart gets its cut and handles billing, as one example. .

3. Never heard of a Store that charges for products and services that it does not produce, distribute or even actually sell. For instance, say a eBook App in the App Store. The App sells eBooks, but than its forced into transfering the final part of the sales to the App Store for it to collect 30%, just like that. If they don’t, they are banned, and cannot service THEIR customers. Honestely, never heard of it.

Uh, when I introduce a company to a clients I get a cut of whatever they sell, even though I never do anything again.

It maybe like every other store, unfortunately never met those.

EDIT: Maybe in fairs … franchising kind of business agreements. But mostely I’ve seen in movies, you know, those movies where devices enter into shops and take a share of revenue with no option of not paying in exchange of safety. Both for the store owner and their customers. Just saying, this came to my mind just now. The world has indeed gone mad.

Huh?

 

[H2SO4]

Google does not sell your data, they sell Ad “slots” based on your data, but not directly your data. They would be stupid to sell your data, and giving that precious database out of hands. In other words both companies Apple and Google use your data to improve their services the same way, but Apple plays the good guy in public.

Too many people here seem to think that Google sell your hair colour, shoe size, phone number, Blockbuster history, Friend reunited data base and anything else you can think of.
Why?
Because it suits the Apple fanboy narrative.

Your last sentence is key, Apple make a huge deal about anonymising your data but at the same time rake in billions from a company they were supposed to go thermo nuclear on.

 

[H2SO4]

These are toys, Phones are general purpose devices, deeply involved into social life and other market types. It’s a payment device, and in a few countries even holds your Personal ID, Driver License, or Social Number. Apple is diving into new territories, and they will have to obey the rules.

In addition I can still buy xbox media/accessories on Amazon, John Lewis and myriad other stores.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

iTunes billing does not go through the company of the product. It goes through Apple. I have had issues before, even needing refunds. This was all done via Apple. The company of the apps were not involved. So yes it does cost Apple to staff those customer service reps for iTunes billing.

What you buy in iTunes comes directly from Apple servers, much like Apple Music. It distributes and sells music.

Nothing that Spotify sells comes from Apple servers, with the exception of their App, that is hosted on the so called App Store. Don’t think Spotify minds paying Apple to host their App etc etc.

But can Spotify be forced into giving 30% up of what they sell for the App Store to host the app … and than compete with Apple Music that gives up 0? I say forced, because you know, when a company has 50% of the customers in their pockets (well its the contrary, but you get my drift), there is a force to reckon.

 

[Ethosik]

What you buy in iTunes comes directly from Apple servers, much like Apple Music. It distributes and sells music.

Nothing that Spotify sells comes from Apple servers, with the exception of their App, that is hosted on the so called App Store.

If I buy Spotify subscription through Apple then yes, Apple has resources taken.