EU Opens Non-Compliance Investigations into Apple, Meta, and Google

[NagasakiGG]

the rules were never needed in the first place.

Says who? You? Luckily you’re not the one in charge with zero knowledge about monopolies. But I don’t flame you, it’s a problem with the mindset in the US. but guess what, even the DoJ now woke up.

It’s btw the same with the Public Health Service, paternity/maternity leave, sick leave or unemployment aid, which is almost nonexistent in the US. - You’re right, they’re not needed. Why grant people even a low standard of living if they can just rot to death if they can’t afford.

And yes, I do hate the EU and I am happy for not living there, for several reasons. But what they’re doing in regards of regulations against big tech companies is more than welcoming

 

[Lihp8270]

Well, yes and not. Engineers should work to meet the business' needs and the business needs to be compliant to operate properly.

Edit: nvm I totally misread your post. Sorry.


What?

Developing compliant services is 100% part of the job. No matter your field of engineering, ensuring you comply with relevant local laws is 100% the job.

 

[Jamie0003]

Ya well whatever. The real news is the overwhelming majority growing consensus that the DoJ case against Apple is a joke.

Is it? Where’s the evidence?

 

[Xiao_Xi]

Apple is not a monopoly when Android exists. This whole issue is stupid.

Apple has been found guilty of abuse of dominant position, not monopoly, in some European countries.

Summary of decision: abuse of dominant position Apple | ACM

The ACM has ordered Apple to adjust the unreasonable conditions in its App Store that apply to dating-app providers. The court has partially suspended the order subject to a penalty imposed by ACM on Apple. Apple does not have to comply with that part of the cease and desist order for the time being

www.acm.nl

 

[Shirasaki]

I have finally found a good reason for Brexit! It will end up these big companies pulling out of Europe!

How about pulling out of UK if UK follows suite then? Coward back to US, their home base, after hitting legal roadblocks. Who needs iPhone anyways right?

 

[Shirasaki]

Apple is not a monopoly when Android exists. This whole issue is stupid.

One company doesn’t have to be monopoly to engage in monopolistic activities, and defining monopoly is anything but simple “iOS and android thus no”.
You may disagree.

 

[.wojtek]

what was so awesome about sailfish? especially when you then say it was lacking... huh?

the OS itself and how it worked. I had control over whether the app is running or not.

It was lacking _the apps_ because you know... oligopoly...

Consumers didnt support Microsoft or Nokia so that's why there are two main competitors standing.

Tech often comes down to two alternatives.

HD DVD vs BluRay
VHS vs Beta
MiniDisc vs DCC (no winners there!)
ATRAC vs MP3
Dolby Atmos vs DTS X

Erm... it's not only consumers but "the big players". For example google was actively working to hamper access to it's services (infamous youtube app) and if the user can't get access the platform dies. MS made some mistakes as well, but still - limiting access to services stifle innovation and this is the gist of EU directive - break walled gardens so that alternatives can emerge (and be interoperable)

 

[hagar]

why? if it costs too much to do business and affects profits, then retreat could be a best case scenario. Until EU buyers revolt against the EU lawmakers. Politicians still need votes to maintain their power base...

Why would we revolt? I like more choice and more competition. Third party stores, sideloading… bring it on!

And no: Apple will not abandon a market of 448M people. That would tank the company.

 

[DPL145$]

Apple needs to tell the EU, made up of two-bit piddly little countries to stuff it. The Apple system works via its integration. You don’t want to be in the Apple sphere then don’t buy Apple, go android etc. The EU over regulates and it is time for the world to tell them to buzz off or stop selling to them.

 

[Mycya4me]

why does every one want Apple software/ Hareware to be as buggy as their is!

 

[thegerman]

What are you, as a customer and user, gaining from these rules? I am honestly curious what you expect to win.

What are you, as a customer and user, gaining from these rules? I am honestly curious what you expect to win

What are you, as a customer and user, gaining from these rules? I am honestly curious what you expect to win.

I am a customer just like you and I don't want to be fooled. Thanks to the EU we finally have USB C. May it continue to go in the right direction

 

[ric22]

Are the rules perfectly clear? If they were perfectly clear, the EU wouldn't need to investigate whether Apple is following the rules -- it would be perfectly clear and the EU could say right now: "You are not following the rules" or "You are following the rules". The fact that the EU is investigating shows that it's not clear. That's generally how regulations go -- are they ever written perfectly with no ambiguity at all? Do regulatory lawyers exist? If so, regulations are never perfectly clear.

It's far too soon to say "these companies weren't actually following the rules properly". It's possible they are not. It is also possible they are. It's also possible that they are following the rules but the EU doesn't like how they are following the rules and will change or clarify the regulations, instigating further changes.

Intent of the law vs letter of the law. Apple believe they found a way to comply that completely ignores the spirit of the law. I suspect the wording of the law will change. It was futile evading the spirit of the law.

 

[Beautyspin]

Andorid users are already migrating at 11-15% a year to iOS phones.
They are vvoting with the wallets already.

With Google also on the investigation list, the escape route to an Android phone could be as problematic as well.

EU just dont like US tech companies.

The shareholders should be jumping all over the DoJ for their huge public statement that has affected share price before any inbestigation has occurred. DoJ have tarnished the reputation. Defamed it even. Cook and the Board deserve to be upset and the shareholders too. Some of the allegations they made are waffly rubbish. They stand no chance of winning. You cant force users to buy alternative phones. They can force Apple to make all those changes and what happens when most people continue to buy Apple and but from the app store? Will they have to find another way to "level the playing field"? Perhaps a few heads should roll at the DoJ office instead?

They talked about the case, explained their position, and when asked about what remedies they would seek, explained them. If they had not, probably they would have been derelict in their duty. If they had Apple stocks, then probably this is a problem.

Like a lot of people said, monopoly is not an issue. The following are the seven core principles of Section 2 of Sherman Act.

• Unilateral conduct is outside the purview of section 2 unless the actor possesses monopoly power or is likely to achieve it.
• The mere possession or exercise of monopoly power is not an offense; the law addresses only the anticompetitive acquisition or maintenance of such power (and certain related attempts).
• Acquiring or maintaining monopoly power through assaults on the competitive process harms consumers and is to be condemned.
• Mere harm to competitors--without harm to the competitive process--does not violate section 2.
• Competitive and exclusionary conduct can look alike--indeed, the same conduct can have both beneficial and exclusionary effects--making it hard to distinguish conduct that should be deemed unlawful from conduct that should not.
• Because competitive and exclusionary conduct often look alike, courts and enforcers need to be concerned with both underdeterrence and overdeterrence.
• Standards for applying section 2 should take into account the costs, including error and administrative costs, associated with courts and enforcers applying those standards in individual cases and businesses applying them in their own day-to-day decision making.

Competition And Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 Of The Sherman Act : Chapter 1

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

The link has citations for cases which can show how these principles have been applied, if you are interested.

 

[spazzcat]

I am a customer just like you and I don't want to be fooled. Thanks to the EU we finally have USB C. May it continue to go in the right direction

You were getting UBSC no matter what, but keep believing the big EU made Apple move to USBC.

 

[spazzcat]

Intent of the law vs letter of the law. Apple believe they found a way to comply that completely ignores the spirit of the law. I suspect the wording of the law will change. It was futile evading the spirit of the law.

There is no such thing as the spirit of the law. There is only the letter of the law.

 

[Mveight]

Well, yes and not. Engineers should work to meet the business' needs and the business needs to be compliant to operate properly.

Microsoft is a loser when it comes to smart phones and social media due to its bad decisions in those areas. The Government is picking who should be a winners and losers here! But they will come after Microsoft for AI. This is ultimately insanity! The free market system does what is needed all by itself!

The whole point of the lawsuit, and antitrust law generally, is that the market isn’t truly a free one when corps like Apple make decisions that exclude market competitors.

 

[bcortens]

There is no such thing as the spirit of the law. There is only the letter of the law.

Since you're clearly not paying attention to EU law: Page 11

 

[Beautyspin]

Apple takes 15% for lots of things. Not 30%.

I doubt as a dev you would really be happier on the Epic store.
Less visitors. A small drop in fees. Having to handle all payments and refunds and complaints and marketing.

So many devs come on here and say even at 30% they are happy because the old physical store model used to chew up to 90% of the ticket price off them.

If you dont like the phone store you can always code for desktop and avoid app stores altogether...

Apple takes the following (the complaint says 30% but it could vary - 15% for some)

For most of the last 15 years,
1. Apple collected a tax in the form of a 30 percent commission on the price of any app downloaded from the App Store,
2. 30 percent tax on in-app purchases,
3. fees to access the tools needed to develop iPhone native apps in the first place.
4. Apple also generates substantial and increasing revenue by charging developers to help users find their apps in the App Store—something that, for years, Apple told developers was part of the reason they paid a 30 percent tax in the first place. For example, Apple will sell keyword searches for an app to someone other than the owner of the app. Apple is able to command these rents from companies of all sizes, including some of the largest and most sophisticated companies in the world.

That is the problem.

 

[dba415]

Apple needs to tell the EU, made up of two-bit piddly little countries to stuff it. The Apple system works via its integration. You don’t want to be in the Apple sphere then don’t buy Apple, go android etc. The EU over regulates and it is time for the world to tell them to buzz off or stop selling to them.

Great Apple should leave the EU market entirely. That'll show them.

 

[bcortens]

Apple takes the following (the complaint says 30% but it could vary - 15% for some)

For most of the last 15 years,
1. Apple collected a tax in the form of a 30 percent commission on the price of any app downloaded from the App Store,
2. 30 percent tax on in-app purchases,
3. fees to access the tools needed to develop iPhone native apps in the first place.
4. Apple also generates substantial and increasing revenue by charging developers to help users find their apps in the App Store—something that, for years, Apple told developers was part of the reason they paid a 30 percent tax in the first place. For example, Apple will sell keyword searches for an app to someone other than the owner of the app. Apple is able to command these rents from companies of all sizes, including some of the largest and most sophisticated companies in the world.

That is the problem.

I think we have some evidence (

https://twitter.com/x/status/1481339345822879745

) that Apple wanted to take 30% cut of physical stores but backed down because they didn't want to lose those apps. They only do it to digital apps today (and have the reader exemption) because those are the only apps they can still bully into it.

 

[ric22]

There is no such thing as the spirit of the law. There is only the letter of the law.

Letter and spirit of the law - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Beautyspin]

I am not so sure about that. If staying in the EU market runs the risk of paying more in fines than earning through sales and commissions, shareholders might actually accept leaving the market for good. I mean, is Apple even making 10 to 20% of its global revenue in the EU? And once the new stores stop paying their share, will the revenue still be worth the risk?

So, the shareholders will be okay with Apple capitulating in China but pulling out from the EU instead of following the law?

 

[iOS Geek]

I am a customer just like you and I don't want to be fooled. Thanks to the EU we finally have USB C. May it continue to go in the right direction

Oh please. USB-C isn't "thanks to the EU". The EU's deadline hasn't even passed yet. (The deadline is the end of THIS year). Apple could've gone with Lightning in the 15 lineup and wouldn't have been in violation of anything.

The EU isn't due any credit here, so not sure why you're giving it to them. Since you said you don't want to be fooled, you might want to get your facts straight. That being said though...nothing the EU is doing here is moving things in the right direction.

 

[iOS Geek]

You were getting UBSC no matter what, but keep believing the big EU made Apple move to USBC.

Yep. Especially considering the EU's deadline for USB-C hasn't even been reached yet. The 15 lineup could have come with Lightning and would not have been in violation.

 

[deevey]

I searched for a particular app in the App Store that I know exists. It's companion software for a hardware item. Could 't find it, even though I was putting in the exact name. I had to go to manufacturers website to get a link to the App in the App Store.

Generally, I find the search function really poor, and that's a bad user experience.
Apple should put some focus on that.

Lots of developers simply suck at SEO and putting in the correct relevant keywords. Some app developers are great at it - this is not Apple's fault.

e.g. someone posted the other day about a semi-popular note taking app that doesn't show up at all, or shows up way down the results when you type "Note Taking".

The reason: Their title and description of the product is hyphenated ... "Note-Taking" and they are competing with hundreds of other apps that have the term that is actually searched for by users.