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

[DaPhox]

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.

What is ”truly free” with governments meddling?

 

[DaPhox]

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.

What is a ”monopolistic activity”?

 

[KevinN206]

The EU didn’t even consider that they’d have to hire people to do compliance checks as a part of their new rules.

What makes you think this is the case?

 

[spazzcat]

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.

Just like every platform.

 

[DaPhox]

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

Very OK.

 

[KevinN206]

How about the EU promulgate some laws instead of making it up as they go along. Apple was quick to implement USB-C and they changed the App Store entirely.

I mean, come on, what exactly do they want? As far as I can tell, all they want from Apple... is fines.

Apple likely already worked on a USB C solution a long time ago. It didn't willingly change to USB C without the EU laws.

 

[spazzcat]

Letter and spirit of the law - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This is the most important part because all people and businesses look for these, aka, bad laws...

Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language.

 

[iOS Geek]

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.

@ric22 care to explain why you're disagreeing with what I said here? Design decisions are locked in far in advance and the deadline set by the EU is the end of 2024. Meaning the 2023 iPhones, if they still had Lightning, would NOT have been in violation of the EU law.

EDIT: No response. Just as I expected

 

[Beautyspin]

What has seemed to interest me regarding the fines that can be imposed is the questions of, under law, how do the EU regulators claim they have jurisdiction to base a penalty on global revenues. Seriously, how do they get to base any action on business outside of their jurisdiction. Can you imaginei f the US regulators had an issue with a German company that, in the eyes of the US regulators warranted a fine and they based the fine amount on activities conducted outside of the US by a company that is not a US corporation. It seems absurd, just as the idea that Apple has a dominant position in iPhones anywhere outside of the US.

Well, even after considering global revenues, Apple was fined only 40 million GBP for Spotify related violation and 1.8 billion GBP is for deterrence.

"The basic fine, which was calculated based on the duration and gravity of the infringement, Apple's total turnover and market capitalization, seems to have amounted to €40 million. An additional lump sum of €1.8 billion was added to ensure deterrence bringing the total fine to €1.84 billion. The Commission considered this UNPRECEDENTED increase was considered necessary to ensure that the total amount of the fine is proportionate to Apple's global revenues and is necessary to achieve deterrence."

It takes a long breath ... To deliver a big blow - EU Commission hits Apple with over €1.8 billion fine

The European Commission has fined Apple with €1.84 billion for abusing its dominance in the market for the distribution of music streaming apps to…

www.lexology.com

 

[Beautyspin]

Just like every platform.

Will not be after the DOJ is done with Apple, I guess.

 

[spazzcat]

Will not be after the DOJ is done with Apple, I guess.

Good luck with that. That case is falling apart already, and it hasn't even made it to pretrial yet.

 

[bcortens]

Just like every platform.

This statement just isn't true.

Neither the Mac nor Windows collect per transaction fees, nor per install fees. MS charges a fee for VisualStudio and Apple has a yearly developer membership, that's it for Mac and Windows. Because when operating in a non-captured market (like PCs) these companies know that the risk of alienating developers by trying to extort money out of them is worse than the payoff.

If Apple tried this on the Mac we'd have even fewer native Apps than we do. We'd get nothing but electron garbage. It is only Apple's absolute market dominance and control that prevents iOS devs from ignoring Apple's license fees and just releasing the equivalent of electron apps. (I do not think that would be a good thing). If the only thing keeping Apple's licensing fees in place is the fact that they have a captured market that they can exert anti-competitive control over said market then those fees aren't actually market rates and can't be defended as such.

Furthermore: The community exploded when Unity tried to justify per install fees, not even Unreal Engine (from big bad Epic) tries to charge per install fees.

 

[spazzcat]

This statement just isn't true.

Neither the Mac nor Windows collect per transaction fees, nor per install fees. MS charges a fee for VisualStudio and Apple has a yearly developer membership, that's it for Mac and Windows. Because when operating in a non-captured market (like PCs) these companies know that the risk of alienating developers by trying to extort money out of them is worse than the payoff.

If Apple tried this on the Mac we'd have even fewer native Apps than we do. We'd get nothing but electron garbage. It is only Apple's absolute market dominance and control that prevents iOS devs from ignoring Apple's license fees and just releasing the equivalent of electron apps. (I do not think that would be a good thing). If the only thing keeping Apple's licensing fees in place is the fact that they have a captured market that they can exert anti-competitive control over said market then those fees aren't actually market rates and can't be defended as such.

Furthermore: The community exploded when Unity tried to justify per install fees, not even Unreal Engine (from big bad epic) tries to charge per install fees.

Sorry, I should have said every closed platform...

 

[Beautyspin]

caving in to EU changes could flow on elsewhere and make business less profitable everywhere.
it really is a balancing act on where to draw the line.

pull out of EU and continue making money in the other 75% or stay and risk it all everywhere?

only time will tell what they do and how it works out.
but the IT world if full of failures for picking the wrong direction. Nokia...

That would make sense if only the EU is contemplating antitrust action against Apple. However, many countries are either planning to or have already brought about Antitrust actions against Apple. So, if they set a precedent in the EU, they will have to do the same everywhere else. It will be a problem for them later.

Pulling out of the market means they cannot sell anything there, even if they develop a really good product going forward such as Vision Air (just kidding) or something else, they will have to give up on the EU market.

 

[opiapr]

This is just another EU money grab. All they care at this point is how much money they can suck out of American tech companies.

 

[Beautyspin]

Good luck with that. That case is falling apart already, and it hasn't even made it to pretrial yet.

There are some who say the case is not good, but several others that say it is very damning.

Professor Looks at Apple Antitrust Suit Implications

Professor Thomas Nachbar of the University of Virginia School of Law offers insights on the possible implications of the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Apple.

www.law.virginia.edu

The DoJ’s Apple Complaint Is Damning

Another day another person complaining about Apple. This time it’s the US Department Of Justice.

medium.com

I think that the fact that DOJ took 5 years to bring this case after seeing how the other antitrust cases have gone and what kind arguments will likely win the case so I am assuming they have a plan on how to win the case. That is one of the reasons why the venue has been chosen as NJ.

 

[hagar]

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.

Two-bit piddly little countries? The EU market with 448M people is bigger than the US market with 332M people. Seems like you should travel more.

 

[KevinN206]

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

What do you think of Apple's push back in 2020? What has changed since then? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-apple-charger-idUSKBN1ZM2EV/

 

[hagar]

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.

But they typically want to keep selling older models for at least another year. So it’s smart to transition earlier.

 

[KevinN206]

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.

What do you of Apple's resistance to USB C back in 2020? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-apple-charger-idUSKBN1ZM2EV/

 

[spazzcat]

What do you think of Apple's push back in 2020? What has changed since then? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-apple-charger-idUSKBN1ZM2EV/

Steve Jobs said we would get 10 years of Lighting; how many generations of iPhones had Lighting?

 

[KevinN206]

Very OK.

Can you remind me what would Apple lose in Europe in compliance with the law versus losing all profits from Europe?

 

[spazzcat]

But they typically want to keep selling older models for at least another year. So it’s smart to transition earlier.

I thought the law didn't affect products already in the market, only new models?

 

[Beautyspin]

and Apple are in business and making a profit is the point of being in business.

if users werent finding value in the prices they paid, they wouldnt be buying hardware or software.

i've been around long enough to think both hardware and software are cheap.
i bought a Sony laptop for A$5000 andit was worth every cent for the work it was able to do for our business.
I bought a A$1000 camera and we took product shots and did advertising material inhouse instead of contracting it out.
A Fuji colour printer let us affordably create small runs of advertising instore materials.

All this is now available much cheaper.
I can't believe how cheap disk storage is.

The value now lies in your data and documents.
People still dont back up stuff. Unbelieveable...

So back to the point, why shouldnt Apple as a business seeking profits do everything they can to maintain their profits?
It's not illegal. Or immoral.

Where does your 70% profit margin number come from?

They just should not be exclusionary and anticompetitive.

 

[ric22]

This is the most important part because all people and businesses look for these, aka, bad laws...

Exactly. They tried to circumvent the spirit via technicalities and loopholes, and they're already getting investigated for it 🤦‍♂️