iPadOS Identified as Digital 'Gatekeeper' Under New EU Tech Rules

[Ethosik]

Game consoles have 30% commissions. Steam on Windows has 30% commissions. It's not the business terms. The reality for AAA games is that they require HIGH PRICES in order to get the return on investment that they're looking for. Mobile gaming generally has LOW PRICES.

Plus Mobile Gaming makes up over half the entire gaming industry’s revenue.

 

[bcortens]

Sure I have, you're just not acknowledging them.

Vaguely gesturing at "Apple can't make the decisions they want to" isn't a meaningful statement.

I'll ask again:
Exactly what will Apple change in terms of the hardware Apple sells that will be worse than what we have today?
Exactly what will change in the software Apple makes that actually makes the user experience worse?

 

[vipergts2207]

There doesnt have to be a ”system” ruling over companies.

Sorry, this ain’t some libertarian fantasy land where regulations don’t exist.

 

[bcortens]

The purpose of anticompetitive practices is to avoid having to make improvements while continuing to rake in the cash. That's why it's considered to be a negative: the only purpose is to control the market.

Sure, but my point is that the product can have a great user experience while the company that makes the product is behaving anti-competitively. I was mostly objecting to the idea that the EU thinks the products aren't great. "Great" is kind of vague and too all encompassing. The product can offer a great user experience while still being limited by its owners anti-competitive behaviour.

 

[bcortens]

1. I never said SWAP. I said BOOT.

Rebooting is even worse. a hard reboot would take multiple minutes to complete and would interrupt flow even worse than trying to hot swap.Keeping both macOS and iPadOS alive but one in swap memory would slightly improve this but would mean you have to keep enough flash free to store the entire OS and App State of the inactive OS.

1. Apps don't need to be changed necessarily. We can already run iPad apps on MacOS when allowed by the developer. No need to assume all apps need to be optimized or supported by both.

This still means that all apps have to be supported on both platforms. If one is not, it's going to suck.

Window placement is the prevue of the active UI. Both iPadOS and MacOs "know" the apps that were running and relative placement on screen on reboot.

Come to think of it - it would probably even be easier to just support MacOS with a Springboard subsystem (like Xcode Simulator or the way MacOS support single iPad app today). Then all that needs to really be done is lock the Springboard subsystem full screen when undocked and allow MacOS UI when docked.

Synchronizing data and state again is hard and would require huge amounts of work on the part of both Apple and third party devs. The work required to get this working well is just such a high barrier that it just isn't worth it. If they are going to go through the trouble of doing this it would be faster and cheaper to just fix the iPad OS subsystem limitations (background processing, multitasking limits etc...) while leaving it as a separate platform.

 

[vipergts2207]

Corporations do not pay fines. Their customers pay the fines with increased prices for the product of the corporation.

You could use this “logic” to argue companies should never be fined, which is of course laughable.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You become a gatekeeper through the software, not the hardware. Samsung produces phones for the Android OS. Apple is a gatekeeper because of iOS iPadOS and mostly because of the appstores. Therefore the comparison betweeen Apple and Samsung doesn't make much sense.

Yes and Samsung was considered to be a gatekeeper according to their we browser they provide. Same way Gmail was considered one but later wasn’t classified as one.

“Not particularly singled out”. As its company on that list includes 4 other American companies and one Chinese one. Somehow the entire continent of Europe and within the EU, the EU found not a single company capable of competing and ”dominating” with american or Chinese counterparts across multiple categories.

If this is true, Europe has stagnated to the point of simply not being competitive, and is limiting foreign competition in a desperate attempt at remaining relevant.

If this is not true, then where are examples of the EU applying this non arbitrarily? Where are the non American and Chinese examples?

This was a very targeted attempt. Not solely at Apple, but at American and Chinese companies that dominate because Europe's own competitiveness has continued to dwindle in greater numbers of industries. And will only continue to do so.

Well you can look at telecommunications networks, ISP, car manufacturers etc. they are similarly regulated.

BMW can’t prevent a dealership from selling Audi in the same building, ISP such as T-mobile( a German company) can’t prevent others from using their infrastructure to compete over their customers.

And booking.com( a large EU company is going to be designated a gatekeeper.

Because here Under Article 102 of the TFUE, refusal to deal as an act of abuse of a dominance position involves two markets in one of which an undertaking with a dominant position creates or threatens to impose restrictions to competition in the other market unjustifiably.

in Telemarketing Case (1985), The Court of Justice pointed out that this rule also applies to a company that occupies a dominant position in the market of an "essential service" for the activities of another company in another market, even when it is different from that of the dominant company (paragraph 26).

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Which part of my comment are you calling absurd? You also said that iOS doesn't compete with Android, it's the phone products that compete.

I’m calling this part absurd, unless your trying to say something completely different.

Making that software more alike is removing competition from the market.

In the sense that iOS getting the ability to side load makes it more alike android and removes competition.

 

[spazzcat]

You could use this “logic” to argue companies should never be fined, which is of course laughable.

Fines don't work, and the cost is passed on to the consumer.

 

[Analog Kid]

Vaguely gesturing at "Apple can't make the decisions they want to" isn't a meaningful statement.

Ignoring my earlier comments and asking me to restate them isn't a path to a productive conversation.

 

[MilaM]

Fines don't work, and the cost is passed on to the consumer.

If that means I can play Fortnite on my iPhone again, that's money well spent 🥳.

 

[Analog Kid]

I’m calling this part absurd, unless your trying to say something completely different.


In the sense that iOS getting the ability to side load makes it more alike android and removes competition.

Ok, so we agree that the competition is at the device level and the software is a feature of that product.

Android allows multiple app stores and side loading. iOS does not. iOS is more closed, more controlled, more carefully managed by the product owner. That has impacts on the user experience that some people like and some people don't-- it differentiates the product.

Forcing iOS to abandon those features makes it more like Android, removes differentiation and reduces competition.

 

[DFZD]

Why do people these days feel the constant "everyone should bend to my will" mentality. Just go out and buy something else you do like, instead of demanding that a product already on the market, that no one is forcing you to buy, changes to suit you.

If Apple opens up iPadOS and iOS everywhere like it has in EU. Will you go back to using BlackBerry?

 

[coolfactor]

It’s your device should always be your choice what you install on it

But isn't that the issue?

Apple has ALWAYS sold iPads with iOS/iPadOS. Hardware and Software as one.

If a consumer wants to be able to install non-vetted apps, they've always had a CHOICE to buy an Android tablet.

Apple has done nothing wrong by offering a vetted App Store.

is it a gateway? Yes, and a good one.

Do you have a fence around your house?

 

[coolfactor]

Apple has crippled iPadOS and consumers need the EU to force Apple to make moves that actually benefits the consumer. The fact that the real Chrome browser is not allowed on the iPad means the iPad as a web browsing machine is literally worse than a cheap Chromebook. Most developers put the majority of their effort to optimising their apps for the web and the best extensions are made for Chrome on desktop.

Safari is just a piece of junk. The only reason it has any marketshare at all on iOS and iPadOS is because Apple is being anticompetitive and doesn't have to compete with Google. When they do have to compete on MacOS, guess what. People are voting and the vast majority like and chose to install Chrome. Apple users claim Chrome users don't know any better and Safari is so much better but that's the argument Android and Windows users like to make about Apple users in general so that argument is moot.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it's false. Chrome is not dominating because it's a better browser. It's dominating because of Google's mindshare. Plain and simple.

Had Microsoft not been so abusive with IE, it might still be around. That abusive approach will burn Google one day.

Safari is an excellent browser, alongside many others.

 

[TechnoTiger3000]

That case was brought by the US Justice Dept due to the fact that Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser had market share in excesss of 90%. (Hard to believe, I know.) Do you have evidence that Apple has market share in excess of 90% in any market?

Your point about Microsoft's Internet Explorer market share during the antitrust case is accurate. However, the focus of my comment was not on Apple having an equivalent market share. It was about illustrating how regulatory actions against dominant firms, like Microsoft back then, can create opportunities for other players in the industry.

That said, dominance isn't the only metric sparking regulatory action.

 

[TechnoTiger3000]

I realize that. Although in some cases I really wonder.

I seriously doubt the EU as a whole got together to come up with desire to go after Apple. One country probably started the process, realizing that suing Apple could bring big bucks (or is that Euros?), and the rest of the EU countries jumped on board. This whole idea about Apple protecting it's ecosystem is just spitting in the wind out of spite. Apple should protect it's ecosystem.

If an unvetted application from alternative source gets installed, mucks up the Apple device, who is to blame? I can almost guarantee that Apple would be blamed. What if the device is under warranty? Should Apple be responsible for repairs? If Apple is forced to allow alternative OS's to be installed, should Android devices be force to allow IOS to run on the Android products?

There are alternative platforms if people don't like Apple. I see no reason why Apple has to allow anyone access to their system. If people did not like it, they would not buy the products. That has not been the case with Apple. If Apple was a minority player, with a locked ecosystem, no one would say a word. But Apple is dominant and has deep pockets. Thus Apple became a target.

Having been involved with Windows from the very early days of Windows 3.1, I wish that Microsoft had been able to lock down Windows. Prevent unvetted applications, and especially drivers, from being installed. At one point in the past the BIOS was locked and protected. COMPAQ did a clean room development of the BIOS. That opened up the flood gate of clones. From that point forward the compatibility problems have been signifiant. From misbehaved drivers, software that crashes the OS (a blue screen), video cards that go bonkers, DLL hell, the list is long. Apple was wise to lock down their systems to avoid such issues. The EU will single-handedly destroy the security and reliability of the Apple ecosystem.

The people in the EU who are making these decisions are generally technological idiots. About the same as the representatives in the states. Most of them probably still have VCRs flashing 12:00 and the clock on the microwave still reads 00:00.

The DMA is spearheaded by the European Commission, which focuses on fair competition and consumer protection, often taking a more proactive stance than the U.S. in these areas. Apple’s ecosystem might seem secure, but the EU’s goal is to ensure that this security doesn’t stifle competition. And regarding tech knowledge, the EU often leads with more comprehensive tech regulations than the U.S., thanks to dedicated departments that specialize in tech industry oversight.

 

[TechnoTiger3000]

This is what the EU wants Apple to be like before they are done! Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it!

How so? Explain me in detail.

 

[Abazigal]

Because Meta is a dominant platform?

Don't get me wrong, I think all ad platforms should be require to let users opt out of tracking but the EU only requires dominant/large platforms to do so.

Spotify, a company with ⅔ market share in the EU, doesn’t count as dominant?

It’s obvious the DMA is just another name for protectionism, and this is little more than an attempt by the EU to prop up their own businesses which increasingly find themselves unable to compete on a global stage.

How else is it that the DMA so happens to impact only US tech giants and not a single European company?

 

[MilaM]

How else is it that the DMA so happens to impact only US tech giants and not a single European company?

We have the best (e|b)ureaucrats in the world, that is how it happened .

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Ignoring my earlier comments and asking me to restate them isn't a path to a productive conversation.

Make the fine bigger so it makes the venture non profitable.

As long as it’s more profitable to break the law than the fine you will pay it’s something they will do. But if the fine is always larger than the profit you might have made, then it’s no longer profitable to break the law.

Ok, so we agree that the competition is at the device level and the software is a feature of that product.

Indeed and that the devices are their own separate markets. Hence why cydia, Altstore and iOS AppStore are competitors that only iOS users and developers can access on Apple devices. While the galaxy store, play store and Amazon store etc can compete on any device with androidOS on it.

Android allows multiple app stores and side loading. iOS does not. iOS is more closed, more controlled, more carefully managed by the product owner. That has impacts on the user experience that some people like and some people don't-- it differentiates the product.

Only some do that today, most android phones are just as locked down as iOS and would require a jailbreak to do that.

Forcing iOS to abandon those features makes it more like Android, removes differentiation and reduces competition.

I would say it doesn’t make it more android in anyway, just how macOS, Ubuntu and windows aren’t the same.

But now the iOS AppStore will have competition in the services it provides, quality of the apps, ease of use, search ability etc etc.

Or the browser can have better features than WebKit.

Isn’t that more competition made possible? Seems more like iOS takes a step closer to macOS and not android.

 

[Sevendaymelee]

Stalin would approve of this message. It's a page right out of his book. The EU's new rules are Soviet Union, 100%.

 

[Sevendaymelee]

I feel like I have no power in EU. Who am I supposed to vote for to not have this **** happen?

If Cook had guts, he'd threaten to pull out of the EU. Then, if they still didn't back down, and he did, the whole thing would vanish overnight and you'd get your wish because these crooked politicians would get voted out ASAP.

But Cook doesn't have guts.

He's spineless.

So this is what you get.

 

[cfountain72]

Yes and Samsung was considered to be a gatekeeper according to their we browser they provide. Same way Gmail was considered one but later wasn’t classified as one.

Well you can look at telecommunications networks, ISP, car manufacturers etc. they are similarly regulated.

BMW can’t prevent a dealership from selling Audi in the same building, ISP such as T-mobile( a German company) can’t prevent others from using their infrastructure to compete over their customers.

And booking.com( a large EU company is going to be designated a gatekeeper.

Because here Under Article 102 of the TFUE, refusal to deal as an act of abuse of a dominance position involves two markets in one of which an undertaking with a dominant position creates or threatens to impose restrictions to competition in the other market unjustifiably.

in Telemarketing Case (1985), The Court of Justice pointed out that this rule also applies to a company that occupies a dominant position in the market of an "essential service" for the activities of another company in another market, even when it is different from that of the dominant company (paragraph 26).

When did an iPad/portable tablet become an 'essential service'?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Spotify, a company with ⅔ market share in the EU, doesn’t count as dominant?

Okey they are dominant in music… what are the abusive practices they do? Do they sell third party anything? Or is it just a streaming service?

And Being dominant isn’t illegal.

It’s obvious the DMA is just another name for protectionism, and this is little more than an attempt by the EU to prop up their own businesses which increasingly find themselves unable to compete on a global stage.

How is it protectionism if the vast minority of companies that are benefiting from this are American companies?! Any substantial evidence that actually supports this statement?

Google can dominate with chrome
Windows can use their Xbox streaming( perhaps)
Epic/ steam to use their own store
Meta to sell users data( as claimed by you)

Millions of developers located in the U.S. and abroad can flood the EU market 🤔

How else is it that the DMA so happens to impact only US tech giants and not a single European company?

Asian companies are impacted and booking.com is being affected it seems, just waiting on their within 2 weeks