Please read the article. The probe is due to the nature of the business contracts, not about technology or patents.
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.
iPhone Glass Supplier Corning Faces EU Antitrust Probe
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course, nothing wrong with that, competition is good. But Corning (again, allegedly) forbid manufacturers like Apple to use products of any other glass manufacturer.
Let's say there is another competitor for Corning offering cheaper but lower quality glass (XYZ). Then Apple wants to develop a cheaper iPhone SE and put in there XYZ's cheaper glass to cut some costs. And then comes Corning saying "no, Tim, you can't buy from XYZ as we agreed. You have to use our, more expensive product". Who loses out because of this? Competition, manufacturers, end-users.
The only winner is Corning, strengthening its monopolistic position and able to raise prices indefinitely because there’s no competition.”
Which they can only do in a fair competitive environment, which is what EU is trying to ensure (like it or not). If the market leader misuses it's position to keep upcoming competitors out of the market, the competition won't be able to "work harder to catch up". At a certain point, you can't just develop a competitive product from scratch to compete with someone who has years of in-market experience. You need a slice of the market to progress. Corning is seemingly trying to avoid the competition being able to carve out that slice - which is what any market leader wil do to the extent that laws and regulations allow them, because it is very effective. That's why we need some regulation. US has the same type of regulations, just to a different degree, so trying to make it sound like this only goes on in the EU is naive at best.
Which the EU is ensuring is actually possible by investigating possible anti-competitive practices preventing that.
If Corning are actively preventing their customers from buying from alternative suppliers using anti-competitive contracts, then it doesn’t matter how much the market “catches up”, because competition is impossible – even if that competition has better products at better prices, contracts enforced by the dominant company artificially stifles that competition by not allowing it to actually compete in the first place.
The EU simply wants to ensure all players are on a level playing field.
Nonsense, EU has no right to tell Apple, Samsung and all the other smartphone makers (none from EU that I have heard of) what components suppliers to use.
Who would these competitors be?
Apple supplier Corning is facing a European Commission-led antitrust probe over potential anticompetitive practices related to its dominant position in the smartphone cover glass market, specifically in relation to its Gorilla Glass technology.
The investigation centers on concerns that US-based Corning may have abused its market position by adopting exclusivity contracts to prevent rival glass makers from competing for business with mobile device manufacturers. The Commission is particularly focused on arrangements that allegedly required manufacturers to source "all or nearly all" of their specialized alkali-aluminosilicate glass from Corning.
Corning's relationship with Apple has been particularly strong over the years, with Apple having invested $495 million in the company through its Advanced Manufacturing Fund between 2017 and 2021. This collaboration led to the development of Ceramic Shield, which Apple describes as its "most advanced glass ceramic formulation" in the iPhone 16 lineup, claiming that it is twice as tough as competitive smartphone glass.
The partnership has yielded exclusive benefits for Apple's devices. While competitors like Samsung use standard Gorilla Glass products, including the recent "Gorilla Armor" for the Galaxy S24 Ultra, Apple's Ceramic Shield technology remains exclusive to iPhone models since its introduction with the iPhone 12 in 2020. The glass is infused with nano-ceramic crystals at high temperatures while maintaining the transparency needed for the display, cameras, and Face ID sensors.
The Commission aims to determine whether Corning's practices have led to higher prices and reduced innovation, but it has not set a deadline for the investigation's completion. If Corning is found to have violated EU competition rules, it could face significant penalties. However, the company will have the opportunity to address the Commission's concerns by offering commitments that could bring the investigation to a close.
Article Link: iPhone Glass Supplier Corning Faces EU Antitrust Probe
Nonsense again, the EU territory is the EU, not “all players” as those “all players” are outside of EU
And EU wants to ensure that Apple, Samsung and all the other smartphone makers are able to choose whatever components supplier they want. The only bad guy here is Corning. What is so hard to understand?
Potentially anyone who makes glass. If Corning have been suppressing competition by using anti-competitive contracts, anyone who tried to compete will have been stifled before we ever heard about them.
Ensuring a competitive market would change that, and open up the market back up anyone willing and able to compete.
It’s getting to the point where almost everything is political now with Apple. If you don’t like Apple there’s always an android.
Another day, another EU fine. Maybe tech companies should just transfer all their earnings into the bank account of the European commision ?
I get that, but the exclusivity is directly related to Apple. Apple isn't being forced to use Cornings product. They invested heavily in them, presumably becuase they had the best product, best process or best team of engineers to deliver what Apple was looking for. Had someone else been better at this, Apple would have invested there. So sorry for the others. Do better and you get wins.
This is not directly related to Apple; the reporting about it on an Apple-dedicated site is slanted towards how it relates to Apple, but the investigations are about Corning using anti-competitive contracts with many customers.
They will never stop. Ever. The sooner people realise this and stop championing meddling bureaucrats with nothing better to do than find problems, the better. Some day soon they are going to take away encryption from private communications. Then we'll see who's still clapping.
Personally I prefer democracy to dictatorship, but you do you.
Privacy also happens to be enshrined in EU law. No one is removing encryption in the EU, no matter how much people spread FUD about the idea.
Do people really believe this is a political EU-thing? Were/are the attacks on Apple Store a EU thing? Not so. These things are about reducing Apple`s competitive power (Who didn`t chip in? Google? Microsoft? Spotify? Gaming conglomerates?
It is about lining own pockets and stop Apple from filling theirs. They are not always attacking face to face, they find weak points (vendors/sub-contractors). It`s not the competitors who attack. They put up a front, using lawyers and lobbyists who do this stuff for a living to push the buttons, and they are pretty good at it.
So. The competition realizes they cannot match the stuff (glass) Apple are using, and they want access to the product or tech. The probably understand they can`t go directly for Apple, and moves against their vendor instead.
If Apple has whole or in part ownership to the technology and production method (e.g. patents), they will have nothing to worry about. Apart from their competition profiting from the smear. That may very well be ONE intended effect.
If they win or loose, the cases piles up and establishes a public perception of Apple as the bad guys. Makes it easier to keep customers, and makes it easier to win future cases.
Might be wise to note that Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Intel, Spotify and a pile of others have pigs loose in their backyard too.
This game is played at all levels and everywhere. For instance, PRC have restrictions on export/trade of rare metals to counter US ban on certain tech being made available to PRC companies, and to prevent chip and hardware manufacturers from exiting PRC for India/Vietnam/Thailand.
It is about lining own pockets and stop Apple from filling theirs. They are not always attacking face to face, they find weak points (vendors/sub-contractors). It`s not the competitors who attack. They put up a front, using lawyers and lobbyists who do this stuff for a living to push the buttons, and they are pretty good at it.
So. The competition realizes they cannot match the stuff (glass) Apple are using, and they want access to the product or tech. The probably understand they can`t go directly for Apple, and moves against their vendor instead.
If Apple has whole or in part ownership to the technology and production method (e.g. patents), they will have nothing to worry about. Apart from their competition profiting from the smear. That may very well be ONE intended effect.
If they win or loose, the cases piles up and establishes a public perception of Apple as the bad guys. Makes it easier to keep customers, and makes it easier to win future cases.
Might be wise to note that Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Intel, Spotify and a pile of others have pigs loose in their backyard too.
This game is played at all levels and everywhere. For instance, PRC have restrictions on export/trade of rare metals to counter US ban on certain tech being made available to PRC companies, and to prevent chip and hardware manufacturers from exiting PRC for India/Vietnam/Thailand.
This case is specifically about Corning trying to force Apple (and others) to use Corning's product.
What does the price of the part have to do with anything?
“It is [a] very frustrating and costly experience to break a mobile phone screen. Therefore, strong competition in the production of the cover glass used to protect such devices is crucial to ensure low prices and high-quality glass," said EU competition chief Margrethe Vestager in a statement.”
All of which is true, but you’ll note that nowhere does it mention that the glass is “the expensive part of a phone” as you accused.
Just that anti-competitive practices for a key component of a phone that often requires expensive repairs likely exacerbates the problem (making repairs both more expensive, and hindering competition in the market that might have otherwise led to better glass in a more competitive market).
They aren't "preventing" their customers from purchasing from other suppliers. Their customers are settling on the fact that they are the best option. No one is forcing OEMs to use them. They choose to do the contracts.