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
I know from personal business experience that Corning has very aggressive attorneys, unlike Apple's, who seem at their best going after small firms that have any fruit in their names or logos. I look forward to Corning, Google or Apple charging the EU 10% of their GDP compounded monthly using the same logic as the EU demanding 10% of global sales.
One thing that reduces innovation: Socialism.
I'm usually pretty quick to call people out for abusing scary words they mislearned in high school government class, but the EU is going well beyond regulating a free market and have crossed fully into "all your idea are belong to us". People used to get mad at China for not protecting IP rights but the EU isn't just looking the other way on IP rights, they're actively gutting them.
Again, the exclusivity deal Apple has with Corning is not the issue the EU is investigating.
I don even believe Apple is involved in the kind of clauses the EU is investigating at all as it would mean Corning managed somehow to get Apple to accept clauses that would require Apple to only source from Corning or to ask Corning permission before sourcing from other vendors.
IMHO, Apple is not going to ask anybody's permission if they want to source glass from somewhere else.
Corning pressuring Apple to stay with Corning, a company Apple have invested in? That won`t fly more than a pig would.
Who is even claiming Apple is involved in the kind of clauses the EU is investigating?
What on earth are you on about? This probe has nothing to do with IP. The EU is investigating Corning's anticompetitive business terms, often requiring their customers only source glass from Corning.
How is a dominant position defined for a glass maker? Can Corning prohibit apple from finding a better supplier?
Unpopular opinion (maybe): I despise patents and we should abolish the system entirely.
Would be advantageous if they did. It makes good business sense too, having those behind-the-scenes convos and putting a gentle word in the right ears. I bet they did, it puts them in a stronger position to negotiate
How? How exactly would they "force" companies to purchase from them? Let me know so I can start a business and become a billionaire.
That’s the sort of thinking that precludes you from being a billionaire tho
I think they’ve got Apple by the shorthairs contract-wise, likely Samsung too. Not too dissimilar to how Apple was stuck with Intel’s disaster of a roadmap. So I am now 100% sure Apple made some back channel comment to bring Corning to heel
Yes, that is true but Corning would probably be in hot water if their contracts with clients showed they can only use Corning. It's not like there are a dozen Corning-like businesses in the world. Corning is a world-class business and often everyone goes to one supplier because they have the knowhow. For example TSMC, another company that everyone goes to.
Instead of going after Corning, the EU could help their companies reach the required technical sophistication and Apple would then have more Corning-like companies to choose from.
Read again the article and you will understand your post is wrong.
I mean… if it’s nonsense, where ARE the EU tech businesses?
All one needs to see on the document is Vestager’s face to know that this is primarily about adversely affecting the profits of another US company. When is she supposed to step down anyway? LOL
It is absolutely mindblowing to read comments in this thread. People getting worked up about an article they have misunderstood or not even read, yet have very strong opinions. Insane.
I recommend you improve your reading and/or reading comprehension - that should help tremendously in succeeding at business.
They don’t “force” them - they (allegedly) abusing a dominant market position to conclude anticompetitive contracts:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_5681
The MacRumors article literally links to that.
Abusing a dominant market position with anticompetitive business conduct isn’t “free market”.
That’s restricting the free play of the market.
This doesn’t make money for the EU.
”A Preliminary Assessment summarises the main facts of the case and identifies the competition concerns of the Commission. To meet these concerns, the addressee of the Preliminary Assessment may offer commitments in line with Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1/2003, which allows the Commission to conclude antitrust proceedings by accepting commitments offered by a company”
Sustained noncompliance though may pose a risk of being fined.
There’s no stealing money.
The antitrust probe is aimed at remedying anticompetitive conduct - not cash in on it.
Maybe you haven’t been following the EU regulatory saga. The usual pattern is that some bureaucrat flags a non-European corporation’s process that the rest of the world considers standard business practice as now “anti-competitive” in the EU. They announce an investigation, they talk to all the competitors to that company, then issue a decree that it is, in fact, in violation of their vaguely written law and must be remedied. The remedy is invariably “open up access to your proprietary technology”.
This particular case might take a few steps to get there, but they always seem to.
Abuse of a dominant market position with anticompetitive isn’t only frowned upon in the EU.
And neither is U.S. antitrust law a shining example of being clearly, concisely and unambiguously written.
Just look at Google’s antitrust case in the United States of America.
A suggestion that this is something that only happens in Europe (the EU) would be nonsense.
If you have a dominant market position and make the biggest and/or best strengthened glass, mobile OS or search engine, you don’t (shouldn’t) require anticompetitive exclusivity agreements that prohibit your customers from buying elsewhere.
Last edited:
I have been, we've just missed each other in these threads.
I'm not sure "you can only buy [insert product category] from me, or need permission from me to buy it elsewhere" is standard practice anywhere. Imagine contractually needing 3M's permission to buy another company's packing tape - that'd be ridiculous, right?
Right, that's usually how the investigative process works. You assess the crime, interview witnesses and victims and build a case against the suspected perpetrator. If this isn't how it works in your locale, well, I'm worried for you.
Corning makes glass. It's not like Corning has private API they should play fair about or some kind of absurd control on the distribution of glass-adjacent accessories. I'm not sure how...preventing Corning from preventing their customers from shopping around is a bad thing.
„The EU simply wants to ensure all players are on a level playing field.“
Exactly! Thank you.
Exactly! Thank you.