Monopoly and duopoly aren't even legal terms, at least in the US. Antitrust is the legal term. They are colloquial words used for discussion purpose and for college economic classes.
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.
Spain Launches Investigation Into Apple's App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It was a term long before the DMA and it's also used by American regulators.
What part of "Monopolies or duopolies are forms of companies having dominant positions." have you not understood?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Then don't buy Samsung if they do it too. Just keep using whatever phone you have already. Stretch its life. If Sellers are "punished" for raising prices to "punish" consumers, consumers can easily "punish" sellers by very, VERY easily saying "NO."
Now let me one up this argument: what if the others raise their prices too? Same answer. Stretch the phone you have. When sellers see the revenue flow impacted, one of the first thing they do is cut prices. See an endless stream of weekly "best prices ever" on all kinds of stuff.
Too many of us seem to operate on some kind of premise like consumers have no choice about buying things like this. In fact, we have the most powerful choice of all- the ability to say "NO" and hang onto our money for a change. If enough do that too, not only will "punish" pricing come back to "normal"... but keep it up for longer than that and pricing will come down from "normal" too. "No" is easy to say. Try it and see for yourself.
Incidentally: this is the same solution to "inflation." If consumers decide they value the money more than "stuff," inflation doesn't just keep inflating anyway. There is an anti-inflation concept called deflation too. Guess what deflates prices?
Last edited:
As usual a lot of details is missing and the usual sensationalization of the possible hefty fine news makes another good topic to get hits.
From the source press release.
- It could be imposing unfair commercial conditions on developers who use their app store (Apple App Store).
- Through it, developers distribute their applications to Apple users.
- The conduct could constitute an abuse of dominant position prohibited by Article 2 of the Law on the Defense of Competition and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Specifically, Apple could be carrying out anti-competitive practices consisting of imposing unfair commercial conditions on developers who use the Apple group's app stores (Apple App Store) to distribute applications to users of that company's products.
The investigation was initiated ex officio, given the relevance that the economic activity carried out in the application stores is taking on in Spain.
If confirmed, the conduct could constitute an abuse of domain position prohibited by Article 2 of the LDC and 102 of the TFEU.
These practices could be considered a very serious violation of the LDC, which can lead to fines of up to 10% of the total global turnover of the offending companies in the year prior to the imposition of the fine.
The initiation of this file does not prejudgment the final result of the investigation. A maximum period of 24 months is now open for the investigation of the file and for its resolution by the CNMC.
=====
A lot of things can change in a year or two. Apple has been changing things on the EU DMA as time goes along against iOS, soon iPadOS, so it's likely Spain being a member state is just doing due diligence to examine this topic.
They all have a right to look at technology and how it affects them. This doesn't mean that parties can't change opinions as things are worked out.
I have little reason to doubt Wikipedia, which states that the (core) software is freeware.
Google charges for use of the brandname and supporting services (e.g. Play and Messaging).
Oh, you're now pivoting away from imports being illegal... good.
Why would I need to show that it's not serviced elsewhere?
If I buy a smartphone in the US, it's still "supported" and serviceable in the US - the country where it was distributed originally. A commercial importer/distributor of iPhones would either repair them themselves - or take them to the US for service. It's not that hard a thing to do, particularly at scale. Happens all the time for hardware products manufactured or distributed abroad.
No - the use of telecommunications networks isn't free.
Their ways of monetising are somewhat regulated - but not prohibited.
I’m not sure it will be that much cheaper. A quick look at transaction prices for in app purchases, many charge a percentage plus a fixed price, around30 to 50 cents per transaction. At that price, a 3to5 dollar app is at 10% before the percentage fee. Add in other costs such as hosting, bandwidth etc. and you are awful close to 15% or more. Even a 10$ your at 8% with fee and percentage for payment costs alone.
I just don’t see most developers benefiting in terms of lower costs or greater sales than Apple’s 15% or customer base.
Companies often keep off shore revenue off shore to avoid US tax on the revenue.
But all the Employees creating the software are working in the usa
The part where you think simply stating something creates a factual definition of complex concepts.
Similar to how iOS users are locked in, can't move their digital books or apps to another platform, they aren't happy but have to continue to buy iPhones to use their digital goods. Maybe you are happy.
Bandwidth and hosting isn't a function of retail price - and it's cheap. Particularly at scale.
For desktop apps that cost €5, €10 or €50 is't not that much. On mobile apps, with often somewhat lower transaction value, the scale hasn't been there as much ...yet.
Anyway, I believe that the 12% charged by Microsoft or Epic leave room for profitability.
Neither do I, really.
And 15% still leaves a certain price premium for Apple - while approaching competitiveness with other solutions.
But the thing is: Apple are charging twice as much for most transactions - namely the ones for the "big" developers that, combined, account for the majority of transactions.
They’re absolutely being forced to. Read the text of the DMA. It’s unclear if they even are legally allowed to offer Apple AI under the DMA, and certainly aren’t allowed to offer it without also allowing any company or competitor (who asks for it) access to the most sensitive data of Apple’s customers.
I don't know what you're talking about now!?
Android OS and iOS form a duopoly for smartphone operating systems in Europe.
The iOS App Store is (or used to be, in Europe) a monopoly for sales of iOS applications to consumers (if you consider that a relevant market).
👉 Not that bloody hard or complex to understand.
Monopolists or duopolists enjoy a dominant market position.
And dominant market positions are regulated by antitrust law.
👉 Again, neither is that hard or complex to grasp.
But seems you're keen to play word games about particular wording "not being referenced" (verbatim) in law.
Are you happy when I'm calling it "dominant position" instead of "monopoly/duopoly" or what?
Last edited:
How is that unclear?
How would they be prohibited from offering it?
It is (or should be!) ultimately consumers' choice what data they're giving to app developers.
This is your opinion. If you worked with people long enough, you realize that people don't like change. Very few people would go to the hassle of moving from iOS to android or android or iOS even it there was zero effort.
The DMA certainly does not require Apple to provide "any (random) company" asking most sensitive user data.
But if I decide to use that company (third-party developer's) product or service and to give it access to my data, Apple can't withhold that data from them to prevent them from competing with Apple's own product/service.
It's not inherently anti-competitive to be a monopoly or a duopoly. And the DMA says nothing about Duopoly or Monopoly.
I don't consider that to be a relevant market.
Not always. And in fact, it would be rare to consider a company in a duopoly to have a "dominant" position with 25% market share. Market share matters in almost every discussion of dominant position.
Are you suggesting that, for example, a duopoly with a 90/10 split would mean that the company with 10% marketshare has dominance in a market? Most legal discussion of these terms that I've researched wouldn't make that conclusion.
I'd rather you use the terms that the law uses: gatekeeper. Because the EU chose to not use dominant/monopoly/duopoly.
In literally everything in life a carrot is better than a stick. Severe punishments don’t cut crime as much as proper rehabilitation.
My point is that rather than trying to punish devs as much as possible for wanting to exist outside the walls they should instead make them a better offer to stay.
I didn't say that that it must be anti-competitive.
But a monopoly inherently is a dominant position.
And antitrust law prohibits or regulates anticompetitive conduct by a market participant enjoying a dominant position.
Apple is estimated to command more than 50% of consumer spend for mobile apps.
Market share isn't only "number of phones sold". In fact, given that the smartphone market (for hardware devices) is reasonably competitive, it's most certainly not about number of phones.
Given what the DMA regulates - or this regulatory investigation in Spain is concerned with, it's about number and revenue of mobile app transactions.
Yes, the EU did choose the term "dominant position" in its Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and I already told you two hours ago.
And that treaty is what the the Macrumors.com article cited:
It's also what the EU fined for violating with regards to music streaming apps. Abuse of dominant position:
"The European Commission has fined Apple over €1.8 billion for abusing its dominant position on the market for the distribution of music streaming apps to iPhone and iPad users (‘iOS users')
(...)
Today's decision concludes that Apple's anti-steering provisions amount to unfair trading conditions, in breach of Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU')."
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1161
Last edited:
Article 5, section 2
Unclear to me how Apple gets consent for the various forms of data combination needed for AI to function given the above, especially considering the “spirit of the law, not letter of the law” ambiguity without burying the user in 8 bajillion permission pop-ups that will make the EU’s web browsing experience seem to be a refreshing bit of great user experience in comparison.
👉 Let's at least cite the relevant sentence completely, shall we? (Following emphasis mine)
"2. The gatekeeper shall not do any of the following:
(a) process, for the purpose of providing online advertising services, personal data of end users using services of third parties that make use of core platform services of the gatekeeper;
(b) combine personal data from the relevant core platform service with personal data from any further core platform services or from any other services provided by the gatekeeper or with personal data from third-party services;
(c) cross-use personal data from the relevant core platform service in other services provided separately by the gatekeeper, including other core platform services, and vice versa; and
(d) sign in end users to other services of the gatekeeper in order to combine personal data
unless the end user has been presented with the specific choice and has given consent within the meaning of Article 4, point (11), and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679."
👉 "...unless the end user has been presented with the specific choice and has given content"
Consent can be given electronically.
If users want to specify data in detail, they'll expand the choice.
A company that can come up horsecrap such as "Music Streaming Services Entitlement (EEA)" and expects third parties to their complete applicable request forms will be able to figure it out.
PS: The regulation was clearly written such as that giving such consent is possible. Hence offering their AI assistant is also possible.
Last edited:
Maybe you should just talk for yourself and not for the allegedly million others?
If allegedly million others were so happy about the situation, for example just having one App Store, companies wouldn’t see a need to develop an own store to ship their apps with. Also, nobody prevents you from downloading the App and installing it from the developers website as you do on Windows/Mac… oh wait, I forgot. Apple does.
And can you maybe understand why Apple might be concerned, at risk of 20% of their worldwide revenue, that the EU (with estimated 7-8% of Apple’s worldwide revenue) would after the fact say “nope, that consent is not good enough”. We’re talking about regulators who don’t think an OS should be able to provide a default browser without a splash screen to promote competitors’ products.
Not to mention Apple AI isn’t even ready for developers to run it yet, but then as soon as they release it in beta to end users they’re expected to have APIs that let Llama have the same access? (Bad example, EU isn’t getting Llama due to overbearing EU regulation, but you get the point).
Even authors extremely critical of Apple’s App Store policies think the EU is overreaching with the DMA. I’d encourage everyone to read these two articles and then see if they still support it.
Ben Thompson -The EU Goes too Far
MG Siegler - The EU, Trapped in Tech Amber
I did recheck and even though google owns android it is open source. This means vendors can develop their own functionalities within android making it different than another smartphone manufacturer. The revenue google does derive seems to fall into these categories. But that amounted to about 18B which came out somewhere and was reported, probably here on MacRumors.
- Google Play Store: Google earns a substantial portion of its Android revenue from the Play Store. This includes a cut from app sales, in-app purchases, and subscriptions, typically ranging from 15% to 30%
- Advertising: Android devices drive traffic to Google’s search engine and other services, where Google earns money from ads. Mobile advertising, including ads served within apps, is a major revenue stream
- Google Services: Manufacturers often pay fees to include Google services (like Gmail, Maps, and YouTube) on their devices. This integration helps Google maintain its ecosystem and generate additional revenue
- Search Engine Agreements: Google pays manufacturers to keep Google as the default search engine on Android devices. This ensures a steady flow of search traffic, which is monetized through ads
No you can import legally or illegally. Legal imports are manufactured to be sold and used in a specific regional area. Sheesh.
Just saying.
Try getting it serviced without applecare was the original point.
Not too sure about that. But I'm sure you can get a third party to fix a phone, any phone. Based on whether you have applecare it could effect if Apple fixes it.
Breaking apart companies through divestiture, a nice way of saying someone else gets to use your assets for free or almost free.