UK Antitrust Watchdog Closes Apple App Store Investigation, Case to Be Reconsidered Under New Digital Rules Regime

[wbeasley]

Because you don’t have a choice. Buy Apple’s extremely expensive RAM/SSD or get a computer that isn’t future proof. Since all is soldered on the board… you have no choice.

THAT: is misuse of power!

Please EU look into this!

it's not anticompetitive if you cant afford something.

your choice is to buy something else. if enough people did that, perhaps Apple would find a way to cut prices?
and there's plenty of options available. just ones that arent attractive to you...

most base Apple products perform well enough for the vast majority of users.

remember the kerfuffle on here about the MacAir memory chips being slow?
and they've sold bucketloads and no regular person notices the speed slowdown...

 

[wbeasley]

🤦‍♂️ and? you joined in on the conversation about the issue with Apple's RAM pricing with MacBooks (I was responding to "why is Apple charging 4x more for the same RAM (Apple will likely get much cheaper than consumers) than consumers can buy them from the vendor?"). It sounds like you agree with me that this RAM pricing should not be regulated, so case closed.

welcome to the rabbit hole of tangential "what ifs" that pepper these posts

 

[surferfb]

Because you don’t have a choice. Buy Apple’s extremely expensive RAM/SSD or get a computer that isn’t future proof. Since all is soldered on the board… you have no choice.

THAT: is misuse of power!

Please EU look into this!

Your choice is a computer made by another company. As per my previous example, if you can’t afford a Rolex, there are great watches you can buy for under $100 (I’m wearing one as I’m typing this) all the way up to the price of the Rolex.

While I strongly disagree the DMA is necessary and/or a good law, I at least understand where those who support it are coming from. But regulating Apple’s hardware costs in a competition-heavy market like laptops would be insane.

 

[surferfb]

So far we got USB-C, better behavior of the AppStore, right to repair, two years of full warranty.

I am so tired of this argument. Apple was CLEARLY already moving to USB-C. At best, the EU moved them forward by a year or two. And now, because it’s legislated, we’ll never get a better charging port. Imagine if they had done this when everyone but Apple was using Micro-USB! We’d be stuck with it today.

But no, the EU can’t leave product decisions to companies, they have to go stick their nose in and say WE KNOW BEST.

 

[I7guy]

Because you don’t have a choice. Buy Apple’s extremely expensive RAM/SSD or get a computer that isn’t future proof. Since all is soldered on the board… you have no choice.

THAT: is misuse of power!

Please EU look into this!

If you want prices of apples computers regulated, imo, be prepared to get familiar with windows.

 

[surferfb]

It’s also a Ridiculous fallacy to equate “monopoly” with “90%+ market share with no competitors whatsoever”. It’s such a narrow definition I’d argue. Maybe EU defines monopoly differently than in US or other jurisditions?
Or, maybe there are millions of people cheering for companies and corporations to do whatever they feel like it, with no consequences whatsoever. I guess Apple is allowed to enter home market, furniture market, design market etc and since the competition is already there Apple should never be considered monopoly under any of those markets even if they charge 10x the competitor price for their “boutique” products.

That's literally what the word means. A market that has a single, dominant seller. Which is why the EU is legislating against "gatekeepers" in the DMA - a word they made up and defined (in such a way that it conveniently doesn't apply to any EU companies) because none of the companies they wanted to regulate were actually monopolies under current law (which, to be clear, is the EU's right to do - however misguided I think the regulation is).

And yes, Apple is allowed to enter the home market, furniture market, car market, food market, clothing market, etc. and could charge whatever they wanted; they wouldn't be considered a monopoly unless and until they bought out all of their major competitors in that market.

Just like how the entry-level Rolls Royce costs over $300,000 doesn't mean Rolls Royce get an antitrust investigation for being 15x the price of an entry-level Toyota, or A. Lange & Söhne doesn't get investigated for having its entry-level, Saxonia watch (starting at $24,000) be 400x the cost of an entry-level Timex. If there is significant competition in the market, which there certainly is in computer and smartphone hardware, companies can charge whatever they want. It's up to the free market to make winners and losers. If Apple charges too much, fewer people will buy their products, and they'll have to cut prices to what the market will bear or be content with being a significantly smaller player in the market.

 

[Shirasaki]

And yes, Apple is allowed to enter the home market, furniture market, car market, food market, clothing market, etc. and could charge whatever they wanted; they wouldn't be considered a monopoly unless and until they bought out all of their major competitors in that market.

Well then. I guess that’s how one company rules all aspects of our lives. Maybe one day US will have Apple power. Apple water. Apple road. Apple house, Apple hospital and many more, across many states. Because Apple only control a small portion of aforementioned infrastructure, they are not considered monopoly.
Last time I read law (unrelated to DMA and similar) and contract, I had to look up words in law context just so I didn’t misunderstand it. Maybe, people should do that too.

 

[webkit]

Which is why the EU is legislating against "gatekeepers" in the DMA - a word they made up and defined (in such a way that it conveniently doesn't apply to any EU companies) because none of the companies they wanted to regulate were actually monopolies under current law (which, to be clear, is the EU's right to do - however misguided I think the regulation is).

How are the DMA regulations notably different as far as broadly defining or regulating monopoly or dominant companies, etc. compared to "current" EU laws?

 

[I7guy]

Well then. I guess that’s how one company rules all aspects of our lives.

I don’t know how apple rules all aspects of your life, but it sure as shooting doesn’t rule any aspect of my life. It’s a smartphone. A good one at that, that makes certain aspects of my life easier better in today’s digital world.

Maybe one day US will have Apple power. Apple water. Apple road. Apple house, Apple hospital and many more, across many states. Because Apple only control a small portion of aforementioned infrastructure, they are not considered monopoly.
Last time I read law (unrelated to DMA and similar) and contract, I had to look up words in law context just so I didn’t misunderstand it. Maybe, people should do that too.

Hyperbole alert!

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The whole world will fine Apple and you 'll still think it's everyone's but Apple's fault 🤷

Nope, 100% Apple’s fault. They were too good at what they’ve always been good at, selling things to folks with a little bit more money than most. If they hadn’t been so darned focused on people with money and credit cards and building an affluent customer base such that 80% of the profits made on mobile are through Apple’s platforms, they wouldn’t be in this position.

Apple had no way to know that this was the timeline where everyone else would be so helplessly inept at attracting customers with money and willing to spend that money digitally! Everyone else has simply given up. Their goal for the future, let Apple attract the customers with money, and then just try to get their hands on Apple’s customers as much as they can.

 

[surferfb]

How are the DMA regulations notably different as far as broadly defining or regulating monopoly or dominant companies, etc. compared to "current" EU laws?

I am by no means an expert in EU antitrust law, but I believe the relevant EU case law for "market dominance" is something like 40% of the EU market (Which Apple doesn't have in the EU smartphone market). The DMA defines gatekeepers based on annual revenue (either 7.5 billion in the EU or 75 billion globally) and number of EU end users (45 million monthly, or 10,000 annual businesses). This European law professor noted that the law seemed intentionally written to exclude Spotify:

The spectre of protectionist intervention is reinforced by the fact that revenue thresholds outlined in the DMA seem designed purposefully to exclude European platforms, notably Spotify.

(Also of note, iPadOS doesn't meet the quantifiable definition to be covered by the DMA but the EU said "doesn't matter, the DMA applies anyway" - maybe that's one of the "spirit of the law is clear" things I keep getting told when I point out the law isn't clear.)

In general, I would assume if something could be addressed under current law, it would make more sense to do so than write an entirely new law, but I also know passing legislation is easier in the EU than in the US, so maybe that is less of an issue than it would be here. In any case, unless I see evidence otherwise, I am assuming the EU is changing the definition of market dominance that they use in other markets because they're trying to target companies that aren't necessarily dominant under that definition. Which again, is their right to do, but we don't have to pretend that they're not doing so in a way to avoid targeting European companies - despite their protests that all they care about is protecting competition.

 

[9081094]

If you want prices of apples computers regulated, imo, be prepared to get familiar with windows.

As windows is getting more Apple like, I actually might consider this. At least there’s much more innovation going on in the hardware space. Being able to get a better SSD-drive or get RAM at normal prices is even a plus.

 

[I7guy]

I am by no means an expert in EU antitrust law, but I believe the relevant EU case law for "market dominance" is something like 40% of the EU market (Which Apple doesn't have in the EU smartphone market). The DMA defines gatekeepers based on annual revenue (either 7.5 billion in the EU or 75 billion globally) and number of EU end users (45 million monthly, or 10,000 annual businesses). This European law professor noted that the law seemed intentionally written to exclude Spotify:



(Also of note, iPadOS doesn't meet the quantifiable definition to be covered by the DMA but the EU said "doesn't matter, the DMA applies anyway" - maybe that's one of the "spirit of the law is clear" things I keep getting told when I point out the law isn't clear.)

In general, I would assume if something could be addressed under current law, it would make more sense to do so than write an entirely new law, but I also know passing legislation is easier in the EU than in the US, so maybe that is less of an issue than it would be here. In any case, unless I see evidence otherwise, I am assuming the EU is changing the definition of market dominance that they use in other markets because they're trying to target companies that aren't necessarily dominant under that definition. Which again, is their right to do, but we don't have to pretend that they're not doing so in a way to avoid targeting European companies - despite their protests that all they care about is protecting competition.

As I said the EU “threaded the needle” with the DMA. Brilliant piece of legislation.

 

[surferfb]

As I said the EU “threaded the needle” with the DMA. Brilliant piece of legislation.

Looked it up - "market dominance" in the EU is defined as 39.7% - why that wasn't good enough for the EU when it comes to regulating tech companies, I am not sure.

I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Spotify has 55% of the streaming music market in the EU. Couldn't possibly be that.

 

[AppliedMicro]

must make you sick to the core knowing some low paid, horrendous hours per week person in China is making all the tech (any brand) that you use...

or a miner is digging up poison without PPE or union rights...

That‘s why we have government regulation that protects the workers’/employees‘ rights.

Apple was CLEARLY already moving to USB-C

They „were moving“? For how long? Another five or ten years of snail pace - while charging sweet MFI commissions for their proprietary charging connector on mobile phones?

Apple were the biggest and very last holdout among midrange to premium phone manufacturers that had not moved to USB-C. Their most expensive iPhone 14 Pro Max was introduced with a lightning connector less than two years ago.

And they’re still selling Mac accessories with Lightning ports.

 

[AppliedMicro]

That's literally what the word means. A market that has a single, dominant seller.

In strictly economic textbook terms, yes.
But not in legal terms. Not even in the U.S.:

“Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power“

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance...ws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

Also of note, iPadOS doesn't meet the quantifiable definition to be covered by the DMA but the EU said "doesn't matter, the DMA applies anyway" - maybe that's one of the "spirit of the law is clear" things I keep getting told when I point out the law isn't clear

I know, you know, Apple know - we all know that iPadOS is nothing more than a slightly modified variant of iOS for bigger screens. It’s part of the same ecosystem.

Looked it up - "market dominance" in the EU is defined as 39.7%

It wasn’t „defined“ as such. The notion that law or courts of law would pick such a number is ridiculous.

Side note: the U.S. Supreme Court established a presumption of anticompetitive effects and unlawfulness of mergers between companies that cover as little asa combined 30% of the relevant market:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Philadelphia_National_Bank

 

[wbeasley]

The Verge reported:

"As it turns out, Apple has been heavily backing USB Type-C. Documents detailing contributors to the USB Type-C specification reveal that Apple assigned 18 engineers to help build it alongside companies like Lenovo, Dell, and HP. That engineer count is second only to Intel (with 24 people) and just above Microsoft’s 16 assigned engineers. Apple significantly surpasses the amount of engineers assigned from Google (10), Dell (5), and HP (6)."

So it doesnt look like Apple was dragging their heels at all

Just taking their time to transition.

Funny how all the claims the EU forced Apple to change ignore the fact Apple can use the USB C physical connector and then degrade transfer performance to USB2 levels... great well specified standard

Oh we only look at charging... like that can't be altered as well as there are a huge number of charging protocols to pick from with USB C as well...

 

[surferfb]

They „were moving“? For how long? Another five or ten years of snail pace - while charging sweet MFI commissions for their proprietary charging connector on mobile phones?

They were among the first companies to embrace USB-C on their laptops, I believe the first company to release a laptop with only USB-C ports, and had already started transitioning the entire iPad line from lightening to USB-C. The MiFi program
made them peanuts (and if all they cared about licensing, why do iPhones support Qi charging).

Oh, and the one previous time they switched their connector they got RAKED over the coals for switching there connector, even though the new connector was demonstrably better than the old one. “What a money grab, Apple just wants us to buy new cables”.

And despite Apple waiting years to switch, my Mother in Law specifically did not get a new phone last year because she didn’t want to buy new cables. Imagine if they had done it two or three years earlier. It would have been a whole thing in the non-tech press. USB-C isn’t even better than lightning - it’s just more convenient because other products use it too.

So yes - I think Apple was moving at Apple’s pace. They design the phones two to three years ahead of time. They didn’t want to piss of the majority of their customers, but they were clearly headed in that direction.

 

[surferfb]

It wasn’t „defined“ as such. The notion that law or courts of law would pick such a number is ridiculous.

Ok I was mistaken. Per the EU’s website:

If a company has a market share of less than 40%, it is unlikely to be dominant.

39.7% is just the lowest market share of a company found to be dominant to date.

Last I checked, Apple’s share of the smartphone market was significantly less than 40%. Which is why you had to make up a definition out of thin air, that conveniently misses European companies (one of which has a dominant position in its market) to regulate Apple.

So spare me the “EU cares about the consumer and competition above all else BS”. They’re regulating US tech companies because the EU has regulated themselves out of being relevant in the tech market. Which again, is their right to do. Just be honest about why.

 

[AppliedMicro]

They were among the first companies to embrace USB-C on their laptops

Yes. And the last among smartphone manufacturers (for similarly priced phones).

Google and Samsung had USB-C on their first Pixel phone and the Galaxy S8 in 2016 and 2017, respectively.
That was 7-8 years ago. That’s ages ago in the smartphone industry.

PS: I mean… To be honest, I somewhat prefer the Lightning connector physically, as a mere charging port. That said, USB-C has become a de facto standard - and that’s good for interoperability (let alone faster data rates). ButApple absolutely did drag their feet on USB-C adoption in smartphones.

39.7% is just the lowest market share of a company found to be dominant to date.

So what was the combined market share of the two biggest companies for that relevant market?