Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Regulators can't start setting prices or telling companies they have to give their IP away for free. Noting in the law gives them that power. That would make the IP of every EU company worthless if they could. It also would really look bad when you have European companies in courts around the world like Ericsson and Nokia arguing for more royalties and licensing fees on their IP, while telling foreign companies that have to give theirs away.

We'll see -- I'm not going to speculate on the how/why of what the EU would do, but Apple's "compliance" doesn't accomplish the actual goal of the laws, so I suspect they'll dig in further and see what they can come up with.

I applaud their efforts. Apple comes off like a petulant rich kid here with this reaction.
 
Hyperbole much? Not getting your preference on something is not harm. Paying more than you would like is not harm. Again, I don't know on what planet you thought you were going to take Apple's intellectual property and use it use it for free, but it's not going to be this one.
reductive much? abusing a position to stifle competition and charge fees well in excess of what competitive market would cost by abusing your monopolization of a captive audience is harmful... to both the consumer and society.

i dont know on what earth you think anyone is using Apple's IP for free... because thats literally not happening, literally not whats being asked for, and literally a straw man.

and whatever you may think... so far as i can tell up to this current date ... we still have laws and governments who weild the final authority over what is and isnt allowed and what is and isnt fair.

why you think apple (or any other corp) should have total control over every aspect of your access to the rest of humanity and our society at large makes no sense to me, and is a clear slippery slope towards losing any meaningful control of our own affairs.

no - we should not allow rent seeking artificial gatekeepers undo powers beyond their utility. You cant believe in free markets and allow this sort of system to go unchecked.
 
Regulators can't start setting prices or telling companies they have to give their IP away for free. Noting in the law gives them that power. That would make the IP of every EU company worthless if they could. It also would really look bad when you have European companies in courts around the world like Ericsson and Nokia arguing for more royalties and licensing fees on their IP, while telling foreign companies that have to give theirs away.
they absolutely can, have and will if needs be. Governments (ostensibly) work at the will of the societies they govern... corporations cant do whatever they want unless they are allowed by governance.
 
why you think apple (or any other corp) should have total control over every aspect of your access to the rest of humanity and our society at large makes no sense to me, and is a clear slippery slope towards losing any meaningful control of our own affairs.

no - we should not allow rent seeking artificial gatekeepers undo powers beyond their utility. You can believe in free markets and allow this sort of system to go unchecked.

Are you saying those that don't own an iPhone have no access to the rest of humanity or society at large? That's huge news if true.
 
they absolutely can, have and will if needs be. Governments (ostensibly) work at the will of the societies they govern... corporations cant do whatever they want unless they are allowed by governance.

Which is why the courts have been a mostly reliable backstop to regulatory abuse. Regulators don't get to reinterpret laws or create new ones out of thin air simply because they think they would be popular. I imagine the general consensus among many would be that everything should be free. But you can't compel people to work for free so that nonsense breaks down rather quickly.
 
Are you saying those that don't own an iPhone have no access to the rest of humanity or society at large? That's huge news if true.
why dont you take a glance at your screen time usage and get back to me on how much time a day you spend on your various apple products communicating with the rest of society.... as you currently are on this thread.
 
Which is why the courts have been a mostly reliable backstop to regulatory abuse. Regulators don't get to reinterpret laws or create new ones out of thin air simply because they think they would be popular. I imagine the general consensus among many would be that everything should be free. But you can't compel people to work for free so that nonsense breaks down rather quickly.
yes they do. literally the very definition of regulator. im not sure you understand how law/governance work at the very core (see monopoly of violence, promulgation of sovereignty, thomas aquinas, and perhaps gregory the 13th)

no one is asking for anything to be free... whats being asked for are, fair, FREE_markets, and without abusive rent seeking gatekeepers that provide considerably less value than they extract
 
Last edited:
Maybe try making a meal without using ingredients from Apple's kitchen, then.
If two companies form a nationwide duopoly of restaurants, sales of prepared meals and kitchen ingredients, I fully support legislation that forces them to sell meals from third-party chefs for free. Especially if the third-party chefs provide their own waiters and payment processing/billing.
From that one excerpt, I believe Apple is complying. The Core Technology Fee is for use of Apple’s “core platform services,” which appear to be specifically exempted from the “free of charge” instruction.
I disagree. Especially based on your wording "for use of Apple's core platform services".

"The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper."

"The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper"

👉
I take it that third-party developers shall be allowed to conclude contracts without using the core platform services of the gatekeeper - in which case Apple would not be entitled to charge for use of said (core platform) services.
👉 You can't charge a fee for a service that the business user can - and does - decline to use (as he can do according to the regulation).

My interpretation is that Apple is trying to posit the Core Technology Fee as a more general developer fee. And/or for its app review/notarisation services - those being "strictly necessary and proportionate and (...) duly justified by the gatekeeper."

In the US, a law like this would be interpreted by the relevant administrative agencies, which would issue painstakingly detailed regulations to answer as many questions and resolve as many ambiguities as possible. Any remaining issues would be resolved by the courts. But the EU allows companies to interpret things for themselves, which inevitably leads to companies searching for loopholes and trying to do the least amount possible. It’s idiotic.
So does the EU:

"The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 49 to supplement this Regulation with regard to the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6. Those delegated acts shall be based on a market investigation pursuant to Article 19 that has identified the need to keep those obligations up to date in order to address practices that limit the contestability of core platform services or that are unfair in the same way as the practices addressed by the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6."
Regulators can't start setting prices or telling companies they have to give their IP away for free
The EU (at least partially) did set prices by mandating interoperability for free. That doesn't mean giving away IP for free.
 
Last edited:
yes they do. literally the very definition of regulator. im not sure you understand how law/governance work at the very core (see monopoly of violence, promulgation of sovereignty, thomas aquinas, and perhaps gregory the 13th)

no one is asking for anything to be free... whats being asked for are, fair, FREE_markets, and without abusive rent seeking gatekeepers that provide considerably less value than they extract
I suspect you will be greatly disappointed in the outcome of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
I suspect you will be greatly disappointed in the outcome of this.
given ive been pretty disappointed by the general toothlessness of regulatory/judicial/legislative action for the last 20 years against mega-corp over-reach... i suspect i probably will be disappointed.

i would much rather you end up disappointed.

no company should have a piece of nearly every economic interaction. i don't think thats good for capitalism or competition. and right now Apple, google, MS, (maybe amazon?), Mastercard/visa (maybe amex?), and a few others have wayyyyyyy too much power in places that dont reflect their contributions to society.

its bad enough we have statism... but corporatism is even worse.
 
given ive been pretty disappointed by the general toothlessness of regulatory/judicial/legislative action for the last 20 years against mega-corp over-reach... i suspect i probably will be disappointed.

i would much rather you end up disappointed.

no company should have a piece of nearly every economic interaction. i don't think thats good for capitalism or competition. and right now Apple, google, MS, (maybe amazon?), Mastercard/visa (maybe amex?), and a few others have wayyyyyyy too much power in places that dont reflect their contributions to society.

its bad enough we have statism... but corporatism is even worse.

Every one of those companies you listed either invented, pioneered, or greatly enhanced the very services you claim they should not have a piece of. It's funny how you claim Apple is the gateway to all human and social interaction then claim here they really don't make a contribution to society. Which is it?
 
Every one of those companies you listed either invented, pioneered, or greatly enhanced the very services you claim they should not have a piece of. It's funny how you claim Apple is the gateway to all human and social interaction then claim here they really don't make a contribution to society. Which is it?
thats a lot of rhetoric. False dichotmies, straw man, citing claims i did not make , etc...

fundamentally... men are allowed to govern themselves as they choose, and/or as they are capable.... no one is somehow specially unencumbered the choices we make as a collective - even if they dont agree... thus democracy and even other less representative forms of governance arise as the needs of a community require cooperation between members for improved success as a group vs individuals dying alone without a collective to support them.

Inventing bread does not make you the forever owner of bread for whom a tithe must be paid in perpetuity (see aquinas).

apple has made tremendous contributions to society... i never claimed otherwise... but that does not in turn enable them to abuse their position beyond the limits we are willing to tolerate for what we (through representative bodies) determine as acceptable conduct... or in the interests of the greater good.

When the world went from being wood fired and steam dependent to oil... guess who seized upon the opporunity to gain many layers of exclusive access to all oil production? (standard oil)... as our very existence (as a species) was becoming co-dependent upon oil extraction and production... all of a sudden, an unelected corporation ruled by an unaccountable individual held power well beyond what was tolerable to a healthy, productive and free society.

gatekeepers (rent seekers) should be careful of their positions... and apple really hasnt been... they do NOT have a right to ANYTHING... except that which the body politic allows them (see: fount of sovereignty). A "better" society limits and minimizes the abuses of its members, and the abuses of its governing bodies - but restraint isn't limitless.

you should really look at the capitalist history of "company towns" which strikes great parallels here. breaking down the company town model (and also the bundled movie theater model, and the dealership exclusive model) did not destroy those companies... and in many cases made them much stronger/better.

insisting on open, fair and unfettered markets might cost apple a couple bucks... but is much more likely to benefit society and consumers as a whole by a large degree, and could very well benefit apple as well.
 
That has always been the problem with the DMA. It states that Apple can’t do X, and everyone here assumes Apple must do Y, but they instead end up doing Z, and then everyone acts all surprised.

It would be so funny if the EU does end up accepting Apple’s proposal after all. I have the intro speech by Thanos in infinity war all queued up and ready to go for this. :cool:
As a lawyer, you just summed up my job. This is true to some extent for any law, not just EU regulations.
 
Facebook works so bad on macOS
Have to refquently re-load pages for the content to appear, don't get all notifications, a lot of bugs
 
I suspect you will be greatly disappointed in the outcome of this.
i strongly recomend you actualy read the DMA

7. The gatekeeper shall not require end users to use, or business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service, a web browser engine or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services.


8. The gatekeeper shall not require business users or end users to subscribe to, or register with, any further core platform services …as a condition for being able to use, access, sign up for or registering with any of that gatekeeper’s core platform services…

and you should carefully read the definitions they have. Especially the part about payment services and identification service
2)‘core platform service’ means any of the following:
(a)online intermediation services;
(b)online search engines;
(c)online social networking services;
(d)video-sharing platform services;
(e)number-independent interpersonal communications services;
(f)operating systems;
(5)‘online intermediation services’ means online intermediation services as defined in Article 2, point (2), of Regulation
(EU) 2019/1150;
(EU)2019/1150Article 2, point (2)
‘online intermediation services’ means services which meet all of the following requirements:
(a)
they constitute information society services within the meaning of point (b) of Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
(b)
they allow business users to offer goods or services to consumers, with a view to facilitating the initiating of direct transactions between those business users and consumers, irrespective of where those transactions are ultimately concluded;
(c)
they are provided to business users on the basis of contractual relationships between the provider of those services and business users which offer goods or services to consumers;
(EU)2015/1535Article 1(1) point (b):
  • ‘at a distance’ means that the service is provided without the parties being simultaneously present;
  • ‘by electronic means’ means that the service is sent initially and received at its destination by means of electronic equipment for the processing (including digital compression) and storage of data, and entirely transmitted, conveyed and received by wire, by radio, by optical means or by other electromagnetic means;
  • ‘at the individual request of a recipient of services’ means that the service is provided through the transmission of data on individual request.
(7)‘online social networking service’ means a platform that enables end users to connect and communicate with each
other, share content and discover other users and content across multiple devices and, in particular, via chats, posts,
videos and recommendations;
(10)core platform service‘operating system’ means a system software that controls the basic functions of the hardware or software and enables software applications to run on it;

(14)
‘software application stores’ means a type of online intermediation services, which is focused on software applications
as the intermediated product or service;
(15)‘software application’ means any digital product or service that runs on an operating system;
(16)‘payment service’ means a payment service as defined in Article 4, point (3) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366;
(EU) 2015/2366Article 4, point (3)
‘payment service’ means any business activity set out in Annex I;
ANNEX I
PAYMENT SERVICES
(as referred to in point (3) of Article 4)
1.Services enabling cash to be placed on a payment account as well as all the operations required for operating a payment account.
2.Services enabling cash withdrawals from a payment account as well as all the operations required for operating a payment account.
3.Execution of payment transactions, including transfers of funds on a payment account with the user’s payment service provider or with another payment service provider:
(a)execution of direct debits, including one-off direct debits;
(b)execution of payment transactions through a payment card or a similar device;
(c)execution of credit transfers, including standing orders.
4.Execution of payment transactions where the funds are covered by a credit line for a payment service user:
(a)execution of direct debits, including one-off direct debits;
(b)execution of payment transactions through a payment card or a similar device;
(c)execution of credit transfers, including standing orders.
5.Issuing of payment instruments and/or acquiring of payment transactions.
6.Money remittance.
7.Payment initiation services.
8.Account information services.
(17)‘technical service supporting payment service’ means a service within the meaning of Article 3, point (j), of Directive
(EU) 2015/2366;
(EU) 2015/2366Article 3, point (j)
services provided by technical service providers, which support the provision of payment services, without them entering at any time into possession of the funds to be transferred, including processing and storage of data, trust and privacy protection services, data and entity authentication, information technology (IT) and communication network provision, provision and maintenance of terminals and devices used for payment services, with the exclusion of payment initiation services and account information services;
(18)‘payment system for in-app purchases’ means a software application, service or user interface which facilitates
purchases of digital content or digital services within a software application, including content, subscriptions,
features or functionality, and the payments for such purchases;
(19)‘identification service’ means a type of service provided together with or in support of core platform services that
enables any type of verification of the identity of end users or business users, regardless of the technology used;
(20)‘end user’ means any natural or legal person using core platform services other than as a business user;
(21)‘business user’ means any natural or legal person acting in a commercial or professional capacity using core platform
services for the purpose of or in the course of providing goods or services to end users;
(29)‘interoperability’ means the ability to exchange information and mutually use the information which has been
exchanged through interfaces or other solutions, so that all elements of hardware or software work with other
hardware and software and with users in all the ways in which they are intended to function;
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee and sdz
Who is gonna tell him about GM’s role in creating both the leaded and modern unleaded gasoline formulas

Anyway, it was a great comparison, very apt.

It’s funny how the actual details are overlooked in these broad-stroke analogies. Automakers do make money on every gallon of gas sold. Most are members of the patent pools for the various fuel additives that are required by state and federal laws to be in gasoline and diesel for compliance emissions laws. Internationally, some auto manufactures even outright own petroleum companies and their downstream gas stations in their markets like Tata Motors in India.

On the EV side of things it is even more lucrative. Automakers like Tesla, Ford and VW own all or part of their charging networks and directly profit each time an EV is charged.
 
i strongly recomend you actualy read the DMA

7. The gatekeeper shall not require end users to use, or business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service, a web browser engine or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services.


8. The gatekeeper shall not require business users or end users to subscribe to, or register with, any further core platform services …as a condition for being able to use, access, sign up for or registering with any of that gatekeeper’s core platform services…

and you should carefully read the definitions they have. Especially the part about payment services and identification service


I’m certain Apple’s lawyers read all that as well and decided like I did that they were in the right to charge developers for use of their IP. Apple has already planted their stake in this matter so it’s not like I’m speculating on what they are going to do. The only question is can EU regulators find a way to thread the needle and stop them without violating more far reaching laws and nothing in the language of what you posted gives them that power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee
The EU can pat themselves on the back for creating regulation so vague on specifics that Apple was able to do, well, this.
the thing is it's not that vage if you actualy read the regulation and every law related to it to understand the legal framework. Eu won't evaluate Apples solution untill the 7th of march. That is apple's deadline, after that apple will be fined if their work is't good enough
And Apple can pay themselves on the back for having highlighted most loopholes in one go so the EU can just amend the regulation to close them, as they will likely do soon enough. Regulations should never be more strict then they need to be, clearly Apple is a bad actor that needs stricter regulations than originally thought sufficient.
The best part is apple haven't done that, they seem to have suck seeded in stepping on every landmine with their face
The EU’s “try to comply and we’ll tell you afterwards if you succeeded” method of regulation is so inane I almost can’t believe it’s real.
Or they could just do the logical thing and provide actual guidelines for companies to follow rather than leave so much wiggle room. It’s effectively entrapment.
This is how EU law have always been made. The government isn't here to hold your hand. It's only entrapment if you try to maliciously comply. If you actually engage with the law with good faith, you will be completely fine.

When you need to write a paper for university, does your professor hold your hand as well before they grade the paper? when your boss tell you to do a job, do your boss also hold your hand and do it for you?

Why should companies not be treated like adults? They aren't children
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.