Zuckerberg Calls Apple's DMA Compliance Changes 'Onerous' and 'Difficult to Seriously Entertain'

[Sophisticatednut]

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."

The EU (at least partially) did set prices by mandating interoperability for free. That doesn't mean giving away IP for free.

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.

Do you only respond to a the quote? Because the DMA explains it explicitly? Or do I need to quote you the whole law?

Article 6 Obligations for gatekeepers susceptible of being further specified under Article 8​

4. 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.

7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system…

here you have the laws you should read. especially SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd that states apple dont own their APIs or IP

(EU) 2022/1925 Digital Markets act​

The Directive 2009/24/EC
The Directive 2019/770/EU
The Directive 2019/771/EU
The Directive 2019/2161
The judgment in Case C-128/11 UsedSoft v Oracle
The judgment in Case C-166/15 Ranks v Microsoft Corp
The judgment in Case C-406/10 SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd
The judgment in Case C-355/12 Nintendo v PC Box Srl and Others
The judgment in Case T-172/21 Valve v Commission
The judgment in Case C‑307/18 Generics (UK) Ltd and Others
The judgment in Case C‑373/14 P Toshiba v Commission

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

Google have tried, Facebook have tried, Valve have tried, Amazon have tried.

EU law is nothing like US law, and constantly they seem to always fall in to the same legal pitfalls.
and continue to argue along US laws and definitions that EU don't care for or use.

And it seems apple will take googles place as the record payer in legal fines With a few billion

 

[Timo_Existencia]

And it seems apple will take googles place as the record payer in legal fines With a few billion

Which, after all, is the point of the DMA. Can't compete in tech? Legislate and extract payments from foreign actors instead.

 

[jlc1978]

EU law is nothing like US law, and constantly they seem to always fall in to the same legal pitfalls.
and continue to argue along US laws and definitions that EU don't care for or use.

It will be interesting to see the impact of divergent laws on developers, who could have a perfectly legal implementation in the EU and wind up in court in the US unless they block sales to the US.

here you have the laws you should read. especially SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd that states apple dont own their APIs or IP

The SAS case appears to have been one of copyrights, with SAS claiming infringement by a reversed engineered copy taht did not copy the actual code; not one of ownership of the API code. Developers can figure out how an interface works and send the required data, but they can't copy the code owned by someone else. Compaq made a legal clone by clean room analyzing IBM's PC.


In the end, I suspect there will be sideloading similar to as in the Mac where a developer can completely forgo Apple's store and signing and not give Apple a penny, Apple will charge for access to its App Store and tools, as well as signing if a developer wants it, and Meta/Spotify/et. al. will continue to pay Apple to be on the App Store and whine Apple won't let them access its customer base for free. Alternative app stores will exits as well as developer hosted downloads, with varying degrees of success. The EU will probably be OK with that since it essentially mimics teh current PC marketplace.

 

[wanha]

It really isn't that vague, it's just that Apples lawyers are experts at looking sideways at things until they can craft an interpretation that's favourable to Apple.

Whose lawyers are not experts at that?

 

[wanha]

If platforms were all forced to be actually open then I'd be for that...

... but these rules are purely aimed against Apple so I mostly applaud Apple making this painful. In reality Apple could come up with FAR more punishing mechanisms if the EU plans to continue going after them as a singular company.

Now for some what-about-ism:

1. Region Locking in printer ink. https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Print...-to-region-lock-European-printer/td-p/7886598
2. Consoles(Playstation, Nintendo)... Epic isn't complaining about Sony because Sony owns a huge chunk of Epic. The EU technically says you can't sell things at a loss because of the lock-in that obviously happens... but the EU allows it through a series of loopholes for the big manufacturers.
3. Cars... GM is dropping AppleCar AND AndroidAuto to force people to use their AppStore. BMW charges a fee to allow you to access CarPlay. These are people that didn't develop this tech literally charging rent on it.
4. The DMA rules effectively don't touch Android even though Android has twice the marketshare in the EU.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Which, after all, is the point of the DMA

No, it’s not. It’s about competition.

Legislate and extract payments from foreign actors instead.

Very easy for gatekeepers to counter: just comply with the law.
It’s very easy, at least with regards to software installation (see macOS).

The „extracting money“ claim doesn’t make much sense anyway, when they could easily have introduced a tax or something - much simpler and more efficient instead. And lower consumer prices due to increased competition also contradict the idea of just extracting money.

 

[visualseed]

Google have tried, Facebook have tried, Valve have tried, Amazon have tried.

EU law is nothing like US law, and constantly they seem to always fall in to the same legal pitfalls.
and continue to argue along US laws and definitions that EU don't care for or use.

And it seems apple will take googles place as the record payer in legal fines With a few billion

The point you seem to be missing is that Apple believes they are (and most likely are) complying with the letter of the law. In the EU, regulators don't get to make new laws or stretch existing laws to enforce the "spirit of the law." Maybe do a little research on how many to time courts have slapped down regulators in the EU that have over-stepped. It happens quite often. Badly crafted laws with glaring loopholes and unintended consequences get voted on and go into effect all the time. Sometimes they get amended. Sometimes they cut their losses and move on while shrugging their shoulders saying "they tried." These acts (DMA/DSA) were already very narrowly crafted as to not step on broader EU business interests, so I don't see much room for amendment to limit or cap licensing fees especially when the rates are well within industry norms for unregulated entities.

My prediction is there is a lot of noise, a bunch of rump-hurt, and Apple's solution is accepted as compliant.

 

[visualseed]

Do you only respond to a the quote? Because the DMA explains it explicitly? Or do I need to quote you the whole law?

Did you send that to Apple Legal? Because they did read all of it and the company responded as they did. We can debate it all day, but ultimately it will be up to the courts to sort it out if regulators decided to press the matter. The Dutch ACM dating app matter shows how quickly things can get carried away and require court intervention when regulators blindly insist on compliance with the "spirit" instead of the "letter" of the law.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The point you seem to be missing is that Apple believes they are (and most likely are) complying with the letter of the law. In the EU, regulators don't get to make new laws or stretch existing laws to enforce the "spirit of the law." Maybe do a little research on how many to time courts have slapped down regulators in the EU that have over-stepped. It happens quite often. Badly crafted laws with glaring loopholes and unintended consequences get voted on and go into effect all the time. Sometimes they get amended. Sometimes they cut their losses and move on while shrugging their shoulders saying "they tried." These acts (DMA/DSA) were already very narrowly crafted as to not step on broader EU business interests, so I don't see much room for amendment to limit or cap licensing fees especially when the rates are well within industry norms for unregulated entities.

My prediction is there is a lot of noise, a bunch of rump-hurt, and Apple's solution is accepted as compliant.

That’s funny, because you have no clue what you’re talking about. Do you know who makes laws in EU? And who can invalidate them?
can you list the last 5 instances that happened the last 20 years? I can think of only a single one and that is International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles on the principle of privacy not being sufficiently protected.

Industry standard fees have zero legal substance for anything

Did you send that to Apple Legal? Because they did read all of it and the company responded as they did. We can debate it all day, but ultimately it will be up to the courts to sort it out if regulators decided to press the matter. The Dutch ACM dating app matter shows how quickly things can get carried away and require court intervention when regulators blindly insist on compliance with the "spirit" instead of the "letter" of the law.

Nope because the Dutch ACM isn’t a EU court. And in fact the ACM was obligated to limit the scope of their investigation to not interfere with EUs own legislation. And is still not finished
ACM rejects Apple’s objections published in October 2023

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

If platforms were all forced to be actually open then I'd be for that...

... but these rules are purely aimed against Apple so I mostly applaud Apple making this painful. In reality Apple could come up with FAR more punishing mechanisms if the EU plans to continue going after them as a singular company.

Now for some what-about-ism:

1. Region Locking in printer ink. https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Print...-to-region-lock-European-printer/td-p/7886598
2. Consoles(Playstation, Nintendo)... Epic isn't complaining about Sony because Sony owns a huge chunk of Epic. The EU technically says you can't sell things at a loss because of the lock-in that obviously happens... but the EU allows it through a series of loopholes for the big manufacturers.
3. Cars... GM is dropping AppleCar AND AndroidAuto to force people to use their AppStore. BMW charges a fee to allow you to access CarPlay. These are people that didn't develop this tech literally charging rent on it.
4. The DMA rules effectively don't touch Android even though Android has twice the marketshare in the EU.

Are you honestly suggesting the EU have gone easy on Google?! They fined them $4 billion

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If platforms were all forced to be actually open then I'd be for that...

... but these rules are purely aimed against Apple so I mostly applaud Apple making this painful. In reality Apple could come up with FAR more punishing mechanisms if the EU plans to continue going after them as a singular company.

Now for some what-about-ism:

1. Region Locking in printer ink. https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Print...-to-region-lock-European-printer/td-p/7886598
2. Consoles(Playstation, Nintendo)... Epic isn't complaining about Sony because Sony owns a huge chunk of Epic. The EU technically says you can't sell things at a loss because of the lock-in that obviously happens... but the EU allows it through a series of loopholes for the big manufacturers.
3. Cars... GM is dropping AppleCar AND AndroidAuto to force people to use their AppStore. BMW charges a fee to allow you to access CarPlay. These are people that didn't develop this tech literally charging rent on it.
4. The DMA rules effectively don't touch Android even though Android has twice the marketshare in the EU.

1. That’s already illegal, Uk isn’t in EU. And US cartridges aren’t subject to EU regulation
2. EU don’t think Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo console market are big or relevant on the internal market.
3. GM’s last reported vehicle sales in Europe were in fiscal 2017 at about 685 million units before the firm sold all of its subsidiaries and exited the European market… so what can EU do to a company that doesn’t sell anything here?
4. Google is heavily impacted by the DSA, but Apple is barely impacted. (Digital market act & Digital service Act are complimentary legislations covering other things.

You should look at all the legal cases EU have pulled Google through in the last 10 years because of android

 

[jlc1978]

No, it’s not. It’s about competition.

Very easy for gatekeepers to counter: just comply with the law.
It’s very easy, at least with regards to software installation (see macOS).

The „extracting money“ claim doesn’t make much sense anyway, when they could easily have introduced a tax or something - much simpler and more efficient instead. And lower consumer prices due to increased competition also contradict the idea of just extracting money.

The problem I have with the lower prices argument is we did not see lower prices when Apple lowered their commission charge from 30 to 15%; I suspect we will not see that even if other app stores charge less than Apple.

The challenge for 3rd party stores is to be able to charge less and still be viable. Big sellers and subscription based services such as Spotify can afford to go it alone; but for many developers only paying 15%, what is the compelling reason to switch stores? They'd pay a fee to process transactions, so a third party store would have to charge less tan 15% to be attractive. Can they survive on that low of a margin, especially if developers also stay on Apple's store and thus third party sales are just a blip? I just don't see a surge of third party app stores that last as how this will play out.

 

[MacFarmer]

apple just does not want to give away control. If any of you follow tech for quite some time, you will know what happens to big corporations when they loose control of their core product...

 

[I7guy]

apple just does not want to give away control. If any of you follow tech for quite some time, you will know what happens to big corporations when they loose control of their core product...

True. They are not losing control. They are having their core tech treated like a public utility. The only way to fight back is to leave the EU, unfortunately. Let ‘em use the hundreds of alternative smartphones that are on the market. (While I know it probably wont happen push enough buttons and it may happen)

 

[AppliedMicro]

They are having their core tech treated like a public utility

Which it has become in many ways.
Just like internet access providers.

The only way to fight back is to leave the EU, unfortunately

They didn’t leave China but let them operate their iCloud service by a Chinese company and censored their App Store for them.
They didn’t leave the United Arab Emirates but censored away FaceTime service in that country.
They didn’t stop operating their App Store in Russia, and even paid fines for antitrust violations recently.

I‘ll wait for you to proclaim they really should leave the U.S. when the DoJ or the Open App Markets bill or something hits them.

 

[I7guy]

Which it has become in many ways.
Just like internet access providers.

They didn’t leave China but let them operate their iCloud service by a Chinese company and censored their App Store for them.
They didn’t leave the United Arab Emirates but censored away FaceTime service in that country.
They didn’t stop operating their App Store in Russia, and even paid fines for antitrust violations recently.

I‘ll wait for you to proclaim they really should leave the U.S. when the DoJ or the Open App Markets bill or something hits them.

Internet access was always meant to be a public utility. Your analogy is a red-herring.

As far as the US there is a little something called SCOTUS which can balance things out.

 

[BaldiMac]

When you need to write a paper for university, does your professor hold your hand as well before they grade the paper?

Yes. Any decent professor is willing to read a rough draft and give you feedback to make sure you are on the right track. It's a formal part of the dissertation process.

Why should companies not be treated like adults? They aren't children

There is nothing "adult" about refusing to give feedback.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes. Any decent professor is willing to read a rough draft and give you feedback to make sure you are on the right track. It's a formal part of the dissertation process.

Well I would say that university professor are treating you as a child and not as grownups in the real world.

There is nothing "adult" about refusing to give feedback.

It absolutely is, all the information to follow the law exist in one place. Zero outside information is needed for complying or understanding the law.

There’s zero reason for any feedback unless you want to do the bare minimum, and the only one who will give them feedback is a judge alongside a fine to read the rules and try again.

If you want to do the bare minimum and be told how to do that, then you’re in the wrong legal jurisdiction, and should exit the market.

True. They are not losing control. They are having their core tech treated like a public utility. The only way to fight back is to leave the EU, unfortunately. Let ‘em use the hundreds of alternative smartphones that are on the market. (While I know it probably wont happen push enough buttons and it may happen)

Internet access was always meant to be a public utility. Your analogy is a red-herring

Well if the internet was always meant to be public utility, private property was always meant to be … you know private and not licensed

As far as the US there is a little something called SCOTUS which can balance things out.
N

We have the same thing in EU. It’s known as The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is one of the EU’s seven institutions. It consists of two courts of law:

the Court of Justice proper and the General Court. It is responsible for the jurisdiction of the European Union. The courts ensure the correct interpretation and application of primary and secondary EU law in the EU. They review the legality of acts of the EU institutions and decide whether Member States have fulfilled their obligations under primary and secondary law.

The Court of Justice also provides interpretations of EU law when so requested by national judges.

 

[BaldiMac]

Well I would say that university professor are treating you as a child and not as grownups in the real world.

Sure. But that's because you don't know what you're talking about. You're just making something up to fit your argument. You asked a question. And the answer clearly refutes your point.

It absolutely is, all the information to follow the law exist in one place. Zero outside information is needed for complying or understanding the law.

And yet you have repeatedly misinterpreted the law.

There’s zero reason for any feedback unless you want to do the bare minimum, and the only one who will give them feedback is a judge alongside a fine to read the rules and try again.

If you want to do the bare minimum and be told how to do that, then you’re in the wrong legal jurisdiction, and should exit the market.

Which is all nonsense. The bare minimum is by definition all that is required. Language is hardly exactly, and there is nothing wrong with asking for clarification.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Internet access was always meant to be a public utility.

Wrong - it was designed for and by educational and military institutions.

It just doesn’t matter though. Your reference to „always meant“ is a red herring.

It doesn’t matter what it was decades ago - just as it doesn’t matter what the iPhone was 15 years ago. Legislation is concerned (primarily) with the here and now. And the future. Especially when it concerns antitrust or competition law.

 

[I7guy]

Wrong - it was designed for and by educational and military institutions.

Mostly wrong. Many technology inventions were meant to be something and the inventors brought it public. Not the government regulating it. (Note: helping the internet grow is not regulating it) Even today the internet is regulated less than years ago.

But clearly this is a red-herring or moving the goal posts or whatever.

It just doesn’t matter though. Your reference to „always meant“ is a red herring.

It doesn’t matter what it was decades ago - just as it doesn’t matter what the iPhone was 15 years ago. Legislation is concerned (primarily) with the here and now. And the future. Especially when it concerns antitrust or competition law.

Well it does matter - which is the entire point of this discussion.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Sure. But that's because you don't know what you're talking about. You're just making something up to fit your argument. You asked a question. And the answer clearly refutes your point.

I’m talking from experience in my university, now if it true in all countries I can’t say but I agree with it.

And yet you have repeatedly misinterpreted the law.

You say this without anything backing it up.

Which is all nonsense. The bare minimum is by definition all that is required. Language is hardly exactly, and there is nothing wrong with asking for clarification.

Language is very exact when you have it written in. 24 different ones. If you think the English language is unclear, you can read the German version, if that’s unclear you can the Swedish version, if that’s unclear you can read the French version etc etc
They all refer to the exact same legal definition. If you need a clarification you have all the documentation you need.

Keep in mind zero members use English as their primary language
English left, German middle, and Swedish right.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Well it does matter - which is the entire point of this discussion.

I maintain that (given what and how many businesses are relying on iOS for their business), the iOS platform has become very much alike to a utility. That’s why it is justified to treat it similarly with legislation - today.

Your point about if the internet „was always meant to be“ a utility (and iOS supposedly wasn‘t) is just distraction. Inventions may develop from niche usage to public utilities - whatever they were initially meant to be.

If original intention mattered, monopolies would most probably be illegal (without government authorisation) - but they aren’t.

 

[BaldiMac]

I’m talking from experience in my university, now if it true in all countries I can’t say but I agree with it.

That's the problem. You agree with it, so you assume it's true. It's clearly false both in the context of education and business.

You say this without anything backing it up.

Sorry. I'd assumed that you were aware of conversations that you had on this forum. Maybe someone else posted with your username.

For example, you thought an "identification service" was a list of developers and not a service like "Sign in with Apple". And you thought messaging service interoperability was the same as multi-service clients.

Of course, the reason you made those mistakes is because, despite your claim, language is not exact.

Language is very exact when you have it written in. 24 different ones. If you think the English language is unclear, you can read the German version, if that’s unclear you can the Swedish version, if that’s unclear you can read the French version etc etc
They all refer to the exact same legal definition. If you need a clarification you have all the documentation you need.

Keep in mind zero members use English as their primary language

Those arguments don't support your claims. They contradict it.