Apple CEO Tim Cook to Meet EU Antitrust Chief Next Week

[CarAnalogy]

I mean his son. That crazy conspiracy theorist.

I am not really aware of any Kennedys after that generation, didn’t know that. Shame.

If she is on her way out, she might want to exit with a big bang. And who knows who her successor will be.

It would really be a scandal if Apple got a special deal. American companies will have to learn that in the EU the consumer comes first.

The fact she’s coming to America may indicate she’s willing to make a better deal. At least she can have their input and feedback and get a closer look at their organizations firsthand. Ideally at least. Not sure if anyone really knows the full extent of it, whether she’s really interested or if it’s just a way to have one convenient meeting with everyone there at the same time.

I don’t expect them to get a special deal. But Apple has historically made good deals just because they are different and have had good ideas. And of course had a legendary negotiator. We’ll see how their negotiation powers hold up.

 

[H2SO4]

I am going to quote Cypher from the Matrix. "Ignorance is Bliss!" By the time you realize it, it will be too late!

Define Marxist and then post your supporting data.

 

[t0rqx]

one backdoor a day, keeps the regulators away.

 

[Abazigal]

It would really be a scandal if Apple got a special deal. American companies will have to learn that in the EU the consumer comes first.

It’s actually the other way around. US antitrust law looks at harm done to consumers. It’s EU antitrust law that aims to protect smaller businesses. In part because US has all these huge tech giant companies, while the EU has none.

There is good in bad. There is bad in good.

 

[BGPL]

When third party apps are allowed on iPhones and iPads, we will look back and wonder how we functioned so long with only the Appstore. Imagine not being able to install non-Appstore applications on your Mac... pro tip: it's all about cash for Apple and has nothing to do with watching out for the customer, stability, apple ecosystem, malware etc.

 

[eifelbube]

America creates, the EU regulates. Sorry, America. I say this as a Brit who is happy to be out of the EU. This is an institution that, rightly, has concerns about global corporations with monopoly practices, but who will damage consumer choice and security by forcing my message product of choice to provide backdoors to competing message products that I do not wish to use but, tacitly, will have a share in.

That seems to be a necessity to me, to have both: create and regulate. Do we believe there can be creation without regulation? Do we have any industry without regulation?

 

[wikiverse]

I'm saying it's ludicrous for the EU to try and claim that an iPhone user needs links/information about lower pricing within the App Store

That's what you've misunderstood. The EU isn't claiming that developers should be allowed to advertise cheaper prices in the App Store, they're saying that developers should be allowed to advertise offers and provide links within the app itself. Not within the App Store. The Amazon analogy is false, because the equivalent would be Amazon preventing stores from including promotions/discounts/coupons or promoting direct sales from their website, etc. in the product that is shipped rather than on the Amazon website.

Apple currently disallows developers from linking to third party payment systems from within the app (hence the Epic Games lawsuit), or to alternative places to make a purchase for the App itself, which is also hindered by them not allowing sideloading. Apple can, and has, removed many apps - including popular apps - from the App Store for doing these things and that is what the EU is trying to stop.

The article is meant to be read as three things working together, not individually. So, they're saying Apple must allow sideloading but cannot prevent developers from promoting sales or other apps they've made within an app that someone has downloaded from the App Store, and cannot prevent them from linking to a third-party payment system/other app store for in-app purchases or updates.

 

[ackmondual]

Honestly this doesn’t actually sound that bad. It’s well established that American corporations will take every inch and then some. That unbridled power does lead to innovation as well as abuse.

We have already seen tangible benefits from things like GDPR. Do we really want to just wait around for the American government to decide we deserve things like privacy laws and data portability?

Yes the EU goes too far, but American legislators go too far the other way. Look at the downright lies Elizabeth Warren is telling about Beeper Mini and Apple, somehow twisting it so that Apple is “blocking” Beeper’s services. I don’t think she’s stupid enough to actually believe that, which leaves lying as the most likely explanation.

It is interesting that Vestager is coming to the United States for this meeting. I would actually like to see more cooperation between American tech companies and the EU.

I know this post is just begging for downvotes, and I don’t like how it seems the EU is targeting “big tech” but so is the US government. At least most of the EU ministers seem to have some basic understanding of technology.

By the way for reference here is the Warren quote:



I mean what is this? Anyone with any basic tech knowledge whatsoever understands that that is a deliberate twisting of the situation. This person is a US Senator. Someone should stop people with such power from saying such stupid things. Does she have no aids or advisors or does she just not listen to them or are they all lobbyists or what?

You’ll notice that the EU never said anything about Beeper.

The said thing is, Warren is one of the smarter ones

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

The EU does not decide what is best for me!

That's fair. Margrethe will however be putting Tim over her knee.

 

[CarAnalogy]

The said thing is, Warren is one of the smarter ones

She pays attention to the tech sector anyway. Many years ago she seemed somewhat reasonable. The fact that she could make a statement like that though makes me question whether she ever had any insight or integrity in the first place.

Wyden seems to be the best one. Let’s hope he sticks around.

 

[Isengardtom]

No, I am talking about the EU as an institution, specifically about the Commission view but also a wide range of EU politicians who lament our exit and are determined to renew relations. Anyway, let's stick to the point. The EU regulates what America creates. But then it regulates in a manner that is not optimal for consumers in the EU or indeed worldwide given the implications that their laws will change the fundamentals of these platforms. So no this isn't just something that affects EU companies or EU consumers. Classic overreach. Almost as if the EU is a kind of monopoly itself...

UK regulates just as much, or tries to anyways.
As they should. Some regulation is needed.

 

[amartinez1660]

That's what you've misunderstood. The EU isn't claiming that developers should be allowed to advertise cheaper prices in the App Store, they're saying that developers should be allowed to advertise offers and provide links within the app itself. Not within the App Store. The Amazon analogy is false, because the equivalent would be Amazon preventing stores from including promotions/discounts/coupons or promoting direct sales from their website, etc. in the product that is shipped rather than on the Amazon website.

Apple currently disallows developers from linking to third party payment systems from within the app (hence the Epic Games lawsuit), or to alternative places to make a purchase for the App itself, which is also hindered by them not allowing sideloading. Apple can, and has, removed many apps - including popular apps - from the App Store for doing these things and that is what the EU is trying to stop.

The article is meant to be read as three things working together, not individually. So, they're saying Apple must allow sideloading but cannot prevent developers from promoting sales or other apps they've made within an app that someone has downloaded from the App Store, and cannot prevent them from linking to a third-party payment system/other app store for in-app purchases or updates.

This is a great explanation, it holds up well.
Amazon products do come sometimes with flyers and tons of paper slides with extra promotions, coupons, other products from the same company, etc.
(Amazon is so big and convenient though, that they just mostly point back to an Amazon-ready page)

Explained this way it isn’t that crazy of a regulation.

That said, I’m expecting apps to get flooded by promotions left and right regarding “change to this other subscription over here on this link, put your credit card with us, etc etc to save $1 a month” next to the existing barrage of Ads that some have…

Which begs the question, if all of that could be developed behind an option toggle API (similar to notifications “allowed or not allow”, but for outer cross promotions)… because I’ll prefer to pay that extra $ in exchange of not being bombarded with yet more Ads things. A global switch that is, system wide.

 

[cicalinarrot]

America creates, the EU regulates. Sorry, America. I say this as a Brit who is happy to be out of the EU. This is an institution that, rightly, has concerns about global corporations with monopoly practices, but who will damage consumer choice and security by forcing my message product of choice to provide backdoors to competing message products that I do not wish to use but, tacitly, will have a share in.

Software has the “problem” of being technically free to share. Protecting your code is ok. Boicotting people who want to make free software is as unethical as bombing a public library in the night.
If you were a developer, you’d know Apple has killed free apps and utilities or one-time purchases to extort every single penny and block anybody who doesn’t use the most predatory practices. If you want to develop for they platform, you have to be subscribed, buy a ridiculuously overpriced Mac for each developer every few years, give them big chunks of what you earn.
The “good for consumers” or “safety” arguments are BS. How do I know it? Macs are now implementing some iPhone features and getting much worse. And when Mac OS was gave us complete freedom, it was safe and great.
EU must regulate and stop very clear abuses of dominance, sorry fanboys.

 

[H2SO4]

It’s actually the other way around. US antitrust law looks at harm done to consumers. It’s EU antitrust law that aims to protect smaller businesses. In part because US has all these huge tech giant companies, while the EU has none.

There is good in bad. There is bad in good.

That’s a disingenuous comment.
The EU law prevents dominance by huge firms to the benefit of the end user.
So it regulates big firms, stops them just buying everybody and skewing the market do the consumer has more choice.
Hilarious that you managed to twist it. Ironically I’d say that you should be in politics, (if you aren’t already).

 

[Abazigal]

That’s a disingenuous comment.
The EU law prevents dominance by huge firms to the benefit of the end user.
So it regulates big firms, stops them just buying everybody and skewing the market do the consumer has more choice.
Hilarious that you managed to twist it. Ironically I’d say that you should be in politics, (if you aren’t already).

I would suck at politics, because I don't have a habit of making politically correct statements for the sake of currying favour with the higher-ups. Which has gotten me into trouble with my bosses on more than one occasion in the past.

The problem then comes when users get a great experience in part because of the dominance of said firm.

Take the App Store for example. The ability to sideload on android has led to a series of scams where android users are tricked into downloading malware via Facebook ads. These apps then go on to steal the user's banking information and siphon away their life savings. In this case, having more choice and more freedom didn't give these users more of what they wanted. It instead saddled them with more issues to contend with.

Below is just one of many instances (I basically see a new case being reported every week or so).

Android malware scam victims lost more than S$10 million in first half of 2023: Police

Over 750 cases of Android malware-related scams were reported in the first half of 2023, including 11 cases involving the unauthorised withdrawal of Central Provident Fund savings.

www.channelnewsasia.com

Meanwhile, the iPhone, by virtue of its inability to sideload, has been spared this particular instance of scamming. I am not saying that the way Apple runs their App Store is perfect, but I still believe that a closed ecosystem where there is a layer of screening to weed out bad actors, however imperfect, is ultimately still better than there not being one at all. Especially on a device like the smartphone which houses all your personal and banking information.

Which is why you will see me continue to make the argument that the locked down nature of the App Store is what allows for the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of users. Yes, there are going to be a small number of users who want to be able to install apps normally not available in the App Store. And yes, there will be businesses who want to have their cake and eat it too by being allowed to circumvent App Store restrictions or get out of paying Apple their 30% cut. And the government is going to have to decide which demographic of users they want to protect.

Because you can't have both (openness and security). And this is the hill I am prepared to die on.

 

[Mike_Trivisonno]

Bring your checkbook, Tim. That's what these EU parasites really want. They could not care less about the plebs they ostensibly serve. Apple has "too much money" and they will have their satisfaction.

 

[H2SO4]

I would suck at politics, because I don't have a habit of making politically correct statements for the sake of currying favour with the higher-ups. Which has gotten me into trouble with my bosses on more than one occasion in the past.

The problem then comes when users get a great experience in part because of the dominance of said firm.

Take the App Store for example. The ability to sideload on android has led to a series of scams where android users are tricked into downloading malware via Facebook ads. These apps then go on to steal the user's banking information and siphon away their life savings. In this case, having more choice and more freedom didn't give these users more of what they wanted. It instead saddled them with more issues to contend with.

Below is just one of many instances (I basically see a new case being reported every week or so).

Android malware scam victims lost more than S$10 million in first half of 2023: Police

Over 750 cases of Android malware-related scams were reported in the first half of 2023, including 11 cases involving the unauthorised withdrawal of Central Provident Fund savings.

www.channelnewsasia.com

Meanwhile, the iPhone, by virtue of its inability to sideload, has been spared this particular instance of scamming. I am not saying that the way Apple runs their App Store is perfect, but I still believe that a closed ecosystem where there is a layer of screening to weed out bad actors, however imperfect, is ultimately still better than there not being one at all. Especially on a device like the smartphone which houses all your personal and banking information.

Which is why you will see me continue to make the argument that the locked down nature of the App Store is what allows for the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of users. Yes, there are going to be a small number of users who want to be able to install apps normally not available in the App Store. And yes, there will be businesses who want to have their cake and eat it too by being allowed to circumvent App Store restrictions or get out of paying Apple their 30% cut. And the government is going to have to decide which demographic of users they want to protect.

Because you can't have both (openness and security). And this is the hill I am prepared to die on.

Make whatever argument you want, you're entitled to. Increased POV is good for everybody but your original statement, (to me), seems like you've either forgotten or ignored, (deliberately or otherwise), what the point of the law is.

 

[AndiG]

Woohoo, Mrs Vestager bites deep and hard, this will be a tough meeting for TC.

 

[DarthDon]

No one with some brain left will install apps outside the apple app-store. It is just unsafe. Imagine your bank app getting hacked bec of some stupid cheap app... Bec of that, my ex-Boss was missing thousands of Euros on his bank account. Gone forever! Thanks to android...

 

[gnipgnop]

That's what you've misunderstood. The EU isn't claiming that developers should be allowed to advertise cheaper prices in the App Store, they're saying that developers should be allowed to advertise offers and provide links within the app itself. Not within the App Store. The Amazon analogy is false, because the equivalent would be Amazon preventing stores from including promotions/discounts/coupons or promoting direct sales from their website, etc. in the product that is shipped rather than on the Amazon website.

You're forgetting that an app is not a standalone product. It requires the phone hardware (not produced by the app developer) and the OS (not produced by the app developer). So an app on an iPhone is really a combination of the 3rd party work AND the 1st party work. Apple is not simply a middleman like Amazon. The products you can get from Amazon can be produced 100% independently of Amazon itself and function 100% independently of Amazon itself. That isn't true of an iPhone app.

So ultimately, it doesn't actually matter if the communication is inside the store or inside the app. There's no point where Apple's 1st party involvement ends. And like I said, large consumer oriented apps like Netflix, Spotify and Kindle moved payments for products/services entirely to the web without needing specific communications/links inside the store or the app. That's because consumers are aware that tech companies have web sites and social media presences etc. All you need to know as a consumer is the name of the company/developer or the name of the app and you can easily find information about pricing outside of the App Store on your iPhone. The regulatory argument the EU is making on anti-steering is incredibly flimsy. iPhone/iOS already provide a wide variety of ways to access information that is not controlled by Apple.

 

[I7guy]

Ever heard of US FDA regulation of European pharmceutical companies?

Are we discussing that use an iPhone one time can kill you? Unlike medication?

 

[gnipgnop]

It’s actually the other way around. US antitrust law looks at harm done to consumers. It’s EU antitrust law that aims to protect smaller businesses. In part because US has all these huge tech giant companies, while the EU has none.

The irony there is that the EU wasn't doing any of this for small businesses. They were doing it for billion/trillion dollar companies like Epic, Spotify, Tinder and Microsoft. Those were the companies lobbying them to make changes. Those are the companies that don't like the one-size-fits-all contracts in the App Store. They want special treatment. Epic's original complaints about the App Store were centered on wanting special treatment versus other app developers and not getting it.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Says someone who is not even remotely schooled in EU history! You'd be shocked to learn just how much of the underlying principles of the EU were actually written by British lawyers! I suggest you do some more reading.

Sorry But the fact the UK had a hand in the underlying principles is wholly irrelevant to the question of the institutional changes that developed out of them with strong British opposition to anything that would federalize and centralize the institutions more effectively. The Uk and mainland Europe have always had different views, values and goals.

The EU befire The 2010s isn’t the same as EU after the 2010s

 

[Sophisticatednut]

"as well as give developers the ability to promote their offers outside the ‌‌‌App Store"

I didn't misunderstand anything. That bolded quote is specific to anti-steering, which is a standard practice in the retail industry. Example: Amazon does not allow 3rd party sellers to provide links to lower pricing outside Amazon OR to include information about lower pricing outside Amazon.

I'm saying it's ludicrous for the EU to try and claim that an iPhone user needs links/information about lower pricing within the App Store when smartphones allow access to the internet/social media/email/texts/push notifications etc. Users have easy access to "shopping around" for better prices elsewhere on their device. Apple in no way prevents them from "shopping around" by having an anti-steering policy on the App Store. Similar to Amazon, all it does is prevent the links/information from appearing inside the store itself. It's not a barrier to getting a lower price elsewhere. That has already been proven by large consumer oriented apps like Netflix, Spotify and Kindle easily moving payments outside of the App Store without needing links/information about it inside the App Store.

Well lucky for us that anti-steering is illegal in EU broadly speaking. So what Amazon does in the US isn’t that relevant when they aren’t allowed to have anti-steering clauses for the EU market.

You regularly gets links and pamphlets inside product packages that have a link to the producers homepage for deals and refills etc etc.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That’s a disingenuous comment.
The EU law prevents dominance by huge firms to the benefit of the end user.
So it regulates big firms, stops them just buying everybody and skewing the market do the consumer has more choice.
Hilarious that you managed to twist it. Ironically I’d say that you should be in politics, (if you aren’t already).

Well he is kind of right. EU don’t care about consumers in that regard, they value the market and competition.

If a consumer is harmed isn’t often that relevant if the harm to the market is greater.

Example the fact that consumers might be harmed with the opening of the AppStore is completely irrelevant to the EU because the harm is greater to the market by preventing developers the ability to compete on fair terms with apples provided services and ability to sell to consumers without Apple interfering etc.