Apple Faces £1.5 Billion UK Lawsuit Over App Store 'Overcharging'

[Nuno Lopes]

Private property should not be taken without very good cause,

Stop the straw man, please. If you have a house and regulations require you to open a window in order not to block the airflow that goes across to other houses you don’t loose your property at any point. You own your house, not the air, neither you invented or made air. In its most simplistic form this is what the DMA is about.

The question is why would the house owner be opposed to that? I know why, you know why, anyone understands why.

But, why would be unsuspected person such as your self be apposed to that while coming up with strongly emotionally charged straw man arguments

 

[surferfb]

Stop the straw man, please. If you have a house and regulations require you to open a window in order not to block the airflow that goes across to other houses you don’t loose your property at any point. You own your house, not the air, neither you invented or made air. In its most simplistic form this is what the DMA is about.

But this isn’t asking to open a window. It’s asking you to let anyone into your house, at anytime, whether you want them there or not, for free. Even if your name is on the deed, it’s not going to feel like it’s your house when there are friends, strangers, and people you don’t like using your property like it was their own. Is it going to feel like your house when a business competitor is sitting on the couch you bought, using the internet you pay for, to work to make sure you make less money?

The question is why would the house owner be opposed to that? I know why, you know why, anyone understands why.

Because it’s their house and they should get to decide the rules for people coming over without a very good reason, and “the platform with 25% market share isn’t open like the market leader” is a really, really bad reason.

But, why would be unsuspected person such as your self be apposed to that while coming up with strongly emotionally charged straw man arguments.l to make such a point.

Because I am philosophically opposed to regulations that take things from their owners and give them to freeloaders. Particularly when the regulations make my preferred computing platform worse, and will reduce the number of features that get released, all so developers who should be thanking Apple for helping them have a business instead steal from them with an assist from government regulators who think browser choice screens are good user experiences.

 

[AppliedMicro]

None of the above is anything close to reasoned logic as to how legally stealing a companies property is good for anybody.

It’s good for the thief. 🤡

That said, the sentence is complete nonsense - because no property is stolen.

Because I am philosophically opposed to regulations that take things from their owners and give them to freeloaders

I take it you‘re opposed to Apple‘s developer terms then!?

They include terms that have no other purpose than enable Apple to leech off other developer‘s hardware work and freeload by charging junk fees and commissions.

Particularly when the regulations make my preferred computing platform worse, and will reduce the number of features that get released,

Again: I take it you oppose Apple’s developer terms then.

If anyone is reducing the number of (or preventing) features released, it‘s Apple.
Remember when they prohibited emulators and made game streaming apps nonviable through their developer terms?
Apple is the one that‘s preventing features from being released.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Their products aren't differentiated if they have to give the same features away to everyone.

…which, again, they don‘t have to.

Providing interoperability does not mean providing a feature to everyone.
They can keep their features limited to their own operating system and phone hardware.
That’s not giving away a feature to everyone.

It should be Apple's choice to make how they license their IP

When you have monopoly power, their choice should not be totally unregulated.
Rules should be put in place to parent them from abusing it.

Their commissions are entirely in line with industry standards

They‘re not.

Most other general purpose operating systems (including Windows, macOS, Linux and even Android) charge 0% commissions for distribution of applications for them.

 

[surferfb]

I take it you‘re opposed to Apple‘s developer terms then!?

They include terms that have no other purpose than enable Apple to leech off other developer‘s hardware work and freeload by charging junk fees and commissions.

Nope - Apple did the hard work to create their platform and are entitled to whatever terms they want. Developers’ apps don’t work without Apple existing.

Again: I take it you oppose Apple’s developer terms then.

If anyone is reducing the number of (or preventing) features released, it‘s Apple.

Nope. It’s the EU demanding that they give their features away for free, which changes the ROI calculations. And it’s the EU forcing Apple to spend millions of dollars and unknown thousands of hours of its engineers’ time on features that most Apple users don’t want.

Remember when they prohibited emulators and made game streaming apps nonviable through their developer terms?

Apple is within its rights to prevent the enabling of pirarcy on their platforms. If pirating ROMs is important to you, Android exists. Which is actually the solution.

Apple is the one that‘s preventing features from being released.

Nope. You’re confusing developers’ offerings with OS features.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It’s the EU demanding that they give their features away for free, which changes the ROI calculations

With the billions of Euros they‘re earning and their margins, Apple has zero issues with ROI calculations that would prevent them from releasing features. Zero.

Apple is within its rights to prevent the enabling of pirarcy on their platforms

Oh, so it’s about preventing piracy now? 😄

The company that grew so big by releasing iPods that played (m)any pirated MP3 file?
Give me a break!

You know it was about increasing or maintaining their own commission and subscription revenue from gaming.

You’re confusing developers’ offerings with OS features

No. Developers offerings include features developed by them.

And given that the smartphone market is quite competitive (unlike the ones for apps that run on them), Apple has every incentive to develop features.

And so do they have the necessary resources! (Well… maybe not in terms of manpower. But surely in terms of money).

What‘s the worst thing that the DMA can do to Apple?
They earn a couple millions less.
That has zero impact on their ability to develop features for their OS.

 

[mblm85]

Looking forward to my £8 settlement credit in 10 years time!

 

[surferfb]

With the billions of Euros they‘re earning and their margins, Apple has zero issues with ROI calculations that would prevent them from releasing features. Zero.


Oh, so it’s about preventing piracy now? 😄

The company that grew so big by releasing iPods that played (m)any pirated MP3 file?
Give me a break!

You know it was about increasing or maintaining their own commission and subscription revenue from gaming.


No. Developers offerings include features developed by them.

And given that the smartphone market is quite competitive (unlike the ones for apps that run on them), Apple has every incentive to develop features.

And so do they have the necessary resources! (Well… maybe not in terms of manpower. But surely in terms of money).

What‘s the worst thing that the DMA can do to Apple?
They earn a couple millions less.
That has zero impact on their ability to develop features for their OS.

We’re way off topic and not going to change each other’s minds. I’ll just reiterate that taking property from others, even if they’re rich, is wrong. The EU is forcing Apple to give away differentiating features to competitors. That is wrong. The DMA already has will continue to result in worse products. If there was no value in Apple’s services, developers wouldn’t be falling over themselves to make Apple give it away for free. Since there clearly is value, they should pay up and stop complaining.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

But this isn’t asking to open a window. It’s asking you to let anyone into your house, at anytime, whether you want them there or not, for free.

Again. Straw man. What house? Your device? I'm under the impression that in your device, the on that you bought from Apple, only runs software that maybe on offer and that you want to run, unless there is a security vulnerability.

I know what the regulation says, but there is a lot of circular reasoning in an attempt to justify the regulation; which at is heart lets others use apples IP for free.

When it comes to the iPhone and iOS, the perception of a circular system arises because Apple’s business model creates an infinite loop around basic concepts like property ownership. On one hand, when Apple sells an iPhone, the physical device becomes the buyer’s property. However, the core elements that make the device functional and justify its price—such as the software and ecosystem—remain under Apple’s control, up until now with nor regulatory framework. In effect conditioning your property. Furthermore, it leverage on this fact a level of control over other entities properties that you may want to use on your device, case in case third party digital services and software.

This entire property system with it own self made property rules, characterized by its heavily controlled and biased structure, was built on the foundation of a neutral Internet ecosystem—one designed to empower free markets and the exchange of ideas. In turn on top of the each country communication systems, case in case EU countries.

While this business model is relatively uncommon, it is not illegal. However, in the context of gatekeepers, the DMA introduces legal frameworks to regulate how such models can operate within the EU, limiting their control over your property and third party software within the realm of such an infinite loop environment.

e have a different philosophy on the right or wrong of nationalization or socialism of someone else’s prior art.

That’s a straw man argument. The DMA is neither guided by socialism nor advocates for nationalization. Its is just something that you are attempting to establish out of thin air.

It seems that you and surferfb may have a rather peculiar understanding of property ownership, even by U.S. standards. The notion that being the legal owner of something entitles you to do absolutely anything with it—and that limitations amount to theft—is a fantasy. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, ownership comes with responsibilities and boundaries at the intersection with other entities properties.

For example, in many U.S. states, building a house on your own land requires a permit. If you could absolutely do anything with your land, a permit would be superfluous. In the EU, even changing the color of your house may need approval as it may conflict with the urban planing for the area. Additionally, new regulations may compel homeowners to make changes to their properties, say because sanitation needs given climate change. None of this is “theft”—It reflects the reality that property rights and responsibilities often intersect and coexist

I use this example to illustrate, even for non-business owners, why the outrage over so-called “invasions” of property rights in face of new regulations is often misguided. This praxis in a state of law crosses various industries. Should digital or hybrid products and services be exempt of the praxis? Why?

You might believe that you should be able to do whatever you want with your property, without limitations. However, this notion oversimplifies the issue. In reality, your ability to use your property is always bounded by the law. It is, in fact, the law that defines and guarantees your ownership in the first place.

 

[surferfb]

Again. Straw man. What house? Your device? I'm under the impression that in your device only the software you want to run gets in, unless there is a security vulnerability

Apple owns iOS. Apple is being forced to let others use its property (iOS and the APIs Apple created and maintains), in a way that it does not want others using its property, and on top of that, they’re not allowed to be compensated for that use in the way that they want.

That’s a straw man argument. The DMA is neither guided by socialism nor advocates for nationalization. Its is just something that you are attempting to establish out of thing air.

Taking someone’s (Apple’s) property (iOS) and letting anyone use it is, in my opinion, nationalization of Apple’s property.

It seems that you and surferfb may have a rather peculiar understanding of property ownership, even by U.S. standards. The notion that being the legal owner of something entitles you to do absolutely anything with it—and that any limitation amounts to theft—is a fantasy. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, ownership comes with responsibilities and boundaries.

Speaking of strawmen! Neither @I7guy or I are arguing that Apple has the right to do absolutely anything they want with iOS. We’re just saying making them give access to that property to anyone who asks (even their competitors!), without charge, is ethically wrong.

For example, in many U.S. states, building a house on your own land requires a permit. In the EU, even changing the color of your house may need approval. Additionally, new regulations may compel homeowners to make changes to their properties. None of this is “theft”—it reflects the reality that property rights often intersect with the rights and interests of others over their own properties.

And if the EU passed a law saying all cell phones required approval to be any color other than black, I wouldn’t be here saying the EU was nationalizing Apple’s property. The issue I have is forcing Apple to allow its competitors full access to its property (iOS).

I use this example to illustrate, even for non-business contexts, why the outrage over so-called “invasions” of property rights is misguided. This principle applies across various industries, not just real estate. Should Apple be exceptional?

I have no issue with Apple being subject to regulations. In fact, i wouldn’t buy one if it wasn’t subject to regulations around things like radio output, charging safety, and the like.

A non tech example: Would you approve of a law that said anyone could develop and monetize content set in the Harry Potter universe without the approval of, or even paying, Harry Potter’s creator? They aren’t allowed to copy the works she’s already created (because she retains ownership of those works), but they can take the characters, settings, themes, ideas etc. and do whatever they want with them.

That is analogous to what the EU is doing to Apple here.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

they’re not allowed to be compensated for that use in the way that they want.

So they are allowed to be compensated after all. They aren’t required to give anything for free after all as I’ve read multiple times. Nothing changes in that regard.

So it’s not a question of being payed for their properties right? Not even of actual price.

Glad this is established.

As for me stealing would be someone picking my product and sell it and me not seeing a dime.

This is not what DMA states at all.. Yes as a gatekeeper you are fully able to sell your platform and be payed for it.

What you can’t is require as a way of payment others giving you their products for you to sell. In effect, not allowing others selling theirs. Yes you can put a window, but it’s dimension cannot exceed X or Y.

How is that nationalization or akin to theft … have not idea. But yeah, I must admit that the use of such a fancy word is inviting ideological confrontation.

 

[I7guy]

Again. Straw man. What house? Your device? I'm under the impression that in your device, the on that you bought from Apple, only runs software that maybe on offer and that you want to run, unless there is a security vulnerability.



When it comes to the iPhone and iOS, the perception of a circular system arises because Apple’s business model creates an infinite loop around basic concepts like property ownership. On one hand, when Apple sells an iPhone, the physical device becomes the buyer’s property. However, the core elements that make the device functional and justify its price—such as the software and ecosystem—remain under Apple’s control, up until now with nor regulatory framework. In effect conditioning your property. Furthermore, it leverage on this fact a level of control over other entities properties that you may want to use on your device, case in case third party digital services and software.

This entire property system with it own self made property rules, characterized by its heavily controlled and biased structure, was built on the foundation of a neutral Internet ecosystem—one designed to empower free markets and the exchange of ideas. In turn on top of the each country communication systems, case in case EU countries.

While this business model is relatively uncommon, it is not illegal. However, in the context of gatekeepers, the DMA introduces legal frameworks to regulate how such models can operate within the EU, limiting their control over your property and third party software within the realm of such an infinite loop environment.



That’s a straw man argument. The DMA is neither guided by socialism nor advocates for nationalization. Its is just something that you are attempting to establish out of thin air.

It seems that you and surferfb may have a rather peculiar understanding of property ownership, even by U.S. standards. The notion that being the legal owner of something entitles you to do absolutely anything with it—and that limitations amount to theft—is a fantasy. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, ownership comes with responsibilities and boundaries at the intersection with other entities properties.

For example, in many U.S. states, building a house on your own land requires a permit. If you could absolutely do anything with your land, a permit would be superfluous. In the EU, even changing the color of your house may need approval as it may conflict with the urban planing for the area. Additionally, new regulations may compel homeowners to make changes to their properties, say because sanitation needs given climate change. None of this is “theft”—It reflects the reality that property rights and responsibilities often intersect and coexist

I use this example to illustrate, even for non-business owners, why the outrage over so-called “invasions” of property rights in face of new regulations is often misguided. This praxis in a state of law crosses various industries. Should digital or hybrid products and services be exempt of the praxis? Why?

You might believe that you should be able to do whatever you want with your property, without limitations. However, this notion oversimplifies the issue. In reality, your ability to use your property is always bounded by the law. It is, in fact, the law that defines and guarantees your ownership in the first place.

What? Property ownership? There is pretty much a standard here. You own the hardware and the software is licensed. You can do whatever you want to the hardware but the manufacturer is not obliged to help you. You want to run Xbox software on your Samsung pled? Go for it, but Samsung is not obligated to help you. And it shouldn’t be put into law that Samsung has to support every single operating system on the planet on it’s tvs.

What is fantasy is the belief the DMA is a positive step in the right direction for consumers and developers. It makes the product worse in every way and forces apple to give away every single feature of the operating system to whomever wants it. Most of it for free, which is why this is legal theft.

There is so much bias around that, that people can’t see this straight and results in circular reasoning.

 

[surferfb]

So they are allowed to be compensated after all. They aren’t required to give anything for free after all as I’ve read multiple times. Meaning being payed the license they provide. So it’s not a question of being payed for their properties right?

As of right now, it remains to be seen. The EU is investigating the CTF.

As for me stealing would be someone picking my product and sells it and me not seeing a dime if they ever so wish.

If your company’s biggest competitor took you business plan, I’m pretty sure you’d consider that theft even if you still “own” the the plan and still made (fewer than you would have otherwise) sales.

This is not what DMA states at all.. Yes as a gatekeeper you are fully able to sell your platform and be payed for it. What you can’t is require as a way of payment others giving you their products for you to sell. In effect, not allowing others selling theirs. Yes you can put a window, but it’s dimension cannot exceed X or Y.

The DMA states that if Apple creates a new feature, they have to give others access to that feature. I quote:

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

That’s significantly different than “you have to get a permit to make sure your electrical work is done to code”.

How is that nationalization or akin to theft … have not idea. But yeah, I must admit that the use of such a fancy word is inviting ideological confrontation.

Again, if you your company’s biggest competitor took your business plan, that’s theft even if you still own the business plan. If the government demands you share your property with anyone who asks for it, that’s nationalization. But as I said pages ago, I don’t really care what you call it, it’s immoral.

You didn’t answer the question I asked. Would you approve of a law that said anyone could develop and monetize content set in the Harry Potter universe without the approval of, or even paying, Harry Potter’s creator? I mean, she has a monopoly on Harry Potter fans. Don’t random authors deserve access to her characters and setting? Isn’t it unreasonable that people who want to use her intellectual property to create content to sell have to abide by silly rules like “no porn” and “pay me for use of my property?”

As I said to @AppliedMicro, I’m going to disengage now, because we’re never going to agree.

Hopefully the new American administration can work with the new EU competition regime to come up with a compromise that protects Apple’s rights while keeping the few good things the DMA does.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

What? Property ownership? There is pretty much a standard here. You own the hardware and the software is licensed. You can do whatever you want to the hardware but the manufacturer is not obliged to help you. You want to run Xbox software on your Samsung pled? Go for it, but Samsung is not obligated to help you. And it shouldn’t be put into law that Samsung has to support every single operating system on the planet on it’s tvs.

Agreed. The DMA does not state otherwise.

Another straw man argument. I get the suspicion we are in a minefield of those. No wonder people feel back to square one all the time.

 

[I7guy]

Agreed. The DMA does not state otherwise.

Another straw man argument. I get the suspicion we are in a minefield of those. No wonder people feel back to square one all the time.

Straw man argument, fallacious reasoning, circular reasoning, bias and that’s on the pro-DMA side of the house. No matter how you slice it the dma is bad legislation.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

As of right now, it remains to be seen. The EU is investigating the CTF.

The investigation into CTF stems from the way Apple has formulated it, seemingly ensuring it is rarely, if ever, utilized. The conditions are so restrictive that it becomes impractical for the vast majority of businesses. For example, to qualify, a business must first have a presence on the App Store. Even then, the App Store must have sold a specific volume of the company’s products, among other stringent requirements.

In effect, almost no business will be able to self publish and sell their apps and digital services directly their customers on their devices.

At least, that’s how it was described the last time I reviewed the details.

Again, if you your company’s biggest competitor took your business plan, that’s theft even if you still own the business plan. If the government demands you share your property with anyone who asks for it, that’s nationalization.

That’s simply not the case. The only way to take over a business plan is through acquiring the company itself. As far as I know, no competitor has made an offer, and Apple is certainly not for sale. There seams to be another way at least in the US, say a Supreme Court is able order a Company to be sold to certain actors or be dismantled ... reducing the value of the company in the process.

Returning to the topic, the DMA has classified certain business practices as illegal under specific, well-defined circumstances. Companies affected by these regulations have been given time to adapt and ensure compliance with the new legislation.

That’s all there is to it. It seems you might be misusing certain terms, suggesting acts of stealing, nationalizations and what not, perhaps to provoke an emotional reaction.

You didn’t answer the question I asked. Would you approve of a law that said anyone could develop and monetize content set in the Harry Potter universe without the approval of, or even paying, Harry Potter’s creator? I mean, she has a monopoly on Harry Potter fans. Don’t random authors deserve access to her characters and setting? Isn’t it unreasonable that people who want to use her intellectual property to create content to sell have to abide by silly rules like “no porn” and “pay me for use of my property?”

I didn’t respond earlier because I didn’t fully understand the comparison being made. For example, take the Facebook app—how exactly is Facebook “stealing” Apple’s business model or being presented as part of Apple’s universe? Or consider other apps, like one teaching children math or a banking app. It’s clear to most people what Apple provides versus what these companies offer.

The real issue, it seems, is that the discussion keeps shifting on some opinions. When the focus of the debate becomes fluid, reaching any agreement is nearly impossible.

Under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), OEMs of large online platforms are prohibited from tying their App Store to their operating system and users devices in a way that forces its use for running or selling apps and digital services. Moreover, OEM policies that steer business toward the OEM’s App Store of any form, its payment services ... , ... are deemed illegal.

With this in mind, of course OEMs can and should charge for the use of their technology. Multi billion dollar, correction, trillion dollar companies where built and innovated without resorting to such business practices.

Have a nice day.

 

[surferfb]

Ok, since I think things are being lost in translation, I’ll try one last time.

The investigation into CTF stems from the way Apple has formulated it, seemingly ensuring it is rarely, if ever, utilized. The conditions are so restrictive that it becomes impractical for the vast majority of businesses. For example, to qualify, a business must first have a presence on the App Store. Even then, the App Store must have sold a specific volume of the company’s products, among other stringent requirements.

In effect, almost no business will be able to self publish and sell their apps and digital services directly their customers on their devices.

At least, that’s how it was described the last time I reviewed the details.

And since they want to use Apple’s property (iOS and the associated APIs) to make their apps, then the developers should be required to pay Apple for that use. That was previously done by requiring all paid apps to go through the App Store. Now that the EU has declared that is illegal, they shouldn’t be able to come around and say “even though the law doesn’t say you can’t charge something like the CTF, you can’t.” If Apple isn’t allowed to charge for use of their property, that’s theft of its property - doesn’t matter that they still “own” it, ownership doesn’t matter if anyone can use it for free.

To use an example, if the EU passed a regulation saying you had to list your couch for free on AirB&B, they are stealing part of your home from you even if your name is still on the deed.

That’s simply not the case. The only way to take over a business plan is through acquiring the company itself. As far as I know, no competitor has made an offer, and Apple is certainly not for sale. There seams to be another way at least in the US, say a Supreme Court is able order a Company to be sold to certain actors or be dismantled ... reducing the value of the company in the process.

That’s not true at all. If Apple’s product roadmap (I.e business plan) for the next five years was leaked to Samsung, their strategy has been stolen from them. They still own the plan, but Samsung can design and develop products in response to what Apple will be releasing, making Apple’s products less attractive and costing Apple money.

Returning to the topic, the DMA has classified certain business practices as illegal under specific, well-defined circumstances. Companies affected by these regulations have been given time to adapt and ensure compliance with the new legislation.

That’s all there is to it. It seems you might be misusing certain terms, suggesting acts of stealing, nationalizations and what not, perhaps to provoke an emotional reaction.

The DMA says Apple has to give access to any hardware or software they develop to anyone who asks for it. That’s the truth - read the quote from the law I posted above. You can say that’s not taking Apple’s property away from it all you want, but it is. It’s an obscene theft from Apple that would be at home in the USSR, not a so-called democracy like the EU.

I didn’t respond earlier because I didn’t fully understand the comparison being made. For example, take the Facebook app—how exactly is Facebook “stealing” Apple’s business model or being presented as part of Apple’s universe? Or consider other apps, like one teaching children math or a banking app. It’s clear to most people what Apple provides versus what these companies offer.

As I said before, I think the issue is my analogies are getting lost in translation, so we’re talking past each other. I’ll try one last time.

Apple owns iOS and the APIs they have created. When developers use Apple’s APIs to make their apps function on Apple’s OS, they are using Apple’s property under license. Apple is being asked to be paid for use its property if those developers charge for digital goods and services. The EU is saying they can’t do that.

To make my analogy explicit. JK Rowling (Apple) owns all the intellectual property around Harry Potter (iOS and the associated APIs). If another person or company (developers) want to write a story set in the Harry Potter universe (an App that runs on iOS), they can do that, but if they are charging for that story (paid app), then they have to have permission from JK Rowling (Apple). The new author (developer) doesn’t get to sell a story (app) just because they want to, or their business plan didn’t take into account they would have to pay Rowling (Apple) a fee for that license. Harry Potter (iOS and the associated APIs) belong to Rowling (Apple), so Rowling (Apple) gets to decide how it is used. Doesn’t matter if your idea is better than Rowling’s (Apple’s) similar idea (competing app), Rowling (Apple) gets a cut because the other author (developer) is using someone else’s (Apple’s) property (iOS and associated APIs).

If the EU comes in and says it’s not fair to other authors (developers) that they can’t write Harry Potter stories to enrich themselves without paying Rowling (Apple) because she has a “monopoly” on Harry Potter fans (iOS users) - even though other authors (developers) could write stories about anything and everything else without paying Rowling anything (Android, Windows, MacOS, the web) OR write about Harry Potter and just not charge for it (Free App) OR post them for free and ask for a tip jar (free app with web subscription) - that isn’t good enough - Disney (Spotify) can write a Harry Potter movie because they deserve access to Harry Potter fans - that is theft from Rowling (Apple). Doesn’t matter that Rowling (Apple) owns the original books and movies - her ideas have been stolen from her. And that is wrong.

And done for good. Hope you have a good weekend!

 

[Nuno Lopes]

And since they want to use Apple’s property (iOS and the associated APIs) to make their apps, then the developers should be required to pay Apple for that use. That was previously done by requiring all paid apps to go through the App Store. Now that the EU has declared that is illegal, they shouldn’t be able to come around and say “even though the law doesn’t say you can’t charge something like the CTF, you can’t.” If Apple isn’t allowed to charge for use of their property, that’s theft of its property - doesn’t matter that they still “own” it, ownership doesn’t matter if anyone can use it for free.

The logical flaw in this argument lies in a misrepresentation of the concept of property rights and the role of regulation. Here’s the breakdown of your flawed reasoning:

Misinterpretation of the DMA regulation

Your argument implies that the EU Commission has declared that Apple is not allowed to charge users of their platform at all, which is inaccurate. The DMA does not ban gatekeepers from charging for their products and services but prohibits compensatory practices like forcing users giving their apps and related services to the App Store for sale in exchange, steering users to use of their payment systems and engaging in self business preferencing within the ecosystem.

False Equivalence Between Regulation and Theft

The argument equates regulating the terms under which a gatekeeper can integrate its App Store with theft, implying that Apple has an unlimited rights defining the policies for any use of its “property” (iOS and associated APIs).

The flaw is that ownership of property (in this case, iOS and APIs) does not grant unrestricted rights to dictate terms of use in a regulated market, especially when that property acts as a significant gatekeeping online infrastructure. In such cases, regulations can impose fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory limits for those policies. Adopting anti-competitive policies for ones products or services banking on users dependency isn’t a natural extension of ownership—it’s a business choice subject to market oversight.

Gatekeepers are regulated precisely because their platforms become essential for users, and unregulated control can lead to anti-competitive practices. Apple’s position as a gatekeeper comes with responsibilities, including providing fair user treatment through their platform. This isn’t about “theft”; it’s about curbing monopolistic tendencies.

Oversimplification of Ownership and Use

This even for American law standards. Ownership in a state of law doesn’t mean that you can do whatever you may feel with your property at the intersection with others. For example, airlines own their planes and routes but are subject to regulations ensuring fair access to airports and airspace for competing airlines. Similarly, Apple’s ownership of iOS is subject to regulations designed to ensure fair treatment of its users.

False Dichotomy Between Free Use and Charging

The DMA Regulation isn’t about forcing free use of gatekeepers technologies. I repeat the DMA does not advocate for free use of any OEM properties.

Case in case, Apple can charge users fees for the use of their tools to build and run apps. A standard practice in the industry. Having users giving Apple their products / apps and services for sale in exchange of using those tools is not the only way such can be achieved. There is way more evidence of that than the contrary, very hard to miss.

Apologies for not addressing the rest of your argument, as even your initial statement contains numerous reasoning flaws, including some outright logical errors. Expanding on all of them would make this post even more TL;DR than it already is.

You may disagree with the DMA regulation. You may think that it's over regulation, ... etc etc. That is fine, we can exchange opinions on that. But a populist misrepresentation of almost everything that is known for a fact as a way to argue against looks like an agenda. Making the regulation probably more necessary than not.

Have a nice day.

 

[surferfb]

The logical flaw in this argument lies in a misrepresentation of the concept of property rights and the role of regulation. Here’s the breakdown of your flawed reasoning:

Misinterpretation of the DMA regulation

Your argument implies that the EU has declared Apple is not allowed to charge users at all, which is inaccurate. The DMA does not ban gatekeepers from charging for their products and services but prohibits compensatory practices like forcing users giving their apps and related services to the App Store for sale in exchange, steering users the use of their payment systems and engaging in self business preferencing within the ecosystem.

False Equivalence Between Regulation and Theft

The argument equates regulating the terms under which a gatekeeper can integrate its App Store with theft, implying that Apple has an unlimited rights defining the policies for any use of its “property” (iOS and associated APIs).

The flaw is that ownership of property (in this case, iOS and APIs) does not grant unrestricted rights to dictate terms of use in a regulated market, especially when that property acts as a significant gatekeeping online infrastructure. In such cases, regulations can impose fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory limits for those policies. Adopting anti-competitive policies for ones products or services isn’t a natural extension of ownership—it’s a business choice subject to oversight.

Gatekeepers are regulated precisely because their platforms become essential for users, and unregulated control can lead to anti-competitive practices. Apple’s position as a gatekeeper comes with responsibilities, including providing fair user treatment through their platform. This isn’t about “theft”; it’s about curbing monopolistic tendencies.

Oversimplification of Ownership and Use

This even for American law standards. Ownership in a state of law doesn’t mean that you can do whatever you may feel with your property at the intersection with others. For example, airlines own their planes and routes but are subject to regulations ensuring fair access to airports and airspace for competing airlines. Similarly, Apple’s ownership of iOS is subject to regulations designed to ensure fair treatment of users.

False Dichotomy Between Free Use and Charging

The DMA Regulation isn’t about forcing free use of gatekeepers technologies. I repeat the DMA does not advocate for free use of any OEM properties.

Case in case, Apple can charge users fees for the use of their tools to build and run apps. A standard practice in the industry. Having users giving Apple their products / apps and services for sale in exchange of using those tools is not the only way such can be achieved. Evidence of that is everywhere in the Industry, very hard to miss.

Apologies for not addressing the rest of your argument, as even your initial statement contains numerous reasoning flaws, including some outright logical errors. Expanding on all of them would make this post even more TL;DR than it already is.

You may disagree with the DMA regulation. You may think that it's over regulation, ... etc etc. That is fine. But a populist misrepresentation of almost everything that is known for a fact as a way to argue against looks like an agenda. Making the regulation probably more necessary than not.

Have a nice day.

Again, not engaging anymore. I’ll just say I couldn’t disagree more strongly with everything you’ve written here, and I don’t appreciate the implication I’m arguing in bad faith.

Have a nice day too.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Again, not engaging anymore. I’ll just say I couldn’t disagree more strongly with everything you’ve written here.

Have a nice day too!

It’s ok.

You choose to believe that the EU Comission is steeling, that is forcing Apple to give away their things for free, there are no facts sustaining such reading unless fabricated.

There is nothing I can do.

But I must say, it’s kind of a scary indication where the world might be heading. “They are eating their cats, they are eating their dogs, their pets” (Monsters) Jezz

 

[surferfb]

It’s ok. Because you disagree it does not make what I wrote less true.

You prefer to believe that the EU Comission is steeling even though those aren’t the facts. That is nothing I can do.

Nope - it’s false and the EU is stealing from Apple and forcing Apple to give its property to its competitors.

But as I’ve said four times now, I’m disengaging - going to hit “unfollow” on this thread as soon as post this. There’s no point in continuing the conversation - you’re arguing the sky is green, while telling me I’m arguing in bad faith with “an agenda” for pointing out it’s actually blue. (And, yes, I fully understand from your point of view I’m the one saying the sky is green - which is why continuing on is a waste of everyone’s time.)

See you in the next thread! Hope you have a great Sunday.

 

[I7guy]

It’s scary if the dma is a forerunner of where the world is headed. Nationalization of private assets.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

It’s scary if the dma is a forerunner of where the world is headed. Nationalization of private assets.

I disagree with the terms you’ve used.

That said, if you ask for my thoughts on the DMA as it is disregarding yours, I believe it has overreached some aspects due to lack of creative ability targeting the problem at hand. These people are not creative, these people aren't innovators. They look at a problem and use a hammer if pushed. It never lacks unwanted side-effects.

Over now several years here, you and I have been debating the role of the App Store in iOS for years, consistently presenting opposing perspectives. I have argued that Apple’s App Store policies have been overly invasive regarding third-party properties. Furthermore, these restrictions granted the OEM undue leverage over competing services from to get go within its ecosystem —practices I have always considered anti-competitive, overreaching third party property rights and value, banking on tying multiple concerns in a product compound and the number of iOS device owners.

You, on the other hand, have defended Apple’s absolute regardless right as the property owner to dictate the terms of use for its platform. Let users vote with their wallet. While I respect your position, I have repeatedly pointed out that this simplistic interpretation of property rights does not align with the complexities of either American or EU law. In a state of law one rights over his property stop at the intersection of others properties as defined by law.

My concern for some time has been that such unbalanced practices would inevitably lead to regulatory intervention, such as the DMA. That for me also lacks balance, now towards the OEM which is also a software developer.

In my view, before the DMA came into force, Apple—whose practices undeniably influenced others—could have taken proactive steps to address these concerns voluntarily, without significantly impacting its bottom line.

For example, the App Store’s services could have been offered in tiers.

• A basic tier might provide app storage, downloads, and updates at a fair price.

• A premium tier could include features like app listing, search visibility, and referral promotion.

• Additional tiers could incorporate payment and billing services or cloud integration.

• The ultra tier, with all the bells as it was offered.

By adopting a more flexible, market-friendly approach, similar to many other software platforms, but now also applied to OS / Device, Apple might have avoided the need for external regulation. Unfortunately, that ship has now sailed.

That is unfortunate, as I believe Apple had the opportunity to pioneer new market practices in the context of devices and software platforms and walled gardens. Promoting both anti-piracy and the right for retribution over the use of any of its properties. Instead of nurturing a diverse digital economy, it chose to promote an OEM-driven digital agency model across various industries, from banking to health care, from gaming to education .... , with competition limiting policies baked on their internet connected devices. "Build your own hardware to compete in the software and digital service market with us" or "buy another device" was never a balanced argument neither cost efficient for users.

Cheers.

 

[I7guy]

I disagree with the terms you’ve used.

That said, if you ask for my thoughts on the DMA as it is disregarding yours, I believe it has overreached some aspects due to lack of creative ability targeting the problem at hand. These people are not creative, these people aren't innovators. They look at a problem and use a hammer if pushed. It never lacks unwanted side-effects.

Over now several years here, you and I have been debating the role of the App Store in iOS for years, consistently presenting opposing perspectives. I have argued that Apple’s App Store policies have been overly invasive regarding third-party properties. Furthermore, these restrictions granted the OEM undue leverage over competing services from to get go within its ecosystem —practices I have always considered anti-competitive, overreaching third party property rights and value, banking on tying multiple concerns in a product compound and the number of iOS device owners.

You, on the other hand, have defended Apple’s absolute regardless right as the property owner to dictate the terms of use for its platform. Let users vote with their wallet. While I respect your position, I have repeatedly pointed out that this simplistic interpretation of property rights does not align with the complexities of either American or EU law. In a state of law one rights over his property stop at the intersection of others properties as defined by law.

My concern for some time has been that such unbalanced practices would inevitably lead to regulatory intervention, such as the DMA. That for me also lacks balance, now towards the OEM which is also a software developer.

In my view, before the DMA came into force, Apple—whose practices undeniably influenced others—could have taken proactive steps to address these concerns voluntarily, without significantly impacting its bottom line.

For example, the App Store’s services could have been offered in tiers.

• A basic tier might provide app storage, downloads, and updates at a fair price.

• A premium tier could include features like app listing, search visibility, and referral promotion.

• Additional tiers could incorporate billing services or cloud integration.

• The ultra tier, with all the bells as it was offered.

By adopting a more flexible, market-friendly approach, similar to many other software platforms, but now also applied to OS / Device, Apple might have avoided the need for external regulation. Unfortunately, that ship has now sailed.

That is unfortunate, as I believe Apple had the opportunity to pioneer new market practices in the context of devices and software platforms and walled gardens. Promoting both anti-piracy and the right for retribution over the use of any of its properties. Instead of nurturing a diverse digital economy, it chose to promote an OEM-driven digital agency model across various industries, from banking to health care, from gaming to education .... , with competition limiting policies baked on their internet connected devices. "Build your own hardware to compete in the software and digital service market with us" or "buy another device" was never a balanced argument neither cost efficient for users.

Cheers.

Ah my MR friend Nuno, we have certainly debated back and forth over time.

You may disagree with the term “nationalization” but that it what it is, for everything that has been said over multiple threads over the last year or so.

Apple is a consumer discretionary lifestyle Gadget provider, who is a minority player in many markets it serves. Much different than Microsoft and windows, for example.

As such I believe the free market should rule as to whether apples business model is a good one.

Apple wants to control the experience, they are not android. My hope is the new administration can exert some pressure to ultimately ratchet down the dma.

Even the Supreme Court changes its mind. See roe v wade.

 

[webkit]

Understand that’s what they claim, but I don’t believe them, and even if that was their intent, I fundamentally disagree with their conclusions. Private property should not be taken without very good cause, and “the platform with 25% market share isn’t open” is not a good cause when the platform with 75% market share isn’t open.

They're not "taking private property" as Apple retains ownership of iPhone/iOS, the App Store, etc. and still has the ability to make a lot of money from them through CTF and/or App Store fees/commissions and/or the sale of iOS/iPhone, etc.

It would have helped their case if they didn’t write the legislation to intentionally avoid naming Spotify as a gatekeeper, and had they not named iPadOS as a gatekeeper platform despite not meeting the metrics required to become one. But that’s what gives away the game. It’s not about competition or following the rules that the EU wrote themselves - it’s about hitting American tech companies.

Spotify did not meet the gatekeeper criteria because it lacks the market power, influence, control, etc. over a critical platform. Spotify doesn’t have the kind of broad control over digital needed to be designated a gatekeeper by the DMA.

As far as iPadOS is concerned, it was designated a gatekeeper because the DMA concluded that iPadOS constitutes an important gateway for business users to reach end users, and that Apple enjoys an entrenched and durable position with respect to iPadOS.