It's "scary" if you actually believe what you wrote. It is not nationalization of private assets as Apple still owns iPhone/iOS, the App Store, etc. and can still make a lot of money from iPhone/iOS, the App Store, etc. through CTF and/or App Store fees/commissions and/or the sale of iPhone/iOS, etc.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Faces £1.5 Billion UK Lawsuit Over App Store 'Overcharging'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's "scary" if you actually believe what you wrote. It is not nationalization of private assets as Apple still owns iPhone/iOS, the App Store, etc. and can still make a lot of money from iPhone/iOS, the App Store, etc. through CTF and/or App Store fees/commissions and/or the sale of iPhone/iOS, etc.
@I7guy
Apple has the greatest market share as a mobile vendor. Only iOS/iPad given the fact that almost all other OEMs are using Android. Now, as far as I read, the DMA also applies to Android, a Google product. In other words, Apple's competition.
Anyway, we will see. I think there is still work to be done.
PS: The law always affects and limit the use of properties by definition. Using the term "nationalization" for this is incorrect. As it implies that the State is taking ownership of the public assets this is not legally the case.
Apple has the greatest market share as a mobile vendor. Only iOS/iPad given the fact that almost all other OEMs are using Android. Now, as far as I read, the DMA also applies to Android, a Google product. In other words, Apple's competition.
Anyway, we will see. I think there is still work to be done.
PS: The law always affects and limit the use of properties by definition. Using the term "nationalization" for this is incorrect. As it implies that the State is taking ownership of the public assets this is not legally the case.
Last edited:
Market share in the eu for apple is under 40%. Now if your metric is revenue apple is king.
It’s “scary” if you don’t see where this could be headed.
Apple has to give away its core functionality to anyone that asks. That’s not owning iOS and that’s not owning the iPhone.
The ctf has come under attack but apple still has to provide equal access.
Please see my Harry Potter analogy up thread. Just because they still retain ownership and still have the ability to make money from it doesn’t mean something hasn’t been stolen from them.
Spotify didn’t make the gatekeeper criteria because the EU decided not to list music streaming as a platform (despite listing video sharing) even though there are a lot of reasons to do so. Presumably because the law is designed to target American companies, not European ones. Which is the EU’s right, but they should stop lying and saying the law is about promoting competition and admit it’s protectionism.
To your below point, I am pretty sure musicians would agree with me that Spotify is an important gateway for them to meet end users and that Spotify enjoys an entrenched and durable position with respect to their service.
So why isn’t Spotify a gatekeeper (despite meeting the other metrics to be declared a gatekeeper) and iPadOS is a gatekeeper (despite not meeting the metrics)? Because the law is unfairly targeted at American companies.
But iPadOS doesn’t meet the metrics laid out in the law. “Too bad, it still counts” is how banana republics work, not democracies.
Edit: Sorry for re-engaging after promising not to. Was up all night with a sick kid so I’m not firing on all cylinders this morning.
Enjoy your Sunday!
Last edited:
In the EU ...
Mobile Vendor Market Share Europe | Statcounter Global Stats
This graph shows the market share of mobile vendors in Europe based on over 5 billion monthly page views.
gs.statcounter.com
Once again, it is not nationalization of private assets as Apple absolutely still owns iPhone/iOS, the App Store, etc. and can still make a lot of money from iPhone/iOS, the App Store, etc. through CTF and/or App Store fees/commissions and/or the sale of iPhone/iOS, etc.
Yes, which is why I wrote "and/or" as there are several ways Apple can and does make money from iPhone/iOS, the App Store, etc.
It is NOT nationalization of private assets. It IS "scary" that you seem to think otherwise.
While laws/regulations may impact a company's ability to make money or the amount of money they make, it is not "legal theft." Laws that regulate business practices are valid exercises of government power, and any potential loss of income as a result is not theft.
Again, 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.
You can assign any label you want to it, but that’s exactly what it is. Example: if you buy a house but the government forces you to rent a room for free to anyone who asks, is that really still your house?
Their assets are no longer private. They belong to the EU.
It’s really scary you dont see it for what it is.
So allowing me to publish a Harry Potter novel without permission of or payment to JK Rowling is not theft of her intellectual property? Good to know.
Of course the government has the right to regulate business practices and pass all sorts of laws. No one is disagreeing with that. But just because the government can pass a law doesn't mean 1) they should or 2) it isn't theft. If you look at history you'll see all sorts of laws "regulating business practices" that resulted in theft of property.
This circular argument is so tiring. "Spotify isn't a gatekeeper because music streaming isn't a critical platform". Why isn't a critical platform? It has a significant impact on an important industry, "business users" in that industry are dependent on Spotify for a significant portion of their income (a higher percentage than developers' percentage of revenue from iOS compared to Android, I'd add). It has a an estimated 169 million users in Europe and almost 100 million paying users. So why isn't it a "critical platform"? Because the EU intentionally left it out of the law - i.e. "Because the EU says so."
Why is iPadOS a critical platform despite not meeting the metrics written into the law to be deemed a critical platform? It only has 23 million users in the EU. Supposedly because a significant number of business users use it. Or, to put it another way "because the EU says so."
What a silly question. Of course, it's really still your house as you can still live in, rent it, refurbish/remodel it, sell it, etc.
Stop the nonsense. The assets (iOS, iPhone, App Store, etc.) are still privately owned.
Your silly questions and warped conclusions are what is "really scary."
It's not theft if that's what laws/regulations allow. Even if laws/regulations didn't allow it, your Harry Potter example wouldn't be "theft" as copyright infringement is not typically considered theft in the legal sense.
Spotify is not viewed as a critical platform due to its much narrower digital markets scope.
It's not your property if the government is running it for you. You are not deriving any income if you are forced to rent it for free.
Stop defending what is bad legislation. The phone is obviously yours - Apple IP is nationalized.
We both think each others viewpoint is "scary".
You know that the rules in the EU supported Ireland’s deal with Apple, right? That agreement wouldn’t have had the go ahead FROM THE START without EU regulators’ ok. And, Ireland wasn’t tired of getting a few buckets of money a year for the region in tax receipts with little to no strain on their local infrastructure. The problem with the EU is that the regulators of the past literally put them into the situation they’re in today. ONLY them, no one else.
They WERE playing by the rules as defined at the time. The EU, having shortsightedly driven out the kinds of companies that would have driven BILLIONS in tax receipts into the region have decided to reduce the profit motive for companies to operate in the region, another shortsighted move. I’ve no doubt that future regulators will continue to be just as shortsighted.
It’s in their DNA.What nonsense. Governments restrict what people can or can't do with their houses and properties all of the time through zoning and other regulations. This can include safety standards, deed restrictions, occupancy restrictions, appearance standards, animal restrictions, business use restrictions, etc.
Just because the government may deprive me of income by not allowing me to open a fast food restaurant at my house, convert it to a multifamily rental, a hotel, etc. etc. etc. does not mean it's not my property.
Stop with your nonsense. Apple owns iOS, the App Store, iPhone etc. and related IP, patents, design rights, branding, etc. Once again, it is not nationalization of private assets and Apple can still make a lot of money from iPhone/iOS, the App Store, etc. through CTF and/or App Store fees/commissions and/or the sale of iPhone/iOS, can choose to shut things down, sell them, etc.
The only nonsense around here is the denial that the dma is not nationalizing apples assets.