Fine - nationalization of private property then. Whatever you call it, it's immoral, even if the government has signed off on it.
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
Yes, my point was proven that Apple/iOS and Google/Android each must follow the DMA laws regarding alternative app stores. There is no "X" for one and "Y" for the other.
It's not that either. Ownership of iOS and the App Store are not being transferred from Apple to a government. Apple still owns iOS, the App Store, etc.
It can - but there’s demand to have instant messenging and video calls in a portable device.
Literally no one said that. Ever.
It’s just a strawman you keep attacking.
If you control half of the entire market for (rental spending on) bedrooms, prepare to get regulated and such “access provisions” or rent controls reimposed on you.
It’s not nationalisation - you keep being the owner. And whatever you call it and however you “innovated” or built those bedrooms.
When you form a monopoly or duopoly, government won’t and shouldn’t tolerate you charging whatever you want and impose rental terms and conditions on your renters however you like.
Imposing restrictions on monopolists is not immoral.
Seems like just rationalization. No doubt it’s convenient. The EU called doorman and then included it under the “gatekeeper” classification. Sheesh.
Yes, technically you keep being the owner, but you have to give anyone who asks, including your competitors, access to your hard work for free. Again, if you owned your house but had to let anyone come in and stay there at any time, it isn't going to feel like you own the place, even if they're paying you and your name is on the deed. In this case, they're not even paying Apple for the access to the results of its R&D - it must be given to competitors immediately without cost.
Say there are two nice buildings across the street from each other. One allows pets, and the other has a "no pets allowed" rule. If you're a pet owner, the correct action is to rent an apartment in the building that allows pets, even if you'd otherwise prefer the other building. The incorrect action is to knowingly move into the no pets building then complain to the government that they should make the building allow pets.
Giving away others' work for free, against their will, is immoral. Thou shall not steal. Applies to governments and people.
Yes, but in doing so they picked Google's business model as the winner. It's not like the fact that Android allows alternate app stores and side loading was a secret.
If I pass a law saying "all cars from here on out must be electric" it's obviously going to impact GM differently than Tesla, and saying "the law applies equally to Tesla and GM, they each must follow it" while true, doesn't mean the law wasn't targeted.
apple is not a monopolist. It is legal theft that is happening in the eu.
They are paying.
Apple charges a yearly developer subscription fee - that every developer present on the App Store is paying.
Just like Uber is paying it. Or Doordash. Or Barclays Bank.
It‘s up to Apple to set that fee to what the market will bear - or also to what they believe will attract developers to their platform and help Apple sell expensive hardware products.
Apples and Oranges - yet again.
Developers do not face an equivalent choice of two buildings in a street.
They a monopoly for distribution of iOS apps (and de facto duopoly for smartphone apps) in the entire market.
It‘s not as if they could just move to another street and choose among a dozen other landlords.
So is offering thousands of that depend on your supply/service take-it-or-leave-it pricing and terms of business.
And also anticompetitive business conduct by firms with monopoly power.
👉 A democratic society’s judgment on what’s acceptable and what’s immoral ultimately manifest itself in the laws it decides to give itself - and the decisions by its judiciary.
There is no god-given moral rule or law that property rights are unlimited or unrestricted - or that limitations and obligations to share are immoral.
We all pay taxes. They are just as much a form „legal theft“ or „nationalisation“ of property. And majorities of societies consider them morally acceptable.
Last edited:
We've been over this before, and you know the $99 fee does not provide a license to use Apple's APIs for paid digital goods and services. Apple is well within its rights (or rather, is well within its rights in jurisdictions that respect property rights) to charge or not charge apps to use its IP however it sees fit.
It is better for consumers and society at large that that fee is as low as possible as it gives hobbyists, new entrants, students, and the like the ability to develop without devoting significant funds, which increases the number of apps and services available for consumers. The current model ensures that when an app does well, both Apple and the developer profit. The EU is trying to force a model that makes Apple choose between making it difficult for hobbyist developers / those just starting out and being properly compensated for its intellectual property. Which was the actual intent of the law, as Vestager made it clear she wanted Apple making less money.
She wanted to force Apple to give away its IP, but she didn't want to write that into the law, presumably because even she realized what a radical move that would be, and one that would likely get her slapped down by the EU courts yet again. She didn't plan on Apple figuring out a DMA-compliant way to avoid giving away its IP for free, so now DMA defenders argue the "spirit of the law" is that the CTF isn't allowed and Apple has to give away IP for free even though they didn't write that into the law.
If they want to take advantage of the ecosystem and users Apple built and curated, then they should pay Apple the entirely reasonable fee Apple requests to do so. Or, do what Spotify did and take advantage of that ecosystem without paying Apple anything - all they have to do is follow Apple's rules.
They literally could. Android has a multitude of app stores. Anyone can start a website and accept payments on the website. But if you want to Apple's API's to facilitate that, then you should have to pay Apple for use of those APIs.
Nope. Nothing immoral about that all. Maybe if the price kept rising you'd have a point, but the pricing has done nothing but gone down. If they didn't want to be dependent on Apple for the success of their business then they shouldn't have built a product/service that depended on in-app purchases from Apple to be successful, or at least realized that Apple was going to take 15/30% when developing their business plan. Again - the price has only gone down.
There is nothing preventing developers from paying Apple nothing (Sportify, Netflix), or for charging a cheaper subscription price on their website than they charge for an in App purchase (Headspace does this), or even a cheaper price on the Play Store. If Apple was actually a monopolist being anticompetitive there would be language saying "you can't offer a cheaper price elsewhere" in the license agreement. But there's not.
Look it is very simple.
You believe in 0 tax democratic systems. No regulation economic system. Let people vote with their wallet … savage capitalism. You have written several times these ideas along the years.
We don’t.
In the same line we don’t believe that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Aka socialism.
Most people in the EU believe a middle ground between these extreme ideologies can be found that works better for people. Rich to poor and vice versa.
For instance we think that the market should be free and regulation should exist to ensure that it remains so, in particular safeguarding it from manipulation of the supply and demand in order to drive costs up or eliminate competition. In other words, regulations that protect the free market against non free market practices.
You don’t. You believe that regulation is not needed at all because supply and demand cannot be manipulated. Which evidence as shown not be true at all. It can be manipulated as it was and his in many instances. And today easier than ever with technology working peoples preceptors. Preceptors, sensors, controlled by big tech.
So this negates everything you accused the EU and UK doing when it comes to watching what Big Tech is doing.
And then … you come with this populist remarks accusing the UK of socialists, Robin Hood’s, blablabla. At the same Americans are coming to the Europe for healthcare that they cannot afford
in the great Apple country, looking better standard of living, if not to run from the attacks to the capitol promoted by the now elected government. The entire world needs to listen to the Jesus Musk (The Big Tech God) that came to save … whom … don’t know. But he seams to be the new messiah. Imagine Trump advocating that there is no climate change its a hoax, hand in hand with the guy that supposedly sells products to deal with climate change. Amazing. The last time I’ve read he was promoting extreme lefts in the Germany.
Give me a break.
PS: The increasing health “migration” from the US the some EU countries … now that is stealing.
Anyway, all those strong words, such as accusing EU and the UK of stealing is irrelevant. What will be will be. Hopefully in peace.
Will see, it seams we are entering once again the dark ages of greed.
Last edited:
It’s not nationalization. Do you know the meaning of that word? If nothing is illegal, no penalties will be charged.
A guy does not want to pay taxes, therefore is immoral to get money from him against his will. Is that your notion of morality?
Now I understand that there is a huge movement discrediting the law, judges, law makers … so on and so forth … domestic of foreign. Heck a guy found guilty of multiple unlawful actions just got elected by the people to be the chief of the world’s most powerful nation. This shows how successful this movement is. A Big Tech guy is now in the “Oval Office” without being actually elected,
owner of the biggest social network. Next
Level lobby. Oh the problem is TikTok connection with the Chinese government, that is the biggest threat …
Separation of powers is one of the foundations of. Democracy. It is crumbling.
Let’s talk about morals, free market and democracy in the era of perception shall we?
Last edited:
I don’t really care what you call the government telling you that you have to give your property to anyone who asks for it (even if they’re your competitor and you don’t want to give it to them) for free - it’s not right.
I would agree with you if that is the case. But it is not.
You are allowed to sell your property according to the law like anyone else is. We live lawful society. Not anarchy. Whether you are extremely rich or poor, big business or small business, all powerful or with little to no power. Regardless of past achievements or disgrace. That is the way of democracies.
There is nothing more than this in my opinion. That is the way it should be. I understand that other may think differently. That specific groups should have exceptional treatment for one reason or another. I disagree with that. Even though I am tempted to think that myself or whoever I support, should … because I may believe I’m and done better than most. But it’s a very dangerous path as history has proven time and time again.
If the Apple is found to be operating according to all UK competition laws applicable to any and all businesses there will be no charges for sure. Otherwise the penalty will take into consideration the infraction as well as the accused conduct as usual.
PS: Today I see a global impetuous to repeat the great errors of the past. the destruction of the law and democracies in favor of feudal organizations,
leading to massive social destruction if not death. It happened before at it seams to be happening again. Yes, democracies aren’t perfect, the law is not perfect, but hey, to where you wanna go back to and why was life better then all things considered?
Last edited:
It is true. I quote the DMA:
“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”
In plain English, Apple must provide anyone access to its property (iOS) if asked. And they can’t charge for it. If Apple spends a bunch of time and money to develop an innovative new feature, anyone gets to copy it without coming up with the idea or spending money to develop it. They just get to freeload.
Agree, which is why laws that say “Apple’s property is no longer Apple’s” should be opposed.
Where does it say they can’t charge?
Wrong.
If Apple develops a super intelligent voice assistant (ahem) capable of understanding natural and acting on commands, they get to keep that to themselves. They can integrate it into iOS and charge anything they want for an iOS license - or phone.
They do not have to give a “copy”to Samsung or Google, for them to include it in their respective phones. They’re also free to sell or license their invention to Nuance or someone else. It remains their property.
👉 Providing “interoperability” does not mean providing or allowing copies of it or giving it away for free.
Could it mean that they have to allow someone else’s (Spotify’s) audio streaming app to be controllable through the same OS voice assistant, if it controls Apple’s competing (“Music”) service? Yes.
It still doesn’t mean that Spotify can “copy” the feature in their app on, say, other platforms. Their app can just interoperate, work together with it on iOS.
👉 The voice assistant still remains a differentiating feature of iOS and iPhones. And Apple can monetise it as such.
Last edited:
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.
But if they come up with a novel way for that voice assistant to say, control Apple’s software on other Apple devices the user owns, they must give access to any competitor’s product the same ability. That other company doesn’t have to spend money coming up with the idea, or figuring out how to make it work, they just get the benefits of Apple’s hard work because the EU doesn’t understand how competition works.
We don’t let authors publish and sell stories set in the Harry Potter universe without the approval of JK Rowling because she has a “monopoly on Harry Potter fans.” If you said “she still owns and can make money on the Harry Potter materials she has written, but she has to let others create Harry Potter content that she doesn’t approve of” that is still theft of her property.
I see some of big mistakes if the past here was well. Such as the communism witch hunts of the 1950s, except the modern day equivalent are the American tech companies. See it’s all too easy to make your own analogy to some past event that links to a not to flattering event.
As you say: on other Apple devices - an ability or differentiator that Apple can use to charge a premium for said devices.
It doesn’t have to be free. They‘re free to charge a „Siri subscription“ to unlock the feature.
They understand it very well.
They understand full well that and how firms controlling dominant platform services can (and do) choke competition in related markets. That’s why the DMA exists.
Apple figured it out and may monetise or charge for the feature.
They can differentiate their hardware or software products with it premium for the.
They‘re just limited in leveraging it to anticompetitively stifle competition on related markets.
Last edited:
That's a silly way to look at it. That would be like having an issue with speeding laws because they make those who don't drive or those who stay at or below the speed limit the winners. The law is about promoting road safety.
Antitrust and competition laws are largely about promoting competition in markets, particularly those dominated by few players. Android and iOS dominate the mobile market. Google allows alternatives/competition in the Android app store market (doesn't "speed") while Apple does not allow alternatives/competition in the iOS app store market ("speeds"). Both have to follow the law, Apple happens to be the one allegedly/potentially violating the law.
In the end, don't we want those who obey the law to be the so-called "winners" or are you more for a lawless society?
In the case of the DMA, I‘d argue it‘s less - intended or effective - about promoting competition among operating systems.
But more about preventing Apple and Google to leverage their dominance on the mobile OS market elsewhere.
Namely in distribution of apps, payments for „digital“ products or services, music and video streaming, ebooks, digital game content, etc.
The dma isn’t promoting anything. It’s flat out forcing apple to give away their ip for free. Promoting competition is such a biased way to look at it.
Don’t use their products. If I stopped using apples products it won’t have the same effect as if I ate tainted food.
But if they offer it, their competitors get to offer it too. All must be the same. All must use Android's business model. Competition between business models is not allowed -
No, the DMA exists because Vestager wanted to strangle American tech companies with regulation rather than loosen regulation on European companies.
They can't use their own ideas to give themselves an advantage over their competitors. Everyone is equal. iOS becomes just a more visually pleasing version of Android.
I don't think laws should be written to target specific companies while deciding that their business model that has been in place for almost twenty years, a business model that everyone told Apple was going to doom them to irrelevance, is now so anticompetitive it has to be made illegal. No one is forced to develop for Apple, and no one is forced to use Apple's payment services if they want to serve Apple's customers. Spotify and Netflix do that today and pay Apple nothing other than the $99 developer fee.
And no, I am not for a lawless society. But I'm also not for using the laws to artificially pick winners and losers; to punish one company because their opinions on how to best serve their customers are different than the government's. That's just as bad as no laws at all.