OS can be viewed as the primary market "dominance" factor here. Competition the DMA or others may try to promote is related to app access/app stores for the mobile OS market which is dominated by iOS and Android. In this situation, the App Store and Google Play store also happen to be dominant among mobile app stores. Google/Android at least allows competition in the Android app store market, unlike Apple with iOS.
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
OS can be viewed as the primary market "dominance" factor here. Competition the DMA or others may try to promote is related to app access/app stores for the mobile OS market which is dominated by iOS and Android. In this situation, the App Store and Google Play store also happen to be dominant among mobile app stores. Google/Android at least allows competition in the Android app store market, unlike Apple with iOS.
Laws are written to "target" certain situations and behaviors viewed as potentially harmful to individuals, consumers, businesses, competition, etc. (whatever the law is about). They are not about "artificially" picking winners and losers. So-called winners and losers may be an outcome with "winners" being those who obey the law and "losers" being those who don’t; as it should be in a lawful society.
A company having a dominant position in a particular market and engaging in behavior that blocks/restricts competition in that market or a related market is a long common antitrust/competition law violation.
Yes. That is today’s legal framework to sell devices / OSs. It applicable to anyone operating on such market.
Laws conditioning how your products and services are produced, distributed and sold is not new. It’s indeed everywhere in the US and Europe. To the extent that you have laws conditioning how you may use some of your properties. For instance, just because you own a piece of land it does not mean you can build whatever you want on top, in whatever way. This is not unique to the socialism unless the US is a socialist country.
Now, I agree that there is an excess of law and regulations in the EU. That lead to a huge amount of bureaucracy to be enforced. Usually democratic systems have this tendency, unlike non democratic ones. Still I think things need to be greatly simplified as it can constrain innovation and entrepreneurship.
The set of laws aren’t static. Some are changed, other are removed, others added. It tends to follow the social, economic and cultural development of a society.
Last edited:
I agree that we have to be careful not to fall into socialism as I described, or worst Communism. But don’t confuse excessive (which is bad and needs to be corrected) protectionism with these systems. We aren’t talking about people that believe that they are so good that once elected others will no longer need to vote for anyone else.
What would you call a system where it’s “legal” to literally produce and drug the population for profit? Drugs marketed as life improving products yet is instead killing people and destroying homes. Products that are sold as enabling other people’s properties but is indeed a mechanism of control of their properties. A system where regulations are brought to a stall when attempting to be applied. Just an example amongst many. What you call a system that the very idea of universal healthcare is tainted “works of the devil that needs to be destroyed”. What is so bad about a community, a country, where people help each other in health?
Nothing is perfect. Duplicity is everywhere. I get it. The world is ever more complex But can we leave the populist cliché behind and focus on policy?
I don’t think Big Tech are bad at all. They are expansionist in nature because that is the nature also of tech. It’s ok. Consumer Tech has been mostly unregulated apart from health hazard. In the past decade some regulations are coming into practice considering the ever increasing functional reach and human dependency … and tech heads get histeric over it … usually accompanied with huge amounts of favoritism. Is natural.
Last edited:
What do you call a system where I’ve or you’ve worked very hard to produce a product people like and want to buy. Makes their life convenient and is considered to be a premium lifestyle contraption. But now the government is saying I can’t be the exclusive distributor and they enact a law saying anyone can sell this product and reap all of the profit. And I must manufacture and give them as many units as they want.
Last edited:
The regulation is not saying that you cannot be the only distributor of your products if that is your wish. But that you cannot impose rules making you the distributor of others products using peoples devices you supplied as the platform to enforce it. If the way you distribute your internet connected device imposes those rules and you are a gatekeeper then you need to find another way to distribute your product while maintaining you has the sole distributor of your product while letting other distribute theirs. They also worked hard and it seams that people like them also.
With this as the base, people can then decide to have you has the only supplier of others products. If people value more other products that you may not distribute then your distribution service for others products maybe your service is not worth that much for the user. It’s a CDO, a value gained by perception.
With this correction of your description. It’s not that the system stopped you from being a billionaire, or stooped your company to be worth a trillion. Now or in the future. All that is good.
PS: The idea that people buy iPhones mainly because of the App Store it’s a fabrication. Still, I believe that there should be significant leeway to let the OEM integrate exclusive interop facilities amongst the devices they supply.
Last edited:
Apple does not have a dominant position in the EU. They have 25% market share. If Apple had Google’s 75% market share, or Google was also a closed ecosystem, then I’d agree with you that regulation requiring them to open up was needed.
The regulation says the results of all the money and the hard work that Apple has done to develop a customer base and an operating system, must be given to others for free. It doesn’t matter that Android exists, and has 75% market share in their jurisdiction, and does exactly what they want - nope - developers get to freeload; they deserve access to Apple’s intellectual property “just because”.
It has been well known since they introduction of apps in 2008 that if you buy an iPhone you have to use the App Store to get apps. It’s not a secret or a surprise or change. Google used to advertise the fact that you could get apps from anywhere as a selling feature of Android.
Millions of people have made that choice knowingly and willingly. Many prefer the fact that is how the platform works, and picked iOS because of it.
But no, the EU knows better - doesn’t matter what people want, or that Apple has always been clear about how the platform works - that’s not allowed and they’re taking Apple’s property away to impose their socialist ideals on Apple. The results of Apple’s hard work belongs to everyone.
We have a different philosophy on the right or wrong of nationalization or socialism of someone else’s prior art.
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.
Last edited:
Be careful. For those who support the dma and antitrust actions against apple, a dominant position means apple makes more revenue. Sales not units is being measured.
Non-sense. Tinder can be accessed on PC, Linux and Mac too.
iOS apps are often nothing more but a simple front end UI to some back-end server of something that already exist on PC.
Dominance and other criteria can be defined differently in different jurisdictions. In the case of the DMA specifically, the gatekeeper designation seems to be more about a company's power, influence and control as an intermediary to digital marketplaces and the impact they may have on distribution or use of products/services in those markets. I believe Apple is the largest player, at least by revenue, in the app distribution/app store market (Google Play being #2) in the EU as well as other places. Therefore, an issue was that Apple as a major player and "gatekeeper" (EU designation) stifled competition and choice by restricting app access/app store competition.
That’s a feature, not a bug. The report that was cited as the reason the DMA was needed was an incredibly one-sided hit job, which Vestager then pointed at to say “see, drastic regulation is needed”.
You are discounting or choosing to ignore the importance, desirability, preferred use, etc. of apps in the widely used mobile marketplace. Just because there are alternatives or alternative ways to get/achieve something doesn't mean things like anticompetitive behavior is or should be allowed.
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.
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.
...unless restricted by law.
That's how Apple operate and how they obtained their market power:
By giving away their "IP" and app store access for (basically) free to most, get them to adopt the platform and write apps for it. And then squeezing and unfairly competing with the ones that depend on their platform (because their product/IP/service is a "paid digital good").
Exactly. And the same is true for provider of paid digital goods: It is good for consumers and society at large when they can interoperate with the dominant operating system platforms for a low or no fee.
The law foresaw gatekeepers engaging in circumventing practices - though agreed, the brazenness shown particularly by Apple (as opposed to other gatekeepers) seems to have surprised even some at the EU.
...which ("reasonable") is the same as Uber, DoorDash and others are paying
It has never gone down for large developers and the majority of sales transactions.
It is not. See my posts above.
Such stubborn und unreasoned claims to the contrary don't change that (or my position).
No. Apple can restrict their voice assistant or whatever operating system feature to their own devices or operating systems, thereby differentiating them from the competition.
When they offer a voice assistant or something to "control Apple’s software on other Apple devices the user owns", that does not apply to controlling it on non-Apple devices.
Yes they can - they can give themselves an advantage over other operating systems and devices.
Their feature (voice assistant) does not have to be ported to competitors' devices - Apple can retain exclusivity for it on its iPhones.
Not on the operating system or hardware market.
But on related software markets, like audio streaming: Yes! 👉 This - and only this - ensures fair competition.
Controlling about half (50%) of consumers spending on mobile apps is a dominant position.
We've been there.
The "strangling" is absurd, given the size, scale, market share and power these companies are wielding.
It is, see my posts above. Your stubborn and biased reasoning doesn’t change the truth about the DMA (or my thinking on the matter)
Which is why I said "in jurisdictions that respect property rights". Unlike the EU who gives your property away to freeloaders if you're "too successful".
Apple has not changed the terms of how their system works. No one forced developers to write apps for it, and plenty of developers sell digital goods and services without paying Apple a nickel outside of the developer fee, including EU darling Spotify. No one was "tricked" into writing apps and then got surprised by the fee. They haven't been "squeezed" - for many of them Apple cut the fee in half. But don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
It's not good for society when they are given ways to interoperate with that operating system via IP theft. Because then those actually doing the work do not have incentive to create new features.
If the EU didn't want Apple charging to use its IP they should have written that instead of trying to weasel their way into making Apple give it away for free and then acting shocked when they asked to be paid for their hard work.
Uber and DoorDash provide physical goods and services which are not enjoyed on the device they are ordered on.
It has absolutely gone down for large developers. I subscribe to Microsoft 365 through iOS and Apple gets 15%, not the 30% the App Store debuted with. Or is Microsoft not a large developer?
I love how it never occurs to those citing this that the reason Apple controls half of consumers spending on mobile apps is that customer's prefer Apple's approach and are justly rewarding them for their approach.
I do at least provide a reasoning.
It promotes a (more) level playing field and competition in distribution of iOS apps or sales and distribution of digital goods and services (e.g. streaming, eBooks).
How are going to dispute that? 😄
The market, Apple's market share does. You're hardly going to have a viable/competitive dating app or music streaming service without offering apps for Apple's platforms.
There's no theft. Just careful, limited regulation.
I remain confident that they will - cause they earn good money from doing so (such as by differentiating their hardware products with such features).
Exactly. They don't depend on the platform nearly as much.
That's why Apple exempts them and provides their service and app store to them for free:
To create an ecosystem and monopoly that others can't ignore (among them developers / providers of paid digital goods/services).
Why? When you subscribe, Apple gets 30%.
When you merely retain that subscription, then it gets down.
Point taken - but doesn't change the larger argument.
It's just an incentive for Apple to earn recurring subscription commissions.
It absolutely occurred to me.
There's merit in a centralised application store run and governed by the OS developer.
There's no consumer benefit in them charging supracompetitive commissions though.
And no one is forcing those services to use Apple's in-app purchase API. Spotify famously requires you to sign up on their website. The reason developers want to use those APIs is because they're worth it. And Apple should be compensated for making them worth it. Of course developers want that for free, but it is valuable and they should pay up.
There is absolutely theft. Access to any new software or hardware feature must be given to competitors gratis.
Their products aren't differentiated if they have to give the same features away to everyone.
Or, Apple doesn't think it deserves a cut of things that purchases that are not used on the device. It should be Apple's choice to make how they license their IP, not bureaucrats in Brussels who have been shown to have a grudge against the company.
The deal has not changed for the worse from developers. It's gotten better. No one was tricked, no one was cajoled, no one was swindled. In fact, most prices were lowered. If a developer couldn't write a business plan that took into account paying Apple for use of Apple's property, that's on them.
Side note: I would have loved to not have to pay my landlord when I lived in Berlin, but unfortunately for me, the EU didn't think I deserved free housing just because I wanted it.
Their commissions are entirely in line with industry standards. And I'd argue Apple has a right to charge higher commissions because their customer base is more valuable, in that they actually buy apps. But the EU wants developers to be able to freeload on Apple's success in building that customer base without recognizing it wouldn't exist without Apple's hard work and continued maintenance.
I provide a reasoned opinion.
No the eu is playing Robin Hood. That is not promoting anything. That is theft.
If a consumer or dev doesn’t like the charge let them go to an alternate platform.
This is a made up fantasy that taking apples App Store and making it a public utility is somehow going to make a healthy competitive space. It’s legal theft. There are multiple ways to reach a customer, an app is just one way.
It’s limited regulation that steals companies intellectual property.
None of the above is anything close to reasoned logic as to how legally stealing a companies property is good for anybody. It’s been bad from the get go and opens up numerous factors of surface attack.