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 'Playing Hard-Ball' in Appeal Against UK's Investigation Into Platform Restrictions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The flood gate has opened. This is the cost of being too big and too successful.
Ever remember the dark sky? Apple adopted nothing. The only thing they do is killing it for good.
I am more than happy for the entire world to regulate international tech giants. They Must know this the hard way: you cannot get away from doing literally anything, including unlawful and anti-competitive behaviours.
Ever remember the dark sky? Apple adopted nothing. The only thing they do is killing it for good.
I am more than happy for the entire world to regulate international tech giants. They Must know this the hard way: you cannot get away from doing literally anything, including unlawful and anti-competitive behaviours.
Legal pressures for Apple. But Apple will have to follow the law.
I think you're actually right. Brexit has left the UK in a precarious position.
This is the kind of post that is difficult to guess if it is serious or being sarcastic. But it is hard to image this being serious.
This is in no way Apple "playing hard ball". The suggestion is laughable. In fact, the subject of an investigation can hardly play hard ball, since they are on the defensive. Requesting dismissal due to missed deadlines is the most basic and perfunctory legal tactic. Just business as usual. lol.
Except that the "lawmakers" are the corporations. Their lobbyists write the laws and tell the congressmen they paid for to pass them. We are lucky to have some consumer protection laws, but corporations will always fight for them to have no real teeth (or just no enforcement resources).
The rights to paid maternity, paternity, sick leave, the right to 5 weeks paid annual leave, the universal right to healthcare, the rights of employment protections.
You’ll find that the vast majority of people in European nations would not trade our “restrictions” for US “rights”
Open markets evolved faster and in a way that everyone benefits ... compared to closed markets. In effect both Google and Apple are gatekeepers to markets / pockets the size of Continents.
In many ways todays geo political problems being handled by governments supported by they their citizens taxes are down greatly to big tech interests and needs ... not the regular man and their families.
I find that big tech in many ways have a misguided notions of property in ways that who actually pay for the show ends up actually owning next to nothing.
Take for instance the current gaming licensing model around digital assets. It's well known that a property is only yours when you are free to trade it. In the current scheme one can buy a licence but one cannot trade it. Meaning, we actually own next to nothing.
In many ways todays geo political problems being handled by governments supported by they their citizens taxes are down greatly to big tech interests and needs ... not the regular man and their families.
I find that big tech in many ways have a misguided notions of property in ways that who actually pay for the show ends up actually owning next to nothing.
Take for instance the current gaming licensing model around digital assets. It's well known that a property is only yours when you are free to trade it. In the current scheme one can buy a licence but one cannot trade it. Meaning, we actually own next to nothing.
Last edited:
One quick search shows Apple iPhone has a more than 50% of the market in the UK, which should be proof enough that the government is well within its (logical) rights to tell Apple to play ball or sod off.
To be honest, defining a monopoly solely by size is dumbing it down too much. A monopoly is more about when the outreach of a single company and/or product becomes obviously clear that they are bending the hand of consumers/competition against the common best interest and go do so with just the sheer size of them.Don’t allow a monopoly from day one and companies will understand clearly what’s expected to do business in the UK.I mean, Apple didn’t “sneak” and create the iPhone, then “sneak” and provided an OS for it, and then “sneak” and put it on sale in shops and then “sneak” and created a programming environment for it, and then “sneak” and created an App Store and then “sneak” and allowed developers in the UK to create apps to publish on that store. The UK government saw EVERYTHING that Apple was doing and were perfectly fine with it, signing off on each thing they wanted to do. They could have said, “Nope, no iPhone in the UK, we’re sure that’s not a thing our citizens would like.” and we wouldn’t be here.
Look at Luxottica they could not negotiate a deal with Oakley they liked. Dump them from all their stores. Their shares dropped like a rock and Luxottica bought them for peanuts. The same ball game but just more consequential.
iPhone Sales Statistics UK
- The penetration rate of Apple iOS in the UK in March 2021 reached 51.15%.
- By 2023, Apple’s market share in the UK is expected to slip to 39.9%.
So no one can assume that Apple iPhones represent more then 50% of smartphones active in the UK going just by those quarter stats?
If apple weren't engaging in monopolistic behaviour, governments wouldn't see the need to rein them in. That this is being confirmed in many different jurisdictions speaks volumes.
I understand that people don't want to get too deep into politics to prevent arguments, but there should be some leeway on this rule, as it's impossible to talk about economics without talking about politics.
The reason is that how we structure some economic policies is deeply tied into political beliefs – and sometimes, even religious beliefs disguised as political beliefs.
For example, if you believe companies are inherently good and governments inherently corrupt, you are going to structure your whole economy around that – which the US does, by the way.
I particularly think that belief is incredibly stupid. Both entities are run by people, so what makes people think governments will not have your interests at heart, but companies will? Companies care about their own profits, first and foremost. They are not a magical entity that know what is best for you, and there should be a balance of power.
It's their dream scenario. In their view, if there is a used market, you are preventing their users to buy a fresh product. THIS is the real reason cellphones are rendered obsolete – so that companies will always be able to sell a shiny new phone.
Imagine if you were forced to sell your fridge every five years, or your car every five years. There would be all sorts of cries on how companies have a draconian, illegal policy – rightfully so. But with cellphones, we have just normalized we NEED new phones very 1-3 years.
Hint: we don't. Especially for making calls and texting, there's nothing that your old iPhone 5 can't do that your iPhone 14 can. The extra power is nice and convenient, but companies deny us from using it in its fullest potential – so, what's the point of having it at all?
And before you come arguing that the phone market couldn't work that way, allowing old phones to be used, it absolutely can. Before smartphones, dumb cell phones could be ages old and still do the basics. They probably still can today. It was only after smartphones that companies tried to normalize that you NEED to replace your phone.
Governments take on corporations for a variety of reasons, one being to protect companies in their country or to give them a favorable market position.
A monopoly is not per se bad; it is the abuse of a dominant position that is problematic, i.e. is the monopolist using its position to keep prices artificially high or drive out competitors?
As fro prices, the Mac marketplace provides a good comparison for what the iOS one would look like if open. In the Mac market, companies charge the same price for software, in general, on the App Store and their website. Apple lets developers set a price and takes a cut on the App Store. There is no indication they would lower prices if the App Store reduced its fee.
Nor does Apple reduce prices to drive out competitors. iPhones certainly are not sold at a loss to gain market share, Music isn't free, etc.
Success is not a reason to sanction a company. There are some practices that probably should be changed, but the notion that Apple is a monopoly that needs to be slammed, is incorrect, IMHO.
In Law, that's a discussion of power de facto vs power de jure.
In theory, companies don't hold powers over citizens; the state does ("legal" power, or de jure); in practice, however, large organizations DO hold power when they can interfere with the state or become a monopoly.
Here's an example: suppose that all companies in the country in your sector require you to have a LinkedIn profile. However, LinkedIn unfairly and unilaterally devices it doesn't want you to have an account there, so it bans you. In this case, LinkedIn has power in practice (although indirectly) over you and your sector.
The list goes on and on. Suppose that, instead, credit companies where you live require you to have a Google Wallet for payment processing; they accept nothing else. However, one day, Google inexplicably deletes your account.
In theory, it's within Google's right to delete your account out of the blue simply because it doesn't like it; they don't need to give any explanations. In practice, however, Google holds some de facto power that is interfering with your fundamental rights.
That's not even getting in the point of when companies use their power to overthrow governments or to lobby for legislation to be steered to whatever is more favorable to them.
Last edited:
A monopoly IS inherently bad. We accept them because sometimes we see there are no immediate alternatives. But the main issue is: what happens when the company holding the monopoly turns bad?
Here is an example not of a monopoly, but an oligopoly: insulin shots in the US. Because only a few companies produce it and the market is completely unregulated, they set the prices to whatever they see fit. This makes the prices skyrocket in comparison to other developed countries.
And if you are diabetic, you WILL BUY IT, because you have no other choice. It's that or death.
Rights are generally what we say they are. Do you think property rights are any less a human construct than any other rights?