Circular argument by referring to the law? They have already been to court. Apple presented their verbal defenselast summer, we are just waiting for the decision. And my bet isn’t on Apple
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 to Be Fined Over $500 Million in EU Music Streaming Probe
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That’s a very shortsighted comment. Along with that reason that Apple retains control they keep apps that aid crime, terrorism, drug and human trafficking and what not out of the App Store.
That’s what the courts are for. Ask Tim Sweeny.
Apple still has ways to do this. Check how it works on MacOS. Apple has the infrastructure to remotely block any binary from launching on your Mac, if the device is connected to the Internet occasionally.
Also, more freedom means more responsibility. Cars are (potentially) dangerous. That does not mean that manufacturers should decide who to gets to drive a car and who not.
I don’t see you arguing against encryption and secure communication and apples privacy focus. Even tho it’s the biggest contribution to criminal activity and them escaping prosecution.
Just how CSAM would aid criminal activity, luckily Apple realized their error
CSAM scanning would be abused, says Apple, in ironic U-turn
When Apple announced its own approach to CSAM scanning, many of us warned that the process used to check for...
9to5mac.com
What kind of backwards logic is this? A car can be used to transport people and run over people purposefully, yet I am surprised the EU hasn’t fined the car manufacturers millions of dollars due to this duality. Or better, just ban them.I don’t see you arguing against encryption and secure communication and apples privacy focus. Even tho it’s the biggest contribution to criminal activity and them escaping prosecution.
Just how CSAM would aid criminal activity, luckily Apple realized their error
Unless you happen to value privacy, we just happen to also value freedom alongside that.CSAM scanning would be abused, says Apple, in ironic U-turn
When Apple announced its own approach to CSAM scanning, many of us warned that the process used to check for...
It is when you are a dominant player in a market as is the case with iOS and Android in the mobile OS market.
If a printer company had a dominant position in the printer market similar to iOS and Android in the mobile OS market and the only place customers could get ink would be through the printer OEM stores/website, it could be an antitrust issue. However, that does not seem to be the case as there are several viable printer company options, many many places to buy ink, and there can be several non-OEM alternatives for ink.
Again, it can depend on the dominance, market power, influence, etc. a particular company or product has in a market.
Just because there are choices doesn’t negate antitrust laws or mean dominant companies can engage in anticompetitive behavior. Coke is an alternative to Pepsi and vice versa yet they both can and have faced antitrust legal issues.
i just yawn at the crap interpretations i read on here.
they dont care about consumers at all. or competition.
it's all lobbying an money.
if I was Apple I'd pull out and see if they survive the wrath of voters.
the old guillotines might come out of storage...
but there are very few on here who seem to care.
Apple are god at being clever and meeting requirements if not intent. much better than most petty officials...
The EU feels restrictions on sideloading and alternative app stores are anticompetitive and in response, Apple has agreed to adjust their "behavior" for the EU market (so far).
Backwards logic? Did you not say: Apple retains control they keep apps that aid crime, terrorism, drug and human trafficking and what not out of the App Store.
But also you are ignoring the iMessage app and iOS security is the biggest contributor to the exact same thing you just listed. But I assume you just like me like privacy and security and aren’t willing to sacrifice that privacy. Or are you willing to sacrifice it as well on the alter for Apple can do no wrong?
And absolutely love the new security features
iMessage quantum security arrives with iOS 17.4 - 9to5Mac
iMessage quantum security is launching for iPhone with iOS 17.4, the biggest security upgrade ever for the platform.
9to5mac.com
And lucky for us Apple did realize that and now uses the same arguments against it that they previously dismissed against the Australian government.
I value privacy, security AND freedom
it was a suggestion not what Apple will do so you can hardly interpret those words as justification. LOL.
shows how desperate you are.
but it would be an interesting twist to see if regular people revolted against the EU or not.
Apple has been forced to change things because of a deadline and threats. so much for free and open competition...
Yet Apple are whiley enough to change things to meet the request and still make it unattractive.
Those EU bods must be wringing their hands and scratching their heads now LOL
I think you are engaging in circular reasoning.Backwards logic? Did you not say: Apple retains control they keep apps that aid crime, terrorism, drug and human trafficking and what not out of the App Store.
But also you are ignoring the iMessage app and iOS security is the biggest contributor to the exact same thing you just listed. But I assume you just like me like privacy and security and aren’t willing to sacrifice that privacy. Or are you willing to sacrifice it as well on the alter for Apple can do no wrong?
And absolutely love the new security features
And you probably remember when Apple said they were going to launch CSAM on device scanning. And how heavily criticized it was for compromising privacy?iMessage quantum security arrives with iOS 17.4 - 9to5Mac
iMessage quantum security is launching for iPhone with iOS 17.4, the biggest security upgrade ever for the platform.
And lucky for us Apple did realize that and now uses the same arguments against it that they previously dismissed against the Australian government.
I value privacy, security AND freedom
Still no court finding. Somebody woke up and said: “today is the day we declare apple anticompetitive”.
Courts make judgments based on laws. But they don't create the laws. Now you're engaging in "circular thinking" 😂.
Yes, I understand. It still seems like it’s being argued that some laws were enacted with some language without an actual “guilty”. Much like what they used to call “kangaroo courts”.
Haha, my bet is they will fall on the finish line as everyone else did when they get to learn how Teleological interpretation of Law works alongside comparative law interpretation. Both heavily favored by the ECJ. 😎i just yawn at the crap interpretations i read on here.
they dont care about consumers at all. or competition.
it's all lobbying an money.
if I was Apple I'd pull out and see if they survive the wrath of voters.
the old guillotines might come out of storage...
but there are very few on here who seem to care.
Apple are god at being clever and meeting requirements if not intent. much better than most petty officials...
Teleological interpretation requires that legislative provisions be interpreted to advance their purpose in light of constitutional values. The interpretation that best advances constitutional values must be preferred.
And I would love to se Apple try and pullout expecting concessions as they give up the entire market to rivals as people move on 😂, do you honestly think if the violent protests in France, Germany or Sweden don’t sway politicians, you think Apple user will?
Politicians here don’t care that much about winning as the USA, they are very often crazy ideologies who refuse to abandon principles and end up in coalition governments anyway. Parties have hold strong to their values even when half the voters abandons them😂
I would say it’s extremely obvious they care about the market and competition, as the 30 years of antitrust cases show. And lobbying is not that easy to do, you have 3 bodies you must lobby. One that writes laws who aren’t politicians and two others who are politicians and can change the legislation divided among a 100~ independent parties or so.
Again there was no issue with in app purchase until Apple Music launched & then things changed.
It is about better prices that’s why Spotify want to offer promotions on iOS app but aren’t allowed
Apple has changed things in order to comply with the regulations. In this case, the regulations are meant to prevent dominant companies from engaging in anticompeititve behavior and wield too much power, control, influence, etc. in particular markets.
More like Apple is wealthy enough to maintain large legal teams to try to push the envelope, exploit potential loopholes, etc.
There wouldn’t necessarily be a “court finding” if a company changes its behavior and complies with the law as is largely the case with Apple in the EU market. Not every "violation" ends up in a court trial.
What law prior to the DMA are we discussing? And where was a finding apple wasn’t in compliance with this law?
Literally from 1960s. European competition law today derives mostly from articles 101 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as well as a series of Regulations and Directives. Four main policy areas include:
Primary authority for applying competition law within the European Union rests with European Commission and its Directorate General for Competition…
This has been the case since the beginning. And the DMA build on the jurisprudence that developed from them
Last edited:
I understand, there really is no direct finding. Just some vague guidelines, as in the US ( but that went poof) that were applied.
Common antitrust laws that have been around for ages which prohibit unfair or anticompetitive business practices of major players that can stifle competition. Apple has been engaging in anticompetitive behavior by restricting sideloading and alternative app stores in a major segment of the mobile OS market and in doing so is stifling app access competition.
If Apple was in compliance with the law, they wouldn't have made appeals and ultimately changed some of their "behavior" in the EU market.
related
mashable.com
Amazing how Apple competitors are so unfriendly when it comes to money?
Meta, Microsoft take on Apple and lobby EU to reject new App Store terms
Apple has been accused of 'malicious compliance' when it comes to new EU regulation.
Amazing how Apple competitors are so unfriendly when it comes to money?