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's App Store, Safari, and iOS Officially Designated 'Gatekeepers' in EU
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OK. I think that we're likely both not antitrust or competition lawyers - I'm certainly not - so I'm not going to go through this point by point and pretend like I am.
Not a cop out, it's just that these EU regulation have taken years to draft, get passed and move to enforcement by likely hundreds of lawyers and politicians - and I'm just a random person on an Apple forum.
So I'd rather talk about this in terms of 'mood music':
For the purposes of this forum/argument I think that people on this thread are either:
Pro regulation - believing that markets should be regulated to ensure fair competition at all times (which is why I was bringing up the MS IE antitrust i.e. as an example of this, rather than making an exact comparison), or
Anti-regulation - with the belief that success shouldn't be punished and the ultimate choice lies with consumers either using or not using a product, especially when there are clearly alternatives in the market (namely: a plethora of Android smartphones)
I fall into the former camp and you appear to be latter. And that's OK.
Let's just remember to come back to this thread in 2-5 years and I'm going to predict that these changes in the EU were good for the iPhone. We shall see
Not to interject into other’s arguments, I just want to point out, Pro-Regulation and Anti-Regulation, are both a form of regulation.
Any “free’ economy are dictated by the governors of it (EU in this case). Whether it chooses to intervene or not in this case, it is choosing a side. It is delusional to think there is such a thing as a total “free“ market. For even such a thing to exist, the governors as our representatives, or even us choose to set up the market that way.
At the end, we are always involve in establishing the rules of the market. The market never just “exists‘ and be “free”. We are always dictating it even when we are dictating to be “free”.
I don't understand why people on this site want so bad that iOS becomes Android. According to them, Android is so much better, more flexible, more secure, more user-friendly and nicer to use. Plus, iMessage is useless since "nobody use that in Europe". Why not just buying an Android then?
Part of the value-added of using iOS products such as the iPHone and iPad is that apps can only be loaded through the App store. Otherwise there can be viruses introduced through applications which can then be passed on to other iOS devices.
One can't just say, you can restrict your iPhone to downloading Apple Store apps alone because other Apps can "infect" any phone that they communicate with.
If people want to have other Apps besides those on from the App store, perhaps want they really want is an Android device, which never promises the value-added security of an iOS device.
One can't just say, you can restrict your iPhone to downloading Apple Store apps alone because other Apps can "infect" any phone that they communicate with.
If people want to have other Apps besides those on from the App store, perhaps want they really want is an Android device, which never promises the value-added security of an iOS device.
The ruling makes sense when you consider that the EU looks at monopolistic behaviour from the perspective of small businesses, not consumers. This move was never about benefiting or empowering us, all the more when you realise all the companies being targeted are US companies.
The EU can’t compete (in part because their own legislation means they can never have the next Apple, Google or Facebook), and this is their response. That’s all there is to it.
The beginning of the end for the App Store shakedown. This and USB C on the iPhone in the space of a week.
Apple feeling the regulatory pinch.
Apple feeling the regulatory pinch.
"...little or no government control..." not absolutely no government control
"...limited government intervention..." not no government intervention
"...limited government control..." not no government control
Free markets can be defined multiple ways.
"Dominance" by a company or companies is discouraged in a free market and it if doesn't happen "naturally", government regulations should be there and enforced.
I said the EU, corruption and corporate “wrongdoing” aren’t limited to the USA, and this problem seems to be getting worse, not better. But for the most part Europeans have far more protection than people in America.
Paying/incentivizing "partners" not to install competitive products is not quite as bad as not allowing "partners" to install them at all e.g., can AT&T, Vodafone, Best Buy, etc. sell iPhones with alternative browser engines or alternative app stores installed?
Also, Microsoft more freely allowed end users to install/sideload competitive products than Apple does with iOS.
No one is forcing Apple to "allow developers to use the App Store for advertising and downloads and customer service" withouth having to pay for it. Apple is free to (still) charge developers $99 to $299 in annual developer fees, charge 15% to 30% commissions for app/in-app purchases, charge for advertising, etc. to use its App Store.
I see nothing wrong with what the EU is doing and believe that in the long run the consumer will benefit from it. The US doesn’t have the courage to do things like this because in my country money is valued over the common good.
That’s obviously not true and gets to your fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be anticompetitive. Controlling your own products is not anticompetitive. Leveraging an actual monopoly to enter into agreements with third-parties to prevent distribution of competing products is anticompetitive. You know, like Google is doing with Google Play Services.
Closed platforms are not illegal. Implying Best Buy should be allowed to modify iPhones before sale is grasping at straws.
And yet what they actually did in the case we are discussing was still illegal. And what Apple does with iOS is not.
No one is flooding to UK except Romanians who were the main brexit topic and sole reason to put up nazi posters of "dirty" gypsies standing in a line with a tagline they took our jooohbs vote for brexit! Guess what? Romanians can still come and stay in your UK forever and however they want to! You didn't stop nothing. Except funding your farmers from EU pools of grants. Coincidentally it's your farmers who voted for brexit and made it happen, yup those exact same people who were getting the most funding from the EU. But Romanians were dinker-jehr juhbz. And they still will.
Sooooo. Confirmation bias aside, since it’s wrong. It did happen naturally. And is being regulated in a very heavy, bad for consumers and small developers, way. That’s, again, not a free market. In fact, there’s not a single free market economy in the world. Zero.
Unions are forbidden term in all of the big tech. Get a job at Apple and just mention union and you will be terminated because it says right in your contracts polite wording that plotting for union will get you dismissed.
Second, Whatsapp and Facebook Messenger are the most popular exactly in EU. In many EU countries WA has penetration of over 80%. EU has 110 million more people than US so where WA and FBM are going to replace those avg 250 million EU users from? And those aren't just any users, those are users with purchasing power much like in US, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Australia and .. not many others are left. Sure there are Emirates, Bahrein, Qatar, Saudis but content needs censoring over there.
Third parties such as Vodafone, AT&T, Best Buy, or any other vendor installing ANYTHING AT ALL on devices before they sell them is the most consumer unfriendly thing that could possibly happen.
what I don't understand about this law is the way people keep talking about trying to encourage competition on Apple's platform. Apple built the iPhone, the App Store, the connectors, etc.. So, why should the government be involved with legislating competition within Apple's product. It's like forcing a food vendor to sell coke, Pepsi, schweeps, etc.. to ensure soda competition in their restaurant--even if only a small slice of customers care about having the choice.
Are you that weak? As soon as another third party store shows up, you will loose control and go to that third party app store?
Here is how I think it will be implemented. There will be Apple appstore by default. You can also download another app store using your browser and then use the apps from the new app store instead of using Apple's app store.
If you just want to stay with Apple app store, that's fine. Don't download the other app store. That's it!
You have your aforementioned freedom. Others have their freedom
There are a variety of things a company can do to try to control their product which are anticompetitive. Setting unfair rules regarding the sale or distribution of one's product can be anticompetitive. Tying (or "tech tying" for tech products) can be anticompetitive. Predatory pricing or pricing fixing is anticompetitive.
Certain aspects of closed platforms can absolutely be illegal if the product in question has a monopoly, is part of a duopoly, etc.
It was not illegal for Microsoft to allow end users to install competitive products. However, the EU is saying that it is illegal for companies like Apple to restrict the ability to install competitive products such as alternative browser engines, app stores, etc. Apple appears to be looking to comply to those laws.
Or maybe developers will reduce the price of their app. Think about this way. If a developer wants to charge X for an app, with Apple app store, the developer will charge X plus Apple margin (15-30%). However, without apple app store, the developer may charge you X plus 5-10%. And the consumer wins!
No, not if the customers want the item(s).
The issue with Microsoft was that they "discouraged" partners from installing competitive products (like browsers) even if customers wanted them but at least those end user customers could still install them on their own.
The issue with Apple is that not only can't partners install competitive products (like alternative browser engines, app stores, etc.) on iOS but even end users can’t do so.
No need to be offended at numbers and facts… let me make it personal against myself: if 10 years ago I was making $50K a year and today I’m making $52K, by all immediate metrics I didn’t advance… and for sure went totally backwards due to inflation (for reference a 7.2% average yearly inflation halves the value of money every 10 years) and complete broke if before it was myself and now it grew to a full family with three kids (i.e population growth).
Not the real example, but somewhat, for a couple of years, solution? Make others pay for my crap? Unsustainable. Learned and studied and worked. Reality check isn’t an offense.
Huh. I can get behind that.
What would be the stance of “you do whatever you want, sure do drugs, have kids you can’t afford, binge drink and binge eat to your early deathbeds… just not on my dime”.
I think people should always be free to do whatever they want as long as they aren’t making others pay for their moves… barring some serious and real handicap (emphasis on real, not “I need my fading couch! Gonna fade in there as I just got a touch of the ‘xieties! Somebody else not me pay for this with others people’s monies!”)
This is a reality check and so totally true.
Regarding the debts: worst part is, those that had to work right away (i.e in the trades, real jobs) because they couldn’t really afford for an extra 5 years binge drinking “college experience”, are being asked (forced really) to pay for others. Let me also add, it isn’t doctors, engineers, etc asking for said bailouts.
But hey, I’m in Canada and things on paper look worse! Can’t even keep up with NATO required minimum contributions, everybody is taxed to death, even google stopped posting Canadian news as there’s a “hyperlink tax” going on.
Well, obviously, when a billionaire wants a $500M dollar yacht, they put $500M under their pillows and that yacht pops out directly from under there the next day. What’s better is that said yacht works without a crew, without any sort of gas and without ports to park on… it’s just stashed at night under the pillow again until next sailing.
That’s the perk of being a billionaire, you do really sit on your money and things happen!
/s
This is a basic concept that will never stick on our collective heads, that money is just a future transaction storage… the reason that billionaire’s yacht costs $500M? It required the work and time and resources of so many people and materials equivalent to that amount.
Proof that it will never stick? the comments over here and the money printing and government programs junkies. In the future we can print all the money, we can get millions on UBIs and whatnot, but if the shelves are empty and nobody is producing goods and services, good luck with those millions of dollars…
So, how does this work for them?
arm having the monopoly for arm chips and the highest available tech on foundries… are they gatekeepers on chips?
Can Intel now go and use their platforms for their chips manufacturing, marketing? Etc? Or else they get fined for their worldwide revenue?
Can a random music app go and hinge on Spotify’s platform? (their market share is higher than Apple’s, Amazon and YouTube music services combined!)… by their metrics pretty sure many of these companies blast these gatekeepers thresholds.
When are we fining all of them? Can’t leave all that money on the table.
A Cheez-It must be a super high IQ being!The problem is:
So the solution for both is simple: Just allow alternatives like they do on macOS. That's it. That's all they gotta do. A simple problem with a simple solution that Apple does not want to do as it means their app store monopoly is a *little* bit smaller.
- App distribution on iOS/iPadOS locked to a single app store that Apple controls with no other way to get apps, which under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) marks them as a gatekeeper and they must rectify this by allowing alternatives to the Apple App Store on iOS, similarly to how they do on macOS
- WebKit being the only web engine allowed on iOS. (Chrome and FireFox on iOS are just UI skins, as they're still forced to use WebKit which defeats the entire point of using Chrome or FireFox, as people want Chromium and FireFox Quantum, not WebKit) Remember when Microsoft got in trouble for pulling that stunt back in the 90s with United States of America vs Microsoft?
It's not just the EU. Japan also approved similar measures and they will be forcing Apple to allow alternative app distribution as well, and in Japan Apple has a landslide dominance over any other competitor there of almost 70%. Like it's not even close. You gonna tell Apple to stop selling their products there too when they have overwhelming market dominance?
Why? This change benefits consumers as now iOS would have competition in app distribution, and competition breeds innovation. The only people this doesn't benefit...is Apple. Curious. 🤔
You can just choose not to sideload you know. Just like on Android, sideloading is completely optional and can be turned on and off with a toggle in settings. You can stay with the Apple App Store and never touch any alternatives should you so choose to.
Yes adding alternatives to app distribution and other web engines on iOS and other proconsumer measures is a "power grab by the elites." I guess forcing Apple to switch to USB-C on the iPhone, a move millions have begged for, was also a power grab?
Will be interesting to see the changes that will occur due to this