Apple's App Store, Safari, and iOS Officially Designated 'Gatekeepers' in EU

[Nuno Lopes]

It kind of irritates me this American notion of voting with ones wallet. It is as bad as policy for sale. You buy stuff with your wallet, you don't vote for policy with it but with the vision for the future you want. You are a free man not because of the size of your wallet but because people died so you can have institutions in place protecting your freedom from predators. This is how it is supposed to work or have worked.

Apple or any company is just like Mercedes. If Nazis or Communists were in power they would still do whatever it takes to be extremely successful. If people voted with their wallet ... probably everyone would be smoker by now .... So no to that concept ... at least that was the idea of the American democracy the way I see it ... yeah but peoples minds are becoming weird in the US, Russia, China ... at many levels. The very idea of lobbying is just weird, it's just means ... policy for the highest bidder ... for sale. I see all that is happening at many levels as mind shock waves of the COVID explosion.

The EU should watch out ... but maybe it's just too late. Thought is contagious.

On the subject, this has been on the charts for a long time.

 

[Gudi]

EU has not only fallen way behind the US. It‘s also rapidly falling behind China.

I neither believe in US nor Chinese growth numbers.
But you can move to China, if you think that's a place worth living? 😆

Wir sind ja Preußen, laßt uns Preußen sein!

 

[Treq]

Godzilla would get sick and die from all the needles and human excrement. CA doing what Monster Zero could never do. 😂


Funny you should mention s***hole states when CA has so much of it on their sidewalks.

Cost to rent 26’ U-Haul from LA to Austin, $4,668.00.
Cost to rent 26’ U-Haul from Austin to LA, $2,057.00.

Tells you everything you need to know about who’s leaving what s***hole state, using your words.

No, Texas is a s***-hole with a fascist governor. Things cost more in California because there are more people there and there are more people that want to live there. Seriously. Who the f*** would move to a fascist state like Texas right now? If I owned Texas and Hell, I would rent out Texas and live in hell. Probably be cheaper on the AC bill. Frankly, I'd be ok with the border wall of they would just go over the top of Texas.

 

[OneBar]

Again, it's about antitrust laws which regulate "dominant" companies engaging in "anticompetitive behavior." If companies don't foillow/comply to the laws, there has to be some sort of penalty just as there are with other laws. Companies, like individuals, choose how they want to deal with laws.

Is it wrong to be dominant? Is it wrong to be the best or the most preferred? Kinda anticompetitive to take out someone's knees for being more successful than everyone else.

This is not about companies being "required" to do business on one platform or another, it's about being given the option to so especially when there are very limited choices such is the case in the mobile OS market.

You have the option, you've always had the option, and no one is keeping you from exercising those options. And again, knocking Apple isn't going to cause another competitor to appear.

There absolutely can be competition as different stores can offer different reasons, incentives, etc. to use them over another. ABC App Store could run "sales", have frequent buyer programs, have unique payment options, etc. to entice users to use them over another. The App Store being the only option on dominant iOS gives Apple less incentive to try to entire customers (developers and end users) to use their store.

Yeah that's not how it works. If I state I want my app to be $5, you cannot lower it's price unless you're discounting your cut, which isn't going to happen. Walmart cannot put any product on sale unless they own that product. Only Kellog's can put their cereal on sale. You shouldn't have to entice anyone to use your store. That's dumb. The store isn't a product for the customer. The only thing the customer cares about is getting the app they need to accomplish their task. I'm not going to waste an hour searching 5 stores for the same app on the off chance it's 2% cheaper somewhere. That money saved is already wasted at that point in the time spent not being productive.
Oh and no store is ever going to be cheaper than Apple because they're going to have up-front infrastructure cost, personnel cost, bandwidth cost, etc., that they will have to pay back and that's going to be immediately off-set to customers. Then customers are going to go back to Apple because their app costs will be cheaper and those other stores will fold and then Apple will be the only store again. But those options, right?

 

[BuffaloTF]

None of this is true

Oh? They pay 66% less than Apple. $0.003 cents per stream to Apple’s $0.01. Amazon pays $0.007. Google pays $0.008. Who else would you like to know the rates for?

 

[BaldiMac]

It kind of irritates me this American notion of voting with ones wallet. It is as bad as policy for sale. You buy stuff with your wallet, you don't vote for policy with it but with the vision for the future you want. You are a free man not because of the size of you wallet but because people died so you can have institutions in place protecting your freedom from predators. This is how it is supposed to work or have worked.

Apple or any company is just like Mercedes. If Nazis or Communists were in power they would still whatever it takes to be extremely successful. If people voted with their wallet ... probably everyone would be smoker by now .... So no to that concept ... at least that was the idea of the American democracy the way I see it ... yeah but peoples minds are becoming weird in the US, Russia, China ... at many levels. The very idea of lobbying is just weird, it's just means ... policy for the highest bidder ... for sale.

The EU should watch out ... but maybe it's just too late. Thought is contagious.

On the subject, this has been on the charts for a long time.

All the American bashing in this thread is getting ridiculous. The US has a wide variety of opinions on economics. There is nothing "American" about the notion of voting with your wallet. It's a capitalist notion. And the EU has a predominantly capitalist economy as well.

As an American, I am certainly for regulating markets. I just think the DMA has specific regulations that I disagree with.

(Also, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to "vote with your wallet." It has nothing to do with voting for policy. It's about products succeeding or failing based on whether people choose to buy them. Instead of the government deciding which products you should buy.)

 

[Gudi]

Is it wrong to be dominant? Is it wrong to be the best or the most preferred? Kinda anticompetitive to take out someone's knees for being more successful than everyone else.

I don't even care if Apple is dominant and successful or insignificant and broke. The circumstance that their AppStore policy dictates what I can do with my phone is enough to regulate them. My device, I bought it. You sold it, now it belongs to me. I make the rules and you'll hear from my EU Council.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

All the American bashing in this thread is getting ridiculous. The US has a wide variety of opinions on economics. There is nothing "American" about the notion of voting with your wallet. It's a capitalist notion. And the EU has a predominantly capitalist economy as well.

Sure there is a wide variety of opinions on economics in the US. But this kind of say is not common in the EU amongst people argumentation and found it more common amongst US. I believe that this kind of statements are more in the Liberal field than Capitalism. My observation is a reflection of this impression of mine.

I too have some reservations on DMA, but at the moment is targeted to a niche club due to some reasonable concerns. The truth is that these companies are redefining private ownership of property for other people and other companies at a ver very large scale. Setting up by themselves world wide market private policies given their size, hence redefining ownership values at the center of Capitalism.At the Capitalism is private ownership.

 

[BaldiMac]

I don't even care if Apple is dominant and successful or insignificant and broke. The circumstance that their AppStore policy dictates what I can do with my phone is enough to regulate them. My device, I bought it. You sold it, now it belongs to me. I make the rules and you'll hear from my EU Council.

Finally! Someone is honest! "I want something, and so I support the government forcing you to give it to me."

I respect that position even though I completely disagree with it. Thank you!

 

[Gudi]

EU market is a gatekeeper also, so it’s ironic they label Apple as a gatekeeper yet they are equally guilty of the same act.

Nobody said gatekeeper is a crime. It's a position of enormous influence on many people's lives, which is why special public oversight over gatekeepers is required. That's why the EU parliament is elected and the AppStore is regulated by rules made by democratic representatives. If the EU was a private for profit company, it would be a huge problem that they regulate the European market however they like. But fortunately we EU citizens get to vote for EU parliament and they better keep our interests in mind.

 

[webkit]

It's not even close to the same. Apple doesn't dominate the OS market (mobile or otherwise). And it certainly doesn't dominate the browser market. And yet it qualifies. While many companies that do dominate their markets don't qualify.

Again, the gatekeeper designation has nothing to do with market dominance.

I disagree. Being only one of two major players in mobile OS and having around 34% to 38% share of that market in Europe is a dominant position.

Sure. But that's just your own personal, arbitrary definition of dominant.

It's not arbitrary. A reasonable definition of a duopoly is when two companies control at least 70% of a market. Even if they each had the exact same share, that's 35% which is pretty much what Apple's share is (if not more) of the mobile OS market in Europe. Given that, I feel Apple has a dominant position in mobile OS.

 

[Treq]

It's not arbitrary. A reasonable definition of a duopoly is when two companies control at least 70% of a market. Even if they each had the exact same share, that's 35% which is pretty much what Apple's share is (if not more) of the mobile OS market in Europe. Given that, I feel Apple has a dominant position in mobile OS.

That's not dominant. Dominant means they control more than their competition, which they don't. And as long as there is a viable competitor (one with a dominant position of 65%) with the an open system, how is Apple being anticompetitive?

 

[BaldiMac]

I disagree. Being only one of two major players in mobile OS and having around 34% to 38% share of that market in Europe is a dominant position.

I know you disagree because you have an arbitrary definition of dominant. We've already had this conversation.

It's not arbitrary. A reasonable definition of a duopoly is when two companies control at least 70% of a market. Even if they each had the exact same share, that's 35% which is pretty much what Apple's share is (if not more) of the mobile OS market in Europe. Given that, I feel Apple has a dominant position in mobile OS.

Sure it is. Notice how you didn't bother to give an actual definition, let alone one based in antitrust law. You just defined something else. And you defined it in an arbitrary manner.

(By your own words, if one company had 1% of the market and another company any 99% of the market, then you would consider the company with 1% share to be dominant because there is a duopoly. That's obviously ridiculous.)

 

[webkit]

Is it wrong to be dominant? Is it wrong to be the best or the most preferred? Kinda anticompetitive to take out someone's knees for being more successful than everyone else.

Nope. The issue comes into play when you combine "dominance" with "anticompetitive behavior."

You have the option, you've always had the option, and no one is keeping you from exercising those options. And again, knocking Apple isn't going to cause another competitor to appear.

Apple is preventing companies from "exercising the option" to do a varietry of things on dominant iOS e.g, offering apps through outlets other than the App Store, offering their browsers with browser engines other than WebKit, etc.

Yeah that's not how it works. If I state I want my app to be $5, you cannot lower it's price unless you're discounting your cut, which isn't going to happen. Walmart cannot put any product on sale unless they own that product. Only Kellog's can put their cereal on sale. You shouldn't have to entice anyone to use your store. That's dumb. The store isn't a product for the customer. The only thing the customer cares about is getting the app they need to accomplish their task. I'm not going to waste an hour searching 5 stores for the same app on the off chance it's 2% cheaper somewhere. That money saved is already wasted at that point in the time spent not being productive.
Oh and no store is ever going to be cheaper than Apple because they're going to have up-front infrastructure cost, personnel cost, bandwidth cost, etc., that they will have to pay back and that's going to be immediately off-set to customers. Then customers are going to go back to Apple because their app costs will be cheaper and those other stores will fold and then Apple will be the only store again. But those options, right?

There are a variety of ways it can "work" including the "discounting their cut" example you gave. Traditional stores frequently discount their cut to entice customers to buy from them. There's no reason similar (and other things) couldn't be done with app stores and that's what the EU rules would allow.

 

[webkit]

That's not dominant. Dominant means they control more than their competition, which they don't. And as long as there is a viable competitor (one with a dominant position of 65%) with the an open system, how is Apple being anticompetitive?

Dominant doesn't have to mean they control more than all of their competition or that there aren't any competitors. More than one company can have a dominant position in a market, such as two companies which are part of a duopoly.

Apple is being anticompetitive by restricting alternative app stores, alternative browser engines, etc. on iOS.

 

[Gudi]

Finally! Someone is honest! "I want something, and so I support the government forcing you to give it to me."
I respect that position even though I completely disagree with it. Thank you!

Nobody cares about your opinion as a citizen of a third country, which isn't an EU member. I don't just want something, it's my right, for which my ancestors killed your ancestors. After two world wars your ancestors said: Enough! No more colonialism. From now on every country makes their own rules and international rules only apply to countries who agreed to them.

That's the world we live in. You don't like it, but that's kinda your problem. Me I don't care, what's legal to be sold for consumption on your side of the pond. Let American corporatism enslave you as much as you can possibly want. And if the basket of deplorables votes for Trump instead of Hillary, because fascism seems to be a better solution to the economic problems of rust-belt Americans than feminism, that's also your problem. I'm not trying to save the entire world. You take responsibility for politics in your own country. If you think everything is going great with America, steer the course − or make America great again. Just know, Europe doesn't want to go where you already are.

 

[webkit]

Sure it is. Notice how you didn't bother to give an actual definition, let alone one based in antitrust law. You just defined something else. And you defined it in an arbitrary manner.

(By your own words, if one company had 1% of the market and another company any 99% of the market, then you would consider the company with 1% share to be dominant because there is a duopoly. That's obviously ridiculous.)

Actual definition:
What is a Duopoly?
A duopoly is a market structure that is dominated by two firms, while a pure duopoly is a market where only two firms exist. Most duopolies, however, are markets where the two largest firms control more than 70% of the market share.

Given that and Apple's approximately 35% share (or more) of mobile OS in Europe, I feel Apple has a dominant position in mobile OS.

 

[Treq]

Dominant doesn't have to mean they control more than all of their competition or that there aren't any competitors. More than one company can have a dominant position in a market, such as two companies which are part of a duopoly.

Apple is being anticompetitive by restricting alternative app stores, alternative browser engines, etc. on iOS.

No, if it's a duopoly, then the one with 65% is the one with the dominant position. Not the one with 33%. The one with 33% can at best be considered secondary to the dominant company in the marketplace.

 

[Treq]

Actual definition:
What is a Duopoly?
A duopoly is a market structure that is dominated by two firms, while a pure duopoly is a market where only two firms exist. Most duopolies, however, are markets where the two largest firms control more than 70% of the market share.

Given that and Apple's 35% share of mobile OS in Europe, I feel Apple has a dominant position in mobile OS.

No the dominant position in the marketplace is Android with 65%, the secondary position is Apple with 33%. That's how words work.

 

[BaldiMac]

Nobody cares about your opinion as a citizen of a third country, which isn't an EU member.

Evidently you care enough to participate in a conversation about it! I appreciate that.

I don't just want something, it's my right, for which my ancestors killed your ancestors. After two world wars your ancestors said: Enough! No more colonialism. From now on every country makes their own rules and international rules only apply to countries who agreed to them.

That's the world we live in. You don't like it, but that's kinda your problem. Me I don't care, what's legal to be sold for consumption on your side of the pond. Let American corporatism enslave you as much as you can possibly want. And if the basket of deplorables votes for Trump instead of Hillary, because fascism seems to be a better solution to the economic problems of rust-belt Americans than feminism, that's also your problem. I'm not trying to save the entire world. You take responsibility for politics in your own country. If you think everything is going great with America, steer the course − or make America great again. Just know, Europe doesn't want to go where you already are.

Not sure what the hostility is about. I think your position is completely reasonable. Why do you feel the need to throw me in with some American stereotype?

 

[NervousFish2]

Apple is not a monopoly

Are you kidding? Look at how many tech companies there used to be, and look at how we all use products from just a handful of mega-large corporations now. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Apple, Google, Facebook. They are monopolies. They are price setters and gatekeepers. They also have a huge amount of political power.

 

[NervousFish2]

And the ancient Athenians invented democracy (literally ‘people power’ - demos + kratos) in the 5th century BCE.

Putting aside that women didn’t have the vote and that they were a slave owning society (many of our societies only solved these issues comparatively recently), their version of democracy was more radical than anything we have now in the western world.

Also : major contributions in philosophy and in science and in inventing the empirical method. Oh and in drama, sculpture and poetry.

It’s no understatement to say that much of western culture sits on the foundation stone of the achievements of the ancient Greeks (I’m not Greek btw).

I can't figure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. But my point is that the idea there's clearly been a lot of new stuff out of Europe over the last couple thousand years.

No, it's not. Apple has a 30% share. They're hardly a monopoly. The threshold is 45 million users. 10% of the EU. Again, not monopoly numbers.

I've said it before.. If the EU was really concerned with increasing competition, they would target Google's anticompetive agreements with their horizontal competitors rather than directly targeting Apple with some of the DMA regulations.

I am not sure what definition of monopoly you are using. But any private actor who has the sole power to set and relegate a whole market is by most measures a monopoly.

 

[Razorpit]

No, Texas is a s***-hole with a fascist governor. Things cost more in California because there are more people there and there are more people that want to live there. Seriously. Who the f*** would move to a fascist state like Texas right now? If I owned Texas and Hell, I would rent out Texas and live in hell. Probably be cheaper on the AC bill. Frankly, I'd be ok with the border wall of they would just go over the top of Texas.

I show facts, you offer opinion. Who would leave California and move to Texas and Florida? By the rates U-Haul charges, many people would.

No matter how many trendy CNN or MSNBC terms you use in your posts, salty language that I would be banned for, no one is being held captive in TX or FL. They're all free to come and go as they please. I go to Austin several times a year for work. Our company is in the process of moving from CA. The number of Californians in Austin has been on a steady increase for years now, and is currently at an accelerated state. For every store that opens in Austin 2-3 close in the war zone now known as LA. Ironically Austin has none of the looting issues LA has. Must be because of that "fascism". 😏

California is a beautiful state. Have been there many times. Has a little bit of everything. Like some women I dated in the past, you are confusing "geographical beauty" with what's on the inside.

Sorry bud, hate to be the one to break it to you, but your state has lost "it".

 

[rhett7660]

Of course there was a political component to it. Did you not read the original post I was replying to? Also, politics are a MAJOR part of what can make a place desirable to live as opposed to a s***-hole. If you part of the LGBTQ+ community or even watched NotJustBike on YouTube, you would know that.

No no... I did... the original comment was not political, but more of an opinion... your comment against that one turned it so. But I digress. You have your opinion and I have mine.

 

[BaldiMac]

Actual definition:
What is a Duopoly?
A duopoly is a market structure that is dominated by two firms, while a pure duopoly is a market where only two firms exist. Most duopolies, however, are markets where the two largest firms control more than 70% of the market share.

Given that and Apple's approximately 35% share (or more) of mobile OS in Europe, I feel Apple has a dominant position in mobile OS.

Your definition doesn't address the issue that I brought up where a company with 1% share would be considered dominant by your logic.

And it would be far more directly addressed by preventing Google from continuing the anticompetitive agreements that it has entered into across 70% of the market. No more duopoly.

And, of course, this isn't even the term that we were talking about.

I am not sure what definition of monopoly you are using. But any private actor who has the sole power to set and relegate a whole market is by most measures a monopoly.

Typos aside, that's a reasonable definition. I can't imagine how you think Apple meets that definition.