They literally run a market. (And apologies for the typo)
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
They run a store, not a market. And, per your definition, they don't set pricing in the app market (assuming that is what you are referring to.)
Well, I care enough to tell you that I don't care what non-EU citizens think about EU regulations, which only apply within the EU market. But I don't care enough to convince you, that our way is the right way and everybody must follow our path to a land of bliss.
Unfortunately the English language doesn't offer a proper distinction between the individual and collective 'you'. You're probably a nice guy and I don't want to offend you in any way or form. The so-called hostility is to illustrate a fundamental difference in the understanding of the role of government and corporations in society. The German constitution for example states that: "Property obliges. Its use shall at the same time serve the collective good." So you're free to do what you want with your private property as long as you don't harm the public interest. The public benefits from an open app market, not one that serves Apple's interests only. It was always illegal to use the AppStore as a golden cage. Now we're adding specific laws and regulations to spell out in detail how Apple violates our rights as EU citizens. They should've never even tried to become a gatekeeper in the first place. I don't want to take anything away from Apple that is rightfully theirs. They've infringed on my freedom and I'm taking it back. This must seem hostile when you come from a society where private ownership is king and you are allowed to shoot people, who stepped on your land. I'm not afraid to be hostile to this notion. Your idea of ownership means nothing to me. And again, I don't mean you personally. You = Americans.
Well he was, but you're not. It could be read also "return it to me". Because no one really reads fleeting user agreements that change in every OS update as other self serving policies attached as they are mostly incomprehensible to the common man. By the way, this does not affect just Apple, so is not that its creating disadvantages to the company when facing its competition.
Last edited:
Funny how you limit your view and place all your bet on a few tech companies, and completely ignore smaller healthy companies and all other business sectors. As if smaller companies and other business sectors does not worth to mention, but yeah that’s exactly why DMA exist.
The EU simply prefer multiple healthy companies and competition, instead of a few bigger dominating ones who doesn’t even contribute to the economy as they should, yeah the term is tax avoidance.
That’s why we have a topnotch healthcare system, regardless if you are rich or poor, you get your full cancer treatment here at no costs.
Last edited:
I don't need to be convinced. Just having a conversation. But let's not pretend that the DMA won't have a global impact.
I'm not a fan of stereotypes at all. Some Americans have those ideas. Some Americans don't. Instead of accusing a stereotype of having ideas, why not just argue against the ideas themselves, as well as the individuals and groups of individuals who agree with them. I certainly don't rant against Europeans because Russians believe something.
Last edited:
You mention the one city worth a damn in Texas as an example for the rest. Sorry but Texas is a fascist state. The cruelty and human trafficking committed by its governor is just an example of that. The stripping of human rights is another. Sure Austin is the most liberal and therefore the nicest part of Texas, but over all, it sucks. Do not approve. California is still growing its population because it is a desirable place to live. That's why it costs so much to live there. If people were leaving in such droves home prices would be going down. They aren't. Frankly, I wish people would leave, it would make the traffic a little easier, but more would just replace them because, you know, beaches, redwoods, properly run non-fascist government... the basics.
So, because you could interpret it differently than I do, you accuse me of being dishonest? That's offensive. And I have no idea what reading the SLA has to do with the DMA.
I don't think that's right. The App Store is indeed a marketplace. It would be a "store" if Apple was selling its own commodities there (like the bricks and mortar Apple Store, or on the web, for example). But the App Store is a place where other companies sell THEIR commodities, and Apple takes a service fee "cut" for each sale. Apple does influence the price of these apps and their ability to sell, in numerous ways. It influences with variable percentage it takes as a cut, and also strictly prevents those companies sell their commodities via channels outside of Apple from within those apps. It also disallows other app stores from operating on the iOS platform. That is quite a lot of interference. It is classic monopolist behavior.
So you provided the definition, and you are going to completely ignore it? We both agree that they certainly don't have the "sole power to set pricing" for apps. They don't even take a cut from more than 85% of apps on the platform. And that doesn't even include apps available through other platforms.
You're being pedantic and thus intentionally missing the point ("power to"). The 85% they don't take a cut from are either not major players or are available for free. By any definition, under current legislation, they have monopoly power over the marketplace they run. They do indeed have the "sole power" as the sovereign rule maker of how that marketplace works. Quibble away, but on that fundamental point I am correct. These regulations will (rightly, IMO) take that sovereignty away from a private monopoly and make it function instead for the public good. To be clear, there are many problems with the EU politically and economically, but this is a big step in the right direction.
Last edited:
Nope. Netflix and Spotify are both major players and are not free. Again, Apple doesn't set their pricing or even take a cut.
That could literally be said about any marketplace. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
You are trying to limit a market as an individual marketplace. When talking about monopolies and antitrust, a market is defined by goods and services that can be reasonably substituted for one another. I can get Netflix through the web or Apple or Google or Amazon or Vizio or Samsung or... they are all interchangeable.
You are incorrect per the definition that you provided. They obviously don't have sole power, because you already acknowledged that pricing power rests with the developer.
Here's how it is defined in the US.
Monopolization Defined
The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.
EU rules have a global impact only as far as the EU itself is a significant part of the world economy and its policies are inspirational to other countries as they develop their own ideas of market regulation. It's not our fault, when European soft power is stronger than American or Chinese soft power. The world is an open market of ideas and countries take inspiration from the places they view as best-regulated. Till this day Chinese mothers prefer imported German baby formula over domestic brands, because they trust in our food safety regulation after a 2008 milk scandal killed six babies in China. Don't kill babies and maybe countries all over the world will follow your regulations.
But those Americans who have those ideas make the laws and so America became a country in which corporatism rules above all else. Likewise some Europeans might not like all the regulations which get passed by a majority. The Brexit referendum ended 51.9% to 48.1% and yet the whole country left the EU and untreated sewage water gets pumped into all rivers. So collectively all Brits are responsible for stinking rivers. Why focus the attention on the people who failed to make their concerns heard in the political arena? Nobody cared about my 2008 objections to the AppStore rules, until they became an issue for the EU parliament. I never wanted to jailbreak my iPhone, I want the right to load apps from the web. Just like on macOS.
Because I don't need to argue pro or contra any ideas anymore. The EU bureaucrats are (finally) implementing our European ideas of digital market regulation. All the people who needed to be convinced are already convinced. And I don't need Americans to support or understand EU rules. It would only give them headaches and make them question their own laws. All I need from Apple is to follow the rules of the respective markets they operate in. And the regulations already come with a set of penalties to make sure of that.
And if you're not such a major player, but a small startup that tries to sell music and movies, Apple will take a cut from your income. The mere fact that I need Apple's approval to get my app listed on the AppStore is problematic. The user must be free to install apps from anywhere on the web.
I don't care about the rates, so none please
It's irrelevant to this conversation. Apple/Google/Amazon have a market cap far in excess of Spotify they don't deserve a pat on the back for paying a few extra pennies to musicians. Only the terminally gullible would believe they do.
Last edited:
Dominance can refer to a company’s power to control and influence a market. There can be two dominant companies in a particular market.
It's not "my definition", it's a definition I pulled from the "Economics Online" website.
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. The Characteristics of a Duopoly * Strong barriers to
www.economicsonline.co.uk
In the case of a company having 99% share of a market, that company would presumably be labeled a monopoly.
You mean if Spotify is a gatekeeper with the potential to harm the music market? Of course they are! Streaming services have severely damaged the music industry. But there's also no way back to selling individual singles and albums. It was never easy for an indie label to compete with the three major labels, who control 75-80% of the market. If you have an idea how to better regulate this market, I'm all ears?
Except that I don't have a vote on the parties who select the next Tim Apple. And there's also no court on which I can sue Tim, if he fails to follow his own Tim rules. Corporate self-regulation is full-on despotism.
Oh, don't worry about me. The EU is far stronger than little bitten Apple Inc. They will bend to our rules and make products that fit our market. You'll also benefit from USB-C iPhones released in four days; (not that anything is fundamentally wrong with Lightning, both ports are great innovations pioneered by Apple.)Just don't buy Apple products
As a citizen and customer I pick the governments and products that fit my needs. They'll both work for me! One I pay in taxes and the other with euros. I'm sorry that your taxes don't work for you and that your only choice is to avoid buying corporate products altogether. But I don't want to live on a farm and grow my own food, just to eat healthy. Bring in all the necessary regulations and make supermarket food edible again! I'm all in favor of communism, if that's what you want to call it. And I'm more than willing to risk Brexit, global trade war and nuclear armageddon in defence of our right to regulate our market, if necessary.
I know, I'm being overly hostile again. See, I don't want a mushroom war. It will just become inevitable, if you keep telling me what to do. All I need to do is to develop a world view that is consistent with the invariable laws of physics and nature. Your idea of how a free (of rules) market economy is supposed to work, doesn't matter to me. I won't allow you to limit my field of possibilities in any way. I'm not an atheist only to accept the almighty dollar as my god. You might be a slave to the wishes of your corporations, I'm not.
I don't care about the rates, so none please
It's irrelevant to this conversation. Apple/Google/Amazon have a market cap far in excess of Spotify they don't deserve a pat on the back for paying a few extra pennies to musicians. Only the terminally gullible would believe they do.
Market Cap... a useless number unless you're trying to buy out all publicly traded stocks of a company. That's what a Market Cap is - the value of all outstanding public stocks, nothing more, nothing else. It delivers no useful or actionable insight.
Also, those companies are in more lines of business than just music streaming, so of course they'd trade higher. What does TikTok have as its business line? 1 thing. Spotify not being on here comes down to 1 reason, and 1 reason only - they're a European company. It's a bad law.
You claimed that Spotify paying less than their competition was "not true", so the actual rates payed out are very relevant here. You can choose to not care and ignore facts, but what does that tell us about your statement?I don't care about the rates, so none please
It's irrelevant to this conversation.
I didn't I said it wasn't true that the rate were not causing people to leave, several musicians have pulled their catalogue from Spotify over artist remuneration.
Agree, if Apple don't like the EUs rules they can leave. Isn't that what the usual suspects say people should do if they dont like the app store?
Ok. A company that has 55 billion in free cash and profits of 98 billion being proud of giving musicians a marginally higher rate, either way nothing to shout about and completely irrelevant to a discussion about Apples anticompetitive app store practices.
There is a small nice docu about this: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt21882380/
With Napster the music industry profit went down from 25.2 Billion (in 1999) to 14.8 Billion (in 2011), thanks to Spotify and other Streaming services the profit went back up to a healthy 23.1 Billion (in 2020).
I would not start finger pointing at Spotify or any other music streaming services.
Streaming comfort won over piracy mp3 download/tagging.
Also some kind of competition
Anyway, there is more than enough competition in this area, and CD's can also still be bought.
+1 for EU!
Last edited: