General antitrust have existed for ages. What they did was more specifically define or clarify things like dominance and antcompetitive behavior so there would be less ambiguity.
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.
EU Chief Calls on Apple CEO Tim Cook to Open Hardware and Software Ecosystem
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
General antitrust have existed for ages. What they did was more specifically define or clarify things like dominance and antcompetitive behavior so there would be less ambiguity.
So? Again, not what I said. I already addressed this argument directly.
We were talking about innovations in app delivery and security. Not "the issue" that you want to switch to as a deflection.
Again, you're claiming that competition will lead to innovation in the security of how apps are delivered. I'm claiming that the App Store model is one such innovation. And it has led to more competition in the app market, not less.
Or... despite your repeated claims to the contrary, Apple wasn't violating existing antitrust law in the areas that the EU wanted to force change, so they passed new laws.
But that doesn’t take away from the EU has threaded a needle to ensure apple in regulating a business model, which imo is bad. And again there is no antitrust finding.
It's not a deflection. We're talking here about the EU trying to stop anticompetitive behavior which in this situation means trying to get companies with "dominant" (gatekeeper) platforms to lift restrictions on things like sideloading, alternative app stores, etc. Doing so can help create the push and need to innovate in the area of security.
The increasing popularity of smartphones is what led to the increasing demand and competition in the app market but that doesn't mean there still aren’t potentially unreasonable restrictions or that more competition wouldn't be beneficial. What Apple is doing is stifling competition by its app and app store restrictions on a major mobile OS.
It's not about passing new laws, it's about better defining and clarifying long-standing antitrust law criteria in order to try to eliminate some ambiguities. In the 1990s, Microsoft was dominant in desktop OS and engaged in anticompetitive behavior by restricting competition. Today, Apple is dominant in mobile OS and is engaging in anticompetitive behavior by restrict competitions. Both were or are being investigated and/or charged with similar types of antitrust violations decades apart.
They’re not threading a needle. They're trying to lessen some potential ambiguities in long-standing antitrust laws. Again, the findings are "dominance" combined with "anticompetitive behavior" which are classic antitrust violations.
No, that's what you want to change the topic to. I've been very clear about what I was responding to and discussing.
I have no interest in resuming discussion of your word games around market dominance.
You certainly are making that same claim over and over and over without evidence. Competition is far from stifled in the app market. That's just a ridiculous claim that ignores reality.
It's quite literally about new laws that were passed. No matter how much that disagrees with your whole shtick.
That’s exactly what they are doing, threading the needle is just an expression but it describes the intended outcome. Since they couldnt prove apple is monopolistic. One can hope this type of selective regulation will never get traction in the USA.
Again, not a deflection or desire to change the topic but if you are unwilling to accept that then there is no point in continuing this back and forth discussion.
I think it is you who doesn’t have a grasp on "reality" here and so there is no point in continuing this back and forth discussion.
It’s quite literally about classic antitrust laws and how the EU is attempting to better define and clarify those laws in order to try to eliminate at least some ambiguities that often come during litigation, trials, etc. If you can't recognize that or don't want to view it that way, there is no point in continuing this back and forth discussion.
Apple's dominance combined with restrictions on iOS as defined by EU. If you can't or don't want to view it that way, there is no point in continuing this back and forth discussion.
Again, they are not threading the needle. They are clarifying how they define dominance and anticompetitive behavior in order to try to make it easier to understand, follow, etc. and potentially cut down on some of the interpretation arguments/issues that can come up during a litigation process.
That's certainly the way that you want to frame it, because otherwise you have no leg to stand on. Again, the EU has not released an official statement about the DMA being an attempt to "better define and clarify" old laws. That's just something you are making up to justify your conclusion.
Ahh. So you are "quoting" made up findings.
Again, they are threading the needle as they are changing apples legal business model by bad regulations instead of traditional consumer demand.
They're not changing Apple's legal business model, they are finally getting around to clarifying and (eventually) enforcing existing laws. Fortunately or unfortunately, this can sometimes take years to accomplish.
They are changing apples business model by bad regulations that will devalue imo, the entire apple ecosystem and the EU will get what it wanted: crapware, spam, other illegal activities that can't be controlled by Apple. They threaded the needle for regulations that trap Apple.
They EU, and potentially other countries/regions in the future, will see more app access competition on a dominant OS which can also push Apple to make iOS stronger, more secure, etc. and lead to a better experience for users regardless of how/where they choose to get their apps.
So, if they make it less secure, they'll have to make it more secure, which isn't a secure as when it was more secure and that will be better because underpants? Makes perfect sense.
I don't believe that is how the scenario will play out. Bad actors will have uncontrolled access to IOS will Apple being powerless to stop them. It will be a worse experience for users with some users being in the headlines as to what the poster child of what bad government regulations brings to the table.
It will be a better experience because it will lead Apple to create a stronger, more secure iOS overall as well as a better App Store experience (thanks to new competition from alternative app stores on iOS) for all types of users from those who want to mostly or strictly get their apps from the App Store to those who mostly or strictly want to get their apps by sideloading or alternative app stores.
O it will be a worse experience because the competition isn’t natural. It’s government created. Breaking apart apple with regulation has been tried in US with AT&T and what we have today is a shell of the former company with mediocre offerings. The same will happen in the EU with apple except worse as people will fall victim to all sorts of bad things.
I think you are living in a rather naive tech utopian bubble there.
But once the genie is out of the bottle there’ll be no going back. It’ll be ruined at that point.
The problem is that the competition isn’t "natural" now with restrictions on sideloading, alternative app stores, etc. on a major OS. A notable portion of the mobile OS market, varies by country, is being artificially closed off by Apple's restrictions.
Antitrust laws are nothing new. The reality is that a lot of competition over time has been "government created" (as you put it) by companies having to follow antitrust laws or potentially having to deal with the consequences if they don't. That's a good thing. If not for antitrust regulations, markets would be much worse for consumers and most businesses.
No one is requiring/ruling that Apple be broken up at this point. The results of antitrust cases don't necessarily lead to the breakup of companies and can instead be about addressing the "anticompetitive behavior" through negotiations, court rulings, etc. For example, Coca-Cola and Pepsi have been charged with various antitrust violations over the years but neither has been broken up.
It's Apple's core business not a "problem". And this is Apple's proprietary intellectual property that is being made into a public utility and on the back of Apples work unnatural competition is being allowed. This will not end well as evidenced by other types of actions within the US.
The reality is that regulations come and go and government and the courts are not perfect. Proper application of antitrust to protect our livelihood, air, water, food and energy. Improper application such as this is going to cause harm to consumers.
The app store is being made into a regulated public utility with unnatural competition. This is bad for all concerned, especially iphone users.
Sure I agree in a general sense, but these regulations are just bad.
Whether something is a "core" business isn’t necessarily relevant. Windows was a "core" business for Microsoft but that didn't mean they should've been allowed to engage in anticompetitive behavior.
What’s unnatural is the restricted app access (sideloading and alternative app stores) on a major mobile OS and that is the sort of thing antitrust regulations are meant to address.
There is nothing "unnatural" about a closed platform. And, no, antitrust regulation are not meant to address whether platforms are open or closed.
Apple is not engaging in anticompetitive behavior with the app store. EU sidestepped the court process and decided to regulate the app store with some anti-tech regulations.
No, that's business. The app store is apples proprietary software, which is an opt-in process, lest we need reminding. Calling it unnatural is far from the truce. The antitrust regulations are address popular american tech in the EU. There is no barrier for entry other than time, brains and money. The same three variables that are needed in every business startup.