EU Chief Calls on Apple CEO Tim Cook to Open Hardware and Software Ecosystem

[webkit]

There is nothing "unnatural" about a closed platform. And, no, antitrust regulation are not meant to address whether platforms are open or closed.

There absolutely can be something "unnatural" when the platform is dominant, part of a duopoly, etc. And, antitrust laws are indeed meant to address dominant companies engaging in anticompetitive behavior just as they have for decades.

 

[webkit]

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.

Apple is engaging in anticompetitive behavior as it relates to its dominance and iOS restrictions (sideloading, alternative app stores, etc.). However, Apple will still be able to decide what apps they allow in their app store, what fees they charge, etc. The difference will be the new/additional app access competition that can come from allowing sideloading, alternative app stores, etc. and how they choose to react to that added competition.

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.

It's not fair business when a company is violating laws. By restricting alternative app stores, sideloading, etc. they are violating antitrust laws in at least some countries/regions.

 

[BaldiMac]

There absolutely can be something "unnatural" when the platform is dominant, part of a duopoly, etc. And, antitrust laws are indeed meant to address dominant companies engaging in anticompetitive behavior just as they have for decades.

Again, I have no interest is re-opening a discussion based on your personal interpretations of dominance.

What "can be" is not the same as what is. And it's certainly not what you said in the post that I replied to.

 

[mrochester]

Apple is engaging in anticompetitive behavior as it relates to its dominance and iOS restrictions (sideloading, alternative app stores, etc.). However, Apple will still be able to decide what apps they allow in their app store, what fees they charge, etc. The difference will be the new/additional app access competition that can come from allowing sideloading, alternative app stores, etc. and how they choose to react to that added competition.





It's not fair business when a company is violating laws. By restricting alternative app stores, sideloading, etc. they are violating antitrust laws in at least some countries/regions.

Don’t forget that we are talking about new laws being created that Apple happens to fall foul of. Without creating the laws to deliberately target Apple’s business, Apple don’t operate in an anticompetitive way.

What many people have issue with is governments deciding what kind of products are available to consumers, a decision that should be with consumers.

 

[I7guy]

Apple is engaging in anticompetitive behavior as it relates to its dominance and iOS restrictions (sideloading, alternative app stores, etc.).

No it isn’t. Apple is not engaging in anticompetitive behavior due its the popularity of the platform. This is one opinion against another.

However, Apple will still be able to decide what apps they allow in their app store, what fees they charge, etc. The difference will be the new/additional app access competition that can come from allowing sideloading, alternative app stores, etc. and how they choose to react to that added competition.

The EU ecosystem is going to go downhill as unintended consequences start to be known.

It's not fair business when a company is violating laws.

It’s fair that apple run its business within the law. And that’s what they have been doing.

By restricting alternative app stores, sideloading, etc. they are violating antitrust laws in at least some countries/regions.

Not really. There has been no official finding. And saying in at least some regions could mean some square mile of an unincorporated town. Not really meaningful.

 

[webkit]

Don’t forget that we are talking about new laws being created that Apple happens to fall foul of. Without creating the laws to deliberately target Apple’s business, Apple don’t operate in an anticompetitive way.

What many people have issue with is governments deciding what kind of products are available to consumers, a decision that should be with consumers.

What we're talking about is the EU finally getting around to clarifying and (eventually) enforcing what are essentially long-standing antitrust laws regarding dominance and anticompetitive behavior. If dominant Apple is operating in an anticompetitive way by its various restrictions on a major (part of a duopoly) mobile OS, it needs to be addressed and the EU is finally doing that.

 

[webkit]

No it isn’t. Apple is not engaging in anticompetitive behavior due its the popularity of the platform. This is one opinion against another.

The so-called "popularity" of a product or service does not rule out the possibility of anticompetitive behavior or make a company immune to antitrust laws.

It’s fair that apple run its business within the law. And that’s what they have been doing.

Not really. There has been no official finding. And saying in at least some regions could mean some square mile of an unincorporated town. Not really meaningful.

They’ve been running a business but that doesn't mean they aren't now or haven't been in the past engaging in anticompetitive behavior. If someone is going 75 mph on a highway with a 55 mph speed limit, that doesn't mean they aren't (or weren't) speeding or violating the law. It may simply mean they haven't been charged with speeding (yet).

 

[BaldiMac]

What we're talking about is the EU finally getting around to clarifying and (eventually) enforcing what are essentially long-standing antitrust laws regarding dominance and anticompetitive behavior.

Again, you are completely making this up. There has been no finding that Apple was violating "long-standing anti-trust laws". These are new laws. Not even addendums to existing laws.

By you're logic, the situation is even worse than reality. The idea the the EU would punish a company for breaking laws without due process is anathema to a free society.

 

[I7guy]

The so-called "popularity" of a product or service does not rule out the possibility of anticompetitive behavior or make a company immune to antitrust laws.

At this point apppmes popularity has not caused them to engage in anticompetitive behavior with respect to the App Store. It may be a wish of certain forum members that that is so, but it’s not.

They’ve been running a business but that doesn't mean they aren't now or haven't been in the past engaging in anticompetitive behavior.

That’s quite the general statement. The discussion is not regarding past transgressions, it’s about the App Store. One would be hard pressed to find any fortune company that didn’t have any investigations into their practices.

If someone is going 75 mph on a highway with a 55 mph speed limit, that doesn't mean they aren't (or weren't) speeding or violating the law. It may simply mean they haven't been charged with speeding (yet).

Innocent until proven guilty. What a concept.

 

[webkit]

At this point apppmes popularity has not caused them to engage in anticompetitive behavior with respect to the App Store. It may be a wish of certain forum members that that is so, but it’s not.

Apppmes? Anyway, the point remains that the so-called "popularity" of a product or service does not rule out the possibility of anticompetitive behavior or make a company immune to antitrust laws.

That’s quite the general statement. The discussion is not regarding past transgressions, it’s about the App Store. One would be hard pressed to find any fortune company that didn’t have any investigations into their practices.

I wasn't necessarily talking about past transgressions, I was more speaking more about potential current transgressions (which may have been going on for a while) which simply have not been litigated yet.

 

[I7guy]

Apppmes? Anyway, the point remains that the so-called "popularity" of a product or service does not rule out the possibility of anticompetitive behavior or make a company immune to antitrust laws.

Nor does it make the company automatically guilty. As said before there has been no finding with respect to this discussion.

I wasn't necessarily talking about past transgressions, I was more speaking more about potential current transgressions (which may have been going on for a while) which simply have not been litigated yet.

And of course how anything turns out is anybody's guess.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Fabulous piece by our old chum Daniel Ek about Apples ghastly behaviour.

DANIEL EK: I couldn't launch Spotify today because of Apple

DANIEL EK: I distinctly remember sitting in our makeshift London office when we first launched and the early data coming in showed that listeners couldn't get enough of the UK artist Coldplay.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[BaldiMac]

Fabulous piece by our old chum Daniel Ek about Apples ghastly behaviour.

DANIEL EK: I couldn't launch Spotify today because of Apple

DANIEL EK: I distinctly remember sitting in our makeshift London office when we first launched and the early data coming in showed that listeners couldn't get enough of the UK artist Coldplay.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I have no idea how anyone can take this article seriously. It's nothing but empty platitudes.

And that's ignoring the fact that a tabloid is passing off a press release from Spotify as a columnist.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

I have no idea how anyone can take this article seriously. It's nothing but empty platitudes.

And that's ignoring the fact that a tabloid is passing off a press release from Spotify as a columnist.

Glad you enjoyed it

 

[1129846]

What we're talking about is the EU finally getting around to clarifying and (eventually) enforcing what are essentially long-standing antitrust laws regarding dominance and anticompetitive behavior. If dominant Apple is operating in an anticompetitive way by its various restrictions on a major (part of a duopoly) mobile OS, it needs to be addressed and the EU is finally doing that.

What I am finding funny with people complaining about this law going in place here are blinding defending Apple yet it is anti trust laws is a huge reason why Apple as a company is not just some footnote in the history books. With out the anti trust laws Apple would of been wiped out long before they could of ever even launch the iPhone much law anything else.
They dont even know about 1/2 the anti trust laws that Microsoft got busted on and same things that allowed Apple to live also forced Microsoft to shape out.

The saying for heros. "Either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain" Apple is long over due to be beat back a little in its anti competitive behavior.

 

[BaldiMac]

What I am finding funny with people complaining about this law going in place here are blinding defending Apple

Do you find it to be a rational argument to simply accuse people you disagree with of being irrational?

yet it is anti trust laws is a huge reason why Apple as a company is not just some footnote in the history books. With out the anti trust laws Apple would of been wiped out long before they could of ever even launch the iPhone much law anything else.
They dont even know about 1/2 the anti trust laws that Microsoft got busted on and same things that allowed Apple to live also forced Microsoft to shape out.

The saying for heros. "Either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain" Apple is long over due to be beat back a little in its anti competitive behavior.

Except Apple isn't being charged under those antitrust laws. If they were, I'd be extremely interested in the outcome, because courts rely on due process and specific remedies to specific problems identified by the court. I'm a big antitrust supporter. I wish antitrust laws were enforced far more often.

I'm against the awful, ham-handed regulations in the DMA.

 

[mcnallym]

It doesn't matter what Apple and/or Android were doing in the early years as they didn't have dominant or duopoly positions in mobile OS. The situation changed over time as iOS and Android became the only two major players in that space. That is why both are potential targets for antitrust laws.

The BIG Problem you have here is that arguing that Apple engaging in what you say Anti Competitive practices by preventing Side Loading and Multiple App Stores but this was 2007 and 2008 when they weren't dominant so by that statement it was perfectly acceptable for Apple to do this and engage in these practices. but not in 2023 whereas would argue that not engaging those practices as they engaged them in 2007/8 and apparently you have no problem with them doing that in 2007/8 by that statement.

Apple is engaging in anticompetitive behavior as it relates to its dominance and iOS restrictions (sideloading, alternative app stores, etc.). However, Apple will still be able to decide what apps they allow in their app store, what fees they charge, etc. The difference will be the new/additional app access competition that can come from allowing sideloading, alternative app stores, etc. and how they choose to react to that added competition.

Well they engaged in this back in the days when they were small and your argument in response is doesn't matter what they did when not a dominant player.

Browser Engine restriction was 2007 on day one of launch of iPhone. So 0% market share growing to 5% by the end of 2007. And number 5 by market share. Symbian, RIM, Windows Mobile, Others, iOS.

App Stores/Side Loading was 2008 with the launch of the Apple App Store. By then iOS had overtaken Others to become Number 4. and market share 11% by end of the year.

Percentages are Global Market Share as behaviour is Global in those decisions with iOS.

Hard to argue that iOS was a dominant mobile os when had 0% market share in 2007 and was 4th place in 2008.

Certainly not a Duopoly with Android when did these actions.

How have these actions lead to iOS become dominant?

Could argue that whilst small then doesn't matter that anti-competitive however at that point you are arguing that new entries to a market can be anti-competitive until they become a dominant market player.

ie launch a new product and enact anti-competitive behaviour to remove your competition and promote your own product until it becomes a dominant product.

To which your response was that it didn't matter as they were not dominant. So it has been "Acceptable" for 15-16 years?

So basically arguing for a non-level market.

Big Players in the Market have to be regulated
Small Players can do things that the Big Players cannot.

Apple back in 2007 and 2008 restricting web engine and apple app store only - not a problem according your response as not dominant in market
Apple in 2023 restricting web engine and apple app store only - anti-competitive and restrictive despite doing so since 2007/2008

So doing EXACTLY the same thing in 2023 as was in 2007 and 2008

For which your answer was this.

It doesn't matter what Apple and/or Android were doing in the early years as they didn't have dominant or duopoly positions in mobile OS. The situation changed over time as iOS and Android became the only two major players in that space. That is why both are potential targets for antitrust laws.

So on that basis then if Apple was a small player then there would be nothing in terms of these for Apple to answer too yet they would be doing exactly the SAME things and the EU wouldn't be looking at Apple yet Apple would be doing nothing differently.

So if Apples Market share shrinks then they can go back and get rid of side loading and competing app stores. Where is the barrier level after which they can do this and they no longer considered dominant.
EU didn't raise this in 2007/8 when had crept upto 11% so is 11% the barrier?

You are basically saying that companies can engage in what you say are restrictive and anti-competitive practices to establish themselves in the market and then enjoy the fruits of that restrictive and anti-competitive practices afterwards but have to stop doing them once become dominant, sitting back and enjoying the rewards of your business practices and putting the competition out of the market.

This fallacy is precisely why many people so upset with the penalty that RedBull got when found guilty of breaching the budget cap and overtaking Mercedes in F1 in 2021
By breaching the budget cap then put there car ahead of the competition which is then retained in the following years and the penalty isn't exactly holding RedBull back when two years later even more dominant in 2023 then before.

So by your statement then would be OK for Alpha Tauri (currently bottom of table) to breach the budget cap as they are not a dominant player in the market but that would allow them to outspend there rivals and overtake them and become dominant and then sit back in the agreed budget cap for everyone, whilst gaining all the benefits of having broken the rules initially.

Regulation needs to be applied equally to all people in a market.

 

[webkit]

The BIG Problem you have here is that arguing that Apple engaging in what you say Anti Competitive practices by preventing Side Loading and Multiple App Stores but this was 2007 and 2008 when they weren't dominant so by that statement it was perfectly acceptable for Apple to do this and engage in these practices. but not in 2023 whereas would argue that not engaging those practices as they engaged them in 2007/8 and apparently you have no problem with them doing that in 2007/8 by that statement.

Well they engaged in this back in the days when they were small and your argument in response is doesn't matter what they did when not a dominant player.

To which your response was that it didn't matter as they were not dominant. So it has been "Acceptable" for 15-16 years?

So basically arguing for a non-level market.

Big Players in the Market have to be regulated
Small Players can do things that the Big Players cannot.

Apple back in 2007 and 2008 restricting web engine and apple app store only - not a problem according your response as not dominant in market
Apple in 2023 restricting web engine and apple app store only - anti-competitive and restrictive despite doing so since 2007/2008

So doing EXACTLY the same thing in 2023 as was in 2007 and 2008

For which your answer was this.

So on that basis then if Apple was a small player then there would be nothing in terms of these for Apple to answer too yet they would be doing exactly the SAME things and the EU wouldn't be looking at Apple yet Apple would be doing nothing differently.

So if Apples Market share shrinks then they can go back and get rid of side loading and competing app stores. Where is the barrier level after which they can do this and they no longer considered dominant.
EU didn't raise this in 2007/8 when had crept upto 11% so is 11% the barrier?

You are basically saying that companies can engage in what you say are restrictive and anti-competitive practices to establish themselves in the market and then enjoy the fruits of that restrictive and anti-competitive practices afterwards but have to stop doing them once become dominant, sitting back and enjoying the rewards of your business practices and putting the competition out of the market.

This fallacy is precisely why many people so upset with the penalty that RedBull got when found guilty of breaching the budget cap and overtaking Mercedes in F1 in 2021
By breaching the budget cap then put there car ahead of the competition which is then retained in the following years and the penalty isn't exactly holding RedBull back when two years later even more dominant in 2023 then before.

So by your statement then would be OK for Alpha Tauri (currently bottom of table) to breach the budget cap as they are not a dominant player in the market but that would allow them to outspend there rivals and overtake them and become dominant and then sit back in the agreed budget cap for everyone, whilst gaining all the benefits of having broken the rules initially.

It's not a matter of what I have a problem with or how I feel about all of this, it's about how antitrust laws are meant to work and have so for ages. They are largely designed to address potential "anticompetitive behavior" from "dominant" companies because those companies have the greatest market control, power, influence, impact, etc. and therefore present the greatest risk or ability to unfairly disrupt or stifle competition, innovation, etc. The laws are not about addressing actions of small companies/products that have little market control, power, influence, impact, etc.

Regulation needs to be applied equally to all people in a market.

You may feel that way but that's not how antitrust laws work for reasons I mentioned above.

 

[I7guy]

It's not a matter of what I have a problem with or how I feel about all of this, it's about how antitrust laws are meant to work and have so for ages. They are largely designed to address potential "anticompetitive behavior" from "dominant" companies because those companies have the greatest market control, power, influence, impact, etc. and therefore present the greatest risk or ability to unfairly disrupt or stifle competition, innovation, etc. The laws are not about addressing actions of small companies/products that have little market control, power, influence, impact, etc.

It’s a good thing that as popular as apple is they haven’t been found to be anticompetitive with App Store policies. So these laws thread the needle to ensnare apple in a web of regulation.

You may feel that way but that's not how antitrust laws work for reasons I mentioned above.

Because the laws exist does t mean every company engages in anticompetitive practice. It’s not guilty until proven innocent.

 

[mcnallym]

It's not a matter of what I have a problem with or how I feel about all of this, it's about how antitrust laws are meant to work and have so for ages. They are largely designed to address potential "anticompetitive behavior" from "dominant" companies because those companies have the greatest market control, power, influence, impact, etc. and therefore present the greatest risk or ability to unfairly disrupt or stifle competition, innovation, etc. The laws are not about addressing actions of small companies/products that have little market control, power, influence, impact, etc.

Then we have the perfect solution

a new company named, I cannot believe you didn't buy an Android is formed

They launch a new Handset range called I cannot believe you didn't buy an Android Phone

iOS rebranded as I cannot believe you didn't buy an Android OS and I cannot believe you didn't buy an Android OS is pushed out to all EU iOS devices as the next update.

Apple now has 0% market share and I cannot believe you didn't buy an Android OS has 35% in the EU.

iPhone 16 / NGiOS 18 then launches with NGiOS as is for people that want the EU to keeps its oar out.

I cannot believe you didn't buy an Android takes NGiOS18 and makes it compliant with the DMA in the EU as with 35% market share they are a dominant player.

At that point then Apple and NGiOS with 0% and these laws only apply to dominant companies and 0% share cannot be a dominant company/platform in the market so Apple can show the EU that is a small minority player, and the EU might want to pay attention to the dominant players please as these only apply to "dominant companies" and how is 0% dominant.

Time to slap Hot Chocolate on the Playlist and as bonus then will get some snazzy samsung adverts taking the piss.

At that point if Apple and iOS somehow become a dominant platform then in the face of I cannot believe you didn't buy an Android with everything that people apparently clamouring for then the only conclusion is that the End Users who the EU supposedly acting for have flat out chosen iOS over Android and I cannot believe you didn't buy an Android. Of course that would be a tad embarrassing for the EU if that happened.

It's not as if Apple hasn't got cash in Ireland that can spend to do so quite easily as opposed to paying the tax sending the money back home to USA. If the Chinese Market can sustain a separate handset version then I suspect the EU market is large enough to do this as well.