Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sorry, but it doesn't. Real choice for consumers is paying and downloading a third party app from the developer's website. Real choice is third parties developing and distributing their own apps on their platform of choice while paying the corresponding IP to the owner of the development kit, hardware and OS and not be obliged to host on ANY app store their work. Many here say, I don't wanna be binded to Apple's payment system. That's good, but don't fall in the trap that chains yourself to another gatekeeper. Legislate to leave the gate open and let the developers pay their dues, and the IP owners receive their revenue and pay their taxes. What's so complex about that? Why over-legislate?

Not sure why you lead with disagreeing - to me it sounds like we're in agreement.

The DMA doesn't require apps be distributed through a marketplace. They can be made available through their own website. It's Apple that did not want to give that option.
 
Why? You're an Apple fan, like the rest of us, aren't you? That'd be a terrible business decision.

Much cheaper to, you know. Obey the law.
If the EU wanted Apple to do this a certain way, they should just released a document requiring Apple to do it that way. The EU is acting like the "surprised Pikachu" meme over Apple's interpretation of the EU's own rules. The thing about malicious compliance is it is still compliance.

If the EU wants to mandate full zero-strings-attached side-loading they, then should just say it. Rather than make everything so vague. Perhaps they were hoping that these tech companies would end up compromising more than what they absolutely needed to, which is why personally, I don't think it's wrong of Apple to go the other direction.

Be as restrictive and defensible as possible, make only very minor concessions each time until the EU finally caves so as to avoid giving up more than what is absolutely necessary. Maybe this speaks more about the DMA not being all that well-crafted, than it does about Apple wilfully violating it.
 
So why would revenue outside of the EU jurisdiction be subject? Shouldn’t it just be the revenue in the EU where this law applies that they should be fined?
The intent of the legislation is to ensure that the penalties act as a deterrent. That is why the fines are based on global revenue.

" The Commission will pay particular attention to the need to ensure that fines have a sufficiently deterrent effect; to that end, it may increase the fine to be imposed on undertakings which have a particularly large turnover beyond the sales of goods or services to which the infringement relates.

The Commission will also take into account the need to increase the fine in order to exceed the amount of gains improperly made as a result of the infringement where it is possible to estimate that amount."

 
It sounds terrible, but what would happen if Apple left the EU market? A solid billion is a lot to be fined for non-compliance. I respect the spirit of EU regulations to open up closed systems, to promote standards, and to protect user privacy. I wonder if the EU is too ambitious; their regulations are sometimes challenging to comply with. I’m referring to GDPR… this I’m unsure of. I hear many battles with the EU and anti-competitive practices, but at some point, switching to leave a market will become a viable option.
I think Apple has seen the writing on the wall and is just employing delaying tactics. It is also looking at this as setting a precedence. Similar laws are coming in the UK, Japan, Brazil, Australia, India, and probably several other countries. It cannot pull out of all those countries. If Apple pulls out of the EU to safeguard its services revenue, it will lose hardware sales, which is the major part of its revenue from the EU.
 
I think Apple has seen the writing on the wall and is just employing delaying tactics. It is also looking at this as setting a precedence. Similar laws are coming in the UK, Japan, Brazil, Australia, India, and probably several other countries. It cannot pull out of all those countries. If Apple pulls out of the EU to safeguard its services revenue, it will lose hardware sales, which is the major part of its revenue from the EU.
They don’t need to be in the eu to sell hardware people will gladly buy it from elsewhere in Europe
 
  • Like
Reactions: wbeasley and DaPhox
They might if it becomes fiscally irresponsible to stay in that market - they have an obligation to the shareholders and the corporation’s success.
If they quit the EU market, then they will be morally bound to quit the UK, Australia, Japan, India, and several other markets as these countries have already brought similar laws or going to bring such laws. Don't forget the US where Apple has been sued by 19 states. Apple will have no markets left.
 
They don’t need to be in the eu to sell hardware people will gladly buy it from elsewhere in Europe
When they get out of both the EU and the UK (the UK has a similar law tabled), how will they buy? In any case, these sales will be a trickle compared to the current sales. And why would people buy when there is no after sales service in the country? It's bye bye for the hardware sales for Apple in those countries. Difficult to digest, but it is a sad reality.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: strongy
The EU is just a legal mafia shaking down innocent American companies. They are specifically targeting American companies and leaving out their own super monopolistic company Spotify.
What about Brazil, India, the UK, Australia, and other countries where similar laws are coming? Do they hate American companies too?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: strongy
Another Reddit type of story on this site. :rolleyes: Let us create Hate and dislike. Just what the world needs these days🙁
 
This will probably be litigated for years and Apple will just find other ways to preserve App Store revenue; they aren't gong to let large companies free load off of their store or services.
DMA works differently. The company (Apple) has a compliance department that certifies that it is complying with the rules. If the EU does not deem it so, it will open an inquiry. If, during the course of the inquiry it is found to be non-complaint, they will give a notice so that Apple can correct it. If Apple does not take corrective action, then it will be fined. They will keep fining the company until it is compliant. If they litigate, they will keep accruing fines. Repeat offences can result in fines getting doubled. If the company still does not comply, the company can be broken up.
 
One billion is not enough. It must really hurt Apple financially. Imagine you ride a train without a ticket and if you get caught, you have to pay the ticket price. That will not stop you from riding the train without a ticket the next time. To make people buy a ticket, the fine for not doing that has to be so substantial that it is not worth the risk.
Yes. The costumers must REALLY pay HIGHER prices! Now!
 
What about Brazil, India, the UK, Australia, and other countries where similar laws are coming? Do they hate American companies too?
Yes & No. The governments have now figured out ways to deplete companies of their earnings.
 
No matter what anyone says about competition and whatnot, the core issue hasn’t changed: why can’t Apple charge developers for using their APIs that they spend a fortune developing?

However, Apple has another method to avoid this mess. Clearly apps are on their way out anyway, and soon AI will replace everything. It’ll be AI applets that connect to core AI services. Order an Uber? Sure, through AI, not an Uber app. The AI could display an Uber UI. Apple can wash their hands entirely of the app business, and the EU can’t say crap about that. It’s coming soon. Heck, the entire OS will just be a front end for Apple’s AI private compute clouds and on-device processing. I’m betting 3-5 years. Apple will just charge for using AI compute power, which there’s no way anyone could rationally argue they can’t charge for.
 
The funniest thing? If there were actually millions of consumers clamoring for a 3rd party App Stores, we’d see way more signups for them than we currently do. They are ghost towns, with very little user engagement. So much for all the oppressed folks in the EU, clamoring for “free choice” (evidence it’s just devs trying to maximize profits and using government muscle to do so).

But hey, mommy and daddy government doesn’t trust you to pick the smartphone OS that works best for you. They don’t think users who want the freedom to sideload apps or modify the OS will buy an Android phone. They think you’ll pick an iPhone and get “trapped” lol.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
Where did he say that? Or do you make up whole sentences?
I say that because quitting EU market will cause huge loss of Apple‘s revenue, and that loss would need to be found somewhere else or Apple would likely raise Product prices across the board to maintain their high profit margin, just like you said below.
Yes. The costumers must REALLY pay HIGHER prices! Now!
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: JapanApple
Apple could face non-compliance fines of up to 5% of its average daily worldwide revenue, which is currently just over $1 billion, according to the report.
Why would the EU have jurisdiction outside of its borders?
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
So Apple will choose a temporary $1billion fine (no indication yet says this will be ongoing until compliance)
The DMA provides for periodic penalty payments.
The EU is acting like the "surprised Pikachu" meme over Apple's interpretation of the EU's own rules.
Not really, no. The legislation had the foresight to anticipate non-compliant behaviour and provides an appropriate investigation mechanism - and if necessary for delegated acts.

The thing about malicious compliance is it is still compliance.
Not when „the measures implemented by the gatekeeper to ensure compliance“ are not „effective in achieving the objectives of this Regulation and of the relevant obligation“ but designed to counteract them.
 
Last edited:
Yes. The costumers must REALLY pay HIGHER prices! Now!
Nonsense. The law is designed to let competition play and have consumers play a fair price.
And to deter gatekeepers from continued noncompliance.
Yes & No. The governments have now figured out ways to deplete companies of their earnings.
When you‘re acting illegally or anticompetitively, your earnings will be depleted by fines. Very simple.
Compete fairly and earn what you want.
 
If the EU wanted Apple to do this a certain way, they should just released a document requiring Apple to do it that way. The EU is acting like the "surprised Pikachu" meme over Apple's interpretation of the EU's own rules. (…)

If the EU wants to mandate full zero-strings-attached side-loading they, then should just say it. Rather than make everything so vague.
The DMA and its objectives are not that hard to understand.
And EU doesn’t mandate zero-strings-attached sideloading.

For example, it doesn’t prevent Apple from charging business users (developers).
But if you pretend that…

- every app is 50 cents per annual install
- each year, forever (!)
- even if you make no sales from the users that have downloaded it
- except if you use our own store - where it continues to be free

…would be compliant with the legislation and its objectives, don‘t act like surprised Pikachu (as Apple and its apologists/fanboys) when you‘ll be told it‘s not and you may get fined.

Again, it’s not hard to understand.
 
Last edited:
THIS.
Apple is not going to lose on revenue/income. If AppStore income declines, prices for HW will be raised. Simple.
They had offer huge discounts in China to keep up their sales. The same thing will repeat in all countries if Apple tries to raise its HW prices. :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: strongy
Ummm...Apple spends billions of dollars to build and maintain the iPhone, IOS, IP, etc. This is what Apple "charges itself." Getting all that for free would be giving preferential treatment to 3rd parties.
In the latest EPIC vs Apple case, Apple argued the same but was not able to substantiate its claims. Judge Yvonne asked Apple to provide "all the documents used to arrive at this calculation." Looks like Apple is heading towards a defeat there. How do you think Apple will justify this all over the world markets?

"A LAW360 piece from Friday, May 10 recounts that day’s proceedings as Epic lawyer Yonatan Even and Judge Gonzalez Rogers questioned Apple Finance Vice President Alex Roman. Even pointed out the 3% lower fee from Apple — 27% for transactions taking place outside an app on Apple devices, as opposed to its usual in-app 30% fee — and then Epic also provided evidence that the average cost of payment services in the U.S. is 3.5%, with a yoga app CEO testifying that he pays 3.5% to 6.5% fees for payment processing. After Roman said he was not aware of that, Even reiterated that the goal was to set a fee that would allow developers to offer users a better price by asking Roman if he understood that. Judge Gonzalez Rogers is quoted as stating to Roman that “‘It sounds like you all made lots of decisions with no data,’ she said. ‘It sounds to me as if the goal was to maintain … the revenue that you had in the past.’” Access the LAW360 article here."
(law360 links are behind the paywall)

 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.