Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Given Apple begrudes users 16GB of base RAM because they so like money, its hard to imagine a company with that mindset walking away from the EU market over this. That said, if they did, I would well imagine it would be no more then a few years. Apple would eventually come back as they would be gifting a significant market share and revenue to their competitors. The EU is to large a market to ignore, so after all the wailing and throwing lawyers at the problem, compliance with EU legislation is really Apples only choice. That is after all, how we all got USB-C on our iPhones.
dont forget the EU also made the USB C port ruling and didnt include enough detail that time either.
they dont learn.

USB C was for recharging and ensuring all devices could use the same cable.

they forgot that USB C transfer speeds for data.
so iPhone 15 get USB2.0 speeds while iPhone Pro users get much much faster USB 3.0 transfer rates.

The EU just seem to repeat the same vague directives.
 
dont forget the EU also made the USB C port ruling and didnt include enough detail that time either.
they dont learn.

USB C was for recharging and ensuring all devices could use the same cable.

they forgot that USB C transfer speeds for data.
The EU forgot nothing.

USB data speeds aren’t regulated. There are loads of data-transmitting USB devices that will only transmit at 1.1 or 2.0 speed - in conforming to USB standard.

Regulating the data speed allowed for USB cables would be ridiculous.
 
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.
you seriously think customers would not be up in arms at their politicians if they couldnt buy their devices?
Apple could easily set up stores that sell worldwide from US or another easier to do business from country.
EU might add a tarriff but then that would make people mad as well and invoke reprisals for trade restrictions.
Messy.

perhaps EU is afraid Apple might call their bluff.

might also set a precedent in the other countries you mention to not be silly.
 
Plenty of tech reviews said Apple was being mean for limiting nonPro phones to 2.0 transfer speeds via USB C.

They complied with what they were directed to do.
And EU couldn't complain about it since they didnt specify the speeds.
It's faster to Airdrop a file than use a cable. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
I think Apple was waiting for this so they could appeal it in a higher court and maybe get parts of DMA removed.
Well that might be the case, unfortunately there’s no mechanism to remove anything from the DMA. Laws passed in EU are de facto legal unless they go against the foundational principles of the foundation of EU writing the Lisbon treaty
 
I don't see how the EU can argue the CTF violates the DMA. Apple isn't charging developers for link access. They're charging CTF when first annual installs of an app exceed 1 million per year. Ironically, this is the same type of "cap" approach that the EU is using with the DMA itself. Go above the cap and you're subject to the CTF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
The DMA doesn't address commission percentages anywhere. The DMA is supposedly about increasing competition not dictating what the various competitors are charging
But a gatekeeper being allowed to charge „anything they want“ can stifle competition or make it outright impossible. If their charges are leveraged as means of sabotaging the law and its intended objectives, they are subject to review and further delegated acts. As I heard/read, the EU has already sought and received feedback.
Neither are commission levels or fee levels.
If you believe that Apple can get away with saying…

„A sideloaded application is allowed be subject to a 95€ annual core technology fee (or a 95% commission on revenue), because the DMA doesn’t regulate commission or fee levels. Hahaha, we’re so clever!“

…you will be proven wrong.
In fact, you would be proven wrong at much, much lower levels.
Plus, the EU intentionally set the bar for being subject to the DMA so high that companies using the console model for software (just like Apple was doing) can still use it without penalty.
Yes, game consoles serve different economic purposes and roles than smartphones today (with the exception of gaming).
Companies are supposed to be able to monopolize their own IP.
Within the limits given by law. No company is or will be allowed to monopolise its IP absolutely unlimited.
And the EU hasn't actually banned other companies (like console makers) from doing so.
Yes, gaming consoles are only negligibly relevant platforms outside of gaming transactions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
But charges can

Yes, game consoles serve different economic purposes and roles than smartphones today (with the exception of gaming).

Within the limits given by law. No company is or will be allowed to monopolise its IP absolutely unlimited.

Yes, gaming consoles are only negligibly relevant platforms outside of gaming transactions.
The DMA isn't based on technology roles or economic purposes. It's based on caps related to users and revenue. Go above the cap and any technology company is subject to the DMA.

As for tech IP, the only limit is if the IP in question is considered to be subject to FRAND. So basically types of IP that are considered essential for the entire market to operate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
you seriously think customers would not be up in arms at their politicians if they couldnt buy their devices?
Apple could easily set up stores that sell worldwide from US or another easier to do business from country.
EU might add a tarriff but then that would make people mad as well and invoke reprisals for trade restrictions.
Messy.

perhaps EU is afraid Apple might call their bluff.

might also set a precedent in the other countries you mention to not be silly.
Everyone can see who is afraid of whom.
Customers will complain if Apple pulls out? I don't think that is going to happen as Apple is too terrified of pulling out of any locality. If that is the precedent they want to set, then they should be ready to pull out of Japan, the UK, Australia, India, and several other countries. Remember, only Apple fans think that they are being targeted. This is targeting even Google, Facebook, and a few others. So, no. People will be glad the government is kicking out a company that does not follow laws, if that is the route Apple takes.
If Apple pulls out, there are literally dozens of phone manufacturers who can fill the void. It will be Apple's loss.
 
Sure, an Apple can correct what the EU deems non-compliant but that does not mean they have to provide free access to the App Store or not charge for services they provide; the DMA specifically allows pricing services as well as states there is no establishment of a right to access. The question is how will they do that?

Personally, I think opening up iOS like they have in the Mac, where a 3rd party app can be loaded without signing, the user just has to OK it is one way to comply while still being able to charge for access to the AppStore and signing, if a developer wants it.
Apple will understand everything clearly once they get fined. See how quickly they found the way once they were fined 2 billion. It is even more clear in the case of Dutch ACM fine. They kept up with their shenanigans and acted as if they could not understand the directions provided by the ACM. Once they started getting fined on a weekly basis, they started making changes. Once it reached 50 million, everything became clear to Apple and they complied. They lost the appeal too in the court. Can Apple take the same risk when the fine is 2 billion?

What the fine is and what ultimately gets paid are two different things; and litigation can even decide the EU position was not valid. My point was fines sound great but the reality is often different than the headline.
They can litigate, but the fines will get accrued until they are paid.

That is going to be a challenge - how do you force a non-EU company to break up? Could teh US, for example, decided an EU company needs to be broken up? I doubt that would sit well with the EU.
They will be made to sell off parts of their business. They can, for instance, say Apple has to sell off their EU Appstore. Issue solved.

You could bar them from doing business in certain markets; but that is likely to trigger retaliation by the US, as has happened in other trade issues. The current US spat over TikTok is a good example of the problems a country has forcing a breakup of a foreign company.
Not happening. They may be working hand in glove. Also, the way they handle the situation in one area may affect their defense in the other area.

 
Apple isn't charging developers for link access.
What do you mean by „link access“?

The DMA isn't based on technology roles or economic purposes.
Of course it is.

„Digital services in general and online platforms in particular play an increasingly important role in the economy, in particular in the internal market, by enabling businesses to reach users throughout the Union, by facilitating cross-border trade and by opening entirely new business opportunities to a large number of companies in the Union to the benefit of consumers in the Union.
(…)
A small number of large undertakings providing core platform services have emerged with considerable economic power that could qualify them to be designated as gatekeepers pursuant to this Regulation. Typically, they feature an ability to connect many business users with many end users through their services, which, in turn, enables them to leverage their advantages, such as their access to large amounts of data, from one area of activity to another. Some of those undertakings exercise control over whole platform ecosystems in the digital economy and are structurally extremely difficult to challenge or contest by existing or new market operators, irrespective of how innovative and efficient those market operators may be.“


The thresholds to become subject to the regulation are merely an objectively observable rule derived from the above. A means of measuring their economic importance as platform operators.

As for tech IP, the only limit is if the IP in question is considered to be subject to FRAND. So basically types of IP that are considered essential for the entire market to operate.
Access to Android and iOS, its APIs and means of distribution/installation is essential for developers of mobile apps.
 
Fantastic news

It's time to start with some ramifications for the continual blatant disregard for the spirit of the EU regulations and their intent

Apple apparently thinks they can just make a mockery of regulations
It's time to remind them who's in charge in a jurisdiction (not them)
Guessing you’re from the UK?

Apple will actually just pull out of that section of the world entirely if the EU keeps it up.
 
They can litigate, but the fines will get accrued until they are paid.

That of course, depends on the result of the litigation.

They will be made to sell off parts of their business. They can, for instance, say Apple has to sell off their EU Appstore. Issue solved.

I suspect they would close it before they would do that; without access to Apple's technology and scale they would be no different than any other store when it comes to signing, etc. and of no value to Apple.

Not happening. They may be working hand in glove. Also, the way they handle the situation in one area may affect their defense in the other area.

Don't bet on it with regards to fundamentally altering a company by forcing a split; much comes down to the party in power as to what they may or may not do and their view of the value of global relationships. Tariff wars, for example, are often a tit for tat move; and regulating is different than forcing a split which impacts the business globally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy and strongy
The EU is only targeting foreign mostly American companies to try and balance their budgets.

You see, I can agree with straightforward and clear-cut proposals like yours that get right to the heart of the matter, even if I may not agree with what you are pushing for.

As such, I find it strange why the EU chose not to make this clear and upfront (it's probably what they have in mind as well, just that they seem to want Apple to figure it out on their own, rather than say the unpleasant part out loud). The DMA doesn't need to be fair (it is really, at its very heart, just protectionism by another name), but is it so hard for the EU to be honest about it? :oops:

What does the EU really have to lose here?
Well it’s funny that we all actually find it clear ut in the legislation. The issue is more Apple trying eat their cake and have it if developers goes beyond the store Apple provides.

And a very big issue with detailed orientated legislation that you request is that it can quite literally be the worst way to do something, EU prefer if companies make up a good solution and reassess it when presented.

This gives the market more freedom to do something in a better way.

Just how EU didn’t think it should need to mandate USB C as mandatory port, they don’t think they should mandate a protocol as well, but they will if the market can’t play nice with itself and work out a good solution
 
What do you mean by „link access“?


Of course it is.

„Digital services in general and online platforms in particular play an increasingly important role in the economy, in particular in the internal market, by enabling businesses to reach users throughout the Union, by facilitating cross-border trade and by opening entirely new business opportunities to a large number of companies in the Union to the benefit of consumers in the Union.
(…)
A small number of large undertakings providing core platform services have emerged with considerable economic power that could qualify them to be designated as gatekeepers pursuant to this Regulation. Typically, they feature an ability to connect many business users with many end users through their services, which, in turn, enables them to leverage their advantages, such as their access to large amounts of data, from one area of activity to another. Some of those undertakings exercise control over whole platform ecosystems in the digital economy and are structurally extremely difficult to challenge or contest by existing or new market operators, irrespective of how innovative and efficient those market operators may be.“


The thresholds to become subject to the regulation are merely an objectively observable rule derived from the above. A means of measuring their economic importance as platform operators.


Access to Android and iOS, its APIs and means of distribution/installation is essential for developers of mobile apps.
The DMA requires companies that are subject to the rules to provide access to certain things for free. Linking to external web sites is part of that. According to this article, the EU is going to try and say the Core Technology Fee is somehow violating that part of the DMA. IMO, I don't see how the EU can make that argument since the CTF is based on the total number of installations of for-profit apps within iOS. It's seems clear that the fee is not related to linking at all.

As for roles/economic purposes, the text you posted can easily apply to gaming consoles as well. Basically all they're saying is that a tech platform (like the Playstation, Switch or Xbox) can provide a business (like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft) with access to end users. Nowhere do they say that gaming platforms are exempt since it is possible for a consumer to buy an iPhone and only download gaming apps. Gaming apps are the #1 revenue generator for app developers on iOS by a fairly wide margin.

Per being "essential", iOS and Android and their respective APIs have never been FRAND designated by the EU. The smartphone market already existed when Apple originally launched the iPhone so the idea that iOS and its APIs could be deemed essential to the operation of the overall market doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Nokia, Blackberry, Samsung and Palm etc. did not need Apple's APIs or access to iOS to participate in the smartphone market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
So if Apple did say "too hard, not worth it, we're going" I wonder how Apple users there would respond?

And if Apple left, that would make Android a monopoly... and we know how much EU "love" monopolies...

just another can of worms. ;)
Sight, EU doesn’t care about monopolies. It’s all about how you maintain your market dominance. Winning in the game of capitalism isn’t wrong as long as competition is freely able to enter without the dominant firm getting in their way.
So Apple has to give their Engineer's time to other developers for free? It's like these regulators thinks that there is no cost to building these APIs.
Apple didn’t need to develop a single new API, they chose to do it. It already existed, and only a tiny tweak in how certificates are handled was needed.

Heck Apple could have offered this certification process as a stamp of approval that the app is safe and good, giving users and developers a better incentive to choose signed apps instead of unsigned ones.
Refusal to comply. Lol. You mean refuse to let developers use their engineering resources for free. Apple spends billions on R&D, and pays their engineers to develop APIs for developers. Sorry, no free rides. If I develop a product and an ecosystem, it’s irrational to say that I can’t charge for its use. It’s one thing if users had no other choice, but they do. It’s called Android and it’s a majority in the EU market. This is purely about the EU losing their tech dominance after Nokia.
Then Apple needs to list a detailed list of the IPs they are being payed for in the developer agreement and what their worth is; and what IP is payed for using the Core platform fee,leaving it up to developers to use their own APIs and IP if they don’t want to use any extra IP etc etc.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: strongy
Sight, EU doesn’t care about monopolies. It’s all about how you maintain your market dominance. Winning in the game of capitalism isn’t wrong as long as competition is freely able to enter without the dominant firm getting in their way.
You need to remember that tech behemoths like Microsoft and Amazon were able to launch smartphone hardware and operating systems despite iOS/iPhone already being on the market. Apple has never had the ability to prevent companies from entering the market with rival products. The reality is that Microsoft and Amazon didn't really do enough to differentiate their products and get consumers excited about them as alternatives. Google was able to do it versus iOS/iPhone by marketing the "open" aspect and saying that you could do more on Android than what Apple allowed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
It’s interesting that the EU doesn’t have a mechanism to pre-approve a platform’s policies to ensure compliance. They wait until the company implements one, then magically announce it “doesn’t comply” later. It’s really government-led gaslighting. Keep it up and Apple will start running ads all over the EU targeting politicians. Free speech.
 
Well the apple should give us a list of the exact value for this IP. How and in what way is it not already covered in the developer fee so that a free developer pay 99$/year for 10 million downloads while a third party with outside purchase capabilities seemingly pay 1million and 99$ a year.

Why stop there? Perhaps Apple should just give the EU their entire business for free. Right?
 
It’s interesting that the EU doesn’t have a mechanism to pre-approve a platform’s policies to ensure compliance. They wait until the company implements one, then magically announce it “doesn’t comply” later. It’s really government-led gaslighting. Keep it up and Apple will start running ads all over the EU targeting politicians. Free speech.

Hardly interesting. The mechanism is contacting the European Commission. The DMA clearly specifies the directorates general is responsible for enforcement.

There are literally only six companies with gatekeeper designation.

The names, addresses, phone numbers are all listed on the EC page.
 
You need to remember that tech behemoths like Microsoft and Amazon were able to launch smartphone hardware and operating systems despite iOS/iPhone already being on the market. Apple has never had the ability to prevent companies from entering the market with rival products. The reality is that Microsoft and Amazon didn't really do enough to differentiate their products and get consumers excited about them as alternatives. Google was able to do it versus iOS/iPhone by marketing the "open" aspect and saying that you could do more on Android than what Apple allowed.
Well in a sense, but they aren’t rely that interesting to EU. For EU the only relevant market is the service that is available for the different platforms.

Hence why apples AppStore is an abusive monopoly as it prevents any alternative store fronts from competing on the same platform and that Google play store doesn’t provide any actual competitive pressure on Apple.

Unfortunately for game consoles they just seem to be to small to actually be relevant to the market in any competitive way.
Why stop there? Perhaps Apple should just give the EU their entire business for free. Right?
Now you’re kind of ridiculous. If Apple actually say what the fee is paying for you can easily justify what this ”core technology fee” is and isn’t double dipping.

And developers can chose to not use this IP or pay for it. Example AppDB doesn’t use any IP or API made by Apple to provide their services to iOS developers.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: strongy
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.