Agree completely (passionately, wholeheartedly) with this news - that the EU plans to charge Apple for violating the Digital Markets Act - and I also agree completely with your posts.
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 Reportedly Planning to Charge Apple for Violating Digital Markets Act
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Am I being ridiculous? This, of course, can only be determined by plugging that word into our respective value systems to understand the basis of the claim. I, for example, think the DMA and the EU are fundamentally flawed approaches to technology. I think the EU is playing in a field with little knowledge about markets and how they work, especially technology markets. I think the EU is disingenuous about its real motivations; in all liklihood, those motivations are even hidden from the proponents and authors of the DMA due to confirmation bias and other human frailties.
So, from my value system, nothing I've said here is ridiculous.
You clearly have a very different value system. So, ridiculous is in the eye of the beholder.
I demand Europe’s grocery stores allow me to sell my cookies on their shelves without paying them a cut of the sales.
Food is a human right! Who cares that they built the store, paid for the shelves and got all the customers to come in their store. I DESERVE the right to sell to their customers.
Food is a human right! Who cares that they built the store, paid for the shelves and got all the customers to come in their store. I DESERVE the right to sell to their customers.
Apple could’ve left China, but nahhh, regulation only bad when it benefits developers and users.
It’s such a bad look for Apple.
When you say nobody, the tens of thousands who use it each day in Europe don’t count?
Fixed it for you. It benefits developers but not a benefit for users. Their security and privacy is more at risk so nerds can install software they knew Apple didn’t like when they bought an iPhone but bought it anyway.
It means lower prices for users. Developers don’t eat the cost of Apple’s fees, it gets passed on.
Tens of thousands is technically nobody. I mean I'm the only Mac user I know. I've never met anyone else and at my company I work for and the customers we have everybody's using Windows as their work computer. When I went to school to study programming they told me to buy "a real computer" as well etc.
No, it’s ridiculous from everyone’s perspective.
It is already a known thing to have a license for your Explicit Ip. And this is done everywhere in the world including the USA.
The only difference here is Apple doesn’t say what IP they are asking to be compensated for. For all we know we aren’t paying for any IP at all that Apple actually owns, Or it’s already included in existing licensing agreements
And when Apple lowered the fees for developers the prices didn't drop, so no, it won't benefit the consumer; and I doubt small developers will benefit as well. The fee structure Apple eventually adopts to satisfy the EU may wind up costing them more up front before they even know if their app will sell. Small developers, who the DMA is purported to be designed to help, should be worried they may wind up collateral damage in a fight between big tech companies.
In addition, if sideloading makes pirating easier for the masses developers will likely see lower returns and be forced to change their model to subscriptions to stay in business; hurting them and the consumer.
That's disingenuous and you know it.
If you sell your goods in a mall you pay rent for your stall. That's the App Store. In the real world, you can just sell your cookies outside on the street if you're not keen on paying that rent. Software should have that same option.
And EU knows what they’re doing, you simply have an ideological difference that doesn’t square with how EU thinks about markets and economics.
EU have a very flawed approach if you think they are trying to meet the same goals as you value.
European Union
The Treaty on European Union set the following goals in Article 3(3):Ordoliberals are also known for pursuing a minimum configuration of vital resources.
EU follows a mix of the Ordoliberal theory that the state must create a proper legal environment for the economy and maintain a healthy level of competition through measures that adhere to market principles.
This is the foundation of its legitimacy. The concern is that, if the state does not take active measures to foster competition, firms with monopoly (or oligopoly) power will emerge, which will not only subvert the advantages offered by the market economy, but also possibly undermine good government, since strong economic power can be transformed into political power.
And the The social market economy also called Rhine capitalism, Rhine-Alpine capitalism, the Rhenish model, and social capitalism.
Social market economies aims to combine free initiative and social welfare on the basis of a competitive economy.
The social market economy is opposed to laissez-faire policies and to socialist economic systems
and combines private enterprise with regulation and state intervention to establish fair competition, maintaining a balance between a high rate of economic growth, low inflation, low levels of unemployment, good working conditions, social welfare and public services.
Although the social market economy model evolved from ordoliberalism, this concept was not identical with the conception of the Freiburg School.
The main elements of the social market economy in EU are the following.
- The social market contains central elements of a free market economy such as private property, free foreign trade, exchange of goods and free formation of prices.
- In contrast to the situation in a free market economy, the state is not passive and actively implements regulative measures
That the thing EU aren’t disingenuous, they just aren’t laissez-faire.
Ordoliberals thought that liberalism (the freedom of individuals to compete in markets) and laissez-faire (the freedom of markets from government intervention) should be separated. Walter Eucken, the founding father and one of the most influential representatives of the Freiburg School, condemned classical laissez-faire liberalism for its ‘naturalistic naivety.’ Eucken states that the market and competition can only exist if economic order is created by a strong state. The power of government should be clearly determined, but in its area in which the state plays a role, the state has to be active and powerful. For ordoliberals, the right kind of government is the solution of the problem.
They won't so stop with this crap 🙄
That would be accurate if Apple actually lowered the fees but the fees have always been 30%. Only some smaller developers get the 15% and Apple has stringent requirements for it. Most of the subscriptions or other virtual content someone buys on an iPhone app is still subjected to the 30% fee and upcharge.
Sideloading won’t make piracy much easier due to app signing. It’s possible to bypass app signing on MacOS with pirated software but I don’t expect it to be possible on iOS without a jailbreak or exploit like in the past.
Last edited:
Says the person who argued all week against a typo of 10 cores not 9...
Nice to see youve moved along on your attacks on Apple.
At least if Apple pulled out of India you wouldnt have to worry about if you believe any of their product info anymore...
EU started by trying to go the monopoly line and failed so changed tack and went "gatekeeper".
They also happily ignore console makers and their monopoly on stores. All very convenient.
Nothing is stopping software developers from selling their product if they don’t like the terms of Apple’s store. They just (in my opinion) shouldn’t get to sell them to Apple’s customers without playing by Apple’s rules. If you want access to a mall’s customers, you abide by the mall’s rules.
Instead, Apple built a mall and the EU is saying “you have to let Spotify in your mall, use your resources, and sell to your mall’s customers, without paying rent” even though there is an open air market (Android) across the street, that actually has more customers, where anyone can sell anything in any way they want.
You cant just sell your cookies outside on the street in most places because council laws kick in requiring permits and fees and still abide by laws.
We live in a regulated world and everyone wants their cut.
This is no different. Except the Apple store vets code and promotes and has built a store and environment people trust more than some dodgy outside cowboy run world.
Saying Apple built a mall is like saying there are only two popular malls in the entire world, like there are only two popular smartphone OSes. Comparing things that aren’t comparable.
Actually that's wrong as well.
There arent two malls: Apple has a different mall in each country because apps can be limited by dev control or government rules. Android allow many malls - some of which are plain dodgy.
Given today much purchasing, to the horror or physical malls, is purchased online and delivered then you only need one shop to buy your stuff. If it's not competitive, you buy at the other online shop (OS).
Then we get into the whole "but why should Apple be the only shop and take huge commission?" line.
Have you sold anything at eBay? Their commission is huge
Eu don’t need to try. It doesn’t have any laws against monopolies.EU started by trying to go the monopoly line and failed so changed tack and went "gatekeeper".
They also happily ignore console makers and their monopoly on stores. All very convenient.
Again as typical of you. iOS and android are two entrenched systems covered by economical criteria’s in EU antitrust laws. Game consoles aren’t enough to be considered entrenched and isn’t covered.
Well you can do that here.
No permit needed, no fees and no taxes if it’s not for a commercial purpose or something else like helping a cause.
Big difference . You want companies to own everything and control it. We don’t.