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
It encourages competition by banning certain anticompetitive and unfair practices by gatekeepers and allowing alternative, competing means of distributing products/services/content and payment methods.
Where or how would the DMA stifle competition?
Where would there be less competition and why?
We clearly have two different meanings of what “encouraging competition” means. Taking away a companies assets and giving it to those who ca. use it for free is not “encouraging competition”. Round and round we go.
It doesn’t encourage competition. The dma plays Robin Hood.
Taking someone assets and giving it away u see the guide of competition is not that. It’s literally highway robbery.
It clearly encourages and enables competition in the providing of digital commerce services for distributing and licensing apps - i.e. a competition to Apple's commission rates and their terms of acceptable apps (note how they've begun allowing emulators, as a response to that competition?).
As an example:
Prior to the DMA: No competition in software application stores.
After the DMA: Competition in software applications.
Your statement is evidently wrong.
That fails to answer the question.
When someone has a monopoly and you "take away" some of that, that encourages competition.
Doesn't matter.
Even if obtained through or akin to "highway robbery", it encourages competition.
I don’t see a raft of new operating systems and ecosystems appearing on the market.
...and you likely aren't going to see them (even though the DMA has interoperability requirements that would make it easier for them to gain traction).
The most noteworthy increased competition will be seen on markets for third-party applications.
We've already seen how Apple has reversed course on some of their App Store policies.
The market for third party applications would naturally be increased by having more OSes and ecosystems. But for some reason we don’t seem interested in solving the underlying issue.
That is not encouraging competition. It’s taking someone else’s business and giving it away.
Again that is not “encouraging competition “. While you may hand wave this away it doesn’t mean it’s not doing exactly what I said.
You have a biased view of what “competition means”.
The type of competition this encourages is more related to app access and acquisition (app stores, payment systems, etc.) not operating systems. Fewer operating systems/ecosystems can be fine, and make things less costly for consumers, as long as the major players don't engage in anticompetitive behavior.
I am very sceptical that any consumer will see prices go down, especially as prices are already rock-bottom.
Costs to developers might go down using a 3rd party store, but revenue will also tank because consumers don’t want to have to install/acquire apps from multiple places, especially when they’ve had years of the benefit of being able to get them all from 1 place. Therefore developers will have to make their app available in the platform App Store, which will cost pretty much the same as it has always done. Apple has no incentive to reduce their fees when they have consumer sentiment on their side.
It can't be solved - as evidenced by even Microsoft failing to do, with an OS that was well capable and competitive.
General purpose operating systems are markets that are natural oligopolies. Hardly anyone is interested in that and willing to invest or enact the regulations required for that. Just as there's little efficiency in having dozen cable companies, electricity providers or cell phone carriers all having their own infrastructure going into consumers households.
That's why we "treat the symptoms", not the underlying cause (which can't be treated efficiently with regulation).
No. Apple isn't forced to divest of any business or "give it away" - just some of their "resources".
When someone has or controls all of the resources and/or infrastructure ("IP", signing certificate infrastructure) required for marketable products or services (distribution of iOS apps to consumers), taking something away from them or requiring them to share does enable and encourage competition.
More sellers with different pricing literally is (more) competition.
And the law enabling others to compete - where Apple wouldn't allow it otherwise - is encouraging competition.
👉 What does it mean then, according to you?
My hunch (and impression from previous posts of yours) would be that you're harbouring an antiquated fundamentalist view of competition and government regulation ("any government interference in markets weakens competition - hence it should only be allowed in cases of life and death/consumer health").
Last edited:
I’m sure it can be solved with the correct regulation. All we need to do is identify the issues why more than 2 ecosystems can’t exist, and regulate away those issues. It’s no different to the DMA in that regard, and would generate even more competition, and be in consumers interests.
How so?
You'd have to force someone to pony up the billions required in investing. And you'd have to either "force" consumers to use it - or give the product (OS, phone) away to them at a loss, to make it a deal they can't refuse.
The rich ecosystems of third-party apps on iOS and Android can't just be regulated into existence for a third competing platform.
Just make it a requirement that your app supports all the platforms?
Make it so that phone manufacturers over a certain threshold have to make their own OS and ecosystem?
That way developers can’t pick and choose which platforms (and thus which consumers) they support, and phone manufacturers have to invest the time and money into an OS and ecosystem once they are big enough to support that.
Consumers then get multiple OSes to pick from and all the apps they could need/want.
Problem solved.
Creating more operating systems/ecosystems will result in higher costs for phone makers and developers which means higher costs for consumers especially if they also have to buy several different devices/platforms to do what one or two (versions) can do now.
Having two or so major mobile operating systems but giving developers and users many ways to market or acquire apps can be much better than having many different mobile operating systems.
Consumers wouldn't necessarily have to use multiple places. The more likely scenario would be to see apps available at multiple locations which means consumers can still choose just one of those locations to get their apps if they want to. The choice(s) would be theirs.
But we’d have more competition, which would force phone makers and developers to cut costs and profit margins to entice and retain consumers.
Phone makers and app developers should be fighting for and working for the consumer in all things.
PS: Just consider how difficult it is to regulate a handful of gatekeepers that includes one as obstinately refusing to comply in good faith as Apple. It'd be mad - practically impossible - to do it for every app developer.
The policy is to strike a balance between competition (and regulation to enable tat) and non-interference in the market.
Competition isn't a goal in itself.
The policy is to strike a balance between competition (and regulation to enable tat) and non-interference in the market.
Last edited:
So, Apple would be required to offer Safari, FaceTime, iMessage, GarageBand, iMovie, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, etc. "native apps" for Windows, Android and all other operating systems out there and therefore make them available at "app stores" supporting apps for all operating systems out there?
We'd much more easily have more competition from two or so major operating systems giving consumers and developers access to multiple app stores and ways to sell/pay for apps. That's a more cost effective approach, as long as the major players don't engage in anticompetitive behavior.
Consumers don’t get much more choice as a result of the DMA. My plan would give consumers a lot more choice.
App development costs are one reason why a third mobile OS failed to gain traction, which is a part of why Windows Phone failed. It would be nearly impossible for indies to support 3 OS's well and even the big companies spend a LOT on their separate iOS and android development paths.
The only way you could reasonably expect a third OS to survive would be regulation that either requires all software vendors to use the same APIs or requires that they allow and support a cross platform framework that can access the core OS in the same way as UIKit/SwiftUI.
That would be far more invasive than much of the existing regulation as it specifies far more on how the software itself must be designed.