You say these things like they are not far more restrictive and invasive into companies practices than the DMA is. The DMA already receives a tremendous amount of backlash even with how little it requires companies to do, this would be a far more massive undertaking.
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
We've had this conversation so many times. Again, you don't need "billions" to invest in a new OS. Just fork the android open source project and choose not to use Google Play Services. Everything you need already exists. The "rich ecosystems of third-party apps" are already compatible. The only thing stopping this is Google's anti-competitive agreements with its horizontal competitors.
That’s exactly what happened. I cant understand why this isn’t clear as day.
When? You have to start off a sentence with “when”. A company’s IP is a company’s ip.
Yeah if they developed the product themselves.
No it’s not. It’s playing robin hood.
As opposed to your progressive view of what’s your is mine and mine is yours?
That’s hardly a new OS, and any app that depends on Google Play Services wouldn’t work anyway. While it works in china we haven’t actually seen any manufacturers succeed with this approach anywhere else suggesting it isn’t as easy as you’re making it out to be.
It's as much a new OS as browsers are new browsers even if they are based on the same open source project. Yes. you would have to account for dependencies on Google Play Services, but you're hardly starting from scratch.
The point of a "new OS" is to eliminate Google's control derived from their anti-competitive agreements, not to create an incompatible platform.
what do you think keeps Samsung tied to Google Android? The Samsung Android experience is hardly vanilla and they already invest heavily in customizing it. Would not forking and going their own way help them differentiate their phones?
Because the anti-competitive agreements that they signed with Google give them an advantage. They don't have to worry about competing with other android manufacturers in many areas including developer support.
Apple doesn’t engage in anticompetitive behavior with respect to its App Store.
By restricting sideloading, it does.
Last edited by a moderator:
What a cop out. Retreating into subjectivism is so hilariously self-defeating.
…and the same people would attack that even more fier and vehemently as European overregulation.
And it stays that way.
The DMA only imposes some specific restrictions on them monetising it and leveraging it to gain unfair advantage in related markets. That doesn’t mean Apple’s IP is taken away.
Doesn’t matter.
When you and I sell the same or similar things, it’s still competition.
I may copy your business model without developing it myself to compete with you.
Also, the AltStore or other competing stores are certainly not developed by Apple.
Even if it’s Robin Hood, it encourages competition.
They have been found guilty of it by the European Commission and in the U.S. (“Epic” trial):
“Apple did violate the California Unfair Competition Law through the anti-competitive behavior of disallowing any mention of other payment systems within apps”
Which is how entrenched interests can use regulations to raise barriers to entry.
Let's take iMessage where Apple would have to allow interoperability. The can provide the hooks into iMessage, but it's up to the competitor to figure out how to use those tools with its app to get it to work. Apple is unlikely to change iMessage if they can't get their app to work properly; the are under no requirement to fix a competitors app as long as they comply with the DMA.
How does that stifle competition since it means competitors can be an alternative? Only companies with the money to make a solution work reliably will do it, a small startup may not have the money to do that; and the competitors that do are already in the market. As a result while you may have some greater interoperability the players are the same pre and post DMA.
If having a third OS was valuable enough they wouldn’t keep signing/renewing their agreements with Google, that they do suggests that having their own OS is less valuable than the APIs and tools and support Google’s provides. So forking android, again, hasn’t been shown as a viable path for a smartphone vendor to follow. Thereagain, remains scant evidence that a third OS vendor can survive in the smartphone market. It would be nice if one could, but there isn’t any evidence that one can.
No it doesn’t.
When any actor can open up an alternative App Store (epic for example) , apple s up is being given away.
Congrats one point of eight doesn’t invalidate the legality of the App Store. In case you didn’t know apple won on every point in the epic cs apple lawsuit except that one. That is the only point the “anticompetitive/monopoly” crowd can point to.
It’s one thing if you’re an electric company or hospital or cable provider with an exclusive contract etc, it’s another thing if you’re a for consumer discretionary manufacturer operating in a universe with hundreds of competitors.
It’s also apples proprietary technology.
Competitors are using apples platform because apple now must allow all comers, even those that defrauded the company previously. The right way to do this is to build a competitive product, not freeload on someone’s intellectual property.
It’s not. Apple can still operate their own competing store, with it brands And trademark.
”Having a store” isn’t intellectual property.
Correct.
All it does is invalidate your claim that “Apple doesn’t engage in anticompetitive behavior with respect to its App Store.”.
I don't get your argument here. Of course anti-competitive agreements benefit the conspirators. That's the problem.
Again, there are already multiple OS vendors. There are already multiple forks of Android. The problem is the lack of competition for services because of the anti-competitive agreements for Google Play Services.
Exactly. The problem (that the DMA tries to address) is the lack of competition for services.
Not smartphones or operating systems.
I dont expect you to ever not agree the dma is crappy legislation. As far as invalidate my claim, it proves it not invalidates it. The App Store itself passed muster only one provision not related to the App Store was lost.
Asking again:
It’s a simple question. No need to make your answer a philosophy class, or detract from your unwillingness or inability to answer with more “Robin Hoods” or “highway robberies”.
One (counter-) point is enough to disprove your claim. When you’re accused of murdering nine people and are acquitted in 8 of the 9 cases but convicted in one, that still makes you a murderer: Someone who engaged in illegal behaviour.
It’s simple logical reasoning, really.
Side note: For even more “advanced” reasoning, the fact that Epic was unable to prove the other 8 points (as is their legal burden) isn’t proof of your statement either. Though I would have let that slip.
👉 Where or how, in which way is the DMA “meant to stifle“ competition?
It’s a simple question. No need to make your answer a philosophy class, or detract from your unwillingness or inability to answer with more “Robin Hoods” or “highway robberies”.
You’re sidestepping into “philosophy class” territory again.
One (counter-) point is enough to disprove your claim. When you’re accused of murdering nine people and are acquitted in 8 of the 9 cases but convicted in one, that still makes you a murderer: Someone who engaged in illegal behaviour.
It’s simple logical reasoning, really.
Side note: For even more “advanced” reasoning, the fact that Epic was unable to prove the other 8 points (as is their legal burden) isn’t proof of your statement either. Though I would have let that slip.
Last edited:
Great. That should lead you to the obvious conclusion that Apple is being harmed by anti-competitive agreements among its competitors. So why target Apple instead of its competitors with certain regulations?
You don't think that Apple's market share has been adversely affected by the anti-competitive agreements among Android manufacturers to use Google Play Services? I'd find that hard to believe.