EU Reportedly Planning to Charge Apple for Violating Digital Markets Act

[I7guy]

Asking again:

👉 Where or how, in which way is the DMA “meant to stifle“ competition?

You can’t give someone business was away and say it’s increasing competition. It is not. That is not 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”.

It’s a simple answer, it’s a set of bad regulations.

You’re sidestepping into “philosophy class” territory again.

We’re all over the place.

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.

Nice fallacy equating a morally reprehensible act with some legal finding.

It’s simple logical reasoning, really.

You guys made it complex.

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.

It’s innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Melab]

This is not a philosophy class. It’s a commentary on laws which imo are meant to stifle rather than encourage competition.

Cop. Out.

If we can't criticize what we believe to be problematic or loaded terms, then it's not a discussion. Instead, it's "shut up and accept my definitions which load the dice in my favor".

 

[AppliedMicro]

You can’t give someone business was away and say it’s increasing competition

Yes you can.

When someone has all of the business (distribution of iOS apps to consumers and sales of digital content for such apps) and you take that exclusivity away from them, thereby enabling other interested parties to enter that market: that‘s increasing competition.

That‘s literally „competition“: „a situation in which someone is trying to be (…) more successful than someone else“. Only one App Store isn‘t - more than one app store is.

It yet again doesn’t answer the question: how and where would the DMA „stifle competition“.

It’s a simple answer, it’s a set of bad regulations.

Maybe it‘s bad.

It still doesn‘t answer the question: How and where would the DMA stifle competition (or is it „meant to be“, as you said)?

It’s innocent until proven guilty.

…in a court of law, yes.

But your statement was a claim of innocence (on Apple‘s part).

Which has been refuted by them having been found guilty in at least one point. And even if Epic had been found unable to prove all of their claims, that wouldn’t prove the defendant is innocent (as you claimed it would).

 

[I7guy]

Cop. Out.

If we criticize what we believe to be problematic or loaded terms, then it's not a discussion. Instead, it's "shut up and accept my definitions which load the dice in my favor".

The dma is a set of bad regulations. No amount of word salad can change that opinion.

 

[I7guy]

Yes you can.

Well, surprise, we are at an impasse.

When someone has all of the business (distribution of iOS apps to consumers and sales of digital content for such apps) and you take that exclusivity away from them, thereby enabling other interested parties to enter that market: that‘s increasing competition.

No, taking a piece of someone’s business is not increasing moderation. It’s as if you gave away a slice of pizza and then claimed to increase pizza production.

That‘s literally „competition“: „a situation in which someone is trying to be (…) more successful than someone else“. Only one App Store isn‘t - more than one app store is.

That’s not competition because the business belonged to someone else. Isn’t that socialism? What’s mine is mine and yours?

It yet again doesn’t answer the question: how and where would the DMA „stifle competition“.

Answered in multiple times.

Maybe it‘s bad.

It still doesn‘t answer the question: How and where would the DMA stifle competition (or is it „meant to be“, as you said)?


…in a court of law, yes.

But your statement was a claim of innocence (on Apple‘s part).

Which has been refuted by them having been found guilty in at least one point.

They were found for one point not related to App Store operations. You are throwing the baby out with the bath water, again.

And even if Epic had been found unable to prove all of their claims, that wouldn’t prove the defendant is innocent (as you claimed it would).

Innocent until proven guilty applies here in the US.

 

[webkit]

Sure why not?

It can be a lot of added cost and effort, especially for small developers, to require each app to be made available for every OS. Also, what if a particular OS charges a significant monthly or annual developer program fee? Every developer would be forced to pay it?

Giving developers the option to choose from multiple app stores for two or so major operating systems is a lot cleaner, easier and more cost effective than having several operating systems which every app is required to be developed for.

Consumers don’t get much more choice as a result of the DMA. My plan would give consumers a lot more choice.

Consumers get much more choice when it comes to alternative app stores and payment options than they had when the App Store was the only iOS app source.

 

[webkit]

Apple doesn’t engage in anticompetitive behavior with respect to its App Store.

The anticompetitive behavior is things like Apple’s restrictions on alternative app stores, alternative payment systems/options (anti-steering), etc.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Just a quick reminder here...Apple only has about a 25% marketshare in the EU.

Which just goes to show how nonsensical the DMA is and all of this talk about "anticompetitive behavior."

If you're worried about competition, you go after the clear market leader. You don't go after the also-ran.

The rest is just anti-Apple bias.

 

[I7guy]

The anticompetitive behavior is things like Apple’s restrictions on alternative app stores, alternative payment systems/options (anti-steering), etc.

Where is that ruling we ask again. Or is the above an opinion?

 

[I7guy]

It can be a lot of added cost and effort, especially for small developers, to require each app to be made available for every OS. Also, what if a particular OS charges a significant monthly or annual developer program fee? Every developer would be forced to pay it?

Giving developers the option to choose from multiple app stores for two or so major operating systems is a lot cleaner, easier and more cost effective than having several operating systems which every app is required to be developed for.




Consumers get much more choice when it comes to alternative app stores and payment options than they had when the App Store was the only iOS app source.

That’s like you giving somebody a slice of a pizza pie and then claiming there is now increased pizza production.

 

[Melab]

That’s like you giving somebody a slice of a pizza pie and then claiming there is now increased pizza production.

He said "competition", NOT "production".

 

[I7guy]

He said "competition", NOT "production".

It’s what the eu did with the dma. Gave away a slice of apple’s pie. Pun intended.

 

[AppliedMicro]

No, taking a piece of someone’s business is not increasing moderation. It’s as if you gave away a slice of pizza and then claimed to increase pizza production.

No, it’s not.


The DMA does not make Apple give away any part of their App Store business. They can sell all the apps and digital content they want at the commission rates they want - if developers agree.

That’s not competition because the business belonged to someone else

That is what competition means: Another company trying to take away business from someone else

If you’re the only pizza maker in town and I say „Hey, I can make good pizza, too!“ and set up my oven, I don‘t expect that all of my prospective customers are former non-pizza eaters. Maybe some people will begin to eat (more) pizza than did before, maybe not. Maybe they‘ll adopt eating pizza irrespective of our competitive situation.

👉🏻 Yes, I do expect to take business away from your pizzeria - that‘s what competition means.

Isn’t that socialism? What’s mine is mine and yours?

No, not at all.
What sounds somewhat more like "socialism" is your notion of business "belonging to" Apple.

Answered in multiple times.

No - you didn't explain how it would stifle competition.
You merely detracted from the point by reiterating that taking away business isn't competition.

Prohibiting Apple from shutting down competition isn't competitive per se - but it enables competition.

They were found for one point not related to App Store operations

These are disingenuous word games and you know it.
Of course it is - cause Apple's provisions are part of their App Store rules.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It’s what the eu did with the dma. Gave away a slice of apple’s pie.

They're merely enabling other makers of pie from selling to consumers.

 

[BaldiMac]

The DMA does not make Apple give away any part of their App Store business. They can sell all the apps and digital content they want at the commission rates they want - if developers agree.

I see what you did there. You added "App Store" as a qualifier, so you could avoid acknowledging that the EU is forcing Apple to allow other companies to sell access to its platform.

 

[AppliedMicro]

avoid acknowledging that the EU is forcing Apple to allow other companies to sell access to its platform.

Apple has an obligation to provide access to its platform on fair and competitive terms. And prohibits them from leveraging their control of the platform in related but separate markets - such as the ones for apps and digital content.

Both of which encourage competition.

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple has an obligation to provide access to its platform on fair and competitive terms.

And prohibits them from leveraging their control of the platform in related but separate markets - such as the ones for apps and digital content.

Way to move those goalposts! We're both well aware of the DMAs requirements already.

 

[AppliedMicro]

When someone has a monopoly (or operates in a duopoly) for an important resource or platform product/service - and monetises that for profit - you, implicitly or explicity, have to take away something (of their power, "business", whatever you want to call it) to enable and encourage competition.

👉 Taking away from monopolists doesn't stifle competition though - quite the contrary.

It's their platform power that is limited or (partly - they can still monetise it) taken away. Not their App Store business.

 

[AppliedMicro]

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.

It's an interesting question.

Probably also explanation and reason for Apple to develop its own Maps application/service - cause taking that away from iOS could impact Apple's market share.

But Google didn't. And otherwise... there's little indication that any agreements among the Android developer and smartphone manufacturers negatively impacted Apple's market share, is there?

 

[I7guy]

They're merely enabling other makers of pie from selling to consumers.

Enabling? At least be honest about what the intent of the dma is.

 

[I7guy]

No, it’s not.


The DMA does not make Apple give away any part of their App Store business. They can sell all the apps and digital content they want at the commission rates they want - if developers agree.

100% the dam allows anybody to build an app store in their turf. You keep being intellectually dishonest with the intent of the dma.

That is what competition means: Another company trying to take away business from someone else

In this case it’s the overarching dam regulations.

If you’re the only pizza maker in town and I say „Hey, I can make good pizza, too!“ and set up my oven, I don‘t expect that all of my prospective customers are former non-pizza eaters. Maybe some people will begin to eat (more) pizza than did before, maybe not. Maybe they‘ll adopt eating pizza irrespective of our competitive situation.

👉🏻 Yes, I do expect to take business away from your pizzeria - that‘s what competition means.

Competition is building g it from the ground up. Not legislation required competitors can use your ovens, table and silverware.

No, not at all.
What sounds somewhat more like "socialism" is your notion of business "belonging to" Apple.

So t think so.

No - you didn't explain how it would stifle competition.
You merely detracted from the point by reiterating that taking away business isn't competition.

Prohibiting Apple from shutting down competition isn't competitive per se - but it enables competition.

These are disingenuous word games and you know it.
Of course it is - cause Apple's provisions are part of their App Store rules.

You play disingenuous word games with your descriptions. I guess this is where we are at, trying to prove each others opinion is “incorrect”.

 

[webkit]

Where is that ruling we ask again. Or is the above an opinion?

It’s related to regulations outlined in the DMA articles regarding alternative app marketplaces in the EU, app developers being allowed to inform consumers about alternative app access/payment options, etc. which Apple violated.

That’s like you giving somebody a slice of a pizza pie and then claiming there is now increased pizza production.

It's about new competition and there are more iOS app stores and ways to access apps now then there were when Apple was restricting alternative app stores.

 

[I7guy]

It’s related to regulations outlined in the DMA articles regarding alternative app marketplaces in the EU, app developers being allowed to inform consumers about alternative app access/payment options, etc. which Apple violated.

So there really isn’t anything in the US (other than the one infamous point) or anything in the EU with the App Store other than some regulations that force apple take certain actions with respect to their own property.

It's about new competition and there are more iOS app stores and ways to access apps now then there were when Apple was restricting alternative app stores.

It’s about taking apples profits and giving it away for free. That is what it is about.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Competition is building g it from the ground up

No, it’s not. It’s not limited to that.
Where do you get all that stuff from?

Example: Governments requiring mobile carrier networks to offer wholesale access to others (which has happened not only in Europe but in the U.S.too). MVNOs benefit from that and compete with network operators’ own end-user offerings. Competition without building everything from the ground up.

Not legislation required competitors can use your ovens, table and silverware.

Apple is a vertically integrated company, and you know it.
They make hardware, they make software, they provide entertainment services to consumers.

To keep with the analogy, they control not only their own pizza recipes - but only the supply of necessary equipment and ingredients for …not only pizzas, but a sizeable chunk of the entire food industry. And while making their own pizzas and selling them to consumers, they‘re requiring 30% commissions for use of their ovens and stoves from other pizza makers and restaurants.

👉 Again, time for the government to step in, to allow other food producers/restaurants fair competition.

It’s just hard to conceive how a company could control something as simple as ovens, tables stoves, impose their monopoly and enforce those commission on other market participant. There’s no equivalent of the mandatory digital signing certificate for pizza ovens and distribution of pizzas to consumers. And pizzas can’t be made and delivered at near zero marginal cost.

That’s why the bloody regulation applies to certain digital markets - and not grocery stores or Costco. It’s not the same.

 

[I7guy]

No, it’s not. It’s not limited to that.
Where do you get all that stuff from?

Where do you get your stuff from? Competition is not taking a slice of someone else’s pie and calling it a day.

Example: Governments requiring mobile carrier networks to offer wholesale access to others (which has happened not only in Europe but in the U.S.too). MVNOs benefit from that and compete with network operators’ own end-user offerings. Competition without building everything from the ground up.

MVNOs are not the dma. MVNOs do not own the airwaves. They do not buy the airwaves. They rent spectrum. Your analogy is flawed.

Apple is a vertically integrated company, and you know it.
They make hardware, they make software, they provide entertainment services to consumers.

Many companies are vertically integrated.

To keep with the analogy, they control not only their own pizza recipes - but only the supply of necessary equipment and ingredients for …not only pizzas, but a sizeable chunk of the entire food industry. And while making their own pizzas and selling them to consumers, they‘re requiring 30% commissions for use of their ovens and stoves from other pizza makers and restaurants.

👉 Again, time for the government to step in, to allow other food producers/restaurants fair competition.

It’s just hard to conceive how a company could control something as simple as ovens, tables stoves, impose their monopoly and enforce those commission on other market participant. There’s no equivalent of the mandatory digital signing certificate for pizza ovens and distribution of pizzas to consumers. And pizzas can’t be made and delivered at near zero marginal cost.

That’s why the bloody regulation applies to certain digital markets - and not grocery stores or Costco. It’s not the same.

To keep with the analogy if there were only one pizza restaurant the dma would mandate competitors can use the gas, ovens, electricity and materials of the one lone pizza place without paying any money to the owner.