Not really, no one in the EU is keen on a federal government. The term "federal" doesn't sit well with many there, practically a bad word.
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
Many are.
They literally wanted to adopt a constitution for it twenty years ago.
And they have elections, a parliament, laws and a judiciary system.
If the United States or the United Kingdom are considered countries having a government, so can the EU be considered to have one.
Who exactly do "they" refer to? Which countries in the EU support federalism? If the term "federal" were to be brought up in any EU meeting, it could very well lead to the EU fracturing into pieces almost overnight.
Not going to get into this with you for a 47th time, but I’ll reiterate my position that thinking that a company with 27% of the market needs to be regulated like a monopolist is why the EU can’t innovate itself out of a wet paper bag when it comes to consumer tech.
Hope all is well with you though! Look forward to sparring again on the thread for next EU action against Apple
Not apple according to every metric except the EU
Again not apple. Having a popular platform is not the same as controlling an entire industry.
That sounds like the manufactures who adopt android instead of developing their own operating system(s).
It’s not particularly popular in most parts of the world. In certain countries, Apple devices are regarded as rather overpriced. Moreover, there are countless Android devices that offer far more features for considerably less money. Recently, it seems that all iOS does is play catch-up. And the iPhone has yet to produce a screen that resembles paper.
Android is free and open-source, allowing anyone to create an operating system based on it. On the other hand, Android is built on Linux. iOS, however, is proprietary, which means we’re limited to what Apple provides.
Then get an Android. No one is forcing you to get an iPhone but the EU is forcing Apple to bend to your will. That’s not a good business model but competition is the best business model for consumers. Electronics used to be the least regulated of all industries and that why technology changed literally every day and prices dropped.
Now that government gets more involved expect prices to go up—-back to my main point, government does not create innovation it prohibits it and costs companies more money which is ALWAYS passed on to the consumer.
Btw, good luck with android and replacing phones every two years because support for them ends and they freeze and have random reboots but Apple phones are usually supported for 5-6 years and run smooth through that period.
But, hey let’s have government force Apple how to run their business model that made them successful—-I’m sure you’d be okay with government forcing you how to live your life by constant ever changing fines and regulations disrupting daily life.
…but accounts for about half of consumer spending in the market.
It‘s a duopoly on the overall market for mobile apps - and both operators should be regulated similarly.
Of course they do. Consumers commit to either Android or iOS with their hardware purchase - and Apple has a dominant position in distribution of apps. That‘s why they were fined by the EU. That‘s why they are being sued by the U.S. Department of Justice for monopolisation.
They‘re controlling it together with Google - with suspiciously similar pricing, terms and conditions.
Prohibiting? How so? The DMA enables third parties to innovate - without Apple making their business model unviable by preferential their own services.
Remember the game streaming apps, for which Apple altered their terms to make them unviable and prevent competing with their own gaming service and revenue?
I’m going to move on…if you believe government made America into the most innovative country in the history of the world then you have no understanding as to why America was based off of limited government. When you limit man to think outside of the box then innovation is stifled. Government doesn’t create it prohibits and limits……but accounts for about half of consumer spending in the market.
It‘s a duopoly on the overall market for mobile apps - and both operators should be regulated similarly.
Of course they do. Consumers commit to either Android or iOS with their hardware purchase - and Apple has a dominant position in distribution of apps. That‘s why they were fined by the EU. That‘s why they are being sued by the U.S. Department of Justice for monopolisation.
They‘re controlling it together with Google - with suspiciously similar pricing, terms and conditions.
Prohibiting? How so? The DMA enables third parties to innovate - without Apple making their business model unviable by preferential their own services.
Remember the game streaming apps, for which Apple altered their terms to make them unviable and prevent competing with their own gaming service and revenue?
I’ll move on now.
As Jefferson put it “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery”.
The simple existence of alternatives does not mean major companies should be allowed to do whatever they want, not follow antitrust laws/regulations, etc. In the tech world, Google shouldn't be able to do whatever it wants just because people are able to use Bing or Brave search. Microsoft shouldn't be able to do whatever it wants just because people are (or were) able to use Linux, macOS, BeOS, ChromeOS, OS/2, DR-OS, etc.
Governments (antitrust laws/regulations) are meant to promote competition which can help drive innovation by preventing companies from blocking/stifling new entrants and ideas, ensuring access to key technologies through interoperability requirements, incentivize companies to innovate to gain market share, etc.
But what you‘re missing is this: the same dynamics apply to Apple. I’ve mentioned it before: They act like an authoritarian government of sorts that governs its fiefdom of the iOS platform:
- They decide what‘s morally acceptable or not (vaping/smoking apps, porn apps, confederate flags)
- They make rules (laws)
- They have a form of taxation in place
- They have a centralised censorship system in place
Apple prohibit. Apple restrict. Apple limit. And they “tax”.
That’s just what the DMA provides:
More freedom, more free markets and less “walled garden“ slavery.
America is not the most innovative country today, China is.
When Jefferson was the US president slavery was rampant in the US. He himself was a slave owner,
But has a low market share…but accounts for about half of consumer spending in the market.
Nope they shouldn’t.
Android should be regulated. Make the manufacturers develop their own operating systems.Being fined is one thing. Collecting is another.
I really thought you’d understand at this point, filing a lawsuit is easy. Winning is tough.
And? You gonna blame that on collusion?
Not going to get into this with you for a 47th time, but I’ll reiterate my position that thinking that a company with 27% of the market needs to be regulated like a monopolist is why the EU can’t innovate itself out of a wet paper bag when it comes to consumer tech.
Hope all is well with you though! Look forward to sparring again on the thread for next EU action against Apple
Smartphones are just mobile computers. You can access Spotify from PC’s, Linux, and so on too. So Apple doesn’t have 27% market share at all, it is way lower.
EU just made up some new rules out of their asses really.
Last edited:
I'm not sure where the 27% figure is coming from but if you factor in desktop/laptop and tablet devices in addition to mobile then you are also bringing in Macs and iPads. According to Statcounter, Apple's operating system share in Europe (not sure about EU specifically) is around 26% which wouldn't be "way lower" than 27%.
In the tablet and mobile OS markets, Apple and Android have nearly 100% share.
Antitrust/competition laws generally focus on specific segments of a market. For example, coffee, milk, fruit juices, beer/alcohol, etc. while also beverages wouldn't typically factor into antitrust matters tied to Coke and/or Pepsi.
The dma is not an antitrust law. It’s an apple busting law under the guise of consumerism. It doesn’t really bust apple, but makes certain aspects of their business difficult and it doesn’t really favor consumers.
Apple's "Europe" encompasses the whole of the Middle East. If you were to exclude the non-EU countries like Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, Norway, Switzerland, Serbia, and so forth, it could reduce that figure (27%) by approximately 27%, bringing it down to around 8% in total.
I wasn't saying it was or wasn't antitrust law. I included "competition" (i.e., antitrust/competition) to more broadly identify these types of laws/regulations.
To get the 26% share figure, I was using "Europe" (not EU) as identified by Statcounter, not how Apple may identify it.
The population of Europe is approximately 744 million, and when you add the population of the Middle East, which stands at around 444 million, you arrive at a rather appealing figure for marketing purposes.
People are confusing two different thing here. Apple has approximately 27% market share in the smartphone market in Europe per the EU. That is what I was referencing when I said a market participant with 27% of the market shouldn't be treated like a monopolist.
There is also a "Europe makes up roughly a quarter of Apple's revenue" talking point. Which as @chmania pointed out, is technically true, but misleading. Apple defines "Europe" as the EU, all non-EU European countries (UK, Switzerland, Norway, etc.), the Middle East, India and Africa. As @chmania said, analysts think the EU makes up roughly 8-10% of Apple's global revenue. Which, is a lot to be clear, but also not "the company needs to stay in the market no matter what the EU does" territory - especially if they're getting fined 20% of their global revenue. To be clear, I don't think there is any way Apple is going to leave the EU unless the EU does something really stupid, like mandate Apple provide encryption backdoors, and even then I'm not positive they leave.
Hopefully with Vestager and Breton leaving/already having left the stage, more reasonable people who understand the consequences of their regulations are put in charge, but it's the EU, so I'm not holding my breath.
Yes, but they were the ones in charge of implementing the law, and clearly didn't understand how to regulate technology without further handicapping the EU.
For an example of more sane regulation, please see Japan's recent law. I still have issues with it, but Japan had the good sense to limit the regulations to the App Store and not to dictate to what APIs have to be provided to competitors, require confusing choice screens for basic OS features, or declare that platforms that don't meet the quantifiable criteria set out in the law still get regulated "because we say so".
Just imagine how many individuals of equal or even greater calibre can be found in the other 25 countries, all working to keep the people of the EU safe!