Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New EU Law Could Force Apple to Allow Other App Stores, Sideloading, and iMessage Interoperability

Sophisticatednut said:
Believe it or not. But in EU for example payment processing is caped at 0.3%
Click to expand...
Only the „interchange fee“ received by the issuer‘s bank is capped.
There are other fees and costs related to card acceptance and processing.
Still, even the smallest companies can accept cards online for less than 3%.

The EU interchange regulation is a great example though of EU regulation that benefits small businesses and consumers by decreasing costs of payment and increasing card acceptance.
 
AppliedMicro said:
Only the „interchange fee“ received by the issuer‘s bank is capped.
There are other fees and costs related to card acceptance and processing.
Still, even the smallest companies can accept cards online for less than 3%.

The EU interchange regulation is a great example though of EU regulation that benefits small businesses and consumers by decreasing costs of payment and increasing card acceptance.
Click to expand...
not at all, the interchange fee includes all fees you pay at the terminal wiht a European card.

the Merchant Service Charge. they are still below 0.3%

it's not the small company that "pays" it but it's whats legal to take of card transactions
 
Sophisticatednut said:
not at all, the interchange fee includes all fees you pay at the terminal wiht a European card.
Click to expand...
I as a consumer don‘t pay anything for use of my payment card (not directly. And depending on my bank’s fees, of course) The merchant does - and they pay more than the 0.3 interchange.

Example: an EU-based acquirer that charges EU merchants 1.69% of transaction amount for card acceptance. Because the total amount of fees is not capped by the EU at 0.3% (or any other rate for that matter).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sophisticatednut
johnnytravels said:
Judging from the comments here, the US have become the land of pathetic cry babies “who do not want to be told what to do, whawha”.
What you really need to see is that one person’s “they are so against our great companiiiess because they don’t have their own-uh” is another person’s “finally a political body that is not completely engrossed in the doings of the private economy and actually makes policies for the many”.
Click to expand...
AppliedMicro said:
Who else should be looking out for the small people?
It surely isn‘t trillion dollar megacorporations.
Click to expand...
They can look out for themselves.

People are not as helpless as some would like you to believe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sophisticatednut
Unregistered 4U said:
Yes, with “browsers” (generic) and desktop OS’s (generic). Literally no one had a problem that Microsoft had 100% control over Microsoft’s Windows or Microsoft’s Explorer. :) Microsoft were forcing vendors to pay for every PC they shipped even if Windows wasn’t on it. Which, made it unlikely that any vendor would cut deals with anyone else to include anything else. Apple, by comparison, specifically does NOT curtail what any companies not named Apple can do on the hardware they produce and ship.
Click to expand...

Many had a problem with Microsoft's dominance in desktop OS and attempts to use that dominance to control/block competition on Windows That's what led to lawsuits regarding what MS should or shouldn't be able to include or require to be included in the sale/license of Windows. The U.S. District Court judge even ruled to have Microsoft split into two companies, although that was later overturned.

Apple not only restricts alternative app stores, browser engines, etc. on iPhones/iOS they sell but also those sold by retailers like AT&T, Best Buy, etc. They also go even further by restricting what end users can do. At least with Windows, the end user could still easily install Navigator or other browsers if they chose.

Apple is trying to block competition on iOS even more than Microsoft was trying to block competition on Windows. Microsoft faced regulatory scrutiny and lawsuits. Apple deserves the same.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
  • Disagree
Reactions: strongy, AppliedMicro, I7guy and 1 other person
webkit said:
Many had a problem with Microsoft's dominance in desktop OS and attempts to use that dominance to control/block competition on Windows That's what led to lawsuits regarding what MS should or shouldn't be able to include or require to be included in the sale/license of Windows. The U.S. District Court judge even ruled to have Microsoft split into two companies, although that was later overturned.

Apple not only restricts alternative app stores, browser engines, etc. on iPhones/iOS they sell but also those sold by retailers like AT&T, Best Buy, etc. They also go even further by restricting what end users can do. At least with Windows, the end user could still easily install Navigator or other browsers if they chose.

Apple is trying to block competition on iOS even more than Microsoft was trying to block competition on Windows. Microsoft faced regulatory scrutiny and lawsuits. Apple deserves the same.
Click to expand...
Difference is Microsoft is the dominant desktop operating system. Apple doesn't manufacture the worlds dominant mobile operating system. Do they deserve scrutiny? I posit all publicly held companies should be scrutinized.

Iphone is clearly dominant by popularity not by law. With AT&T being broken up in the 80s there was no competition. With Microsoft at least there is competition, no matter how small the percentage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
I7guy said:
Difference is Microsoft is the dominant desktop operating system. Apple doesn't manufacture the worlds dominant mobile operating system. Do they deserve scrutiny? I posit all publicly held companies should be scrutinized.

Iphone is clearly dominant by popularity not by law. With AT&T being broken up in the 80s there was no competition. With Microsoft at least there is competition, no matter how small the percentage.
Click to expand...

Antitrust/anticompetitive laws, regulations, lawsuits, etc. are not limited to just the largest player in a market. Yes, there was still Windows competition and Microsoft faced government lawsuits. Just like Apple deserves to.

Also, what Microsoft did in the 1990s with Winodws is not as restrictive or anticompetitive as what Apple does with iOS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppliedMicro
webkit said:
Antitrust/anticompetitive laws, regulations, lawsuits, etc. are not limited to just the largest player in a market. Yes, there was still Windows competition and Microsoft faced government lawsuits. Just like Apple deserves to.
Click to expand...
I disagree about the "deserves to", but things happen outside of our collective opinions here. (Such as the last verdict in Epic vs Apple)
webkit said:
Also, what Microsoft did in the 1990s with Winodws is not as restrictive or anticompetitive as what Apple does with iOS.
Click to expand...
I don't believe Apple is anti-competitive with IOS. But again, things happen outside of our opinions here on MacRumors and we shall see.
 
Sophisticatednut said:
How did I move the goalpost? Apps can be sold anywhere, but not if your an iOS app.
Click to expand...
Because the original comment was about apps in general. Then you moved the goalposts to iOS apps.

Sophisticatednut said:
It says so in the: allow side loading.
Click to expand...
And yet in the entire paragraph that you quoted, there is nothing to imply that platform rules and fees are outlawed for gatekeepers.

Sophisticatednut said:
How is 15% fair when you can choose 5%? Or even zero with your own solution.
Click to expand...
Because "fair" doesn't mean the lowest possible price. It simply means that prices are similar to the competition. As you pointed out, it falls towards the low end of similar stores.

And, of course, none of those solutions costs zero. "Your own solution" still has costs, (credit card fees at a minimum.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
I disagree with this. But, if this happens, they'll need to do it to everyone. This means they need to let me sideload apps into cars, my fridge, and TVs. Oh, Playstation, Switch and Xbox. Oh, they should sell BMWs on Tesla web site. I mean, not fair the Tesla.com is the only sells Teslas. And, I guess Apple web store is a monopoly. They only let me buy iPhones on their store. What the hell? I want to buy an Android phone on Apple's web site :) Yes, I'm exaggerating. But, the EU is getting ridiculous.

Basically, stop having companies innovate and make anything unique that makes them successful. Everything should be the same. I guess the EU should sit in on all product meetings at Apple. I can see it now. If we sell X amount of devices/services, we are good. Anything above that, EU will say...not fair.

This makes no sense. Simply don't buy an iPhone. How is that hard?
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy and monstermash
tranceme said:
I disagree with this. But, if this happens, they'll need to do it to everyone. This means they need to let me sideload apps into cars, my fridge, and TVs. Oh, Playstation, Switch and Xbox. Oh, they should sell BMWs on Tesla web site. I mean, not fair the Tesla.com is the only sells Teslas. And, I guess Apple web store is a monopoly. They only let me buy iPhones on their store. What the hell? I want to buy an Android phone on Apple's web site :) Yes, I'm exaggerating. But, the EU is getting ridiculous.

Basically, stop having companies innovate and make anything unique that makes them successful. Everything should be the same. I guess the EU should sit in on all product meetings at Apple. I can see it now. If we sell X amount of devices/services, we are good. Anything above that, EU will say...not fair.

This makes no sense. Simply don't buy an iPhone. How is that hard?
Click to expand...

If companies have a dominant position in their particular market or markets (like Apple with iOS and Google with Android in mobile OS) then yes, they can potentially face similar regulatory actions. In some countries, Android has the largest mobile OS share and in other countries iOS has the largest mobole OS share. Google doesn't restrict sideloading and alternative app stores on Android like Apple does on iOS which is why this impacts Apple more but both are subject to the same legislation.
 
webkit said:
If companies have a dominant position in their particular market or markets (like Apple with iOS and Google with Android in mobile OS) then yes, they can potentially face similar regulatory actions. In some countries, Android has the largest mobile OS share and in other countries iOS has the largest mobole OS share. Google doesn't restrict sideloading and alternative app stores on Android like Apple does on iOS which is why this impacts Apple more but both are subject to the same legislation.
Click to expand...
Market dominance isn't required.

Companies operating one or more of the so-called “core platform services” listed in the DMA qualify
as a gatekeeper if they meet the requirements described below. These services are: online
intermediation services such as app stores, online search engines, social networking services, certain
messaging services, video sharing platform services, virtual assistants, web browsers, cloud
computing services, operating systems, online marketplaces, and advertising services.
There are three main criteria that bring a company in the scope of the DMA:

1. A size that impacts the internal market: when the company achieves a certain annual
turnover in the European Economic Area (EEA) and it provides a core platform service in at least
three EU Member States;
2. The control of an important gateway for business users towards final consumers: when
the company provides a core platform service to more than 45 million monthly active end users
established or located in the EU and to more than 10,000 yearly active business users
established in the EU;
3. An entrenched and durable position: in the case the company met the second criterion
during the last three years.

And again, Google doesn't qualify as a gatekeeper because of android OSs, because Google doesn't control android OSs (except for their own hardware such as Pixel). Google would qualify as a gatekeeper for Google Play Services such as the Play Store, messaging, virtual assistant, etc. And search, of course.
 
deeddawg said:
The three banks I use here in the US do MFA just to login from a web browser. Choices generally are SMS, app push, email, app-scan-QR-code, or even phoning in to get code. There may then be additional validation for transfers depending on size and nature.

In fairness I probably enrolled in MFA for added security, but it's certainly available here.
Click to expand...

ok but what drives me crazy its that phone its enough for doing everything while a pc isnt.... i consider pc more safe than a phone
 
tranceme said:
I disagree with this. But, if this happens, they'll need to do it to everyone. This means they need to let me sideload apps into cars, my fridge, and TVs. Oh, Playstation, Switch and Xbox. Oh, they should sell BMWs on Tesla web site
Click to expand...
Manufacturers of fridges, TVs or microwaves do not gatekeep access of thousands of business customers (such as app developers, banks, mobile transport associations, ride-share and delivery services) to millions of customers and vice versa.

Your fridge and the software running don't impact the (unrelated) markets for banking/payments, transport and travel, food delivery, media streaming, ebook sales, etc.

The EU is only targeting a very select few companies that have the biggest and (potentially) most problematic gatekeeping power.
 
AppliedMicro said:
Manufacturers of fridges, TVs or microwaves do not gatekeep access of thousands of business customers (such as app developers, banks, mobile transport associations, ride-share and delivery services) to millions of customers and vice versa.

Your fridge and the software running don't impact the (unrelated) markets for banking/payments, transport and travel, food delivery, media streaming, ebook sales, etc.

The EU is only targeting a very select few companies that have the biggest and (potentially) most problematic gatekeeping power.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, they do. They have the own app stores. And, when they don't it's via Google.

And, that is exact point, the EU is targeting companies. You just validated my comment. Only go after companies that are very successful. As developer, it doesn't feel good to know if you do something very well, the EU will eventually come down on you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
tranceme said:
And, that is exact point, the EU is targeting companies. You just validated my comment. Only go after companies that are very successful.
Click to expand...
No. They are regulating certain companies based on market power.
tranceme said:
As developer, it doesn't feel good to know if you do something very well, the EU will eventually come down on you.
Click to expand...
As a citizen and consumer, it feels very good to know that even the biggest megacorporations' powers aren't unlimited and unchecked. When thousands of businesses and dozens of millions of end users have built upon and depend on their products and services.

In the case of Apple or Google, the two alone been rewarded for their success with billions of dollars in earnings from the EU alone over the last 15 years or so since the advent of smartphones. And they will most likely continue to do so, regulation or not.

Cry me a river.

When you can earn (or you have earned already) billions of dollars in Europe, a little regulation isn't going to stop businesses from operating in that market or innovating.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Quantumodi
This is what I worry about more than USB-C. Dictating software feature to companies can pose far more problems. What's next? Forcing them to have a backdoor?
 
monstermash said:
There certainly isn't anything innovative about govt and taxation.
Click to expand...
Government only sets out, promotes and protects the conditions for free-enterprise innovation to happen.
I7guy said:
Except specifically Apple has been innovation.
Click to expand...
Definitely.

Their business model for their App Store, limiting access to software distribution and hardware features (such as NFC) though... they aren't innovative or encouraging innovation. They're actively hindering innovation to make a quick buck.

It's not as if the EU were expropriating Apple and taking their innovations away from them or prohibiting them.
They're merely making them more accessible and inter-operable in (only) a few specific ways and situations.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back