There is no way that this decision stands in a EU or arbitrary court.
”Cartel" means 2 or more independent competitors who work together toward an illegitimate purpose (like price fixing).
Here we have Apple - a manufacturer (which also has a distribution network) and 2 resellers of Apple products; first of all, Apple products have but a small share of telecommunication devices market; second, Apple is free to sell an iPhone for €1k as well as €100k; third, as long as Apple and its 2 resellers have not conspired to fix prices for products other than Apple's, the level of the price for one brand is not ”price fixing"; and fourth, go into several supermarkets and retail stores in EU and you'll find the same products, being sold at the same price - called "recommended retail price" (SRP/RRP or MSRP for US users).
Apple and its two wholsalers have agreed not to compete with each other," said the French competition watchdog, "and to prevent distributors from competing with each other, thereby sterilizing the wholesale market for Apple products."
Amazing. How dare they set a price for the product they make! This is some truly Marxist thinking from a so called market regulator. From each according to his ability, at a price determined by mother france’s needs.
Apple already sold their product at the price they wanted when it shipped to the regional distributors. Absolutely OK. According to the French, Apple still wanted to control the price after the sale and down the entire supply line from wholesalers to dealers to the local store shelves. Not simply the common "lowest advertised price" but a contractual hard price. That's what the competition authorities have an issue with. Apple doesn't actually disagree with them either saying it's something they did a decade ago, but do not agree it was an illegal restraint of competitive trade and plan an appeal.
Apple still wanted to control the price after the sale and down the entire supply line from wholesalers to dealers to the local store shelves. Not simply the common "lowest advertised price" but a contractual hard price. That's what the competition authorities have an issue with.
That is a perfectly legal practice all over the EU, France included.
Apple still wanted to control the price after the sale and down the entire supply line from wholesalers to dealers to the local store shelves. Not simply the common "lowest advertised price" but a contractual hard price. That's what the competition authorities have an issue with.
That is a perfectly legal practice all over the EU, France included.
You are misunderstanding or misreading something since legal experts in the respective government agencies disagree with you to the tune of over a $B. Obviously the legality is not as cut and dried as you assume. FWIW this case began back in 2012 when an Apple licensed retailer complained that Apple was abusing its dominant position to favor its own Apple Stores.
Apple is currently deemed guilty of illegal restraint of competition and will appeal. They may be found in the clear or the higher courts may still find them guilty. I doubt any French authorities are reading our posts for legal advice.
Price fixing? That's kind of out of left field imo. I thought they were concentrating on the App Store.
Apple is humongous, it has become an entire eco system within itself, nobody get's into its walled off domain without paying at least a 30% entrance tax. That's what a monopoly does. Congrats Apple you reached the top, it's only downwards from here.
Apple and its two wholsalers have agreed not to compete with each other," said the French competition watchdog, "and to prevent distributors from competing with each other, thereby sterilizing the wholesale market for Apple products."
Amazing. How dare they set a price for the product they make! This is some truly Marxist thinking from a so called market regulator. From each according to his ability, at a price determined by mother france’s needs.
by this logic it would be OK if Apple ditched one or both of the wholesalers? What a stupid ruling.
Apple is a huge global company, they need France more than France needs them. House rules sorry.
France, huh, good god What is it good for Absolutely nothing!
How far back should I go? Let's start with their help to fight the British King when the colonies declared independence from the UK. Maybe centuries of great culture including music, art, architecture, philosophy, language, science, etc... Is your love for a huge American, I mean global corporation so strong it blinds you to the real world?
Apple still wanted to control the price after the sale and down the entire supply line from wholesalers to dealers to the local store shelves. Not simply the common "lowest advertised price" but a contractual hard price. That's what the competition authorities have an issue with.
That is a perfectly legal practice all over the EU, France included.
[1] You are misunderstanding or misreading something since [2] legal experts in the respective government agencies disagree with you to the tune of over a $B. Obviously the legality is not as cut and dried as you assume. FWIW this case began back in 2012 when an [3] Apple licensed retailer complained that Apple was abusing its dominant position to favor its own Apple Stores.
[4] Apple is currently deemed guilty of illegal restraint of competition and will appeal.
[5] Eventually it will all get sorted.
1. Maybe I am; because it is of little interest to me, the only info I have on this case is this article; if the article is bad written, I may misunderstand things.
2. Legal experts from a certain European country said that a certain population can be spat on and its members imprisoned and killed; experts from an American country said it's legal to abuse the rights of a certain ethnic part of its population, to abuse the rights of citizens that have a certain political believe, to abuse the rights of some prisoners etc. The fact that some lawyers from a government agency have an opinion, doesn't mean that the measure is legal.
3. A complaint is just a complaint.
4. Apple received a fine, but that doesn't prove it is neither guilty nor innocent; the only one that can clearly state that is a court of law.
Price fixing? That's kind of out of left field imo. I thought they were concentrating on the App Store.
nobody get's into its walled off domain without paying at least a 30% entrance tax. That's what a monopoly does.
Carrefour - a french company - takes a commission for every single sale made through their marketplace which, for some products, is higher than 30%. Why do you think Apple is bad for doing the exact same thing?
Apple still wanted to control the price after the sale and down the entire supply line from wholesalers to dealers to the local store shelves. Not simply the common "lowest advertised price" but a contractual hard price. That's what the competition authorities have an issue with.
That is a perfectly legal practice all over the EU, France included.
[1] You are misunderstanding or misreading something since [2] legal experts in the respective government agencies disagree with you to the tune of over a $B. Obviously the legality is not as cut and dried as you assume. FWIW this case began back in 2012 when an [3] Apple licensed retailer complained that Apple was abusing its dominant position to favor its own Apple Stores.
[4] Apple is currently deemed guilty of illegal restraint of competition and will appeal.
[5] Eventually it will all get sorted.
1. Maybe I am; because it is of little interest to me, the only info I have on this case is this article; if the article is bad written, I may misunderstand things.
2. Legal experts from a certain European country said that a certain population can be spat on and its members imprisoned and killed; experts from an American country said it's legal to abuse the rights of a certain ethnic part of its population, to abuse the rights of citizens that have a certain political believe, to abuse the rights of some prisoners etc. The fact that some lawyers from a government agency have an opinion, doesn't mean that the measure is legal.
3. A complaint is just a complaint.
4. Apple received a fine, but that doesn't prove it is neither guilty nor innocent; the only one that can clearly state that is a court of law.
Price fixing? That's kind of out of left field imo. I thought they were concentrating on the App Store.
nobody get's into its walled off domain without paying at least a 30% entrance tax. That's what a monopoly does.
Carrefour - a french company - takes a commission for every single sale made through their marketplace which, for some products, is higher than 30%. Why do you think Apple is bad for doing the exact same thing?
Because when you have an iPhone you cannot use other 'stores'. Your only option is the App Store and Apple vets everything on it (restricting choice) and takes a cut from developers' business.
Some feel that constitutes a monopoly and the EU is already in the early stages of collecting information.
The only items that you will find on the Carrefour Marketplace that aren't available on other stores are those that are Carrefour's own label products. Everything else is available elsewhere.
Because when you have an iPhone you cannot use other 'stores'. Your only option is the App Store and Apple vets everything on it (restricting choice) and takes a cut from developers' business.
Some feel that constitutes a monopoly and the EU is already in the early stages of collecting information.
The only items that you will find on the Carrefour Marketplace that aren't available on other stores are those that are Carrefour's own label products. Everything else is available elsewhere.
Apple doesn't operate the same way.
Of course I can: there are millions of PWAs I can use without even opening the App Store. Every company have "monopolies" on their products; some more, others less, but they all have monopolies. In order to buy from Carrefour, one needs to go into its buildings; the iPhone is the building that allows you to get to the merchandise found in the store. You can get pretty much every single App Store app from another app store, you just have to change the "access pass" - which is the iPhone - with another "access pass".
Because when you have an iPhone you cannot use other 'stores'. Your only option is the App Store and Apple vets everything on it (restricting choice) and takes a cut from developers' business.
Some feel that constitutes a monopoly and the EU is already in the early stages of collecting information.
The only items that you will find on the Carrefour Marketplace that aren't available on other stores are those that are Carrefour's own label products. Everything else is available elsewhere.
Apple doesn't operate the same way.
Of course I can: there are millions of PWAs I can use without even opening the App Store. Every company have "monopolies" on their products; some more, others less, but they all have monopolies. In order to buy from Carrefour, one needs to go into its buildings; the iPhone is the building that allows you to get to the merchandise found in the store. You can get pretty much every single App Store app from another app store, you just have to change the "access pass" - which is the iPhone - with another "access pass".
Are we talking PWA or native Apps on an App Store? A PWA is not a perfect alternative for every native iOS App and far more importantly, any EU investigation will definitely cover the period prior to PWAs becoming viable alternatives in some cases. It also doesn't change the underlying fact that the only iOS app store allowed on Apple devices is Apple's App Store.
In your analogy, the iPhone is far, far more than the 'building'. It is the 'universe'. However, that is not the root issue. The root issue is why you should have to change your 'access pass' in the first place.
People (iOS users included) speak of walled gardens and lock-in. They are also related to the issues the EU could end up taking a hard look at.
Because when you have an iPhone you cannot use other 'stores'. Your only option is the App Store and Apple vets everything on it (restricting choice) and takes a cut from developers' business.
Some feel that constitutes a monopoly and the EU is already in the early stages of collecting information.
The only items that you will find on the Carrefour Marketplace that aren't available on other stores are those that are Carrefour's own label products. Everything else is available elsewhere.
Apple doesn't operate the same way.
Of course I can: there are millions of PWAs I can use without even opening the App Store. Every company have "monopolies" on their products; some more, others less, but they all have monopolies. In order to buy from Carrefour, one needs to go into its buildings; the iPhone is the building that allows you to get to the merchandise found in the store. You can get pretty much every single App Store app from another app store, you just have to change the "access pass" - which is the iPhone - with another "access pass".
A consumer in the Carrefour store doesn't have any significant obstacle to leaving and going into another store, an iPhone user has a $1000 obstacle. Stupid analogy, an iPhone is not a building.
Are we talking PWA or native Apps on an App Store? A PWA is not a perfect alternative for every native iOS App and far more importantly, any EU investigation will definitely cover the period prior to PWAs becoming viable alternatives in some cases. It also doesn't change the underlying fact that the only iOS app store allowed on Apple devices is Apple's App Store.
In your analogy, the iPhone is far, far more than the 'building'. It is the 'universe'. However, that is not the root issue. The root issue is why you should have to change your 'access pass' in the first place.
People (iOS users included) speak of walled gardens and lock-in. They are also related to the issues the EU could end up taking a hard look at.
We are talking about apps. Apple has built the App Store as an alternative to web based apps; the developers wanted access to that store and were willing to pay for that, so Apple charged them a percentage; they are of course free to leave the store and provide - free of charge or whatever - web based apps (or PWAs) instead of paying Apple's fee to provide Xcode based apps. EU is free to investigate, but Safari has always been able to handle web based apps so an investigation would have no object.
Just like you have nothing but Tesla authorised maps on your Tesla car, you also have nothing but Apple authorised apps on an Apple phone.
There's nothing locking users in Apple ecosystem, just their own desire.
A consumer in the Carrefour store doesn't have any significant obstacle to leaving and going into another store, an iPhone user has a $1000 obstacle. Stupid analogy, an iPhone is not a building.
The same goes for an iPhone user: instead opening the App Store app and installing an app from there, he opens Safari and runs a PWA.
Are we talking PWA or native Apps on an App Store? A PWA is not a perfect alternative for every native iOS App and far more importantly, any EU investigation will definitely cover the period prior to PWAs becoming viable alternatives in some cases. It also doesn't change the underlying fact that the only iOS app store allowed on Apple devices is Apple's App Store.
In your analogy, the iPhone is far, far more than the 'building'. It is the 'universe'. However, that is not the root issue. The root issue is why you should have to change your 'access pass' in the first place.
People (iOS users included) speak of walled gardens and lock-in. They are also related to the issues the EU could end up taking a hard look at.
We are talking about apps.
Why?
The French regulators didn't take exception to the App Store, at least yet. This is about Apple hardware pricing.
Discussing the App Store instead is going to confuse some readers into thinking the French are fining Apple because of it instead of iPhone price fixing at independent authorized retailers.
The French regulators didn't take exception to the App Store, at least yet. This is about Apple hardware pricing.
Discussing the App Store instead is going to confuse some readers into thinking the French are fining Apple because of it instead of iPhone price fixing at independent authorized retailers.
I was talking apps with avon b7 and hardware with anybody else (my mind is able to handle 2 different subjects, you know).
Comments
Apple is currently deemed guilty of illegal restraint of competition and will appeal. They may be found in the clear or the higher courts may still find them guilty. I doubt any French authorities are reading our posts for legal advice.
Eventually it will all get sorted.
Apple is a huge global company, they need France more than France needs them. House rules sorry.
How far back should I go? Let's start with their help to fight the British King when the colonies declared independence from the UK. Maybe centuries of great culture including music, art, architecture, philosophy, language, science, etc... Is your love for a huge American, I mean global corporation so strong it blinds you to the real world?
It's a symptom though.
Some feel that constitutes a monopoly and the EU is already in the early stages of collecting information.
The only items that you will find on the Carrefour Marketplace that aren't available on other stores are those that are Carrefour's own label products. Everything else is available elsewhere.
Apple doesn't operate the same way.
Every company have "monopolies" on their products; some more, others less, but they all have monopolies.
In order to buy from Carrefour, one needs to go into its buildings; the iPhone is the building that allows you to get to the merchandise found in the store.
You can get pretty much every single App Store app from another app store, you just have to change the "access pass" - which is the iPhone - with another "access pass".
In your analogy, the iPhone is far, far more than the 'building'. It is the 'universe'. However, that is not the root issue. The root issue is why you should have to change your 'access pass' in the first place.
People (iOS users included) speak of walled gardens and lock-in. They are also related to the issues the EU could end up taking a hard look at.
Apple has built the App Store as an alternative to web based apps; the developers wanted access to that store and were willing to pay for that, so Apple charged them a percentage; they are of course free to leave the store and provide - free of charge or whatever - web based apps (or PWAs) instead of paying Apple's fee to provide Xcode based apps.
EU is free to investigate, but Safari has always been able to handle web based apps so an investigation would have no object.
Just like you have nothing but Tesla authorised maps on your Tesla car, you also have nothing but Apple authorised apps on an Apple phone.
There's nothing locking users in Apple ecosystem, just their own desire.
The same goes for an iPhone user: instead opening the App Store app and installing an app from there, he opens Safari and runs a PWA.
The French regulators didn't take exception to the App Store, at least yet. This is about Apple hardware pricing.
Discussing the App Store instead is going to confuse some readers into thinking the French are fining Apple because of it instead of iPhone price fixing at independent authorized retailers.