Since apple hasn’t broken any laws that they could use against them, they just INVENT some. It’s criminal
Waiting for the USA to finally step up and go to bat for American companies operating overseas.
Otherwise this kind of extortion will continue everywhere unchecked.
Please take some time to read the DMA/DSA and report back.
The directives are new and reflect legislative efforts to adapt to modern times.
The US will do exactly the same at some point and it's not impossible that those same US companies will find themselves having to adapt to similar legislation.
Since apple hasn’t broken any laws that they could use against them, they just INVENT some. It’s criminal
Waiting for the USA to finally step up and go to bat for American companies operating overseas.
Otherwise this kind of extortion will continue everywhere unchecked.
This line of dumb questioning by ignorant grandstanders in public office happens in the US, too. How many times has Cook (and many others from Apple and other tech companies) been before Congress and the Senate to answer foolish inquires? Remember, these are the people that don't want E2EE in iMessage and would love to be able to force Apple to put a backdoor into their OSes.
The EU is desperate to collect a penalty fee. In the U.S. legal system, Spotify wouldn't have had the standing to complain since they had already moved 99% of their iOS subscribers to web payments WITHOUT needing any kind of in-app communication. Nothing about their financial reality supported the complaint. Not the revenue part of it or the communication part of it.
If confirmed, it would be a penalty fee but not because the EU is desperate to collect anything.
It would be a penalty fee for illegal business practices.
It's not only about Spotify. They lodged the formal complaint but the formal investigation covers the impact of those practices throughout the developer world and on consumers
In this case it is accused (among other things) of contractually forbidding developers of notifying users of cheaper external options.
Doesn't that read as being openly anti-competitive? Do you consider it fair?
No it’s not anti-competitive. The simple fact of the matter, and one the EU is purposefully ignoring, is that Apple doesn’t have to compete against itself by law. They are Apple’s devices and Apple’s systems. Apple can legally do whatever it wants on their systems.
If you come to my house I expect you to obey my house rules just like I would for your house. Why all of a sudden is it illegal for Apple to set the rules for its house?
What on Earth makes you think that you can legally do whatever you want in your house, just because it’s your house?
Of course the laws of the country/state/city where your house stand still apply to your conduct within the house.
Apple by law does not have to "compete against itself". Apple does, however, by law have to enable — or at least not actively hinder — others to compete against them.
In New Zealand we have a term for this sort of behaviour. It’s called “Tall Poppy Syndrome”. It comes from the saying “the tallest poppy is the first to see the lawnmower”.
Everyone was fine when Apple was the underdog. They mocked Apple when it had no market share. Then they sold the iPod and then they sold music and then they sold the iPhone which disrupted so many business models that were screwing over the consumer.
Apple now started to gain market share because people loved their devices because they were getting more of what they wanted.
So rather than move with the times EU companies like Nokia sought to cut down the Apple tree. Only when they tried they died.
The nature of antitrust legislation is that it only applies when you’re big enough to use your market power to illegally disadvantage your competitors.
That is the entire point.
Of course it doesn’t apply to "the underdog".
Actually, there is unilateral application. If a law was broken, then corrective action is taken. If no laws were broken, all is well.
Or that’s how it’s SUPPOSED to be.
Antitrust is when a large corp unfairly uses its established power to thwart smaller businesses.
In Apples case, there is zero evidence of that anywhere.
App makers can partner in order to sell apps. Music sellers can also partner. If they want to go on their own and build their own platforms, they can do that too. There is literally nothing stopping them.
Apple getting paid for the use of its platform is normal, legal, ethical business structure.
Removing Apple’s financial windfall for their efforts is the unethical take.
As noted many times before, the retail model is what we are looking at here. Just because it extends beyond Brock and mortar to digital changes nothing.
If you go to a Barnes and noble, you pay them for a book by a publisher and that publisher and author get a royalty. There won’t also be a waldenbooks store inside the Barnes and noble. They have to open their own store somewhere else.
If you go to target, you buy products from retail partners and both target and those partners get paid. But the payment goes through targets systems. Target isn’t forced to have a sign next to the product saying “hey,” you can get this underwear cheaper at example.com.” That’s a disengenuous partner. Trying to use targets platform to steer customers away from target is wrong. Target is paying the overhead and marketing your product, taking up precious retail space. They deserve their cut.
It’s the same with apple. You buy an iPhone, you get the Apple Store. In it, all the publishers have their wares that you buy and everyone gets paid a fair share. No other stores are there. They don’t belong there.
But now Apple is forced to host someone’s app, use their platform to build discovery of said app, serve up info on the app (and the app itself), yet they are forced to hang a sign that points people away from them and directly to a company’s alternate store? Heck no. Yes it’s happening but no it isn’t ethical at all.
In the wake of such nonsensical and downright criminal decisions, they must be applauded for the ways they have navigated this mess in order to protect themselves and their customers.
Apple is in no way gulilty of antitrust anymore than any successful bookstore or retail store.
The EU is desperate to collect a penalty fee. In the U.S. legal system, Spotify wouldn't have had the standing to complain since they had already moved 99% of their iOS subscribers to web payments WITHOUT needing any kind of in-app communication. Nothing about their financial reality supported the complaint. Not the revenue part of it or the communication part of it.
If confirmed, it would be a penalty fee but not because the EU is desperate to collect anything.
It would be a penalty fee for illegal business practices.
It's not only about Spotify. They lodged the formal complaint but the formal investigation covers the impact of those practices throughout the developer world and on consumers
In this case it is accused (among other things) of contractually forbidding developers of notifying users of cheaper external options.
Doesn't that read as being openly anti-competitive? Do you consider it fair?
No it’s not anti-competitive. The simple fact of the matter, and one the EU is purposefully ignoring, is that Apple doesn’t have to compete against itself by law. They are Apple’s devices and Apple’s systems. Apple can legally do whatever it wants on their systems.
If you come to my house I expect you to obey my house rules just like I would for your house. Why all of a sudden is it illegal for Apple to set the rules for its house?
What on Earth makes you think that you can legally do whatever you want in your house, just because it’s your house?
Of course the laws of the country/state/city where your house stand still apply to your conduct within the house.
Apple by law does not have to "compete against itself". Apple does, however, by law have to enable — or at least not actively hinder — others to compete against them.
In New Zealand we have a term for this sort of behaviour. It’s called “Tall Poppy Syndrome”. It comes from the saying “the tallest poppy is the first to see the lawnmower”.
Everyone was fine when Apple was the underdog. They mocked Apple when it had no market share. Then they sold the iPod and then they sold music and then they sold the iPhone which disrupted so many business models that were screwing over the consumer.
Apple now started to gain market share because people loved their devices because they were getting more of what they wanted.
So rather than move with the times EU companies like Nokia sought to cut down the Apple tree. Only when they tried they died.
The nature of antitrust legislation is that it only applies when you’re big enough to use your market power to illegally disadvantage your competitors.
That is the entire point.
Of course it doesn’t apply to "the underdog".
Actually, there is unilateral application. If a law was broken, then corrective action is taken. If no laws were broken, all is well.
Or that’s how it’s SUPPOSED to be.
Antitrust is when a large corp unfairly uses its established power to thwart smaller businesses.
In Apples case, there is zero evidence of that anywhere.
App makers can partner in order to sell apps. Music sellers can also partner. If they want to go on their own and build their own platforms, they can do that too. There is literally nothing stopping them.
Apple getting paid for the use of its platform is normal, legal, ethical business structure.
Removing Apple’s financial windfall for their efforts is the unethical take.
As noted many times before, the retail model is what we are looking at here. Just because it extends beyond Brock and mortar to digital changes nothing.
If you go to a Barnes and noble, you pay them for a book by a publisher and that publisher and author get a royalty. There won’t also be a waldenbooks store inside the Barnes and noble. They have to open their own store somewhere else.
If you go to target, you buy products from retail partners and both target and those partners get paid. But the payment goes through targets systems. Target isn’t forced to have a sign next to the product saying “hey,” you can get this underwear cheaper at example.com.” That’s a disengenuous partner. Trying to use targets platform to steer customers away from target is wrong. Target is paying the overhead and marketing your product, taking up precious retail space. They deserve their cut.
It’s the same with apple. You buy an iPhone, you get the Apple Store. In it, all the publishers have their wares that you buy and everyone gets paid a fair share. No other stores are there. They don’t belong there.
But now Apple is forced to host someone’s app, use their platform to build discovery of said app, serve up info on the app (and the app itself), yet they are forced to hang a sign that points people away from them and directly to a company’s alternate store? Heck no. Yes it’s happening but no it isn’t ethical at all.
In the wake of such nonsensical and downright criminal decisions, they must be applauded for the ways they have navigated this mess in order to protect themselves and their customers.
Apple is in no way gulilty of antitrust anymore than any successful bookstore or retail store.
If the rumoured fine is applied it will be for exactly what you say there is no evidence for. Probably other infringements too.
If, as you say, Apple has not broken any law and there is zero evidence of wrongdoing, it will appeal (and with good reason) and go merrily on its way.
Extending the retail model beyond brick and mortar has, in fact, changed everything.
It's why I asked you to read through the directive and report back.
The EU is desperate to collect a penalty fee. In the U.S. legal system, Spotify wouldn't have had the standing to complain since they had already moved 99% of their iOS subscribers to web payments WITHOUT needing any kind of in-app communication. Nothing about their financial reality supported the complaint. Not the revenue part of it or the communication part of it.
If confirmed, it would be a penalty fee but not because the EU is desperate to collect anything.
It would be a penalty fee for illegal business practices.
It's not only about Spotify. They lodged the formal complaint but the formal investigation covers the impact of those practices throughout the developer world and on consumers
In this case it is accused (among other things) of contractually forbidding developers of notifying users of cheaper external options.
Doesn't that read as being openly anti-competitive? Do you consider it fair?
No it’s not anti-competitive. The simple fact of the matter, and one the EU is purposefully ignoring, is that Apple doesn’t have to compete against itself by law. They are Apple’s devices and Apple’s systems. Apple can legally do whatever it wants on their systems.
If you come to my house I expect you to obey my house rules just like I would for your house. Why all of a sudden is it illegal for Apple to set the rules for its house?
What on Earth makes you think that you can legally do whatever you want in your house, just because it’s your house?
Of course the laws of the country/state/city where your house stand still apply to your conduct within the house.
Apple by law does not have to "compete against itself". Apple does, however, by law have to enable — or at least not actively hinder — others to compete against them.
In New Zealand we have a term for this sort of behaviour. It’s called “Tall Poppy Syndrome”. It comes from the saying “the tallest poppy is the first to see the lawnmower”.
Everyone was fine when Apple was the underdog. They mocked Apple when it had no market share. Then they sold the iPod and then they sold music and then they sold the iPhone which disrupted so many business models that were screwing over the consumer.
Apple now started to gain market share because people loved their devices because they were getting more of what they wanted.
So rather than move with the times EU companies like Nokia sought to cut down the Apple tree. Only when they tried they died.
The nature of antitrust legislation is that it only applies when you’re big enough to use your market power to illegally disadvantage your competitors.
That is the entire point.
Of course it doesn’t apply to "the underdog".
Actually, there is unilateral application. If a law was broken, then corrective action is taken. If no laws were broken, all is well.
Or that’s how it’s SUPPOSED to be.
Antitrust is when a large corp unfairly uses its established power to thwart smaller businesses.
In Apples case, there is zero evidence of that anywhere.
If this fine is levied against Apple (which at this point is just a RUMOUR), it will be the result of a court ruling, which will have decided on the basis of evidence.
If you see it differently, have Apple hire you for the appeals legal team and smash the court with your argument.
nubus said: It forced consumers to Windows as Mac browsers including IE for Mac didn't work with their banks or other basic systems. I had to switch bank to stay on Mac, but most didn't.
This is the first I've heard that most Mac users were forced to switch to WinPCs to use financial websites. I certainly never had this problem. Would you please post some links showing how widespread this was as I am unable to find any sources myself?
It was around 1996 when Microsoft introduced ActiveX with IE3. The banks and insurance companies started using IE to ensure login and views - and terrible Javascript on the Mac + lack of full ActiveX + fact that IE on Mac used a different rendering engine caused Mac to be out of support. Citibank didn't support Mac or Linux (https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/6tpq0/citibank_doesnt_like_linux_users/) and Chase behaved the same (https://slashdot.org/story/00/10/20/2242201/os-independent-web-banking). In Denmark the largest banks didn't support Mac, but a much smaller regional bank did, and they had posters with apples (at the time banks had real branches....). Apple paid developers to support the Mac.
You could run SoftPC and Apple started selling expansion cards for Macs with Intel processors so that Mac could do more than run the tools from Adobe. Times were desperate for Apple and the Mac. You can still find the specs: https://support.apple.com/kb/SP320?locale=en_US - those cards were expensive and the SoftPC solutions were slow.
And so... Apple was about to go bankrupt, market share dropped to rock bottom (look for 1996 numbers). But regulation forced Microsoft into helping Apple and iMac gave us hope, but macOS was a mess at that time. However... once again MS did help the Mac. First with the launch of Windows Me - a disaster, then WinXP - a security disaster, and after years of nothing MS gave us Windows Vista, and a lot of very funny commercials that made it OK to use a Mac. But 1996... it was tough working in the Mac business. Customers were leaving the platform every day.
The EU is desperate to collect a penalty fee. In the U.S. legal system, Spotify wouldn't have had the standing to complain since they had already moved 99% of their iOS subscribers to web payments WITHOUT needing any kind of in-app communication. Nothing about their financial reality supported the complaint. Not the revenue part of it or the communication part of it.
If confirmed, it would be a penalty fee but not because the EU is desperate to collect anything.
It would be a penalty fee for illegal business practices.
It's not only about Spotify. They lodged the formal complaint but the formal investigation covers the impact of those practices throughout the developer world and on consumers
In this case it is accused (among other things) of contractually forbidding developers of notifying users of cheaper external options.
Doesn't that read as being openly anti-competitive? Do you consider it fair?
No it’s not anti-competitive. The simple fact of the matter, and one the EU is purposefully ignoring, is that Apple doesn’t have to compete against itself by law. They are Apple’s devices and Apple’s systems. Apple can legally do whatever it wants on their systems.
If you come to my house I expect you to obey my house rules just like I would for your house. Why all of a sudden is it illegal for Apple to set the rules for its house?
What on Earth makes you think that you can legally do whatever you want in your house, just because it’s your house?
Of course the laws of the country/state/city where your house stand still apply to your conduct within the house.
Apple by law does not have to "compete against itself". Apple does, however, by law have to enable — or at least not actively hinder — others to compete against them.
In New Zealand we have a term for this sort of behaviour. It’s called “Tall Poppy Syndrome”. It comes from the saying “the tallest poppy is the first to see the lawnmower”.
Everyone was fine when Apple was the underdog. They mocked Apple when it had no market share. Then they sold the iPod and then they sold music and then they sold the iPhone which disrupted so many business models that were screwing over the consumer.
Apple now started to gain market share because people loved their devices because they were getting more of what they wanted.
So rather than move with the times EU companies like Nokia sought to cut down the Apple tree. Only when they tried they died.
The nature of antitrust legislation is that it only applies when you’re big enough to use your market power to illegally disadvantage your competitors.
That is the entire point.
Of course it doesn’t apply to "the underdog".
Actually, there is unilateral application. If a law was broken, then corrective action is taken. If no laws were broken, all is well.
Or that’s how it’s SUPPOSED to be.
Antitrust is when a large corp unfairly uses its established power to thwart smaller businesses.
In Apples case, there is zero evidence of that anywhere.
App makers can partner in order to sell apps. Music sellers can also partner. If they want to go on their own and build their own platforms, they can do that too. There is literally nothing stopping them.
Apple getting paid for the use of its platform is normal, legal, ethical business structure.
Removing Apple’s financial windfall for their efforts is the unethical take.
As noted many times before, the retail model is what we are looking at here. Just because it extends beyond Brock and mortar to digital changes nothing.
If you go to a Barnes and noble, you pay them for a book by a publisher and that publisher and author get a royalty. There won’t also be a waldenbooks store inside the Barnes and noble. They have to open their own store somewhere else.
If you go to target, you buy products from retail partners and both target and those partners get paid. But the payment goes through targets systems. Target isn’t forced to have a sign next to the product saying “hey,” you can get this underwear cheaper at example.com.” That’s a disengenuous partner. Trying to use targets platform to steer customers away from target is wrong. Target is paying the overhead and marketing your product, taking up precious retail space. They deserve their cut.
It’s the same with apple. You buy an iPhone, you get the Apple Store. In it, all the publishers have their wares that you buy and everyone gets paid a fair share. No other stores are there. They don’t belong there.
But now Apple is forced to host someone’s app, use their platform to build discovery of said app, serve up info on the app (and the app itself), yet they are forced to hang a sign that points people away from them and directly to a company’s alternate store? Heck no. Yes it’s happening but no it isn’t ethical at all.
In the wake of such nonsensical and downright criminal decisions, they must be applauded for the ways they have navigated this mess in order to protect themselves and their customers.
Apple is in no way gulilty of antitrust anymore than any successful bookstore or retail store.
If the rumoured fine is applied it will be for exactly what you say there is no evidence for. Probably other infringements too.
If, as you say, Apple has not broken any law and there is zero evidence of wrongdoing, it will appeal (and with good reason) and go merrily on its way.
Extending the retail model beyond brick and mortar has, in fact, changed everything.
It's why I asked you to read through the directive and report back.
Oh wow. Thanks for pointing out the EUs new creation. That changes everything!
Not.
read a while ago. It basically is an excuse for the wi to extort apple. No way around it.
Just because the eu creates a narrative that describes apple’s business as problematic doesn’t make it so.
As I said earlier, apple did everything right. Therefore the eu had to INVENT reasons to harm them. As in this is new treatment coming from the eu. All it does it harm successful American companies. It forces socialism on capitalist businesses. Considering socialism has failed over and again, it’s a horrible move.
You can call an ethical practice unethical all you want, even draft legislation against it. Doesn’t make it unethical. Just makes those drafting hostile legislation corrupt.
Once the USA has competent leadership it will be interesting to see how this kind of hostility gets dealt with.
Right now, we’ve got China dictating to apple concerning privacy and security and hosting apple customer data on Chinese government servers. The eu, feeling uppity, redefining business ethics as they see fit, heck, even india’s puffing its chest out at apple these days, it’s going to take a strong advocate on the world stage to do something here. If not, they’ll just chipping away until there is little reason for companies like apple to do what they do.
The EU is desperate to collect a penalty fee. In the U.S. legal system, Spotify wouldn't have had the standing to complain since they had already moved 99% of their iOS subscribers to web payments WITHOUT needing any kind of in-app communication. Nothing about their financial reality supported the complaint. Not the revenue part of it or the communication part of it.
If confirmed, it would be a penalty fee but not because the EU is desperate to collect anything.
It would be a penalty fee for illegal business practices.
It's not only about Spotify. They lodged the formal complaint but the formal investigation covers the impact of those practices throughout the developer world and on consumers
In this case it is accused (among other things) of contractually forbidding developers of notifying users of cheaper external options.
Doesn't that read as being openly anti-competitive? Do you consider it fair?
No it’s not anti-competitive. The simple fact of the matter, and one the EU is purposefully ignoring, is that Apple doesn’t have to compete against itself by law. They are Apple’s devices and Apple’s systems. Apple can legally do whatever it wants on their systems.
If you come to my house I expect you to obey my house rules just like I would for your house. Why all of a sudden is it illegal for Apple to set the rules for its house?
What on Earth makes you think that you can legally do whatever you want in your house, just because it’s your house?
Of course the laws of the country/state/city where your house stand still apply to your conduct within the house.
Apple by law does not have to "compete against itself". Apple does, however, by law have to enable — or at least not actively hinder — others to compete against them.
In New Zealand we have a term for this sort of behaviour. It’s called “Tall Poppy Syndrome”. It comes from the saying “the tallest poppy is the first to see the lawnmower”.
Everyone was fine when Apple was the underdog. They mocked Apple when it had no market share. Then they sold the iPod and then they sold music and then they sold the iPhone which disrupted so many business models that were screwing over the consumer.
Apple now started to gain market share because people loved their devices because they were getting more of what they wanted.
So rather than move with the times EU companies like Nokia sought to cut down the Apple tree. Only when they tried they died.
The nature of antitrust legislation is that it only applies when you’re big enough to use your market power to illegally disadvantage your competitors.
That is the entire point.
Of course it doesn’t apply to "the underdog".
Actually, there is unilateral application. If a law was broken, then corrective action is taken. If no laws were broken, all is well.
Or that’s how it’s SUPPOSED to be.
Antitrust is when a large corp unfairly uses its established power to thwart smaller businesses.
In Apples case, there is zero evidence of that anywhere.
App makers can partner in order to sell apps. Music sellers can also partner. If they want to go on their own and build their own platforms, they can do that too. There is literally nothing stopping them.
Apple getting paid for the use of its platform is normal, legal, ethical business structure.
Removing Apple’s financial windfall for their efforts is the unethical take.
As noted many times before, the retail model is what we are looking at here. Just because it extends beyond Brock and mortar to digital changes nothing.
If you go to a Barnes and noble, you pay them for a book by a publisher and that publisher and author get a royalty. There won’t also be a waldenbooks store inside the Barnes and noble. They have to open their own store somewhere else.
If you go to target, you buy products from retail partners and both target and those partners get paid. But the payment goes through targets systems. Target isn’t forced to have a sign next to the product saying “hey,” you can get this underwear cheaper at example.com.” That’s a disengenuous partner. Trying to use targets platform to steer customers away from target is wrong. Target is paying the overhead and marketing your product, taking up precious retail space. They deserve their cut.
It’s the same with apple. You buy an iPhone, you get the Apple Store. In it, all the publishers have their wares that you buy and everyone gets paid a fair share. No other stores are there. They don’t belong there.
But now Apple is forced to host someone’s app, use their platform to build discovery of said app, serve up info on the app (and the app itself), yet they are forced to hang a sign that points people away from them and directly to a company’s alternate store? Heck no. Yes it’s happening but no it isn’t ethical at all.
In the wake of such nonsensical and downright criminal decisions, they must be applauded for the ways they have navigated this mess in order to protect themselves and their customers.
Apple is in no way gulilty of antitrust anymore than any successful bookstore or retail store.
If the rumoured fine is applied it will be for exactly what you say there is no evidence for. Probably other infringements too.
If, as you say, Apple has not broken any law and there is zero evidence of wrongdoing, it will appeal (and with good reason) and go merrily on its way.
Extending the retail model beyond brick and mortar has, in fact, changed everything.
It's why I asked you to read through the directive and report back.
Oh wow. Thanks for pointing out the EUs new creation. That changes everything!
Not.
read a while ago. It basically is an excuse for the wi to extort apple. No way around it.
Just because the eu creates a narrative that describes apple’s business as problematic doesn’t make it so.
As I said earlier, apple did everything right. Therefore the eu had to INVENT reasons to harm them. As in this is new treatment coming from the eu.
THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT THE DMA. IT IS ABOUT APPLE VIOLATING LAWS THAT HAVE EXISTED FOR DECADES.
nubus said: It forced consumers to Windows as Mac browsers including IE for Mac didn't work with their banks or other basic systems. I had to switch bank to stay on Mac, but most didn't.
This is the first I've heard that most Mac users were forced to switch to WinPCs to use financial websites. I certainly never had this problem. Would you please post some links showing how widespread this was as I am unable to find any sources myself?
It was around 1996 when Microsoft introduced ActiveX with IE3. The banks and insurance companies started using IE to ensure login and views - and terrible Javascript on the Mac + lack of full ActiveX + fact that IE on Mac used a different rendering engine caused Mac to be out of support. Citibank didn't support Mac or Linux (https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/6tpq0/citibank_doesnt_like_linux_users/) and Chase behaved the same (https://slashdot.org/story/00/10/20/2242201/os-independent-web-banking). In Denmark the largest banks didn't support Mac, but a much smaller regional bank did, and they had posters with apples (at the time banks had real branches....). Apple paid developers to support the Mac.
You could run SoftPC and Apple started selling expansion cards for Macs with Intel processors so that Mac could do more than run the tools from Adobe. Times were desperate for Apple and the Mac. You can still find the specs: https://support.apple.com/kb/SP320?locale=en_US - those cards were expensive and the SoftPC solutions were slow.
And so... Apple was about to go bankrupt, market share dropped to rock bottom (look for 1996 numbers). But regulation forced Microsoft into helping Apple and iMac gave us hope, but macOS was a mess at that time. However... once again MS did help the Mac. First with the launch of Windows Me - a disaster, then WinXP - a security disaster, and after years of nothing MS gave us Windows Vista, and a lot of very funny commercials that made it OK to use a Mac. But 1996... it was tough working in the Mac business. Customers were leaving the platform every day.
It's kind of ironic that some of the worst security issues in Windows XP were rooted in the technology (COM) that made Active-X possible. What started out as a competitive advantage came back to bite Microsoft and was made even worse by distributed COM (DCOM). Microsoft eventually got its act together with .Net but the transition from COM/DCOM to .Net was not easy by any means.
There still are certain problem domains and lines of business where Macs are rarely used. For example, a lot of industrial automation businesses jumped on Windows early on, weathered the ActiveX, COM, and DCOM challenges and eventually moved to .Net and web technologies. Unlike consumer products, the system upgrade cycles in some of these businesses can be up to 10-25 years. There's nothing equivalent to the upgrade and new hardware product fervor and speculation that surrounds Apple in certain sectors, like industrial automation, process automation, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, etc. These businesses, some of which are heavily regulated, view technology as a means to an end, with the end being keeping everything running as fast and reliably as possible to keep the money making things running and the money flowing in. Downtime of any sort is disdained. Windows has dominated in these industries but Linux is making some inroads.
It's not that Apple doesn't have the technical chops take on any line of business that it really wants to be part of. It's just that Apple is so dominant and successful in the domains that it serves. Apple's entire product line is very synergistic, complementary, and fine tuned to achieve maximum profit as a whole despite not always having dominant market share in any one area. Apple doesn't have to displace Microsoft (or Google, Meta, etc.) in any of the businesses that Microsoft, et al dominate. Companies that tried to make their businesses work using Apple's gear in the early to mid 1990's were largely taking a leap of faith. A big leap of faith. Today, Apple's strengths and weaknesses are very well established at this point, as are those of Apple's main competitors. I don't see anyone is in need of rescue today, so the saying "If it's not broke, don't try to fix it." seems entirely appropriate, in my opinion.
The EU is desperate to collect a penalty fee. In the U.S. legal system, Spotify wouldn't have had the standing to complain since they had already moved 99% of their iOS subscribers to web payments WITHOUT needing any kind of in-app communication. Nothing about their financial reality supported the complaint. Not the revenue part of it or the communication part of it.
Yes, with a nominal GDP of almost US$20 trillion projected for 2024, I'm sure they're desperate to collect 500 million Euro from a company violating existing antitrust laws.
Apple hasn’t broken any laws. The only laws that Apple appears to have broken are recent laws designed to punish Apple for being successful. Those laws didn’t exist at the time the EU went after Apple.
Incidentally, remember when they created a law forcing a standard power supply being USB-C? They claim Apple was filling their rubbish dumps with their leads. Only, Apple has only ever had 3 leads for their iPhones. 30-pin Dock connector, Lightning, and now USB-C. How many different charger leads existed on the EU’s beloved Nokia? Oh that’s right, there was a different power plug for every single model of Nokia phone until they settled on that crappy USB-Micro connector.
Wait, so you just described how and why the EU created legislation to save themselves from a complete mess of power adapters — and you’re pissed because it also applies to Apple? And THAT is somehow "hypocritical"?
Do you realise how confused you sound?
(Not to mention that you somehow bizarrely seem to believe that Russia — the Russia whose enemy Ukraine the EU is supplying with arms, ammunition, and money — is somehow a leader in the EU??? WTF.)
Wow. Just WOW. You clearly can’t comprehend anything. That’s NOT what I said at all. In fact I’m replying to two different posts.
Are EU consumers taking advantage of the bludgeoning of the "evil gatekeepers" and suddenly basking in the glory of being able to purchase EU made products and services at more affordable prices? That is the goal, improving choice and driving lower prices, isn't it?
Mac-users as a group have gained most from regulation (though from US). At one point 95% of all users were on the Microsoft IE browser with sites demanding ActiveX that only worked on Windows. It forced consumers to Windows as Mac browsers including IE for Mac didn't work with their banks or other basic systems. I had to switch bank to stay on Mac, but most didn't.
US regulation forced the unbundling of IE from Windows and it opened the web + made Mac a platform that could be used on the level as Windows for most people. And the fear of regulation forced Microsoft to make a deal with Apple to producing MS Office for "at least 5 years" + made a huge investment (+3% of Apple). At that time Apple was 90 days from going bankrupt. Microsoft needed Apple to stay alive to keep US authorities at bay. Thanks to US regulation we still have Apple and competition.
This is the first I've heard that most Mac users were forced to switch to WinPCs to use financial websites. I certainly never had this problem. Would you please post some links showing how widespread this was as I am unable to find any sources myself?
It’s true IE was designed to not comply with web standards making all competing browsers useless. Google poached some Apple engineers and made Chrome. If your generation started with Chrome you wouldn’t know the nightmares Microsoft had created.
Today, Apple's strengths and weaknesses are very well established at this point, as are those of Apple's main competitors. I don't see anyone is in need of rescue today, so the saying "If it's not broke, don't try to fix it." seems entirely appropriate, in my opinion.
The regulation is in place to ensure competition. Without it web would be a Microsoft standard requiring Windows. US regulation did help and in turned saved Apple + generated a lot of growth for US. Apple tried to lock book prices - got fined in the US. Now Apple is trying to push users away from an app to take control over music distribution. Companies are not designed to be responsible or give back. They outsource to enemies, do stupid financial transactions (which is why banks are regulated), and try to avoid competion at any cost. You had a president that removed certain brake requirements for trains and... you got the East Palestine rail disaster. Boeing got to control their own planes... didn't really work well. A bit of regulation can help.
Are EU consumers taking advantage of the bludgeoning of the "evil gatekeepers" and suddenly basking in the glory of being able to purchase EU made products and services at more affordable prices? That is the goal, improving choice and driving lower prices, isn't it?
Mac-users as a group have gained most from regulation (though from US). At one point 95% of all users were on the Microsoft IE browser with sites demanding ActiveX that only worked on Windows. It forced consumers to Windows as Mac browsers including IE for Mac didn't work with their banks or other basic systems. I had to switch bank to stay on Mac, but most didn't.
US regulation forced the unbundling of IE from Windows and it opened the web + made Mac a platform that could be used on the level as Windows for most people. And the fear of regulation forced Microsoft to make a deal with Apple to producing MS Office for "at least 5 years" + made a huge investment (+3% of Apple). At that time Apple was 90 days from going bankrupt. Microsoft needed Apple to stay alive to keep US authorities at bay. Thanks to US regulation we still have Apple and competition.
This is the first I've heard that most Mac users were forced to switch to WinPCs to use financial websites. I certainly never had this problem. Would you please post some links showing how widespread this was as I am unable to find any sources myself?
Oh, it happened quite a bit back in the day (twenty years ago).
They already exist. iPhone with 5G mmWave isn't sold outside North America. Wifi and 5G bands differ a lot between countries and regions. eSim-only is limited to North America. Facetime isn't available on devices sold in some countries (UAE) and those living in UK get 5-6 years warranty with their iPhone (https://www.apple.com/uk/legal/statutory-warranty/uk/). You're just lucky that all iPhone 15 variants got USB C connectors.
The USB-C connector is irrelevant to most as we all have plenty of lightning cables. USB-C has created more of a mess for me as I am having to replace the cables in my cars, my backpack and computer bag. Nothing but a big waste of money.
As an Apple shareholder I hope Apple has factored this cost of doing business in Europe into their pricing in Europe. Seems to me Europe looks at large U.S. tech companies like Apple to pay for their bloated national budgets.
The US already supports a lot of the EU making these stupid lawsuits revolting. The EU doesn’t make many products used worldwide, especially compared to the USA.
This is literally about Spotify, which is the worldwide market leader, trouncing Apple Music with over 30% market share vs. just under 14%.
Paid subscribers are all that matter. The freeloaders are forced to listen to commercials so there probably are some pennies on the table for those customers. As of last July Spotify had about 45 million paying customers and Apple just about 34 million. I don't know how that works out revenue wise but it is close to a 30% lead. Give it a few more years and it will be a lot closer.
As an Apple shareholder I hope Apple has factored this cost of doing business in Europe into their pricing in Europe. Seems to me Europe looks at large U.S. tech companies like Apple to pay for their bloated national budgets.
The US already supports a lot of the EU making these stupid lawsuits revolting. The EU doesn’t make many products used worldwide, especially compared to the USA. I hope Apple starts charging a high tax on everything going to the EU. The USA will continue to support a dying continent and the EU needs to remember that.
well I book and start charging for operating system going forward in the EU something like $50 for an upgrade per device or $129 or $99 for future release
The irony is that the EU had to endure a decade of Apple charging money for every OS update because the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act forced them to apply new accounting procedures, globally.
Are EU consumers taking advantage of the bludgeoning of the "evil gatekeepers" and suddenly basking in the glory of being able to purchase EU made products and services at more affordable prices? That is the goal, improving choice and driving lower prices, isn't it?
Mac-users as a group have gained most from regulation (though from US). At one point 95% of all users were on the Microsoft IE browser with sites demanding ActiveX that only worked on Windows. It forced consumers to Windows as Mac browsers including IE for Mac didn't work with their banks or other basic systems. I had to switch bank to stay on Mac, but most didn't.
US regulation forced the unbundling of IE from Windows and it opened the web + made Mac a platform that could be used on the level as Windows for most people. And the fear of regulation forced Microsoft to make a deal with Apple to producing MS Office for "at least 5 years" + made a huge investment (+3% of Apple). At that time Apple was 90 days from going bankrupt. Microsoft needed Apple to stay alive to keep US authorities at bay. Thanks to US regulation we still have Apple and competition.
It still amazes me how many people still believe in this myth. Microsoft "generous" offers were the result of Microsoft settling the QuickTime lawsuit, where Apple claimed they (and Intel) pirated Apple QuickTime codes for their Windows video player. The $150M had nothing to do with warding off any US government anti-trust investigation and did nothing to save Apple. Steve Jobs announcing Microsoft investment of $150M worth of Apple preferred stock, was Jobs way of letting Gates save grace by not making public that Microsoft had to pay Apple over $1B (rumors have it as high as over $2B ) to settle the QuickTime lawsuit out of court. A lawsuit Microsoft knew they couldn't win.
Apple at the time still had over $1B in cash and was worth more the $5B. Jobs statement about Apple going bankrupt in 90 days was partially based on Apple losing over $700M the year before. But part of that was the $400M Apple paid for Next. Jobs saying that Apple was going to go bankrupt in 90 days, involved more than running out of money. Which Apple was not in danger of, even without MS $150M investment.
Here's an easy to understand YouTube video explaining this, if you don't have the time to read all the articles disproving this myth.
The EU is desperate to collect a penalty fee. In the U.S. legal system, Spotify wouldn't have had the standing to complain since they had already moved 99% of their iOS subscribers to web payments WITHOUT needing any kind of in-app communication. Nothing about their financial reality supported the complaint. Not the revenue part of it or the communication part of it.
If confirmed, it would be a penalty fee but not because the EU is desperate to collect anything.
It would be a penalty fee for illegal business practices.
It's not only about Spotify. They lodged the formal complaint but the formal investigation covers the impact of those practices throughout the developer world and on consumers
In this case it is accused (among other things) of contractually forbidding developers of notifying users of cheaper external options.
Doesn't that read as being openly anti-competitive? Do you consider it fair?
No it’s not anti-competitive. The simple fact of the matter, and one the EU is purposefully ignoring, is that Apple doesn’t have to compete against itself by law. They are Apple’s devices and Apple’s systems. Apple can legally do whatever it wants on their systems.
If you come to my house I expect you to obey my house rules just like I would for your house. Why all of a sudden is it illegal for Apple to set the rules for its house?
What on Earth makes you think that you can legally do whatever you want in your house, just because it’s your house?
Of course the laws of the country/state/city where your house stand still apply to your conduct within the house.
Apple by law does not have to "compete against itself". Apple does, however, by law have to enable — or at least not actively hinder — others to compete against them.
In New Zealand we have a term for this sort of behaviour. It’s called “Tall Poppy Syndrome”. It comes from the saying “the tallest poppy is the first to see the lawnmower”.
Everyone was fine when Apple was the underdog. They mocked Apple when it had no market share. Then they sold the iPod and then they sold music and then they sold the iPhone which disrupted so many business models that were screwing over the consumer.
Apple now started to gain market share because people loved their devices because they were getting more of what they wanted.
So rather than move with the times EU companies like Nokia sought to cut down the Apple tree. Only when they tried they died.
The nature of antitrust legislation is that it only applies when you’re big enough to use your market power to illegally disadvantage your competitors.
That is the entire point.
Of course it doesn’t apply to "the underdog".
Actually, there is unilateral application. If a law was broken, then corrective action is taken. If no laws were broken, all is well.
Or that’s how it’s SUPPOSED to be.
Antitrust is when a large corp unfairly uses its established power to thwart smaller businesses.
In Apples case, there is zero evidence of that anywhere.
App makers can partner in order to sell apps. Music sellers can also partner. If they want to go on their own and build their own platforms, they can do that too. There is literally nothing stopping them.
Apple getting paid for the use of its platform is normal, legal, ethical business structure.
Removing Apple’s financial windfall for their efforts is the unethical take.
As noted many times before, the retail model is what we are looking at here. Just because it extends beyond Brock and mortar to digital changes nothing.
If you go to a Barnes and noble, you pay them for a book by a publisher and that publisher and author get a royalty. There won’t also be a waldenbooks store inside the Barnes and noble. They have to open their own store somewhere else.
If you go to target, you buy products from retail partners and both target and those partners get paid. But the payment goes through targets systems. Target isn’t forced to have a sign next to the product saying “hey,” you can get this underwear cheaper at example.com.” That’s a disengenuous partner. Trying to use targets platform to steer customers away from target is wrong. Target is paying the overhead and marketing your product, taking up precious retail space. They deserve their cut.
It’s the same with apple. You buy an iPhone, you get the Apple Store. In it, all the publishers have their wares that you buy and everyone gets paid a fair share. No other stores are there. They don’t belong there.
But now Apple is forced to host someone’s app, use their platform to build discovery of said app, serve up info on the app (and the app itself), yet they are forced to hang a sign that points people away from them and directly to a company’s alternate store? Heck no. Yes it’s happening but no it isn’t ethical at all.
In the wake of such nonsensical and downright criminal decisions, they must be applauded for the ways they have navigated this mess in order to protect themselves and their customers.
Apple is in no way gulilty of antitrust anymore than any successful bookstore or retail store.
If the rumoured fine is applied it will be for exactly what you say there is no evidence for. Probably other infringements too.
If, as you say, Apple has not broken any law and there is zero evidence of wrongdoing, it will appeal (and with good reason) and go merrily on its way.
Extending the retail model beyond brick and mortar has, in fact, changed everything.
It's why I asked you to read through the directive and report back.
Oh wow. Thanks for pointing out the EUs new creation. That changes everything!
Not.
read a while ago. It basically is an excuse for the wi to extort apple. No way around it.
Just because the eu creates a narrative that describes apple’s business as problematic doesn’t make it so.
As I said earlier, apple did everything right. Therefore the eu had to INVENT reasons to harm them. As in this is new treatment coming from the eu.
THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT THE DMA. IT IS ABOUT APPLE VIOLATING LAWS THAT HAVE EXISTED FOR DECADES.
Nope.
If it was, the EU wouldn’t need to invent labels and corresponding new rules that target only the successful.
Apple has historically ran a clean tight ship, fully compliant with all laws where they operate. When corrupt governments can’t seem to get what they want, they create new laws that target their business model directly in order to manufacture a violation. Again and again. That’s what we see here.
The EU is desperate to collect a penalty fee. In the U.S. legal system, Spotify wouldn't have had the standing to complain since they had already moved 99% of their iOS subscribers to web payments WITHOUT needing any kind of in-app communication. Nothing about their financial reality supported the complaint. Not the revenue part of it or the communication part of it.
If confirmed, it would be a penalty fee but not because the EU is desperate to collect anything.
It would be a penalty fee for illegal business practices.
It's not only about Spotify. They lodged the formal complaint but the formal investigation covers the impact of those practices throughout the developer world and on consumers
In this case it is accused (among other things) of contractually forbidding developers of notifying users of cheaper external options.
Doesn't that read as being openly anti-competitive? Do you consider it fair?
No it’s not anti-competitive. The simple fact of the matter, and one the EU is purposefully ignoring, is that Apple doesn’t have to compete against itself by law. They are Apple’s devices and Apple’s systems. Apple can legally do whatever it wants on their systems.
If you come to my house I expect you to obey my house rules just like I would for your house. Why all of a sudden is it illegal for Apple to set the rules for its house?
What on Earth makes you think that you can legally do whatever you want in your house, just because it’s your house?
Of course the laws of the country/state/city where your house stand still apply to your conduct within the house.
Apple by law does not have to "compete against itself". Apple does, however, by law have to enable — or at least not actively hinder — others to compete against them.
In New Zealand we have a term for this sort of behaviour. It’s called “Tall Poppy Syndrome”. It comes from the saying “the tallest poppy is the first to see the lawnmower”.
Everyone was fine when Apple was the underdog. They mocked Apple when it had no market share. Then they sold the iPod and then they sold music and then they sold the iPhone which disrupted so many business models that were screwing over the consumer.
Apple now started to gain market share because people loved their devices because they were getting more of what they wanted.
So rather than move with the times EU companies like Nokia sought to cut down the Apple tree. Only when they tried they died.
The nature of antitrust legislation is that it only applies when you’re big enough to use your market power to illegally disadvantage your competitors.
That is the entire point.
Of course it doesn’t apply to "the underdog".
Actually, there is unilateral application. If a law was broken, then corrective action is taken. If no laws were broken, all is well.
Or that’s how it’s SUPPOSED to be.
Antitrust is when a large corp unfairly uses its established power to thwart smaller businesses.
In Apples case, there is zero evidence of that anywhere.
App makers can partner in order to sell apps. Music sellers can also partner. If they want to go on their own and build their own platforms, they can do that too. There is literally nothing stopping them.
Apple getting paid for the use of its platform is normal, legal, ethical business structure.
Removing Apple’s financial windfall for their efforts is the unethical take.
As noted many times before, the retail model is what we are looking at here. Just because it extends beyond Brock and mortar to digital changes nothing.
If you go to a Barnes and noble, you pay them for a book by a publisher and that publisher and author get a royalty. There won’t also be a waldenbooks store inside the Barnes and noble. They have to open their own store somewhere else.
If you go to target, you buy products from retail partners and both target and those partners get paid. But the payment goes through targets systems. Target isn’t forced to have a sign next to the product saying “hey,” you can get this underwear cheaper at example.com.” That’s a disengenuous partner. Trying to use targets platform to steer customers away from target is wrong. Target is paying the overhead and marketing your product, taking up precious retail space. They deserve their cut.
It’s the same with apple. You buy an iPhone, you get the Apple Store. In it, all the publishers have their wares that you buy and everyone gets paid a fair share. No other stores are there. They don’t belong there.
But now Apple is forced to host someone’s app, use their platform to build discovery of said app, serve up info on the app (and the app itself), yet they are forced to hang a sign that points people away from them and directly to a company’s alternate store? Heck no. Yes it’s happening but no it isn’t ethical at all.
In the wake of such nonsensical and downright criminal decisions, they must be applauded for the ways they have navigated this mess in order to protect themselves and their customers.
Apple is in no way gulilty of antitrust anymore than any successful bookstore or retail store.
If the rumoured fine is applied it will be for exactly what you say there is no evidence for. Probably other infringements too.
If, as you say, Apple has not broken any law and there is zero evidence of wrongdoing, it will appeal (and with good reason) and go merrily on its way.
Extending the retail model beyond brick and mortar has, in fact, changed everything.
It's why I asked you to read through the directive and report back.
Oh wow. Thanks for pointing out the EUs new creation. That changes everything!
Not.
read a while ago. It basically is an excuse for the wi to extort apple. No way around it.
Just because the eu creates a narrative that describes apple’s business as problematic doesn’t make it so.
As I said earlier, apple did everything right. Therefore the eu had to INVENT reasons to harm them. As in this is new treatment coming from the eu.
THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT THE DMA. IT IS ABOUT APPLE VIOLATING LAWS THAT HAVE EXISTED FOR DECADES.
Nope.
If it was, the EU wouldn’t need to invent labels and corresponding new rules that target only the successful.
Apple has historically ran a clean tight ship, fully compliant with all laws where they operate. When corrupt governments can’t seem to get what they want, they create new laws that target their business model directly in order to manufacture a violation. Again and again. That’s what we see here.
Jesus Christ.
This court case does not involve any new laws. You are confusing two completely different cases. The one involving a new law is the „gatekeeper“ thing that would have affected iMessage, except it doesn’t because iMessage is too insignificant in Europe.
This court case here is an antitrust investigation over unfairly disadvantaging competitors, which has been illegal for decades.
Comments
The directives are new and reflect legislative efforts to adapt to modern times.
The US will do exactly the same at some point and it's not impossible that those same US companies will find themselves having to adapt to similar legislation.
If, as you say, Apple has not broken any law and there is zero evidence of wrongdoing, it will appeal (and with good reason) and go merrily on its way.
Extending the retail model beyond brick and mortar has, in fact, changed everything.
It's why I asked you to read through the directive and report back.
One more time, since you've essentially just repeated the exact same lie:
You could run SoftPC and Apple started selling expansion cards for Macs with Intel processors so that Mac could do more than run the tools from Adobe. Times were desperate for Apple and the Mac. You can still find the specs: https://support.apple.com/kb/SP320?locale=en_US - those cards were expensive and the SoftPC solutions were slow.
And so... Apple was about to go bankrupt, market share dropped to rock bottom (look for 1996 numbers). But regulation forced Microsoft into helping Apple and iMac gave us hope, but macOS was a mess at that time. However... once again MS did help the Mac. First with the launch of Windows Me - a disaster, then WinXP - a security disaster, and after years of nothing MS gave us Windows Vista, and a lot of very funny commercials that made it OK to use a Mac. But 1996... it was tough working in the Mac business. Customers were leaving the platform every day.
There still are certain problem domains and lines of business where Macs are rarely used. For example, a lot of industrial automation businesses jumped on Windows early on, weathered the ActiveX, COM, and DCOM challenges and eventually moved to .Net and web technologies. Unlike consumer products, the system upgrade cycles in some of these businesses can be up to 10-25 years. There's nothing equivalent to the upgrade and new hardware product fervor and speculation that surrounds Apple in certain sectors, like industrial automation, process automation, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, etc. These businesses, some of which are heavily regulated, view technology as a means to an end, with the end being keeping everything running as fast and reliably as possible to keep the money making things running and the money flowing in. Downtime of any sort is disdained. Windows has dominated in these industries but Linux is making some inroads.
It's not that Apple doesn't have the technical chops take on any line of business that it really wants to be part of. It's just that Apple is so dominant and successful in the domains that it serves. Apple's entire product line is very synergistic, complementary, and fine tuned to achieve maximum profit as a whole despite not always having dominant market share in any one area. Apple doesn't have to displace Microsoft (or Google, Meta, etc.) in any of the businesses that Microsoft, et al dominate. Companies that tried to make their businesses work using Apple's gear in the early to mid 1990's were largely taking a leap of faith. A big leap of faith. Today, Apple's strengths and weaknesses are very well established at this point, as are those of Apple's main competitors. I don't see anyone is in need of rescue today, so the saying "If it's not broke, don't try to fix it." seems entirely appropriate, in my opinion.
Go Back to sleep, you clearly need it.
The USB-C connector is irrelevant to most as we all have plenty of lightning cables. USB-C has created more of a mess for me as I am having to replace the cables in my cars, my backpack and computer bag. Nothing but a big waste of money.