Spotify, Epic complain again that Apple won't be in compliance with the DMA

Posted:
in General Discussion

Spotify, Epic, Proton, and dozens of others have signed a letter to the European Commission, demanding the agency look into Apple's lack of compliance with the Digital Markets Act.

Three European Union flags fluttering in front of two buildings and under blue sky
European Union flags



On March 1, 34 companies and associations penned an open letter to the European Commission. The letter addresses concerns over Apple's alleged non-compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which is set to go into effect on March 7.

The signatories take issue with how Apple requires developers to stay within the current App Store ecosystem or opt into new terms. They suggest that this is a "false choice" and adds unnecessary complexity to what should be a simple choice.

They also believe the new fee structure is designed to maintain and "amplify Apple's exploitation of its dominance over app developers." They argue that the transaction fee and Core Technology Fee are intended to dissuade developers from opting for alternatives to the App Store.

The signatories also believe that Apple's plans to use controls and disclosures -- what they call "scare screens" -- will "mislead and degrade the user experience." They argue that this will deprive users of actual choice and the ability to reap any benefits offered under the DMA.

"The European Commission's response to Apple's proposal will serve as a litmus test of the DMA and whether it can deliver for Europe's citizens and economy," the letter reads.

The letter urges the European Commission to take swift, timely, and decisive action against Apple -- preferably as soon as March 7.

"This is the only way to guarantee the DMA remains both credible and delivers competitive digital markets," the group says.

Some of the signatories include

  • Spotify

  • Epic Games

  • Proton

  • Blockchain.com

  • Deezer

  • Threema

  • European Publisher's Council

  • European Games Developer Federation

  • European Fintech Association

  • News Media Europe

  • France Digitale



On Friday, Apple published a whitepaper detailing how it says it is working to protect EU users and emphasizing the risks of opening up the iPhone to rival App Stores. And, hours later, they said that progressive web apps would work as expected in the EU, after a month of intentionally crippling them in the iOS 17.4 betas.

The company also cited a bevy of emails where users have argued that they do not wish to see sideloading and third-party app marketplace on the iPhone.



Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 20
    Sounds like these companies know that they're not really going to be delivering better stores/prices and are trying to manufacture an excuse they can use as cover.
    CuJoYYCwilliamlondonolsMisterKitBart Yhlee1169watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 20
    CuJoYYCCuJoYYC Posts: 84member
    "Sounds like these companies know that they're not really going to be delivering better stores/prices and are trying to manufacture an excuse they can use as cover."

    Agreed. Whiners gotta whine.
    edited March 1 williamlondonolsiOS_Guy80Bart Ywatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 20
    mimsmims Posts: 24member
    I have made a few Fortnight skins and recorded some music. I demand that they allow me to let people side load my content into their ecosystem without paying them. 
    williamlondonrob53foregoneconclusionBart Yhlee1169watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 20
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,290member
    Me to these whiners: prove it.

    Prove it in a court of law.

    Good luck.
    williamlondonolsBart Ywatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 20
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,655member
    CuJoYYC said:
    "Sounds like these companies know that they're not really going to be delivering better stores/prices and are trying to manufacture an excuse they can use as cover."

    Agreed. Whiners gotta whine.
    The letter seems like it's making valid claims. 

    Now we have to wait and see if the EU agrees. 
  • Reply 6 of 20
    baconstangbaconstang Posts: 1,104member
    I get the impression some people need to have their diapers changed, judging from all the whining.
    williamlondonnubusBart Ywatto_cobratmay
  • Reply 7 of 20
    avon b7 said:
    CuJoYYC said:
    "Sounds like these companies know that they're not really going to be delivering better stores/prices and are trying to manufacture an excuse they can use as cover."

    Agreed. Whiners gotta whine.
    The letter seems like it's making valid claims. 

    Now we have to wait and see if the EU agrees. 
    Which claims do you think are valid?  Why do
    you believe they are valid?  

    Spotify, Fortnite, et al. want to be able to make money off Apple’s platform while giving no money to Apple for creating the platform, supporting the platform and lining up over a billion users on the platform.  There is no other thing this relates to, full stop.  That is not a valid argument, regardless of whether EU authorities agree with them or not.
    williamlondonhlee1169watto_cobratmay
  • Reply 8 of 20
    applesauce007applesauce007 Posts: 1,698member
    Yes.  These companies are looking for a free ride.
    If they don't want to pay the fees they should go elsewhere or build their own devices.
    williamlondonhlee1169watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 20
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,655member
    avon b7 said:
    CuJoYYC said:
    "Sounds like these companies know that they're not really going to be delivering better stores/prices and are trying to manufacture an excuse they can use as cover."

    Agreed. Whiners gotta whine.
    The letter seems like it's making valid claims. 

    Now we have to wait and see if the EU agrees. 
    Which claims do you think are valid?  Why do
    you believe they are valid?  

    Spotify, Fortnite, et al. want to be able to make money off Apple’s platform while giving no money to Apple for creating the platform, supporting the platform and lining up over a billion users on the platform.  There is no other thing this relates to, full stop.  That is not a valid argument, regardless of whether EU authorities agree with them or not.
    Well, how about every bullet point in the letter? 

    Personally, I don't think Apple’s proposals will pass the sniff test but it is not my call. That is why we have to wait.

    Telecoms carriers have, for literally years, been protesting about the 'abuses' of Big Tech. 

    They claim that they are obliged to upgrade capacity and performance metrics and no sooner have they done that than Big Tech jumps in and sucks it all up before they have amortised the outlay and then they have to repeat the process. 

    Just this week, someone at Vodafone claimed (at MWC2024) that 'infinite scrolling' was hogging around 20% of its base stations' capacities for things the user never even gets to see. 

    Now, the carriers have been heavily taxed and regulated since the day the old monopolies were opened up to competition. They say that Big Tech should also have to pay a part of the cost of creating, maintaining and deploying that core infrastructure. Security and privacy included in the argument of course. 

    That is exactly the same argument that Apple is providing in its defence of its 'fees' aplicable to third parties as they provide the core infrastructure to be used by others. 

    The problem for the carriers is that their claims have fallen on deaf ears at the EU for all these years (so much for the EU being anti US!) and although they still argue in favour of their cause, Open Gateway is a change of tack and their own attempt to claw back some control of the traffic directly (and monetise it of course).

    Telefonica (again this week at MWC) announced Open Gateway agreements for their Brazil operations with Tiktok and some Brazilian banks. More will follow. 

    The question is whether the EU will continue with their stance, and reject Apple’s claims (as they have done with the carriers) or not.

    No one knows, and there could be other lines of reasoning here too.

    We just have to wait. 
    gatorguy
  • Reply 10 of 20
    mims said:
    I have made a few Fortnight skins and recorded some music. I demand that they allow me to let people side load my content into their ecosystem without paying them. 
    You actually can import your own music into Spotify, you have to activate local files in the settings.
  • Reply 11 of 20
    avon b7 said: Telecoms carriers have, for literally years, been protesting about the 'abuses' of Big Tech. 
    Hmmm...."telecom carriers are the victims" sounds like a hard sell to the general public. 
    williamlondonfreeassociate2Bart Ywatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 20
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,655member
    avon b7 said: Telecoms carriers have, for literally years, been protesting about the 'abuses' of Big Tech. 
    Hmmm...."telecom carriers are the victims" sounds like a hard sell to the general public. 
    Although they've pushed the claims for as long as I can remember, I've always been against the idea. 

    Especially as most of them now include services from the very same companies they are accusing of saturating networks. 

    However, their claims do pair up well with what Apple is pushing as a counter to the EU. 

    gatorguy
  • Reply 13 of 20
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,327member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    CuJoYYC said:
    "Sounds like these companies know that they're not really going to be delivering better stores/prices and are trying to manufacture an excuse they can use as cover."

    Agreed. Whiners gotta whine.
    The letter seems like it's making valid claims. 

    Now we have to wait and see if the EU agrees. 
    Which claims do you think are valid?  Why do
    you believe they are valid?  

    Spotify, Fortnite, et al. want to be able to make money off Apple’s platform while giving no money to Apple for creating the platform, supporting the platform and lining up over a billion users on the platform.  There is no other thing this relates to, full stop.  That is not a valid argument, regardless of whether EU authorities agree with them or not.
    Well, how about every bullet point in the letter? 

    Personally, I don't think Apple’s proposals will pass the sniff test but it is not my call. That is why we have to wait.

    Telecoms carriers have, for literally years, been protesting about the 'abuses' of Big Tech. 

    They claim that they are obliged to upgrade capacity and performance metrics and no sooner have they done that than Big Tech jumps in and sucks it all up before they have amortised the outlay and then they have to repeat the process. 

    Just this week, someone at Vodafone claimed (at MWC2024) that 'infinite scrolling' was hogging around 20% of its base stations' capacities for things the user never even gets to see. 

    Now, the carriers have been heavily taxed and regulated since the day the old monopolies were opened up to competition. They say that Big Tech should also have to pay a part of the cost of creating, maintaining and deploying that core infrastructure. Security and privacy included in the argument of course. 

    That is exactly the same argument that Apple is providing in its defence of its 'fees' aplicable to third parties as they provide the core infrastructure to be used by others. 

    The problem for the carriers is that their claims have fallen on deaf ears at the EU for all these years (so much for the EU being anti US!) and although they still argue in favour of their cause, Open Gateway is a change of tack and their own attempt to claw back some control of the traffic directly (and monetise it of course).

    Telefonica (again this week at MWC) announced Open Gateway agreements for their Brazil operations with Tiktok and some Brazilian banks. More will follow. 

    The question is whether the EU will continue with their stance, and reject Apple’s claims (as they have done with the carriers) or not.

    No one knows, and there could be other lines of reasoning here too.

    We just have to wait. 
    Fuck all, and let me get this straight;

    For years, you have reminded all of us in the hinterlands of the rest of the world, how wonderful and universal the internet is in the EU, and if only the EU could be all Huawei 5G infrastructure, because it is cheap from Chinese Government Subsidies, then everyone would be blissfully happy.

    Now, you tell us that the Telecoms are massively unhappy because Telecoms are regulated utilities, and have been unable to increase profitability due to the desire of consumers to actually use their services as intended, on smartphones and internet connected devices brought to them by Big Tech. I would note that VAR is paid by every Big Tech device that enters the EU; is that not enough?

    On top of that, you would like to add Open Gateway that would would certainly add even more traffic, but of course, primarily benefitting developers.

    Why does everything in the EU seem as a poor attempt to level the playing field for all the players, without actually having the budget to do so?

    I'm guessing this is why you, and others want the Big Techs to pay for at least a portion of Telecom, and developer profits, instead of maybe letting useful capitalist measures of consumer supply and demand mechanisms create those profits organically.

    More to the point, why is the EU subsidizing Spotify's profitability with these measures?
    edited March 2 danoxwilliamlondonhlee1169watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 20
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,655member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    CuJoYYC said:
    "Sounds like these companies know that they're not really going to be delivering better stores/prices and are trying to manufacture an excuse they can use as cover."

    Agreed. Whiners gotta whine.
    The letter seems like it's making valid claims. 

    Now we have to wait and see if the EU agrees. 
    Which claims do you think are valid?  Why do
    you believe they are valid?  

    Spotify, Fortnite, et al. want to be able to make money off Apple’s platform while giving no money to Apple for creating the platform, supporting the platform and lining up over a billion users on the platform.  There is no other thing this relates to, full stop.  That is not a valid argument, regardless of whether EU authorities agree with them or not.
    Well, how about every bullet point in the letter? 

    Personally, I don't think Apple’s proposals will pass the sniff test but it is not my call. That is why we have to wait.

    Telecoms carriers have, for literally years, been protesting about the 'abuses' of Big Tech. 

    They claim that they are obliged to upgrade capacity and performance metrics and no sooner have they done that than Big Tech jumps in and sucks it all up before they have amortised the outlay and then they have to repeat the process. 

    Just this week, someone at Vodafone claimed (at MWC2024) that 'infinite scrolling' was hogging around 20% of its base stations' capacities for things the user never even gets to see. 

    Now, the carriers have been heavily taxed and regulated since the day the old monopolies were opened up to competition. They say that Big Tech should also have to pay a part of the cost of creating, maintaining and deploying that core infrastructure. Security and privacy included in the argument of course. 

    That is exactly the same argument that Apple is providing in its defence of its 'fees' aplicable to third parties as they provide the core infrastructure to be used by others. 

    The problem for the carriers is that their claims have fallen on deaf ears at the EU for all these years (so much for the EU being anti US!) and although they still argue in favour of their cause, Open Gateway is a change of tack and their own attempt to claw back some control of the traffic directly (and monetise it of course).

    Telefonica (again this week at MWC) announced Open Gateway agreements for their Brazil operations with Tiktok and some Brazilian banks. More will follow. 

    The question is whether the EU will continue with their stance, and reject Apple’s claims (as they have done with the carriers) or not.

    No one knows, and there could be other lines of reasoning here too.

    We just have to wait. 
    Fuck all, and let me get this straight;

    For years, you have reminded all of us in the hinterlands of the rest of the world, how wonderful and universal the internet is in the EU, and if only the EU could be all Huawei 5G infrastructure, because it is cheap from Chinese Government Subsidies, then everyone would be blissfully happy.

    Now, you tell us that the Telecoms are massively unhappy because Telecoms are regulated utilities, and have been unable to increase profitability due to the desire of consumers to actually use their services as intended, on smartphones and internet connected devices brought to them by Big Tech. I would note that VAR is paid by every Big Tech device that enters the EU; is that not enough?

    On top of that, you would like to add Open Gateway that would would certainly add even more traffic, but of course, primarily benefitting developers.

    Why does everything in the EU seem as a poor attempt to level the playing field for all the players, without actually having the budget to do so?

    I'm guessing this is why you, and others want the Big Techs to pay for at least a portion of Telecom, and developer profits, instead of maybe letting useful capitalist measures of consumer supply and demand mechanisms create those profits organically.

    More to the point, why is the EU subsidizing Spotify's profitability with these measures?
    I have no idea what you are raving about now. 

    Re-read what I wrote. 

    Governments 
    Big Tech 
    Digital lifestyles 
    Carriers 
    ICT infrastructure providers 
    Consumers 

    Depending on which of those you choose, you will get a radically different opinion on the state of play. 

    Does that surprise you? 

    Telecoms/Carriers? I hope you realise that that alone is a story unto itself. 

    Telefónica (Movistar) is just one example. It has many complaints. One of them is Big Tech. Just one. There are others.

    Twenty years ago it was deemed what would be called a gatekeeper of sorts today and forced to share its infrastructure. Now it is saying it should be freed of its regulatory shackles as it can no longer be considered the 800lb gorilla after liberation of the telecoms market and intense competition.

    Did you actually read what I said about the claims that Big Tech should be contributing to the costs of carrier infrastructure? 


  • Reply 15 of 20
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,327member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    CuJoYYC said:
    "Sounds like these companies know that they're not really going to be delivering better stores/prices and are trying to manufacture an excuse they can use as cover."

    Agreed. Whiners gotta whine.
    The letter seems like it's making valid claims. 

    Now we have to wait and see if the EU agrees. 
    Which claims do you think are valid?  Why do
    you believe they are valid?  

    Spotify, Fortnite, et al. want to be able to make money off Apple’s platform while giving no money to Apple for creating the platform, supporting the platform and lining up over a billion users on the platform.  There is no other thing this relates to, full stop.  That is not a valid argument, regardless of whether EU authorities agree with them or not.
    Well, how about every bullet point in the letter? 

    Personally, I don't think Apple’s proposals will pass the sniff test but it is not my call. That is why we have to wait.

    Telecoms carriers have, for literally years, been protesting about the 'abuses' of Big Tech. 

    They claim that they are obliged to upgrade capacity and performance metrics and no sooner have they done that than Big Tech jumps in and sucks it all up before they have amortised the outlay and then they have to repeat the process. 

    Just this week, someone at Vodafone claimed (at MWC2024) that 'infinite scrolling' was hogging around 20% of its base stations' capacities for things the user never even gets to see. 

    Now, the carriers have been heavily taxed and regulated since the day the old monopolies were opened up to competition. They say that Big Tech should also have to pay a part of the cost of creating, maintaining and deploying that core infrastructure. Security and privacy included in the argument of course. 

    That is exactly the same argument that Apple is providing in its defence of its 'fees' aplicable to third parties as they provide the core infrastructure to be used by others. 

    The problem for the carriers is that their claims have fallen on deaf ears at the EU for all these years (so much for the EU being anti US!) and although they still argue in favour of their cause, Open Gateway is a change of tack and their own attempt to claw back some control of the traffic directly (and monetise it of course).

    Telefonica (again this week at MWC) announced Open Gateway agreements for their Brazil operations with Tiktok and some Brazilian banks. More will follow. 

    The question is whether the EU will continue with their stance, and reject Apple’s claims (as they have done with the carriers) or not.

    No one knows, and there could be other lines of reasoning here too.

    We just have to wait. 
    Fuck all, and let me get this straight;

    For years, you have reminded all of us in the hinterlands of the rest of the world, how wonderful and universal the internet is in the EU, and if only the EU could be all Huawei 5G infrastructure, because it is cheap from Chinese Government Subsidies, then everyone would be blissfully happy.

    Now, you tell us that the Telecoms are massively unhappy because Telecoms are regulated utilities, and have been unable to increase profitability due to the desire of consumers to actually use their services as intended, on smartphones and internet connected devices brought to them by Big Tech. I would note that VAR is paid by every Big Tech device that enters the EU; is that not enough?

    On top of that, you would like to add Open Gateway that would would certainly add even more traffic, but of course, primarily benefitting developers.

    Why does everything in the EU seem as a poor attempt to level the playing field for all the players, without actually having the budget to do so?

    I'm guessing this is why you, and others want the Big Techs to pay for at least a portion of Telecom, and developer profits, instead of maybe letting useful capitalist measures of consumer supply and demand mechanisms create those profits organically.

    More to the point, why is the EU subsidizing Spotify's profitability with these measures?
    I have no idea what you are raving about now. 

    Re-read what I wrote. 

    Governments 
    Big Tech 
    Digital lifestyles 
    Carriers 
    ICT infrastructure providers 
    Consumers 

    Depending on which of those you choose, you will get a radically different opinion on the state of play. 

    Does that surprise you? 

    Telecoms/Carriers? I hope you realise that that alone is a story unto itself. 

    Telefónica (Movistar) is just one example. It has many complaints. One of them is Big Tech. Just one. There are others.

    Twenty years ago it was deemed what would be called a gatekeeper of sorts today and forced to share its infrastructure. Now it is saying it should be freed of its regulatory shackles as it can no longer be considered the 800lb gorilla after liberation of the telecoms market and intense competition.

    Did you actually read what I said about the claims that Big Tech should be contributing to the costs of carrier infrastructure? 


    What "abuses" of Big Tech, and why should Big Tech pay for telecom infrastructure? Why isn't the consumer ultimately responsible for anything beyond basic internet services, basic services of which the EU has deemed essential and uses taxes for?

    Frankly, you post so inarticulately that few, if any of us, have any clue of what you are posting about.
    baconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 20
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,655member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    CuJoYYC said:
    "Sounds like these companies know that they're not really going to be delivering better stores/prices and are trying to manufacture an excuse they can use as cover."

    Agreed. Whiners gotta whine.
    The letter seems like it's making valid claims. 

    Now we have to wait and see if the EU agrees. 
    Which claims do you think are valid?  Why do
    you believe they are valid?  

    Spotify, Fortnite, et al. want to be able to make money off Apple’s platform while giving no money to Apple for creating the platform, supporting the platform and lining up over a billion users on the platform.  There is no other thing this relates to, full stop.  That is not a valid argument, regardless of whether EU authorities agree with them or not.
    Well, how about every bullet point in the letter? 

    Personally, I don't think Apple’s proposals will pass the sniff test but it is not my call. That is why we have to wait.

    Telecoms carriers have, for literally years, been protesting about the 'abuses' of Big Tech. 

    They claim that they are obliged to upgrade capacity and performance metrics and no sooner have they done that than Big Tech jumps in and sucks it all up before they have amortised the outlay and then they have to repeat the process. 

    Just this week, someone at Vodafone claimed (at MWC2024) that 'infinite scrolling' was hogging around 20% of its base stations' capacities for things the user never even gets to see. 

    Now, the carriers have been heavily taxed and regulated since the day the old monopolies were opened up to competition. They say that Big Tech should also have to pay a part of the cost of creating, maintaining and deploying that core infrastructure. Security and privacy included in the argument of course. 

    That is exactly the same argument that Apple is providing in its defence of its 'fees' aplicable to third parties as they provide the core infrastructure to be used by others. 

    The problem for the carriers is that their claims have fallen on deaf ears at the EU for all these years (so much for the EU being anti US!) and although they still argue in favour of their cause, Open Gateway is a change of tack and their own attempt to claw back some control of the traffic directly (and monetise it of course).

    Telefonica (again this week at MWC) announced Open Gateway agreements for their Brazil operations with Tiktok and some Brazilian banks. More will follow. 

    The question is whether the EU will continue with their stance, and reject Apple’s claims (as they have done with the carriers) or not.

    No one knows, and there could be other lines of reasoning here too.

    We just have to wait. 
    Fuck all, and let me get this straight;

    For years, you have reminded all of us in the hinterlands of the rest of the world, how wonderful and universal the internet is in the EU, and if only the EU could be all Huawei 5G infrastructure, because it is cheap from Chinese Government Subsidies, then everyone would be blissfully happy.

    Now, you tell us that the Telecoms are massively unhappy because Telecoms are regulated utilities, and have been unable to increase profitability due to the desire of consumers to actually use their services as intended, on smartphones and internet connected devices brought to them by Big Tech. I would note that VAR is paid by every Big Tech device that enters the EU; is that not enough?

    On top of that, you would like to add Open Gateway that would would certainly add even more traffic, but of course, primarily benefitting developers.

    Why does everything in the EU seem as a poor attempt to level the playing field for all the players, without actually having the budget to do so?

    I'm guessing this is why you, and others want the Big Techs to pay for at least a portion of Telecom, and developer profits, instead of maybe letting useful capitalist measures of consumer supply and demand mechanisms create those profits organically.

    More to the point, why is the EU subsidizing Spotify's profitability with these measures?
    I have no idea what you are raving about now. 

    Re-read what I wrote. 

    Governments 
    Big Tech 
    Digital lifestyles 
    Carriers 
    ICT infrastructure providers 
    Consumers 

    Depending on which of those you choose, you will get a radically different opinion on the state of play. 

    Does that surprise you? 

    Telecoms/Carriers? I hope you realise that that alone is a story unto itself. 

    Telefónica (Movistar) is just one example. It has many complaints. One of them is Big Tech. Just one. There are others.

    Twenty years ago it was deemed what would be called a gatekeeper of sorts today and forced to share its infrastructure. Now it is saying it should be freed of its regulatory shackles as it can no longer be considered the 800lb gorilla after liberation of the telecoms market and intense competition.

    Did you actually read what I said about the claims that Big Tech should be contributing to the costs of carrier infrastructure? 


    What "abuses" of Big Tech, and why should Big Tech pay for telecom infrastructure? Why isn't the consumer ultimately responsible for anything beyond basic internet services, basic services of which the EU has deemed essential and uses taxes for?

    Frankly, you post so inarticulately that few, if any of us, have any clue of what you are posting about.
    Tell me which part of this (with example included!) you did not understand:

    "Telecoms carriers have, for literally years, been protesting about the 'abuses' of Big Tech. 

    They claim that they are obliged to upgrade capacity and performance metrics and no sooner have they done that than Big Tech jumps in and sucks it all up before they have amortised the outlay and then they have to repeat the process. 

    Just this week, someone at Vodafone claimed (at MWC2024) that 'infinite scrolling' was hogging around 20% of its base stations' capacities for things the user never even gets to see"
  • Reply 17 of 20
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,327member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    CuJoYYC said:
    "Sounds like these companies know that they're not really going to be delivering better stores/prices and are trying to manufacture an excuse they can use as cover."

    Agreed. Whiners gotta whine.
    The letter seems like it's making valid claims. 

    Now we have to wait and see if the EU agrees. 
    Which claims do you think are valid?  Why do
    you believe they are valid?  

    Spotify, Fortnite, et al. want to be able to make money off Apple’s platform while giving no money to Apple for creating the platform, supporting the platform and lining up over a billion users on the platform.  There is no other thing this relates to, full stop.  That is not a valid argument, regardless of whether EU authorities agree with them or not.
    Well, how about every bullet point in the letter? 

    Personally, I don't think Apple’s proposals will pass the sniff test but it is not my call. That is why we have to wait.

    Telecoms carriers have, for literally years, been protesting about the 'abuses' of Big Tech. 

    They claim that they are obliged to upgrade capacity and performance metrics and no sooner have they done that than Big Tech jumps in and sucks it all up before they have amortised the outlay and then they have to repeat the process. 

    Just this week, someone at Vodafone claimed (at MWC2024) that 'infinite scrolling' was hogging around 20% of its base stations' capacities for things the user never even gets to see. 

    Now, the carriers have been heavily taxed and regulated since the day the old monopolies were opened up to competition. They say that Big Tech should also have to pay a part of the cost of creating, maintaining and deploying that core infrastructure. Security and privacy included in the argument of course. 

    That is exactly the same argument that Apple is providing in its defence of its 'fees' aplicable to third parties as they provide the core infrastructure to be used by others. 

    The problem for the carriers is that their claims have fallen on deaf ears at the EU for all these years (so much for the EU being anti US!) and although they still argue in favour of their cause, Open Gateway is a change of tack and their own attempt to claw back some control of the traffic directly (and monetise it of course).

    Telefonica (again this week at MWC) announced Open Gateway agreements for their Brazil operations with Tiktok and some Brazilian banks. More will follow. 

    The question is whether the EU will continue with their stance, and reject Apple’s claims (as they have done with the carriers) or not.

    No one knows, and there could be other lines of reasoning here too.

    We just have to wait. 
    Fuck all, and let me get this straight;

    For years, you have reminded all of us in the hinterlands of the rest of the world, how wonderful and universal the internet is in the EU, and if only the EU could be all Huawei 5G infrastructure, because it is cheap from Chinese Government Subsidies, then everyone would be blissfully happy.

    Now, you tell us that the Telecoms are massively unhappy because Telecoms are regulated utilities, and have been unable to increase profitability due to the desire of consumers to actually use their services as intended, on smartphones and internet connected devices brought to them by Big Tech. I would note that VAR is paid by every Big Tech device that enters the EU; is that not enough?

    On top of that, you would like to add Open Gateway that would would certainly add even more traffic, but of course, primarily benefitting developers.

    Why does everything in the EU seem as a poor attempt to level the playing field for all the players, without actually having the budget to do so?

    I'm guessing this is why you, and others want the Big Techs to pay for at least a portion of Telecom, and developer profits, instead of maybe letting useful capitalist measures of consumer supply and demand mechanisms create those profits organically.

    More to the point, why is the EU subsidizing Spotify's profitability with these measures?
    I have no idea what you are raving about now. 

    Re-read what I wrote. 

    Governments 
    Big Tech 
    Digital lifestyles 
    Carriers 
    ICT infrastructure providers 
    Consumers 

    Depending on which of those you choose, you will get a radically different opinion on the state of play. 

    Does that surprise you? 

    Telecoms/Carriers? I hope you realise that that alone is a story unto itself. 

    Telefónica (Movistar) is just one example. It has many complaints. One of them is Big Tech. Just one. There are others.

    Twenty years ago it was deemed what would be called a gatekeeper of sorts today and forced to share its infrastructure. Now it is saying it should be freed of its regulatory shackles as it can no longer be considered the 800lb gorilla after liberation of the telecoms market and intense competition.

    Did you actually read what I said about the claims that Big Tech should be contributing to the costs of carrier infrastructure? 


    What "abuses" of Big Tech, and why should Big Tech pay for telecom infrastructure? Why isn't the consumer ultimately responsible for anything beyond basic internet services, basic services of which the EU has deemed essential and uses taxes for?

    Frankly, you post so inarticulately that few, if any of us, have any clue of what you are posting about.
    Tell me which part of this (with example included!) you did not understand:

    "Telecoms carriers have, for literally years, been protesting about the 'abuses' of Big Tech. 

    They claim that they are obliged to upgrade capacity and performance metrics and no sooner have they done that than Big Tech jumps in and sucks it all up before they have amortised the outlay and then they have to repeat the process. 

    Just this week, someone at Vodafone claimed (at MWC2024) that 'infinite scrolling' was hogging around 20% of its base stations' capacities for things the user never even gets to see"
    Oh, I understand the part of Telecoms complaining about Big Tech and bandwidth, but what exactly are the abuses of the BigTech other than those driven by the consumer demands, you know, search, ads, news, streaming, TikTok, You Tube, porn, et al? The EU wanted its citizens to get an unlimited buffet, and a unlimited buffet they got, only the poor telecoms aren't getting a big enough cut of the action. That's a structural problem that the EU needs to fix, and pushing that as a problem of the Big Techs is, quite frankly, bullshit.

    Maybe what the telecoms don't understand, and can't comprehend, is their customers, but sure, maybe if they did, they could figure out how to monetize that. The Telecoms need to fix their business model.

    Funny, that's exactly the problem that Spotify has; they can't find a profitable business model that isn't subsidized by some other entity, but god forbid that they would raise prices on the customer as a solution, because some customers would leave if that happened. 


    edited March 2 Bart Ywatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 20
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,655member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    CuJoYYC said:
    "Sounds like these companies know that they're not really going to be delivering better stores/prices and are trying to manufacture an excuse they can use as cover."

    Agreed. Whiners gotta whine.
    The letter seems like it's making valid claims. 

    Now we have to wait and see if the EU agrees. 
    Which claims do you think are valid?  Why do
    you believe they are valid?  

    Spotify, Fortnite, et al. want to be able to make money off Apple’s platform while giving no money to Apple for creating the platform, supporting the platform and lining up over a billion users on the platform.  There is no other thing this relates to, full stop.  That is not a valid argument, regardless of whether EU authorities agree with them or not.
    Well, how about every bullet point in the letter? 

    Personally, I don't think Apple’s proposals will pass the sniff test but it is not my call. That is why we have to wait.

    Telecoms carriers have, for literally years, been protesting about the 'abuses' of Big Tech. 

    They claim that they are obliged to upgrade capacity and performance metrics and no sooner have they done that than Big Tech jumps in and sucks it all up before they have amortised the outlay and then they have to repeat the process. 

    Just this week, someone at Vodafone claimed (at MWC2024) that 'infinite scrolling' was hogging around 20% of its base stations' capacities for things the user never even gets to see. 

    Now, the carriers have been heavily taxed and regulated since the day the old monopolies were opened up to competition. They say that Big Tech should also have to pay a part of the cost of creating, maintaining and deploying that core infrastructure. Security and privacy included in the argument of course. 

    That is exactly the same argument that Apple is providing in its defence of its 'fees' aplicable to third parties as they provide the core infrastructure to be used by others. 

    The problem for the carriers is that their claims have fallen on deaf ears at the EU for all these years (so much for the EU being anti US!) and although they still argue in favour of their cause, Open Gateway is a change of tack and their own attempt to claw back some control of the traffic directly (and monetise it of course).

    Telefonica (again this week at MWC) announced Open Gateway agreements for their Brazil operations with Tiktok and some Brazilian banks. More will follow. 

    The question is whether the EU will continue with their stance, and reject Apple’s claims (as they have done with the carriers) or not.

    No one knows, and there could be other lines of reasoning here too.

    We just have to wait. 
    Fuck all, and let me get this straight;

    For years, you have reminded all of us in the hinterlands of the rest of the world, how wonderful and universal the internet is in the EU, and if only the EU could be all Huawei 5G infrastructure, because it is cheap from Chinese Government Subsidies, then everyone would be blissfully happy.

    Now, you tell us that the Telecoms are massively unhappy because Telecoms are regulated utilities, and have been unable to increase profitability due to the desire of consumers to actually use their services as intended, on smartphones and internet connected devices brought to them by Big Tech. I would note that VAR is paid by every Big Tech device that enters the EU; is that not enough?

    On top of that, you would like to add Open Gateway that would would certainly add even more traffic, but of course, primarily benefitting developers.

    Why does everything in the EU seem as a poor attempt to level the playing field for all the players, without actually having the budget to do so?

    I'm guessing this is why you, and others want the Big Techs to pay for at least a portion of Telecom, and developer profits, instead of maybe letting useful capitalist measures of consumer supply and demand mechanisms create those profits organically.

    More to the point, why is the EU subsidizing Spotify's profitability with these measures?
    I have no idea what you are raving about now. 

    Re-read what I wrote. 

    Governments 
    Big Tech 
    Digital lifestyles 
    Carriers 
    ICT infrastructure providers 
    Consumers 

    Depending on which of those you choose, you will get a radically different opinion on the state of play. 

    Does that surprise you? 

    Telecoms/Carriers? I hope you realise that that alone is a story unto itself. 

    Telefónica (Movistar) is just one example. It has many complaints. One of them is Big Tech. Just one. There are others.

    Twenty years ago it was deemed what would be called a gatekeeper of sorts today and forced to share its infrastructure. Now it is saying it should be freed of its regulatory shackles as it can no longer be considered the 800lb gorilla after liberation of the telecoms market and intense competition.

    Did you actually read what I said about the claims that Big Tech should be contributing to the costs of carrier infrastructure? 


    What "abuses" of Big Tech, and why should Big Tech pay for telecom infrastructure? Why isn't the consumer ultimately responsible for anything beyond basic internet services, basic services of which the EU has deemed essential and uses taxes for?

    Frankly, you post so inarticulately that few, if any of us, have any clue of what you are posting about.
    Tell me which part of this (with example included!) you did not understand:

    "Telecoms carriers have, for literally years, been protesting about the 'abuses' of Big Tech. 

    They claim that they are obliged to upgrade capacity and performance metrics and no sooner have they done that than Big Tech jumps in and sucks it all up before they have amortised the outlay and then they have to repeat the process. 

    Just this week, someone at Vodafone claimed (at MWC2024) that 'infinite scrolling' was hogging around 20% of its base stations' capacities for things the user never even gets to see"
    Oh, I understand the part of Telecoms complaining about Big Tech and bandwidth, but what exactly are the abuses of the BigTech other than those driven by the consumer demands, you know, search, ads, news, streaming, TikTok, You Tube, porn, et al? The EU wanted its citizens to get an unlimited buffet, and a unlimited buffet they got, only the poor telecoms aren't getting a big enough cut of the action. That's a structural problem that the EU needs to fix, and pushing that as a problem of the Big Techs is, quite frankly, bullshit.

    Maybe what the telecoms don't understand, and can't comprehend, is their customers, but sure, maybe if they did, they could figure out how to monetize that. The Telecoms need to fix their business model.

    Funny, that's exactly the problem that Spotify has; they can't find a profitable business model that isn't subsidized by some other entity, but god forbid that they would raise prices on the customer as a solution, because some customers would leave if that happened. 



    "What exactly"??? 

    That's irrelevant. 

    What I, or anyone, thinks about their claims is irrelevant. 

    However, here is just one relatively recent link:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/10/no-networks-no-google-telcos-urge-eu-to-charge-big-tech-for-internet.html

    It has come up every single year (especially at MWC) for as long as I can remember. 

    Whether they are right or wrong to claim that is not the point. The point is that it is basically the same defence that Apple (and some people here) is putting on the table to justify the fees imposed on third parties. 

    That was the point. 

    It was also explained clearly but, just for the record, I even went so far as to say:

    "Although they've pushed the claims for as long as I can remember, I've always been against the idea." 

    And:

    "The problem for the carriers is that their claims have fallen on deaf ears at the EU for all these years"

    So neither I nor the EU have agreed with the carriers. 

    Is that clear to you? 
  • Reply 19 of 20
    You’ll notice that (with just a bit of research) almost all of these organizations have management/ownership that fall into one or more of the following categories: a) reactionary right-wing “you’re not the boss of me” types that want carte blanche to screw over other folks, b) those that lost power and revenue due to the internet and are trying to claw it back, c) sleezeballs that come from industries dominated by cynical and ethically questionable business models, and d) agencies tasked with stonewalling all but the most parochial of local interests. 

    They all think life would be better if they were in charge.

    I’m no fan of the current entrenched interests, but these folks are a clown car of fellow travelers stymied by the powers that be. They’re a mob with personal vendettas, not ethical or philosophical qualms.

    PS - With the exception of Proton, I’d say all the companies produce steaming gold-plated turds for products/services. They’re all predatory in some capacity. Remember that when they do the white knight dance.
    edited March 2 williamlondontmayBart Ybaconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 20
    Apple just lost in Court…. April 3rd.
Sign In or Register to comment.