Spotify, Epic complain again that Apple won't be in compliance with the DMA
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.
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
Now we have to wait and see if the EU agrees.
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.
If they don't want to pay the fees they should go elsewhere or build their own devices.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Frankly, you post so inarticulately that few, if any of us, have any clue of what you are posting about.
"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"
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?
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.