Apple tried to play clever by following th e law to the letter and ignoring the spirit of the law, which the EU made very clear. Everyone following this story understood but Apple pretended like they didn’t, which is really an insult to anyone’s intelligence and a big FU to the EU. Of course the EU doesn’t care these games and rightfully they will simply fine Apple, a lot. Apple played with us and is about to find out.
Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.
If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.
She's not pushing open markets or fair markets, nor is she running things by the book, unless it's a secret book that only she has access to. What she is pushing is preferential treatment for European companies at the expense of American companies. She's pushing for markets tilted in favor of companies like Spotify and against companies like Apple. Trade protectionism is alive and well under her leadership. Perhaps that's difficult to see from a European perspective, and obviously an American perspective may create an opposite bias, but her actions against American companies, and to give European companies whatever they want, are so blatantly protectionist, so precisely targeted, that the objective truth clearly is closer to the American perspective on this issue than the European.
That’s completely false because even American companies will benefit from an open marketplace. See Epic.
I find it very hard to believe that Apple is deliberately ignoring laws pertaining of operating their business in the EU — that would just be bad for business. ...
Antitrust is not innovation. Antitrust is destroying competition and restricting markets causing less innovation. Not sure why you keep bashing EU in every post. A lot of regions and countries are taking action on this. We don't want an Apple Tax on memory, 2 years without iPads, 5 years betwen Mac Pro updates, a stale ipadOS, no Watch upgrades for devices Apple sold as new just 2 years ago, 5 years of butterfly keyboards, mice charging on their back with proprietary connectors, and we don't want iPhone 16 to be like 12/13/14/15. Competition, innovation,... that is what we need!
I find it very hard to believe that Apple is deliberately ignoring laws pertaining of operating their business in the EU — that would just be bad for business. ...
Antitrust is not innovation. Antitrust is destroying competition and restricting markets causing less innovation. Not sure why you keep bashing EU in every post. A lot of regions and countries are taking action on this. We don't want an Apple Tax on memory, 2 years without iPads, 5 years betwen Mac Pro updates, a stale ipadOS, no Watch upgrades for devices Apple sold as new just 2 years ago, 5 years of butterfly keyboards, mice charging on their back with proprietary connectors, and we don't want iPhone 16 to be like 12/13/14/15. Competition, innovation,... that is what we need!
The one problem I have is that why does this apply to a company like Apple, but not to a Sony who makes a PlayStation platform and their own App store and others similar?
Do they get a pass? Is it different circumstances than what Apple has?
So how are you going to dictate what timeline you want out of Apple when it comes to what you want when you want it? The only way I know that works is don’t buy what they are selling and create successful public boycotts until they make what you want.
You want innovation, but you also want it to be affordable, unless you are ok going out and buying Vision Pro at it’s bleeding edge price.
Affordable innovation is going to take some time. That’s why the iPhone 13-15 “looks” similar but has many significant differences inside.
Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.
If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.
Apple has always been an open market player.
So your fluff piece is moot.
Apple operates a store. Apple gets its commission. Boom done.
This is how it’s been done in the history of stores to this day.
What stores dont do:
A) host signs and banners telling you to go to one of your vendors house to get a shirt for cheaper.
use Billy bobs payment system since Billy Bob sells sandals in your store.
C) let vendors put up their own store inside of your store and not pay a commission on sold items and rent)
it’s flat out criminal what this corrupt organization has done. They’ve basically robbed Apple and then made them pay to operate other people’s marketing, hosting, and discovery. The heck out of here.
Try selling something through Walmart and pull these things: you’ll ba banned from selling through them and all affiliates and partners for life. And that’s what should have happened here. Penalize the contract-breakers, the thieves, and the hijackers, not the store operator.
Common sense does not exist in European government.
The store itself isn't really as much of a problem as the platform it is on. A platform that limits competitors.
It's not about a store in a store. It's about alternative stores on the platform.
As Apple has the keys to the gate it was deemed a gatekeeper. It got away with that unfair for years.
So, you're saying that Apple should be able to sell music through Spotify without paying them anything right? After all, with by far the largest share of the streaming market in Europe, the Spotify platform is a gatekeeper for music, and they don't currently allow anyone else to sell music on their platform, thus limiting competitors. I mean, it's all about alternative stores, right?
What Spotify platform? Where are most Spotify users listening from? Its own platform? Is it limiting users to its own platform?
Are you implying Spotify has a captive audience?
So, you don't think its competitors deserve a fair shake inside the Spotify streaming ecosystem? Where's the consumer choice in that? I mean, surely Apple should be allowed to sell music/streaming inside Spotify? I don't get it, do you want to eliminate barriers to competition or not?
If you don't get it perhaps it's because you don't want to get it.
You've moved from a Spotify 'platform' to a Spotify 'ecosystem'. I'm not seeing either of those.
I'm seeing a service and a limited service at that because it's mainly audio that has no captive control over its users.
I have very serious issues with the dictatorship called the EU.
The fact that a democratically elected government is "dictating" rules that all businesses — even foreign ones — need to follow (we call them "laws") does not make them a "dictatorship".
You'd just rather not have to follow the law.
Apple doesn't just follow the law, they follow the spirit of the law.
In this case, they're absolutely not following the spirit of the law.
They're complying with the letter, but adding extra levies to ensure that following the law makes effectively no difference.
That's the opposite of "following the spirit of the law", and it didn't fly with the EU commission.
This is the problem - they let all the big tech companies implement the changes on their own because the EU is full of bureaucrats that don’t understand technology. If they don’t like Apple’s interpretation of the law then they should have been more specific in what they wanted.
I have very serious issues with the dictatorship called the EU.
The fact that a democratically elected government is "dictating" rules that all businesses — even foreign ones — need to follow (we call them "laws") does not make them a "dictatorship".
You'd just rather not have to follow the law.
Apple doesn't just follow the law, they follow the spirit of the law.
In this case, they're absolutely not following the spirit of the law.
They're complying with the letter, but adding extra levies to ensure that following the law makes effectively no difference.
That's the opposite of "following the spirit of the law", and it didn't fly with the EU commission.
This is the problem - they let all the big tech companies implement the changes on their own because the EU is full of bureaucrats that don’t understand technology. If they don’t like Apple’s interpretation of the law then they should have been more specific in what they wanted.
The DMA can’t be more specific without looking really bad as it appears the spirit is to deprive big tech companies from charging for their IP or their service.
Look at Meta’s predicament. In the EU Meta offered a Facebook tier for free that tracked users and offered targeted advertising (where Meta earns money). They also offered a paid tier that didn’t track and offered non-targeted advertising (where Meta earns significantly less).
Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.
If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.
She's not pushing open markets or fair markets, nor is she running things by the book, unless it's a secret book that only she has access to. What she is pushing is preferential treatment for European companies at the expense of American companies. She's pushing for markets tilted in favor of companies like Spotify and against companies like Apple. Trade protectionism is alive and well under her leadership. Perhaps that's difficult to see from a European perspective, and obviously an American perspective may create an opposite bias, but her actions against American companies, and to give European companies whatever they want, are so blatantly protectionist, so precisely targeted, that the objective truth clearly is closer to the American perspective on this issue than the European.
That’s completely false because even American companies will benefit from an open marketplace. See Epic.
First of all, this is not about an open marketplace — it's the opposite of an open marketplace.
Secondly, it's pretty clear that the law and its "interpretation" (scare quotes because that's a generous characterization) are, and are intended to, target large US tech companies for the benefit of smaller European tech companies. That someone like Epic might benefit is merely an unintended side-effect.
Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.
If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.
Apple has always been an open market player.
So your fluff piece is moot.
Apple operates a store. Apple gets its commission. Boom done.
This is how it’s been done in the history of stores to this day.
What stores dont do:
A) host signs and banners telling you to go to one of your vendors house to get a shirt for cheaper.
use Billy bobs payment system since Billy Bob sells sandals in your store.
C) let vendors put up their own store inside of your store and not pay a commission on sold items and rent)
it’s flat out criminal what this corrupt organization has done. They’ve basically robbed Apple and then made them pay to operate other people’s marketing, hosting, and discovery. The heck out of here.
Try selling something through Walmart and pull these things: you’ll ba banned from selling through them and all affiliates and partners for life. And that’s what should have happened here. Penalize the contract-breakers, the thieves, and the hijackers, not the store operator.
Common sense does not exist in European government.
The store itself isn't really as much of a problem as the platform it is on. A platform that limits competitors.
It's not about a store in a store. It's about alternative stores on the platform.
As Apple has the keys to the gate it was deemed a gatekeeper. It got away with that unfair for years.
So, you're saying that Apple should be able to sell music through Spotify without paying them anything right? After all, with by far the largest share of the streaming market in Europe, the Spotify platform is a gatekeeper for music, and they don't currently allow anyone else to sell music on their platform, thus limiting competitors. I mean, it's all about alternative stores, right?
What Spotify platform? Where are most Spotify users listening from? Its own platform? Is it limiting users to its own platform?
Are you implying Spotify has a captive audience?
So, you don't think its competitors deserve a fair shake inside the Spotify streaming ecosystem? Where's the consumer choice in that? I mean, surely Apple should be allowed to sell music/streaming inside Spotify? I don't get it, do you want to eliminate barriers to competition or not?
If you don't get it perhaps it's because you don't want to get it.
You've moved from a Spotify 'platform' to a Spotify 'ecosystem'. I'm not seeing either of those.
I'm seeing a service and a limited service at that because it's mainly audio that has no captive control over its users.
Right, because you, like the EU, want to define those terms (frankly, I see them as synonymous for practical purposes) in such a way that they only apply to large US tech companies and not to companies like Spotify. Captive control? What a joke. Apple doesn't have captive control over anyone, unless of course you also define that in such a way that it only applies to Apple. People don't use Apple products because Apple has "captive control", they use them because the are typically best in class. The EU doesn't like that — I suppose they are looking nostalgically back at the heyday of Nokia, for example — because there simply aren't EU companies that typically have best in class products. The propping up of Spotify, which actually has majority marketshare and doesn't need propping up, simply highlights how entirely dishonest the rhetoric from the EU on this issue is, and makes clear what their intent really is — to hobble American companies as required to maximize the success of EU companies.
Apple tried to play clever by following th e law to the letter and ignoring the spirit of the law, which the EU made very clear. Everyone following this story understood but Apple pretended like they didn’t, which is really an insult to anyone’s intelligence and a big FU to the EU. Of course the EU doesn’t care these games and rightfully they will simply fine Apple, a lot. Apple played with us and is about to find out.
Sorry, but this whole "spirit of the law" nonsense is not how the rule of law works. If governments want to compel behavior by law, they need to spell out in the wording of the law exactly what it is they want done. If they are going to grant some agency authority to enforce the law with specifics, that agency needs to spell out in the wording of the regulations, in advance, what the specific requirements are. Not spelling out what the requirements and continually coming back and saying "not enough" is the essence of corrupt governance.
What the EU is doing with the DMA and its enforcement undermines the rule of law and Western democracy. This is the kind of thing we see in autocracies where business dealings happen at the whim of the rulers. It's thuggery.
The first salvo should be giving away Apple Music for free or for a trivial amount to crush Spotify. The EU's problems is it cannot create any of its own products that people want and they are probably still holding a grudge against Apple for the implosion of Nokia.
meh! Spotify would say it's unfair that Apple has 'free' option since they own the IP to delivery. The the EU would try to punish Apple for errrr, hurting the consumer??? LOL
Apple should just stop selling products and services in the EU...problem solved. When the EU wants to stop being unfair then they can consider coming back.
Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.
If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.
Apple has always been an open market player.
So your fluff piece is moot.
Apple operates a store. Apple gets its commission. Boom done.
This is how it’s been done in the history of stores to this day.
What stores dont do:
A) host signs and banners telling you to go to one of your vendors house to get a shirt for cheaper.
use Billy bobs payment system since Billy Bob sells sandals in your store.
C) let vendors put up their own store inside of your store and not pay a commission on sold items and rent)
it’s flat out criminal what this corrupt organization has done. They’ve basically robbed Apple and then made them pay to operate other people’s marketing, hosting, and discovery. The heck out of here.
Try selling something through Walmart and pull these things: you’ll ba banned from selling through them and all affiliates and partners for life. And that’s what should have happened here. Penalize the contract-breakers, the thieves, and the hijackers, not the store operator.
Common sense does not exist in European government.
The store itself isn't really as much of a problem as the platform it is on. A platform that limits competitors.
It's not about a store in a store. It's about alternative stores on the platform.
As Apple has the keys to the gate it was deemed a gatekeeper. It got away with that unfair for years.
So, you're saying that Apple should be able to sell music through Spotify without paying them anything right? After all, with by far the largest share of the streaming market in Europe, the Spotify platform is a gatekeeper for music, and they don't currently allow anyone else to sell music on their platform, thus limiting competitors. I mean, it's all about alternative stores, right?
What Spotify platform? Where are most Spotify users listening from? Its own platform? Is it limiting users to its own platform?
Are you implying Spotify has a captive audience?
So, you don't think its competitors deserve a fair shake inside the Spotify streaming ecosystem? Where's the consumer choice in that? I mean, surely Apple should be allowed to sell music/streaming inside Spotify? I don't get it, do you want to eliminate barriers to competition or not?
If you don't get it perhaps it's because you don't want to get it.
You've moved from a Spotify 'platform' to a Spotify 'ecosystem'. I'm not seeing either of those.
I'm seeing a service and a limited service at that because it's mainly audio that has no captive control over its users.
Right, because you, like the EU, want to define those terms (frankly, I see them as synonymous for practical purposes) in such a way that they only apply to large US tech companies and not to companies like Spotify. Captive control? What a joke. Apple doesn't have captive control over anyone, unless of course you also define that in such a way that it only applies to Apple. People don't use Apple products because Apple has "captive control", they use them because the are typically best in class. The EU doesn't like that — I suppose they are looking nostalgically back at the heyday of Nokia, for example — because there simply aren't EU companies that typically have best in class products. The propping up of Spotify, which actually has majority marketshare and doesn't need propping up, simply highlights how entirely dishonest the rhetoric from the EU on this issue is, and makes clear what their intent really is — to hobble American companies as required to maximize the success of EU companies.
If you are paying hundreds or thousands of dollars to get on the platform and are in (services, file formats, etc) it is not something you switch out of at the drop of a hat.
For practical purposes that is exactly captive control.
Have you forgotten that until relatively recently, WhatsApp backups had to go to iCloud?
Of course, and through court revelations, we know that Apple has used the term lock-in.
Would it really be asking too much to require that users sign off on the restrictions prior to purchase?
Why not be up front about them and then let users make a more informed decision?
There are plenty of companies in the EU that have best in class products. Cough, ASML, cough!
Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.
If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.
Apple has always been an open market player.
So your fluff piece is moot.
Apple operates a store. Apple gets its commission. Boom done.
This is how it’s been done in the history of stores to this day.
What stores dont do:
A) host signs and banners telling you to go to one of your vendors house to get a shirt for cheaper.
use Billy bobs payment system since Billy Bob sells sandals in your store.
C) let vendors put up their own store inside of your store and not pay a commission on sold items and rent)
it’s flat out criminal what this corrupt organization has done. They’ve basically robbed Apple and then made them pay to operate other people’s marketing, hosting, and discovery. The heck out of here.
Try selling something through Walmart and pull these things: you’ll ba banned from selling through them and all affiliates and partners for life. And that’s what should have happened here. Penalize the contract-breakers, the thieves, and the hijackers, not the store operator.
Common sense does not exist in European government.
The store itself isn't really as much of a problem as the platform it is on. A platform that limits competitors.
It's not about a store in a store. It's about alternative stores on the platform.
As Apple has the keys to the gate it was deemed a gatekeeper. It got away with that unfair for years.
So, you're saying that Apple should be able to sell music through Spotify without paying them anything right? After all, with by far the largest share of the streaming market in Europe, the Spotify platform is a gatekeeper for music, and they don't currently allow anyone else to sell music on their platform, thus limiting competitors. I mean, it's all about alternative stores, right?
What Spotify platform? Where are most Spotify users listening from? Its own platform? Is it limiting users to its own platform?
Are you implying Spotify has a captive audience?
So, you don't think its competitors deserve a fair shake inside the Spotify streaming ecosystem? Where's the consumer choice in that? I mean, surely Apple should be allowed to sell music/streaming inside Spotify? I don't get it, do you want to eliminate barriers to competition or not?
If you don't get it perhaps it's because you don't want to get it.
You've moved from a Spotify 'platform' to a Spotify 'ecosystem'. I'm not seeing either of those.
I'm seeing a service and a limited service at that because it's mainly audio that has no captive control over its users.
Right, because you, like the EU, want to define those terms (frankly, I see them as synonymous for practical purposes) in such a way that they only apply to large US tech companies and not to companies like Spotify. Captive control? What a joke. Apple doesn't have captive control over anyone, unless of course you also define that in such a way that it only applies to Apple. People don't use Apple products because Apple has "captive control", they use them because the are typically best in class. The EU doesn't like that — I suppose they are looking nostalgically back at the heyday of Nokia, for example — because there simply aren't EU companies that typically have best in class products. The propping up of Spotify, which actually has majority marketshare and doesn't need propping up, simply highlights how entirely dishonest the rhetoric from the EU on this issue is, and makes clear what their intent really is — to hobble American companies as required to maximize the success of EU companies.
Would it really be asking too much to require that users sign off on the restrictions prior to purchase?
Is this something that EU has asked Apple to do and Apple has refused to do so far? Why is this even relevant to the discussion?
Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.
If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.
Apple has always been an open market player.
So your fluff piece is moot.
Apple operates a store. Apple gets its commission. Boom done.
This is how it’s been done in the history of stores to this day.
What stores dont do:
A) host signs and banners telling you to go to one of your vendors house to get a shirt for cheaper.
use Billy bobs payment system since Billy Bob sells sandals in your store.
C) let vendors put up their own store inside of your store and not pay a commission on sold items and rent)
it’s flat out criminal what this corrupt organization has done. They’ve basically robbed Apple and then made them pay to operate other people’s marketing, hosting, and discovery. The heck out of here.
Try selling something through Walmart and pull these things: you’ll ba banned from selling through them and all affiliates and partners for life. And that’s what should have happened here. Penalize the contract-breakers, the thieves, and the hijackers, not the store operator.
Common sense does not exist in European government.
The store itself isn't really as much of a problem as the platform it is on. A platform that limits competitors.
It's not about a store in a store. It's about alternative stores on the platform.
As Apple has the keys to the gate it was deemed a gatekeeper. It got away with that unfair for years.
So, you're saying that Apple should be able to sell music through Spotify without paying them anything right? After all, with by far the largest share of the streaming market in Europe, the Spotify platform is a gatekeeper for music, and they don't currently allow anyone else to sell music on their platform, thus limiting competitors. I mean, it's all about alternative stores, right?
What Spotify platform? Where are most Spotify users listening from? Its own platform? Is it limiting users to its own platform?
Are you implying Spotify has a captive audience?
So, you don't think its competitors deserve a fair shake inside the Spotify streaming ecosystem? Where's the consumer choice in that? I mean, surely Apple should be allowed to sell music/streaming inside Spotify? I don't get it, do you want to eliminate barriers to competition or not?
If you don't get it perhaps it's because you don't want to get it.
You've moved from a Spotify 'platform' to a Spotify 'ecosystem'. I'm not seeing either of those.
I'm seeing a service and a limited service at that because it's mainly audio that has no captive control over its users.
Right, because you, like the EU, want to define those terms (frankly, I see them as synonymous for practical purposes) in such a way that they only apply to large US tech companies and not to companies like Spotify. Captive control? What a joke. Apple doesn't have captive control over anyone, unless of course you also define that in such a way that it only applies to Apple. People don't use Apple products because Apple has "captive control", they use them because the are typically best in class. The EU doesn't like that — I suppose they are looking nostalgically back at the heyday of Nokia, for example — because there simply aren't EU companies that typically have best in class products. The propping up of Spotify, which actually has majority marketshare and doesn't need propping up, simply highlights how entirely dishonest the rhetoric from the EU on this issue is, and makes clear what their intent really is — to hobble American companies as required to maximize the success of EU companies.
Would it really be asking too much to require that users sign off on the restrictions prior to purchase?
Is this something that EU has asked Apple to do and Apple has refused to do so far? Why is this even relevant to the discussion?
He's just raising a lot of pseudo issues — i.e., blowing smoke — in an attempt to gloss over the lawless, autocratic, protectionist behavior of the EU. The bottom line is, if you are going to require companies to do specific things to do business in the EU, a) those requirements need to be explicitly enumerated in law, and b) unless you are just running a protectionist racket, you don't "craft" them so as to only target large US tech firms.
Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.
If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.
Apple has always been an open market player.
So your fluff piece is moot.
Apple operates a store. Apple gets its commission. Boom done.
This is how it’s been done in the history of stores to this day.
What stores dont do:
A) host signs and banners telling you to go to one of your vendors house to get a shirt for cheaper.
use Billy bobs payment system since Billy Bob sells sandals in your store.
C) let vendors put up their own store inside of your store and not pay a commission on sold items and rent)
it’s flat out criminal what this corrupt organization has done. They’ve basically robbed Apple and then made them pay to operate other people’s marketing, hosting, and discovery. The heck out of here.
Try selling something through Walmart and pull these things: you’ll ba banned from selling through them and all affiliates and partners for life. And that’s what should have happened here. Penalize the contract-breakers, the thieves, and the hijackers, not the store operator.
Common sense does not exist in European government.
The store itself isn't really as much of a problem as the platform it is on. A platform that limits competitors.
It's not about a store in a store. It's about alternative stores on the platform.
As Apple has the keys to the gate it was deemed a gatekeeper. It got away with that unfair for years.
So, you're saying that Apple should be able to sell music through Spotify without paying them anything right? After all, with by far the largest share of the streaming market in Europe, the Spotify platform is a gatekeeper for music, and they don't currently allow anyone else to sell music on their platform, thus limiting competitors. I mean, it's all about alternative stores, right?
What Spotify platform? Where are most Spotify users listening from? Its own platform? Is it limiting users to its own platform?
Are you implying Spotify has a captive audience?
So, you don't think its competitors deserve a fair shake inside the Spotify streaming ecosystem? Where's the consumer choice in that? I mean, surely Apple should be allowed to sell music/streaming inside Spotify? I don't get it, do you want to eliminate barriers to competition or not?
If you don't get it perhaps it's because you don't want to get it.
You've moved from a Spotify 'platform' to a Spotify 'ecosystem'. I'm not seeing either of those.
I'm seeing a service and a limited service at that because it's mainly audio that has no captive control over its users.
Right, because you, like the EU, want to define those terms (frankly, I see them as synonymous for practical purposes) in such a way that they only apply to large US tech companies and not to companies like Spotify. Captive control? What a joke. Apple doesn't have captive control over anyone, unless of course you also define that in such a way that it only applies to Apple. People don't use Apple products because Apple has "captive control", they use them because the are typically best in class. The EU doesn't like that — I suppose they are looking nostalgically back at the heyday of Nokia, for example — because there simply aren't EU companies that typically have best in class products. The propping up of Spotify, which actually has majority marketshare and doesn't need propping up, simply highlights how entirely dishonest the rhetoric from the EU on this issue is, and makes clear what their intent really is — to hobble American companies as required to maximize the success of EU companies.
Would it really be asking too much to require that users sign off on the restrictions prior to purchase?
Is this something that EU has asked Apple to do and Apple has refused to do so far? Why is this even relevant to the discussion?
Not as far as I know but it is potentially a massive point and I've brought it up many times over the years.
In some of the most damning legal cases of recent times (many involving banks and many in Spain) the EU has not actually ruled against the actual problem (in the case of the banks usually some kind of 'abusive' clause/requirement) but the way it was communicated to the person signing the contract.
Normally the bank would be required to prove that the clause was read to the person signing the contract and that they understood it. A reading by a public notary for example was not enough. If they could prove it, the clause stood.
Applied to Apple's problems, a move to asking customers sign off explicitly on all the limitations it is currently imposing on users might have been enough to thwart or limit the cases against it. That would be a big deal.
The reasoning being that once the consumer is fully informed and willing to accept the limitations etc it is up to them.
As long as there are 'open' alternatives, the EU might have been OK with it.
Provided Google didn't try to go down the same route, in which case no doubt the EU might stand in again.
Of course, the potential of opening a can of worms is there but then there is the other point which is banded about incessantly with absolutely nothing to back it up.
That iPhone users are somehow fully aware of all the limitations Apple imposes and are perfectly happy with them.
Hence the paragraph you quoted me on.
Let's imagine such a tactic could have seen Apple wriggle off the EU hook (it's too late now). Would Apple have jumped at the opportunity with only the downside of users being fully informed or would they prefer to avoid that option like the plague?
My opinion is the latter because I don't believe that users are using iPhone happy in the knowledge of the limitations.
I believe the opposite is true and would love for some recognised body to actually take a look at the issue.
Sorry, but this whole "spirit of the law" nonsense is not how the rule of law works. If governments want to compel behavior by law, they need to spell out in the wording of the law exactly what it is they want done. If they are going to grant some agency authority to enforce the law with specifics, that agency needs to spell out in the wording of the regulations, in advance, what the specific requirements are. Not spelling out what the requirements and continually coming back and saying "not enough" is the essence of corrupt governance.
Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.
If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.
Apple has always been an open market player.
So your fluff piece is moot.
Apple operates a store. Apple gets its commission. Boom done.
This is how it’s been done in the history of stores to this day.
What stores dont do:
A) host signs and banners telling you to go to one of your vendors house to get a shirt for cheaper.
use Billy bobs payment system since Billy Bob sells sandals in your store.
C) let vendors put up their own store inside of your store and not pay a commission on sold items and rent)
it’s flat out criminal what this corrupt organization has done. They’ve basically robbed Apple and then made them pay to operate other people’s marketing, hosting, and discovery. The heck out of here.
Try selling something through Walmart and pull these things: you’ll ba banned from selling through them and all affiliates and partners for life. And that’s what should have happened here. Penalize the contract-breakers, the thieves, and the hijackers, not the store operator.
Common sense does not exist in European government.
The store itself isn't really as much of a problem as the platform it is on. A platform that limits competitors.
It's not about a store in a store. It's about alternative stores on the platform.
As Apple has the keys to the gate it was deemed a gatekeeper. It got away with that unfair for years.
So, you're saying that Apple should be able to sell music through Spotify without paying them anything right? After all, with by far the largest share of the streaming market in Europe, the Spotify platform is a gatekeeper for music, and they don't currently allow anyone else to sell music on their platform, thus limiting competitors. I mean, it's all about alternative stores, right?
What Spotify platform? Where are most Spotify users listening from? Its own platform? Is it limiting users to its own platform?
Are you implying Spotify has a captive audience?
So, you don't think its competitors deserve a fair shake inside the Spotify streaming ecosystem? Where's the consumer choice in that? I mean, surely Apple should be allowed to sell music/streaming inside Spotify? I don't get it, do you want to eliminate barriers to competition or not?
Strawman. Anybody is free to upload their music to Spotify. They do not artificially limit the market by excluding players from their platform.
If Apple had a label, that would be free to offer content via Spotify, as well.
But they won't allow Apple to sell on their platform. Alternate stores, consumer choice, you know. So, no, it's not actually a straw man. That you think it's so absurd shows just how absurd what the EU is demanding of Apple, for Spotify's benefit, in fact is.
Once again: This is a completely bogus argument.
Apple does not have any music of their own to offer. If they did, they could stream (NOT "sell") it on Spotify.
There is nothing "absurd" here other than that you are creating a fictitious scenario which would not look the way you describe if it were actually applicable.
Comments
Antitrust is not innovation. Antitrust is destroying competition and restricting markets causing less innovation. Not sure why you keep bashing EU in every post. A lot of regions and countries are taking action on this. We don't want an Apple Tax on memory, 2 years without iPads, 5 years betwen Mac Pro updates, a stale ipadOS, no Watch upgrades for devices Apple sold as new just 2 years ago, 5 years of butterfly keyboards, mice charging on their back with proprietary connectors, and we don't want iPhone 16 to be like 12/13/14/15. Competition, innovation,... that is what we need!
Do they get a pass? Is it different circumstances than what Apple has?
So how are you going to dictate what timeline you want out of Apple when it comes to what you want when you want it? The only way I know that works is don’t buy what they are selling and create successful public boycotts until they make what you want.
You've moved from a Spotify 'platform' to a Spotify 'ecosystem'. I'm not seeing either of those.
I'm seeing a service and a limited service at that because it's mainly audio that has no captive control over its users.
Look at Meta’s predicament. In the EU Meta offered a Facebook tier for free that tracked users and offered targeted advertising (where Meta earns money). They also offered a paid tier that didn’t track and offered non-targeted advertising (where Meta earns significantly less).
According to Vestager she would love to have a Facebook she could pay for with no tracking (https://www.euractiv.com/section/competition/interview/vestager-id-like-a-facebook-that-i-pay-with-full-privacy/) but I guess that stance has changed. Now the EC wants a third tier on Facebook that would be free but also not have tracking or targeted ads. In other words, an option where Facebook/Meta provide their service but earn no money.
Secondly, it's pretty clear that the law and its "interpretation" (scare quotes because that's a generous characterization) are, and are intended to, target large US tech companies for the benefit of smaller European tech companies. That someone like Epic might benefit is merely an unintended side-effect.
What the EU is doing with the DMA and its enforcement undermines the rule of law and Western democracy. This is the kind of thing we see in autocracies where business dealings happen at the whim of the rulers. It's thuggery.
For practical purposes that is exactly captive control.
Have you forgotten that until relatively recently, WhatsApp backups had to go to iCloud?
Of course, and through court revelations, we know that Apple has used the term lock-in.
Would it really be asking too much to require that users sign off on the restrictions prior to purchase?
Why not be up front about them and then let users make a more informed decision?
There are plenty of companies in the EU that have best in class products. Cough, ASML, cough!
Advanced manufacturing machinery too.
In some of the most damning legal cases of recent times (many involving banks and many in Spain) the EU has not actually ruled against the actual problem (in the case of the banks usually some kind of 'abusive' clause/requirement) but the way it was communicated to the person signing the contract.
Normally the bank would be required to prove that the clause was read to the person signing the contract and that they understood it. A reading by a public notary for example was not enough. If they could prove it, the clause stood.
Applied to Apple's problems, a move to asking customers sign off explicitly on all the limitations it is currently imposing on users might have been enough to thwart or limit the cases against it. That would be a big deal.
The reasoning being that once the consumer is fully informed and willing to accept the limitations etc it is up to them.
As long as there are 'open' alternatives, the EU might have been OK with it.
Provided Google didn't try to go down the same route, in which case no doubt the EU might stand in again.
Of course, the potential of opening a can of worms is there but then there is the other point which is banded about incessantly with absolutely nothing to back it up.
That iPhone users are somehow fully aware of all the limitations Apple imposes and are perfectly happy with them.
Hence the paragraph you quoted me on.
Let's imagine such a tactic could have seen Apple wriggle off the EU hook (it's too late now). Would Apple have jumped at the opportunity with only the downside of users being fully informed or would they prefer to avoid that option like the plague?
My opinion is the latter because I don't believe that users are using iPhone happy in the knowledge of the limitations.
I believe the opposite is true and would love for some recognised body to actually take a look at the issue.
Apple does not have any music of their own to offer. If they did, they could stream (NOT "sell") it on Spotify.
There is nothing "absurd" here other than that you are creating a fictitious scenario which would not look the way you describe if it were actually applicable.