avon b7 said: They are the first attempts at tackling a major problem: the ever increasing dependence of everyday life on digital platforms and the ever increasing abuse by those platforms on everyday life through using dominance to shore up the barriers of entry and stifle competition.
----
iPhone NFC accessbshould never have been limited to Apple. Anti-steering should never have existed. One app store with one company controlling commissions should never have happened. Idem Wallets, WebKit obligations etc.
People like to throw the "abuse" term around but never provide any evidence that rises to that level.
Example: the EU's $1.8 billion fine per music streaming is centered around anti-steering and they claim that it prevented customers from knowing about cheaper alternatives outside the App Store. The first problem with that claim is that iOS users are not limited to the App Store to get information about apps. They can also use the internet and social media on their iPhone to get information about apps. It really doesn't make sense to focus exclusively on the App Store when it comes to pricing information. The second problem is Spotify. The cheapest version of their app is the ad-supported version that doesn't require a subscription. That version has been available on the App Store since 2008. Only the MORE expensive subscription version requires the customer to go outside the App Store. The third problem is what you see if you look at the music streaming market as a whole. Since Apple Music launched in 2015, the market has continuously grown and Apple Music has not dominated the market. Spotify is the global leader by a wide margin and Apple has a similar market share to Amazon and Tencent.
Abuse has been all over the place.
It is why the upshot of everything was the DSA/DMA. To increase competition and level the playing field.
Then where are the examples of abuse? You start with that statement and then cite examples of Apple not allowing a certain function. That by itself doesn't constitute "abuse". For example, Apple didn't allow 3rd parties full access to NFC but they also didn't charge any fees for iOS users paying via Apple Pay. How does that rise to the level of "abuse"? I realize that the DMA requires full 3rd party access to NFC and that Apple will need to comply BUT that doesn't prove that Apple's approach to NFC was "abuse". Do you really believe that 3rd party wallets are going to provide terms for users that are significantly better versus what Apple was doing? I don't.
I’m enjoying this thread because everyone has offered up opinions and perspectives that need to be heard. ...
Was Apple wrong to pursue the tight path they chose? As a product owner I would say “hell no”.
As a PO I would say Apple designed and launched a product without caring about compliance. A multinational company where the C-suite 3 weeks after launch figures out this major product was designed in a way making it impossible to ship in 2 of 3 core markets. I don't believe Apple is run like seen in Haribo commercials (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAnwmmPFYgU). It is more likely Apple decided to rush this to market without thinking it through.
Apple might very well shoot itself in the foot with here. There are economic reasons for once. Apple products are already sold with a premium in Europe. European customers are very price conscious. This makes Apple products less popular in Europe, i.e. Apple's market share in Europe is considerable but not as big as in the US. If Apple withholds features it might make competitors devices more desirable when those all of a sudden see an opportunity and decide to implement popular AI features. On top of this would be the fact that most of the competitions devices are still cheaper. Taking all of this in consideration and add to it the economic headwinds Apple is experiencing in China it might turn out not to be the smartest move.
On the other hand and apart from economic reasons this is also about loosing credibility for Apple. I have lived in a couple of country in my life and I can say that no matter how critical people are towards their institutions they don't like it if someone from outside criticizes the same thing. Big cooperations need to learn to respect local customs and institutions no matter how worthy of criticism they are. Apple's wording is quite condescending, though.
Even ignoring taxes Europeans pay Apple more for less already. Even Apple One users. We don’t get News or News+. Or Apple Cash. Maps rollout is slow…
Nah, it’s not a big enough deal, to me anyway. I couldn’t give two rats about AI. If Apple wanted to withhold it in my country I’d probably be happy about it. Others, certainly, will be annoyed. I stand by my comment that it’s Apple being a spiteful little beach.
Apple is trying to get public pressure on the EU to drop this. IT WONT WORK. Apple, your lawyers aren’t doing you any favors
I agree with this, but it’s not the way Apple operates. They’ve got loads of cashed-up lawyers that have to do something. They’re forever throwing the proverbial at the wall even when they know they can’t win. Put simply, they can afford to lose, and they don’t care about doing so.
Apple may be a $3 trillion company but the EU has a $19 trillion GDP and represents 448 million people. They’re one of the few government entities that can afford to take on Apple and are willing to do it.
i view that as preferable to politicians bending over every time they get a call from Tim Cook or his posse of lobbyists.
I’m enjoying this thread because everyone has offered up opinions and perspectives that need to be heard. ...
Was Apple wrong to pursue the tight path they chose? As a product owner I would say “hell no”.
As a PO I would say Apple designed and launched a product without caring about compliance. A multinational company where the C-suite 3 weeks after launch figures out this major product was designed in a way making it impossible to ship in 2 of 3 core markets. I don't believe Apple is run like seen in Haribo commercials (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAnwmmPFYgU). It is more likely Apple decided to rush this to market without thinking it through.
Interesting perspective. It would be interesting to know whether the types of compliance you’re alluding to now were even a concern at the time Apple opened up the App Store to third party contributors, circa 2008 or so. Perhaps they could have looked at what happened to Microsoft in the EU as a warning. But at that time Apple was a small time player in the market we are talking about while Microsoft was massively dominant in their domain of interest.
Every product owner I’ve ever met, especially when dealing with a new product line craves things like high margins, pull through from adjacent products, high margin accessories and add-ons, brand loyalty, customer loyalty, stickiness (neither easy nor desirable to choose an alternative), and especially true for the iPhone, a product that all by itself creates a strong halo effect that enhances the perceived value of other products being sold by the same vendor.
In a similar vein, as the iPhone and iPad were climbing their respective adoption curves in the first few years Apple was constantly being derided by analysts for their low market share at the same time as Samsung and others were shipping out carbon copies of Apple’s iPhone. Those were legitimate bumps in the road for Apple.
The Apple of the last several years is not the same Apple that existed when Steve was running the company. From a business execution standpoint when Steve very confidently handed over the keys to Tim Cook, Tim with his business and operational prowess lit the afterburners on the company’s financial future. Steve obviously set the stage and pointed the company on its current trajectory, but nobody, other than a few smart people, myself not included, predicted Apple’s massive continued success. Fortunately a lot of believers, including a huge contingent of app developers who jumped on board, saw great returns on their investments in Apple.
That’s why I believe a lot of the folks who are going after Apple in recent years are playing revisionist games and intentionally forgetting that Apple had to earn its way to where they are today. Decisions that Apple made early on to set the stage for potential success were not made to create an impenetrable fortress and crush all comers who tried to take them on. Apple made a lot of really good business decisions that actually worked. Nothing was guaranteed.
On the other hand, smart companies, just like smart people, have to be highly adaptable and be able to read the room and recognize potential conflicts and changes to business climate, social climate, political forces, and those disgruntled people who feel left out. Maybe Apple should have been more proactive earlier on to avoid some of the challenges they currently face. Again, as a product owner, once you’re on a roll you never want it to stop. The inertia created by huge inflows of cash is hard to overcome. But there are tricky curves ahead and Apple must find a way to navigate through all of them without crashing.
Die Welt | 10/04/2024 | Europe - The European Union (EU) continues to lose ground in the global race for promising technologies. When it comes to research and development expenditure in growth sectors such as biotechnology or the digital economy, the USA is far ahead. The Chinese have also risen to become a global power factor in some future technologies in just ten years.
Die Welt | 10/04/2024 | Europe - The European Union (EU) continues to lose ground in the global race for promising technologies. When it comes to research and development expenditure in growth sectors such as biotechnology or the digital economy, the USA is far ahead. The Chinese have also risen to become a global power factor in some future technologies in just ten years.
Die Welt | 10/04/2024 | Europe - The European Union (EU) continues to lose ground in the global race for promising technologies. When it comes to research and development expenditure in growth sectors such as biotechnology or the digital economy, the USA is far ahead. The Chinese have also risen to become a global power factor in some future technologies in just ten years.
Your source is a Venture Capitalist, and frankly, the report relies on some pretty "flakey" metrics. Then again, the intent is to entice investors, so, maybe it will work.
It would be interesting to know whether the types of compliance you’re alluding to now were even a concern at the time Apple opened up the App Store to third party contributors, circa 2008 or so.
Interesting product perspectives from you as well!! When DoJ in 2012 opened the iBook US price-fixing case against Apple it should have started an antitrust compliance review for current and future products at Apple. It seems Cook failed to adjust the corporate culture at that time. We don't see Oracle, IBM, or Microsoft do these unprovoked failures on repeat.
Die Welt | 10/04/2024 | Europe - The European Union (EU) continues to lose ground in the global race for promising technologies. When it comes to research and development expenditure in growth sectors such as biotechnology or the digital economy, the USA is far ahead. The Chinese have also risen to become a global power factor in some future technologies in just ten years.
Your source is a Venture Capitalist, and frankly, the report relies on some pretty "flakey" metrics. Then again, the intent is to entice investors, so, maybe it will work.
I'll go with the EU Commission report.
Your link was NOT to an EU commission report. It was to the EISMEA newsroom which focuses on SMEs and picked up on the news item because it mentioned SMEs.
The news item was from Die Welt (a German newspaper) which seems to have had early access to a report by something called the European Policy Analysis Group (EPAG).
With that out of the way...
As far as I can tell, the report originated at the Toulouse School of Economics, Università Bocconi and CESifo/EconPol and was presented under the umbrella of EPAG.
It included the following:
"The three participating institutions do not take an institutional position. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors."
Apple really stalls for me (in EU) especially when I have to pay Apple’s premium prices. I will consider buying other products which are more competitive from a price-quality perspective.
How long before the EU passes a law requiring "big companies" to provide the same products and services in the EU that they do in any other region? Except the the ones the EU doesn't like, of course.
This is just Apple being spiteful. A temper tantrum, and an attempt to stop DMA-like policies from spreading to other countries’ markets, which there are already signs of it happening. I support the EU mostly. We’d still have Lightning if it wasn’t for them.
And Phil, I’m happy to make the judgement call on what I deem safe to install on my devices, thank you. And I accept the consequences. It’s not like the App Store hasn’t had its share of security threats and dodgy apps.
The only reason we have a DMA act is that some frustrated EU CEO’s lobbied very well and have wapenized it through legislation instead of innovation.
This is the best sentence in this entire thread. The DMA is nothing more than a protectionist law designed to prop up EU’s joke of a tech sector through heavy-handed regulation of American tech companies.
Die Welt | 10/04/2024 | Europe - The European Union (EU) continues to lose ground in the global race for promising technologies. When it comes to research and development expenditure in growth sectors such as biotechnology or the digital economy, the USA is far ahead. The Chinese have also risen to become a global power factor in some future technologies in just ten years.
Your source is a Venture Capitalist, and frankly, the report relies on some pretty "flakey" metrics. Then again, the intent is to entice investors, so, maybe it will work.
I'll go with the EU Commission report.
Your link was NOT to an EU commission report. It was to the EISMEA newsroom which focuses on SMEs and picked up on the news item because it mentioned SMEs.
The news item was from Die Welt (a German newspaper) which seems to have had early access to a report by something called the European Policy Analysis Group (EPAG).
With that out of the way...
As far as I can tell, the report originated at the Toulouse School of Economics, Università Bocconi and CESifo/EconPol and was presented under the umbrella of EPAG.
It included the following:
"The three participating institutions do not take an institutional position. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors."
I'll leave it to the AI readers here to decide whether your link, or my source, is the most likely scenario, but thanks for outlining the fact that one was generated by multiple academic institutions, and the other, a venture capital source.
Die Welt | 10/04/2024 | Europe - The European Union (EU) continues to lose ground in the global race for promising technologies. When it comes to research and development expenditure in growth sectors such as biotechnology or the digital economy, the USA is far ahead. The Chinese have also risen to become a global power factor in some future technologies in just ten years.
Your source is a Venture Capitalist, and frankly, the report relies on some pretty "flakey" metrics. Then again, the intent is to entice investors, so, maybe it will work.
I'll go with the EU Commission report.
Your link was NOT to an EU commission report. It was to the EISMEA newsroom which focuses on SMEs and picked up on the news item because it mentioned SMEs.
The news item was from Die Welt (a German newspaper) which seems to have had early access to a report by something called the European Policy Analysis Group (EPAG).
With that out of the way...
As far as I can tell, the report originated at the Toulouse School of Economics, Università Bocconi and CESifo/EconPol and was presented under the umbrella of EPAG.
It included the following:
"The three participating institutions do not take an institutional position. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors."
I'll leave it to the AI readers here to decide whether your link, or my source, is the most likely scenario, but thanks for outlining the fact that one was generated by multiple academic institutions, and the other, a venture capital source.
Swings and roundabouts. Like I said.
The report specifically mentions VC so a VC take is very relevant.
The EU is doing fine in some areas, not so fine in others and great in others. Just like pretty much any other advanced country or bloc of countries.
Comments
Apple may be a $3 trillion company but the EU has a $19 trillion GDP and represents 448 million people. They’re one of the few government entities that can afford to take on Apple and are willing to do it.
i view that as preferable to politicians bending over every time they get a call from Tim Cook or his posse of lobbyists.
On the other hand, smart companies, just like smart people, have to be highly adaptable and be able to read the room and recognize potential conflicts and changes to business climate, social climate, political forces, and those disgruntled people who feel left out. Maybe Apple should have been more proactive earlier on to avoid some of the challenges they currently face. Again, as a product owner, once you’re on a roll you never want it to stop. The inertia created by huge inflows of cash is hard to overcome. But there are tricky curves ahead and Apple must find a way to navigate through all of them without crashing.
https://tech.eu/2023/11/28/the-state-of-european-tech-2023-consistent-long-term-growth/
Swings and roundabouts
Your source is a Venture Capitalist, and frankly, the report relies on some pretty "flakey" metrics. Then again, the intent is to entice investors, so, maybe it will work.
I'll go with the EU Commission report.
Your link was NOT to an EU commission report. It was to the EISMEA newsroom which focuses on SMEs and picked up on the news item because it mentioned SMEs.
The news item was from Die Welt (a German newspaper) which seems to have had early access to a report by something called the European Policy Analysis Group (EPAG).
With that out of the way...
As far as I can tell, the report originated at the Toulouse School of Economics, Università Bocconi and CESifo/EconPol and was presented under the umbrella of EPAG.
It included the following:
The report specifically mentions VC so a VC take is very relevant.
The EU is doing fine in some areas, not so fine in others and great in others. Just like pretty much any other advanced country or bloc of countries.