PS: the solution is simpel, and it will het the EU where it hits hard, just make a US Apple ID, all will work and all the revenue you spent will benefit the US government as taxes will land in the US . Look who is laughing now.
That kind of thinking went out the window a very long time ago.
Back when books were mostly on paper I would buy plenty of English language content direct from Amazon US. Even with shipping it was cheaper than buying the same imported content locally.
As the business grew, it popped up on the EU radar and, poof, the loophole was gone. An EU directive placed obligatory, country-of-origin sales tax on all transactions via cards based in the EU.
Size matters, as Apple is learning, but it was good while it lasted. Apple should feel the same.
You just need a US payment method, not hard to come by ;-) Is the only way you can pay for apps/services if you have a US Apple ID
It's now actually unusually hard for certain social groups to get an EU payment method even in the EU. The anti fraud/laundering protections can be pretty strict.
The US has always been a bit of a laggard with banking technology. What are the minimum requirements to open a bank account there?
You just buy US gift cards … easy peacy …. Long time ago a bought like 1000 US dollar gift cards when there was no iPhone in my country and that served me well for a couple of years, ready to do it again, in fact I’m even already contemplating to do it now.
avon b7 said: It's all completely unnecessary on Apple's part. Why not simply ask the EU and wait for a reply?
That's what they're doing: putting the new AI features on hold while they communicate with the EU per the DMA requirements. Note that Apple was in communication with the EU about the anti-steering changes in the DMA and now the EU is saying there's something wrong with what Apple did.
What was unnecessary was the need to make a fuss out of things. Totally unnecessary.
If they had simply asked and waited for a reply we wouldn't even be talking about this now. No one would have brought the question up in the first place. Vestager wouldn't have said anything.
But no, Apple decided to FUD things up.
That's their call but it's pretty foolish, petty and probably won't help in the bigger scheme of things.
Apple’s going for friction so... so be it.
Except these features are due to come out shortly and likely, these discussions won’t produce a resolution by that time. Apple is ensuring that the people in the EU have the right expectations when the next OSs are launched.
Announced just this very month and not expected in the US until the end of the year and on a very limited range of devices. That isn't 'shortly' even for the US and things will be rolled out over time.
It definitely isn't 'shortly' for the EU.
These discussions should produce a quick result if Apple is upfront on everything. After all, the DSA/DMA have been enacted and now it is about compliance.
Will Apple be upfront, though? I very much doubt it. Just look at the 'core technology fee'.
What is likely is that Apple will try the same 'malicious compliance' route it is already on so the EU will probably have to reserve judgement, wait for features to be deployed (that's Apple's decision) and then evaluate them.
Has Apple actually published why (I mean, exactly why) it thinks it may be non-compliant?
Of course it hasn't. That is the thing about FUD. If your goal is to truly inform and be transparent, then do it. Write a white paper on compliance difficulties.
Every time I read one of these EU stories I try to think about what Apple should do to deal with this situation. It’s tempting to say Apple should just leave, but it doesn’t make sense to leave money on the table.
They won't be leaving money on the table by pulling out of the EU. First, the EU is just a fraction of what Apple classifies as "Europe" (which includes the Middle East and at least parts, if not all, of Africa), and obviously doesn't include European countries not in the EU, such as the UK and Switzerland. The fines the EU is threatening far eclipse the value of the EU as a market. Second, if EU rules force Apple to cripple, compromise or otherwise dumb down their products, that makes them less competitive in the rest of the world. There is at this point almost no upside for Apple to release anything in the EU and plenty of downside, not to mention all the resources wasted "negotiating" with EU bureaucrats who are not acting in good faith and are making up the rules as the go and changing them retroactively.
So, what exactly is the downside for Apple to simply pull out of the EU until there is a more favorable business climate there? I can't see any upside to staying at this point.
I’ve read that the EU represents about 7% of Apple’s revenues. That’s almost $30 billion a year. I see no reason to walk away from that if you don’t have to.
Note that my suggestion to create a subsidiary is meant to create EU-specific (lobotomized) versions of apple products to meet the needs of Eurocrats.
The question is — can Apple make money selling lobotomized products? Since everyone else also has to sell lobotomized products in the EU, it’s possible that they can. But if it turns out they can’t, then sure — leave. But I think it makes sense to try first.
Companies that don’t try to do hard things end up like IBM — slowly leaving every market that seems too hard to fight for.
IBM has a PE under 20, meaning it’s more profitable per share than Apple
"more profitable per share" is not the correct term. The correct term is that IBM stock might be undervalued if their P/E is lower than its sector average P/E.
If the average P/E for the sector that IBM is in, is 25, then shares of IBM with a P/E of less than 20, is said to be sold at a discount or IBM shares are undervalued. But in the same sector, shares of Apple with a P/E of 32, might be considered overvalued. The P/E ratio is used to indicate the relative value of a company's share price in its sector, not the "profit per share".
The price of the shares in the P/E ratio in no way indicate how many shares there are and thus no way to come up with "profit per share" by using it. There's no way to say that one's company stock is more profitable per share than another, just based on their P/E. What can be said is that the lower the P/E, the more percentage of the share price represents profit (E). EPS (earnings per share) uses the number of outstanding shares to come up with the "profit per share". The number of outstanding shares has no effect on a company's P/E.
In the case of IBM vs AAPL, IBM share are more profitable, but not because IBM have a lower P/E than Apple. It's because IBM have a higher EPS than Apple. But when one uses IBM vs MSFT, MSFT have a P/E of 39 and EPS of $11.50 vs IBM P/E of 19.6 and EPS of $8.82. Microsoft P/E is twice that of IBM but MSFT shares are 25% "more profitable per share", than IBM with a P/E of 19.6.
I’m at a loss to understand the EU position on any of its complaints. Apple certainly does not have any sort of a monopoly over any aspect of any of its product range. All tech companies offer different things in different regions. No tech company has every application or product available in all regions at the same time and sometimes there are years apart, if at all. Apple is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. MS Office, particularly Word is pretty much ubiquitous. I’d much rather not use it but have to because every other business does. There never seems to be any complaint about that.
Re: Avon B7’s comment: why should Apple or any other company ask permission from a government or a body like the EU to create something for public use? Nothing would ever be created or invented because it would be decision making by committee and take it from me because I work in that environment, it is a road to nowhere. Creation and invention should never be a political decision. Every big invention has had negative responses in the first instance from governments so there would be no trains, no cars, no radio, no TV: the list is endless. Political intervention absolutely stifles creativity. This is made worse by, generally, the party in power being there because of a minority, even if that minority creates the party with the biggest vote.
avon b7 said: It's all completely unnecessary on Apple's part. Why not simply ask the EU and wait for a reply?
That's what they're doing: putting the new AI features on hold while they communicate with the EU per the DMA requirements. Note that Apple was in communication with the EU about the anti-steering changes in the DMA and now the EU is saying there's something wrong with what Apple did.
What was unnecessary was the need to make a fuss out of things. Totally unnecessary.
If they had simply asked and waited for a reply we wouldn't even be talking about this now. No one would have brought the question up in the first place. Vestager wouldn't have said anything.
But no, Apple decided to FUD things up.
That's their call but it's pretty foolish, petty and probably won't help in the bigger scheme of things.
Apple’s going for friction so... so be it.
Except these features are due to come out shortly and likely, these discussions won’t produce a resolution by that time. Apple is ensuring that the people in the EU have the right expectations when the next OSs are launched.
Announced just this very month and not expected in the US until the end of the year and on a very limited range of devices. That isn't 'shortly' even for the US and things will be rolled out over time.
It definitely isn't 'shortly' for the EU.
These discussions should produce a quick result if Apple is upfront on everything. After all, the DSA/DMA have been enacted and now it is about compliance.
Will Apple be upfront, though? I very much doubt it. Just look at the 'core technology fee'.
What is likely is that Apple will try the same 'malicious compliance' route it is already on so the EU will probably have to reserve judgement, wait for features to be deployed (that's Apple's decision) and then evaluate them.
Has Apple actually published why (I mean, exactly why) it thinks it may be non-compliant?
Of course it hasn't. That is the thing about FUD. If your goal is to truly inform and be transparent, then do it. Write a white paper on compliance difficulties.
Yet you completely ignore the actual point of my comment, which is that the EU wants Apple to make this new tech available, and when it’s make available, the EU wants to force Apple to essentially give away that tech to it’s competitors. Seems rather unreasonable, no? Why on Earth would any company agree to that? All Apple is doing by making this announcement is to point out how absurd this is.
“You created something I want. So please give it to me. And when you do, I require you to give it to everyone else too.” Sounds fair.
EU commission head is targeting Apple either because she has clandestinely sided with its competitors or as a means to milk American companies which are far ahead of European counterparts. EU is literally finding ways to squeeze money out of American tech giants. EU s policies are based on protectionism and jealousy towards Big American brands. This is awful and anyone with common sense can understand. Interoperability- nonsense. Next, make iMovie compatible with android. Why does not Microsoft make windows compatible with Mac? Why no android on iPhone. All nonsensical hogwash
The EU commission requires owners of market-dominating operating systems not to set their own browsers as the default, but to show users a selection of competing browsers during setup, from which they should choose one as the default.
The EU commission wants the owners of the market-dominating operating systems not to prevent app developers from advertising the sale of licenses in their own apps.
European iOS and iPadOS users shall become free to choose who they want to buy apps and content from. Apple shall not stay the monopoly reseller of apps for iOS and iPadOS in the EU. The EU does not want Apple to be able to continue to prevent certain apps from being available on iOS and iPadOS. European Users of iOS and iPadOS shall become able to freely develop, distribute, install, sell and buy apps for iOS and iPadOS.
That is more freedom for European users, that is more freedom for developers all over the world who want to sell apps for iOS and iPadOS in the EU, that is less freedom for Apple in the EU.
The EU commission demands that the owners of the market-dominating operating systems do not use the APIs of the operating systems exclusively for themselves, but that the owners of these operating systems allow all app developers to use the APIs of the operating systems so that there are more better applications that run on all operating systems.
The EU commission does not require Apple to develop apps for other operating systems.
First point: I don't think anyone has much of an issue with this. The EU does also require Apple to allow browsers to use their own engine.
Second: Not sure why the EU thinks this is important. Advertising licenses inside an app is not typical for any platform. Smartphone users also have access to all kinds of information outside of apps and the App Store on the same device...internet, social media, email, text messages, direct messages etc. Basically, you have to pretend that smartphone users aren't aware that they can get information about developers and their products/services anywhere other than inside apps or the App Store in order to think this is important.
Third: Apple monopolizes app distribution because iOS/iPadOS and iPhone/iPad hardware are their own IP. That formula has been around for decades and was never previously considered to be anti-competitive since there is a high degree of difficulty in achieving success with it commercially. Think of all the various video game consoles that have either flopped or been unable to maintain viability in the long run. Think of Microsoft's attempt at a smartphone. It's not a magic formula for market dominance. Apple does have limits for what it allows to be sold in the App Store but that is true of any store...digital or brick/mortar. For the most part though, it's really the app developers that choose whether or not to provide their apps on iOS. Example: Microsoft made a big stink about its game streaming app not being allowed on the App Store but they had never previously ported 1st party games to the App Store either. They preferred to limit their own gaming apps to Windows/Xbox.
Fourth: Requiring access to APIs across the board is kind of an odd stance since not every API can be linked to market competition. I can see how it makes sense for something like NFC/Wallet or the browser engine aspect, i.e., targeted situations. This seems like a big overreach on the part of the EU similar to the third point above.
Great points.
No one goes to target or wal mart to find information about what else is available from a handbag maker - or if there are any vendor-specific sales better than what’s at that brick and mortar store.
They use the internet, advertising in tv, radio, direct mail, etc.
when you go to a Mercedes dealership, they don’t have to post up signs telling you that a certain bmw can be had cheaper for similar horsepower, etc.
in the smartphone, you have the whole internet at your disposal. People know what search engines and websites are. Sheesh. It’s not kindergarten where you don’t know something unless it’s in front of you at all times.
It’s really quite embarrassing that the eu is forcing a tech company to divert customers to vendors own separate stores -inside their own store.
It’s a solution looking for a problem and has indeed become the problem.
Brick and mortar stores have digital storefronts/apps. To be fair, that’s a digital market and would need to force them to have a sign next to the Kilauea bananas item in the apps that directed them to Klause’s stall down the street where he sells cheaper because of less overhead. It’s the height of stupidity.
In the EU, apart from the youngest children, almost 100 percent of citizens use a smartphone. No more than 30 percent of EU citizens use games consoles.
Smartphones are (vitally) important. Game consoles are not important.
Smartphones are now regulated in the EU. Games consoles may be regulated later.
There are two operating systems for smartphones: Android and iOS. Alphabet/Google and Apple have a duopoly here.
Google and Apple have agreed that the Google search engine will be the default setting on all smartphones. They made it obvious that they want to manipulate the owners of smartphones in order so squeeze money out of them.
A smartphone is a computer that is connected to the Internet and GPS and can be used to make phone calls, take photos, navigate, chat, read and listen.
Anyone who has bought a computer for 1000+ dollars/euros in the EU shall now be able to decide freely in the EU from whom they buy software for this computer.
The EU has changed the law exactly for this. It doesn't matter what was allowed before. Now it's different. There is a new law.
The EU wants freedom for EU citizens who own computers called smartphones. The owners of the computers shall decide where they buy software. Not Google. Not Apple.
Apple doesn't want that. A minority of Apple users in the EU don't want that either, because they are afraid. The majority of citizens in the EU, however, want to be free to decide from whom they can buy software for their computers that they have already paid for.
The EU wants this rule to apply to both Android and Apple. That's just how it works. This is not unusual in the EU.
EU commission head is targeting Apple either because she has clandestinely sided with its competitors or as a means to milk American companies which are far ahead of European counterparts. EU is literally finding ways to squeeze money out of American tech giants. EU s policies are based on protectionism and jealousy towards Big American brands. This is awful and anyone with common sense can understand. Interoperability- nonsense. Next, make iMovie compatible with android. Why does not Microsoft make windows compatible with Mac? Why no android on iPhone. All nonsensical hogwash
The EU commission requires owners of market-dominating operating systems not to set their own browsers as the default, but to show users a selection of competing browsers during setup, from which they should choose one as the default.
The EU commission wants the owners of the market-dominating operating systems not to prevent app developers from advertising the sale of licenses in their own apps.
European iOS and iPadOS users shall become free to choose who they want to buy apps and content from. Apple shall not stay the monopoly reseller of apps for iOS and iPadOS in the EU. The EU does not want Apple to be able to continue to prevent certain apps from being available on iOS and iPadOS. European Users of iOS and iPadOS shall become able to freely develop, distribute, install, sell and buy apps for iOS and iPadOS.
That is more freedom for European users, that is more freedom for developers all over the world who want to sell apps for iOS and iPadOS in the EU, that is less freedom for Apple in the EU.
The EU commission demands that the owners of the market-dominating operating systems do not use the APIs of the operating systems exclusively for themselves, but that the owners of these operating systems allow all app developers to use the APIs of the operating systems so that there are more better applications that run on all operating systems.
The EU commission does not require Apple to develop apps for other operating systems.
First point: I don't think anyone has much of an issue with this. The EU does also require Apple to allow browsers to use their own engine.
Second: Not sure why the EU thinks this is important. Advertising licenses inside an app is not typical for any platform. Smartphone users also have access to all kinds of information outside of apps and the App Store on the same device...internet, social media, email, text messages, direct messages etc. Basically, you have to pretend that smartphone users aren't aware that they can get information about developers and their products/services anywhere other than inside apps or the App Store in order to think this is important.
Third: Apple monopolizes app distribution because iOS/iPadOS and iPhone/iPad hardware are their own IP. That formula has been around for decades and was never previously considered to be anti-competitive since there is a high degree of difficulty in achieving success with it commercially. Think of all the various video game consoles that have either flopped or been unable to maintain viability in the long run. Think of Microsoft's attempt at a smartphone. It's not a magic formula for market dominance. Apple does have limits for what it allows to be sold in the App Store but that is true of any store...digital or brick/mortar. For the most part though, it's really the app developers that choose whether or not to provide their apps on iOS. Example: Microsoft made a big stink about its game streaming app not being allowed on the App Store but they had never previously ported 1st party games to the App Store either. They preferred to limit their own gaming apps to Windows/Xbox.
Fourth: Requiring access to APIs across the board is kind of an odd stance since not every API can be linked to market competition. I can see how it makes sense for something like NFC/Wallet or the browser engine aspect, i.e., targeted situations. This seems like a big overreach on the part of the EU similar to the third point above.
Great points.
No one goes to target or wal mart to find information about what else is available from a handbag maker - or if there are any vendor-specific sales better than what’s at that brick and mortar store.
They use the internet, advertising in tv, radio, direct mail, etc.
when you go to a Mercedes dealership, they don’t have to post up signs telling you that a certain bmw can be had cheaper for similar horsepower, etc.
in the smartphone, you have the whole internet at your disposal. People know what search engines and websites are. Sheesh. It’s not kindergarten where you don’t know something unless it’s in front of you at all times.
It’s really quite embarrassing that the eu is forcing a tech company to divert customers to vendors own separate stores -inside their own store.
It’s a solution looking for a problem and has indeed become the problem.
Brick and mortar stores have digital storefronts/apps. To be fair, that’s a digital market and would need to force them to have a sign next to the Kilauea bananas item in the apps that directed them to Klause’s stall down the street where he sells cheaper because of less overhead. It’s the height of stupidity.
In the EU, apart from the youngest children, almost 100 percent of citizens use a smartphone. No more than 30 percent of EU citizens use games consoles.
Smartphones are (vitally) important. Game consoles are not important.
Smartphones are now regulated in the EU. Games consoles may be regulated later.
There are two operating systems for smartphones: Android and iOS. Alphabet/Google and Apple have a duopoly here.
Google and Apple have agreed that the Google search engine will be the default setting on all smartphones. They made it obvious that they want to manipulate the owners of smartphones in order so squeeze money out of them.
A smartphone is a computer that is connected to the Internet and GPS and can be used to make phone calls, take photos, navigate, chat, read and listen.
Anyone who has bought a computer for 1000+ dollars/euros in the EU shall now be able to decide freely in the EU from whom they buy software for this computer.
The EU has changed the law exactly for this. It doesn't matter what was allowed before. Now it's different. There is a new law.
The EU wants freedom for EU citizens who own computers called smartphones. The owners of the computers shall decide where they buy software. Not Google. Not Apple.
Apple doesn't want that. A minority of Apple users in the EU don't want that either, because they are afraid. The majority of citizens in the EU, however, want to be free to decide from whom they can buy software for their computers that they have already paid for.
The EU wants this rule to apply to both Android and Apple. That's just how it works. This is not unusual in the EU.
All of those very few faux choices that you will gain, will add noting but additional friction into your life. Will you actually save money? Probably very little.
Most Apple users already understand that; you evidently do not.
avon b7 said: It's all completely unnecessary on Apple's part. Why not simply ask the EU and wait for a reply?
That's what they're doing: putting the new AI features on hold while they communicate with the EU per the DMA requirements. Note that Apple was in communication with the EU about the anti-steering changes in the DMA and now the EU is saying there's something wrong with what Apple did.
What was unnecessary was the need to make a fuss out of things. Totally unnecessary.
If they had simply asked and waited for a reply we wouldn't even be talking about this now. No one would have brought the question up in the first place. Vestager wouldn't have said anything.
But no, Apple decided to FUD things up.
That's their call but it's pretty foolish, petty and probably won't help in the bigger scheme of things.
Apple’s going for friction so... so be it.
Except these features are due to come out shortly and likely, these discussions won’t produce a resolution by that time. Apple is ensuring that the people in the EU have the right expectations when the next OSs are launched.
Announced just this very month and not expected in the US until the end of the year and on a very limited range of devices. That isn't 'shortly' even for the US and things will be rolled out over time.
It definitely isn't 'shortly' for the EU.
These discussions should produce a quick result if Apple is upfront on everything. After all, the DSA/DMA have been enacted and now it is about compliance.
Will Apple be upfront, though? I very much doubt it. Just look at the 'core technology fee'.
What is likely is that Apple will try the same 'malicious compliance' route it is already on so the EU will probably have to reserve judgement, wait for features to be deployed (that's Apple's decision) and then evaluate them.
Has Apple actually published why (I mean, exactly why) it thinks it may be non-compliant?
Of course it hasn't. That is the thing about FUD. If your goal is to truly inform and be transparent, then do it. Write a white paper on compliance difficulties.
Just because the US version was announced this month, doesn't mean that Apple just started to work on the US version this month. Most likely, Apple been working on releasing the US version and all the other countries versions, months ago and may have been working on it for over half a year. But with limited manpower, priority is first given to the US version. This doesn't mean that Apple is not already working on the versions for the other countries. It's just going to take longer until manpower is freed up after the US release. You actually think Apple is going to announce a product with a timeline, without some idea that it can be done in time? And that Apple has not already been working on the other countries version, in some capacity, even with limited manpower?
But unless the EU has already outlined to Apple exactly what is expected of Apple, (to be in compliance with the DMA), there would be no reason what-so-ever for Apple to even start working on an EU version and waste manpower on a version that might never be to release in the EU because of what the EU will require of them to be in compliance with the DMA. Apple have learned their lesson. Apple is not going to work on an EU version and later be told that it's not in compliance with the DMA. And then have the EU fine them. Apple is only going to start working on an EU version, only after the EU spells out exactly what being in compliance with the DMA entails. And even then, Apple gets to decide if they want to release an EU version. Apple shouldn't have to work on an EU version and then later be told its not in compliance and then be told by the EU what needs to be changed in order to be in compliance.
Right now, because the EU have not spelled out exactly what being in compliance means, Apple already knows that the EU version will be more delayed that all the other countries whose versions are most likely already being worked on. Even if the EU were to spell out to Apple today, on what being in compliance entails, Apple agrees to it and start working on the EU version tomorrow.
It's all on the EU for being last in line to get the EU version, if Apple decides to release an EU version at all.
Only in the EU might a company be fined for being anti-competitive, for deciding not to compete. It's a wonder that the EU have not yet fined Apple for being anti-competitive because they chose not to develop a search engine, to compete with Google. And Microsoft and Facebook might have dodged a bullet by deciding to no longer compete in the mobile phone market, before there was a DMA. But it would had been OK for Nokia to decide not to keep competing with their Symbian mobile OS at any time, because Nokia is an EU company and not a gatekeeper under the DMA.
As a EU citizen I am a proponent of the EU’s AI act and their regulation. However, it isn’t balanced with a serious investment and boost in AI. Once again, it is America providing this and the EU’s only real effort remains regulation. That’s not enough! In fact I find it highly problematic we are now getting LLM’s and other generative AI technologies and training data that are basically US centric ones. Even with world knowledge they have been designed from a US-centric lens, which will further the homogenization of culture, language and world views. The EU should at least invest as much into boosting AI as it is regulating it. To provide an alternative to the likes of Apple, Meta, openAI, Google, and so on.
I’m at a loss to understand the EU position on any of its complaints. Apple certainly does not have any sort of a monopoly over any aspect of any of its product range. All tech companies offer different things in different regions. No tech company has every application or product available in all regions at the same time and sometimes there are years apart, if at all. Apple is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. MS Office, particularly Word is pretty much ubiquitous. I’d much rather not use it but have to because every other business does. There never seems to be any complaint about that.
"any sort of monopoly"?
Apple is on the hook for abusing dominant position. The same situation is playing out worldwide, including the US.
Apple has been able to cut off web rendering engines from the internet on its devices, alternative app stores, NFC, wallets, apps Apple doesn't like.... It has applied anti steering methods and takes a cut of basically every transaction on the platform.
That is most definitely a 'sort of monopoly' and why it is being investigated around the world.
It has used those restrictions to stifle competition and eliminate choice.
When it comes to its product range, Apple has an absolute monopoly.
Re: Avon B7’s comment: why should Apple or any other company ask permission from a government or a body like the EU to create something for public use? Nothing would ever be created or invented because it would be decision making by committee and take it from me because I work in that environment, it is a road to nowhere. Creation and invention should never be a political decision. Every big invention has had negative responses in the first instance from governments so there would be no trains, no cars, no radio, no TV: the list is endless. Political intervention absolutely stifles creativity. This is made worse by, generally, the party in power being there because of a minority, even if that minority creates the party with the biggest vote.
Apple isn't asking for permission. It is supposedly checking for compliance.
There should be no complaints about that.
Making the public claims it has made is a different story, though.
avon b7 said: It's all completely unnecessary on Apple's part. Why not simply ask the EU and wait for a reply?
That's what they're doing: putting the new AI features on hold while they communicate with the EU per the DMA requirements. Note that Apple was in communication with the EU about the anti-steering changes in the DMA and now the EU is saying there's something wrong with what Apple did.
What was unnecessary was the need to make a fuss out of things. Totally unnecessary.
If they had simply asked and waited for a reply we wouldn't even be talking about this now. No one would have brought the question up in the first place. Vestager wouldn't have said anything.
But no, Apple decided to FUD things up.
That's their call but it's pretty foolish, petty and probably won't help in the bigger scheme of things.
Apple’s going for friction so... so be it.
Except these features are due to come out shortly and likely, these discussions won’t produce a resolution by that time. Apple is ensuring that the people in the EU have the right expectations when the next OSs are launched.
Announced just this very month and not expected in the US until the end of the year and on a very limited range of devices. That isn't 'shortly' even for the US and things will be rolled out over time.
It definitely isn't 'shortly' for the EU.
These discussions should produce a quick result if Apple is upfront on everything. After all, the DSA/DMA have been enacted and now it is about compliance.
Will Apple be upfront, though? I very much doubt it. Just look at the 'core technology fee'.
What is likely is that Apple will try the same 'malicious compliance' route it is already on so the EU will probably have to reserve judgement, wait for features to be deployed (that's Apple's decision) and then evaluate them.
Has Apple actually published why (I mean, exactly why) it thinks it may be non-compliant?
Of course it hasn't. That is the thing about FUD. If your goal is to truly inform and be transparent, then do it. Write a white paper on compliance difficulties.
Yet you completely ignore the actual point of my comment, which is that the EU wants Apple to make this new tech available, and when it’s make available, the EU wants to force Apple to essentially give away that tech to it’s competitors. Seems rather unreasonable, no? Why on Earth would any company agree to that? All Apple is doing by making this announcement is to point out how absurd this is.
“You created something I want. So please give it to me. And when you do, I require you to give it to everyone else too.” Sounds fair.
That's a lot of guesswork there.
How can you possibly know what the EU wants?
No one knows the specifics of the discussions.
All we have is the DSA/DMA and a possible compliance issue.
Apple chose to make its claims in the public sphere without detailing anything. Vestager replied when asked.
The US is a violent force destabilising peace across the world to suit its own ends. Change my mind.
Nope. You have already made it up. Perhaps you would enjoy living in Ukraine under the benevolence of Vladimir Putin.
Tell that to the countries the US has brought “freedom” to.
Now you're just asking to be told to fuck off.
Of course, I'll let someone else tell you that.
the answer is;
All of Europe,
Most of the Pacific that was occupied by Japan.
Japan, and later, South Korea, and after many decades, Taiwan.
There's likely more, but, you are too fucking wrapped up in your ideology to actually comprehend what "freedom" is.
It isn't hard to guess that you live in one of those BRIC countries, but you certainly are too timid to let us know which....
BTW, if you are posting here, you are taking advantage of our freedom as defined by our internet. I certainly wouldn't be able to post "Xi is a totalitarian" if I actually lived in the PRC.
Xi is in fact a totalitarian, and is directly responsible for the economic downturn that we are seeing in the PRC.
China is governed by a totalitarian regime. Why is that so hard to say?
Some weirdos forget that the popularity of hating on the USA for fake reasons has been over for at least a decade.
The USA is the greatest country on the planet for many reasons (one of them being a structure that supports the rise of amazing pioneers like Apple) Perfect? No. Great? You bet.
And somehow, You The People of this greatest country decided that Trump and Biden are the two persons most suitable to rule the land?
Makes sense.
Oh God, no. We've had that conversation and still are, and after the last debate, the Democratic side may get a younger option. Here's hoping. As it is, neither choice is good, and neither may live to see the end of their terms, at least with their minds intact. Trump, with a failing mind, might be one of the most dangerous men on the planet. Biden, on the other hand, would mostly be an old man with good intentions, unlikely to threaten anyone.
This is one of the occasions when the process doesn't work, but it's not too late.
There are two operating systems for smartphones: Android and iOS. Alphabet/Google and Apple have a duopoly here.
----
The EU wants freedom for EU citizens who own computers called smartphones. The owners of the computers shall decide where they buy software. Not Google. Not Apple.
Software developers are the ones who decide where consumers can buy their software. Apple originally chose to use the console model for software on mobile. Google originally chose the Windows model for software on mobile. As it turns out, the console model was the one with users who were more willing to pay for apps. So typically developers would choose to release on iOS first and then release on Android at a later date. Mobile developers preferred to give priority to the platform that had more paying customers. This dynamic is also true on the desktop duopoly. Developers that produce games are more likely to release them on Windows because that's where there are more paying customers. They don't say "we must release on both platforms because they both have the same style of software distribution". This is the fallacy of what the EU (and yourself) are trying to sell. The "freedom" that you're talking about is really just developers looking at which platforms generate the most revenue for them. A consumer may want a macOS version of Elden Ring but it's not the software distribution model that's going to make it happen.
I’m at a loss to understand the EU position on any of its complaints. Apple certainly does not have any sort of a monopoly over any aspect of any of its product range. All tech companies offer different things in different regions. No tech company has every application or product available in all regions at the same time and sometimes there are years apart, if at all. Apple is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. MS Office, particularly Word is pretty much ubiquitous. I’d much rather not use it but have to because every other business does. There never seems to be any complaint about that.
When it comes to its product range, Apple has an absolute monopoly.
This has to be the dumbest sentence I’ve read in a long time and I read comments on Reddit.
Every company has “a monopoly” on its own products.
PS: the solution is simpel, and it will het the EU where it hits hard, just make a US Apple ID, all will work and all the revenue you spent will benefit the US government as taxes will land in the US . Look who is laughing now.
That kind of thinking went out the window a very long time ago.
Back when books were mostly on paper I would buy plenty of English language content direct from Amazon US. Even with shipping it was cheaper than buying the same imported content locally.
As the business grew, it popped up on the EU radar and, poof, the loophole was gone. An EU directive placed obligatory, country-of-origin sales tax on all transactions via cards based in the EU.
Size matters, as Apple is learning, but it was good while it lasted. Apple should feel the same.
Size doesn’t matter here.
Right is right and wrong is wrong. Regardless of size.
That’s how a healthy legal system views matters.
Size mattering is literally the foundation for ALL ANTITRUST LEGISLATION.
You may not consider antitrust part of a "healthy legal system", but that's a whole other discussion you can go be wrong about elsewhere.
avon b7 said: It's all completely unnecessary on Apple's part. Why not simply ask the EU and wait for a reply?
That's what they're doing: putting the new AI features on hold while they communicate with the EU per the DMA requirements. Note that Apple was in communication with the EU about the anti-steering changes in the DMA and now the EU is saying there's something wrong with what Apple did.
What was unnecessary was the need to make a fuss out of things. Totally unnecessary.
If they had simply asked and waited for a reply we wouldn't even be talking about this now. No one would have brought the question up in the first place. Vestager wouldn't have said anything.
But no, Apple decided to FUD things up.
That's their call but it's pretty foolish, petty and probably won't help in the bigger scheme of things.
Apple’s going for friction so... so be it.
Except these features are due to come out shortly and likely, these discussions won’t produce a resolution by that time. Apple is ensuring that the people in the EU have the right expectations when the next OSs are launched.
Announced just this very month and not expected in the US until the end of the year and on a very limited range of devices. That isn't 'shortly' even for the US and things will be rolled out over time.
It definitely isn't 'shortly' for the EU.
These discussions should produce a quick result if Apple is upfront on everything. After all, the DSA/DMA have been enacted and now it is about compliance.
Will Apple be upfront, though? I very much doubt it. Just look at the 'core technology fee'.
What is likely is that Apple will try the same 'malicious compliance' route it is already on so the EU will probably have to reserve judgement, wait for features to be deployed (that's Apple's decision) and then evaluate them.
Has Apple actually published why (I mean, exactly why) it thinks it may be non-compliant?
Of course it hasn't. That is the thing about FUD. If your goal is to truly inform and be transparent, then do it. Write a white paper on compliance difficulties.
Yet you completely ignore the actual point of my comment, which is that the EU wants Apple to make this new tech available, and when it’s make available, the EU wants to force Apple to essentially give away that tech to it’s competitors. Seems rather unreasonable, no? Why on Earth would any company agree to that? All Apple is doing by making this announcement is to point out how absurd this is.
“You created something I want. So please give it to me. And when you do, I require you to give it to everyone else too.” Sounds fair.
That's a lot of guesswork there.
How can you possibly know what the EU wants?
No one knows the specifics of the discussions.
All we have is the DSA/DMA and a possible compliance issue.
Apple chose to make its claims in the public sphere without detailing anything. Vestager replied when asked.
That's not much to go on at this point.
You hit the nail on the head! This is the crux of the all the issues with the DMA, nobody can possibly know what the DMA/EC wants. It appears even the the EC doesn’t know. That’s why all the affected companies have presented solutions that seem to fit the DMA only to have the EC come back, say the company doesn’t appear to be in compliance and they are investigating, again. If the DMA was clear then the affected companies could make the proper decisions from the start, but they can’t do that.
Also, I don’t see what the issue is with Apple saying in advance that they won’t be releasing certain features in the EU when apparently there is no issue with the EC saying in advance that they have to investigate a company before they make an announcement about compliance. It’s the same approach in both cases, but some people seem upset with Apple doing it and just fine when the EC does it. It’s very weird.
avon b7 said: It's all completely unnecessary on Apple's part. Why not simply ask the EU and wait for a reply?
That's what they're doing: putting the new AI features on hold while they communicate with the EU per the DMA requirements. Note that Apple was in communication with the EU about the anti-steering changes in the DMA and now the EU is saying there's something wrong with what Apple did.
What was unnecessary was the need to make a fuss out of things. Totally unnecessary.
If they had simply asked and waited for a reply we wouldn't even be talking about this now. No one would have brought the question up in the first place. Vestager wouldn't have said anything.
But no, Apple decided to FUD things up.
That's their call but it's pretty foolish, petty and probably won't help in the bigger scheme of things.
Apple’s going for friction so... so be it.
Except these features are due to come out shortly and likely, these discussions won’t produce a resolution by that time. Apple is ensuring that the people in the EU have the right expectations when the next OSs are launched.
What Apple is doing here is publicly blaming delays in the European release of these features on the EU Commission in a blatant political stunt.
Everybody already knew that the features would be coming to the EU later. They always do. (We've been waiting for a functional version of Siri for almost thirteen years now, and News never made it to most of Europe at all.)
Vestager made a PERSONAL comment about Apple making that comment in hopes that it would turn the EU public against the EU Commission (it isn't), and called them out on it.
Comments
It definitely isn't 'shortly' for the EU.
These discussions should produce a quick result if Apple is upfront on everything. After all, the DSA/DMA have been enacted and now it is about compliance.
Will Apple be upfront, though? I very much doubt it. Just look at the 'core technology fee'.
What is likely is that Apple will try the same 'malicious compliance' route it is already on so the EU will probably have to reserve judgement, wait for features to be deployed (that's Apple's decision) and then evaluate them.
Has Apple actually published why (I mean, exactly why) it thinks it may be non-compliant?
Of course it hasn't. That is the thing about FUD. If your goal is to truly inform and be transparent, then do it. Write a white paper on compliance difficulties.
Apple is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. MS Office, particularly Word is pretty much ubiquitous. I’d much rather not use it but have to because every other business does. There never seems to be any complaint about that.
“You created something I want. So please give it to me. And when you do, I require you to give it to everyone else too.” Sounds fair.
Smartphones are (vitally) important. Game consoles are not important.
Smartphones are now regulated in the EU. Games consoles may be regulated later.
There are two operating systems for smartphones: Android and iOS. Alphabet/Google and Apple have a duopoly here.
Google and Apple have agreed that the Google search engine will be the default setting on all smartphones. They made it obvious that they want to manipulate the owners of smartphones in order so squeeze money out of them.
A smartphone is a computer that is connected to the Internet and GPS and can be used to make phone calls, take photos, navigate, chat, read and listen.
Anyone who has bought a computer for 1000+ dollars/euros in the EU shall now be able to decide freely in the EU from whom they buy software for this computer.
The EU has changed the law exactly for this. It doesn't matter what was allowed before. Now it's different. There is a new law.
The EU wants freedom for EU citizens who own computers called smartphones. The owners of the computers shall decide where they buy software. Not Google. Not Apple.
Apple doesn't want that. A minority of Apple users in the EU don't want that either, because they are afraid. The majority of citizens in the EU, however, want to be free to decide from whom they can buy software for their computers that they have already paid for.
The EU wants this rule to apply to both Android and Apple. That's just how it works. This is not unusual in the EU.
Most Apple users already understand that; you evidently do not.
Still, carry on regardless.
However, it isn’t balanced with a serious investment and boost in AI. Once again, it is America providing this and the EU’s only real effort remains regulation. That’s not enough!
In fact I find it highly problematic we are now getting LLM’s and other generative AI technologies and training data that are basically US centric ones. Even with world knowledge they have been designed from a US-centric lens, which will further the homogenization of culture, language and world views.
The EU should at least invest as much into boosting AI as it is regulating it. To provide an alternative to the likes of Apple, Meta, openAI, Google, and so on.
Apple is on the hook for abusing dominant position. The same situation is playing out worldwide, including the US.
Apple has been able to cut off web rendering engines from the internet on its devices, alternative app stores, NFC, wallets, apps Apple doesn't like.... It has applied anti steering methods and takes a cut of basically every transaction on the platform.
That is most definitely a 'sort of monopoly' and why it is being investigated around the world.
It has used those restrictions to stifle competition and eliminate choice.
When it comes to its product range, Apple has an absolute monopoly.
There should be no complaints about that.
Making the public claims it has made is a different story, though.
How can you possibly know what the EU wants?
No one knows the specifics of the discussions.
All we have is the DSA/DMA and a possible compliance issue.
Apple chose to make its claims in the public sphere without detailing anything. Vestager replied when asked.
That's not much to go on at this point.
This is one of the occasions when the process doesn't work, but it's not too late.
You may not consider antitrust part of a "healthy legal system", but that's a whole other discussion you can go be wrong about elsewhere.
What Apple is doing here is publicly blaming delays in the European release of these features on the EU Commission in a blatant political stunt.
Everybody already knew that the features would be coming to the EU later. They always do. (We've been waiting for a functional version of Siri for almost thirteen years now, and News never made it to most of Europe at all.)
Vestager made a PERSONAL comment about Apple making that comment in hopes that it would turn the EU public against the EU Commission (it isn't), and called them out on it.
Vietnam
Iran
Laotian Civil War
Indonesia
Cambodia
Panama
Afghanistan
Iraq
Somalia
Libya
and probably a whole bunch more covert actions/coups that aren't public knowledge.