This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.
Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.
By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.
Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.
Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them.
EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!
EU law makes a mockery of law.
The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective.
You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers.
Here's what makes no sense: for MANY years, Apple's stubborn insistence on a walled garden held it back in the marketplace. And no government cared about its walled garden then. But over time, and especially as digital devices proliferated into tablets, wearables, etc, consumers made the free will choice to buy into the tightly controlled Apple ecosystem. In fact, the tightly controlled ecosystem with its focus on privacy, security, seamless operation between devices and "it just works" reliability became THE main reason to choose Apple. Let's face it: it has never been difficult to get more bang for your buck in the world of Windows and Android hardware. But consumers chose to pay more for Apple hardware with its walled garden being a main reason why. And now here comes government, breaking the very thing that tens of millions of consumers have freely chosen in buying Apple products, all in the name of insane, upside down logic of supposedly greater consumer choice. Except you're not allowed to choose a closed and tightly controlled ecosystem and--here comes the upside down logic again--the reason consumers will not be allowed to have that choice is because too many consumers have freely chosen it.
I disagree.
Apple was not taken to task early on because it was too small to merit investigation. Size matters.
It was Microsoft that fell under the hammer.
During the first years of the iPhone, Apple remained under the radar.
It wasn't until we began to shift to digital lifestyles that, what we now call Big Tech and the digital divide, became a burning issue.
That, in many parts of the world, is now a digital dependency and is a huge problem that is starting to be tackled.
That ultimately required sweeping new legislation to level the playing field. A top down approach was necessary (EU to member states) but each country within the EU is free to go further than the EU directives (as long as they remain compliant).
No one, at no point, voted for a walled garden. Not with their wallets or otherwise.
I will go much further and argue that the vast majority of iPhone users are completely ignorant to the shackles placed on them by Apple (and others).
I bring this up with virtually everyone I know who uses an iPhone. In years of asking I have yet to find a single person who is more than mildy aware of the restrictions imposed on them.
I would love for people to vote on this. For some university to dig into the subject and present results and for those results to be published in the mainstream media.
Even better, I would love for consumers to actively sign-off on the existing limitations (legislation would be required) to make sure they are fully aware of the limitations prior to purchase.
This isn't an 'Apple' thing. It's about digital platforms in general and especially those which distort market dynamics through practices outlined in the DSA/DMA.
Although seperate to the German issue, I have participated in the UK's call for feedback on the state of digital markets and Apple and Google in particular. My submission has been accepted and they have responded, asking me to lift any confidentiality protections so I suppose it will be up for review and possibly inclusion in the later stages of the process even though it was only a run down of some of the problems affecting consumers today and by no means a full report.
It's all part of the same larger issue.
We'll see how it plays out in the UK, EU, US and other major markets, which look to be moving in similar directions if under different approaches.
EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!
EU law makes a mockery of law.
Waves hand broadly. All these laws are a joke! All of them.
Thanks for the rational law analysis, anon! I'll be sure to come back here whenever I need more in-depth legal and historical analysis!
Why wait? Here a good rational article whose authors are not anon! They are highly educated in the field of economics and they cited the opinions of many that did not remain anon! and also well versed in field of economics and competition. But the article only pertains to the DMA. Which is what we're mainly talking about here.
>The Commission has not disclosed the thinking behind these thresholds. However, a reading of the Digital Markets Act Impact Assessment support study annex, which reported an analysis of various quantitative indicators[1] for 19 digital firms[2],
shows three things: (1) the exercise carried out by the European
Commission was subjective. There is no magic economic formula that would
suggest that these are the optimal quantitative thresholds that
maximise the efficacy of the restrictions and obligations imposed by the
DMA. (2) The approach applied by the European Commission was most
likely based on a backward induction process: the Commission
had a rough idea of the companies that the DMA should capture, it then
crafted the thresholds accordingly, to be sure the bigger players would
be included. (3) Finally, the Commission had to make a clear trade-off:
too-high thresholds would limit the impact of the DMA because companies
with strong market leverage and capable of limiting competition in
digital markets could fall out of scope; too-low thresholds would,
however, entail high costs, for example burdening companies with
compliance duties when they do not restrict competition in the digital
market, or increasing pressure on resource-constrained public enforcers.<
And then we have this German member of EU parliament (at the time), who played a major role in the drafting of the DMA.
>The EU lawmaker who will steer the EU’s flagship tech regulation through
the European parliament has said it should focus on the largest five US
tech companies.
Andreas Schwab, a German MEP and longtime critic of Google, spoke
after France and Germany both called for the EU to be tougher on Big
Tech. He said Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft, were the
“biggest problems” for EU competition policy.
“Let’s focus first
on the biggest problems, on the biggest bottlenecks. Let’s go down the
line — one, two, three, four, five — and maybe six with Alibaba,” he
said to the Financial Times.
“But let’s not start with number 7 to include a European gatekeeper just to please [US president Joe] Biden,” he added.<
This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.
Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.
By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.
Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.
Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them.
EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!
EU law makes a mockery of law.
The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective.
You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers.
Here's what makes no sense: for MANY years, Apple's stubborn insistence on a walled garden held it back in the marketplace. And no government cared about its walled garden then. But over time, and especially as digital devices proliferated into tablets, wearables, etc, consumers made the free will choice to buy into the tightly controlled Apple ecosystem. In fact, the tightly controlled ecosystem with its focus on privacy, security, seamless operation between devices and "it just works" reliability became THE main reason to choose Apple. Let's face it: it has never been difficult to get more bang for your buck in the world of Windows and Android hardware. But consumers chose to pay more for Apple hardware with its walled garden being a main reason why. And now here comes government, breaking the very thing that tens of millions of consumers have freely chosen in buying Apple products, all in the name of insane, upside down logic of supposedly greater consumer choice. Except you're not allowed to choose a closed and tightly controlled ecosystem and--here comes the upside down logic again--the reason consumers will not be allowed to have that choice is because too many consumers have freely chosen it.
No one, at no point, voted for a walled garden. Not with their wallets or otherwise.
I will go much further and argue that the vast majority of iPhone users are completely ignorant to the shackles placed on them by Apple (and others).
Oh please. To your first point, Apple is and always has been a walled garden since its founding. When you buy an Apple product you are voting with your wallet to go inside the wall because you have a world of choices with no wall and you didn't choose those. The loyalty to Apple is so fierce among its customers because they like the way the Apple ecosystem works.
To your second point: my god, at least come up with something original. The whole "Apple sheeple" cliche has been around for at least 30 years. Really astonishing how Apple has now been able to cast a spell over the entire world, don't you think? What do you figure it is? Does Apple have a global program of doping the water? Amazing that iPhone has been around for 18 years and is now sold in over 70 countries, but Apple has managed to keep those shackles a secret from everyone! Must be a Matrix kind of thing, right?
This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.
Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.
By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.
Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.
Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them.
EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!
EU law makes a mockery of law.
The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective.
You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers.
But if those numbers are set only for the purpose of insuring that the 5 largest US tech companies are captured as "gatekeepers", then Apple didn't just "fall" into the group of "gatekeepers". And it makes being a "gatekeeper" (under the DMA) a meaningless label.
No one, at no point, voted for a walled garden. Not with their wallets or otherwise.
I will go much further and argue that the vast majority of iPhone users are completely ignorant to the shackles placed on them by Apple (and others).
Agree. Consumers can't be expected to consider the RF radiation of the device, if the metal will cause allergic reactions due to the use of nickel, or if yet another car company will sell your driving behavior and location. Legislation is a guardrail.
US can either work globally on standards to keep trade open. Or stay away from the table and let regional requirements win causing friction followed by shouts of "we left the table and now they're doing this" in this forum.
This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.
Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.
By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.
Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.
Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them.
EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!
EU law makes a mockery of law.
The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective.
You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers.
But if those numbers are set only for the purpose of insuring that the 5 largest US tech companies are captured as "gatekeepers", then Apple didn't just "fall" into the group of "gatekeepers". And it makes being a "gatekeeper" (under the DMA) a meaningless label.
Like I said, that line of argument is open for debate but saying it didn't just 'fall' into the group of 'gatekeepers' is ridiculous because you are pumping the situation full of claims that are just your opinion.
Apple and others have used first mover status to distort or outright eliminate market options and legislation is catching up with those practices. The US is also included in that 'catching up' although it currently has problems of its own with regards to that. We'll what happens short term, but long term actions against Big Tech will persist in order to reach the goals set out in the EU.
This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.
Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.
By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.
Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.
Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them.
EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!
EU law makes a mockery of law.
The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective.
You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers.
Here's what makes no sense: for MANY years, Apple's stubborn insistence on a walled garden held it back in the marketplace. And no government cared about its walled garden then. But over time, and especially as digital devices proliferated into tablets, wearables, etc, consumers made the free will choice to buy into the tightly controlled Apple ecosystem. In fact, the tightly controlled ecosystem with its focus on privacy, security, seamless operation between devices and "it just works" reliability became THE main reason to choose Apple. Let's face it: it has never been difficult to get more bang for your buck in the world of Windows and Android hardware. But consumers chose to pay more for Apple hardware with its walled garden being a main reason why. And now here comes government, breaking the very thing that tens of millions of consumers have freely chosen in buying Apple products, all in the name of insane, upside down logic of supposedly greater consumer choice. Except you're not allowed to choose a closed and tightly controlled ecosystem and--here comes the upside down logic again--the reason consumers will not be allowed to have that choice is because too many consumers have freely chosen it.
No one, at no point, voted for a walled garden. Not with their wallets or otherwise.
I will go much further and argue that the vast majority of iPhone users are completely ignorant to the shackles placed on them by Apple (and others).
Oh please. To your first point, Apple is and always has been a walled garden since its founding. When you buy an Apple product you are voting with your wallet to go inside the wall because you have a world of choices with no wall and you didn't choose those. The loyalty to Apple is so fierce among its customers because they like the way the Apple ecosystem works.
To your second point: my god, at least come up with something original. The whole "Apple sheeple" cliche has been around for at least 30 years. Really astonishing how Apple has now been able to cast a spell over the entire world, don't you think? What do you figure it is? Does Apple have a global program of doping the water? Amazing that iPhone has been around for 18 years and is now sold in over 70 countries, but Apple has managed to keep those shackles a secret from everyone! Must be a Matrix kind of thing, right?
I don't need to come up with anything 'original'. My points are clear.
Try an informal survey yourself. How aware are the iPhone users you know and meet of Apple's imposed limitations?
Why shouldn't apple just be open about the limitations - just to do the right thing? Like they did with app tracking transparency.
After all, your entire argument is that they won't mind because it's all in their interests. The price one pays for privacy and security (in spite of zero day exploits and non-stop security updates landing on their devices).
My take is that Apple would rather jump through all the EU hoops (malicious compliance included where possible) instead of being open. And we all know why, right?
I don't need to come up with anything 'original'. My points are clear.
Try an informal survey yourself. How aware are the iPhone users you know and meet of Apple's imposed limitations?
Why shouldn't apple just be open about the limitations - just to do the right thing? Like they did with app tracking transparency.
After all, your entire argument is that they won't mind because it's all in their interests. The price one pays for privacy and security (in spite of zero day exploits and non-stop security updates landing on their devices).
My take is that Apple would rather jump through all the EU hoops (malicious compliance included where possible) instead of being open. And we all know why, right?
So as an Apple user for many years, what, in your opinion, am I missing out on that I might find even remotely interesting or required?
This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.
Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.
By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.
Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.
Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them.
EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!
EU law makes a mockery of law.
The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective.
You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers.
But if those numbers are set only for the purpose of insuring that the 5 largest US tech companies are captured as "gatekeepers", then Apple didn't just "fall" into the group of "gatekeepers". And it makes being a "gatekeeper" (under the DMA) a meaningless label.
Like I said, that line of argument is open for debate but saying it didn't just 'fall' into the group of 'gatekeepers' is ridiculous because you are pumping the situation full of claims that are just your opinion.
No it's not open for debate, it's established as fact, and he is not "pumping" claims that are "opinion". In fact, it is you who are being entirely disingenuous in this discussion and pimping claims that are false and misleading.
This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.
Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.
By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.
Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.
Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them.
EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!
EU law makes a mockery of law.
The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective.
You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers.
Here's what makes no sense: for MANY years, Apple's stubborn insistence on a walled garden held it back in the marketplace. And no government cared about its walled garden then. But over time, and especially as digital devices proliferated into tablets, wearables, etc, consumers made the free will choice to buy into the tightly controlled Apple ecosystem. In fact, the tightly controlled ecosystem with its focus on privacy, security, seamless operation between devices and "it just works" reliability became THE main reason to choose Apple. Let's face it: it has never been difficult to get more bang for your buck in the world of Windows and Android hardware. But consumers chose to pay more for Apple hardware with its walled garden being a main reason why. And now here comes government, breaking the very thing that tens of millions of consumers have freely chosen in buying Apple products, all in the name of insane, upside down logic of supposedly greater consumer choice. Except you're not allowed to choose a closed and tightly controlled ecosystem and--here comes the upside down logic again--the reason consumers will not be allowed to have that choice is because too many consumers have freely chosen it.
You are 100% correct. Thanks for the lightning bolt of rationality.
This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.
Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.
By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.
Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.
Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them.
EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!
EU law makes a mockery of law.
The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective.
You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers.
But if those numbers are set only for the purpose of insuring that the 5 largest US tech companies are captured as "gatekeepers", then Apple didn't just "fall" into the group of "gatekeepers". And it makes being a "gatekeeper" (under the DMA) a meaningless label.
Like I said, that line of argument is open for debate but saying it didn't just 'fall' into the group of 'gatekeepers' is ridiculous because you are pumping the situation full of claims that are just your opinion.
No it's not open for debate, it's established as fact, and he is not "pumping" claims that are "opinion". In fact, it is you who are being entirely disingenuous in this discussion and pimping claims that are false and misleading.
I don't need to come up with anything 'original'. My points are clear.
Try an informal survey yourself. How aware are the iPhone users you know and meet of Apple's imposed limitations?
Why shouldn't apple just be open about the limitations - just to do the right thing? Like they did with app tracking transparency.
After all, your entire argument is that they won't mind because it's all in their interests. The price one pays for privacy and security (in spite of zero day exploits and non-stop security updates landing on their devices).
My take is that Apple would rather jump through all the EU hoops (malicious compliance included where possible) instead of being open. And we all know why, right?
So as an Apple user for many years, what, in your opinion, am I missing out on that I might find even remotely interesting or required?
It's not even my opinion. Prior to the DMA/DSA all iDevice users were subjected to the same, unilateral restrictions.
No choice on wallets. No choice on app stores or software. No access to NFC hardware unless apple allowed it (and in the case of payments, only Apple). Anti-steering WebKit obligatory use Restrictions on third party watch features. (previously) restrictions on cloud backup of WhatsApp chats (only iCloud)
A lot of that has changed thanks to the EU.
Now you have choice (at least in the EU) where before, the choice was made for you and without your express consent.
This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.
Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.
By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.
Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.
Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them.
EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!
EU law makes a mockery of law.
The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective.
You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers.
Here's what makes no sense: for MANY years, Apple's stubborn insistence on a walled garden held it back in the marketplace. And no government cared about its walled garden then. But over time, and especially as digital devices proliferated into tablets, wearables, etc, consumers made the free will choice to buy into the tightly controlled Apple ecosystem. In fact, the tightly controlled ecosystem with its focus on privacy, security, seamless operation between devices and "it just works" reliability became THE main reason to choose Apple. Let's face it: it has never been difficult to get more bang for your buck in the world of Windows and Android hardware. But consumers chose to pay more for Apple hardware with its walled garden being a main reason why. And now here comes government, breaking the very thing that tens of millions of consumers have freely chosen in buying Apple products, all in the name of insane, upside down logic of supposedly greater consumer choice. Except you're not allowed to choose a closed and tightly controlled ecosystem and--here comes the upside down logic again--the reason consumers will not be allowed to have that choice is because too many consumers have freely chosen it.
No one, at no point, voted for a walled garden. Not with their wallets or otherwise.
I will go much further and argue that the vast majority of iPhone users are completely ignorant to the shackles placed on them by Apple (and others).
Oh please. To your first point, Apple is and always has been a walled garden since its founding. When you buy an Apple product you are voting with your wallet to go inside the wall because you have a world of choices with no wall and you didn't choose those. The loyalty to Apple is so fierce among its customers because they like the way the Apple ecosystem works.
To your second point: my god, at least come up with something original. The whole "Apple sheeple" cliche has been around for at least 30 years. Really astonishing how Apple has now been able to cast a spell over the entire world, don't you think? What do you figure it is? Does Apple have a global program of doping the water? Amazing that iPhone has been around for 18 years and is now sold in over 70 countries, but Apple has managed to keep those shackles a secret from everyone! Must be a Matrix kind of thing, right?
Try an informal survey yourself. How aware are the iPhone users you know and meet of Apple's imposed limitations?
So DO TELL! What are Apple's "imposed limitations" of which I'm "ignorant" to use your description. Do you think I'm interested in an "open" app store where anyone can upload any piece of crap? I'm not. Apple's walled garden app store is a selling point for me. Do you think I care one iota that Apple optimizes its various OSes and hardware to work seamlessly together at the expense of non-Apple hardware or software which, in some cases, will not work as well or not work at all? Nope, not one bit. Again, the seamless integration of the Apple walled garden ecosystem is a selling point for me, it's a main reason I buy Apple products and there's no other company that can come close to matching this kind of integration across such a varied product line. They certainly could if they wanted to make that investment but they don't. Not my problem. Any other big "shackles" that I'm missing here?
The bigger question is: when you have a whole wide world of Windows, Android, Linux, etc to choose from, which will give all the shackle-free freedom you want, why are you so obsessed with breaking the walled garden that Apple buyers want? This would be understandable if Apple were the only choice for tech buyers, but it's not. In fact, when you look at any hardware product line that Apple sells, Apple sales represent a minority, and often a very small one, of overall sales of that product.
Apple has a smaller portion of the smartphone market than their competitors. So this ruling is illogical. Yes, Apple does sell all Apple devices, but by that logic Mercedes Benz is a car monopoly…..
This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.
Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.
By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.
Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.
Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them.
EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!
EU law makes a mockery of law.
The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective.
You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers.
But if those numbers are set only for the purpose of insuring that the 5 largest US tech companies are captured as "gatekeepers", then Apple didn't just "fall" into the group of "gatekeepers". And it makes being a "gatekeeper" (under the DMA) a meaningless label.
Like I said, that line of argument is open for debate but saying it didn't just 'fall' into the group of 'gatekeepers' is ridiculous because you are pumping the situation full of claims that are just your opinion.
No it's not open for debate, it's established as fact, and he is not "pumping" claims that are "opinion". In fact, it is you who are being entirely disingenuous in this discussion and pimping claims that are false and misleading.
I don't need to come up with anything 'original'. My points are clear.
Try an informal survey yourself. How aware are the iPhone users you know and meet of Apple's imposed limitations?
Why shouldn't apple just be open about the limitations - just to do the right thing? Like they did with app tracking transparency.
After all, your entire argument is that they won't mind because it's all in their interests. The price one pays for privacy and security (in spite of zero day exploits and non-stop security updates landing on their devices).
My take is that Apple would rather jump through all the EU hoops (malicious compliance included where possible) instead of being open. And we all know why, right?
So as an Apple user for many years, what, in your opinion, am I missing out on that I might find even remotely interesting or required?
It's not even my opinion. Prior to the DMA/DSA all iDevice users were subjected to the same, unilateral restrictions.
No choice on wallets. No choice on app stores or software. No access to NFC hardware unless apple allowed it (and in the case of payments, only Apple). Anti-steering WebKit obligatory use Restrictions on third party watch features. (previously) restrictions on cloud backup of WhatsApp chats (only iCloud)
A lot of that has changed thanks to the EU.
Now you have choice (at least in the EU) where before, the choice was made for you and without your express consent.
A. None of these things are of any benefit to me. B. Most of them represent a weakening of security and privacy. C. All of them were enacted to benefit European companies, not users, and not anyone else in the world.
Your "points" are just a lot of empty words.
The European countries and the EU are acting like a mafia, constantly shaking down US tech companies for "protection money" and making it difficult for any but the companies run by Europeans to do business. How Spotify constantly needs more protection despite being the dominant music platform is beyond belief unless it's simply because they are European.
And furthermore, this sort of protectionist racket feeds into the sort of right wing politics that are destroying Europe and America, so the net "benefit" will be negative for everyone.
It's not even my opinion. Prior to the DMA/DSA all iDevice users were subjected to the same, unilateral restrictions.
No choice on wallets. No choice on app stores or software. No access to NFC hardware unless apple allowed it (and in the case of payments, only Apple). Anti-steering WebKit obligatory use Restrictions on third party watch features. (previously) restrictions on cloud backup of WhatsApp chats (only iCloud)
A lot of that has changed thanks to the EU.
Now you have choice (at least in the EU) where before, the choice was made for you and without your express consent.
A not one of those things do I care one whit about. I'm sure that a small number of EU users will make different choices, but it certainly won't be the majority.
I specifically choose Apple for myself and my family directly because of its walled garden approach. My life has been better because of it. If Apple ever dumps its walled garden approach, I will switch to Android out of anger towards Apple for taking away what I want.
This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.
Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.
By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.
Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.
Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them.
EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!
EU law makes a mockery of law.
The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective.
You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers.
Here's what makes no sense: for MANY years, Apple's stubborn insistence on a walled garden held it back in the marketplace. And no government cared about its walled garden then. But over time, and especially as digital devices proliferated into tablets, wearables, etc, consumers made the free will choice to buy into the tightly controlled Apple ecosystem. In fact, the tightly controlled ecosystem with its focus on privacy, security, seamless operation between devices and "it just works" reliability became THE main reason to choose Apple. Let's face it: it has never been difficult to get more bang for your buck in the world of Windows and Android hardware. But consumers chose to pay more for Apple hardware with its walled garden being a main reason why. And now here comes government, breaking the very thing that tens of millions of consumers have freely chosen in buying Apple products, all in the name of insane, upside down logic of supposedly greater consumer choice. Except you're not allowed to choose a closed and tightly controlled ecosystem and--here comes the upside down logic again--the reason consumers will not be allowed to have that choice is because too many consumers have freely chosen it.
No one, at no point, voted for a walled garden. Not with their wallets or otherwise.
I will go much further and argue that the vast majority of iPhone users are completely ignorant to the shackles placed on them by Apple (and others).
Oh please. To your first point, Apple is and always has been a walled garden since its founding. When you buy an Apple product you are voting with your wallet to go inside the wall because you have a world of choices with no wall and you didn't choose those. The loyalty to Apple is so fierce among its customers because they like the way the Apple ecosystem works.
To your second point: my god, at least come up with something original. The whole "Apple sheeple" cliche has been around for at least 30 years. Really astonishing how Apple has now been able to cast a spell over the entire world, don't you think? What do you figure it is? Does Apple have a global program of doping the water? Amazing that iPhone has been around for 18 years and is now sold in over 70 countries, but Apple has managed to keep those shackles a secret from everyone! Must be a Matrix kind of thing, right?
Try an informal survey yourself. How aware are the iPhone users you know and meet of Apple's imposed limitations?
So DO TELL! What are Apple's "imposed limitations" of which I'm "ignorant" to use your description. Do you think I'm interested in an "open" app store where anyone can upload any piece of crap? I'm not. Apple's walled garden app store is a selling point for me. Do you think I care one iota that Apple optimizes its various OSes and hardware to work seamlessly together at the expense of non-Apple hardware or software which, in some cases, will not work as well or not work at all? Nope, not one bit. Again, the seamless integration of the Apple walled garden ecosystem is a selling point for me, it's a main reason I buy Apple products and there's no other company that can come close to matching this kind of integration across such a varied product line. They certainly could if they wanted to make that investment but they don't. Not my problem. Any other big "shackles" that I'm missing here?
The bigger question is: when you have a whole wide world of Windows, Android, Linux, etc to choose from, which will give all the shackle-free freedom you want, why are you so obsessed with breaking the walled garden that Apple buyers want? This would be understandable if Apple were the only choice for tech buyers, but it's not. In fact, when you look at any hardware product line that Apple sells, Apple sales represent a minority, and often a very small one, of overall sales of that product.
What does your opinion mean in the context of a competitive market?
Nothing.
These laws were passed to level the playing field and protect consumers as a whole.
The DMA/DSA (and any other legislation to fight against anti-competitive behavior by those with the ability to distort the market in their favour) was passed to address entrenched and continued abuse of dominant position.
Fortunately, you remain free to choose for yourself which options you consider right for you (provided you are in the EU). If not, you might not have the same choice.
Read the preamble to the DMA/DSA. Read the rulings against anti-competitive practices.
And remember that these kinds of obligations are NOT unique to the EU and even possible within the US at some point.
It's not even my opinion. Prior to the DMA/DSA all iDevice users were subjected to the same, unilateral restrictions.
No choice on wallets. No choice on app stores or software. No access to NFC hardware unless apple allowed it (and in the case of payments, only Apple). Anti-steering WebKit obligatory use Restrictions on third party watch features. (previously) restrictions on cloud backup of WhatsApp chats (only iCloud)
A lot of that has changed thanks to the EU.
Now you have choice (at least in the EU) where before, the choice was made for you and without your express consent.
A not one of those things do I care one whit about. I'm sure that a small number of EU users will make different choices, but it certainly won't be the majority.
In that case, those aspects will be non-issues for those consumers but they do have the right to know and it would be great if Apple laid them out before purchase.
Apple wants us to know about app tracking for example but for some reason doesn't want us to be formally informed of the limitations it imposes.
Wow, I wasn’t aware the comment section here is full of MAGA and trillion-dollar-company-simps. If Apple can’t follow the law, they will be fined and that’s the way it should be. Maybe they’ll even have to do what’s best for the customer instead what’s best for them, imagine. The horrors!
I'm about as far from a MAGA or trillion-dollar-company-simp as one can get, but it's been pretty obvious for quite a while what Europe's game is in regard to American tech companies. And, none of this is even remotely about what's best for the customer, it's about what's best for European governments, European companies, European advertisers and European spy agencies.
The only way one could think this is if one were completely unaware of ANY other anti-trust investigations taking place in Europe — the vast majority of which are raised against European companies.
But hey, don't let information get in the way of the Obvious™.
Comments
Apple was not taken to task early on because it was too small to merit investigation. Size matters.
It was Microsoft that fell under the hammer.
During the first years of the iPhone, Apple remained under the radar.
It wasn't until we began to shift to digital lifestyles that, what we now call Big Tech and the digital divide, became a burning issue.
That, in many parts of the world, is now a digital dependency and is a huge problem that is starting to be tackled.
That ultimately required sweeping new legislation to level the playing field. A top down approach was necessary (EU to member states) but each country within the EU is free to go further than the EU directives (as long as they remain compliant).
No one, at no point, voted for a walled garden. Not with their wallets or otherwise.
I will go much further and argue that the vast majority of iPhone users are completely ignorant to the shackles placed on them by Apple (and others).
I bring this up with virtually everyone I know who uses an iPhone. In years of asking I have yet to find a single person who is more than mildy aware of the restrictions imposed on them.
I would love for people to vote on this. For some university to dig into the subject and present results and for those results to be published in the mainstream media.
Even better, I would love for consumers to actively sign-off on the existing limitations (legislation would be required) to make sure they are fully aware of the limitations prior to purchase.
This isn't an 'Apple' thing. It's about digital platforms in general and especially those which distort market dynamics through practices outlined in the DSA/DMA.
Although seperate to the German issue, I have participated in the UK's call for feedback on the state of digital markets and Apple and Google in particular. My submission has been accepted and they have responded, asking me to lift any confidentiality protections so I suppose it will be up for review and possibly inclusion in the later stages of the process even though it was only a run down of some of the problems affecting consumers today and by no means a full report.
It's all part of the same larger issue.
We'll see how it plays out in the UK, EU, US and other major markets, which look to be moving in similar directions if under different approaches.
Andreas Schwab, a German MEP and longtime critic of Google, spoke after France and Germany both called for the EU to be tougher on Big Tech. He said Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft, were the “biggest problems” for EU competition policy.
“Let’s focus first on the biggest problems, on the biggest bottlenecks. Let’s go down the line — one, two, three, four, five — and maybe six with Alibaba,” he said to the Financial Times.
“But let’s not start with number 7 to include a European gatekeeper just to please [US president Joe] Biden,” he added.<
To your second point: my god, at least come up with something original. The whole "Apple sheeple" cliche has been around for at least 30 years. Really astonishing how Apple has now been able to cast a spell over the entire world, don't you think? What do you figure it is? Does Apple have a global program of doping the water? Amazing that iPhone has been around for 18 years and is now sold in over 70 countries, but Apple has managed to keep those shackles a secret from everyone! Must be a Matrix kind of thing, right?
But if those numbers are set only for the purpose of insuring that the 5 largest US tech companies are captured as "gatekeepers", then Apple didn't just "fall" into the group of "gatekeepers". And it makes being a "gatekeeper" (under the DMA) a meaningless label.
US can either work globally on standards to keep trade open. Or stay away from the table and let regional requirements win causing friction followed by shouts of "we left the table and now they're doing this" in this forum.
Apple and others have used first mover status to distort or outright eliminate market options and legislation is catching up with those practices. The US is also included in that 'catching up' although it currently has problems of its own with regards to that. We'll what happens short term, but long term actions against Big Tech will persist in order to reach the goals set out in the EU.
Try an informal survey yourself. How aware are the iPhone users you know and meet of Apple's imposed limitations?
Why shouldn't apple just be open about the limitations - just to do the right thing? Like they did with app tracking transparency.
After all, your entire argument is that they won't mind because it's all in their interests. The price one pays for privacy and security (in spite of zero day exploits and non-stop security updates landing on their devices).
My take is that Apple would rather jump through all the EU hoops (malicious compliance included where possible) instead of being open. And we all know why, right?
No choice on wallets.
No choice on app stores or software.
No access to NFC hardware unless apple allowed it (and in the case of payments, only Apple).
Anti-steering
WebKit obligatory use
Restrictions on third party watch features.
(previously) restrictions on cloud backup of WhatsApp chats (only iCloud)
A lot of that has changed thanks to the EU.
Now you have choice (at least in the EU) where before, the choice was made for you and without your express consent.
The bigger question is: when you have a whole wide world of Windows, Android, Linux, etc to choose from, which will give all the shackle-free freedom you want, why are you so obsessed with breaking the walled garden that Apple buyers want? This would be understandable if Apple were the only choice for tech buyers, but it's not. In fact, when you look at any hardware product line that Apple sells, Apple sales represent a minority, and often a very small one, of overall sales of that product.
B. Most of them represent a weakening of security and privacy.
C. All of them were enacted to benefit European companies, not users, and not anyone else in the world.
Your "points" are just a lot of empty words.
The European countries and the EU are acting like a mafia, constantly shaking down US tech companies for "protection money" and making it difficult for any but the companies run by Europeans to do business. How Spotify constantly needs more protection despite being the dominant music platform is beyond belief unless it's simply because they are European.
And furthermore, this sort of protectionist racket feeds into the sort of right wing politics that are destroying Europe and America, so the net "benefit" will be negative for everyone.
Nothing.
These laws were passed to level the playing field and protect consumers as a whole.
The DMA/DSA (and any other legislation to fight against anti-competitive behavior by those with the ability to distort the market in their favour) was passed to address entrenched and continued abuse of dominant position.
Fortunately, you remain free to choose for yourself which options you consider right for you (provided you are in the EU). If not, you might not have the same choice.
Read the preamble to the DMA/DSA. Read the rulings against anti-competitive practices.
And remember that these kinds of obligations are NOT unique to the EU and even possible within the US at some point.
Apple wants us to know about app tracking for example but for some reason doesn't want us to be formally informed of the limitations it imposes.