Haha not surprised in the slightest, it was obvious they would find Apple guilty because Apple has breached their regulations and laws, it is the job of any company to know and understand the laws and regulations of your select market no matter the size.
What will be interesting is the penalty that will be imposed, the EU will hit hard if required in any company with penalties, I suspect they will force Apple to change its store policy in Europe. Spotify did have a point too over this though and the heat was obviously building up against Apple, need to share the wealth fairly.
The EU Commission is not the courts. They did not find Apple guilty of anything. They only did the investigation and concluded that Apple is violating EU competition laws. It's going to be up to the EU courts to determine if Apple is guilty of the charges. This will takes years and then you have to add even more years for the appeal process.
Remember, the EU commission did a 2 year investigation and in 2016 and concluded that Apple was avoiding taxes for years, by setting up their HQ in Ireland, (who they claimed was giving Apple favorable treatment) and the commission ordered Apple to pay nearly $15B in back taxes. But Apple (and Ireland) appealed the ruling in an EU court and won. So now the EU commission is appealing that decision. This been going on for 5 years now and counting. Apple has already set aside the $15B. It seems that with this case, it was the EU Commission that did not know and understand their own laws.
So don't go out and celebrate yet. Hopefully anything you bought for your big celebration party will keep for another 5 or more years.
Firstly, get it right, the EU didn’t accuse Apple of anything surrounding taxes, it accused Ireland of breaching state aide regulations and law over its favoured tax levels they agreed for Apple to pay, their grievance was with Ireland and it is Ireland that must pay 12 billion in back taxes. But what do you expect when it’s all true and Apple was paying 0.005% in tax through offices existing in paper only. Secondly, if you know one thing it’s that the EU won’t give up, also it does not take years to bring cases to conclusion, and it does not let cases be buried in appeals processes. This is anti competitive behaviour not tax evasion by one of its member states.
Perhaps you should look at the way they have treated other electronic corporation electronic giants to get an understanding of how it treats them when they breach competition laws, not like how they are treated in US law that’s for certain.
When it comes to anti competitive behaviour, the EU has incredibly strong laws and regulations over it, and it vehemently defends them and enforces them. You can expect a big fine to be levied on Apple or it will be forced to change its App Store policies to continue operating within the EU market, or maybe both, if found guilty. We shall see.
So you admit that you were wrong, when you claimed that the EU found Apple "guilty". If by "We shall see.", you also include yourself, then you admit that you don't know if Apple will be found guilty of anything, yet.
The EU accused Apple of avoiding taxes and wanted Apple to pay $15B in back taxes, not Ireland. What the EU Commission got wrong was that there is no laws set by the EU regarding tax rates in any of its members country. Each member country can set their own tax rates. But the taxes must be applied to all equally. The EU Commission claimed that Apple received a special tax deal from Ireland. But Ireland low tax rates were applied equally and did not favor any one company.
This is what the EU court ruled and thus Apple did not receive any special tax treatment and don't owe the back taxes. The EU Commission was accusing Apple of receiving special tax treatment and was demanding that Apple pay the $15B in back taxes. Ireland was not demanding that Apple pay the back tax and yet Apple aside $15B, in case the lost. Why? If no one was demanding that Apple pay $15B in back taxes. And how in the name of Hell can Ireland owe and must pay "back taxes" to themselves? What's the point in that? That would be like if the US Federal government were to claim that because TX do not collect a State income tax, they owe themselves back taxes that they didn't collect.
Ireland was never accused of tax "evasion". Neither was Apple. Tax "avoidance", by paying as little taxes as legally possible, is not illegal. Not even in the EU. But In the EU, it is illegal if one got special tax treatment in order to pay less taxes. This was what the EU Commission did not prove, that Ireland gave Apple any special tax treatment.
It took a decade, to finally win anti-completive charges against Google. I don't know what you consider "years", but a decade is by definition ......10 years. Even if the EU Commission were to cut that time in half, it would still be ....... years. And this was a case of anti-competitive behavior against a company (Google), that controls 90% of the search engine market. A monopoly, by any definition.
Perhaps you should read this link? I’m not sure you fully grasp State Aid rules. Also no, Ireland is the EU member state, it is the one who they requested pay back the taxes.
You seem to have little understanding about what EU state aide rules are claiming it’s tax evasion? Tax evasion isn’t mentioned. You seem to be mixing the two things up. You also neglected the other fines they have levied on Google and merely concentrated on the one that suits your agreement. How convenient, they’ve fined Google 8 billion and counting so far. For various breaches. Your Defense of Apple is only driven by your misunderstanding it would appear. Concentrating on the appeal, that in your logic only Apple brought and won and not Ireland, again to suite your argument.
Also convenient how you totally ignored the Microsoft case, but that’s against your argument so not surprising perhaps.
Regardless it has little to do with this case of anti competitive behaviour by Apple and won’t mean a thing in court, and I expect Apple to lose. It’s a preliminary judgment, and history shows they usually lead to guilty charges looking at previous cases. As stated above they will have performed investigations into weather they could build a case first, before investigating the case coming to their preliminary conclusion.
I know exactly what the EU consider illegal tax "avoidance" and the EU Commission did not prove that in the case against Apple and Ireland. The EU courts sided with Ireland, in that they did not give Apple any special tax treatment with their low tax rates. In Ireland, Microsoft, Amazon and Google are taxed the same as Apple. The EU Commission case hinged on Ireland providing illegal State Aid due to a special tax rate only given to Apple.
YOU were the one that mentioned "tax evasion", not I nor the EU. Both I and the EU Commission use the term tax "avoidance". Maybe YOU should had research it, before using the term with ........ "This is anti competitive behaviour not tax evasion by one of its member states."
Your link is old news. The EU court has already sided with Apple and Ireland, that the tax rate given to Apple was NOT any special treatment that resulted in illegal State Aid. Maybe the it's the EU Commission that don't fully grasp the "State Aid" law that they are enforcing.
What's going on now is the EU Commission is appealing the outcome of the case to the highest EU court and will try to prove that Ireland low rate tax structure essentially amounts to illegal State Aid, because is it not reasonable nor make sense, for Ireland to charge such a low rate to all the companies that does business in Ireland. Regardless that the low tax rate is not "special tax treatment". This, instead of trying to prove that Ireland gave Apple "special tax treatment", which Ireland claimed it didn't and the EU Courts said that that the EU Commission didn't prove.
So far, the EU Commission don't have a good track record in trying to dictate how its members are allowed to set their own taxes rules.
I'm not defending Apple here. I just pointed out that you were wrong to say that Apple was found guilty. It was you that said Apple is guilty, before any courts had decided. And it seems that you are already celebrating that Apple is "guilty", just based on being charged by the EU Commission. I guess you never heard of innocent until proven guilty, in a court of law. That even applies in the EU.
I assume you already think Amazon is guilty because the EU Commission already charged them with anti-competitive behavior. After all the EU Commission already did years of investigation, before bringing up the charges ... right?
It took 8 years for the Microsoft case to come to a conclusion. This only being appealed to the second highest court in EU. And only on the amount of the fine. It sure as Hell don't make your case that the EU Commission will not allow anti-trust cases to drag out for years in the appeal process.
The 3 anti-trust cases and fines against Google in the EU are still in the courts. This after the EU Commission file their first charge and fine in 2017, after years of investigation. That was over 5 years ago, for just the first case. How does these cases support your assumption that it won't take years to come to a final conclusion for this Apple case? A court ruling on just the first case is due this year. And there will sure to be an appeal to the higher court, no matter who wins in this ruling.
And the EU Commission charges, is not a "preliminary judgement", in any legal sense. Preliminary judgements are issued by the courts after considering all the evidence, presented by both sides. And no matter how good of a track record you think the EU Commission have concerning anti-trust, it's still going to take years to reach a final conclusion. In the mean time, it's going to be business as usual for years. As it was for Microsoft. Amazon, Intel, FaceBook and Google, after the EU commission levied anti-trust charges against them.
And please supply any links where EU Commission charges of anti-competitive in previous cases, usually leads to guilty charges, not including the Microsoft case over 15 years ago. So far, after the Microsoft charges, the EU Commission has brought over a dozen anti-competitive charges against Amazon, Google, Apple, FaceBook, Intel and other large tech firms. And so far, I can't find one of them that has led to guilty charges. Most of those cases are still in the courts.
Here's an interesting one on Intel victory over EU 2009 antitrust charges, after appealing the first guilty ruling. And after 17 years, it's not over.
So where are these ......" ...... and history shows they usually lead to guilty charges looking at previous cases"...... previous cases that you are looking at?
what if people wanted a different government? they are stuck with the EU, the EU has a monopoly of power in Europe.
???
There are elections to the EU Parliament every 5 years. And the EU Parliament approves the EU Commission (the executive). And if a country wants out altogether, they can leave, as with Brexit. So what do you mean "stuck"?
your reply is long and riddled with leaps in logic that I have seen only in lobbying documents.
could you clarify for me if you have a vested interest in apple stock or the company?
Out of all you said I pick one. When you settle out of court there are certain reasons mentioned in the actual settlement document such as cost in time and money and uncertain outcome. Nobody admits guilt but the question remains why would a company with time and money in spades choose to settle?
On another note most silicon valley companies operate in highly unregulated space and that is what makes them so successful financially. It takes time for governments to figure out they are loosing out on taxes and to act. In this case action by the EU has been delayed due to US protectionism. Who could forget Trumps statement that if anyone would tax them it would be the US and nobody else.
avon b7 said: No. That isn't the case. It is about the App Store, not the Internet. The music can be streamed from the Internet. Payments can be made over the Internet. That is irrevelant here because the focus is on the App Store.
It's about using an iPhone for paying for services. iPhones = electronic payments only. The App Store allows electronic payments. The internet allows electronic payments. Both options are equally possible for an iPhone user. Apple controls one option and does not control the other. The only barrier that exists for using either one is access to either a cellular signal or WiFi network. The EU is acknowledging in their own tweet that internet payments for services are possible for iPhone users. They're not attempting to deny that the App Store isn't the only option for payment.
That means the real issue in this case is about consumer awareness, not Apple blocking users from alternate payment methods on an iPhone. The EU is attempting to say that the anti-competitive part is not allowing communications within an app that inform consumers about the ability to pay for things on the internet. IMO, that's a fairly flimsy stance in 2021. In order to use the phone, consumers have to purchase cellular plans and those purchases involve heavy marketing around data and internet capabilities. The odds of consumers not knowing that they can pay for things on the internet with an iPhone is pretty low and, IMO, doesn't rise to the level of an anti-competitive complaint.
avon b7 said: No. That isn't the case. It is about the App Store, not the Internet. The music can be streamed from the Internet. Payments can be made over the Internet. That is irrevelant here because the focus is on the App Store.
It's about using an iPhone for paying for services. iPhones = electronic payments only. The App Store allows electronic payments. The internet allows electronic payments. Both options are equally possible for an iPhone user. Apple controls one option and does not control the other. The only barrier that exists for using either one is access to either a cellular signal or WiFi network. The EU is acknowledging in their own tweet that internet payments for services are possible for iPhone users. They're not attempting to deny that the App Store isn't the only option for payment.
That means the real issue in this case is about consumer awareness, not Apple blocking users from alternate payment methods on an iPhone. The EU is attempting to say that the anti-competitive part is not allowing communications within an app that inform consumers about the ability to pay for things on the internet. IMO, that's a fairly flimsy stance in 2021. In order to use the phone, consumers have to purchase cellular plans and those purchases involve heavy marketing around data and internet capabilities. The odds of consumers not knowing that they can pay for things on the internet with an iPhone is pretty low and, IMO, doesn't rise to the level of an anti-competitive complaint.
I think consumer awareness is just one spoke of the competition wheel.
In fact I've mentioned many times that one of the ways Apple might be able to avoid most of the competition scrutiny would be making customers fully and clearly aware of what they are buying into prior to the purchase transaction.
I very much doubt they would ever consider that route due to the dangers that it entails.
Marketers of competing platforms would have a field day with that.
However, beyond awareness (and how it is transmitted) Apple still has the problem of it being the sole channel for app distribution on iDevice platforms.
Whichever way you look at it, it does seem like a difficult arrow to avoid.
Should the company that provides the hardware platform be able to run the services for it in a commercial setting where third parties are also expected to vie for the same customers?
Where I live the companies providing rail infrastructure do not run the trains that provide the services.
Where there is some crossover, the liberalised markets are heavily regulated to ensure competition.
For example the company that installed fibre infrastructure had just a three month window of exclusivity before it had to open up the services to third party providers.
avon b7 said: However, beyond awareness (and how it is transmitted) Apple still has the problem of it being the sole channel for app distribution on iDevice platforms.
The EU isn't saying that in this case. They appear to be focused on third parties avoiding the App Store commission as enhancing competition. Part of the problem with that is it's a solution that is already supported on the iPhone. Companies like Amazon and Netflix have already switched to distributing the app for free on the App Store and having customers pay for products or services to be used within the app on the internet. Even a game like Fortnite had various avenues for customers to buy their in-game currency outside of the App Store (web sites or V-Bucks cards in physical stores).
avon b7 said: However, beyond awareness (and how it is transmitted) Apple still has the problem of it being the sole channel for app distribution on iDevice platforms.
TheEUisn'tsayingthatinthiscase. They appear to be focused on third parties avoiding the App Store commission as enhancing competition. Part of the problem with that is it's a solution that is already supported on the iPhone. Companies like Amazon and Netflix have already switched to distributing the app for free on the App Store and having customers pay for products or services to be used within the app on the internet. Even a game like Fortnite had various avenues for customers to buy their in-game currency outside of the App Store (web sites or V-Bucks cards in physical stores).
FTA:
"App stores play a central role in today's digital economy," added Vestager in a statement. "Our preliminary finding is that Apple is a gatekeeper to users of iPhones and iPads via the App Store."
The word 'gatekeeper' says it all. I think is exactly what they are saying.
The App Store being the sole distribution channel makes Apple the gatekeeper.
avon b7 said: Cropr is correct. The Apple App Store is the only distribution channel for iOS consumer apps and that is where there could be a problem.
iOS users can also use web apps. One example of this would be game streaming services, like Amazon's Luna or Microsoft's Xbox Cloud Gaming. That's certainly a relevant parallel to something like music or video streaming. Apple does not exert control over the internet or try to take a commission from internet sales, only the App Store.
Like I've said before, the EU ignoring the internet connectivity supplied by the same device and all of the information and functions that it provides is problematic. Nobody can claim that consumers who buy smartphones aren't aware that they connect to the internet. Service providers constantly use data rates and internet connectivity as a primary marketing point for selling customers on their phone plans. It really doesn't make sense to treat the App Store as if it's the only method an iPhone owner could use to learn about apps or pricing.
As I said before, this is irrelevant. It's also true that a web app is not a 'native' app in the same way as an installed app.
I think there are ways to skirt the issue but the current current situation is crystal clear. Apple is acting as a gatekeeper and using its position to its advantage. Anti competition it is without a shadow of a doubt. App store competitors are simply not allowed to exist.
Are there ways around this? IMO, yes but I think Apple would rather appeal and see where things go before taking a different route.
There’s an obvious workaround; give the consumers a choice, Hobson’s choice.
They can choose their App Store but only one App Store with the OS burning all data & apps upon switching. Also, OS updates are only available on the real App Store. This should satisfy the EU’s petty pseudo-libertarian fallacies. Apple should also declare war on fake-choice, educating its massive user base that Liberty is in the determination of your options, not the selection of someone else’s. That way, in a few years there won’t be an EU to worry about.
Given the EU's terrible management in general, who knows how long the EU will be around?
Well, it's foundation treaty dates to 1957; the treaty which created the EU as it is today, 1992. Nothing lasts forever, but Europhobic sceptics have been predicting its demise since the very beginning, especially in Britain. The record's not great, but I'll give the sceptics this much credit: they've only got to be proven right once.
avon b7 said: "App stores play a central role in today's digital economy," added Vestager in a statement. "Our preliminary finding is that Apple is a gatekeeper to users of iPhones and iPads via the App Store."
The word 'gatekeeper' says it all. I think is exactly what they are saying.
The App Store being the sole distribution channel makes Apple the gatekeeper.
They're only the gatekeeper for native app distribution on the OS they created. They're not the gatekeeper for payments for those native apps OR for non-native apps accessed via the internet, whether they're in the form of a web app or a streamed app from a server.
avon b7 said: "App stores play a central role in today's digital economy," added Vestager in a statement. "Our preliminary finding is that Apple is a gatekeeper to users of iPhones and iPads via the App Store."
The word 'gatekeeper' says it all. I think is exactly what they are saying.
The App Store being the sole distribution channel makes Apple the gatekeeper.
They're only the gatekeeper for native app distribution on the OS they created. They're not the gatekeeper for payments for those native apps OR for non-native apps accessed via the internet, whether they're in the form of a web app or a streamed app from a server.
Like I've said a few times already, you have to forget the internet. This isn't about the internet.
If the internet were relevant in this case, the formal investigation would never have got off the ground in the first place.
what if people wanted a different government? they are stuck with the EU, the EU has a monopoly of power in Europe.
No wrong. Governments in EU are democratic institutions. Apple is a for profit company. As we all know companies at this scale are run with logistics and methodologies derived from army operations. A company such as apple is so far removed from the democratic process that actual governments have to put them back in line when they falter and have anti-social behaviour.
ireland had no say in what the EU said was taxable to apple. Brussels holds a great dowel more paper than you think
Comments
YOU were the one that mentioned "tax evasion", not I nor the EU. Both I and the EU Commission use the term tax "avoidance". Maybe YOU should had research it, before using the term with ........ "This is anti competitive behaviour not tax evasion by one of its member states."
Your link is old news. The EU court has already sided with Apple and Ireland, that the tax rate given to Apple was NOT any special treatment that resulted in illegal State Aid. Maybe the it's the EU Commission that don't fully grasp the "State Aid" law that they are enforcing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53416206
What's going on now is the EU Commission is appealing the outcome of the case to the highest EU court and will try to prove that Ireland low rate tax structure essentially amounts to illegal State Aid, because is it not reasonable nor make sense, for Ireland to charge such a low rate to all the companies that does business in Ireland. Regardless that the low tax rate is not "special tax treatment". This, instead of trying to prove that Ireland gave Apple "special tax treatment", which Ireland claimed it didn't and the EU Courts said that that the EU Commission didn't prove.
So far, the EU Commission don't have a good track record in trying to dictate how its members are allowed to set their own taxes rules.
https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2019/09/eu-general-court-rules-on-starbucks
I'm not defending Apple here. I just pointed out that you were wrong to say that Apple was found guilty. It was you that said Apple is guilty, before any courts had decided. And it seems that you are already celebrating that Apple is "guilty", just based on being charged by the EU Commission. I guess you never heard of innocent until proven guilty, in a court of law. That even applies in the EU.
I assume you already think Amazon is guilty because the EU Commission already charged them with anti-competitive behavior. After all the EU Commission already did years of investigation, before bringing up the charges ... right?
https://www.ft.com/content/d5bb5ebb-87ef-4968-8ff5-76b3a215eefc
It took 8 years for the Microsoft case to come to a conclusion. This only being appealed to the second highest court in EU. And only on the amount of the fine. It sure as Hell don't make your case that the EU Commission will not allow anti-trust cases to drag out for years in the appeal process.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-18606813
The 3 anti-trust cases and fines against Google in the EU are still in the courts. This after the EU Commission file their first charge and fine in 2017, after years of investigation. That was over 5 years ago, for just the first case. How does these cases support your assumption that it won't take years to come to a final conclusion for this Apple case? A court ruling on just the first case is due this year. And there will sure to be an appeal to the higher court, no matter who wins in this ruling.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51462397
https://apnews.com/article/google-antitrust-lawsuit-europe-tips-9b100e96d23849b742d27c457157b6bc
And the EU Commission charges, is not a "preliminary judgement", in any legal sense. Preliminary judgements are issued by the courts after considering all the evidence, presented by both sides. And no matter how good of a track record you think the EU Commission have concerning anti-trust, it's still going to take years to reach a final conclusion. In the mean time, it's going to be business as usual for years. As it was for Microsoft. Amazon, Intel, FaceBook and Google, after the EU commission levied anti-trust charges against them.
And please supply any links where EU Commission charges of anti-competitive in previous cases, usually leads to guilty charges, not including the Microsoft case over 15 years ago. So far, after the Microsoft charges, the EU Commission has brought over a dozen anti-competitive charges against Amazon, Google, Apple, FaceBook, Intel and other large tech firms. And so far, I can't find one of them that has led to guilty charges. Most of those cases are still in the courts.
Here's an interesting one on Intel victory over EU 2009 antitrust charges, after appealing the first guilty ruling. And after 17 years, it's not over.
https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/063db876/lets-talk-antitrust---the-intel-judgment---what-you-need-to-know
Here's one where Broadcom settled a suit without any guilty charges
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-broadcom-antitrust/broadcom-offers-to-scrap-exclusivity-deals-to-end-eu-antitrust-probe-idUSKCN22916E
So where are these ......" ...... and history shows they usually lead to guilty charges looking at previous cases"...... previous cases that you are looking at?
There are elections to the EU Parliament every 5 years. And the EU Parliament approves the EU Commission (the executive). And if a country wants out altogether, they can leave, as with Brexit. So what do you mean "stuck"?
your reply is long and riddled with leaps in logic that I have seen only in lobbying documents.
could you clarify for me if you have a vested interest in apple stock or the company?
Out of all you said I pick one. When you settle out of court there are certain reasons mentioned in the actual settlement document such as cost in time and money and uncertain outcome. Nobody admits guilt but the question remains why would a company with time and money in spades choose to settle?
On another note most silicon valley companies operate in highly unregulated space and that is what makes them so successful financially. It takes time for governments to figure out they are loosing out on taxes and to act. In this case action by the EU has been delayed due to US protectionism. Who could forget Trumps statement that if anyone would tax them it would be the US and nobody else.
That means the real issue in this case is about consumer awareness, not Apple blocking users from alternate payment methods on an iPhone. The EU is attempting to say that the anti-competitive part is not allowing communications within an app that inform consumers about the ability to pay for things on the internet. IMO, that's a fairly flimsy stance in 2021. In order to use the phone, consumers have to purchase cellular plans and those purchases involve heavy marketing around data and internet capabilities. The odds of consumers not knowing that they can pay for things on the internet with an iPhone is pretty low and, IMO, doesn't rise to the level of an anti-competitive complaint.
In fact I've mentioned many times that one of the ways Apple might be able to avoid most of the competition scrutiny would be making customers fully and clearly aware of what they are buying into prior to the purchase transaction.
I very much doubt they would ever consider that route due to the dangers that it entails.
Marketers of competing platforms would have a field day with that.
However, beyond awareness (and how it is transmitted) Apple still has the problem of it being the sole channel for app distribution on iDevice platforms.
Whichever way you look at it, it does seem like a difficult arrow to avoid.
Should the company that provides the hardware platform be able to run the services for it in a commercial setting where third parties are also expected to vie for the same customers?
Where I live the companies providing rail infrastructure do not run the trains that provide the services.
Where there is some crossover, the liberalised markets are heavily regulated to ensure competition.
For example the company that installed fibre infrastructure had just a three month window of exclusivity before it had to open up the services to third party providers.
All in the name of competition.
Given the EU's terrible management in general, who knows how long the EU will be around?
"App stores play a central role in today's digital economy," added Vestager in a statement. "Our preliminary finding is that Apple is a gatekeeper to users of iPhones and iPads via the App Store."
The word 'gatekeeper' says it all. I think is exactly what they are saying.
The App Store being the sole distribution channel makes Apple the gatekeeper.
They can choose their App Store but only one App Store with the OS burning all data & apps upon switching. Also, OS updates are only available on the real App Store.
This should satisfy the EU’s petty pseudo-libertarian fallacies. Apple should also declare war on fake-choice, educating its massive user base that Liberty is in the determination of your options, not the selection of someone else’s. That way, in a few years there won’t be an EU to worry about.
If the internet were relevant in this case, the formal investigation would never have got off the ground in the first place.
European Commission says Apple isn't in breach ofgiving the EU competition lawenough graft
Fixed that for ya.