Time to leave? According to the EU change everything you do that makes you unique, that allows you sell tech devices that you make? Maybe a separate iPhone, iPad, and AppleWatch just for the EU, these devices will only have Apple software and nothing else like a game console maybe the only way forward. The other 75% of the world gets the best of the Apple ecosystems the EU just gets pure Apple base software and nothing else.
In short take the iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch private software wise in the EU sell them to the European public with no pretense of anything beyond Apple software …..
No Whatsapp on an iPhone would mean no sale in the EU.
The EU is a huge market for Apple. Too big to miss out on. It will comply because that is what it always says. They comply with all the laws and regulations where they operate.
I live in the EU but hate EU bureaucrats.
When is the US government going to step up? Sooner or later rhe EU is going to mandate the form factor of devices.
But this is a farce. But scammer, criminals will be very happy! Are consumer who sideload malware and the device get compromised going to call the EU for help?
No, Apple an other companies get the blame and their reputation will for sure sink.
Let the EU develop, market and support their own phone.
No, you don't live in the EU, you live in a sovereign country. The EU is taking too much power away from the country you live in. Did you have any voice in voting for anyone in charge of the EU? Probably not.
There are elections to the European Parliament every five years. Over 400 million citizens are eligible to vote.
I live in Spain. Part of the EU and still a sovereign country but one that decided to sign up to the EU and voted (via referendum) to accept the EU constitution and the single currency.
EU directives are transposed into national Spanish law.
Maybe we will be lucky enough to elect new leaders to Congress this Fall who will threaten EU tariffs if this is implemented
All the “gatekeepers” will be American
There's not that much that comes out of the EU that's worth buying so adding tariffs to subpar products isn't going to hurt the EU. The only thing that might hurt is to put major tariffs on everything coming from VW Corporation. We don't need any wines from any country in the EU, CA, WA and NY satisfy the majority of American wine drinkers.
I recently read a paper on 'strategic dependencies' between the EU and the US.
The US has far more strategic dependency on the EU than the other way around.
The US is dependent on the EU for 260 products. The EU is dependent on the US for 15.
Apple’s foray into sleazy advertising in the App Store has greatly reduced my trust in their stewardship, so I’m ambivalent about this.
As others have noted, the Mac has other app stores and “side loading” and works pretty well. It’s true that iOS is more secure than the Mac, and some people will be hurt by this change, but some will also benefit. This also seems like the kind of thing that apple could comply with in the EU but not elsewhere.
Is America going after any European companies for anything? Why are we letting them do this to us?
and we are fighting their Ukraine war for them which is causing our inflation to stay sky high
Why is our current government not helping out companies against these wack jobs?
I didn’t vote for Trump but what he is saying about these current idiot people in charge being Ukraine, Europe first and America last rings pretty true….
The US administration is stopping many EU companies from doing business with China.
Hundreds of millions in lost revenues.
Those companies are not happy.
They are seeking to reduce US dependencies as a result.
But then again, the same measures are impacting US companies too, and for much higher values.
Maybe due to security concerns Apple should ensure all Apple Services do not work once an app is downloaded from a 3rd party app store. Trying to install such an app should warn the user before install of course.
Let people use a different browser, mail client, photos app, music app etc if they want to use an app from an insecure app store.
They're calling them "gatekeepers" if they're above a certain size and market cap. Per Apple, that designation is largely meaningless from a "competition" standpoint since the EU never demonstrated that the apps in the App Store weren't competitive for price versus other platforms that had third party stores or apps that installed via internet download. If you can't demonstrate a problem with prices, what are you doing it for? Answer: to levy fines and allow billion/trillion dollar companies to charge commissions on iOS.
avon b7 said: You make a case for Apple wanting to have its cake and eat it. Of course, mostly that is what Apple does. It's Apple's way or the highway.
Apple controls its own IP and product line. That's the way it's supposed to work. Consumers were never limited to only buying an Apple product.
blastdoor said: As others have noted, the Mac has other app stores and “side loading” and works pretty well.
And video game consoles don't have other app stores or side loading and they work pretty well. They could also run productivity apps too but the companies that manufacture them don't allow it. In the past, this type of control was always considered appropriate for the company that was manufacturing the hardware and creating the operating system that ran on it. Nintendo won a major lawsuit in the past where their control of software on their own hardware platform was claimed to be an antitrust violation.
avon b7 said: You make a case for Apple wanting to have its cake and eat it. Of course, mostly that is what Apple does. It's Apple's way or the highway.
Apple controls its own IP and product line. That's the way it's supposed to work. Consumers were never limited to only buying an Apple product.
If you 'touch' the outside world through App Store commerce you have to abide by whatever consumer regulations are in place. If Apple shut down the store and only shipped first party apps, no doubt there would be no issue at all.
It's also possible they could make potential buyers sign up to Apple’s policies and formally accept the situation but prior to purchase and having Apple's limitations clearly spelt out to them. That might work although I think spelling the limitations out would actually lead to less sales because the vast majority of buyers are simply unaware that they exist.
avon b7 said: You make a case for Apple wanting to have its cake and eat it. Of course, mostly that is what Apple does. It's Apple's way or the highway.
Apple controls its own IP and product line. That's the way it's supposed to work. Consumers were never limited to only buying an Apple product.
If you 'touch' the outside world through App Store commerce you have to abide by whatever consumer regulations are in place. If Apple shut down the store and only shipped first party apps, no doubt there would be no issue at all.
It's also possible they could make potential buyers sign up to Apple’s policies and formally accept the situation but prior to purchase and having Apple's limitations clearly spelt out to them. That might work although I think spelling the limitations out would actually lead to less sales because the vast majority of buyers are simply unaware that they exist.
Sure, but the EU's DMA regulations have nothing to do with "competition" when it comes to Apple. That's just the front for the fines and handing out access to commissions for the billion/trillion dollar companies that lobbied the EU. As for Apple's policies, the idea that the vast majority of iPhone/iPad consumers are unaware in 2022 that they have to download apps through the App Store only is laughable. Android's original marketing campaigns back in 2009/2010 constantly emphasized the differences between the platforms. Google viewed Apple's approach to be a liability when it came to competition not a strength.
avon b7 said: You make a case for Apple wanting to have its cake and eat it. Of course, mostly that is what Apple does. It's Apple's way or the highway.
Apple controls its own IP and product line. That's the way it's supposed to work. Consumers were never limited to only buying an Apple product.
If you 'touch' the outside world through App Store commerce you have to abide by whatever consumer regulations are in place. If Apple shut down the store and only shipped first party apps, no doubt there would be no issue at all.
It's also possible they could make potential buyers sign up to Apple’s policies and formally accept the situation but prior to purchase and having Apple's limitations clearly spelt out to them. That might work although I think spelling the limitations out would actually lead to less sales because the vast majority of buyers are simply unaware that they exist.
Sure, but the EU's DMA regulations have nothing to do with "competition" when it comes to Apple. That's just the front for the fines and handing out access to commissions for the billion/trillion dollar companies that lobbied the EU. As for Apple's policies, the idea that the vast majority of iPhone/iPad consumers are unaware in 2022 that they have to download apps through the App Store only is laughable. Android's original marketing campaigns back in 2009/2010 constantly emphasized the differences between the platforms. Google viewed Apple's approach to be a liability when it came to competition not a strength.
There is a competition angle in that Apple’s store is the only one allowed.
Consumers know that there is one store but the vast majority know very little more about what goes on behind the scenes: commissions, policies, favouring its own, apps etc.
blastdoor said: As others have noted, the Mac has other app stores and “side loading” and works pretty well.
And video game consoles don't have other app stores or side loading and they work pretty well. They could also run productivity apps too but the companies that manufacture them don't allow it. In the past, this type of control was always considered appropriate for the company that was manufacturing the hardware and creating the operating system that ran on it. Nintendo won a major lawsuit in the past where their control of software on their own hardware platform was claimed to be an antitrust violation.
Yeah, if Apple has to allow third-party app stores etc, then I don't see how it makes any sense at all not to require the same thing of game console makers.
blastdoor said: As others have noted, the Mac has other app stores and “side loading” and works pretty well.
And video game consoles don't have other app stores or side loading and they work pretty well. They could also run productivity apps too but the companies that manufacture them don't allow it. In the past, this type of control was always considered appropriate for the company that was manufacturing the hardware and creating the operating system that ran on it. Nintendo won a major lawsuit in the past where their control of software on their own hardware platform was claimed to be an antitrust violation.
Yeah, if Apple has to allow third-party app stores etc, then I don't see how it makes any sense at all not to require the same thing of game console makers.
There is a difference between Apple devices and consoles from a customer POV. You can purchase games from different retailers, while iOS devices are forced to use the App Store.
avon b7 said: You make a case for Apple wanting to have its cake and eat it. Of course, mostly that is what Apple does. It's Apple's way or the highway.
Apple controls its own IP and product line. That's the way it's supposed to work. Consumers were never limited to only buying an Apple product.
If you 'touch' the outside world through App Store commerce you have to abide by whatever consumer regulations are in place. If Apple shut down the store and only shipped first party apps, no doubt there would be no issue at all.
It's also possible they could make potential buyers sign up to Apple’s policies and formally accept the situation but prior to purchase and having Apple's limitations clearly spelt out to them. That might work although I think spelling the limitations out would actually lead to less sales because the vast majority of buyers are simply unaware that they exist.
These laws aren’t meant to protect consumers! These laws are meant to protect EU developers and to punish American big tech for winning? No point in getting wordy.
how much cheaper are apps going beyond the 99 cent the Apple App Store has pushed them.
Be honest or at least try to have an open mind. Do you really agree that a foreign nation (EU) should be able to write a law that only targets American corporations? The gate keeper analogy is bullshit and you know it. Laws should target behaviors.
*This law will basically take IP from American companies and give it away for free to the benefit of none except EU bureaucrats.
avon b7 said: You make a case for Apple wanting to have its cake and eat it. Of course, mostly that is what Apple does. It's Apple's way or the highway.
Apple controls its own IP and product line. That's the way it's supposed to work. Consumers were never limited to only buying an Apple product.
If you 'touch' the outside world through App Store commerce you have to abide by whatever consumer regulations are in place. If Apple shut down the store and only shipped first party apps, no doubt there would be no issue at all.
It's also possible they could make potential buyers sign up to Apple’s policies and formally accept the situation but prior to purchase and having Apple's limitations clearly spelt out to them. That might work although I think spelling the limitations out would actually lead to less sales because the vast majority of buyers are simply unaware that they exist.
These laws aren’t meant to protect consumers! These laws are meant to protect EU developers and to punish American big tech for winning? No point in getting wordy.
how much cheaper are apps going beyond the 99 cent the Apple App Store has pushed them.
Be honest or at least try to have an open mind. Do you really agree that a foreign nation (EU) should be able to write a law that only targets American corporations? The gate keeper analogy is bullshit and you know it. Laws should target behaviors.
*This law will basically take IP from American companies and give it away for free to the benefit of none except EU bureaucrats.
*It will destroy encrypted communication
Apple has 3 poor alternatives:
Comply completely
Create separate EU products and fight in court
Leave the EU
The law is well explained, it applies to any companies that meet the criteria. It isn't a case of EU vs US and yes, it is to protect consumers (among other things).
So you agree it’s targeting American Corps by design?
Not at all. The design is to identify gatekeepers wherever they are based, not to specifically target American companies.
All companies currently falling into the gatekeeper group are probably laughing to themselves that they managed to hold onto that status for so long in the EU.
That status going unchecked only served for them to tighten their grip on the market.
Now, something for you to reflect on. The US looks likely to follow the EU with similar legislation. I suppose you will direct your claims to the US government if that actually happens and EU companies don't get impacted.
avon b7 said: There is a competition angle in that Apple’s store is the only one allowed.
It's the only one allowed on iOS/iPadOS. But those aren't the only operating systems available to the public to run apps. You've also got Android, Windows, macOS, Linux and all the various systems that run on gaming consoles. Cross platform app development is not a rare thing. It's very common. And like I said previously, that single store on iOS/iPad has never been shown to have higher prices than any of those other operating systems I listed. The EU is saying there's a "competition" problem without backing it up with data that relates to standard consumer concerns like price, quality and selection. IMO, the reason there's no data supporting that is specifically because of cross platform development being so robust. That's what the real competition is: apps that have the most success across the widest variety of operating systems. The irony is that apps like Spotify and Fortnite are perfect examples of that type of success despite all of the play acting they do to legislators about being victims.
Comments
The EU is a huge market for Apple. Too big to miss out on. It will comply because that is what it always says. They comply with all the laws and regulations where they operate.
I live in Spain. Part of the EU and still a sovereign country but one that decided to sign up to the EU and voted (via referendum) to accept the EU constitution and the single currency.
EU directives are transposed into national Spanish law.
The US has far more strategic dependency on the EU than the other way around.
The US is dependent on the EU for 260 products. The EU is dependent on the US for 15.
As others have noted, the Mac has other app stores and “side loading” and works pretty well. It’s true that iOS is more secure than the Mac, and some people will be hurt by this change, but some will also benefit. This also seems like the kind of thing that apple could comply with in the EU but not elsewhere.
Hundreds of millions in lost revenues.
Those companies are not happy.
They are seeking to reduce US dependencies as a result.
But then again, the same measures are impacting US companies too, and for much higher values.
It's also possible they could make potential buyers sign up to Apple’s policies and formally accept the situation but prior to purchase and having Apple's limitations clearly spelt out to them. That might work although I think spelling the limitations out would actually lead to less sales because the vast majority of buyers are simply unaware that they exist.
Consumers know that there is one store but the vast majority know very little more about what goes on behind the scenes: commissions, policies, favouring its own, apps etc.
how much cheaper are apps going beyond the 99 cent the Apple App Store has pushed them.
Be honest or at least try to have an open mind. Do you really agree that a foreign nation (EU) should be able to write a law that only targets American corporations? The gate keeper analogy is bullshit and you know it. Laws should target behaviors.
Apple has 3 poor alternatives:
Comply completely
Create separate EU products and fight in court
Leave the EU
All companies currently falling into the gatekeeper group are probably laughing to themselves that they managed to hold onto that status for so long in the EU.
That status going unchecked only served for them to tighten their grip on the market.
Now, something for you to reflect on. The US looks likely to follow the EU with similar legislation. I suppose you will direct your claims to the US government if that actually happens and EU companies don't get impacted.