The letter of the law and the spirit of the law go hand in hand.
If the directive in this case specifically mentions a type of action that will be seen as counter to the directive but isn't explicitly spelled out as such, but Apple 'complies' precisely with actions that are interpreted as counter to the directive, the spirit of the law will be taken into account at some point when things are escalated and that spirit will be chiseled into the letter on stone.
This has happened numerous times with the banks. The last time was just last Thursday when the highest EU court sent a very strong and crystal clear message to the Spanish banking system (overriding decisions by the highest Spanish courts in the process).
In this case it was on the statute of limitations for claiming unlawful costs imposed on consumers in mortgage contracts. There was debate on when exactly the deadline for claiming would be. Some legal experts said last week, others said in April (as COVID-19 effectively shut down the legal system for many of the affected).
The top EU court didn't run with either and went in a completely different direction. The deadline is now secondary as the period is now deemed to begin when the consumer becomes aware of the abusive practices. No one saw that coming. Difficult to prove in the best of cases but the banks mostly did nothing to help consumers understand the wrongdoing they were perfectly aware of.
It would have been great if the banks had been forced to make consumers aware of the abuse when the abuses were first deemed illegal but that didn't happen and the Spanish higher courts actively tried to interpret (twist) some EU decisions, making them favorable to the banking system in detriment to the consumer. That is the situation with another case (this time regarding the calculation behind a type of index linked to mortgages) which has been escalated by lower tier Spanish judges for the EU courts to sort out. Once again, the banks are on thin ice and it is very likely that the language used in final decisions will leave no wriggle room and will come down in favor of consumers. In this case the letter of the law is unquestionable but runs against the spirit of the law. How can a consumer understand a calculation if the calculation isn't specifically stated in any legal reference (merely referenced elsewhere)?
It is a crazy situation and everyone is well aware of the injustice involved but the law is the law - until, in this case, the higher EU courts come down on it and force change. Once again the banking system has sat back and said 'we comply' (aided by some very iffy 'interpretations' by Spanish superior courts) but I would bet my grandmother that the EU will have none of it.
I doubt Apple wants to find itself in that situation but it's trying to protect it's bottom line.
It should be clear to all what the EU directive aims to tackle. If Apple cooks up a system that it says it believes to be compliant but in reality is already raising eyebrows across the board, perhaps it should be thinking twice about how it managed to let the plan get presented in the first place. Gaming the system some might say. With the directive 'as is' I think the intention of the law is clear and Apple is not complying with it.
The EU, unlike the US, believes in the spirit of the law, instead of the word of the law, Apple should have realised that.
Apple cannot win this one by using legal loopholes. I suspect if this continues we may see one of two possibilities:-
I) Apple exits the EU.
II) The EU bans Apple within its borders.
I suspect Apple doesn't want to give up the European market to Samsung and Google, so the first one is highly dependent on whether Apple can still get a profit with side loading existing.
Of course they can make a profit, a major profit in fact. Few people will sideload, and Google has managed quite a few billion in profit from the Play Store despite several 3rd party app stores on the Android platform. This is all about Apple muscle-flexing and not any signifcant danger to profits nor security IMO
Where Google doesn't exist, CHINA, their app stores are infested with viruses and other garbage.
Spotify CEO Daniel Ek called the fees "extortion, plain and simple," while Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney referred to it as "hot garbage" and a "devious new instance of malicious compliance."
So EU regulators will assess plans with feedback from third parties, like this one? And they suggest that Apple test their proposal with these third parties? And the deadline is a month away? What delusional universe are these politicians living in?
Third parties would like to pay ZERO — how will getting feedback from third parties help in any way? If the issue is the core technology fee, the alternative is to bill for each API use. This would just add more complexity and cost. I don’t think EU regulators can legally tell companies what they can charge, unless their goal is to become China or Russia.
Apple will not be able to dodge these regulations forever. Sooner or later, other countries will also join in to the fray. The only thing this is doing is wasting money on lawyers & courts.
As a customer it just makes Apple seem like a greedy company, that has lost sight of innovation. Instead of making great products, like during the time Steve Jobs led the company, such as the iPod & iPhone, Apple is now more interested with trying to exploit their past wins. Even the Vision Pro just seems like a greedy cash grab.
Spotify CEO Daniel Ek called the fees "extortion, plain and simple," while Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney referred to it as "hot garbage" and a "devious new instance of malicious compliance."
So EU regulators will assess plans with feedback from third parties, like this one? And they suggest that Apple test their proposal with these third parties? And the deadline is a month away? What delusional universe are these politicians living in?
Third parties would like to pay ZERO — how will getting feedback from third parties help in any way? If the issue is the core technology fee, the alternative is to bill for each API use. This would just add more complexity and cost. I don’t think EU regulators can legally tell companies what they can charge, unless their goal is to become China or Russia.
Third parties will use different language to convey their grievances with Apple's proposal but the message will be the same.
It won't be just the opinions of two CEOs either. Everyone will have a right to chime in (consumers included).
Apple isn't alone in having to implement changes.
On another note, OpenAI is also under the obligation to clarify its compliance will EU law. In this case the GDPR and it isn't looking good for them. Italy started the procedure.
The tone of these articles seem to present the EU regulators as constantly salivating to inflict as much damage as possible on Apple have me shaking my head. What exactly is it about Apple that the EU regulators so deeply loath? Is this a result of the EU not having an Apple-equivalent company that can compete in the same market that Apple serves? It's not like consumers don't have a choice.
If Nokia was in Apple's current position would they also be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny, forceful oversight, and harassment?
It's not that the EU doesn't have its own heavyweight companies that dominate the markets that they are in, especially in oil & gas and automotive. Maybe it's hidden out of direct view, but I don't see the US going after the big European automakers who want to sell into the US and trying to yell them how to run their businesses. Quite the contrary, it seems like the EU automakers have worked in a collaborative way with the US to build EU branded automobiles inside the US, some of which get shipped to the EU and other geographies for sale, and US automakers to source components and even assembly from other countries.
Shouldn't the EU work with Apple to come up with ways to collaborate in ways that are mutually beneficial to all parties? Do they not understand the notion of the Carrot and the Stick? The automotive folks seemingly found a way to use the Carrot. That seems to be working, not only with the EU but with Japan and South Korea. So far, I've only seen the EU vociferously waving the Stick when it comes to Apple and other consumer tech giants. They seem infatuated with the power of the Stick and immune or oblivious to using the Carrot. They are drooling at the thought of applying the Stick to Apple, whether or not it is in their best interest or the best interest of their constituents.
Some commenters have remarked about Apple's products being perceived as being "elite" and "status symbols" in the EU. I assume this has somehow created a sense of resentment. But guess what? The same exact thing can be said of certain makes of EU produced automobiles. Mercedes, Audi, and BMW automobiles are absolutely viewed as being a status symbol of success in the US, at least by those folks who cannot quite afford them or justify their high price tag. But I don't see US regulators going after Mercedes, Audi, and BMW to force them to open-up or modify their product development, partnering, supplier, or marketing strategies in ways that better serve US consumers and component suppliers.
Can US regulators set a limit on how much EU automotive companies can charge for US sales franchises? What about controlling how much a sales franchise can set dealer markups? How competitive are the contracts for sourcing components and subassemblies into the supply side of Mercedes, Audi, and BMW production? Shouldn't US consumers be able to install their own choice of infotainment systems into Mercedes, Audi, and BMW automobiles and not have to pay for the manufacturer's infotainment system? If I install a Chevy engine in my Audi, should Audi still be responsible for warranty coverage on the entire vehicle? If American regulators require 10-year, 250,000 mile warranty coverage from manufacturers at no extra cost should Mercedes, Audi, and BMW be required to meet this standard to qualify to sell into the US?
The bottom line is that nobody has to buy a BMW and nobody has to buy an iPhone. There are more than enough choices with both types of products to allow consumers to choose to determine the success or failure of these products in the market using their wallets. Imposing unnecessary constraints and penalties on the sale of these products under the veil of "consumer choice" or "consumer protection" or "market competition" is a farce. Why not own it and say what it really is: "protectionism." The US has done it too, e.g., large displacement motorcycles, so there's no shame in admitting that a policy is being employed due to a domestic inability to compete. Better yet, dig around in the closet and find your Carrot. That may result in a better solution, especially when it comes to consumer choice.
People keep using the phrase "spirit of the law" while conveniently forgetting that neither Spotify nor Epic had any real competitive issues per Apple. Spotify moved payments for subscriptions to the internet and ended up with 99% of subscriptions NOT being subject to Apple's commission. Epic ported Fortnite to iOS/Android to increase their total revenue by about 15% or so. Similar to most game developers that primarily target consoles/Windows, Epic didn't really need to make a mobile version and was also perfectly fine with paying 30% commission on a substantially larger portion of their revenue on non-mobile devices.
Surely the "spirit of the law" shouldn't be centered around companies that either lied (Spotify) or greatly exaggerated (Epic) their competitive issues with Apple?
The EU, unlike the US, believes in the spirit of the law, instead of the word of the law, Apple should have realised that.
Apple cannot win this one by using legal loopholes. I suspect if this continues we may see one of two possibilities:-
I) Apple exits the EU.
II) The EU bans Apple within its borders.
I suspect Apple doesn't want to give up the European market to Samsung and Google, so the first one is highly dependent on whether Apple can still get a profit with side loading existing.
Also, it is possible that other countries implement a DMA equivalent law (Japan is already in the process of doing so) so exiting markets will be shooting themselves in the foot.
One thing is sure, the next decade will be different for Apple than the previous one.
Spoken like a true socialist
Apple opened up the browser, NFC, and allows game streaming apps. And, allows distributions of apps outside of the App Store - do you think Apple should get zero compensation for that?
Laws are written. Apple followed every letter of the law
They should get as much say in what is installed and paid as much as Microsoft gets paid when I install a Program outside the store on my PC or as much as Apple gets paid when I install a mac App outside the App Store. Free our devices from the tyranny of Apple (only mildly exaggerating)
This is precisely the competition that the EU and other complainers are ignoring. If you want a system that functions like Windows or Android, you can buy a device running Windows or Android. You have that choice.
The iPhone was the first major computing platform developed after popular use of the internet became a thing. Platforms designed to allow open installation of third-party applications is a legacy from an era when individual computing devices were not connected to a network. There were already huge vulnerabilities to that paradigm, but those were at least limited by the fact that most computing devices were not connected to or were only infrequently connected to any sort of network. As the internet was thrown on top of those existing systems, security vulnerabilities increased exponentially.
The iPhone was designed from the ground up as an always-connected device. Initially, this meant that third-party applications simply were not an option, period. As they later developed the App Store, they created it with the question how do we keep an always-connected internet device secure in mind. That's why there's been no side-loading of apps in iOS, and why that's different from even MacOS, which is also a legacy from the pre-internet era. In fact, MacOS has continually tightened up and moved toward the closed iOS model, not the other way around.
It's fairly inexplicable why the geniuses at Google went with the legacy model of the olden days, rather than using the forethought to realize that starting from scratch on a new platform gives the opportunity to think about what it is and should be, rather than un-creatively carrying forward the vulnerabilities inherent in applying how things used to work to a new reality. But they did it the old-school way, so for people who think those security holes equal "freedom," they have that option to choose. This is why those who actually want the always-connected device designed with that reality in mind should be able to continue to choose Apple, without the EU sending everyone back to 1986.
AppleZulu said: It's fairly inexplicable why the geniuses at Google went with the legacy model of the olden days, rather than using the forethought to realize that starting from scratch on a new platform gives the opportunity to think about what it is and should be, rather than un-creatively carrying forward the vulnerabilities inherent in applying how things used to work to a new reality.
IMO, it was basically the "Windows won on desktop so Windows will win on mobile" idea. Google thought Apple's approach was a competitive liability. That's another of the layers of irony regarding the EU's current stance.
The problem with any third party or even the European Union government dictating terms to Apple that make alternative app stores the cheaper, easier solution to Apple is that it doesn’t even the playing field at all.
Such a “solution” puts Apple at a disadvantage and everyone else above them. How the hell is that fair?
Apple has already abide by the EU demand and has done so in a way that is fair and equitable. There is no way to have a problem with this legitimately.
Of course, the third parties that the EU consults with are going to want Apple to give them so much that it amounts to freeloading.
If the EU and other governments resort to these mafia style taxtics, punishing businesses for being successful, then it will de-incentivize other business from pushing the envelope and striving for success.
Apple has spent the time energy and money to build this platform, succeeding against all odds. And the EU wants to reward them by giving their stuff away and forcing them to prioritize others’ profits above their own? The heck with that!
This is where it would be great to have strong American leadership take this up with the EU. Hopefully next year.
The tone of these articles seem to present the EU regulators as constantly salivating to inflict as much damage as possible on Apple have me shaking my head. What exactly is it about Apple that the EU regulators so deeply loath? Is this a result of the EU not having an Apple-equivalent company that can compete in the same market that Apple serves? It's not like consumers don't have a choice.
If Nokia was in Apple's current position would they also be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny, forceful oversight, and harassment?
It's not that the EU doesn't have its own heavyweight companies that dominate the markets that they are in, especially in oil & gas and automotive. Maybe it's hidden out of direct view, but I don't see the US going after the big European automakers who want to sell into the US and trying to yell them how to run their businesses. Quite the contrary, it seems like the EU automakers have worked in a collaborative way with the US to build EU branded automobiles inside the US, some of which get shipped to the EU and other geographies for sale, and US automakers to source components and even assembly from other countries.
Shouldn't the EU work with Apple to come up with ways to collaborate in ways that are mutually beneficial to all parties? Do they not understand the notion of the Carrot and the Stick? The automotive folks seemingly found a way to use the Carrot. That seems to be working, not only with the EU but with Japan and South Korea. So far, I've only seen the EU vociferously waving the Stick when it comes to Apple and other consumer tech giants. They seem infatuated with the power of the Stick and immune or oblivious to using the Carrot. They are drooling at the thought of applying the Stick to Apple, whether or not it is in their best interest or the best interest of their constituents.
Some commenters have remarked about Apple's products being perceived as being "elite" and "status symbols" in the EU. I assume this has somehow created a sense of resentment. But guess what? The same exact thing can be said of certain makes of EU produced automobiles. Mercedes, Audi, and BMW automobiles are absolutely viewed as being a status symbol of success in the US, at least by those folks who cannot quite afford them or justify their high price tag. But I don't see US regulators going after Mercedes, Audi, and BMW to force them to open-up or modify their product development, partnering, supplier, or marketing strategies in ways that better serve US consumers and component suppliers.
Can US regulators set a limit on how much EU automotive companies can charge for US sales franchises? What about controlling how much a sales franchise can set dealer markups? How competitive are the contracts for sourcing components and subassemblies into the supply side of Mercedes, Audi, and BMW production? Shouldn't US consumers be able to install their own choice of infotainment systems into Mercedes, Audi, and BMW automobiles and not have to pay for the manufacturer's infotainment system? If I install a Chevy engine in my Audi, should Audi still be responsible for warranty coverage on the entire vehicle? If American regulators require 10-year, 250,000 mile warranty coverage from manufacturers at no extra cost should Mercedes, Audi, and BMW be required to meet this standard to qualify to sell into the US?
The bottom line is that nobody has to buy a BMW and nobody has to buy an iPhone. There are more than enough choices with both types of products to allow consumers to choose to determine the success or failure of these products in the market using their wallets. Imposing unnecessary constraints and penalties on the sale of these products under the veil of "consumer choice" or "consumer protection" or "market competition" is a farce. Why not own it and say what it really is: "protectionism." The US has done it too, e.g., large displacement motorcycles, so there's no shame in admitting that a policy is being employed due to a domestic inability to compete. Better yet, dig around in the closet and find your Carrot. That may result in a better solution, especially when it comes to consumer choice.
There is no loathing within the ranks of EU regulators.
I suggest you read up on the reasons this directive was necessary.
That is where everything begins in the preamble to the directive.
The very same considerations can be applied to gatekeepers in many (if not all) countries where they enjoy a stranglehold on competition.
Big Tech has flourished in the EU and largely because of previous directives which allowed it flourish.
Namely all the ICT related laws which remain far, far ahead of US equivalents and forced the big ICT players to open up, compete and even share ICT infrastructure.
The US pales when compared to the EU in this aspect. Giants like Nokia and Ericsson advanced the core backbone technologies and the carriers deployed it.
The most important Mobile World Conference is held in Europe.
Those same carriers have demanded year after year that they be allowed to charge Big Tech for saturating their network capacity.
The EU has refused to take this on board.
Just like with the analogue to digital switch in numerous fields, first movers often have a chance to get a foothold. They can also become entrenched.
That has happened and competition is now suffering as a result. The digital era on mobile should not be a two horse competition where spoils are shared.
The US is not far away from deciding if Google paying Apple is an example of that. Is Google paying to be default or for Apple not to compete?
The exact same considerations will be looked at here in the EU. Only time will tell which way it will swing.
This isn't an anti-Apple thing either.
The thresholds were set and the net was cast. Any EU entities meeting the criteria would also be affected.
As for the spirit of the law and interpretation, things have consistently been laid out in clear language:
"When a gatekeeper engages in unfair practices, such as imposing unfair access conditions to their app store or preventing installation of applications from other sources, consumers are likely to pay more or are effectively deprived of the benefits that alternative services might have brought."
The goals are clear but it seems Apple wants to get specific on terms like 'unfair' while understanding perfectly well the ultimate goals of the EU.
It is very likely it will come afoul because appeal after appeal, those terms will end up with clear definitions.
We will probably end up with new definitions to cover aspects like modern day abuse of dominant position and that is because, and it is clearly spelt out in numerous areas of the final text, times have changed dramatically over the last ten years and the whole DSA/DMA package is a first stab at legislating it and in its own words 'leveling the digital playing field'.
To understand what's happening it is imperitive to read through the text. I'd wager that 99% of commenters in this thread haven't read a single word of the texts.
It's far from perfect but no text will be perfect out of the gate.
Just like with all previous directives, they will get revised over time.
The EU, unlike the US, believes in the spirit of the law, instead of the word of the law, Apple should have realised that.
Apple cannot win this one by using legal loopholes. I suspect if this continues we may see one of two possibilities:-
I) Apple exits the EU.
II) The EU bans Apple within its borders.
I suspect Apple doesn't want to give up the European market to Samsung and Google, so the first one is highly dependent on whether Apple can still get a profit with side loading existing.
Of course they can make a profit, a major profit in fact. Few people will sideload, and Google has managed quite a few billion in profit from the Play Store despite several 3rd party app stores on the Android platform. This is all about Apple muscle-flexing and not any signifcant danger to profits nor security IMO
Where Google doesn't exist, CHINA, their app stores are infested with viruses and other garbage.
Agreed that the same might happen in those countries where Apple's AppStore doesn't operate, but I'm not aware of any significant economies where they don't play.
When can EU realize that their law and regulations will NOT make the environment more competitive among Apple and others?
The best competition is always offering a competitive infrastructure in Europe where talented people NEVER leave Europe, but build their own enterprises and make them larger and bigger.
Europe has lost their decades to catch up with American tech enterprises and face more and more newcomers, which threat European enterprises.
You have AI. What does Europe do instead of building their own AI competitors? Regulation.
It is not sustainable to defend the European market with more regulations.
Language barrier, living in a rude and stubborn environment, too high taxes...
Europe is losing and losing talented kids to the US.
Learn from Apple, Microsoft, OpenAi, Meta, Netflix instead of punishing them. Study how Europe can build such enterprises and make them to US competitors.
When can EU realize that their law and regulations will NOT make the environment more competitive among Apple and others?
The best competition is always offering a competitive infrastructure in Europe where talented people NEVER leave Europe, but build their own enterprises and make them larger and bigger.
Europe has lost their decades to catch up with American tech enterprises and face more and more newcomers, which threat European enterprises.
You have AI. What does Europe do instead of building their own AI competitors? Regulation.
It is not sustainable to defend the European market with more regulations.
Language barrier, living in a rude and stubborn environment, too high taxes...
Europe is losing and losing talented kids to the US.
Learn from Apple, Microsoft, OpenAi, Meta, Netflix instead of punishing them. Study how Europe can build such enterprises and make them to US competitors.
AI absolutely must be regulated. No one anywhere would argue otherwise.
Yet, in spite of our regulations, people here are overwhelmingly happy with the EU in general.
Nothing will ever be perfect for everyone but issues such as Healthcare, Climate, Security and Poverty are top concerns. That shows an interest for greater good and improving quality of life.
Apple opened up the browser, NFC, and allows game streaming apps. And, allows distributions of apps outside of the App Store
All of which they were compelled to do due to regulation, not out of a spirit for fair competition. The new app store policies that allow distribution of apps outside the iOS app store were made in such a way to make the process almost impossible to do monetarily while still being a gatekeeper to that process.
do you think Apple should get zero compensation for that?
Isn't over 50% margin on the sale of iPhones compensation? Apple makes so much money on iphones alone that those profits should be able to fund all of their other hardware projects and software departments and even R&D. Airpods, Macs and watches don't hold a candle to the profit they make on iPhones. They could give free Airpods with iPhones and still make profit (this data is publicly available).
Yet, Apple double dips (yearly developer program charges), triple dips (monthly 30% cut from developers), and is now planning to quad dip (core technology charges). At one point, intervention was inevitable, I only thought it would be developers protesting instead of government regulation. However, even with regulation they will make record profits on hardware sales. I don't think they are in a position to sympathize with.
Did you join an hour ago here so you can argue for Spotify?
Apple did everything the DMA required. Every single thing. Let it go back to the courts, then to appeal, and then finally to the Court of Justice. Maybe we'll have some clarification in 2027. Until then, Apple's business terms apply
Yes, I did create this account today as I don't have access to my previous one.
However, that should be inconsequential to the statements I made and their validity.
We will know whether the new policies follow the DMA in March.
Wow. So he was right. LOL
the reason he called you out was that lots and lots of folks have done the same thing you did just to bag on. Apple here. Looks like you and your "points" are no different. If you. stick around and have healthy contributions, you will have earned tryst and be viewed differently. But this really just seems like a throwaway account to bag on Apple and defend socialistic totalitarian regulation.
The EU, unlike the US, believes in the spirit of the law, instead of the word of the law, Apple should have realised that.
Apple cannot win this one by using legal loopholes. I suspect if this continues we may see one of two possibilities:-
I) Apple exits the EU.
II) The EU bans Apple within its borders.
I suspect Apple doesn't want to give up the European market to Samsung and Google, so the first one is highly dependent on whether Apple can still get a profit with side loading existing.
Also, it is possible that other countries implement a DMA equivalent law (Japan is already in the process of doing so) so exiting markets will be shooting themselves in the foot.
One thing is sure, the next decade will be different for Apple than the previous one.
Spoken like a true socialist
Apple opened up the browser, NFC, and allows game streaming apps. And, allows distributions of apps outside of the App Store - do you think Apple should get zero compensation for that?
Laws are written. Apple followed every letter of the law
They should get as much say in what is installed and paid as much as Microsoft gets paid when I install a Program outside the store on my PC or as much as Apple gets paid when I install a mac App outside the App Store. Free our devices from the tyranny of Apple (only mildly exaggerating)
Aren't you being the tyrant (not exaggerating at all) by demanding others do with their IP, as you want them to do? Who are you to demand that Apple should not be paid by others, for the commercial use of their IP, because that's the way you want it to be?
The reason why Microsoft is not being paid (by you) every time you install software on to a PC with Windows is because that's the way Microsoft wants it. Not because it's the way you want it to be. Microsoft already made their money by selling licenses to use Windows on a PC. Either you paid for that license by buying a retail version of Windows or by buying a PC with Windows already installed, (where the PC vendors paid for the Windows license.) And even if you pirated a copy of Windows for a home built PC, the software developers are paying Microsoft for a license to develop for Windows. So Microsoft is being "paid", even if you don't know it. That's Microsoft business model with Windows. Microsoft do not make money from the sale of the hardware. But they want Windows on as many computers as possible.
Apple Mac operates nearly under the same business model. It has to to compete with PC's. Though Apple no longer charge for MacOS (OSX) because they make money selling the Mac hardware. A MacOS (OSX) only comes with Mac. and whether you're the original purchaser or not, it's owning a Mac that gets you the license for MacOS (OSX). This because of the way Apple has it, not because it's the way you want it.
Google Android business model is like that for a computer because that's how Google wants it. With Android, you might not think you're "paying" to sideload on you your device but Google is getting "paid". Google is after your (and every ones) personal data and using Android makes it much easier for them to mine it. The more mobile users on Android, the more Google is getting "paid", whether you know it or not.
It's up to Apple to choose the business model they want for iOS, on their mobile devices, not you. Apple do not make money selling iOS to third party mobile device makers or to any Apple device owners. Nor is it Apple business model to mine customers personal data to profit from targeted advertising. Apple make their money by selling devices with iOS installed. Apple is not using iOS to compete in the OS market. They are using iOS to compete in the mobile device market. So Apple business model to use iOS to attract consumers to purchase Apple devices. Apple do not consider their mobile devices as "PC's", no more than Microsoft consider their game console as a "PC". Microsoft has control of all the software that can be installed on to an Xbox and you are not in any position to say what Microsoft gets paid for software installed on to an Xbpx.
So who are you to demand that Apple has to treat their iOS, that same way they treat their MacOS or the same way Microsoft treat Windows or the same way Google treat Android? The EU?
BTW- speaking of the EU and tyrants, it wasn't that long ago that many EU countries were still ruled by tyrants. This before the EU of course. Or before they joined the EU.
There is unlikely to be even a single thing you have ever bought in your home that didn’t have AT LEAST a 30 percent markup, and many many things you routinely buy (clothes/food/gas) have much higher markups.
Back when software came in a box, it was at minimum a 50 percent markup and generally much higher. Apple revolutionized the market by LOWERING market to a max of 30 percent.
Comments
If the directive in this case specifically mentions a type of action that will be seen as counter to the directive but isn't explicitly spelled out as such, but Apple 'complies' precisely with actions that are interpreted as counter to the directive, the spirit of the law will be taken into account at some point when things are escalated and that spirit will be chiseled into the letter on stone.
This has happened numerous times with the banks. The last time was just last Thursday when the highest EU court sent a very strong and crystal clear message to the Spanish banking system (overriding decisions by the highest Spanish courts in the process).
In this case it was on the statute of limitations for claiming unlawful costs imposed on consumers in mortgage contracts. There was debate on when exactly the deadline for claiming would be. Some legal experts said last week, others said in April (as COVID-19 effectively shut down the legal system for many of the affected).
The top EU court didn't run with either and went in a completely different direction. The deadline is now secondary as the period is now deemed to begin when the consumer becomes aware of the abusive practices. No one saw that coming. Difficult to prove in the best of cases but the banks mostly did nothing to help consumers understand the wrongdoing they were perfectly aware of.
It would have been great if the banks had been forced to make consumers aware of the abuse when the abuses were first deemed illegal but that didn't happen and the Spanish higher courts actively tried to interpret (twist) some EU decisions, making them favorable to the banking system in detriment to the consumer. That is the situation with another case (this time regarding the calculation behind a type of index linked to mortgages) which has been escalated by lower tier Spanish judges for the EU courts to sort out. Once again, the banks are on thin ice and it is very likely that the language used in final decisions will leave no wriggle room and will come down in favor of consumers. In this case the letter of the law is unquestionable but runs against the spirit of the law. How can a consumer understand a calculation if the calculation isn't specifically stated in any legal reference (merely referenced elsewhere)?
It is a crazy situation and everyone is well aware of the injustice involved but the law is the law - until, in this case, the higher EU courts come down on it and force change. Once again the banking system has sat back and said 'we comply' (aided by some very iffy 'interpretations' by Spanish superior courts) but I would bet my grandmother that the EU will have none of it.
I doubt Apple wants to find itself in that situation but it's trying to protect it's bottom line.
It should be clear to all what the EU directive aims to tackle. If Apple cooks up a system that it says it believes to be compliant but in reality is already raising eyebrows across the board, perhaps it should be thinking twice about how it managed to let the plan get presented in the first place. Gaming the system some might say. With the directive 'as is' I think the intention of the law is clear and Apple is not complying with it.
We'll see how things go.
EU “law” is all about the feels.
Practically no one actually understands what true capitalism is.
It won't be just the opinions of two CEOs either. Everyone will have a right to chime in (consumers included).
Apple isn't alone in having to implement changes.
On another note, OpenAI is also under the obligation to clarify its compliance will EU law. In this case the GDPR and it isn't looking good for them. Italy started the procedure.
If Nokia was in Apple's current position would they also be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny, forceful oversight, and harassment?
It's not that the EU doesn't have its own heavyweight companies that dominate the markets that they are in, especially in oil & gas and automotive. Maybe it's hidden out of direct view, but I don't see the US going after the big European automakers who want to sell into the US and trying to yell them how to run their businesses. Quite the contrary, it seems like the EU automakers have worked in a collaborative way with the US to build EU branded automobiles inside the US, some of which get shipped to the EU and other geographies for sale, and US automakers to source components and even assembly from other countries.
Shouldn't the EU work with Apple to come up with ways to collaborate in ways that are mutually beneficial to all parties? Do they not understand the notion of the Carrot and the Stick? The automotive folks seemingly found a way to use the Carrot. That seems to be working, not only with the EU but with Japan and South Korea. So far, I've only seen the EU vociferously waving the Stick when it comes to Apple and other consumer tech giants. They seem infatuated with the power of the Stick and immune or oblivious to using the Carrot. They are drooling at the thought of applying the Stick to Apple, whether or not it is in their best interest or the best interest of their constituents.
Some commenters have remarked about Apple's products being perceived as being "elite" and "status symbols" in the EU. I assume this has somehow created a sense of resentment. But guess what? The same exact thing can be said of certain makes of EU produced automobiles. Mercedes, Audi, and BMW automobiles are absolutely viewed as being a status symbol of success in the US, at least by those folks who cannot quite afford them or justify their high price tag. But I don't see US regulators going after Mercedes, Audi, and BMW to force them to open-up or modify their product development, partnering, supplier, or marketing strategies in ways that better serve US consumers and component suppliers.
Can US regulators set a limit on how much EU automotive companies can charge for US sales franchises? What about controlling how much a sales franchise can set dealer markups? How competitive are the contracts for sourcing components and subassemblies into the supply side of Mercedes, Audi, and BMW production? Shouldn't US consumers be able to install their own choice of infotainment systems into Mercedes, Audi, and BMW automobiles and not have to pay for the manufacturer's infotainment system? If I install a Chevy engine in my Audi, should Audi still be responsible for warranty coverage on the entire vehicle? If American regulators require 10-year, 250,000 mile warranty coverage from manufacturers at no extra cost should Mercedes, Audi, and BMW be required to meet this standard to qualify to sell into the US?
The bottom line is that nobody has to buy a BMW and nobody has to buy an iPhone. There are more than enough choices with both types of products to allow consumers to choose to determine the success or failure of these products in the market using their wallets. Imposing unnecessary constraints and penalties on the sale of these products under the veil of "consumer choice" or "consumer protection" or "market competition" is a farce. Why not own it and say what it really is: "protectionism." The US has done it too, e.g., large displacement motorcycles, so there's no shame in admitting that a policy is being employed due to a domestic inability to compete. Better yet, dig around in the closet and find your Carrot. That may result in a better solution, especially when it comes to consumer choice.
Surely the "spirit of the law" shouldn't be centered around companies that either lied (Spotify) or greatly exaggerated (Epic) their competitive issues with Apple?
The iPhone was the first major computing platform developed after popular use of the internet became a thing. Platforms designed to allow open installation of third-party applications is a legacy from an era when individual computing devices were not connected to a network. There were already huge vulnerabilities to that paradigm, but those were at least limited by the fact that most computing devices were not connected to or were only infrequently connected to any sort of network. As the internet was thrown on top of those existing systems, security vulnerabilities increased exponentially.
The iPhone was designed from the ground up as an always-connected device. Initially, this meant that third-party applications simply were not an option, period. As they later developed the App Store, they created it with the question how do we keep an always-connected internet device secure in mind. That's why there's been no side-loading of apps in iOS, and why that's different from even MacOS, which is also a legacy from the pre-internet era. In fact, MacOS has continually tightened up and moved toward the closed iOS model, not the other way around.
It's fairly inexplicable why the geniuses at Google went with the legacy model of the olden days, rather than using the forethought to realize that starting from scratch on a new platform gives the opportunity to think about what it is and should be, rather than un-creatively carrying forward the vulnerabilities inherent in applying how things used to work to a new reality. But they did it the old-school way, so for people who think those security holes equal "freedom," they have that option to choose. This is why those who actually want the always-connected device designed with that reality in mind should be able to continue to choose Apple, without the EU sending everyone back to 1986.
I suggest you read up on the reasons this directive was necessary.
https://www.eu-digital-markets-act.com/Digital_Markets_Act_Preamble_1_to_10.html
That is where everything begins in the preamble to the directive.
The very same considerations can be applied to gatekeepers in many (if not all) countries where they enjoy a stranglehold on competition.
Big Tech has flourished in the EU and largely because of previous directives which allowed it flourish.
Namely all the ICT related laws which remain far, far ahead of US equivalents and forced the big ICT players to open up, compete and even share ICT infrastructure.
The US pales when compared to the EU in this aspect. Giants like Nokia and Ericsson advanced the core backbone technologies and the carriers deployed it.
The most important Mobile World Conference is held in Europe.
Those same carriers have demanded year after year that they be allowed to charge Big Tech for saturating their network capacity.
The EU has refused to take this on board.
Just like with the analogue to digital switch in numerous fields, first movers often have a chance to get a foothold. They can also become entrenched.
That has happened and competition is now suffering as a result. The digital era on mobile should not be a two horse competition where spoils are shared.
The US is not far away from deciding if Google paying Apple is an example of that. Is Google paying to be default or for Apple not to compete?
The exact same considerations will be looked at here in the EU. Only time will tell which way it will swing.
This isn't an anti-Apple thing either.
The thresholds were set and the net was cast. Any EU entities meeting the criteria would also be affected.
As for the spirit of the law and interpretation, things have consistently been laid out in clear language:
"When a gatekeeper engages in unfair practices, such as imposing unfair access conditions to their app store or preventing installation of applications from other sources, consumers are likely to pay more or are effectively deprived of the benefits that alternative services might have brought."
The goals are clear but it seems Apple wants to get specific on terms like 'unfair' while understanding perfectly well the ultimate goals of the EU.
It is very likely it will come afoul because appeal after appeal, those terms will end up with clear definitions.
We will probably end up with new definitions to cover aspects like modern day abuse of dominant position and that is because, and it is clearly spelt out in numerous areas of the final text, times have changed dramatically over the last ten years and the whole DSA/DMA package is a first stab at legislating it and in its own words 'leveling the digital playing field'.
To understand what's happening it is imperitive to read through the text. I'd wager that 99% of commenters in this thread haven't read a single word of the texts.
It's far from perfect but no text will be perfect out of the gate.
Just like with all previous directives, they will get revised over time.
The best competition is always offering a competitive infrastructure in Europe where talented people NEVER leave Europe, but build their own enterprises and make them larger and bigger.
Europe has lost their decades to catch up with American tech enterprises and face more and more newcomers, which threat European enterprises.
You have AI. What does Europe do instead of building their own AI competitors? Regulation.
It is not sustainable to defend the European market with more regulations.
Language barrier, living in a rude and stubborn environment, too high taxes...
Europe is losing and losing talented kids to the US.
Learn from Apple, Microsoft, OpenAi, Meta, Netflix instead of punishing them.
Study how Europe can build such enterprises and make them to US competitors.
Yet, in spite of our regulations, people here are overwhelmingly happy with the EU in general.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20231204IPR15637/survey-shows-europeans-value-eu-membership-and-interested-in-european-elections
Nothing will ever be perfect for everyone but issues such as Healthcare, Climate, Security and Poverty are top concerns. That shows an interest for greater good and improving quality of life.
the reason he called you out was that lots and lots of folks have done the same thing you did just to bag on. Apple here. Looks like you and your "points" are no different. If you. stick around and have healthy contributions, you will have earned tryst and be viewed differently. But this really just seems like a throwaway account to bag on Apple and defend socialistic totalitarian regulation.