And furthermore, this sort of protectionist racket feeds into the sort of right wing politics that are destroying Europe and America, so the net "benefit" will be negative for everyone.
No, framing antitrust legislation and action as a "protectionist racket" is what feeds into those politics.
Apple is not the "victim" here that needs to be "protected" from "overbearing government" — and that you're helping present it as such is what excites the need to destroy "overbearing government" and replace it with the "free market" tech monarchy the broligarchs are trying to sell you.
This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.
Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.
By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.
Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.
Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them.
EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!
EU law makes a mockery of law.
The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective.
You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers.
Here's what makes no sense: for MANY years, Apple's stubborn insistence on a walled garden held it back in the marketplace. And no government cared about its walled garden then. But over time, and especially as digital devices proliferated into tablets, wearables, etc, consumers made the free will choice to buy into the tightly controlled Apple ecosystem. In fact, the tightly controlled ecosystem with its focus on privacy, security, seamless operation between devices and "it just works" reliability became THE main reason to choose Apple. Let's face it: it has never been difficult to get more bang for your buck in the world of Windows and Android hardware. But consumers chose to pay more for Apple hardware with its walled garden being a main reason why. And now here comes government, breaking the very thing that tens of millions of consumers have freely chosen in buying Apple products, all in the name of insane, upside down logic of supposedly greater consumer choice. Except you're not allowed to choose a closed and tightly controlled ecosystem and--here comes the upside down logic again--the reason consumers will not be allowed to have that choice is because too many consumers have freely chosen it.
No one, at no point, voted for a walled garden. Not with their wallets or otherwise.
I will go much further and argue that the vast majority of iPhone users are completely ignorant to the shackles placed on them by Apple (and others).
Oh please. To your first point, Apple is and always has been a walled garden since its founding. When you buy an Apple product you are voting with your wallet to go inside the wall because you have a world of choices with no wall and you didn't choose those. The loyalty to Apple is so fierce among its customers because they like the way the Apple ecosystem works.
To your second point: my god, at least come up with something original. The whole "Apple sheeple" cliche has been around for at least 30 years. Really astonishing how Apple has now been able to cast a spell over the entire world, don't you think? What do you figure it is? Does Apple have a global program of doping the water? Amazing that iPhone has been around for 18 years and is now sold in over 70 countries, but Apple has managed to keep those shackles a secret from everyone! Must be a Matrix kind of thing, right?
I don't need to come up with anything 'original'. My points are clear.
Try an informal survey yourself. How aware are the iPhone users you know and meet of Apple's imposed limitations?
Why shouldn't apple just be open about the limitations - just to do the right thing? Like they did with app tracking transparency.
After all, your entire argument is that they won't mind because it's all in their interests. The price one pays for privacy and security (in spite of zero day exploits and non-stop security updates landing on their devices).
My take is that Apple would rather jump through all the EU hoops (malicious compliance included where possible) instead of being open. And we all know why, right?
Another one of your pointless arguments.
Maybe back in 2010, you might have a point about Apple not informing consumers about some of their limitations, but iPhones were only selling in the tens of millions back then to mainly new users and Nokia still had about 40%of the mobile phone market. (who CEO didn't have a care in the World about Apple getting into the mobile phone market because the iPhone was just s "fad".) Now iPhone sales in the hundred of millions but over 80% of on purchasers are upgrading from an older iPhone. This was true even before the DMA was drafted. Only about 3 percent of mobile phone sales are to consumers that never owned a mobile phone.
As for your survey, every one I know with an iPhone knows of Apple limitations because every one of them are on at least their second iPhone. And nearly all of them knew about Apple iPhone limitations before they bought their first iPhone. Even though those limitations were not spelled out in their EULA. Which none of them read anyway but agreed to. In fact, every one I know with an Android phone are aware of Apple iPhone limitations because its one of the reasons why they are using an Android phone.
Are you so ignorant that you would rather use a mobile phone whose maker is not constantly providing security updates? Just exactly whose mobile OS are you using, that is so secure from the first day it was issued, that they rarely have to provide their users with any further security updates? I'm sorry for your ignorance, but getting constant security updates is one of the main reason why Apple devices are more secure than devices running on Android. Even Google had to come up with ways to force security updates for Android users because many Android mobile phone makers weren't updating their phones in a timely matter, if at all. So you think constantly getting security updates means a mobile phone in not secure?
Comments
Apple is not the "victim" here that needs to be "protected" from "overbearing government" — and that you're helping present it as such is what excites the need to destroy "overbearing government" and replace it with the "free market" tech monarchy the broligarchs are trying to sell you.