darelrex

mikethemartian said:

What other search engine is profitable enough to pay that amount to Apple every year?

Probably any competent search engine would be that profitable if they landed this deal — the money Google is currently paying Apple has been estimated to be only about 1/3 of the ad money Google gets by having this default position.

I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.

They also point out the inconsistency in Apple's policies, where Apple's apps like Apple Music are not subject to the 30% commission, putting third-party developers and their customers at a disadvantage.

When you buy from Spotify through Apple's store, Apple gets 30% of the money. When you buy from Apple Music through Apple's store, Apple gets 100% of the money. This puts Spotify at a huge, unfair advantage. Spotify should be required to send 100% of its revenue to Apple, so it can play on a level field with Apple Music.

"having abused its dominant position by implementing discriminatory, non-objective and non-transparent conditions for the use of user data for advertising purposes."

If the user taps "Allow", then you can do it. If the user taps "Ask App Not to Track", then you can't. There, full transparency. And objectivity. And non-discrimination. It's all up to the individual user.

Would-be invasive advertisers: Now it's time for you to step up and sue each individual user who chooses "Ask App Not to Track", for being opaque, subjective, and discriminatory in that decision.

22july2013 said:

I've been saying for nearly a decade that Apple could meet all of EU's rules by allowing iPhone and iPad users to install Android when they set up their device. There's no reason for iOS to support third party app stores if Apple supports Android for iPhones. There's your choice. How many iPhone users would install Android, maybe 1%?

Don't people already have that choice? They can go buy an Android phone, today. Why should Apple have to support its most direct competitor, and how does that benefit anyone except people who don't like Apple and want to see it ruined via government fiat?