spheric

anonymouse said:

tmay said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

spheric said:

anonymouse said:

spheric said:

anonymouse said:

muthuk_vanalingam said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

9secondkox2 said:

nubus said:

Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.

If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.

Apple has always been an open market player. 

So your fluff piece is moot. 

Apple operates a store. Apple gets its commission. Boom done. 

This is how it’s been done in the history of stores to this day. 

What stores dont do:

A) host signs and banners telling you to go to one of your vendors house to get a shirt for cheaper. 

use Billy bobs payment system since Billy Bob sells sandals in your store. 

C) let vendors put up their own store inside of your store and not pay a commission on sold items
and rent) 

it’s flat out criminal what this corrupt organization has done. They’ve basically robbed Apple and then made them pay to operate other people’s marketing, hosting, and discovery. The heck out of here. 

Try selling something through Walmart and pull these things: you’ll ba banned from selling through them and all affiliates and partners for life. And that’s what should have happened here. Penalize the contract-breakers, the thieves, and the hijackers, not the store operator. 

Common sense does not exist in European government. 

The store itself isn't really as much of a problem as the platform it is on. A platform that limits competitors. 

It's not about a store in a store. It's about alternative stores on the platform. 

As Apple has the keys to the gate it was deemed a gatekeeper. It got away with that unfair for years. 

So, you're saying that Apple should be able to sell music through Spotify without paying them anything right? After all, with by far the largest share of the streaming market in Europe, the Spotify platform is a gatekeeper for music, and they don't currently allow anyone else to sell music on their platform, thus limiting competitors. I mean, it's all about alternative stores, right?

What Spotify platform? Where are most Spotify users listening from? Its own platform? Is it limiting users to its own platform? 

Are you implying Spotify has a captive audience? 

So, you don't think its competitors deserve a fair shake inside the Spotify streaming ecosystem? Where's the consumer choice in that? I mean, surely Apple should be allowed to sell music/streaming inside Spotify? I don't get it, do you want to eliminate barriers to competition or not?  

If you don't get it perhaps it's because you don't want to get it.

You've moved from a Spotify 'platform' to a Spotify 'ecosystem'. I'm not seeing either of those. 

I'm seeing a service and a limited service at that because it's mainly audio that has no captive control over its users. 

Right, because you, like the EU, want to define those terms (frankly, I see them as synonymous for practical purposes) in such a way that they only apply to large US tech companies and not to companies like Spotify. Captive control? What a joke. Apple doesn't have captive control over anyone, unless of course you also define that in such a way that it only applies to Apple. People don't use Apple products because Apple has "captive control", they use them because the are typically best in class. The EU doesn't like that — I suppose they are looking nostalgically back at the heyday of Nokia, for example — because there simply aren't EU companies that typically have best in class products. The propping up of Spotify, which actually has majority marketshare and doesn't need propping up, simply highlights how entirely dishonest the rhetoric from the EU on this issue is, and makes clear what their intent really is — to hobble American companies as required to maximize the success of EU companies.

Would it really be asking too much to require that users sign off on the restrictions prior to purchase?

Is this something that EU has asked Apple to do and Apple has refused to do so far? Why is this even relevant to the discussion?

He's just raising a lot of pseudo issues — i.e., blowing smoke — in an attempt to gloss over the lawless, autocratic, protectionist behavior of the EU. The bottom line is, if you are going to require companies to do specific things to do business in the EU, a) those requirements need to be explicitly enumerated in law, and b) unless you are just running a protectionist racket, you don't "craft" them so as to only target large US tech firms.

You haven't read the law. 

Perhaps you can cite the specific sections of the law that spell out, in explicit detail, exactly what DMA compliance consists of?

I actually DO recommend reading the law. It really helps with figuring out what you're talking about, you know. 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2022.265.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2022%3A265%3ATOC

(40)

"To prevent further reinforcing their dependence on the core platform services of gatekeepers, and in order to promote multi-homing, the business users of those gatekeepers should be free to promote and choose the distribution channel that they consider most appropriate for the purpose of interacting with any end users that those business users have already acquired through core platform services provided by the gatekeeper or through other channels. This should apply to the promotion of offers, including through a software application of the business user, and any form of communication and conclusion of contracts between business users and end users. An acquired end user is an end user who has already entered into a commercial relationship with the business user and, where applicable, the gatekeeper has been directly or indirectly remunerated by the business user for facilitating the initial acquisition of the end user by the business user. Such commercial relationships can be on either a paid or a free basis, such as free trials or free service tiers, and can have been entered into either on the core platform service of the gatekeeper or through any other channel. Conversely, end users should also be free to choose offers of such business users and to enter into contracts with them either through core platform services of the gatekeeper, if applicable, or from a direct distribution channel of the business user or another indirect channel that such business user uses.

(41)

The ability of end users to acquire content, subscriptions, features or other items outside the core platform services of the gatekeeper should not be undermined or restricted. In particular, a situation should be avoided whereby gatekeepers restrict end users from access to, and use of, such services via a software application running on their core platform service. For example, subscribers to online content purchased outside a software application, software application store or virtual assistant should not be prevented from accessing such online content on a software application on the core platform service of the gatekeeper simply because it was purchased outside such software application, software application store or virtual assistant."

Which of these bits do you find overly vague or difficult to understand?

There's rather a lot more equally clearly-worded scenarios and explanations. I suggest you read all of them; that should resolve most all of your confusion. 

Well, I don't see anything there that says Apple cannot impose, for example, a core technology fee. Based on that, it seems that they are in full compliance. So what exactly is the EU's problem?

Perhaps it would be useful for you to cite sections that Apple isn't in compliance with as less a waste of everyone's time.

Why not just read through the entire text and learn why it exists? 

"(32)

For the purpose of this Regulation, contestability should relate to the ability of undertakings to effectively overcome barriers to entry and expansion and challenge the gatekeeper on the merits of their products and services. The features of core platform services in the digital sector, such as network effects, strong economies of scale, and benefits from data have limited the contestability of those services and the related ecosystems. Such a weak contestability reduces the incentives to innovate and improve products and services for the gatekeeper, its business users, its challengers and customers and thus negatively affects the innovation potential of the wider online platform economy. Contestability of the services in the digital sector can also be limited if there is more than one gatekeeper for a core platform service. This Regulation should therefore ban certain practices by gatekeepers that are liable to increase barriers to entry or expansion, and impose certain obligations on gatekeepers that tend to lower those barriers. The obligations should also address situations where the position of the gatekeeper may be entrenched to such an extent that inter-platform competition is not effective in the short term, meaning that intra-platform competition needs to be created or increased."

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32022R1925

Are you saying you think Apple's Core Technology Fee works well with that tiny extract? Or does it fly directly in the face of it?

Once you have read the whole text please tell me what the general takeaway is with regards to competition and removing barriers of entry. 

I don't see any mention of anything like Apple's Core Technology Fee. Once again, what's going on here is that the law expresses vague sentiments couched in dense legalese and when the EU doesn't like the compliance they simply make up new rules after the fact. 

You will never ever see a reference to Apple's Core Technology Fee in the legislation. Why would you even expect to? You might see reference to it in any eventual fine, though. 

Part of the law is to effectively overcome barriers of entry and to improve contestability.

The CTF is there and acts as a barrier of entry and reduces contestability. At least IMO. 

Do you think the EU will see things differently if you take into account what is stated in the text?

If Apple is non-compliant, one would expect to see at least some reference to the ways in which they are not, if not in the law then at least in published regulations intended for enforcing the law. There is none of that; it's simply a situation where a vaguely worded law is said to mean whatever they want it to mean at any time and for any situation, usually after the fact.  "Overcome barriers" is just vague handwaving, not policy. You can't tell people they have to comply with a law, not tell them how to do that, and then tell them they are not in compliance and will be fined due to factors never previously mentioned.

Again, that's not how the rule of law works. The law can't mean whatever some small group of people decide they want it to mean to serve whatever personal goals they may have at any moment. It can't be built on an ever shifting foundation of quicksand for the purposes of entrapment. The process is arbitrary, secretive and anti-American biased. This is not how laws and government are supposed to function in a democratic, open society. This is how cronyism works in autocracies.

Article 34

Right to be heard and access to the file

1.   Before adopting a decision pursuant to Article 8, Article 9(1), Article 10(1), Articles 17, 18, 24, 25, 29 and 30 and Article 31(2), the Commission shall give the gatekeeper or undertaking or association of undertakings concerned the opportunity of being heard on:

(a)	preliminary findings of the Commission, including any matter to which the Commission has taken objection; and

(b)	measures that the Commission may intend to take in view of the preliminary findings pursuant to point (a) of this paragraph.

2.   Gatekeepers, undertakings and associations of undertakings concerned may submit their observations to the Commission concerning the Commission’s preliminary findings within a time limit set by the Commission in its preliminary findings which may not be less than 14 days.

3.   The Commission shall base its decisions only on preliminary findings, including any matter to which the Commission has taken objection, on which gatekeepers, undertakings and associations of undertakings concerned have been able to comment.

4.   The rights of defence of the gatekeeper, undertaking or association of undertakings concerned shall be fully respected in any proceedings. The gatekeeper, undertaking or association of undertakings concerned shall be entitled to have access to the Commission's file under terms of disclosure, subject to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets. In the case of disagreement between the parties, the Commission may adopt decisions setting out those terms of disclosure. The right of access to the file of the Commission shall not extend to confidential information and internal documents of the Commission or the competent authorities of the Member States. In particular, the right of access shall not extend to correspondence between the Commission and the competent authorities of the Member States. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the Commission from disclosing and using information necessary to prove an infringement.

Apple has explicit rights of defense that some here don't appear to understand,

Oh, please. On paper, but it's a kangaroo court situation.

iamihome said:

The EU is basically acting like the Mafia. Neo-one elects these gangsters. This is why we in the UK voted to leave the EU.

JSR_FDED said:

spheric said:

rob53 said:

I have very serious issues with the dictatorship called the EU. 

The fact that a democratically elected government is "dictating" rules that all businesses — even foreign ones — need to follow (we call them "laws") does not make them a "dictatorship". 

You'd just rather not have to follow the law. 

The aspect that I find troubling, if indeed the statement in this story is correct, is that the DMA and penalties sighted as a remedy for failure to comply, namely: "Under the DMA, the EU has the power to levy a daily penalty of up to 5% of its average daily worldwide turnover. In Apple's case, that potentially means up to $1 billion every day.", in my view is ridiculously punitive and draconian. I agree, if a business such as Apple or any other business operating, selling, manufacturing, marketing etc  products and services should abide by the applicable laws in which that division or business operates. However the extrajudicial enforcement of claiming penalties on world wide revenues is ridiculous. Of course, countries, regions, etc can set whatever laws they like, including punitive ones like these, but to me this seems very prejudicial to penalize a companies revenues that it earns on products and services outside the jurisdiction in where it is alleged it is contravening the laws of the land….

tmay said:

spheric said:

tmay said:

spheric said:

tmay said:

Sospheric said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

thrang said:

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Apple should just. let it crash and burn.

And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.

I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table. 

I'll set out my stalk. 

IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them. 

They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations. 

Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions. 

Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores. 

Unaware of the commissions. 

Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.

That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not? 

Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?

I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook. 

What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.

NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit). 

I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.

If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.

If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.

My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.

I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different. 

Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations. 

Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here. 

Everyone here knows that you do not regularly use an iPhone, sure, your wife does, so it isn't hard to imagine that you are invested in a personal crusade against the iPhone. Everyone here knows that you are as well an ardent Huawei advocate, so maybe you need, to chill the fuck out about the iPhone.

Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers.

I have been using iPhones exclusively for 15 years. 

I agree completely with what avon B7 is writing. 

I even agree with him that your, his, or my personal position on what we might prefer is IRRELEVANT. 

Your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem by attacking his surmised preference of technology platform rather than the merits of his argument is NOTED. 


Incidentally, I remember one specific instance of direct harm to consumers, back in 2008: Telekom contracts in Germany did not allow for tethering. An iPhone app hit the App Store that ostensibly did something else (flashlight?), but a hidden screen would allow users to switch on a tethering preference and access the iPhone's internet connection from a tethered laptop. 

Apple killed the app almost immediately and blocked it from their Store, forcing users to pay top dime for USB cellular access points and the associated extortionate data contracts. 

Yeah, because that instance of "harm" to the consumers absolutely violated the App policies of Apple. That's a potential security threat as well, but sure, 2008, and you wanted to avoid paying Telekom. Apple didn't force anyone to do anything other than to have to play by the App store rules. I mean, wtf is that an example of other than an attempt to circumvent Apple's rules?

The toggle switch in itself was NOT "a potential security threat".

Would this app have continued to exist had we had additional App Stores with different rules at the time?
YES.  

Would the existence of this app have allowed tens or hundreds of thousands of customers to circumvent the price-gouging of providers at the time? 

YES. 

WTF is being forced into a technically unnecessary expensive data plan if not "harm to consumers"??? 

Oh FFS. Apple would have potential liability if an App was used in an illegal manner, so of course, Apple has to remove apps in that case.

Tethering was not illegal. 

The point you're trying to make is that Apple was obligated to disable tethering while under exclusive distribution contract with T-Mobile in Germany. 

The point I'm making is that the price-gouging by Telekom might not even have been possible, had multiple app stores existed at the time. We won't know. 
But what we DO know is that Apple DID, at the time, leverage their App Store monopoly on iPhone to block this app and make tethering impossible. 

edit: I just checked, and Tethering actually was not possible AT ALL on iPhones in Germany until 2010 — except with this app, briefly. 

Seriously? It's 2024, let it go…

tmay said:

spheric said:

tmay said:

Sospheric said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

thrang said:

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Apple should just. let it crash and burn.

And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.

I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table. 

I'll set out my stalk. 

IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them. 

They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations. 

Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions. 

Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores. 

Unaware of the commissions. 

Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.

That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not? 

Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?

I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook. 

What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.

NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit). 

I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.

If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.

If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.

My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.

I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different. 

Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations. 

Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here. 

Everyone here knows that you do not regularly use an iPhone, sure, your wife does, so it isn't hard to imagine that you are invested in a personal crusade against the iPhone. Everyone here knows that you are as well an ardent Huawei advocate, so maybe you need, to chill the fuck out about the iPhone.

Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers.

I have been using iPhones exclusively for 15 years. 

I agree completely with what avon B7 is writing. 

I even agree with him that your, his, or my personal position on what we might prefer is IRRELEVANT. 

Your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem by attacking his surmised preference of technology platform rather than the merits of his argument is NOTED. 


Incidentally, I remember one specific instance of direct harm to consumers, back in 2008: Telekom contracts in Germany did not allow for tethering. An iPhone app hit the App Store that ostensibly did something else (flashlight?), but a hidden screen would allow users to switch on a tethering preference and access the iPhone's internet connection from a tethered laptop. 

Apple killed the app almost immediately and blocked it from their Store, forcing users to pay top dime for USB cellular access points and the associated extortionate data contracts. 

Yeah, because that instance of "harm" to the consumers absolutely violated the App policies of Apple. That's a potential security threat as well, but sure, 2008, and you wanted to avoid paying Telekom. Apple didn't force anyone to do anything other than to have to play by the App store rules. I mean, wtf is that an example of other than an attempt to circumvent Apple's rules?

The toggle switch in itself was NOT "a potential security threat".

Would this app have continued to exist had we had additional App Stores with different rules at the time?
YES.  

Would the existence of this app have allowed tens or hundreds of thousands of customers to circumvent the price-gouging of providers at the time? 

YES. 

WTF is being forced into a technically unnecessary expensive data plan if not "harm to consumers"??? 

Oh FFS. Apple would have potential liability if an App was used in an illegal manner, so of course, Apple has to remove apps in that case.