BuffyzDead

avon b7 said:

"Apple responded by stating that the claim was misleading."

So, we are to assume the claim, at its core, is correct. If it weren't, Apple would have said outright it was wrong.

"The DOJ's issue with Apple's 30% commission doesn't mention that 85% of developers don't pay any commission, and a vast majority are eligible for a reduced 15% commission. Apple's commission has been tested in court before by Epic, and Apple won on that front."

What happens in one trial isn't necessarily relevant to what can happen in another. 

That 85% don't pay anything is utterly irrelevant. The point is that the remaining share is enough to generate billions upon billions in revenues because there is literally no competition allowed. Everything in that other group goes to Apple because alternative stores are not allowed to exist.

The same applies to the 'reduced' 15%' which only ever came into effect through regulatory scrutiny and complaints. Without that Apple wouldn't have conceded anything.

"However, Apple has no data that shows users desire SMS elsewhere, and it's not a feature used by popular platforms on Android"

Regardless, the point remains and far worse IMO, is how Apple hid 'SMS' within its app. I lost count of the amount of times I had to tell users that what they were sending to Android users was in fact an SMS with all its limitations. Save for a one-off message which didn't even state the words 'SMS' or anything similar, and a warning that the message could incur extra costs. The SMS app should have been separate from iMessage.

"For Apple to offer wide support for any third-party smartwatch would require the company to account for every model, operating system, and more to allow interoperability."

IMO, third party watches are crippled from the get-go by OS limitations which seem to make it necessary for an app from the watch manufacturer to be running at all times to gain a half decent functionality. It will be interesting to see what watch manufacturers say to this.

NFC. 

"Apple claims these aren't anticompetitive measures but a result of how the technology is implemented to protect the user."

This is utter hogwash. The technology is implemented specifically to eliminate competition. Well, it was. It seems that within the EU that is going to change now (again, due to regulatory pressures).

Although people here are at a loss to understand the reasons behind the DMA/DSA, the US, and other markets, could well follow suit. 

Here, in the EU the underlying situation is nothing new. Prior to this, the telecoms industry and the banking sector were also forced to open up with interoperability requirements to critical infrastructure that have been working well for years and more changes come to market regularly. Recently money transfers were required to become 'instant', for example. 

NFC hardware/software combos (with secure enclave and TEE access) have not been an issue on phones that carry those elements. The banks wouldn't support that if security were an issue. 

The reality is that an Android phone can securely support NFC/Wallet transactions from multiple vendors. 

My phone can support Google Pay, Huawei Pay, BBVA Pay and even, theoretically at least, even Apple Pay. An iPhone has only supported Apple Pay, and eliminated competition by simply not allowing it to exist. That is is because there are revenues involved and Apple takes a cut from every single operation and wants the whole pie to itself.

New times require new legislation. The EU is well ahead of the pack here and an AI directive is also progressing well. Previously we had WEEE and RoHS plus the common charger initiative, the battery directive, right to repair, right to be forgotten, consumer protections etc.

I wouldn't say the case against Apple is going to be a walkover for Apple. We'll have to wait and see and perhaps what will be more interesting are the breadcrumbs of information relative to internal communications that might drop along the way.