Abuse of power problem for Apple?
- Thread starter Echohead2
- Start date
Oh, you no have no idea the number of times I've been called that!
Well at least you got the jokeOh, you no have no idea the number of times I've been called that!
/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///
No discussion of moderation in thread. It wasn't just about that post but more a general statement.
What it tells you is that they're out on a limb, not hiding that they will pick their targets based on their whims.
So far all the DMA targets are external to the EU.
They can come up with novel concepts like "gatekeeper" but you can't hide protectionism. Vestager has over a decade career of it, but where she was once thought to be a future president of the EU, she stumbled when given another post in her portfolio, only to flub it up and now she's back at Competition, trying to make waves.
Are you talking about “foreseeable in the near future” ? Because that’s further elaborated on in no less than three subsequent sections - maybe a couple hundred words worth of clarification.
Read.
The.
Law.
It doesn’t spell out a numerical threshold, but it absolutely describes a conceptual definition and a clear process of determination.
Laws aren’t specs. If you look at US law it’s the same way.
Nah bro. They pick their targets based on clear direction from their legislative body. The whole ‘The DMA is ambiguous’ meme is utterly disingenuous tripe from reactionary people who never bothered to read it.
I found this article interesting in a couple ways. First you have the first party only interfaces (or to borrow a term from Microsoft's trial days "secret APIz") where Apple can make features in direct competition with third party software that work better and are more feature rich because they can do things the App Store disallows others doing. The other being that the App Store also provides an avenue for Apple to retaliate if they don't like what a third party is doing or saying; considering that's the only avenue to distribute software on the platform that's a huge stick where even the threat of its use can silence critics that rely on the platform for revenue. Neither of those are necessarily new revelations I just wonder how it will affect the common perception and, more importantly, the regulatory environment if such reporting starts to happen more frequently outside of tech news outlets.
I also continue to be amazed how different the defense of Apple is today versus the defense of Microsoft from 20+ years ago, specifically on this forum. In Microsoft's case the defense was generally countering the claim (i.e. MS wasn't using undocumented APIs) where as today the defense isn't disputing the claim so much as saying the claim doesn't matter because it's "their platform". Meanwhile, even when adjusted for inflation, Apple's revenue is more than 10 times what Microsoft was making in the early 00s at the height of their lawsuit troubles and yet they are still treated by some as a bit of a plucky upstart fighting against "the man".
I also continue to be amazed how different the defense of Apple is today versus the defense of Microsoft from 20+ years ago, specifically on this forum. In Microsoft's case the defense was generally countering the claim (i.e. MS wasn't using undocumented APIs) where as today the defense isn't disputing the claim so much as saying the claim doesn't matter because it's "their platform". Meanwhile, even when adjusted for inflation, Apple's revenue is more than 10 times what Microsoft was making in the early 00s at the height of their lawsuit troubles and yet they are still treated by some as a bit of a plucky upstart fighting against "the man".
I think the biggest difference is who is on which side. When MS’s anti-trust case was the subject of battlefront skirmishes, it was users of MS products vs users of Apple products. Today, a rather larger proportion of the ‘Apple should be regulated’ crowd are die hard Apple users like me. And there are a fair number of really vocal ‘it’s their platform’ anti-regulation folks who don’t use or barely use Apple products. Now it’s not universal - of course there are Apple users who are anti-regulation and some non-Apple users who are pro-regulation. But the battle lines aren’t as clear as they used to be.
Ok lets settle this,
Regulation - 2022/1925 - EN - EUR-Lex
So i was wrong, but it also clearly "spells out a numerical threshold"
The word I think you’re glossing over is “presumed”. Again, those quantified thresholds are there to identify the obvious gatekeepers and allow for faster remediation at the start of the enforcement period. The law in no way requires those thresholds to be met to be considered a gatekeeper nor is it guaranteed that you will be found to be a gatekeeper just because you hit those thresholds.Ok lets settle this,
Regulation - 2022/1925 - EN - EUR-Lex
eur-lex.europa.eu
So i was wrong, but it also clearly "spells out a numerical threshold"
This is a complete non-sequitur that has nothing to do with my post, and nothing to do with the post I was replying to. If you want to rant about EU protectionism, knock yourself out, but don't drag entirely unrelated posts and posters along as if they had anything to do with that subject.
No , you got it exactly backwards.
The EC, specifically Vestager's agency, drove this legislation.
The European Parliament is an institution looking for justifying its raison d'être. Most EU nations take their national elections far more seriously than the European Parliament.
Vestager hit a ceiling on her political career in Denmark. She tried to rise to the top of the EC but she hit the ceiling again.
Digital Markets Act - Wikipedia
Because these laws apply to international trade.
Here's a bigger overview of efforts worldwide to regulate technology.
Regulate for What? A Closer Look at the Rationale and Goals of Digital Competition Regulations - International Center for Law & Economics
For more on this topic, see the ICLE Issue Spotlight “Digital Competition Regulations Around the World.” Executive Summary Inspired by the European Union’s Digital Markets . . .
So favoring some companies at the expense of others, without clear benefits for consumers or eliminating consumer harm calls into question the legitimacy of the whole gatekeeper concept.
If the DMA doesn't directly benefit consumers, why is a government body enacting and enforcing it?
Why is benefiting consumers a prerequisite to legitimacy? Don't pretend like the US doesn't pass laws ALL THE TIME that benefit business interests at the expense of consumers. And regardless of any of that, what does any of this have to do with territorial legal jurisdiction, which was the only point I raised prior?
It's protectionism wrapped in the cloak of consumer benefit. Spotify, one of the big initiators, is certainly going to pocket the difference (and spend it on trying to build their podcast and audio book business) instead of lowering prices for the end consumer of directing more to the artists. I don't have a moral qualm with protectionism. The hypocrisy of it grinds my gears.
The law as written is extremely clear that it’s the functioning of markets that they care about most. Yes there is a hope that better functioning markets will, in the long run, benefit consumers. But in the long detailed justification of this law, that’s a footnote whereas the impact on markets is the core.
Because that is what antitrust laws have always been about.
Also, US may pass pro-business laws but they don't pass laws which are pro certain businesses at the expense of the others. There's that 14th amendment again.
Even the DMA likely doesn't specifically say they want to benefit specific companies over others or smaller companies over bigger ones.
What would be the public interest rationale for picking winners and losers? Once they favor certain private entities over others, that opens up greater potential for corruption because if companies believe that govt will favor some companies over others, why wouldn't they try to curry influence with govt. regulators.
That is why the notion of equal protection is important, whether it's an explicit statute or not, for any country pretending to be about equality, democracy and transparency.
Every single subsidy or tax incentive that is meant to promote certain consumer behavior (e.g. BEV rebates, farm subsidies, import tariffs, etc.) necessarily advantages certain businesses over others. That is the entire point.
Do you honestly think this doesn't happen now? What on earth do you think lobbyists do all day? You can't possibly be this naive.
It is interesting to see all these posts by people who disagree with this regarding Apple. I've been reading some old posts about the DOJ lawsuit against Apple and also Oracle vs Google...odd...I can't seem to find those people upset about those cases. It would seem that their opinion seems to depend on which company is the defendant. Odd.
That's not odd at all. The entire point of the Battlefront is warring favoritism, after all. Not the place for detached, neutral analysis.
I know you really try to find pro-Apple hypocrisy under any circumstances, but this is ridiculous. There’s exactly one person stridently arguing against the EU. Plenty of the folks trying to talk him off the ledge, including me, frequently use and enjoy Apple stuff.
Disagree. It may advantage certain industries but it doesn't explicitly disadvantage others. For instance, which competitors do oil industry subsidies harm? I dislike them and it's possibly delaying adoption of renewable energy but these oil subsidies predated renewable energy.
BEV rebates may "hurt" ICE car makers but most ICE car manufacturers are producing BEVs now and have committed tens of billions in capital to transitioning. The Detroit 3 may be hedging their bets lately but they are going to transition and their products will be the main beneficiaries of those BEV tax credits.
Sure oil industry could be harmed in the long term but they still have their own subsidies so it's more about leveling the scales.
Farm subsidies, also bad. The ones which are hurt are foreign farmers. But they're not constituents.
So no govt. subsidies do not explicitly harm or disadvantage certain domestic industries.
They are trying to gain economic benefits for their industries. They're not necessarily using the govt. to weaken competition.
I challenge you to cite an example of a US industry which successfully lobbied the govt to hurt a direct competitor.
For instance, something as potentially substantial as Spotify using the EU to weaken Apple's position, especially Apple Music's prospects in the EU.
First of all, prove the Microsoft's and Apple's behaviors were in any way comparable.
MS had huge market share and used it explicitly to make OEMs and others heel to their whims, specifically to cut off potential threats like Netscape (browsers and Internet making the underlying OS and office applications less valuable) or streaming media (Quicktime for Windows, Real Audio).
Which emerging tech or industry has Apple tried to suppress? Which monopoly does Apple have and tried to use to weaken new markets or competitors?
They charged too much for the App Store and made it so that app developers can only access iOS customers through the App Store and make payments only through Apple.
None of that was illegal until the EU decided they would draft a new law to target American giants because they had no cause under well established antitrust laws because Apple is not a monopoly under any classical definition.
No because it's the shallow "Apple is so rich, they must be doing something illegal or immoral" analysis.
Or more like hating someone or something for being too successful.
Not successfully having a large market share or market power. Apple isn't trying to use iOS to prevent new technologies like AI or just on iOS, it's not trying to shut down the mobile gaming ecosystem, which has a lot of dubious practices.
You see a lot of regulators claiming that Apple harmed consumers or reduced competition. No proffers of how much it has cost consumers or which types of competitors Apple destroyed or prevented from coming to market though.
And people uncritically accept these unsupported claims because they look at their profits and market valuation and conclude "they must be doing something just as bad as MS did back in the day."
Where are the receipts if that's the case? Where are the emails with the colorful language about cutting off competitor's air supply?
Sure an MS fanboy like Scud is going to say "both sides ..." It's as weak an argument as people who claim "both sides" in the political arena.
Then what was it about?
Competition?
Why do governments want a level playing field?
So consumers would benefit from lower prices and better products and services from a number of strong competitors.
No explicit disadvantage "now" and "will be" and "most" necessarily imply that "then", "currently yet", and "some" were, are, and have been explicitly disadvantaged.
Well argued!
Well what the FUCK is "levelling the scales" but reducing the advantage ("DISadvantaging") of those who have disproportionately benefitted in the past????
Ah, you've just switched the goalposts from "necessarily advantages certain businesses over others" (the argument) to "disadvantage certain DOMESTIC industries".
In doing so, you've conceded the point.
Acknowledged.
Last edited:
Take a look at any and all import tariffs levied by the US government. Steel, automobile, solar panels, washing machines (the latter on direct petition from Whirlpool, enacted in January 2018 to fight LG and Samsung imports).
Steel tariffs of course backfired spectacularly because, while putting domestic steel mills at an advantage, they also raised steel prices high enough to force a number of auto factory closures.
The auto industry lobbied heavily for the interstate highway system that effectively killed commuter rail. Yes commuter rail still exists but it’s a shadow of what it would have been if both rail and roads had received equal subsidies over the years. Similarly oil subsidies hurt every home insulation product.
The idea that the government doesn’t play favorites in the markets is… well it’s an idea, isn’t it…
Would that be nice? Sure. But we also care about the businesses themselves because they pay labor. Thats where the consumer gets the money to buy those better products and services. A more competitive market also means more competition for skilled labor in that domain driving up wages.Why do governments want a level playing field?
So consumers would benefit from lower prices and better products and services from a number of strong competitors.
I'm not sure what more "proof" you need that they're comparable when MS was in trouble for bundling IE, while not disallowing end user installation of Netscape or anything else, while Apple has since the start of iOS completely disallowed third party browsers (in any meaningful way). Third party app stores, if allowed from the beginning would have made their bundled app store less valuable so someone could see that as protectionism too.
There are any number of emerging industries Apple has suppressed competition of or killed in their cradle by not allowing them to develop except on their own terms. For example, I wouldn't think anyone could argue that limiting "tags" or RFiD to first party (i.e. Apple) only along with forced bundling including default participation in the air tag network hasn't weakened competition in those "new markets".
As for the "none of that was illegal" you could make the same argument for what Microsoft did. In a vacuum it isn't illegal for someone to sell software or any other product at a discount with extra terms in the agreement such as requiring the bundling of other pieces of software or forbidding bundling competitors alternatives. My recollection is the deal with not bundling Netscape, Real Media, etc. was only for massive OEMs that got cut rate licenses from Microsoft. There were no restrictions if you bought and used a retail copy or even a generic OEM copy so, borrowing the argument from Apple, the OEMs agreed to the terms to access the Microsoft ecosystem that MS developed and "owned". The fact that not including Windows wouldn't be a real option isn't Microsoft's problem. Note I don't agree with this line of reasoning I'm just using it for comparison purposes.
I'll also note that the rules against bundling, would actually be seen as a desirable feature for most users today. Personally I hated the you needed to flatten any new Windows computer to get rid of all the OEM bundled crap. Further, one of the features I remember being touted when the first iPhone was released was they had strong armed the mobile networks to not bundle their software with the device so you got a "clean" device as compared to the other devices at the time that were normally brimming with Verizon, Cingular, etc. cruft.
The new law, as I see it, is simply a reaction to the realization that just because someone doesn't meet the historical definition of a monopoly doesn't mean they can't exert monopoly like power on the market and thus should be subject to more scrutiny. It's not the completely unreasonable expansion of government power that you seem to think it is.
So your position is protectionism bad.
But using the DMA, where all the targets are foreign, none European, is good?
OK, got it, love that logical consistency.
Their deals with OEMs were a bit shit but they never prevented the consumer from using any of those products. Every Windows devices will happily run whatever you throw at it
That depends on what you mean by "market" or "competitor". Can I install Steam or any other app store on iOS? What about a browser engine that isn't Webkit?
You can reject the argument that it was in the name of security. Remember that it opened in 2008 and Jobs had to be convinced to allow it.
2008 when security especially on the dominant desktop was bad.
Maybe Amazon would have opened an iOS App Store. But selling apps have never been a big business for them, as their attempts at an Android app store never went anywhere.
So who are these potential competitors which Apple killed?
Browsers, I have DuckDuckGo on my iPhone and iPad. Yeah I know they didn't get to install an alternative to Safari WebKit rendering engine.
But my understanding is that once iOS was modified to allow selection of alternate default browsers, there were like dozens of browsers available, many of which most people never heard of.
Who did Apple kill?
BTW, MS did NOT prevent end user installation of Netscape. Obviously millions of people used Netscape at the time, otherwise, MS wouldn't have given a damn. What they prevented was their OEMs from reinstalling Netscape.
That became illegal because Windows had over 90% global market share.
iOS market share is nowhere close to 90% in any country. So even if they tried to strong-arm say mobile carriers from blocking certain competition software or services, it's NOT the same antitrust condition.
And there is ZERO evidence that they tried to force behaviors on any other parties to stifle competition in the way MS did. Remember, YOU brought up comparison with MS.
Tile is still in business and AFAIK, still offers product which could be used on iOS. I don't think AirTags are a huge business nor is it so attractive that other companies have tried to enter the market. I heard Google is making their own tracker though uncertain if it would support iOS or how well it would support iOS.
Again ZERO evidence that Apple prevented anyone else from making tracking devices for iOS.
Using their leverage against OEM is specifically what is verboten for a monopoly. I don't even recall if MS even tried to contest that it had monopolies in desktop OS or office applications.
Whereas, I think Apple will contest the DOJ assertion that their control over iOS is a monopoly on iOS, versus monopoly in the mobile device market.
Why forcing OEMs to do whatever it wanted is key because most people don't go out and install software. They're far more likely to use pre-installed software, which is why it was big deal in the '90s. Netscape cut deals with some OEMs and MS made the OEMs cancel those deals.
Netscape offered shrink-wrapped boxes and you could see them piled on end cap displays at Fry's back then.
But retail distribution paled in comparison to preinstallation. MS didn't just have an insuperable market share. They controlled the software distribution market through their leverage over OEMs. Sure end users could download the software directly but broadband in the mid to late '90s isn't what it is now.
It's one thing to update antitrust litigation, since a lot of it was written almost 100 years ago now. But it was clearly drafted to define and target practices of targets and the intention, at least so far, was to ONLY apply it to specific targets.
When they try to shackle 3-4 or more European companies, then they will have some credibility. And don't tell me there aren't any unscrupulous businessmen in Europe. Or at least ruthlessly efficient ones which will try to maximize certain advantages.
Alternate app stores:
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25336519/STK450_EU_G.jpg)
A first look at Europe’s alternative iPhone app stores
Is it worth all the trouble?
Alternate browser renderers:
A first look at Europe’s alternative iPhone app stores
Is it worth all the trouble?
Yes, the DMA made Apple offer these capabilities.
Now lets see if it makes one damn bit of difference in App Store revenues, revenues of these alternate App Stores, number of downloads of these alternate browser engines, active use of these alternatives in the long term.
Probably need to check back in a year, 2 years, 5 years, etc.
ROFL. You are pretty much arguing that Google did it too. Yes Amazon never got anywhere because Fire was a fork
They are limited on how much better they can be over the default; this directly reduces the incentive for anyone to switch from Safari
Anyone trying to actually sell a browser on iOS. As it is people maybe use Chrome to sync with their Google account but everything else is nigh pointless. What about Apple's deals with iOS OEMs? Ooops, nevermind.
Thats really easy when you are a 100% vertically integrated walled garden. They precluded the OEMs from the get go so they can cut out the middleman whilst forcing behaviors on consumers. So yeah, that's browser devs, app stores, and OEMs they've torpedoed at the least.
You posted the same link twice. Dont see anything about browser engines there.Alternate app stores:
A first look at Europe’s alternative iPhone app stores
Is it worth all the trouble?www.theverge.com
Alternate browser renderers:
A first look at Europe’s alternative iPhone app stores
Is it worth all the trouble?
Yes, the DMA made Apple offer these capabilities.
Clearly with the dominance of Chrome, Steam, etc years after the fact we can see that MS did nothing wrong and/or some government regulation is necessary to restore natural market forces. Choose your spin wisely.
I guess there's a certain beauty in that we will never know who could have competed with them when the market was in its infancy. There is no way to track ideas, software, or companies that never came to be because they weren't allowed to.
I'm not sure if Microsoft had said, "you can preload any web browser you want as long as it uses the Trident renderer" that anyone would have been able to say users had a choice without laughing about it, but I guess here we are. An argument could also be made for Apple killing, or at least contributing to and/or hastening the demise of, Flash by not allowing such plugins.
I realize that. The point is, if the EU has decided that waiting until someone has 90% of a market is too late (especially if the market is effectively a duopoly and both participants are engaging in the same apparent anti-competitive behavior) they really can make new laws to address it.
So they didn't disallow mobile operators to preload software on the iPhone? I'm pretty sure they did.
FTA:
Apple's own Phil Schiller assured the press that Verizon would not be loading up the device with crapware, too. "We want the experience to be the same for every iPhone user. So there are no special Verizon Apps preinstalled," Schiller told Ars. "AT&T offers customers some apps via the App Store. I'll let Verizon comment if they are working on anything for that."
Why would anyone (except another of the behemoths) enter the market after Apple has effectively claimed it? There is no room to extract any value if the competition can basically force approximately half the worlds population to be in the network and you have to fight for every end point. This is just an example of what I said above, if someone like Apple (or Google mind you) decide they are going to do something or enter a market everyone else is effectively locked out. This is also what the NPR article I previously linked was talking about where a paid app can be wiped out because Apple decides to bundle the functionality for free and possibly with better integration because third parties aren't allowed to integrate in the same way.
I'm not sure you are even disagreeing with me anymore. I don't know how you can pump up how bad Microsoft was because they didn't allow certain OEM bundling but Apple is in the clear because they don't allow any software at all to be pre-loaded and any post purchase software needs to come from their store too.
Even if I grant that the EU rules have their root in protectionism that doesn't mean they are wrong. How many EU tech companies does a significant portion of people rely on around the world? Can you name a tech company based in the EU who you think they missed that deserves additional scrutiny based on their size and market power? The only candidates I can think of that might warrant it are maybe Arm and they aren't in the EU anymore or Spotify and they have enough competition that I don't see how they are in the same league as anyone of the "gatekeepers" identified. If either of these were included there would be another large swath of US companies that would need to be included along with them.
ASML would probably fit in there somewhere, except they only turn a tiny fraction of their revenue in Europe — most of their machines are sold in Asia and the US. The entire EMEA had just over one-third the US revenue, and something like one twentieth of Asia's.
ASML revenue worldwide by region 2023 | Statista
As of 2023, most of the sales revenue of ASML was generated in Asia with 8.07 billion euros generated in Taiwan and a further 7.25 billion euros generated in China.
www.statista.com