EU Opens Non-Compliance Investigations into Apple, Meta, and Google

[AppliedMicro]

we are a long way from interest in rumours of new hardware and software and offering suggestions to improve things.

👉 I'll gladly offer a a few suggestions for Apple to improve things:

• Just bloody comply with the regulation.
• Stop trying to find ways around it and deter consumers and developers from making use of its provisions.
• Focus on improving products and providing competitive services
• Stop the bad rep and press you're getting
• Compete

 

[wbeasley]

👉 I'll gladly offer a a few suggestions for Apple to improve things:

• Just bloody comply with the regulation.
• Stop trying to find ways around it and deter consumers and developers from making use of its provisions.
• Focus on improving products and providing competitive
• Stop the bad rep and press you're getting
• Compete

those suggestions are as broad as EU directives.

Let's have some details on each. What would you do?

 

[d686546s]

Shareholders care about their bottomline. Giving in to the Chinese government won’t hurt customers outside of china and won’t cost Apple money. Complying with the DMA will at best cost Apple a lot of revenue on AppStore sales and at worst up to 20% of their global revenue. As soon as the losses are bigger than potential gains, leaving the EU market will be the better choice for the bottomline.

If Apple gives in too much, other countries will follow suit, effectively ruining revenue. However, playing hardball with the weakest of the big players might pay off in the long run. Or backfire spectacularly, who knows?

But if the EU is so wrong about all of this as many here believe, then why will other countries inevitably do the same thing? So worst case they will lose some revenue, but while a lot of profit is worse than a whole lot of profit, it for sure beats no profit.

If, on the other hand, the EU is doing the right thing and other countries will therefore follow, why should we as consumers be rooting for the trillion dollar corporation?

And what's your metric for the EU being the "weakest" of the big players?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Let's have some details on each. What would you do?

For starters, let developers link to outside purchases for free and stop spreading FUD. Oh yeah, and approve Spotify's update.

That'd greatly satisfy most of my suggestions for the time being.

"The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper."

Not. That. Hard.

 

[wbeasley]

For starters, let developers link to outside purchases for free and stop spreading FUD about it.

That'd greatly satisfy most of my suggestions for the time being.

"The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper."

Not. That. Hard.

that's not much detail.
that's your wish list that Apple worked differently from the device you bought.
and how they marketed it. you just want it open. it wasnt in 15 years an open system

you have a choice for an open system that meets your needs.

there are tools to assist you in your move to Android.

i dont see any reason for you to stay using Apple products if this is your #1 requirement when clearly it wasnt designed to meet that need.

not. that. hard

 

[wbeasley]

Apple takes the following (the complaint says 30% but it could vary - 15% for some)

For most of the last 15 years,
1. Apple collected a tax in the form of a 30 percent commission on the price of any app downloaded from the App Store,
2. 30 percent tax on in-app purchases,
3. fees to access the tools needed to develop iPhone native apps in the first place.
4. Apple also generates substantial and increasing revenue by charging developers to help users find their apps in the App Store—something that, for years, Apple told developers was part of the reason they paid a 30 percent tax in the first place. For example, Apple will sell keyword searches for an app to someone other than the owner of the app. Apple is able to command these rents from companies of all sizes, including some of the largest and most sophisticated companies in the world.

That is the problem.

Google sell keywords for searching.
It's an added OPTIONAL cost.

I put an ad on eBay.
They did it for free until I sell. Then they charge me.
They also offered to boost my ad... optional.

You seriously seem to have an issue with a for profit company using their skills to generate profit.
Apple arent a charity. They exist to make money.
To make money, they need to convince consumers to buy their products.
And as you pointed out, they are increasing good at it.

More products sold, more customers using the app store also means more customers for apps in that store.
Everyone wins.

Tax rates for individuals and companies often change over time.
Apple can tweak the values just like governments do.

If you dont like what they do, there are lots of competitive products that can do what you want.
No one is stopping you from moving elsewhere to a product that better meets your requirements.

 

[wbeasley]

They just should not be exclusionary and anticompetitive.

that's an opinion.

a million apps on the app store, billions paid to devs from sales on that store. pretty inclusive.
and many apps in the same category. competitive.

and if you dont like what Apple sell, there's plenty of alternatives that are more open to install what you like.
and you are free to buy the device you want.

I'm guessing Apple's lawyers are going to use the same arguments, with numbers, to show the same thing.

If Apple products do not meet your requirements, you know what the answer is.

 

[AppliedMicro]

that's not much detail.
that's your wish list that Apple worked differently from the device you bought.

No - it‘s my suggestion for Apple to resolve complying with the DMA.

If Apple silently complied (as Microsoft doesn’t seem to have such a hard time doing) we could focus on new great hardware and software coming from Apple and its third-party developers - instead of all that news and discussion about the merits of regulation and how Apple is trying to circumvent it.

👉 The more Apple keep being petulant about it and refuse to comply in good faith, the more and longer they will be „dumped upon“ online. As you said you said.

i dont see any reason for you to stay using Apple products if this is your #1 requirement when clearly it wasnt designed to meet that need.

It’s (obviously) not my number one requirement.

And prohibiting the mentioning or linking of purchase choices isn’t a „design“ choice.
It‘s an anticompetitive business choice.

and if you dont like what Apple sell, there's plenty of alternatives that are more open to install what you like.
and you are free to buy the device you want.

It‘s not about „devices“. It‘s about OS, application stores and purchases on devices. And you know that.
For me and the DMA.

Also, the choice between iOS, Android, Android or Android (if not Android) isn’t „plenty“.

Would I buy an iPhone from Apple, when I could get a competitor‘s phone for 20 or 30% less that runs the same operating system and App Store? Probably not. Yet I‘m not lamenting that lack of choice. I‘m totally OK with Apple allowing iOS only on their own hardware.

 

[Shirasaki]

What is a ”monopolistic activity”?

It’s left to those lawmakers and lawyers to define.

 

[Shirasaki]

These are mediocre people with way too much power, way too much money, and a massive god complex. The EU is a problem. Central command bureaucracies are a cancer.

So everyone applying their own ruling is not cancer according to your logic? Apple spending endless stream of legal fees on 30+ countries located in today’s EU region is a good thing?

 

[AppliedMicro]

These are mediocre people with way too much power, way too much money, and a massive god complex. Apple’s App Store people and policies are a problem. Central command bureaucracies are a cancer.

👆Fixed.

 

[wbeasley]

No - it‘s my suggestion for Apple to resolve complying with the DMA.

If Apple silently complied (as Microsoft doesn’t seem to have such a hard time doing) we could focus on new great hardware and software coming from Apple and its third-party developers - instead of all that news and discussion about the merits of regulation and how Apple is trying to circumvent it.

👉 The more Apple keep being petulant about it and refuse to comply in good faith, the more and longer they will be „dumped upon“ online. As you said you said.

It’s (obviously) not my number one requirement.

And prohibiting the mentioning or linking of purchase choices isn’t a „design“ choice.
It‘s an anticompetitive business choice.


It‘s not about „devices“. It‘s about OS, application stores and purchases on devices. And you know that.
For me and the DMA.

Also, the choice between iOS, Android, Android or Android (if not Android) isn’t „plenty“.

Would I buy an iPhone from Apple, when I could get a competitor‘s phone for 20 or 30% less that runs the same operating system and App Store? Probably not. Yet I‘m not lamenting that lack of choice. I‘m totally OK with Apple allowing iOS only on their own hardware.

you arent happy with how iOS works at all.
it doesnt do what you say you want it to.
and you constantly complain about what it should, in your opinion, do.

prohibiting mentioning and linking happens in retail stores all the time.
that's not anti competitive there so why is it in a digital store?
there is already a link to the app devsite in app.
why dont devs take the opportunity when the webpage opens to display buy me messages?
i just checked, since I stopped subscribing, Spotify now displays a "Get Premium" banner at the top of the page. How much simpler does it need to be?

it's plenty of choice when you have hundreds of different price point Android devices and branches of Android to buy.
And no one is stopping you from buying one of them.

iOS is what it is and has been for the core functions you want changed for 15 years.
look at the furor when Coke changed to New Coke.
I dont buy Cadbury chocolate anymore because they tinkered with the ingredients and stopped being the chocolate i knew as a kid.

If you are "totally OK with with Apple allowing iOS only on their hardware" then I fail to see the issue.
It is what it is. You like and buy it as it is offered or you dont. it really is that simple.

 

[bcortens]

you arent happy with how iOS works at all.
it doesnt do what you say you want it to.
and you constantly complain about what it should, in your opinion, do.

prohibiting mentioning and linking happens in retail stores all the time.
that's not anti competitive there so why is it in a digital store?

iOS Itself is not a store, Apple does not own the screens inside of Spotify’s App.
Once you internalize this truth you will be closer to understanding the position of the EU and those defending them.

there is already a link to the app devsite in app.
why dont devs take the opportunity when the webpage opens to display buy me

Because it is not obvious why a link to the dev page would be where you can go to sign up or pay? Usually that link is just for support purposes. Devs (until very recently) were not allowed to mention that you could pay at a link. Apple is still (as far as I remember) trying to extract a percentage of revenue earned from the link (though they may not be enforcing that pending the legal cases they are involved in)

messages?
i just checked, since I stopped subscribing, Spotify now displays a "Get Premium" banner at the top of the page. How much simpler does it need to be?

See above. Furthermore, this change (allowing linking) is very recent, late 2022 I believe. It wasn’t done magnanimously but as a result of Apple getting repeatedly sued And told they had to remove their anti-steering rules. I think it has taken Spotify so long to add a link because they have been trying to fight Apple’s attempt to earn a percentage of any subscription paid for as a result of the link.

it's plenty of choice when you have hundreds of different price point Android devices and branches of Android to buy.
And no one is stopping you from buying one of them.

iOS is a captive market, developers don’t have a choice and the DMA is as much about developers as it is users.
Developers (who want to make money) can’t choose not to be on iOS and anyone serious about this topic knows that.

iOS is what it is and has been for the core functions you want changed for 15 years.
look at the furor when Coke changed to New Coke.
I dont buy Cadbury chocolate anymore because they tinkered with the ingredients and stopped being the chocolate i knew as a kid.

iOS will change very little as a result of these new rules. Apple will likely even continue to make rather obscene profit margins in the App Store. The fact that they won’t be able to earn a percentage of all the money that flows through their platform is hardly changing the core of iOS.

If you are "totally OK with with Apple allowing iOS only on their hardware" then I fail to see the issue.
It is what it is. You like and buy it as it is offered or you dont. it really is that simple.

The main reason people like iOS is not because it prohibits third party app stores. Most people aren’t going to let a single issue dictate their choices. We weigh out our options and choose the one that best satisfies most of them. If iPhone matches 90% of what we want we choose that, I’m not going to give up a platform that does most of the things I want for one that only does a few things I like just to get one feature I want.

 

[MacProFCP]

Apple likely already worked on a USB C solution a long time ago. It didn't willingly change to USB C without the EU laws.

Exactly. If the EU promulgates, they will do it. So promulgate! Instead the EU sets up committees to just make up rules as they go along. That is unethical as it lacks a standard that is universally applied.

 

[Mveight]

What is ”truly free” with governments meddling?

No one subject to the law, I guess!

 

[wbeasley]

iOS Itself is not a store, Apple does not own the screens inside of Spotify’s App.
Once you internalize this truth you will be closer to understanding the position of the EU and those defending them.


Because it is not obvious why a link to the dev page would be where you can go to sign up or pay? Usually that link is just for support purposes. Devs (until very recently) were not allowed to mention that you could pay at a link. Apple is still (as far as I remember) trying to extract a percentage of revenue earned from the link (though they may not be enforcing that pending the legal cases they are involved in)


See above. Furthermore, this change (allowing linking) is very recent, late 2022 I believe. It wasn’t done magnanimously but as a result of Apple getting repeatedly sued And told they had to remove their anti-steering rules. I think it has taken Spotify so long to add a link because they have been trying to fight Apple’s attempt to earn a percentage of any subscription paid for as a result of the link.

iOS is a captive market, developers don’t have a choice and the DMA is as much about developers as it is users.
Developers (who want to make money) can’t choose not to be on iOS and anyone serious about this topic knows that.

iOS will change very little as a result of these new rules. Apple will likely even continue to make rather obscene profit margins in the App Store. The fact that they won’t be able to earn a percentage of all the money that flows through their platform is hardly changing the core of iOS.


The main reason people like iOS is not because it prohibits third party app stores. Most people aren’t going to let a single issue dictate their choices. We weigh out our options and choose the one that best satisfies most of them. If iPhone matches 90% of what we want we choose that, I’m not going to give up a platform that does most of the things I want for one that only does a few things I like just to get one feature I want.

The store is PART of the iOS experience. It allows you to load apps.

Apple doesn't own what you put on the app screens BUT these screens do need to exist within the rules of the app store. They provide all the code for consistent looking buttons and presentation components. So users immediately feel comfortable using apps. You can argue all you like, but devs sign up acknowledging what they can and cant do. Linking outside isnt allowed as Epic found out.

So if Apple made the words on the Dev link at the top of the page or clearer what it will do, doesnt that solve your issue? People say the app has no way to find out how to pay. It does. They can code their webpage to inform users.
I'd be happy if Apple changed the wording and made the link a button or more prominent if directed by EU.

Doesnt matter when the link was added. It's there now. Laws and arguments are being made about the current app store not the past. Time to move on from that argument.

iOS is not a captive market. Noone is forcing devs to write an app for it.
Devs having a desire to reach 2 billion iOS users is enough incentive.
Set the price higher than outside the store if you want. Apple let you set the price.

You are conjecturing for all iOS users saying "the main reason".
If you aren't going to give up a platform because of one issue, then accept it is the way it is and stop complaining about something that has been this way for a long time and most people arent asking for.

There's a huge difference between suggesting features you would like and DEMANDING which is what is happening.

Vendors are open to suggestions.
Cook has often said they get few requests for things like RCS.
But they sometimes agree to add them at some stage.
So add your voice and use those feedback forms all you want. And get your friends to as well.
But with 2 billion voices, it's going to take a considerable effort to make enough noise to be heard when the inference is everyone else is happy as it is.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The problem isn’t with how the law is written but how the law is interpreted. Regardless of how well you wordsmith the requirement, a well paid lawyer will find a way around it.
It’s clear what the DMA states but corporate lawyers are paid insane sums of money to interpret the law how they see fit and then prove they followed it.

Haha… that’s the big mistake, lawyers don’t have the same job in EU as the U.S.

In EU we have an inquisitorial legal System, not an adversarial system.

And legal interpretation that dominates the EU is theological legal interpretation and multilingual legal interpretation, meaning we have 24 languages that are equally valid in front of the court.
Presenting argumentative and convincing arguments is”t important and can often backfire if it’s not related to factual information and evidence.

Proactive Judicial Role: In the inquisitorial system, the court or a part of the court is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case. The judge is not merely a passive arbiter but takes on a more investigative role, often initiating evidence gathering and questioning witnesses


European Commission Anti-Competitive Litigation:

• Judiciary Role: The European Commission operates not as a judicial body but as an investigative and prosecutorial entity, vested with the authority to enforce competition law. The adjudicative function is reserved for the European General Court, which reviews the Commission’s decisions for legality rather than factual determination.
• Judges: Within the EU Commission’s procedure, judges at the General Court review the legality of the Commission’s decisions rather than engaging in fact-finding or discovery. They ensure that the Commission’s investigations and decisions comply with EU law and fundamental rights.
• Lawyers: Lawyers represent companies during the Commission’s investigations, responding to requests for information and defending against the Statement of Objections. They prepare written submissions and present oral arguments if the case proceeds to the General Court.
• Expert Testimony: Expert witnesses may be summoned to elucidate complex economic and market analyses. Their testimonies are pivotal in substantiating or refuting the Commission’s allegations of anti-competitive conduct.

Compare to the U.S. system:

• Pleadings
• Discovery
• Trial
• Appeal

 

[Beautyspin]

that's an opinion.

a million apps on the app store, billions paid to devs from sales on that store. pretty inclusive.
and many apps in the same category. competitive.

and if you dont like what Apple sell, there's plenty of alternatives that are more open to install what you like.
and you are free to buy the device you want.

I'm guessing Apple's lawyers are going to use the same arguments, with numbers, to show the same thing.

If Apple products do not meet your requirements, you know what the answer is.

It is not an opinion. It is the law (Sherman Act Section 2). I had posted a link explaining the Sherman Act with case laws related to it earlier in response to a post. You can check it.

 

[Beautyspin]

Google sell keywords for searching.
It's an added OPTIONAL cost.

I put an ad on eBay.
They did it for free until I sell. Then they charge me.
They also offered to boost my ad... optional.

You seriously seem to have an issue with a for profit company using their skills to generate profit.
Apple arent a charity. They exist to make money.
To make money, they need to convince consumers to buy their products.
And as you pointed out, they are increasing good at it.

More products sold, more customers using the app store also means more customers for apps in that store.
Everyone wins.

Tax rates for individuals and companies often change over time.
Apple can tweak the values just like governments do.

If you dont like what they do, there are lots of competitive products that can do what you want.
No one is stopping you from moving elsewhere to a product that better meets your requirements.

Apple said (according to DOJ) that they charge 30% tax for listing and discovery, but they again charge the app developers for selling keywords to surface their apps. Double dipping. That is their entire business practice. Gouge developers to the extent possible.

 

[Beautyspin]

Shareholders care about their bottomline. Giving in to the Chinese government won’t hurt customers outside of china and won’t cost Apple money. Complying with the DMA will at best cost Apple a lot of revenue on AppStore sales and at worst up to 20% of their global revenue. As soon as the losses are bigger than potential gains, leaving the EU market will be the better choice for the bottomline.

If Apple gives in too much, other countries will follow suit, effectively ruining revenue. However, playing hardball with the weakest of the big players might pay off in the long run. Or backfire spectacularly, who knows?

Complying with DMA will not cost Apple more. Noncompliance will cost more in the form of fines. If Tim Cook tells the shareholders that complying with the laws will result in loss of income, the shareholders will ask why. Is Tim ready to say that the reason Apple will lose money is because they cannot compete fairly with others if they comply with DMA, because that is the only reason they will lose money. If they are good, then people will adopt Apple products even when there are alternatives. Apple should compete on quality, not by eliminating competition in an illegal way. I am sure the Apple board will have a hard time explaining why they cannot compete fairly. That would get them dismissed and they would not be able to get jobs anywhere else.

 

[Beautyspin]

That was not my question. What do you expect to gain, not the DOJ.
Apple will not make cheaper phones. They have nothing to gain by weakening their brand and the were never going for the low end market.
Apps will not become cheaper either, because there is no incentive to make them cheaper. The most wanted apps will be exclusives to their developers App Store and come at whatever price they want, because you won’t get them anywhere else.
And you can already use the device of your choice. The problem is that no one is making a device the way you want it. You want quality, build and security of an iPhone with the openness and liberties of an Android. But the quality and build stems from Apple’s control of the full experience, the security and privacy from limiting who has access to what. Opening iOS will not be possible without sacrificing those qualities.

If they do not make cheaper phones, then they cannot sell. They will become like Macs, with less than 20% share but healthy profits. They will lose the exorbitant revenues that they are getting from the Appstore, Apple Pay, etc, so their main revenue earner will become hardware (iPhones and iPads). So, they will innovate to stay ahead. Which means innovative features for the same cost (of course with their normal margins). Currently, they are selling the same thing with no innovation year to year.

 

[Beautyspin]

As I just said, this case is falling apart fast.

How is it falling apart? It is becoming a nightmare for Apple.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/consumers-sue-apple-taking-page-us-justice-department-lawsuit-2024-03-25/

 

[bousozoku]

The trouble with the DMA is that it isn't THAT specific. Yes, there are guidelines. If companies go along with the spirit of the legislation, they won't introduce new fees or harass companies trying to create app stores or those just wanting alternative payments.

However, spirit is not legally binding.

 

[truthsteve]

Says who? You? Luckily you’re not the one in charge with zero knowledge about monopolies.

Apple is not a monopoly.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

No you are not getting it! The EU did not earn any of its technical competency or informed decisions making like Google, Meta, or Apple. It will fail because they do not know what the hell it is doing! It is not opening up companies, it is stifling them and forcing them to be mediocre! The EU has too much power to afford to get things wrong and there is no forcing function to correct them either when they get things wrong like the free market system. A perfect example is AI! They do not have the least bit of competency to make decisions about AI yet they are quick to start making decisions that will stifle it and make them fall behind. Absolute power without competency is a recipe for disaster!

I’m sorry but EU is likely in possession of the most competent lawmakers in regards to writing law and antitrust legislation.

How do you think you manage to write a law in 24 different official languages? None of them are a translation, the Swedish, German, French and English language version of the laws are equally valid.

Writing multilingual laws that are consistent and not breaking apart is an achievement.

They are like a backseat driver who have never driven a car before and Apple knows it! Another example is the EU mandating all cars to be electric by 2035 when we all knew the infrastructure and global power supply was never there for that!

I’m sorry but the global electricity grid isn’t of a concern to the Eu power grid, and the electricity supply is there in spades.

We tend to have 3 phase 400v available in most homes so aren’t limited to the weak split phase 115v that’s used in the states for some reason.

And EU has a democratic mandate so yes it does have a steering mechanism. I’ll just ask you to compare your citizens trust in your institutions compared to the EU.