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

[deevey]

In Ireland there are the offences of careless driving, and reckless driving.
Neither are rigidly defined, and there's a grey area between what constitutes careless, and what constitutes reckless, but in the main it works well, and everyone understands what it means. The reason it's not rigidly defined is because it removes the need to have a huge list of acts that constitute an offence, which will not cover everything. It also allows for context - certain acts are fine in one situation, but wrong in others.

Similar with the DMA - it's not rigidly defined, but anyone with a reasonable level of common sense can see what it means.

There is careless and dangerous driving in Ireland. And the measure of difference between the two is intent. There is speed limits however that are rigidly defined in law, which few of these EU regulatory rulings are.

So why do they not just explicitly outline what the actual objectives are in black and white? ... why all the ambiguity when you go to the bother of coming up with these ideas in the first place.

Or you might look what is defined or classified as unsafe, dangerous and reckless behavior. EU tells you the only information you should need and that is what the goal and results are desired. How you happen to meet such expectations in your unique way that is super wasteful or super efficient is for you to find.

That's my issue with these directives. My idea of safe maybe different to others.

IMHO there should never had been any room for interpretation, simply "Make it So".

If you expect people to drive under 30kph then don't tell them to "drive slow" and fine them when they drive over the limit of what was expected.

 

[DaPhox]

A monopoly can exist in a market that has alternatives/other companies.

A U.S. district court ruled Microsoft was a monopoly in computer operating systems in 1999 despite the fact that alternatives existed including Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS, DR-OS, etc.

A U.S. jury declared Google's Play Store and payment system a monopoly last year despite alternatives existing.

That doesnt mean it is so….

 

[electronicsguy]

Good for EU. I’m able to enjoy the IPhone 15 due to the universal chargers rule. It’s apple’s arrogance which is being indicted in court.

 

[d686546s]

The EU’s Share of Apple’s Global Revenue

The DMA allows the EC to penalize “gatekeepers” with fines that are vastly disproportionate to the amount of revenue they generate in EU member states.

daringfireball.net

May not seem like so controversial an opinion at the end of the year.

Both of the analysis presented in the thing you linked only compare revenue vs fines, but the really important dimension it misses is what is the actual cost of compliance vs missed revenue and potential fines.

The problem of course is that we don't have any reliable data, so at best we can speculate, but I suspect that despite all of Apple's outrage and all the chest thumping in places like MacRumors, it's just not worth not complying and miss even 7% of potential revenue on the table.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

There is careless and dangerous driving in Ireland. And the measure of difference between the two is intent. There is speed limits however that are rigidly defined in law, which few of these EU regulatory rulings are.

They are, how do you think you measure intent of a driver?

So why do they not just explicitly outline what the actual objectives are in black and white? ... why all the ambiguity when you go to the bother of coming up with these ideas in the first place.

What is so ambiguous with the explicitly clear objective of the regulations?
The numbered recitals provide context for the legislative act: they explain the objectives of the act or they explain how a particular term should be understood.

The recitals are legally non-binding. However, the recitals can be relevant. Courts often use the recitals to interpret a particular – legally binding – provision of EU legislation, especially if multiple interpretations of a certain provision are possible. You can use the same approach: read the provisions first, and when you have doubt, consult the recitals.

That's my issue with these directives. My idea of safe maybe different to others.

What your idea of “safe” isn’t going to be relevant to the judge when everything needed to know exists ether in the legal text, case law it refers to or primary law.

LIMHO there should never had been any room for interpretation, simply "Make it So".

What room is there? The intent of the law is very clear, and so is the spirit of the law.

If both the spirit of the law is clear and the intent is clear, then Having an interpretation contrary to that will break you

If you expect people to drive under 30kph then don't tell them to "drive slow" and fine them when they drive over the limit of what was expected.

Don’t you have the concept of common sense in your legal system?

For example jaywalking isn’t a crime, you can cross the road just about anywhere without issue. And if you get hit by a car when jaywalking you will be fined for reckless conduct.

But if you at the other hand walk over a crosswalk, it will be the car driver who will be found responsible for not paying attention to the read.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

it doesnt matter how many languages you translate "fair and reasonable" into, they still are vague and open to interpretation.
And that is probably the EU aim.

It always makes me curious where this notion even comes from. There nothing vague or open to interpretation. This has been done for decades and worked without issue for everyone else.

How do you think you can enforce a regulations in 24 different languages if it’s vague and up to interpretation? Is Apple just uniquely incompetent? Are they unable or unwilling to understand the law? Are their lawyers incompetent in how civil law works?

The fines aren’t unreasonable.
The idea that fines are part of doing business is absurd. A fine is made up of two parts, the fine for the violation and a fee to discourage further intentional violations.

 

[DaPhox]

Good for EU. I’m able to enjoy the IPhone 15 due to the universal chargers rule. It’s apple’s arrogance which is being indicted in court.

So arrogance i illegal? Oh dear…

 

[bcortens]

seems more like a way to pay Apple almost nothing for their efforts... so a 100 Euro app can pay 1/200th of what it cost buyer? Sure Apple will be stoked at self reported 0.5% commission... in what world does that make sense? that's beyond tokenistic.

1. I said 5% not 0.5%
2. If the Eu thinks accessing iPhone and Android customers should be at utility rates then we have to acknowledge the fact that Apple is already getting paid for that, they sold the users the iPhone, that already more than covers the cost of their IP development for iOS.
3. If Apple wants to be an IP licensing company they can stop selling iPhones that contain that IP and start just selling the IP. Apple wants to make money coming and going, on every single thing that happens on the platform, and that has consequences when you are a company as big and important as Apple.

 

[wbeasley]

So arrogance i illegal? Oh dear…

it was all those Apple announcements "And one more thing..."
How arrogant... fine them

 

[bcortens]

I can accept this with one caveat - how would Apple know how much a developer brought in in terms of app revenue if the sales took place outside of the App Store?

With the CTF, I get what Apple is doing here. They are likely still able to monitor app installs, hence a flat fee is easy to calculate and administer. Let’s say David Smith reported $1 million in annual app revenue and opts to pay 5% of that. Is Apple supposed to just take him at his word? Do they have the power to audit developers the same way the government approaches taxation? What’s the penalty if somebody like epic or Spotify is found to be guilty of under declaring their earnings? Total removal from the iOS platform entirely? Does Apple have the authority under the DMA to even enforce that?

With iTunes, it’s a solved issue because the money goes through Apple first. With other payment methods, it’s a black box.

They would figure it out the same way they plan to figure out their 10% commission on IAP regardless of payment system used. The same way they planned to figure out their 27/12% commission on apps that link out to websites.

 

[electronicsguy]

So arrogance i illegal? Oh dear…

Yes, when it leads to anti competitive and restrictive trade practices hurting consumers. Read the law.

And now they’ll face the US courts. Oh dear 😂😂

 

[wbeasley]

there are people proposing their own solutions here to reimburse Apple on sales who clearly dont understand the details of what they proposed...

if an app dev chooses to pay a 0.50 euro flat fee rather than a 5% commission on any potential sales, then the 100 euro app paying 0.50 euro is paying... 0.5% of the money raised. if they paid 5% theyd be paying 5 euros.

neither seems very attractive to Apple for all their years of work setting up iOS.

of course monitoring actual sales from another store would be impossible to prove. "sorry no sales this month so we arent paying you Apple".

and if the EU deemed 5% fair and workable and forced Apple to accept it, there would still be people on here whinging it should be 4% or 3%... end of the day, they want it for nothing.

 

[Abazigal]

They would figure it out the same way they plan to figure out their 10% commission on IAP regardless of payment system used. The same way they planned to figure out their 27/12% commission on apps that link out to websites.

So you are for Apple introducing extremely invasive methods of tracking how much developers earn from apps downloaded from outside of the App Store?

 

[bcortens]

So you are for Apple introducing extremely invasive methods of tracking how much developers earn from apps downloaded from outside of the App Store?

I think it could be done with only modest level of intrusiveness. However Epic seems to be able to sell unreal engine and collect almost the same idea, 5% royalty on the product using it (the 50% of time spent in the iOS Spotify App in my example). When licensing IP you have to trust that people are going to follow the rules. It is only Apple’s weirdly controlling nature that makes them want to get so invasive.

I gave those invasive methods of tracking as a suggestion mostly to point out the fact that Apple already believes they can do this sort of thing.

I think they should not use them, but instead they should follow every other company that licenses its IP and actually have some level of trust in others. If they believe others are abusing the system they can do what everyone else does and take them to court.

 

[wbeasley]

So you are for Apple introducing extremely invasive methods of tracking how much developers earn from apps downloaded from outside of the App Store?

so Apple should trust people and if they dont believe them, take them to court is the suggestion? hahaha.
every week we will have another Epic vs Apple over sales data...
the proposed solutions get more and more ridiculous

Tim, just put Android on EU phones. Let Google deal with all this. For $1 to Google, it is a cheap and fast solution.

People will still buy Apple phones because they are nicer and buyers want to be seen with an apple logo phone.
And they can visit the UK, restore the full iOS experience and return home... and pretend they are tourists in their own country.

 

[wbeasley]

So you are for Apple introducing extremely invasive methods of tracking how much developers earn from apps downloaded from outside of the App Store?

there is one teensy little wrinkle in my "put Android on EU iPhones" solution...

doing so would mean Android was the sole OS in EU and make Google a monopoly and provide no choice to EU buyers when the EU wanted more competition for user euros...

the irony will be lost on some...

 

[j26]

There is careless and dangerous driving in Ireland. And the measure of difference between the two is intent. There is speed limits however that are rigidly defined in law, which few of these EU regulatory rulings are.

So why do they not just explicitly outline what the actual objectives are in black and white? ... why all the ambiguity when you go to the bother of coming up with these ideas in the first place.

That's my issue with these directives. My idea of safe maybe different to others.

IMHO there should never had been any room for interpretation, simply "Make it So".

If you expect people to drive under 30kph then don't tell them to "drive slow" and fine them when they drive over the limit of what was expected.

There are also strict liability offences to deal with the measurable - speed limits, using a mobile phone while driving, not wearing seat belts, blood alcohol levels, etc.
Careless and dangerous driving is the catch-all to deal with the things that shouldn't have to be said and that can't be expressed with sufficient precision without leaving huge loopholes that lawyers can steer their clients through. As an example if we ban trying to fry sausages on a camping stove on the passenger seat while driving - would bacon count, or would it count if it was on the dashboard. If there was no cooking involved, say it was making a sandwich, would that count? If you try to expand the definition to involve the preparing of food, would unwrapping a chocolate bar count as preparing food? With some laws, the more specific you are the more ridiculous and unweildy the drafting of the law has to be, and the more likely that the law will not achieve its intent (to cut down on careless or dangerous driving, in this case), and the more likely it is to have unintended consequences.

As far as "reasonable" goes, that is subjective, but subjective is not ramdom arbitrary. There are standards that apply. Various legal tests can be applied. In Ireland, the "reasonable man" test is common.

Applying that to the DMA, the intent is clear - a competitive market where no side can leverage it's advantages to the detriment of others. It's not trying to dictate the shape of the competitive market - it's just adding certain competition duties to anyone that achieves over a certain share. Who's to say that Apple won't be in a position benefit from those protections in 5-10 years?

 

[Abazigal]

there is one teensy little wrinkle in my "put Android on EU iPhones" solution...

doing so would mean Android was the sole OS in EU and make Google a monopoly and provide no choice to EU buyers when the EU wanted more competition for user euros...

the irony will be lost on some...

Less irony and more of unintended consequences.

The EU is so obviously trying to have their cake and eat it too. For instance, they want Facebook to offer an option for users to opt out of tracking, but baulk at their attempts of introducing a paid tier, because the EU knows that the majority of its users are still going to opt for the free tier regardless of how cheaply it is priced (people are cheapskate like that). So they are all but saying that they expect Facebook to offer their services for free in their region (because ads without tracking typically pay very little), no doubt subsidised by profits from other parts of the world.

I am no fan of Facebook, and the DMA now has me actually defending said company.

This is what happens when the EU can't be upfront about what they are trying to accomplish with the DMA. I would support well-crafted legislation, but it needs to be honest. Is it really so hard to just come out and say "Yes, we are violating Apple's property rights here, but there is still going to be some form of FRAND licensing regime, Apple will still get compensated, and at the end of the day, Apple is still going to invest in iOS because they are making so much money and it's good for the platform as a whole".

Instead, the EU seems like Apple is still entitled to monetise their IP, yet seem intent on rejecting every proposal by Apple to do so. Maybe that's why the DMA is so vaguely worded in the first place.

 

[ric22]

After thousands of messages on this site, it is still baffling why a small group of people still hate the idea of iPhones being open to non-signed software, as Macs and Windows have been forever and a day. If you don't want unsigned software, don't install anything apart from what is offered on the official Apple App Store. Simple. Nothing changes for you. If others want to take the risk of downloading software Apple hasn't signed, that's down to them, like on Windows and Mac.

Also, developers of software that don't want to list their apps on app stores should not be charged fees. iOS and Android are ubiquitous and practically everyone is now stuck using one or the other if they want to lead a "normal" life. The two should not be able to stifle innovation on platforms that have become the defacto standards.

 

[wbeasley]

After thousands of messages on this site, it is still baffling why a small group of people still hate the idea of iPhones being open to non-signed software, as Macs and Windows have been forever and a day. If you don't want unsigned software, don't install anything apart from what is offered on the official Apple App Store. Simple. Nothing changes for you. If others want to take the risk of downloading software Apple hasn't signed, that's down to them, like on Windows and Mac.

Also, developers of software that don't want to list their apps on app stores should not be charged fees. iOS and Android are ubiquitous and practically everyone is now stuck using one or the other if they want to lead a "normal" life. The two should not be able to stifle innovation on platforms that have become the defacto standards.

after 1000s of posts you would think by now you would understand that letting unsigned apps in opens the door to problems. for everyone.

someone installed a dodgy Android app on their phone. they connected to the work network and it spat code around that brought our work email to a halt for three days while IT found who it was, what they had installed and implemented upgrade security (which then made it harder for the actual clock on app that everyone had to use to install - it would only work if you were on 3G/4G and not wifi that had the security).

so that is why we are against open slather software installs.

you can have them on Android, you can even try to convince Cook to give you an option to run Android on your iPhone hardware. but stop forcing your choice on the rest of us when you have a viable alternative already.

apps not on the app store still use Apple tools and interface elements. and leverage the installed base of handsets that Apple grew. they deserve compensation for that. Netflix sells vouchers in supermarkets. how much commission do they pay stores to put them on shelves? what Apple charge these days is significantly less than the old software boxes on dusty shelves in stores model.

 

[electronicsguy]

after 1000s of posts you would think by now you would understand that letting unsigned apps in opens the door to problems. for everyone.

someone installed a dodgy Android app on their phone. they connected to the work network and it spat code around that brought our work email to a halt for three days while IT found who it was, what they had installed and implemented upgrade security (which then made it harder for the actual clock on app that everyone had to use to install - it would only work if you were on 3G/4G and not wifi that had the security).

so that is why we are against open slather software installs.

you can have them on Android, you can even try to convince Cook to give you an option to run Android on your iPhone hardware. but stop forcing your choice on the rest of us when you have a viable alternative already.

apps not on the app store still use Apple tools and interface elements. and leverage the installed base of handsets that Apple grew. they deserve compensation for that. Netflix sells vouchers in supermarkets. how much commission do they pay stores to put them on shelves? what Apple charge these days is significantly less than the old software boxes on dusty shelves in stores model.

That’s already taken care of with corporate profiles on your phone. The company can lock down those phones to only install licensed apps. Just like they lock down corporate laptops or tablets or workstations. No difference.

But why prevent the average Joe in a ranch in Montana from downloading an unlicensed app on “his” phone about how to seduce his first cousin? Doesn’t make any sense …

 

[bcortens]

Less irony and more of unintended consequences.

The EU is so obviously trying to have their cake and eat it too. For instance, they want Facebook to offer an option for users to opt out of tracking, but baulk at their attempts of introducing a paid tier, because the EU knows that the majority of its users are still going to opt for the free tier regardless of how cheaply it is priced (people are cheapskate like that). So they are all but saying that they expect Facebook to offer their services for free in their region (because ads without tracking typically pay very little), no doubt subsidised by profits from other parts of the world.

I am no fan of Facebook, and the DMA now has me actually defending said company.

Why are you defending them? Because Gruber is?
If a company cannot be profitable when engaging in an illegal business model that company shouldn't exist. Companies are not sacred, they exist because they believe they can make a profit by providing some good or service, if the laws mean that you cannot exploit people to make money then you can't exploit them. The fact that people are used to their data being exploited does not make it right. The EU (IMO) does not go far enough limiting tracking and targeting. Were you against moving to unleaded gasoline? It's a more severe harm than companies invading your privacy to be sure but it was more profitable for the companies to make the leaded gasoline.

You and Gruber are both essentially advocating for a society in which our privacy is for sale, think on that for a moment.

Edit: To be clear, I know my data is already for sale, I actually think that is a big problem and not something to be defended.

This is what happens when the EU can't be upfront about what they are trying to accomplish with the DMA. I would support well-crafted legislation, but it needs to be honest. Is it really so hard to just come out and say "Yes, we are violating Apple's property rights here, but there is still going to be some form of FRAND licensing regime, Apple will still get compensated, and at the end of the day, Apple is still going to invest in iOS because they are making so much money and it's good for the platform as a whole".

Apple is already compensated for its IP, the argument could even go something like this:

Apple sells iPhones with a copy of iOS that contains a set of APIs and tools
Once the consumer owns their iPhone Apple has already collected its fee for the API and tooling
Developers can sell to users who own the copy of iOS
Apple cannot charge for access to those users

Instead, the EU seems like Apple is still entitled to monetise their IP, yet seem intent on rejecting every proposal by Apple to do so. Maybe that's why the DMA is so vaguely worded in the first place.

I made a whole post pointing out the FRAND problems with the CTF. It is very easy to see why it was rejected. Apple has done one proposal, not many, so how could they have rejected "every" proposal?

As I said, Apple already monetizes their IP, they want to double monetize it, they might get to, they might not.

 

[wbeasley]

That’s already taken care of with corporate profiles on your own. The company can lock down those phone to only install licensed apps. Just like they lock down corporate laptops or tablets or workstations. No difference.

But why prevent the average Joe in a ranch in Montana from downloading an unlicensed app on “his” phone about how to seduce his first cousin? Doesn’t make any sense …

corporate let users use their own phones so no lock downs...

managers had locked install phones.
but 90% of the workforce used their own.

 

[electronicsguy]

corporate let users use their own phones so no lock downs...

managers had locked install phones.
but 90% of the workforce used their own.

Then let the corporates learn. You have to learn modern tools, not keep working with junk Mainframes and COBOL. Now that phones will be allowed to install any apps, let them disallow non-corporate phones to connect to their networks. It’s not rocket science.

Most companies today have a secure internal network and a guest network. All non-licensed devices can only connect to guest networks.

 

[webkit]

That doesnt mean it is so….

Whether or not Apple is a monopoly is up to governments and/or courts to decide but the fact that other companies exist does not mean Apple couldn't be a monopoly.