Google Now Lets Apps Use Third-Party Billing in EU, Apple Yet to Announce Plans

[webkit]

We agree on something. I’m for more competion via disruption not governmental regulation.

Sometimes government regulations are needed to allow for more competition.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Defining a market including a company’s trademarked name is definitely a way to describe a market, it’s just an absurd way.

McDonald’s has 100% market control over the Big Mac. Do we need to make sure others are able to make Big Mac?
Nike has 100% market control over Air Jordan’s. Is there an effort to ensure that other companies can break into that market?

You would have an excellent point, sadly McDonald only sell McDonald’s burgers.

And apple sell apple apps AND competing apps.

Apple’s AppStore have a market. McDonald’s doesn’t have a market

No, because defining a market as “Nike Air Jordan’s” is as absurd as defining a market as “Apple’s iOS App Store”. “shoes” and “smartphone app stores” is perfectly fine as neither includes a company’s trademarked name. “Airplanes” is another good one, but, again, no one seriously considers defining a market as “Boeing 737 planes”. No one is attempting to ensure Kia doesn’t have market control over the “Kia K5” market. WAIT Cydia has 100% control over the Cydia store!!! We’ve GOT to break that up IMMEDIATELY!!!!!

Cydia isn’t a market. Cydia competes with iOS AppStore. Hence why Apple AppStore have a 99.99% market share on the iOS market.
Nike air isn’t a market as it’s a product with no other products sold competitively.

“Shoes” is a market between stores ands brands. A Nike store with only Nike isn’t a market.

you can cal this market whatever you want. Apple Smartdevice internal market have a monopoly by Apple, forcing the sale of competing solutions and applications on their internal AppStore.

Apple’s smart-device OS market have competition from the cydia AppStore that they tries to deny access to all the apple Smartdevice owning customers as a gatekeeper.

Only in THIS area are folks focused on using the absurd to prop up any regulatory ideas. And, that’s primarily because the absurd is the only route to take. Apple doesn’t control the future of smartphones, they don’t control the future of mobile payments, they don’t control the future of App distribution. Apple ONLY has control over things that did not exist BEFORE Apple created them. One is left with the opinion that these

This isn’t absurd. It’s absurd to call it the smartphone market. Android compatible apps doesn't compete against iOS compatible apps. They are completely separate.

folks just don’t like Apple for some reason. Could be, they just don’t like success when it comes about from simply making a product that people like and enjoy and willfully purchase.

It has nothing to do with Apple, it has to do with the whole market.

Apple is the one least harmed by these regulations. Google and Amazon are hit the hardest if you actually read the legislation.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Competition in the App Store space means:
- porn and vape apps will be allowed

Can be on seperate AppStores, apple can continue to ban what they have moral problems with, and allow other to be adults.

- it will be a race to the bottom for fees for commonplace apps and copycat apps

It’s always been the case. Nobody is forced to join the race. Quality and service is also a factor, otherwise android would have 100% market power.

- scamware and malware will flourish

They already do, and we have zero evidence it will be worse. Until apple publish a comparative study on iOS scams and MacOS scams we won’t know.

- your credit card info will be in the hands of untrusteds

Nothing stops apple from having a list of trusted payment providers. (They did this in Korea)
EU already have trusted payment providers

And unless Fraud exceeds the EU average it won’t be a problem( it’s extremely uncommon). In USA is will likely be a problem.

Of course, I could be wrong and it could be worse.

It could also be better. Would you eat up your words then? If it becomes equal or better?

 

[I7guy]

Sometimes government regulations are needed to allow for more competition.

Then let the government fund the competition and don’t kill innovation.

 

[ader42]

The current smart-phone market as it is exists because of Apple's disruptive innovations and consumer demand for good quality products. I was a Nokia advocate and used to buy those dreadful $5 java games on Symbian.

We want more competition, but it has to come at the hands of a newly disruptive competitor not by politically restricting commercialism in existing markets that have no legitimate monopolies and products that as-is protect consumer privacy and give 99.9% of people that own that product what they want.

I'd like to see Microsoft try again to bring something new (non-android) and alternative to the mobile space, but it will more likely be Fuchsia from Google that is the next new challenger.

Bigger tax-breaks for R&D might be one way government can be positive to the whole arena.

 

[I7guy]

Can be on seperate AppStores, apple can continue to ban what they have moral problems with, and allow other to be adults.

The decline of the apple ecosystem.

It’s always been the case. Nobody is forced to join the race. Quality and service is also a factor, otherwise android would have 100% market power.

The app store is more of a target. Surprised you don't see that.

They already do, and we have zero evidence it will be worse. Until apple publish a comparative study on iOS scams and MacOS scams we won’t know.

There's plenty of evidence that it will be worse.

Nothing stops apple from having a list of trusted payment providers. (They did this in Korea)
EU already have trusted payment providers

It will be worse for consumers all around.

And unless Fraud exceeds the EU average it won’t be a problem( it’s extremely uncommon). In USA is will likely be a problem.

I'm guessing the EU will be a victim of it's regulations.

It could also be better. Would you eat up your words then? If it becomes equal or better?

I doubt it. Will you eat your words if the worse comes to pass?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I was referring to the traditional consumer desktop/laptop OS market in which Linux has a small share. The two largest players are Windows and OS X/macOS.

Yes, I realize you were referring to the picture of the world that supports YOUR contention that no competition will ever come that will challenge Apple and Google. Why you don’t want them to have competition, I don’t know.

My comment was reflecting on what has happened in the market, not necessarily my preference. I would have NO problem with a company introducing and achieving success with a new desktop/laptop OS or mobile OS. There is at least some competition via various custom Android skins/ROMs but I would welcome other (non-Android) OS competition.

I remarked:
And you’re right, there absolutely SHOULD be more smartphone competition, more app store competition, more OS competition. However, the way to foster more competition is by continuing to make it beneficial for companies, say, like Apple, to create new platform experiences.
You didn’t say:
“I hope so, but it’ll be difficult for that competition to arise”
but, instead

Given how OS markets seem to settle into two major players, another notable mobile OS competitor appears unlikely at this point.

This is more than simply reflecting on what happened in the market. It was entirely dismissive of the idea of creation of REAL competition.

Google (with Android) and Apple (with iOS) have dominant positions in mobile OS and I would like companies to have greater access to those platforms rather than see them too closed off and restricted from competition.

Foster the creation of REAL competition, competition that will design and provide innovative hardware that ANY Paypal or Samsung or whomever could use rather than depending on Google and Apple. That’s how competition is increased. Let Google and Apple keep their ways and they can stand by and fret as a third and fourth competitor comes up and innovates where they’re afraid to.

However, and I know this is going to be the part you don’t like. That future company? It SHOULD have 100% control over whatever they create. If they want to charge less than Google/Apple, but still charge something, that should be up to them to build the network of agreements that allow them to benefit from the fact that they control the hardware that they created AND control the OS that they create.

 

[webkit]

Then let the government fund the competition and don’t kill innovation.

So, you're saying that a company restricting things like software, app stores, payment systems, etc. on a major OS platform doesn't also slow or "kill" innovation? If every software developer and tech company had to create their own OS and device in order to offer their products or services, we'd see a lot less competition and innovation in many areas of the market, and higher prices too.

I'm thankful there are government regulations that discourage or even block dominant companies from having too much control. It's not a perfect system but it's better than no regulations.

 

[mrochester]

Yes, I realize you were referring to the picture of the world that supports YOUR contention that no competition will ever come that will challenge Apple and Google. Why you don’t want them to have competition, I don’t know.


I remarked:
And you’re right, there absolutely SHOULD be more smartphone competition, more app store competition, more OS competition. However, the way to foster more competition is by continuing to make it beneficial for companies, say, like Apple, to create new platform experiences.
You didn’t say:
“I hope so, but it’ll be difficult for that competition to arise”
but, instead

This is more than simply reflecting on what happened in the market. It was entirely dismissive of the idea of creation of REAL competition.


Foster the creation of REAL competition, competition that will design and provide innovative hardware that ANY Paypal or Samsung or whomever could use rather than depending on Google and Apple. That’s how competition is increased. Let Google and Apple keep their ways and they can stand by and fret as a third and fourth competitor comes up and innovates where they’re afraid to.

However, and I know this is going to be the part you don’t like. That future company? It SHOULD have 100% control over whatever they create. If they want to charge less than Google/Apple, but still charge something, that should be up to them to build the network of agreements that allow them to benefit from the fact that they control the hardware that they created AND control the OS that they create.

I love that we are finally having the conversation about creating true competition in the market. I’ve been making all of these points for years, I consider myself a trend setter 😂😛

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The decline of the apple ecosystem.

subjective matter

The app store is more of a target. Surprised you don't see that.

surprisingly, i haven't seen it, considering they are the smallest "victim."

There's plenty of evidence that it will be worse.

curently there is zero evidence. Only statement is apples in court declaiming they don't have any data to support macOS being worse of security wise than iOS.
i QUOTE

Federighi expressed serious doubts in his speech that Apple could protect the iPhone without the app review system, which is used to validate applications and acts as a kind of gateway for cutting off malware. He also noted that macOS security is generally in poor shape. However, Judge Rogers found that Federighi did not provide sufficient evidence to support this.



“While Mr. Federighi̵


7;s opinion on Mac malware may seem plausible, it was first expressed during this process and suggested an exaggeration of the truth for the sake of argument. During his testimony, he stated that he had no data on the number of malware in notarized Mac apps compared to iOS apps. In court, he admitted that Apple only has malware data collection tools for Mac, not iOS, which begs the question of how he knows the relative numbers. Prior to this lawsuit, Apple consistently portrayed the Mac as safe and malware-resistant. Therefore, the court does not consider Mr Federighi’s testimony on this matter to be meaningful. “– says the court order.​

It will be worse for consumers all around.

if they are secure options, and apple can force their option to be available, how will it be worse when the consumer can on their own discretion chose the alternative one? That might have a lower price?

I'm guessing the EU will be a victim of it's regulations.

Eu is absolutely the victim of less fraud economic and identity fraud with harsher rules for banks, payment terminals, gateways and card providers

I doubt it. Will you eat your words if the worse comes to pass?

I will eat my words up in a heart beat, and admit i was wrong and put it in my profile text

 

[I7guy]

subjective matter

surprisingly, i haven't seen it, considering they are the smallest "victim."

curently there is zero evidence. Only statement is apples in court declaiming they don't have any data to support macOS being worse of security wise than iOS.
i QUOTE

Federighi expressed serious doubts in his speech that Apple could protect the iPhone without the app review system, which is used to validate applications and acts as a kind of gateway for cutting off malware. He also noted that macOS security is generally in poor shape. However, Judge Rogers found that Federighi did not provide sufficient evidence to support this.



“While Mr. Federighi̵


7;s opinion on Mac malware may seem plausible, it was first expressed during this process and suggested an exaggeration of the truth for the sake of argument. During his testimony, he stated that he had no data on the number of malware in notarized Mac apps compared to iOS apps. In court, he admitted that Apple only has malware data collection tools for Mac, not iOS, which begs the question of how he knows the relative numbers. Prior to this lawsuit, Apple consistently portrayed the Mac as safe and malware-resistant. Therefore, the court does not consider Mr Federighi’s testimony on this matter to be meaningful. “– says the court order.​

if they are secure options, and apple can force their option to be available, how will it be worse when the consumer can on their own discretion chose the alternative one? That might have a lower price?

Eu is absolutely the victim of less fraud economic and identity fraud with harsher rules for banks, payment terminals, gateways and card providers

I will eat my words up in a heart beat, and admit i was wrong and put it in my profile text

Sure the entirety of this exercise in mental gymnastics into the future state is subjective as well as unanticipated side-effects to future innovations in the EU.

 

[webkit]

Yes, I realize you were referring to the picture of the world that supports YOUR contention that no competition will ever come that will challenge Apple and Google. Why you don’t want them to have competition, I don’t know.

I am referring to the consumer market which is how the "world" (including traffic/usage market analysis organizations, courts, regulators, etc.) typically assess these types of things. Again, in the desktop/laptop market, the two major players are Windows and OS X/macOS. If you choose not to recognize that and their dominance then there’s probably no point in continuing this discussion.

I remarked:
And you’re right, there absolutely SHOULD be more smartphone competition, more app store competition, more OS competition. However, the way to foster more competition is by continuing to make it beneficial for companies, say, like Apple, to create new platform experiences.
You didn’t say:
“I hope so, but it’ll be difficult for that competition to arise”
but, instead

This is more than simply reflecting on what happened in the market. It was entirely dismissive of the idea of creation of REAL competition.

Foster the creation of REAL competition, competition that will design and provide innovative hardware that ANY Paypal or Samsung or whomever could use rather than depending on Google and Apple. That’s how competition is increased. Let Google and Apple keep their ways and they can stand by and fret as a third and fourth competitor comes up and innovates where they’re afraid to.

I obviously want Apple and Google to have competition in as many different was ways as realistically possible. If you choose not to recognize that then there’s probably no point in continuing this discussion.

However, and I know this is going to be the part you don’t like. That future company? It SHOULD have 100% control over whatever they create. If they want to charge less than Google/Apple, but still charge something, that should be up to them to build the network of agreements that allow them to benefit from the fact that they control the hardware that they created AND control the OS that they create.

Forcing all software developers and other tech companies to create their own operating systems and hardware is NOT a way to encourage competition and innovation in many areas of the market. The opposite would result.

To sum up, dominant companies should not have 100% control which is why we have antitrust regulations to try to limit or prevent that.

 

[I7guy]

So, you're saying that a company restricting things like software, app stores, payment systems, etc. on a major OS platform doesn't also slow or "kill" innovation?

That is what I am saying. Are you saying the regulating businesses to farm away their ip is good thing?

If every software developer and tech company had to create their own OS and device in order to offer their products or services, we'd see a lot less competition and innovation in many areas of the market, and higher prices too.

Well if you want to disrupt, don't ask the government to do your bidding for you.

I'm thankful there are government regulations that discourage or even block dominant companies from having too much control. It's not a perfect system but it's better than no regulations.

Sure, I'm thankful the government is there to make sure the air I breath is safe, the food is safe, the appliances are safe, my money is safe, my electricity is reliable, my cell phone service is cheap and plentiful and there is a lot of competition for my cable dollars (oh wait /s for the last two).

I am not thankful for the government for all of the pork over the years, self-made medical system, over-bearing regulations that have back-fired and do not endorse socialistic type behavior as this.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

You would have an excellent point, sadly McDonald only sell McDonald’s burgers.

And apple sell apple apps AND competing apps.

Apple’s AppStore have a market. McDonald’s doesn’t have a market

McDonald’s DOES have a market, they have the “McDonald’s products” market. In the same way that Apple has the “Apple products” market, which includes all things that did not exist before Apple created them. (You can look it up, in the definition of a market for monopoly determination, there are NO limits to how the market is defined, even absurd definitions like Apple AppStore and McDonald’s burgers… they are equally absurd)

Cydia isn’t a market. Cydia competes with iOS AppStore. Hence why Apple AppStore have a 99.99% market share on the iOS market.

See the above. THIS is why using a company’s trademarked name in the definition of a market is absurd. Cydia absolutely does have 100% control over everything that goes on in the Cydia store. They have a monopoly on the Cydia App Store. Fortunately for my love of logic, I’m fine applying the same definition of “absurd” to EVERY instance of using a company’s trademarked name in the definition of a market. And, NOT just when those trademarked names belong to ONE company, only.

This isn’t absurd. It’s absurd to call it the smartphone market. Android compatible apps doesn't compete against iOS compatible apps. They are completely separate.

No, no, it’s quite absurd. I only use the term absurd because when you look up the rationale of defining markets as they relate to potential monopolies, it’s indicated that there ARE absurd ways to define markets such that it’s always guaranteed that what is being described represents 100% control and thus, not worth of analysis for illegal monopolistic control.

I’m guessing it’s absurd to call it the “laptop” market, too, as Windows apps don’t compete against macOS apps? Someone better tell all the market research firms using that exact term.

Global Laptop Market Report and Forecast 2024-2032

The global laptop market is being driven by the increasing consumer demand owing to the proliferation of better internet infrastructure, especially in the Asia Pacific region in countries like India and China. The market is further aided by the commercial demand for laptops.

www.expertmarketresearch.com

And, while they’re at it, they should also talk to the market research firms giving feedback on the smartphone market.

Smartphone Market Size, Share, Growth Forecast Report To 2029

The global smartphone market is estimated to be worth USD 686.7 bn by 2029. North America led the market in 2023.

www.marketdataforecast.com

JUST because I was feeling tickled by this point, I decided to see if there’s any market research firms actively using a term like “iOS app store market” so I used that phrase in my search… you’ll likely be surprised that my query led me to sites providing… “global app store market reports”… comparing the influence of iOS, Android AND others in the market. On page two of the results, I saw “mobile application market size” as well. Maybe, in addition to saying it’s absurd, I should also say that people should generally use terms that market research firms would agree are “not absurd”!

It has nothing to do with Apple, it has to do with the whole market.

Apple is the one least harmed by these regulations. Google and Amazon are hit the hardest if you actually read the legislation.

It has nothing to do with Apple… even while using Apple’s trademarked names in the definition of a market for the purpose of defining illegal monopolistic activity?

 

[Vjosullivan]

Apple doesn’t take a cut on physical goods. And of course developers like Amazon or Spotify can also build web apps or just not offer subscription through the app and not pay Apple anything. Plenty of options.


As for some other benefits and services that are part of or related to the App Store:
- Deliver great developer tools and APIs
- Provide access to a trusted store with a low barrier for purchase
- Reviewing apps so that they can be trusted
- Use the 30% (actually 15% for many) as a subsidy to keep costs low for small developers of free apps
- Marketing and editorial content for apps
- Hosting
- DRM and anti piracy

None of this justifies precluding third party app stores and in-app payment systems.

 

[webkit]

That is what I am saying. Are you saying the regulating businesses to farm away their ip is good thing?

I am saying that without regulations we very likely wouldn't have the software competition, variety and innovations we have today. Eliminating government regulations and thereby potentially forcing each company to do things like create their own operating system and hardware in order to market their products would not be a desirable path. This would instead stifle competition and innovation.

 

[I7guy]

I am saying that without regulations we very likely wouldn't have the software competition, variety and innovations we have today.

There will always be regulations to ensure society functions properly. The very reason is there is a robust tech foundation is due to innovation not stifling regulation like the EU.

Eliminating government regulations and thereby potentially forcing each company to do things like create their own operating system and hardware in order to market their products would not be a desirable path.

It 100% would be a desirable patch.

This would instead stifle competition and innovation.

It would kill innovation and would be a race to the bottom.

 

[mrochester]

I am saying that without regulations we very likely wouldn't have the software competition, variety and innovations we have today. Eliminating government regulations and thereby potentially forcing each company to do things like create their own operating system and hardware in order to market their products would not be a desirable path. This would instead stifle competition and innovation.

Wow, you couldn’t have this more backward if you tried! It’s funny that you saying a company creating their own operating system (innovation) and creating their own hardware (innovation) is not innovation and not competitive!

 

[webkit]

There will always be regulations to ensure society functions properly. The very reason is there is a robust tech foundation is due to innovation not stifling regulation like the EU.

It 100% would be a desirable patch.

It would kill innovation and would be a race to the bottom.

OS and hardware are hardly the only places where innovation can take place and potentially forcing companies to have to make their own OS and hardware in order to market a product or service would stifle competition and innovation in so many more areas.

 

[webkit]

Wow, you couldn’t have this more backward if you tried! It’s funny that you saying a company creating their own operating system (innovation) and creating their own hardware (innovation) is not innovation and not competitive!

OS and hardware are hardly the only places where innovation can take place and potentially forcing companies to have to make their own OS and hardware in order to market a product or service would stifle competition and innovation in so many more areas.

 

[mrochester]

OS and hardware are hardly the only places where innovation can take place and potentially forcing companies to have to make their own OS and hardware in order to market a product or service would stifle competition and innovation in so many more areas.

It wouldn’t. It would encourage more competition and innovation in more areas than this legislation does.

 

[I7guy]

OS and hardware are hardly the only places where innovation can take place and potentially forcing companies to have to make their own OS and hardware in order to market a product or service would stifle competition and innovation in so many more areas.

Snooze you lose. Because a company is not smart enough to disrupt, government should not step in to regulate a market such that mediocre players are handed a niche to try and make a buck.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

If every software developer and tech company had to create their own OS and device in order to offer their products or services, we'd see a lot less competition and innovation in many areas of the market, and higher prices too.

Forcing all software developers and other tech companies to create their own operating systems and hardware is NOT a way to encourage competition and innovation in many areas of the market. The opposite would result.

To sum up, dominant companies should not have 100% control which is why we have antitrust regulations to try to limit or prevent that.

Every software developer and tech company creating their own OS and device IS THE DEFINITION OF MORE COMPETITION!! Some may do really well, some may do worse, but even if only one of them gain a decent share of the smartphone market, meaning there’s Apple, Google, AND something else? That’s more competition! Changing the way Apple works doesn’t bring more competition. In fact, it gives software developers and tech companies LESS reason to innovate. If Apple could have asked the government for Motorola to change how they make phones, and got the government to change the way cellular phone companies charge for data (rather than build their own) we wouldn’t have the iPhone (and by extension the Android phones) we have today. It’s just amazing to me that people can see the real benefit of a company (Apple) being forced to build their own thing… within the lifetimes of MOST people alive today, and still think that “building your own thing” is limited to Apple, that no other company anywhere can ever do what tiny (at the time) Apple accomplished. “Building your own thing” can change the world, though. Maybe many folks are tired of change and just want to keep the familiar Apple and Google around forever?

And, mathematically, dominant companies will ALWAYS have 100%. Look at the console gaming market. Add up the marketshare of all the players and what do you end up with? 100% Every time. Anti-trust regulations are to punish companies that have done wrong… buying up their competition then putting them out of business, enacting exclusivity agreements so that no one else can enter the market, etc. Those regulations are not there to attack companies that have done nothing more than produce products and services that individuals want to purchase. If a company gets big because “people want their stuff”, that’s how the market is supposed to work.

I am referring to the consumer market which is how the "world" (including traffic/usage market analysis organizations, courts, regulators, etc.) typically assess these types of things. Again, in the desktop/laptop market, the two major players are Windows and OS X/macOS. If you choose not to recognize that and their dominance then there’s probably no point in continuing this discussion.

As I mentioned, you wanted to provide information that supports how unlikely you feel a third player would be, so you reduced computer OS’s to Windows and Mac, defining them as the desktop/laptop market. And, I agree it’s effective in supporting your point. The reality is that there are at least 3 major computer OS’s, so there should be room for a 3rd major smartphone OS.

I obviously want Apple and Google to have competition in as many different was ways as realistically possible. If you choose not to recognize that then there’s probably no point in continuing this discussion.

I’m just saying if you want competition, then you have to support the idea of fostering real competition. Provide incentives for that competition to exist, survive, and control their own destiny that the legal ownership of what they create makes possible. Essentially, do the things that made the Apple iPhone possible. The government didn’t need to step in and make way for Apple, they just needed to let Apple do what they do and watch to make sure they weren’t buying and shutting down other smartphone or OS providers or other real antitrust activities.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It's not developer hostile other than the fact that they take a cut of your sales, so you make less money selling it through the store than you do on your own website. And not enough for most apps to justify the exposure of the store front. If there was any advantage to losing 15-30% of each sale, developers would do it.

It really only makes sense for the smallest indie dev in existence who doesn't want to deal with any part of distribution. Hence 99% of the apps on the Mac Store are exactly that kind of app. The real apps are found elsewhere.

The real apps are found on other stores. The only reason developers don’t use the Macappstore is because it’s extremely developer hostile. It’s not just the revenue cut. But the arbitrary limitations imposed that drives them away.

McDonald’s DOES have a market, they have the “McDonald’s products” market. In the same way that Apple has the “Apple products” market, which includes all things that did not exist before Apple created them. (You can look it up, in the definition of a market for monopoly determination, there are NO limits to how the market is defined, even absurd definitions like Apple AppStore and McDonald’s burgers… they are equally absurd)

A market of one isn’t a market. Apple have a market of many. If apple removed every 3d party developer then they wouldn’t be in a problem and would be exactly like McDonald’s.

'Market' has a particular meaning within competition law. In competition law, the relevant market seeks to identify the smallest product group (and geographical area) such that a hypothetical monopolist controlling that product group (in that area) could profitably sustain 'supra competitive' prices.

See the above. THIS is why using a company’s trademarked name in the definition of a market is absurd. Cydia absolutely does have 100% control over everything that goes on in the Cydia store. They have a monopoly on the Cydia App Store. Fortunately for my love of logic, I’m fine applying the same definition of “absurd” to EVERY instance of using a company’s trademarked name in the definition of a market. And, NOT just when those trademarked names belong to ONE company, only.

A company’s trademark is just a description. EUs definition of market does it without apple. And have stayed almost the same since 1999

No, no, it’s quite absurd. I only use the term absurd because when you look up the rationale of defining markets as they relate to potential monopolies, it’s indicated that there ARE absurd ways to define markets such that it’s always guaranteed that what is being described represents 100% control and thus, not worth of analysis for illegal monopolistic control.

First off, there’s no illegal way to have monopolistic control. In EU it’s completely legal and have no meaning. Abuse is only looked for with dominant companies according to objective metrics you can measure.

web applications might be alternatives, it does not necessarily follow that they are substitutable - the court in United Brands considered that apples and oranges were both alternative fruits to bananas, but that, given the precise and unique qualities of a banana, were not substitutes.​

As such, if it is considered that there is no substitute for the App Store, the limits of the product market are those of the App Store - the market is the “App Store”, rather than “mobile app distribution mechanisms”. Since Apple is the gatekeeper to the App Store, controlling which apps are approved, a market definition limited to the App Store means that Apple has no competitors in the market place - it is 100% dominant​

As detailed above, Art. 102 does not prohibit dominance, but rather the abuse of that dominance. Having determined that Apple can be considered to be 100% dominant in the relevant market, the next question is to consider what constitutes abusive behaviour.

Art. 102 sets out of a non-exhaustive list of behaviours which might “in particular” be considered to constitute abuse:

(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;
(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

A number of behaviours exhibited (or, at least, alleged to be have be, or have been, exhibited) by Apple may be considered to stray into these categories, or fall into a wider understanding of abusive behaviour. In particular:
- rejection of applications which compete with Appleʼs own software;
- selective enforcement of the App Storeʼs developer guidelines; and
- attempts to use power in one market to secure position in another (“tying”).
Before considering some of these complaints in terms of “abuse”, it is worth looking briefly at the guidance and documentation issued by Apple in respect of development of applications intended for distribution through the App Store.
In the iOS Developer Program License Agreement, Apple is clear that developing an application and submitting it to Apple is not a guarantee that it will be made available, stating that applications which meet Appleʼs requirements “may be submitted for consideration by Apple.”28 Mere compliance with Appleʼs requirements would, on this basis, appear to be insufficient to ensure inclusion.

Indeed, Apple clarifies this, stating that:
“You understand and agree that Apple may, in its sole discretion:
28 “iOS Developer Program License Agreement” at paragraph 0 (“Purpose”)
6

Telecommunications law: Competition law and communications services Neil Brown (March 2011)
(a) determine that Your Application does not meet all or any part of the Documentation or Program Requirements then in effect;
(b) reject Your Application for distribution for any reason, even if Your Application meets the Documentation and Program Requirements; or
(c) select and digitally sign Your Application for distribution via the App Store.”29
Further, if your application is approved and selected for distribution, you:
“... understand and agree that Apple may cease distribution of Your Licensed Application(s) and/ or Licensed Application Information or revoke the digital certificate of any of Your Applications at any time.”30
In other words, Apple reserves itself, through the law of contract, a unilateral right of revocation, to withdraw any application at any time.

With this background in mind, it is interesting to consider the claims made above, asking whether such behaviours might, if the claims are true, constitute “abuse” for the purposes of Art. 102.

Whilst, from a contractual point of view, Apple would appear to have ensured that it had the right to remove applications, if Apple was rejecting applications from the iOS App Store on the basis that they competed with Appleʼs own offerings, rights under contract might come under close scrutiny for compliance with obligations under the law of competition.
If Apple was indeed rejecting applications which might compete with an Apple, there would appear to be a clear example of market foreclosure; that is to say, that an undertaking with a dominant position appears to be preventing third parties from gaining a foothold in the market by exercising its “right to reject”. The effect ofthe exercise of this right is to stifle the development of competing applications, preventing innovation and creativity and restricting consumer choice - if Apple is the first to market with a particular functionality, then innovation regarding that feature, however implemented, by a third party would, on the basis of the above, appear to be pointless, since the application would not be accepted into the App Store.

This is from observations made in 2011. No new law is needed to be written, everything is already supported in existing laws. The DMA is written with already existing legal text. EU don’t work with past ruling but with codified rules. This is no difference.

I’m guessing it’s absurd to call it the “laptop” market, too, as Windows apps don’t compete against macOS apps? Someone better tell all the market research firms using that exact term.

Global Laptop Market Report and Forecast 2024-2032

The global laptop market is being driven by the increasing consumer demand owing to the proliferation of better internet infrastructure, especially in the Asia Pacific region in countries like India and China. The market is further aided by the commercial demand for laptops.

www.expertmarketresearch.com

It’s not absurd. A market can contain multiples levels that competes independently to each other.
Laptop manufacturers competing between each other. The OS competing to each other and applications on said os competing between each other.

windows exclusive applications are completely isolated from macOS exclusive applications.

And, while they’re at it, they should also talk to the market research firms giving feedback on the smartphone market.

Smartphone Market Size, Share, Growth Forecast Report To 2029

The global smartphone market is estimated to be worth USD 686.7 bn by 2029. North America led the market in 2023.

www.marketdataforecast.com

JUST because I was feeling tickled by this point, I decided to see if there’s any market research firms actively using a term like “iOS app store market” so I used that phrase in my search… you’ll likely be surprised that my query led me to sites providing… “global app store market reports”… comparing the influence of iOS, Android AND others in the market. On page two of the results, I saw “mobile application market size” as well. Maybe, in addition to saying it’s absurd, I should also say that people should generally use terms that market research firms would agree are “not absurd”!

Only terms relevant are the legal ones.

It has nothing to do with Apple… even while using Apple’s trademarked names in the definition of a market for the purpose of defining illegal monopolistic activity?

It doesn’t. I just happened to use apples name. The legal definition is agnostic.

Wow, you couldn’t have this more backward if you tried! It’s funny that you saying a company creating their own operating system (innovation) and creating their own hardware (innovation) is not innovation and not competitive!

You are arguing two different points. Apple didn’t invent anything, they just takes what already existed and makes something innovative and new that didn’t exist before.

Same is with app developers. They take what already exist and makes brand new combinations and concepts that revolutionize the world. You just for some reason believe apple ( or the Os/device maker) is the only one who can innovate. Conveniently ignoring the developers who made apple a thing.

And and nvidia just makes chips, but it’s HP, apple, Microsoft and Samsung etc who makes the innovations. Without them they wouldn’t have a market.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It has nothing to do with Apple… even while using Apple’s trademarked names in the definition of a market for the purpose of defining illegal monopolistic activity?

As have been told a million times.

Illegal monopolies don’t exist. A Monopoly is 100% legal to have and operate. In USA it migh be illegal, but here it’s completely fine