Apple's App Store, Safari, and iOS Officially Designated 'Gatekeepers' in EU

[Nuno Lopes]

So, because you could interpret it differently than I do, you accuse me of being dishonest? That's offensive.

Chocking isn’t it? When you sarcastically apply the same measure to another OP POV, right in the previous moment, is just an exercise of rhetoric. Chill man, I meant no offense and I’m sure you did not either.

Of course it has to do with the Apple Agreements including the software SLA . They will need to change to comply with the EU economic platform policies. Much as users and developer need to comply when Apple makes changes or additions to their policies. It’s just business as usual. The particulars is up for Apple lawyers to implement pending on Apple approach and decisions. Not just Apple, every member of such an exclusive group of companies as defined by the EU DMA.
Cheers.

 

[BuffaloTF]

Ok. A company that has 55 billion in free cash and profits of 98 billion being proud of giving musicians a marginally higher rate, either way nothing to shout about and completely irrelevant to a discussion about Apples anticompetitive app store practices.

What you just listed is still irrelevant. They are a gatekeeper by the definitions in this garbage law, arbitrary criteria were added to exclude them, and miraculously all other European companies. That’s either by design, or an indictment to how bad the companies are. Apple has zero anticompetitive App Store practices, the very basis of copyright law is that you cannot have a monopoly on your own product absent the proof that the product itself has no economic substitutes - that by definition IS what intellectual property is. You cannot bring your own bottle of wine into a restaurant. Local schools, an actual monopoly, can define what you’re allowed to bring in.

 

[coredev]

They don’t? They pay the worst royalties to the labels and artists of these services, yet nobody is pulling their content off of them. Seems like abusing a market position… almost a textbook example of one.

None of this is true

@Mrkevinfinnerty The part about paying the worst royalties is true.

 

[El Szomorito]

The number of comments that will litter this post from people who seem to think that massive tech companies are anything but capitalist entities only out for themselves will be quite staggering.

That doesn't mean that incompetent bureaucrats meddling with them will improve consumer experience and/or results in lower costs. Just look at those bloody cookie warnings. Or how they "saved me" from keep using my already owned cables instead of buying new ones.

 

[El Szomorito]

Why? This change benefits consumers as now iOS would have competition in app distribution, and competition breeds innovation. The only people this doesn't benefit...is Apple. Curious. 🤔

I can't see how opening backdoors would benefit me. And what can you innovate on app distribution? Click, download, happy. Like trying to innovate the wheel. And when did EU ask the people what they want? Oh, they never do, just preach about "common values", decided by some old blokes in a room filled with cigar smoke.

 

[El Szomorito]

i miss the days when there were real tech people on sites like MacRumors, who would bristle at the idea of being restricted from installing whatever they want on a device they paid for, and would rejoice at the ending of that kind of repression. Now it’s all viewed through some weird political lens (EU bad! Stifled innovation! Atlas Shrugged!) for some reason.

People change. 20 years ago I spent days installing Gentoo linux as entertainment. 10 years ago installed custom rom on my android phone, and hated anything Apple made. Now I'm just happy that after work I don't have to fight tech, just use it.

 

[OneBar]

I don't even care if Apple is dominant and successful or insignificant and broke. The circumstance that their AppStore policy dictates what I can do with my phone is enough to regulate them. My device, I bought it. You sold it, now it belongs to me. I make the rules and you'll hear from my EU Council.

The issue being that while you own the hardware, you do not own and did not purchase the software. Which is how and why they are able to to as they do.

 

[OneBar]

Well, I care enough to tell you that I don't care what non-EU citizens think about EU regulations, which only apply within the EU market. But I don't care enough to convince you, that our way is the right way and everybody must follow our path to a land of bliss.

The problem is that this doesn't just affect EU citizens. Anything that comes from this will be affecting everyone using an Apple device.

 

[OneBar]

Nope. The issue comes into play when you combine "dominance" with "anticompetitive behavior."

Which conveniently lacks a coherent definition.

Apple is preventing companies from "exercising the option" to do a varietry of things on dominant iOS e.g, offering apps through outlets other than the App Store, offering their browsers with browser engines other than WebKit, etc.

Apple does not and cannot prevent you from making your app available on Android. As I've already said, a large percentage of app devs dual compile their apps. Ironically I agree with the browser issue but I believe that's actually a software compatibility thing and not just Apple flexing some kind of muscle.

There are a variety of ways it can "work" including the "discounting their cut" example you gave. Traditional stores frequently discount their cut to entice customers to buy from them. There's no reason similar (and other things) couldn't be done with app stores and that's what the EU rules would allow.

Traditional stores can only discount their own product. Walmart will not discount Frito Lay products. Frito Lay must discount their own products and Walmart can't stop them. Apple cannot charge less for your app unless they dip into their cut. That will go for any other store that's created. There are no other things that could be done and again, customers are going to be stuck with the cost of starting the business until it's recouped so apps are likely to cost more, not less.

 

[webkit]

The issue being that while you own the hardware, you do not own and did not purchase the software. Which is how and why they are able to to as they do.

In that case, computer companies don't "own" Windows either (only the hardware) yet Microsoft was sued in the 1990s for "discouraging" those companies from installing things like competitive browsers on Windows. If Microsoft wasn't supposed to restrict what software could be installed on Windows (at least by computer companies), why should Apple be allowed to restrict what software can be installed on iOS not only by third party retailers but even end users?

 

[webkit]

Which conveniently lacks a coherent definition.

Not at all. Each can be individually defined and if/when they occur together, it becomes an antitrust violation. It can be very coherent.

Apple does not and cannot prevent you from making your app available on Android. As I've already said, a large percentage of app devs dual compile their apps. Ironically I agree with the browser issue but I believe that's actually a software compatibility thing and not just Apple flexing some kind of muscle.

So, you feel companies should essentially be able to do whatever they want as long as there is at least one alternative? Using that argument, you might as well say the Microsoft did and could do nothing wrong regarding software restrictions in the 1990s because software companies were still potentially able to make their products available on Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, BeOS, etc. The DOJ and others certainly disagreed.

Traditional stores can only discount their own product. Walmart will not discount Frito Lay products. Frito Lay must discount their own products and Walmart can't stop them. Apple cannot charge less for your app unless they dip into their cut. That will go for any other store that's created. There are no other things that could be done and again, customers are going to be stuck with the cost of starting the business until it's recouped so apps are likely to cost more, not less.

Walmart and other retailers absolutely can and do discount products that "aren't their own." The manufacturer or app developer may be able to opt in or opt out of a particular promotion but store sales, discounts, etc. can and do happen regularly across all types of products and the same can be true with app stores. Requiring Apple to allow alterntive app stores on iOS can make for a more open and competitive app buying/selling market.

 

[Gudi]

The issue being that while you own the hardware, you do not own and did not purchase the software. Which is how and why they are able to to as they do.

The issue was EU regulations weren't specific enough to be enforced. This problem has been solved.

 

[Gudi]

The problem is that this doesn't just affect EU citizens. Anything that comes from this will be affecting everyone using an Apple device.

There's a law in Japan which forbids the silencing of shutter sounds on smartphone cameras. This regulation doesn't affect iPhones used outside of Japan. But even if the new EU regulations will affect everyone using Apple devices worldwide. How is this a problem? And for whom?

 

[erikkfi]

People change. 20 years ago I spent days installing Gentoo linux as entertainment. 10 years ago installed custom rom on my android phone, and hated anything Apple made. Now I'm just happy that after work I don't have to fight tech, just use it.

Great. Free installation of apps on iOS won’t make it so you have to fight your device any more than you have to fight your Mac.

 

[OneBar]

In that case, computer companies don't "own" Windows either (only the hardware) yet Microsoft was sued in the 1990s for "discouraging" those companies from installing things like competitive browsers on Windows. If Microsoft wasn't supposed to restrict what software could be installed on Windows (at least by computer companies), why should Apple be allowed to restrict what software can be installed on iOS not only by third party retailers but even end users?

That was specifically because the customer was purchasing Windows. You don't purchase iOS, macOS, iPadOS, tvOS, or watchOS. You don't own them.

 

[OneBar]

Not at all. Each can be individually defined and if/when they occur together, it becomes an antitrust violation. It can be very coherent.

And yet it isn't.

So, you feel companies should essentially be able to do whatever they want as long as there is at least one alternative? Using that argument, you might as well say the Microsoft did and could do nothing wrong regarding software restrictions in the 1990s because software companies were still potentially able to make their products available on Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, BeOS, etc. The DOJ and others certainly disagreed.

Apples and oranges. How many alternatives need to exist before the one on top is no longer an issue? 2? 3? 50? See the problem? It's all a matter of opinion and not anything logical.

Walmart and other retailers absolutely can and do discount products that "aren't their own." The manufacturer or app developer may be able to opt in or opt out of a particular promotion but store sales, discounts, etc. can and do happen regularly across all types of products and the same can be true with app stores. Requiring Apple to allow alterntive app stores on iOS can make for a more open and competitive app buying/selling market.

No they absolutely do not. They do not set or control the pricing on products they do not own. I know many people in the industry. Frito Lay, as an example I can directly cite knowledge on, sets their pricing for their products. Walmart, Dollar General, whoever is selling their product does not. Which, from what I've seen from other retailers, is predominately the case. Walmart doesn't get to dictate how much your product is worth. They can't. They also cannot devalue your product arbitrarily. If their product goes on sale, it's them doing it and not the store.
Again, more stores isn't going to drive costs down on the same exact app. Stores do not set the app price unless they're developing the app. If there's 5 stores on iOS, Moment Pro Camera App is going to cost the same across them all. The only difference is how much of a cut the store takes from their profit and we'll not see any difference as customers regarding that. The competition you're actually looking for is people developing different apps to address the same situation. That's where costs come down. Because if I can get ProCamera for $5 and Moment is $10, I'm going to buy ProCamera. Having 5 stores selling both apps doesn't affect the pricing any more than the 1 store does.

 

[OneBar]

The issue was EU regulations weren't specific enough to be enforced. This problem has been solved.

You think so? Go design an IED on iOS or macOS and see what happens then. You still don't own the software and still cannot do whatever you wish with it.

 

[OneBar]

There's a law in Japan which forbids the silencing of shutter sounds on smartphone cameras. This regulation doesn't affect iPhones used outside of Japan. But even if the new EU regulations will affect everyone using Apple devices worldwide. How is this a problem? And for whom?

Making a sound effect an always-on toggle regionally isn't a core function of the software. Side loading and allowing unregulated stores access to the device's software is. There's not going to be iOS-UK and iOS-USA. This is going to be major software changes that will be on all phones. How is this a problem? Security for government entities. Allowing side loading and unregulated stores compromises devices, such that I know of at least one entity here that is already making plans to do away with iPhones if this actually happens because it will no longer be able to be considered a secure device. And if it's not secure for them, with all the stuff they have to already do to government issued devices, it's certainly not going to be secure for the regular customer.

 

[webkit]

Because Microsoft had an actual monopoly.

And Apple has been declared an actual gatekeeper.

My point in my other reply was that just because app developers may also be able to offer their apps on Android does not mean that Apple should be able to do whatever they want with given their dominance or "gatekeeper" status. Simply having alternatives doesn't negate antitrust laws.

Can you prove this to be a likely outcome from what we see on the Android side? 3rd party stores are available on Android. But they aren’t widely used & there’s no significant discounting of software I’ve been able to find.

That's up to the open market to decide. A purpose of antitrust laws is to promote open competition in markets controlled by only one or a few "dominant" players and requiring Apple to allow sideloading and alternative app stores allows for more open competition.

 

[Gudi]

You think so? Go design an IED on iOS or macOS and see what happens then. You still don't own the software and still cannot do whatever you wish with it.

The EU is not a bunch of hackers trying to jailbreak into iOS. They are a market regulator and they have the means and the authority to make any corporation comply.

The Digital Markets Act: ensuring fair and open digital markets

 

[webkit]

That was specifically because the customer was purchasing Windows. You don't purchase iOS, macOS, iPadOS, tvOS, or watchOS. You don't own them.

Customers "purchase" iOS as part of the iPhone in the similar way they can "purchase" Windows as part of the PC. In that sense, they "own" (or don't "own") iOS as much as they "own" (or don't "own") Windows.

And yet it isn't.

And yet it is. You may disagree with how the EU defines "dominance" and/or how it defines "anticompetitive behavior" but that doesn't mean the combination of the two isn't coherent.

Apples and oranges. How many alternatives need to exist before the one on top is no longer an issue? 2? 3? 50? See the problem? It's all a matter of opinion and not anything logical.

It's about the dominance of the major players in the market. The point, again, is that the existence of alternatives doesn't negate antitrust laws.

No they absolutely do not. They do not set or control the pricing on products they do not own. I know many people in the industry. Frito Lay, as an example I can directly cite knowledge on, sets their pricing for their products. Walmart, Dollar General, whoever is selling their product does not. Which, from what I've seen from other retailers, is predominately the case. Walmart doesn't get to dictate how much your product is worth. They can't. They also cannot devalue your product arbitrarily. If their product goes on sale, it's them doing it and not the store.
Again, more stores isn't going to drive costs down on the same exact app. Stores do not set the app price unless they're developing the app. If there's 5 stores on iOS, Moment Pro Camera App is going to cost the same across them all. The only difference is how much of a cut the store takes from their profit and we'll not see any difference as customers regarding that. The competition you're actually looking for is people developing different apps to address the same situation. That's where costs come down. Because if I can get ProCamera for $5 and Moment is $10, I'm going to buy ProCamera. Having 5 stores selling both apps doesn't affect the pricing any more than the 1 store does.

False. Retailers absolutely can have control over the pricing of products they sell. Manufactures may set an MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price) but that doesn't necessarily mean retailers have to stick to that price. Note the word SUGGESTED in MSRP as it can be illegal for manufacturers to dictate pricing to third party retailers. This would be known as vertical price fixing.

 

[Gudi]

Making a sound effect an always-on toggle regionally isn't a core function of the software. Side loading and allowing unregulated stores access to the device's software is.

Which only highlights that even for the puniest little settings the legislative regulator of each country has the full authority to tell Apple how "their" software is supposed to work in our country. It doesn't matter that the shutter sound isn't a gatekeeper technology. A law, is a law, is a law.

 

[bn-7bc]

Screw the EU, they only go after American companies. Hey Apple, Google and MS please stop selling your products to the EU and let them have a China crap.

Well the EU goes after garekeepers, for one reason or the other they tend to be US companies, but I don't think this is by design, if the gatekeepers happened to be mostly Saudi Arabian companies I doubt the rules would end looking different. Here is the thing the EU cares more a bout its citizens than tech giants. But hey I'm a beneficiary of those rules so I might be biased, justvas with free EU wide cellhone roaming ( more important in EU than in US because we rend to travel a lot internally in SU for both business and recreation so not having to worry about being charge an arm and several legs for roaming well....)

 

[bn-7bc]

The EU was rationing gas last year.

Yes because a certain Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin ( full name used for clear identification NOT as a sign of respect, tyrants need to be clearly labeled) decided to send his army into a sovereign neighbour and the EU did not have adequate time to switvh from russiangas( delivered via pipelines) to lng from elsewhere due to the ,ead time required to get re gasification plants operational. But funding said tyrand war efforts where ( correctly imho) seen as more damaging then rationing the gas. Yes I kniw certain land locked EU members still import Russian gas, but I think they ate allso working hard to buy capacity at re gasification plants in other EU countries as soon as it is available and also to pot infrastructure in place to get enugh capacity on on piplinrs that are set up to pump in the right direction and not owned by russian connected enreries

 

[bn-7bc]

Safari is a gatekeeper but Google Chrome/Chromium based browsers are not? Yikes.

Well on android they may be, bot on ios and on pcs , not so much. At ,east on pc there is nothing stopping the owner (to stop people wining about their looked down school/work issued pc) from insyalling firefox and using duck-duck go as the default search engine. As for ios it will be interrestingbto see if firefox releases with their own engine and ask people to side load