Chrome is garbage. I'm actually glad Apple doesn't allow Google's spyware to infest iPadOS
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPadOS Identified as Digital 'Gatekeeper' Under New EU Tech Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
for a company providing software on ipadOS would find it very essential or go out of business
The goal of the DMA isn't to ban closed ecosystems but to ensure that dominant companies don't use their position to unfairly limit competition or consumer choice. Even if millions prefer a closed system, the regulation seeks to prevent these preferences from stifling innovation from other potential market entrants. Apple's market share, while not as dominant as Nokia's was, is still significant enough in a high-value market to influence market dynamics profoundly. The EU’s approach is about balancing consumer preferences with the broader need for a competitive market that fosters innovation and offers choices beyond a single ecosystem.
So, if a firm had the exact same practices, but only accounted for 25% of the mobile phone market, would they be immune from the EU's 'advice'? How about 15%? What about 5%?
Discussing whether Apple’s closed ecosystem is right is valid, but when a company becomes so large it can shape market conditions, it can limit innovation and consumer choices, even if that wasn't the intent. Regulations like DMA aim to keep the playing field level so all types of models, closed or open, can compete fairly. This isn’t about enforcing a vision but ensuring that no single vision becomes a limitation for everyone else.
Last edited:
Holy crap. I feel stupid. I've been arguing with ChaptGPT!
Market share alone isn't the sole factor triggering EU regulations. It's more bout the practices a firm employs and whether those practices unfairly restrict competition or harm consumers, regardless of their market share. A company with 25%, 15%, or even 5% of the market could still face scrutiny if their actions hinder competition or consumer choice. Point is to prevent anticompetitive behavior that can choke market dynamics, not just to target big numbers.
Last edited:
And blacksmiths making horseshoes didn't do as well once cars came on the scene. It is in Apple's best interest to make sure developers create apps for their devices, but their devices are not created to provide jobs to developers. They are created for users; income for developers is the happy side-benefit of a healthy, competitive ecosystem.
"Millions of developers located in the U.S. and abroad can flood the EU market 🤔"
Flood, but don't dominate. Got it.
Flood, but don't dominate. Got it.
John Gruber raises a valid point here.
European Data Protection Board Goes There, Rules Against Meta’s ‘Pay or OK’ Model
If Meta caves and complies with this ruling by offering a free tier with significantly lower ARPU, that opens the door for regulators and legislative bodies around the globe to demand the same.
Under the current rules, Facebook has to offer a free version of their service that doesn't serve targeted ads (and simply offering a paid version which allows subscribers to opt out of it isn't enough). Yet EU companies are apparently not affected by this ruling at all.
Spotify, in particular, is famous for its free ad tier, hasn't been shy about its intention of building a global ad platform for podcasts, and yet wasn't designed "gatekeeper" status because the EU commission knows that forcing them to do so is only going to drive the final stake into what was never a sustainable business model in the first place.
The DMA may as well be renamed the "Spotify Boost Act" at this point. If you tell me "Oh, Spotify is not big enough to come under the DMA", bear in mind who came up with those thresholds in the first place, and who now is demonstrating their utter willingness to completely disregard those thresholds when it's convenient to do so?
You want to know who the DMA was designed to benefit? Observe who has been the loudest proponent of it since its inception. Well, it won't save them.
I think it's a bit silly how anyone can think Apple has other motives than money, and principles that supersede profits:
All of this comes down to a loss of a certain size. How small or big, only Apple knows.
But since Apple has already agreed to change iOS, impacting iPhone, a product with a far bigger market share and far great importance to Apple's profits than iPad, I think it's safe to assume it will also change iPadOS to fit the EU's demands.
Conversely, assuming Apple will make the same changes for iOS and iPadOS outside of the EU is also silly. If not forced by law, why would it agree to limit its monopolistic practices to any extent?
I hope the DOJ will get inspired by the EU and can reference EU legislation when making the case for opening up iOS and iPadOS in the U.S.
Would be sad if U.S. consumers don't get to benefit from the increased competition in consumer tech and digital markets that EU consumers will see over the coming years.
Anyone else considered the irony in this ongoing EU drivel (!) which by insisting on opening up side loading of Apps etc is completely contrary to the recently announced UK “connected device” legislation where Apple’s current security orientated OS should be more compliant - until the EU completely misunderstands technology security…
Except Apple doesn’t make an OS like every other major mobile or desktop OS… you know why? Because they don’t LICENSE it to any other OEM. That is the main difference here that is so frustrating. If Apple licensed their OSs to other vendors like Google and Microsoft do, there would be a lot more to these investigations and regulations, but they don’t.
"Apple has crippled iPadOS." If the iPad was its own company, its revenues would match those of Luxottica, the world's largest eyewear manufacturer. May other products be so 'crippled'.
I go back to the "some" argument.
Ideal for some. What about those that like it as is? Why do you get a say, and I don't? I know what I bought, and I like it as it is. You know what you bought, and you don't fully like it as is. That's fine. You can buy something else.
Generally that is how it is supposed to work. Don't like something. Don't support it or purchase it.
I don't know what this means. You don't want the walled garden. So don't buy Apple. But, you don't think what is outside the garden isn't ready yet either? In those cases, you generally purchase the best option of what you can pick from. I wanted an F150 Lightning in 2023. They were not available when I was ready to purchase. I had to pick something else. I did. That's just how it works. And if they did have it available. Maybe not in my favorite color or trim levels. It is what it is.
Then it isn't a walled garden. It's a walled garden because someone built the garden, and you entered it and said "it's nice here, I'll stay". OR, "Its nice but, not exactly what I was looking for so, bye!".
It is hard to comprehend when it doesn't exist. If Apple wanted to make an Open device they could have. They did not want to. They wanted a Walled Garden. Of which everyone could either choose it as is or pick something else.
This is not more freedom. Has nothing to do with freedom. This is forcing one company to make something that someone else already did. Freedom in this sense would be for me, you, and everyone else having the ability to choose from the products that exist today. You want Open, go here. You want closed, go here. If you want to hack your device. Sure, you can do that to either options. Just don't expect any support from those manufactures. And if you brick it, well that's own you.
😡 grrrrrr, some people are so angry I am starting to worry about their health.
Countries have rules about conducting business on their territory:
- China demands censorship.
- The US demands ownership of foreign companies, with a particular penchant for Chinese ones (see Huawei and TikTok)
- The EU introduces rules to ensure fair trade (as they see it) and protect the right of its citizens (as they see it).
Deal with it.
😡 Grrrrr 😂😂😂
Countries have rules about conducting business on their territory:
- China demands censorship.
- The US demands ownership of foreign companies, with a particular penchant for Chinese ones (see Huawei and TikTok)
- The EU introduces rules to ensure fair trade (as they see it) and protect the right of its citizens (as they see it).
Deal with it.
😡 Grrrrr 😂😂😂
That is the first good argument in this thread so far. Gotta give it to you. But unfortunately it doesn’t hold much value because iOS is still a Mobile OS and who makes its hardware is immaterial here because we are strictly dealing with the software parts. App downloads don’t depend on the device manufacturer but the OS maker.
Think of it like your car manufacturer deciding that you can only use tyres of stock brand otherwise the warranty is void. They can restrict the dimensions but not who makes the tyre. Similarly an OS can not and should not gatekeep especially when it is so omnipresent.
Hey EU, why isn't Spotify paying more to artists for streaming music? They are 'dominant' in that space? Doesn't that seem 'anti-competitive'? Or does this qualify as just the right amount of competition?
![1714428524221.png]( "1714428524221.png")
(I kid, of course. Spotify should pay the artists/labels whatever amount have have negotiated. And users can choose to use their services, or not, as they see fit. Just as Apple's customers should.)
(I kid, of course. Spotify should pay the artists/labels whatever amount have have negotiated. And users can choose to use their services, or not, as they see fit. Just as Apple's customers should.)
Enlighten everyone as to where companies get the money that is used to pay the fines. Fines only hurt the company's customers, not the actual company.
Instead the CEOs with their multi-million dollar salaries should be responsible for a major portion of the fine. Then work the way down the company executive ladder to include VPs and COOs. They are the ones that violated "whatever" to cause the fine, not the workers or the customers.
For the life of me, I'll never understand why consumers should have a right to do whatever they want with software they didn't create. I think Apple should start charging money for software updates in the EU.
No justice until equal rights for Hoth!
Although, not to quibble too much, but Alderaan WAS blown to bits.... a long time ago.
You keep trying this rhetorical trick of substituting "same" for my words "more like".
Last edited:
Apple went so hard on not wanting to play well with others even with their superior software that they turned themselves into the villain. All of this was avoidable. They wanted to be the dominant solution for education for phones etc and all they've done is open themselves up further to attack legally.
Instead of thinking about the future, they picked every battle that would come back to haunt them and then one full battle that would come back to haunt them and then barrel full steam ahead. Once you become a standard platform that governments are using, you got to start playing by rules. Apple wants to act like they don't have rules to play by, except when it comes to China they just say this is out of their control and throw their hands in the air.
Just a few moves they could have did could have stayed off most of the lawsuits. But nope greed greed greed... They fail to come up with another product to make money off of and now they are desperate to keep iPhones in the same position.
Be sure to tell your momma to buy your iPhone LOL