I suppose I should feel honoured that a company with around 20% market share is somehow being painted as the chief reason as to why innovation is being stifled for half a billion people, as though no other alternative exists, and especially when the main complainer (Spotify) has a larger user base.
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.
Apple Intelligence Features Not Coming to European Union at Launch Due to DMA
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They have more than 50% market share of mobile app revenue.
Don't be ridiculous with your numbers.
45 million or more monthly active end users in the EU are a lot.
Fact is: No other alternative to Apple's App Store or in-app purchases used to exist.
Why? 🤷♀️
You don't work for Apple, do you? 😉
The EU clearly decided that Apple - among others - wields enough gatekeeping power to warrant regulation.
I agree.
Other countries are beginning to agree, too.
You disagree.
But there's nothing you can do about it - except (vote) in your own country.
...
I can't buy my apps elsewhere (yet).
And there is not enough competition on mobile operating systems.
Shall we go for another round of you claiming that the Samsungs, Oppos and Googles etc. are competition - and me countering that they run the same operating system and you'd have to get relevant apps all from the same store?
Food for thought - why have we not seen a viable smartphone competitor (not even OS) from the EU?
Yes. They are called company towns and existed here 100 years ago. Such things have declined because the people don’t want to work/live that way and certainly not for those wages. $3/hr is poverty level in the US. The cost of living is much higher than in China. They can get away with it there now because the money is enough for those people. One day it won’t be. The standard of living will rise for the lowly worker and manufacturing will move to where they can pay less. They are already doing it.
Foxconn wages fall below US$3 per hour in Shenzhen as Apple shifts supply chain away from China
The iPhone maker's facility in China's southern technology hub was offering rates of 19 to 20 yuan (US$2.76 to US$2.90) per hour this week for smartphone assembly line and component production roles, according to three local hiring agents. This was down from the same period last year, when...
finance.yahoo.com
Apple's platform power, a minority position in the market place, exists because Apple provides value by not allowing (errors and bugs excluded) 3rd parties to violate privacy and security. Customers pay a premium price because they want what Apple provides. No one is compelled to use Apple's product. It is neither critical nor necessary infrastructure that might merit government regulation. There are at least a dozen other companies, each with multiple products, that provide a variety of value propositions.
You say, Apple is free to develop and release technology, but only so long as they adhere to your design requirements and allow you to use their intellectual property for free.
Furthermore, you require them to eliminate the value proposition that is a primary reason I buy iPhones.
I don't want alternative app stores that make it easy for you install security or privacy violating apps on my phone. I don't believe characterizing it as choice vs. no choice is an honest one. You are eliminating my choice to have a phone where I can't be tricked into downloading malware and spyware. Simply saying "don't use an alternative App Store" is a disingenuous reply. You might be sophisticated enough. My grandmother and most users are not.
There are many other phones available on the market, at least a dozen with some provided by European companies. The vast majority of people in Europe do not use an iPhone but instead use a phone with an open system freely modifiable by anyone who wants to invest the time and capital to add value.
You sound like a man standing looking at a snow covered mountain and complaining about how bad the downhill skiing is in the valley below. What you want is available. Move and go get it.
What you said isn't true. Has someone lied to you about this? You should do a Google search for alternative app stores. There are a bunch of them.
Top 25 Android App Store Alternatives
Choosing the right more like Google Play Store & Apple App Store alternative can be challenging. There are pros and cons of each app store. Here are top 25 Android app store Alternatives in 2023.
www.capermint.com
Perhaps you don't know about the other app stores because, as the behavioral science shows, people really don't want to handle that much choice.
Thus, your duopoly argument is verified as false.
Apple has always followed the maxim set down by Alan Kay: "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware."
Apparently, you feel EC bureaucrats know more about computing system architecture than the experts and should have a right to dictate how Apple should design and build their system. That is an opinion. I don't agree with it regardless of what set of politicians in any country say. I know they are only saying it because wealthy partisans what them to slice off pieces of Apple's pie and give it to them.
There's way more than two phones. There's way more than two app stores.
Looking at the current numbers, Apple accounts for about 30% of unit sales in Europe. That's a minority of the market.
It isn't surprise that people would be buying more apps and subscriptions on the iPhone. Apple created a premium product and a premium environment. It attracts more affluent customers who can afford apps and subscriptions. The safety and security of its environment, along with the convenience and safety of a single, secure payment processor lowers the barrier for people to buy from the App Store and from Apps. Google created a spyware platform. People buy Android phones are on average less affluent. The spyware riddled nature of alternative app stores creates a barrier for people to buy.
Microsoft operating systems are on over 70% of desktop and laptop computers. The vast majority of HP, Dell, et al., personal-computer sales are equipped with Windows. So, no, one wouldn't call Microsoft a minority player in software. Microsoft hardware, however, accounts for a minuscule number of sales by comparison.
In the phone market, Google is in a similar situation. Google software runs on the majority of phones in Europe. Google hardware is a de minimus percentage in comparison to other Android devices.
The main point of interaction I have with Bimbo Bakeries is my local Smith’s supermarket. Should Bimbo sue Kroger (the company that own Smiths) because they aren’t allowed to advertise cheaper prices are available at the Walmart down the street? I mean, especially since Bimbo pays for the shelf space it takes at the supermarket. Shouldn’t it “own” that space and be able to advertise any way it sees fit?
Spotify owns 31% of the music streaming market worldwide. Apple Music owns 15%. Spotify can be paid for on the web. Users have choice. They can pay on the web or they can pay conveniently and securely in app, where they don't have to reveal their payment information to yet another service using god-only-knows what payment processor in the background.
So, apparently, your argument is that users aren't smart enough to know to check the web for price. But are smart enough to know to buy some products at Walmart because they are cheaper there. And, somehow, they are smart enough to understand all the intricate ins-and-outs of privacy and security to make intelligent decisions about apps from alternate app stores. The former requires little knowledge. The latter requires sophisticated knowledge of the differences between many alternatives.
That sounds a lot like special pleading.
Last edited:
The U.S. are good at software.
The U.S. are good at locking in customers with software.
The U.S. are good at abusive and anticompetitive business practices.
The U.S. are notoriously bad (reluctant) at regulating big companies.
That about sums it up.
People are "buying more apps and subscriptions on the iPhone"
You said it yourself. That's why they aren't a minority player.
...just like the internet?
I mean... who needs the internet?
I have to use a smartphone almost as much as I have to use electricity.
It's an essential medium to stay in touch with people, do my banking transactions and buy transit tickets.
…and Microsoft doesn’t have a dominant position in PC operating systems - cause there’s all the HPs, Dells, Lenovos and Acers shipping competitive PCs?
👉 Oh wait… they all run the same operating system.
They all run the same operating system.
I know about them well enough - in fact, I looked up app availability on the most prominent alternative stores for Android a few days ago.
Suffice to say that a majority of my apps (their Android equivalents to the ones I use on iOS) aren't available anywhere else than from the Google Play Store. My mothers' apps... none of the third-party apps she uses is available in any other store than Google Play Store. Literally none (of the almost 20 she has on her phone).
No.
Government and regulators only take relevant competitors into account when assessing market monopoly or duopoly power. It certainly does not need to be a strict monopoly in the true sense of the word.
There's only one on iOS. And only one on Android that as all the relevant apps for the average consumer. And you know it.
So you agree that Apple command a majority of both revenue and app purchases?
👉 Let’s stop the disingenuous calling them a minority player in the market then!
Not at all!
"There are many other phones available on the market, at least a dozen with some provided by European companies"
👉 I'm sure one of them is so security-minded and locked down enough that you aren't going to be tricked into downloading malware and spyware.
You certainly don't require Apple to have such a secure phone.
They could have been tricked by "sideloaded" enterprise apps for many years. It's not like Apple had a perfect track record with their certificates (as evidenced by the various illicit app stores).
It's certainly true when you look at market share - and availability of essential apps (that aren't available in alternative stores).
👉 See? That's why I can't (and will refuse to) use it.
So I don't have a choice other than Apple and iOS - on which Apple monopolised software distribution, thereby denying me choice.
👉 Yes, Bimbo should be able to sue!
👉 Yes, government should regulate Kroger/Smith's to allow Bimbo to advertise!
...as soon as Kroger have a nationwide de facto monopoly (or operate in a duopoly) in grocery sales or baked goods - and as Bimbo is de facto prevented from setting up their own store locations.
Do you realise how misguided the comparison is? Mobile operating systems and their app marketplaces are not supermarkets - and neither are they fast food burger restaurants.
They can't pay in-app without paying 30% to Apple - their biggest competitor. All that said doesn't negate the fact that it's not fair competition - on the merits of providing a better music streaming service.
Last edited:
...but none that's not...
...a spyware platform (according to you).
That's why pointing to the many Android brands of phones is disingenuous.
Last edited:
No. That might be a reasonable point, except that it is you who is arguing to turn the iPhone into an Android-like cesspool. You already have your garbage spyware platform. Don’t bring your sewer to mine.
Last edited:
No one is arguing for that.
First, security isn’t guaranteed by Apple’s five minutes of review per app.
Second, Apple has decided it is going to continue reviewing apps.
Is macOS a cesspool?
Does your grandmother use a PC?
Regulation coming in many countries
A.I. left unregulated would be a disastrous move
A.I. left unregulated would be a disastrous move
Building Under Regulation [215.]
An essay on the EU Digital Markets Act and Apple’s Update on apps distributed in the European Union (and some personal history)
hardcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com
Interesting what a former Microsoft executive has to say on this (amongst other things, and he certainly seems qualified to comment on this matter). It's not an entirely new article (been out for like half a year), it's a very long (albeit easy to digest) one, and I do encourage everyone here to give it a read if you have not already done so.
Everyone here keeps arguing for a return to the PC-way of doing things, but maybe they are the ones with the outdated model of thinking.
He also directly addresses many of the common points you have previously argued for (a walled garden somehow being bad, malicious compliance, Apple preferring its own apps and services, more choice always being better than less etc). I suspect it won't change your mind (just as you won't change mine), it's cool that I find them largely in line with my own reasoning, and I guess in the end, we both don't really have any skin in the game and the ball is really in Apple's / the EU's court and the only thing we can meaningfully do is see how all this plays out in the next couple of of years.
I will not have expected a former Microsoft executive to be one of Apple's biggest proponents today.
In that half billion market there are other innovative companies with innovations coming in faster than in the US, which sanctions itself.
No one can help, when the country itself kills its own technological development, can they? You are dependent on China, but living in a walled garden won't help you, and believing your own mass media with its propaganda.
And Europe apparently wants to cripple the market so it won't lose so much tax revenue to US companies.
You seem to be ignoring the part where I point out that they are doing so because they are more affluent. Android has the greater number of seats. Don't blame Apple for providing a premium platform and attracting more discerning users. And don't try to turn Apple into an Android sewer just because you think it might save Spotify from its horrible business model.
Except that all of those things can be done on the smartphones running Android. You don't need Apple. Apple is not essential. Apple is not infrastructure.
So, thanks for pointing out that having more app stores will not actually improve choice. No person who actually wants to make money off an app wants to distribute it on an obscure sketchy store that no one asked for and few visit. Besides, you don't need to look at the behavioral marketing studies to realize that no one wants to visit ten different stores looking for the best deal on an app. Apps are not like apparel or other products which people enjoy perusing.
Except that iOS and its App Store still aren't anywhere near a monopoly when you have lots of Android-based devices to choose from and lots of Android app stores to patronize. I can't help it if, as you point out, having lots of android app stores hasn't improved your choice. I could have told you that would be the case because the behavioral science says so.
So, why do you think it will be better forcing multiple App Stores on iOS when it hasn't worked well on Android, as you pointed out yourself?
Having multiple iOS app stores won't be different. App makers targeting a broader market will stick with the Apple App Store, avoiding the hassle of distributing through multiple obscure platforms. The result won't be increased choice but rather opportunities for criminals to trick users into downloading spyware, much like on Android where only one good app store exists. Ultimately, you'll just have a choice between the reliable Apple App Store and wasting time on inferior or malicious alternatives.
Apple executed a high-end market strategy to claim the affluent users. It created a superior product to appeal to those who value privacy and security and want seamless integration into the Apple ecosystem of products. They do not own a majority of the market in the EU. They own a smaller, albeit higher-end, portion.
Companies offering Android-based systems have largely pursued a market-claiming strategy, targeting the entire market. They've focused on competing on price to capture the majority of the market, subsidizing phone costs at the expense of user privacy. At the higher end, they've emphasized hardware features but still neglected privacy and security concerns. Consequently, they've successfully captured around 70% of the lower-end market, but failed to meet the needs of the high-end.
There is nothing preventing Google, Honor, or any other company from directly challenging Apple at the high end of the market. In fact, the history of the mobile phone industry suggests that this shift in dominance is more likely to occur than you might expect. Recall the past supremacy of Motorola (in the 1990s), Treo, Nokia, and Blackberry. Over the last two decades, various operating systems have held the majority market share: PalmOS, Symbian, iOS, and Android, with Blackberry and Windows as credible challengers.
Fine. Thank you for pointing out that Apple doesn't even have a monopoly on security. Since you are sure good substitutes exist, why are you trying to make Apple change? There are alternatives, some of which you think are just as good.
You really don't have good arguments. You are constantly undercutting yourself making points which show the DMA is either unnecessary or will be ineffective.
You completely missed the point. I compared the same scenario to Bimbo and Spotify. Bimbo, at their primary customer interaction point (on shelf space they pay for), is not allowed to advertise "go to a different store" because their license agreement doesn't allow it. Similarly, Spotify, at their primary in-app interaction with customers, has agreed to a license that doesn't permit them to induce Apple customers to go to a different store.
By arguing for iOS to have a system of software loading similar to that found on Android or even MacOS, you are knowingly creating the conditions that will with 100% certainly cause some people's systems to be compromised. You might be able to argue that the economic benefit to opening the system is greater than keeping it closed, but I've not seen that argued at all. I've seen people arguing on principle that the system should be open and that users have no right to buy a system that provides greater level of privacy and security because some app makers think they can make more money.
Yes, a Mac can be vulnerable if you download the wrong apps. However, if you stick to the App Store or well-known publishers, it can be safe. Beyond that, one needs to have the technical sophistication to vet apps, use checksums to verify downloads. Sandboxing, which has only recently been fully implemented, adds a significant layer of protection. Even with the levels of safeguards implemented in recent years, people can be fooled through social engineering to give malicious apps access to resources they should not have. The situation was really horrible before OS X when there was no App Store, and the resource structure for executable files made virus insertion child's play.
I am extremely careful about what I load onto my Mac. My older and/or less technically savvy friends and relatives have used Macs and PCs. Some rely on my advice before they do anything I've warned them not to do. When they have acted on their own, a couple have gotten themselves riddled with spyware and tricked through social engineering calls from people claiming to be from Microsoft.
You cannot use me as a good example of an average user. Having worked on systems designed to be used by unsophisticated users (and even seeing how sophisticated users can be ignorant or mistaken about aspects of security), I know full well that opening systems to side loading and indiscriminate downloads vastly increases the likelihood of intentionally malicious apps being mistakenly installed. You are advocating exactly the situation which will increase security violations.
Don't be that surprised. These issues aren't about competitive rivalries*. They are about the rules of the game and the way the game changes due to technological advancement and innovation.I will not have expected a former Microsoft executive to be one of Apple's biggest proponents today.
---
* The DMA, though, is very clearly about the EU wanting to change the rules so that European companies can compete in a world that is passing them by. Just look at how one of pro-DMA people listed as why the DMA is needed "The U.S. are good at software. The U.S. are good at locking in customers with software. The U.S. are good at abusive and anticompetitive business practices. The U.S. are notoriously bad (reluctant) at regulating big companies." Notice this was all about admitting Europe's impotence and denigrating the US. I think we can all agree that sour grapes is a bad motivation for regulation.
Last edited:
Antitrust laws were created to curb the economic rent in some sectors.
Here is a good explanation how rent-seeking relates to Apple's and Google's app store business:
Why Lawmakers Are So Interested in Apple’s and Google’s ‘Rents’
You can’t understand the app store debate without knowing a crucial piece of antitrust jargon.
www.wired.com
Not really. I use quite a few open source software in macOS, they do much better than all kinds of paid apps specially-made-for Mac. Integrity of those open source apps were well tested in Linux for decades. The interesting fact is that with open source apps, lot of coders around the world contribute to them freely and free of charge. Who would contribute to paid apps of app-shops that way?
It doesn’t change the fact that rent-seeking IS fundamental to capitalism.Antitrust laws were created to curb the economic rent in some sectors.
Here is a good explanation how rent-seeking relates to Apple's and Google's app store business:
Why Lawmakers Are So Interested in Apple’s and Google’s ‘Rents’
You can’t understand the app store debate without knowing a crucial piece of antitrust jargon.
Quoted from the article I posted earlier.
My point being, even some congress members think, that the way app stores work today is "messed up". So maybe, just maybe, the DMA is onto something here beyond just protecting allegedly failing EU tech businesses.
Last edited:
Maybe it's "fundamental", but it's certainly not desirable.
Things are nice when everyone plays nice. Not everyone plays nice. People do try to propagate viruses and trojans to steal your information, ransom access to your data, and steal computing cycles. I don’t believe you are too naïve to know that.
That’s a value judgment. Capitalism doesn’t tell you what is good or moral. Capitalism is merely a system that has characteristics. People who lack training in economics rarely understand that. I’m not saying you don’t. I’m not making any judgment about your level of training.
The reality is most people don’t want capitalism; they want fair. Capitalism isn’t about fair. It is about the efficient distribution of resources. It doesn’t even tell you that efficient is good. Most people would disagree that efficient is good, because under perfectly efficient economic transactions, no one makes a profit since the economic values exchanged are the same.
That’s a value judgment. Seeing all the anti-Apple and anti-US rhetoric that has been thrown about, it is reasonable to conclude that the DMA isn’t about fairness. It is about sour grapes. Sour grapes that will make it far easier for criminals to violate privacy and steal information.