Like I said before, the Stockholm syndrome has kicked in. The DMA is for all companies that act as gatekeepers, whether they are European or foreign. It is not about just Apple. If all of those gatekeepers are from the US, hence it might be a problem to those, who cannot see their world without being a part of Apple. Using Apple devices for one's own use doesn't have to connected with Apple emotionally - you buy what you want, use them how you want, but not become sold to the company. The DMA is for all gatekeeper companies that exist in the EU. And, all those gatekeeper companies have registered headquarters in Ireland, in the EU. All told, there are about 700 US companies registered in Ireland. Ireland once got fined for tax exempting matters.
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
You should read Das Kapital. He didn't make communism, by the way, just wrote about capitalism. The Chinese must've read it very very carefully, so they are the largest economic power in the world. China is also the largest technological power in the world today.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that paying economic rent is desirable for consumers?
I think the last point is also not quite correct and purely theoretical. Most goods in the market are differentiated in some way. Also, economic rent is profit that has nothing to do with differentiation or productivity. It's a surplus profit that can only exist under circumstances where there is no competition at all.
Last edited:
Buy the competition. Blame the vendors for leading their operating systems instead of building them. Use a website, go android. Or go without. The market does not have to cater to your needs.
Sure, let’s do it. Let have another round of claiming about lack of competition in the App Store space.
Sure. Let’s have one for the road and beat the horse again.
Yes. And if you think it’s bad, there is competition that sells something cheaper. Everybody that sells something in someone else’s house pays economic rent. Ever hear of slotting fees?
See slotting fees.
Theoretical mumbo jumbo.
"Gatekeeper" is also a very arbitrary term that was decided unilaterally by the EU, so it is well within their ability to delineate the boundaries such that it targets only only US companies while conveniently excluding businesses from the EU, or other companies with a similar business model like PS5 game consoles whom they don't want to tussle with at the moment. They have also decided that they will ignore the very boundaries set by their own legislation when convenient (such as deciding that iPadOS counts as being a part of iOS).
It's really no different from how I can choose to draft a law specifically targeting people of a certain race or demographic, without calling it out, by instead focusing on seemingly neutral parameters like income range or education level, knowing that the majority of my target audience falls within those brackets.
So yeah, I do not feel that the DMA is a good piece of legislation at all, which is why I am not upset that Apple is choosing to push back against it. Maybe Apple eventually will have to capitulate one day, and maybe Apple will end up having to give up more than anticipated, but I stand by Apple's right to stake their claim on what they (rightly) believe is their IP, as well as their right to monetise it.
Within the context of Apple, I will argue that the app store's current 30% cut is the optimal way for Apple to monetise their IP, both from their perspective, and from society's perspective as well. Apps are free to publish, and developers pay Apple a cut only if their own apps make money, meaning the barriers to entry for new apps is very low. So users benefit from a wider selection of apps available on their devices, and payments are typically taken out of revenue which has zero marginal cost, which in turn minimises the harm from any such "tax". This approach maximises innovation (because anyone can publish an app without fear that a bad bet would leave them on the hook for a massive loan repayment) while minimising deadweight loss.
The use of iTunes also makes it easier to Apple to take their cut, because they basically have full insight into all transactions that take place within the App Store. It also makes it easier to users to track and terminate their subscriptions directly within the App Store app, so that's another benefit as well.
If you want Apple to open up their platform to third party app stores and sideloading against their wishes, as well as bar them from charging developers a cut from apps sold this way, then you are basically denying that iOS is the intellectual property of Apple, or that Apple is somehow not allowed to charge for their IP. This would be akin to the government taking Apple's property and nationalising it, while demanding that Apple continues to foot the bill for maintaining it.
Of course, some developers would prefer to have their cake and eat it too (ie: make use of IAPs while keeping 100% of proceeds). But Apple could also, in place of the CTF, just jack up the annual developer fee from $99 to millions of dollars a year. They would probably get their money back (companies like Facebook and Google would still pay), but you basically chase away any new entrant.
So yeah, maybe economic rent isn't entirely desirable, but every other alternative I can think of seems way worse!
Isn't that excellent, looking after your own? 😏
Apple can try, but will pay the fine in the end.
And, lose a larger market than the US? 😏
Anywhere they want, and that's DMA
Why should they? It is like ransom...
without Apple tax...
I think you are wrong. Under the capitalist definition of economic value, rents can occur when demand exceeds supply, when a commodity is scarce, when there is asymmetric information, or when one has a competitive advantage (such as a technology advantage), when economic conditions change and the value of what is exchanged changes but a contractual obligation requires the transaction take place, and when there is insufficient competition as in monopoly. It is important to note that each of those conditions fosters rent seeking, it does not mandate or guarantee rent seeking.
I wasn't saying rent is desirable, per se, but there are conditions under which rent seeking is desirable, specifically when it incentivizes the investment of capital towards innovation. I guarantee most of what has happened in the commercial development of technology in the last 100 years has been in search of rents.
Do you also think that Nintendo and Sony should not be allowed to charge game developers a cut for publishing games for their respective consoles? And please don't give me motherhood statements like how the iPhone is an essential part of daily life while game consoles are optional devices. If a cut is unfair, then it's unfair, regardless of who it applies to.
I can also turn this question around on its head. Why should Apple be obligated to allow developers access to their platform for free? Nobody is pointing a gun at the developers' heads and forcing them to release apps on iOS. They go in, knowing fully well the terms of the deal (terms that Apple has never reneged on). Go and make your app available solely for Android if you are that hard up to use your own payment system, or if you think you can get any significant number of users to sideload your app via shady Facebook ads. It's all the more reason to double down on their own services to serve as a hedge against developers who decide to abandon the platform.
The truth of the matter is - many people here underrate the extent to which Apple not only created a whole new market for developers, but also went the distance in conditioning users to love apps and trust the purchase process. Yes, apps helped sell the iPhone, but without it, developers would probably still be creating JAR applications for Symbian phones (which probably won't be anywhere near as profitable), or alternatively, not even be creating apps at all.
So if you ask me why, that's my answer. It's fair renumeration for Apple's efforts in growing the overall pie for everyone.
And there it is - after weeks of argument we get down to the real reason you support the DMA:
“I prefer iOS, but don’t like the tradeoffs Apple imposes” (the trade offs which ironically lead to you preferring it over android, but I digress) “so let’s make Apple do what I want so I can have my cake and eat it too. Who cares if it makes the platform worse, less secure, and less private for everyone else. Apple has made enough money so they should just deal with it. Apple’s Intellectual Property rights are less important than developers’ rights to profit off of Apple’s platform without compensating them for it.”
And now all you DMA defenders are upset Apple isn’t introducing features to the EU because you’re so focused on the App Store parts of the legislation you haven’t realized what you’re defending. So you scream “malicious compliance” and “Apple Temper Tantrum” not realizing that as written Apple is actually DISINCENTIVED both from an economic and customer experience / protection perspective to introduce integrated products and features.
Be careful what you wish for!
It is not, there are lot of other mobile phones around, much cheaper and with better screens and options -- quite user-friendly -- not hitting their purses.
This. People either weren’t around for / have forgotten the state of buying (or downloading) software in the late 1990s/2000s. How easy it was to hose your PC by clicking the wrong link. Normal users (not the kind of people posting on MacRumors) were TERRIFIED of installing software.
It’s a very controversial statement on MacRumors, but the iOS model is actually BETTER for 95% of users than the traditional MacOS/Windows model. Not because it makes Apple more money, but because it’s more secure and a better user experience.
But, no, let’s allow Adobe to force anyone who wants to use Photoshop on the iPad onto the adobe App Store where it’s impossible to cancel without racking up hundreds on early termination fees, in the name of consumers’ rights.
It’s become very clear to me over the past few weeks of these threads that the majority of MacRumors users have no earthly idea how non-power users operate 🤣
A contract is a contract. Next time better read the fine print. Not sure why you don't want to pay for Adobe's IP 😝.
Such practices are forbidden under EU law by the way. Online contracts have to be as easy to cancel as they are easy to close.
That’s how a nationalist would put a populist spin on protectionism. Europe for the Europeans has a certain kind of historical European ring to it.
We don't have any walls between member countries, or even non-member countries. You do, down south.
Not really, we are not old-fashioned.
I’ve come across (and read) this link a couple of times now.
Former Microsoft executive responsible for Office and Windows justifying self-preferencing integration of features and lack of regulation - with a dose of bitterness about their lack in the mobile world. Hardly surprising.
There is merit in the concept that not every unsigned driver should run in kernel space and/or low-effort, sloppily written, closed-source apps have full system access. There are also benefits of having some sort of centralised app repository that reviews apps.
But market concentration as high as in the distribution for mobiles apps consumers AND the level of control and (anti)competitive restrictions that Apple - a company controlling more than half of the market’s revenue - have never beneficial to third-party innovators or consumers over the long run.
Please explain the logic.
Crippling markets does not lead to higher tax revenue. Neither does imposing antitrust conditions that lessen control on monopoly/duopoly operators.
Number of non-paying “seats” is irrelevant,
It is established that iOS developers can release apps that do not contain monetisation through (in-) app purchases for free on iOS. The DMA does not restrict or prohibit that in any way.
The main provisions of the DMA, the ones that Apple is so bent on fighting, circumventing and contraveningpertain to purchases related to apps.
No one would say Verizon does not provide telecommunications infrastructure, just cause AT&T does, too.
Wrong. You now can get apps that Apple didn’t allow previously (in any sensible form).
As proven for gamestreaming and emulator apps: Regulatory action against Apple’s monopoly does work and improve consumer choice.
You’re being dishonest if you claim there can’t be more choice.
SetApp provides different subscription models on macOS than the Apple App Store does.
Apple own a majority of the market in revenue. Which is the commercially relevant one (paid transactions).
There’s nothing preventing them - and they do challenge Apple. But that’s irrelevant. Again: there is, for practical purposes, a duopoly of Apple and Google for mobile apps to end users. Hardware devices do not matter. They are not - or only tangentially - regulated by the DMA.
What this is about: Software. the market for apps and digital transactions - not hardware devices.
Thank you for (what I take as) agreeing.
It’s about developers gaining choice, not being denied from communicating with their customers and fairly competing with gatekeepers.
You completely missed the point.
I agree that the situation, superficially, is very similar: one company advertising (kind of, more or less) on the others’ turf.
But the thing is: The competitive situation of their respective markets is wholly different.
👉 Bimbo and Kroger’s are not operating a duopoly, no one has anywhere near the market power Apple and Google have. And the baked goods has nowhere near the entry barriers that mobile operating systems/apps have.
👉 The same - or very similar - market behaviour is deemed OK in one market (baked goods) - whereas it isn’t (anymore) in another market, namely mobile software applications.
Freedom entails some risks.
We don’t live in padded cells.
The risk is manageable - as proven by macOS.
And my mother. Using her MacBook.
Going by the same logic, we wouldn’t private ownership and/or private operation of cars 🚗 either.
They can be very dangerous and many thousands of people die from unsophisticated users operating cars in the U.S. alone.
Laws are the results of value judgments.
True - that’s why capitalism and the markets are regulated.
The U.S. (lack of) regulation plays an important factor in unfair or undesirable market conditions emerging. Apple and Google have become so powerful in part due to the lax U.S. regulatory regimen.
But it’s true - and a core principle in antitrust law.
Similar business behaviour is not judged the same - depending on who exhibits it a d on which kind of market.
I would tend to agree with Kara Swisher on the point that generally, tech companies are under-regulated when you consider their immense impact on everyday life of an immense, global, population. Like the railroad barons of old they shape markets, politics, public opinion. They are often led by CEOs with a wide range of power and each and little to no emotional control – and these companies should be regulated according to the infrastructural role they play. Apple, e.g. is a mixture of hardware manufacturer, software developer of their own OS and Apps, market platform for third party software, film producer, TV Plattform, music streaming, podcasts, book sales market and so on. It’s a breathtaking vertical and horizontal spread that reaches deep into the everyday life of millions of people. No bank, no car manufacturer has that kind of impact on our life with as little regulation and rules. You get a barest glimpse of what that means with Elon Musk and X, just imagine what happens when Apple is falling into the hands of, say, Stephen Bannon. It’s only natural that the phase in which privacy, competiton, market behavior, consumer rights and so on haven’t been regulated at all comes to an end. This, basically, is what we have politics for.