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.
EU Reportedly Planning to Charge Apple for Violating Digital Markets Act
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is private property tho that have full ownership and say who and what gets sold within its premises.
And you have used this analogy beforehand in earlier conversations.
A mall still is an area dedicated to the sale of physical goods where there is no proprietary intellectual property within.
I believe I used Costco as an example where they sell their own brand along. Government did not come along and force Costco to accept Sam’s club brands. Additionally government didn’t legislate that Sam’s club can sell their brands and not pay Costco any fees.
Retail analogies are just useless in this case. The retail world is completely different from the distribution of digital goods because of DRM and similar technologies. There is absolutely no need to tell Costco what they can sell. If Costco had too much market power, antitrust authorities would simply force Costco to divest from some of their shops. This happens with some regularity in the EU. Usually when one competitor wants to buy another company in the same sector. Authorities can then examine the market for dominance and either block the merger or mandate the sale of some location to a competitor.
Well I agree this legislation is so bad it defies an analogy.
It's so bad, that multiple countries around the world are copying it. Must be a conspiracy.
To that are you saying the government has never introduced bad legislation? But yeah this legislation is not for then consumers it’s an illusion of choice.
No legislation is perfect. But it can be adapted over time. I think the problem it tries to address is real. Also, free markets don't always function well, under every circumstance.
Regulated markets, such as the ones now introduced don’t function well either and they function worse than free markets.
It’s infinitely better than the previous system.
Russia forces Apple to remove VPN apps from the App Store
Apple has caved to pressure from Russian authorities and removed a number of the best iPhone VPN apps from the App Store in the country.
appleinsider.com
This is indefensible for a company that values privacy.
Sigh, but that’s exactly how the DMA works now. And how the retail world works as well.
Costco can sell whatever they want and refuse to sell whatever they want. But the brands that sell their goods at Costco, can also sell their stuff at ICA or Lidl at zero cost and zero return to Costco even if a card carrying member is the on purchasing it and having it in their home.
Hence I used the house analogy as it’s more fitting.
And untill apple list the explicit IP that is being violated and not compensated for its a nonsensical statement with no basis of fact to argue from.
One opinion gets another. No it doesn’t.
It’s okay for apple to be forced to follow regulations except when MR posters don’t think they should. Got it. Yes I’m being purposefully sarcastic to highlight the moving goalposts.Russia forces Apple to remove VPN apps from the App Store
Apple has caved to pressure from Russian authorities and removed a number of the best iPhone VPN apps from the App Store in the country.appleinsider.com
This is indefensible for a company that values privacy.
Sigh. There is a difference.
As I said bad legislation is impervious to real world analogies. (But that doesn’t stop us from trying)
I’m all for free markets period except when it comes to matters that affect life and death. Apple has no say in what the competition does and doesn’t do and it’s my opinion that’s why in part this legislation is bad.
Apple should still follow the law. The distinction is that the user SHOULD still have the ability to get software that the overlords don’t want them to have.
Apple having the AppStore and WebKit as the single point of failure is not good for people.
Then use the hotel/ apartment analogy. You only ”license” the right to live in the space and can’t host goods/apps inside the space without Apple/hotel manager/ landlords consent. Or the thing coming from the landlords book of accepted goods.
Bad legislation is separerat from a good analogy. You only need to have an analogy of what the legislation actually does. The bad part is fully subjective.
Then buy a product that suits your requirements. It’s the overlords software. Doesn’t function the way you want but one that does.
It’s been good for a long time and still is good.
This “real world” is not proprietary IP. The App Store is.
This entire conversation except for the regulations are totally subjective.
People didn’t plan for VPNs to be banned. Or to live in an authoritarian place.
Rogue states think it’s good as it makes it easier to target people.
The AppStore IP is never touched….
How does side loading touch the AppStore? It never goes through it and doesn’t need a single line of code related to the AppStore Apple made.
That’s not apples problem. Apple has to follow the law except when MR posters don’t like it.
Yes it is.
apple was forced to use the IP in a way they didn’t want. They are giving away the store — so to speak.
Well that’s their pr problem. Profit before privacy.
Can you prove that in any way?
When I purchase a developer license or get hold of a enterprise certification.
I sign my application and install it through a signing app on my windows computer using a custom certificate profile.
The AppStore IP is equally violated on iOS as it’s on Mac when you install software not provided through the default AppStore.
Apple wasn’t forced to do anything with their Ip, they chose voluntarily how to implement and ”follow the DMA” by implementing parts of their IP even tho it’s completely unnecessary.
Here you can watch a nice little informative video.
This is how it’s done so far as you still need a certificate.
But Apple for some reson insists to be interjected as the sole provider of the software certification when it can be fully separated.
Attachments
The above doesnt change the fact the App Store is apples ip. Even if some don’t like the right control apple has over it.
And they should be entitled to what they can earn. Don’t like the prices go with an alternative cell phone manufacturer.
Can you disprove it? The App Store is being given away like free candy. EU based posters won’t admit it though.
The enterprise program has been around for a while. One cannot just get a hold of a certificate unless some shady things are going on.
It is legit to install using an Memon or certificate. These certificates are not given away like free beer. And apple can revoke the certificate.
It’s like voluntarily going to jail…
A thought occurred to me while catching up on this thread. The main argument is that Apple is entitled to control and make revenue from the market they created as they see fit, right? Since it's their creation and their intellectual property or whatever.
Isn't it the same for the European Union? It's their market, they make the rules that players have to follow. Like developers and end users in the App Store.
Isn't it the same for the European Union? It's their market, they make the rules that players have to follow. Like developers and end users in the App Store.
No, to poorly stretch that analogy, in that instance both the landlord (Ireland) and the tenant (Apple) agreed on the price of rent, and then the town's mayor (the same person leading the charge in favor the DMA I might add) complained the rent was too low and demands that the tenant pay more to the landlord. The landlord continues to argue that it doesn't deserve more money and that the mayor doesn't have any right to tell it how to price its rent.
It does. The above is demonstrating how side loading is done without touching the AppStore
Indeed, hence the Pr issue as it’s their allegedly selling point.
First you have the responsibility to provide proof for your positive claim, something you haven’t done, as it’s just empty statements without any evidence.
Secondly I have provided evidence for you multiple times that the AppStore isn’t legally required to be given away.
And how you currently can side load is evidence for this.
Such as AppDB have completely custom APIs and software to be independent from Apples Ip.
And that’s how you side load without touching the AppStore IP. It’s non trivial to acquire a certificate. Such as by paying Apple for a developer license or a company for an enterprise spot.
That’s kind of what Apple did… even tho they didn’t have to.
Read the DMA, and then how Apple implemented it by integrating their IP. And you can read how nothing Apple did was required or necessary.