[alxlaz]

Except this has nothing to do with some monopoly on the smartphone market, but with Apple not allowing application developers to enable their users to vote with their wallets on payment methods. From the press release:

> Under the DMA, app developers distributing their apps via Apple's App Store should be able to inform customers, free of charge, of alternative offers outside the App Store, steer them to those offers and allow them to make purchases. > > The Commission found that Apple fails to comply with this obligation. Due to a number of restrictions imposed by Apple, app developers cannot fully benefit from the advantages of alternative distribution channels outside the App Store. Similarly, consumers cannot fully benefit from alternative and cheaper offers as Apple prevents app developers from directly informing consumers of such offers. The company has failed to demonstrate that these restrictions are objectively necessary and proportionate.

This has nothing to do with smartphones specifically, it applies equally well to anything in the AppStore ecosystem.

[fidotron]

This is like arguing McDonalds has a monopoly over food sold in McDonalds outlets, when you have a choice to not go into McDonalds.

[alxlaz]

This is:

1. Not about any monopoly (in fact the word "monopoly" does not appear in the press release at all).

2. Nothing like McDonalds, whose business model is completely different from an app store's.

3. Not about Apple can do to consumers who aren't in the Apple ecosystem but about what it can do to developers who wish to sell their applications and services for Apple devices.

If you really insist on making an analogy that involves McDonalds: that's like arguing that McDonalds should not be allowed to prevent Coca-Cola from telling Coca-Cola customers that they can buy Coca-Cola in places other than McDonalds. Which, yeah, they're not allowed to.

[fidotron]

> If you really insist on making an analogy that involves McDonalds: that's like arguing that McDonalds should not be allowed to prevent Coca-Cola from telling Coca-Cola customers that they can buy Coca-Cola in places other than McDonalds. Which, yeah, they're not allowed to.

Neither the App Stores or McDonalds have any control over what you do outside of them. That's your problem, individually and collectively.

[jasonlotito]

> [the App Stores does not] any control over what you do outside of them

Well, we are talking about Apple's App Store, not just an App Store, and in that case, it's Apple. So, Apple wants to exert control over what you as an app developer do outside of the App Store. That's the problem. The fact that you think that's not happening means you know it's wrong.

[fidotron]

No, it's within the App that is distributed on the App Store.

Plenty of companies will charge you different prices for things based on whether you get them via the App Store or their website.

[alxlaz]

Except Apple tried to exert control over that, which is exactly what they got fined for, because it's illegal.

[fidotron]

They did the equivalent of saying to Coca Cola if you discover a customer via the App Store then we get a cut of it, which is a very normal and common arrangement, even if disagreeable.

[alxlaz]

No, they did the equivalent of saying to Coca-Cola if you discover a customer via the App Store then you cannot tell them they can buy Coca-Cola from outside the App Store, too, a decidedly anti-competitive practice that also happens to be illegal in just about every European country, even without EU intervention.

[jasonlotito]

Nope. That's a lie. You're a liar. They didn't start out like that all, and to pretend otherwise is lying.

[StopDisinfo910]

The whole point of the DMA is clarifying that from the point of view of the European Union, operating a digital market on a platform is not actually like going to a McDonalds.

There is no argument to be made by analogy here. The DMA always was clear regarding what constitutes a digital market and what the obligations of the companies operating them would be. If Apple is unhappy about that, they are free to stop operating the App Store in the EU.

[fidotron]

The EU would have a lot more sympathy for this if there were any non trivial digital markets that originated in the EU, with the closest being Spotify, which they somehow claim is not a gatekeeper in the music industry.

They aren't being a decent regulatory body on this one, given they have not reflected on why they are in this position, nor are they being fair with applying their rules. (The same comment can be made about the ludicrous variation in applying the GDPR).

[StopDisinfo910]

> The EU would have a lot more sympathy for this if there were any non trivial digital markets that originated in the EU

Why should that be a prerequisite?

The EU is sovereign. They are free to do whatever they want with their law. Let's not forget we are talking about the second consumer market in the world. There will be a lot more space for homegrown solutions or companies ready to comply if the foreign companies currently profiting decide to leave.

[fidotron]

> There will be a lot more space for homegrown solutions or companies ready to comply if the foreign companies currently profiting decide to leave.

The core of what I'm trying to communicate is this is backwards.

If you took the Europeans out of Apple and Google they'd never have been able to build the iPhone or Android, or their associated stores. (And you could say this about other regions where the staff came from too). Why did those Europeans that helped the US leave the EU to do so? Because the companies in the US rewarded them as they recognized the explosive potential as the market developed.

The underlying problem is EU regulation is shortsighted, and always fighting the previous battle when it's been lost. They had every opportunity to lead this from the start. I namedropped GetJar earlier, but there was Jamster/Jamba and various services which the phone companies would subcontract to to run their own store fronts. I know of several aborted Android app stores and subscription services from the 2010 era, including those from Switzerland, Belgium and a certain large French company, and there are almost certainly more.

The time to address this was 15 years ago. Now their only viable path forward is to effectively fork Android and encourage adoption of their fork, much as the Chinese have. Their problem is they have to leave things like WhatsApp available, or their citizens will go nuts, and they will resist rewarding anyone involved with the technical side of the work, so it won't happen. They just want to punish the americans for having had the foresight that led to their success.

As an example, just look at how the europeans have failed to come up with something equivalent to WhatsApp, Signal or even Telegram. The closest is matrix and element, but again without the associated rewards for working on them they just aren't going to get up to the standards people expect, and so they languish with absolute idealists and those forced to use them.

[StopDisinfo910]

> Their problem is they have to leave things like WhatsApp available, or their citizens will go nuts

WhatsApp would be displaced in a matter of days if not hours if made unavailable. You are far overestimating the amount of disruption a closure would provoke.

> They just want to punish the americans for having had the foresight that led to their success.

This is not about punishment. The DMA is about setting ground rules for a level playing field in the digital market space. It is at its heart a law about competition.

Europe wants the American companies to stop abusing their dominant positions and the closed markets they built. This is a prerequisite to a competitive market as it's basically impossible to foster competition when a few players have spent a decade entrenching themselves and building barriers to entry.

Thankfully, there are no rules which say American companies should reap unlimited benefits from their market manipulations and the overall laissez-faire attitude of the American regulator.

> As an example, just look at how the europeans have failed to come up with something equivalent to WhatsApp, Signal or even Telegram.

All of them have ready to use Asian competitors which would be more than happy to work with European regulators if American companies won't.

[mdhb]

This is a HUGELY popular position the EU is taking WTF are you taking about?

[fidotron]

It's admittedly popular with a certain demographic of would be app developers that either think the fees are what is stopping them being successful (they're not, although admittedly they are anachronistically high at this point) or they want to scam people.

There's no evidence that it is popular beyond that, especially among people that choose to use iOS.

[falcor84]

This metaphor doesn't quite work because McDonalds aren't a marketplace. But the closest I can think of is if McDonalds sold the best hamburger boxes that people want to use at home, but then added a mechanism that only lets you put a burger in that box if whoever made that burger bribed MacDonalds, regardless of what's good for you as the burger consumer.

[fidotron]

McDonalds are not responsible for what people do outside of McDonalds. If the entire potential customerbase decides to show up at McDonalds and exclusively eat there for five years bankrupting everyone else and McDonalds had behaved legally throughout then how are they the problem?

As I mentioned elsewhere, just look at the idiotic way Europe embraced WhatsApp. They genuinely believed it was free, and a huge proportion of users still don't understand it's attached to Meta and Facebook. They are so susceptible to product dumping by tech companies because they are astoundingly cheap and short sighted, and they will not pay for an alternative when the "free" version exists.

[acdha]

Except that there are hundreds of other food options while there are only two realistic options for smartphones, neither of which is cooking at home. The tight control has benefits - Apple’s App Store is much safer than letting your parents install stuff they find on the internet - but there’s a real downside which needs regulation to balance.

[fidotron]

So we want to punish people that choose that option?

Europe could easily have had a homegrown alternative to the Play Store on Android. In fact at one time it had several, only the users had no interest at all, and this was before Google went through their phase of locking things down more.

The vision for what became the Play Store was born from ex GetJar, and I was told by several Googlers at the time that they were amazed by the lack of serious competing stores that people were running. Many threatened to do so (including my employer) but it was, from the business side, pure bluffing.

In China the android market does not rely on the Play Store, so we have definite proof it can be done.

[LunaSea]

> Europe could easily have had a homegrown alternative to the Play Store on Android. In fact at one time it had several, only the users had no interest at all, and this was before Google went through their phase of locking things down more.

So why should users not have the option anymore because years ago the existing options were worse than Google's?

Should you be forbidden to buy an iPhone because you used until Androids until now and passed on iPhones?

[fidotron]

The problem is European users are too cheap, and European regulators too short sighted. It makes them hilariously prone to product dumping, where WhatsApp is "free" of course, except it isn't. They then mass adopt the "free" option and act surprised pikachu when it's not actually free.

What you are advocating is forcing a market option to change what it is, when a critical mass of their customers have chosen it precisely because of what it is.

[LunaSea]

> The problem is European users are too cheap, and European regulators too short sighted.

This seems to be a common issue for all countries, the US included.

(See the Chrome spin-off talks currently taking place.)

> What you are advocating is forcing a market option to change what it is, when a critical mass of their customers have chosen it precisely because of what it is.

Incorrect, users have chosen it for what it precisely was. After a certain size that choice does not exist anymore and the option is also very different compared to the initial choice (between the different app stores available at the time) made by users.

You're also mistaken in thinking that the hardware should automatically imply a specific software. This is not the case and we're going to slowly move to a place where the hardware is independent of the software and vice-versa for smartphones.