Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple vs the Law

formularsumo.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 450 posts

Re: Apple vs the Law

#351

Post by thaumasiotes »

horsawlarway wrote: post #267
thaumasiotes wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple is a company with limited means, only bringing in the GDP of a small country For reference, in 2023, Apple produced a little less than Romania or Hong Kong, and a little more than Egypt or the Czech Republic. Hong Kong is small (though not a lot smaller than the Czech Republic); Egypt is big. --- edit --- I accidentally compared Apple's revenue in 2023 to the IMF forecast of GDP for 2025. For 2023: Apple prod…

Ah, yes - tiny numbers like "Slightly less than the total GDP produced by 91 million people in Iran" or "Slightly more than the 6th most productive metro of the most populous country on the planet". I agree - such a small player like checks notes "the 3rd most valuable company in the history of humanity" has no chance at implementing these troublesome rules.

> 91 million people in Iran

Iran's GDP is artificially depressed.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#352

Post by AJ007 »

jjcob wrote: post #57

I think at this point we should change the law so that Gatekeepers aren't just required to enable competition, but are somehow forced to actually support competition. I'm not sure how we could enforce that, but maybe the law could stipulate that a certain minimum percentage of users must use 3rd party app stores, or use web apps. They should pay a fine if less than say 5% of apps are distributed outside the app store…

This entire thing is a convoluted mess that exists just to employ EU bureaucrats.

The solution is pretty simple: Apple is no longer allowed to run an "App Store" or distribute a pre-installed web browser. This part can be split apart as a separate company if they prefer that to shutting it down. When you look at Apple's taxable income, most of it goes to Ireland. It's very bizarre to call a company that makes everything in China and holds all of its IP in the EU a US company. It isn't.

Apple does what the Chinese government tells it to (see Apple in China by Patrick McGee.) If they pulled the EU stuff over there, Apple would cease to have new hardware to sell.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#353

Post by [deleted] »

culturestate wrote: post #60
LoganDark wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But what does surprise me is that there’s a very common attitude in forums that somehow Apple is the only company doing this, or they’re doing it worse than any other company. Apple creates vertically integrated devices. For many people, Apple dictates their entire digital life - far more so than any megacorporation on the mere level of, say Google, could ever hope to, considering Apple owns the hardware, software,…

> You cannot buy a device with entirely Google-designed hardware and software - Pixels with Android come close I don’t really understand this distinction. How is eg a Pixel 9 Pro running Android with GMS on a Tensor any less entirely Google-designed than an iPhone 16 is entirely Apple-designed?

[deleted]

Re: Apple vs the Law

#354

Post by wredcoll »

shkkmo wrote: post #243
pieds wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it wasn't. The question was that if regulation creates more competition with Apple what are the markets with this competition? European companies compete with US companies, including Apple, in areas where there is competition. In music software, music streaming, engineering and finance software, services and so on. Apple has around 33% smartphone market share in Europe. Where is the US competition? Google at 3%. T…

Apple has <60% market share in the US. It's pretty dominant, but there are definitely still real competitors.

If we're categorizing companies by headquarter location, where are these competitors located?

Re: Apple vs the Law

#355

Post by gpm »

jb1991 wrote: post #23
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #19

The greatest gem is found in the footnote, IMO > "They managed to convince the courts that iPadOS is a separate operating system to iOS (it's not), which delayed iPadOS being designated as a gatekeeper for almost a year. They are currently challenging all of the rest: the iOS, Safari, and App Store designations, and successfully managed to avoid iMessage being designated at all. They have taken the DMA law to court f…

I am certainly not surprised that Apple is employing a lot of legal tricky to work around judgments. But what does surprise me is that there’s a very common attitude in forums that somehow Apple is the only company doing this, or they’re doing it worse than any other company.

I can install apps that Google doesn't approve, and app stores other than Google's on my pixel.

I can get root access to my pixel.

I can replace the operating with an open source fork on my pixel.

Google is not using its monopoly on the hardware to get a monopoly on the software - they're competing on software primarily on its own merits and the convenience of being the default.

No other phone company that I know of even develops their own operating system.

Apple really is unique in their attempt to control the software that runs on the mass market general purpose computing devices that they sell.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#356

Post by itopaloglu83 »

lxgr wrote: post #279
itopaloglu83 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the EU started with the correct intentions. They saw a need to increase the competition in the digital marketplace and reduce the power iOS-Android duopoly has. However, instead of defining the market rules, the process has been more about competitors and companies (who’re not happy with Apple’s success) trying to take a chunk of their business. An iPhone is not a general computation device, it’s not an open…

> An iPhone is not a general computation device, it’s not an open ecosystem. And yet it's many people's primary computing device. That's exactly the problem. As a historical example, consider telecommunications. Phone networks were "natural monopolies" for many decades, and people must have found it hard to imagine any other way back then. Without regulatory intervention enforcing competition, we'd probably still be…

We're not seeing the forest for the trees here. There are a lot of smartphone manufacturers they could've bought from, they didn't have to buy from Apple, that's not a monopoly at that point in time. They knew the limitations when they bought the device and also the entire ecosystem was created with this in mind, so asking Apple to change over a decades of work in 3 months is not fair either.

Apple entered the smartphone market as an almost bankrupt company and replaced the giants of its day like Nokia and Blackberry. And some other company will replace them someday. The DMA discussions started really good, I had really high hopes of it, but it got almost hijacked with various companies to publicly negotiate contracts with Apple and not for the public good as a market regulation.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#357

Post by mrangle »

lxgr wrote: post #279
itopaloglu83 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the EU started with the correct intentions. They saw a need to increase the competition in the digital marketplace and reduce the power iOS-Android duopoly has. However, instead of defining the market rules, the process has been more about competitors and companies (who’re not happy with Apple’s success) trying to take a chunk of their business. An iPhone is not a general computation device, it’s not an open…

> An iPhone is not a general computation device, it’s not an open ecosystem. And yet it's many people's primary computing device. That's exactly the problem. As a historical example, consider telecommunications. Phone networks were "natural monopolies" for many decades, and people must have found it hard to imagine any other way back then. Without regulatory intervention enforcing competition, we'd probably still be…

Your analogy isn't analogous. Apple is not a network, let alone a public one. There are scads of hardware options other than Apple.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#358

Post by itopaloglu83 »

burnerthrow008 wrote: post #334
lxgr wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some rich software companies don’t want to pay Apple 30% while they have no problem with other platforms like gaming consoles Why would you think they don't have a problem with the cut game console manufacturers take? It's also different kinds of companies: Epic and Spotify have quite different concerns, for example.

> Why would you think they don't have a problem with the cut game console manufacturers take? Because they haven't sued them in the US nor lobbied the EC to label game console manufacturers as "gatekeepers".

Japan is also a very big player in the console market by the way. Anyway, I got sidetracked, nobody has to put their apps on Apple products. The premise Apple is making is that they're allowing access to billions of possible users in exchange for a certain percentage of the sale price.

The record labels are charging artists up to 50% for an album and nobody is even betting an eye about it or talking about regulation. That's why I find all this noise so artificial.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#359

Post by mrangle »

The whining and flailing about threats to democracy are as sincere as their future level of contentment with Apple leaving the EU.

I hope that it can and does, rather than allowing their product to be compromised by for-profit companies who enjoy local regulatory capture.

No one has to buy Apple products. There are myriad options. Those who push this regulation necessarily need to imply the opposite, as we see here.

It's false that consumer companies are widely compelled to grant third party access to their operating systems. This regulation is selectively applied.

If Apple plays hardball to the point that they are about to leave the market, we'll see if the histrionics were sincere or if it was dishonest manipulation toward encroaching on Apple's assets.

If Apple leaves then its regulation focused critics will have to buy other products themselves, continuously justify to the populace that having no Apple is better than a walled garden Apple, and continuously deal with the political fallout when that convincing largely fails.

That isn't practical. My guess is that this is bullying and bluster, and this looks to be Apple's guess as well.

Re: Apple vs the Law

#360

Post by Aunche »

Y-bar wrote: post #122
FinnLobsien wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The EU has basically said that it's better to have a handful medium-sized companies in competition for customers than one or two mega-corps owning and dictating the market. And to resolve that they employ two things, one is the DMA/DSA and similar laws which mostly takes effect when your company reaches a certain large market penetration, the other is standardisations such as the Radio Equipment Directive (think "U…

> Then show me the handful of European, medium-sized companies competing for customers. Competing in category chemicals: BASF, Akzo Nobel, Lanxess, Air Liquide, and a bunch others Competing in category engineering: Siemens, Bosch, ABB, Alstom, ThyssenKrupp, Airbus and a bunch others Competing in category metals: Aurubis, Umicore, Norsk Hydro, Gruppo Riva, ThyssenKrupp, and a bunch others Competing in category pharma:…

All the companies that I've heard of that you listed were all founded before the EU.
Post reply on HN