Apple Charged by Brussels With Abusing Its Market Power in Mobile Payments (ft.com) 110
Brussels regulators have charged Apple with breaking EU competition law by abusing its dominant position in mobile payments to limit rivals' access to contactless technology. From a report: Antitrust investigators are concerned that the US tech group is preventing competitors from accessing "tap and go" chips or near-field communication (NFC) to benefit its own Apple Pay system, the European Commission said in a statement on Monday. Margrethe Vestager, the EU's executive vice-president in charge of competition policy, said Brussels had "indications that Apple restricted third-party access to key technology necessary to develop rival mobile wallet solutions on Apple's devices." She added that the commission had "preliminarily found that Apple may have restricted competition, to the benefit of its own solution Apple Pay." If confirmed, "such a conduct would be illegal under our competition rules," Vestager said. The company could face fines worth up to 10 per cent of global turnover if the charges are upheld.
Apple FM radio restriction (Score:1)
The commission didn't complain when Apple didn't provide an API to the FM chip inside the iPhone. That made it so nobody could make an FM radio app.
Why didn't they file about that?
Re: Apple FM radio restriction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Thing is Android has an API for NFC and allows other payment systems. Unlike cars where it's only very recently that manufacturers have started switching to Android, on the phone payment side Apple has been the exception since it began.
You might not be aware but it actually started long before Apple came along. In Japan they have "wallet phones", which go back to the days of flip phones and which integrated various charge cards.
Re: Apple FM radio restriction (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not. It's a handheld computer that's been locked down with an app store but otherwise relies upon third party software for a substantial portion of its functionality (and Apple's own revenues by way of the app store).
But it's certainly not at all like Macs with ethernet, Bluetooth, and WiFi communications that can only be accessed by Safari. Oh wait, that doesn't happen with other Apple general purpose devices now, does it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not. It's a handheld computer that's been locked down with an app store but otherwise relies upon third party software for a substantial portion of its functionality (and Apple's own revenues by way of the app store).
But it's certainly not at all like Macs with ethernet, Bluetooth, and WiFi communications that can only be accessed by Safari. Oh wait, that doesn't happen with other Apple general purpose devices now, does it.
It's not sold or marketed as a handheld computer.. A google search for 'handheld computer' doesn't list phone devices. Just because a product has a CPU, doesn't make it a general purpose computer. SmartTV's have app stores, I consider those appliances. Game consoles aren't considered general purpose computers, and they certainly have enough processing power to qualify. I don't consider any arguments that phones are the same as general purpose computer as valid.
Re: (Score:2)
How nice for you. I do. Apple does too [apple.com].
And we're backed up by the fact that Office suites, content authoring applications, financial applications, and pretty much everything you can name can be loaded onto, executed by, and run on an iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
The link you reference says nothing about the iphone being a general computing device or 'handheld computer'. It can run apps, that's all you are saying. Lots of appliance devices can run apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so you're going to ignore the classical general computer application suite and insist upon literal wording. Ok. Walt Mossberg [twitter.com] and Scientific American [scientificamerican.com] are among those who disagree with you. Here's several thousand other sources [google.com].
I await your rebuttal.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not. It's a handheld computer that's been locked down with an app store but otherwise relies upon third party software for a substantial portion of its functionality (and Apple's own revenues by way of the app store).
But it's certainly not at all like Macs with ethernet, Bluetooth, and WiFi communications that can only be accessed by Safari. Oh wait, that doesn't happen with other Apple general purpose devices now, does it.
Grow up!
At this point in history, Not every single thing that runs some code at this point is a General Purpose Computing Device, FFS!
Re: (Score:2)
How about every single thing that can be made to run arbitrary code using, if not the App Store itself, an Apple Developer account?
Yes, that subset of things is a general computing device.
Re: (Score:2)
So you've conceded the point that it's a general purpose handheld computer (if not, here you go [google.com]). Now explain how the EU is precluded from regulating competition in the applications for such a device and powerless to prevent Apple from abusing its dominance over iOS by tying specific applications and capabilities only to its own applications
Re: (Score:2)
So you've conceded the point that it's a general purpose handheld computer (if not, here you go [google.com]). Now explain how the EU is precluded from regulating competition in the applications for such a device and powerless to prevent Apple from abusing its dominance over iOS by tying specific applications and capabilities only to its own applications.
I'll wait.
Apple has Dominance over iOS in Precisely the same way that Google has Dominance over Android.
Perfect example: Google just announced that they are removing/changing Android such that Apps will no longer be able to Record Telephone Calls. Apparently, their arbitrary control over Android even prevents Recording Apps running on the same Phone from Recording a Speakerphone Call!
So, is Google not arbitrarily exerting their Dominance over the Android Platform?
Where's the Government dogs? Where's the Slashdot Pear
Re: Apple FM radio restriction (Score:2)
Actually, Android apps can still record phone calls. You just can't download those apps from the Play store. You have to download them from a third party source.
Try doing that on an iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Android apps can still record phone calls. You just can't download those apps from the Play store. You have to download them from a third party source.
Try doing that on an iPhone.
Never heard of Jailbreaking?
Re: Apple FM radio restriction (Score:2)
I thought Apple was all about freedom to do anything with your phone ? Weren't extolling their virtues just a couple posts above ?
I have never had to jailbreak my Android phones. I can use the Samsung Galaxy store to get apps if I don't like the Play store app policy. Or side load the Amazon store. Or even get apps directly from the developer without going through any store at all. Just the same as I can on my Windows PC.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Apple was all about freedom to do anything with your phone ? Weren't extolling their virtues just a couple posts above ?
I have never had to jailbreak my Android phones. I can use the Samsung Galaxy store to get apps if I don't like the Play store app policy. Or side load the Amazon store. Or even get apps directly from the developer without going through any store at all. Just the same as I can on my Windows PC.
And just the same way I can with my Mac PC. What's your point?
I have never been even slightly tempted to Jailbreak my iPhone, either.
The imagined "freedom" over iOS' "restrictions" you "enjoy" with your Android phone comes at too steep of a price in the form of the irrefutable fact of tremendously-higher rates of malware on Android; even in the supposedly "vetted" Google Play Store; let alone from any "Alternative Source"!
Re: (Score:2)
No, I haven't. My iPhone claims that the word does not exist. Please let me know how to do this thing on IOS 15.4.1.
Re: Apple FM radio restriction (Score:2)
Re: Apple FM radio restriction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know jailbreaking is using a massive security hole right? It's vastly different than Android when it you decide to, you can root or install custom software to your hearts content. Android is designed to, and therefore more secure for it
Since when did any high-end smartphone not have a locked bootloader?
Re: (Score:2)
You know that there are far more high risk security flaws in ios yeah? My second question would be: how do you know Android has more malware? Nobody can scan for malware on ios, and therefore has significant reduced ability to scan for such. Many many white hat hackers over the years have proven the app store review process is borderline useless.
Bitch, please!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So now you're agreeing that it is indeed general purpose and you can develop and install anything you want.
Nice try.
I could do the same with the industrial controls I used to design; but no one would ever mistake them for a Personal Computer.
Re: Apple FM radio restriction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is an industrial control dedicated to controlling industrial equipment... though technically, nothing is preventing you from installing 3rd party software
The point is, you have to get below the FPGA-level before something is technically not a "General Purpose Computing Device". But no one in her right mind would consider a system that primitive a "real" computer.
But then, I did restrict the Set to those "in their right mind". You might find that unacceptably restrictive.
Re: (Score:2)
The phone is more of an appliance. This is like complaining that Ford Sync radios do not allow third party navigation apps to be installed either.
That is exactly the heart of the problem: Smartphones are Appliances; they do things the manufacturer wanted, and don't do things the manufacturer don't want.
As long as there was no Material Misrepresentation by the Manufacturer, "Law" simply doesn't apply.
Re: (Score:1)
Simple answer: No one gives a fuck about radio anymore :)
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself. Music radio might be on its way out but talk radio is still very much alive and I listen all the time to various phone in stations. Far better than some worthy but dull podcast.
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself. Music radio might be on its way out but talk radio is still very much alive and I listen all the time to various phone in stations. Far better than some worthy but dull podcast.
Name 3 radio stations that don't stream.
Subject closed.
Re: Apple FM radio restriction (Score:2)
Counterpoint : there are plenty of places without a cell signal, where FM signals reach.
Of course, you probably wouldn't be using a $1000+ iPhone to listen to FM. Wrong tool for the job.
Re: (Score:2)
Counterpoint : there are plenty of places without a cell signal, where FM signals reach.
Of course, you probably wouldn't be using a $1000+ iPhone to listen to FM. Wrong tool for the job.
And even more requiring hardware changes, now that the headphone cable isn't available as a handy FM antenna!
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I dick about using streaming which ties up my phone when I can use FM? Moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I dick about using streaming which ties up my phone when I can use FM? Moron.
Because your phone's hardware may not support FM reception?
Re: Apple FM radio restriction (Score:2)
There are these devices called radios that I use in the house and car. Google them.
Re:Apple FM radio restriction (Score:5, Informative)
We are talking here about conduct that could violate the European competition law [wikipedia.org]. In the case of the FM chip, there is no infringement because Apple does not offer the service at all. It could have been considered abusive under certain conditions if for ex. Apple had opened the service to some and not to others, or if it had used it exclusively for itself.
Re: (Score:2)
The commission didn't complain when Apple didn't provide an API to the FM chip inside the iPhone. That made it so nobody could make an FM radio app.
Why didn't they file about that?
It would have required Apple to redesign the iPhone's hardware, too, in order to bring out the FM connections on the radio chip out to the headphone cables or elsewhere.
Now what?
Apple didn't advertise the iPhone as having an FM tuner then not deliver. So where's the Fraud? Where's the Anti-Competitive behavior?
Same thing here; although this time, I agree it is probably just software that Belgium wants to force Apple to write.
Re: (Score:2)
Because nobody can make an FM radio app for an iPhone [apple.com], not even Apple.
Nobody can add traces to a circuit board, and a an antenna, through a software download.
That is all.
"May have" (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice legal wording. But everyone with half a brain knows that restricting other apps on their platform is Apple's goal, not some sort of random side effect of 'security'.
Re: "May have" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The European Commission is not arguing about the merits of what you describe and the relationship between Apple and its happy customers. It's not about the customers, it's about the market and competition.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I can see where you're coming from, but I hope that is not quite the case.
the END user is the most important part here...the common user.
The rules/laws should be first and foremost there to protect their interests.
Re: (Score:2)
You may have a point, I suggest you run for office to change the laws.
Re: "May have" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You must be confused we are talking about EU laws and not US laws.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not about the customers, it's about the market and competition.
It's about protectionism. The EU has struggled to compete in the tech sector and in recent years has made a concerted effort to regulate that market to the benefit of European businesses.
Re: (Score:3)
If you read Slashdot yes, if you look at all the competition related cases the EU handles you will realize that it is more complicated than that.
Re: (Score:2)
The European Commission is not arguing about the merits of what you describe and the relationship between Apple and its happy customers. It's not about the customers, it's about the market and competition.
So by NOT offering a feature that the COMPETITION has; how in the FUCK is Apple being Anti-Competitive?!?!?!?!!!
Re: (Score:2)
It is not that Apple does not offer this functionality. It reserves this NFC functionality for itself (Apple Pay).
Re: (Score:2)
It is not that Apple does not offer this functionality. It reserves this NFC functionality for itself (Apple Pay).
So what? My Streaming "cable TV replacement" service doesn't offer some "channels" that others do.
So why isn't that a cause of action?
Simple. Because I can just change to another Streaming Service that has that Programming!
Fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not that Apple does not offer this functionality. It reserves this NFC functionality for itself (Apple Pay).
So what? My Streaming "cable TV replacement" service doesn't offer some "channels" that others do. So why isn't that a cause of action?
This is not a cause of action. To understand, in your example, the problem would not be that your cable TV replacement provider is not providing a service it doesn't have to consumers. It could, however, be a cause of action under certain conditions if it is providing for ex. a wholesale service product or service to some (like competitors or, or, in Apple's case, themselves) but not to others.
Re: (Score:3)
Consider that to build a payment platform the provider needs to do deals with the credit card issuers. It would be easy for Apple to verify those deals are in place as a condition of allowing alternative payment systems to use the iPhone's NFC features. The card issuers will have carefully vetted the creators of the app, and the app's security.
Re: "May have" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Apples goal is a tightly integrated and secure platform to the delight of their users. Control is a function of that. It is a business decision they made, betting users would prefer the garden they elaborately construct and control be completely open platforms. They are right. They sell a lot of devices to a lot of users who have a made the choice to accept the walls in the gardens specifically as Apple has designed them.
The crazy thing here in ALL of this BULLSHIT, is that Apple Users have ALREADY CHOSEN what they want; but the FUCKING GOVERNMENT is telling them they are too stupid to know any better and "Must Be PROTECTED"!
FreeDUMB, indeed!
More like "Outrageous Government Intervention" (an actual legal term; look it up!).
Re: (Score:2)
The crazy thing here in ALL of this BULLSHIT, is that Apple Users have ALREADY CHOSEN what they want; but the FUCKING GOVERNMENT is telling them they are too stupid to know any better and "Must Be PROTECTED"!
This is EU competition law. The "government" is not trying to protect users but the competition.
Re: (Score:2)
The crazy thing here in ALL of this BULLSHIT, is that Apple Users have ALREADY CHOSEN what they want; but the FUCKING GOVERNMENT is telling them they are too stupid to know any better and "Must Be PROTECTED"!
This is EU competition law. The "government" is not trying to protect users but the competition.
"Competition" is an abstract, meaningless concept; until you involve "users". "Competition", being an inanimate, abstract concept, doesn't need "protection". Try to understand the difference!
You are obviously too stupid to understand such relationships, apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
The crazy thing here in ALL of this BULLSHIT, is that Apple Users have ALREADY CHOSEN what they want; but the FUCKING GOVERNMENT is telling them they are too stupid to know any better and "Must Be PROTECTED"!
This is EU competition law. The "government" is not trying to protect users but the competition.
"Competition" is an abstract, meaningless concept; until you involve "users". "Competition", being an inanimate, abstract concept, doesn't need "protection". Try to understand the difference!
You are obviously too stupid to understand such relationships, apparently.
Forgive me for replying to my own Post. I realized after rereading that your Post was even more vapid and nonsensical than I first imagined!
You are actually claiming that Apple NOT offering a Feature that "The Competition" does, somehow "injures" "The Competition"?!?
Please, O Wise One, educate us all on how that is possible!
Remember: It is YOU, O Wise One, that stated that it was "The Competition" NOT USERS that were "being protected" by Apple being LESS CAPABLE.
[Facepalm]
Re: (Score:2)
The crazy thing here in ALL of this BULLSHIT, is that Apple Users have ALREADY CHOSEN what they want; but the FUCKING GOVERNMENT is telling them they are too stupid to know any better and "Must Be PROTECTED"!
This is EU competition law. The "government" is not trying to protect users but the competition.
"Competition" is an abstract, meaningless concept; until you involve "users". "Competition", being an inanimate, abstract concept, doesn't need "protection". Try to understand the difference!
You are obviously too stupid to understand such relationships, apparently.
Forgive me for replying to my own Post. I realized after rereading that your Post was even more vapid and nonsensical than I first imagined!
You are actually claiming that Apple NOT offering a Feature that "The Competition" does, somehow "injures" "The Competition"?!? Please, O Wise One, educate us all on how that is possible!
No, it has nothing to do with what you describe. The objections are not about Apple not offering NFC access when other smartphone manufacturers do. They are only about the restrictions on NFC access that Apple imposes on third-party mobile developers for in-store payments when they allow it for themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Ehm, no.
Please don't apply your own opinion to all Apple users...
Apple users (I am one of them) didn't all choose the iPhone because it has a closed Apple Pay system that you can use.
They chose it because of a myriad of reasons, including, but not limited to, aesthetics, ease of use, available software, links with other appliances (like Mac), etc.
Now a significant number of those users (me included) want freedom of choice with regards to their financial transactions AND be able to use the hardware they paid
Re: (Score:2)
Ehm, no.
Please don't apply your own opinion to all Apple users...
Apple users (I am one of them) didn't all choose the iPhone because it has a closed Apple Pay system that you can use.
They chose it because of a myriad of reasons, including, but not limited to, aesthetics, ease of use, available software, links with other appliances (like Mac), etc.
Now a significant number of those users (me included) want freedom of choice with regards to their financial transactions AND be able to use the hardware they paid hundreds of euros for to the fullest extend. And Apple does not let them, because they want to earn money from those financial transactions WITHOUT ADDING ANY VALUE to that service. In the meanwhile they get to collect information about my finances and I cannot stop them because they allow no alternative for offering this service by my bank (and those guys are perfectly capable of doing that in a secure way, it is their core business).
This business practice is against the law. It's really that simple. It is against the law, because it disadvantages customers.
You and I simply differ in our needs and the EU ensures Apple operates within the law and therefore we both get what we want. You can continue to use Apple Pay, if you want. I can use my bank's offering. I really don't see what the issue is with that.
Sounds like you need to act like an adult and vote with your feet. Don't expect the Nanny State to fight all your battles.
If enough people in the EU switch to Android because of their Restrictions on their NFC hardware; then you can be sure that, if Apple is so money-motivated as you claim, they will soon change their stance on NFC.
Re: "May have" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely. Enough people don't know about the extra charges they tack on top, etc etc. Your ideal (which i agree with, is just that it doesn't work always for many reasons, some of which involve sunk costs) isn't always attainable without 3rd party intervention
You obviously don't understand Apple Pay. It is anything but a money-grab!
Apple gets no data to mine. Apple charges neither the Customer nor the Merchant any fees whatsoever; and they charge the Financial Institution an aggregate fee in the far-below .5% range.
Now STFU.
Re: "May have" (Score:2)
There are likely quite a few Apple owners who bought an iPhone due to benefits like the vaunted Apple walled garden. However, it is even more likely that far more iPhone users bought an iPhone primarily for the brand name and who could not even begin to explain the benefit of a "walled garden."
Re: (Score:2)
Nice legal wording. But everyone with half a brain knows that restricting other apps on their platform is Apple's goal, not some sort of random side effect of 'security'.
Oh, FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!!
Shut UP with the Apple Conspiracies!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Restricting apps on their platform is purely profit motivated [. . .]
Sez you.
Re: "May have" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep movin' dem goalposts!
Better hurry while they're still visible! There's already a significant Red-Shift!
Re: "May have" (Score:2)
When someone says they are smart enough to know they are a moron it is equally impossible to argue against them, and to have faith in their judgement.
A unified conumdrum (Score:3)
We tend to like a unified system, that does it al, looks the same, and works seamlessly with all other functions.
Even with the likes of Linux, which is not a unified thing, we mostly had all the popular apps using a common set of libraries, and using standard command line conventions.
Apple manages and controls all these service, because the users demand it to be controlled by Apple. As it will be part of a unified Apple Ecosystem, where the functions work together, with a single source of management and point of blame.
While Apple may hold on tightly to its walled garden, it also has a lot of risk for providing an open environment, especially getting blamed for someone else bad App design, or the wide number of 3rd party snake oil like ripoffs that will happen.
Ideologically I would love a more open environment where I can pick and choose what is best for me. However in practice, I will prefer and pick the Apple product, just because the other products are often going to be a scam product, or even look like a official product but just be a scam with a fancy cover. Say the WeIIs Fargo vs Wells Fargo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I very seriously doubt "The user demands it".
It's been shoveled down their throat so much that they might accept it, but I'm fairly certain for most people that's not a conscious decision at all.
"I picked Apple because then I'm only allowed Apple approved apps and everything looks the same" would rate extremely low on people's reasons to buy anything Apple, I imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have to disagree a bit.
People (self included) pic Apple for things such as:
Uniform Interface
Things "just work"
Security
Privacy
Those all pretty much derive from being in and a part of the Apple Walled Garden.
They want a phone that for the most part, just works, that common interface controls throughout are there so that a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Security and Privacy is non-existent on iOS.
The former because there are numerous vulnerabilities that is being discovered every day.
The latter because of the CSAM stuff and the diagnostics requiring sensitive data.
However, if they allowed solely sideloaded apps to actually use JIT without and strings attached but in a extremely sandboxed environment (no internet access, no contacts, only its own storage and graphics) on the same level of Xbox Dev Mode, I would abandon Android entirely.
If you want to compare EXPLOITED Vulnerabilities of Android vs. iOS, go right ahead.
Apple themselves listened to their Users as well as Privacy Experts, and backtracked on the CSAM stuff; so do try to keep up, please.
Obviously, allowing third party JIT Compiling of arbitrary code would open a HUGE security hole; so sorry!
Re: A unified conumdrum (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
listened to privacy experts? If they listened, they wouldn't have done it to begin with. They only backtracked because of all the negative publicity.
Apple is unabashedly "woke".
But at least they have the integrity to back down. Microsoft would have rammed it through!
Re: A unified conumdrum (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, comparison started: there are far more security vulnerabilities in the wild that companies keep hidden. See the many companies that break into idevices. Those companies do claim Android is harder to break into.
You're confusing security vulnerabilities with things apps can do. Any app can sell your privacy without telling you (see Apple and their ads)
When did any Security Tool company ever say Android was harder to break into than iOS?
What about "Apple and their Ads?" What are you even bleating about?
Re:A unified conumdrum (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is, the EU Commission is not concerned here with whether or not having a unified and protected ecosystem is beneficial to the consumer. It is concerned with the market and compliance with competition rules. And when, like Apple, you are a player that may be considered dominant, that implies quite a certain number of duties and obligations.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, the EU Commission is not concerned here with whether or not having a unified and protected ecosystem is beneficial to the consumer. It is concerned with the market and compliance with competition rules. And when, like Apple, you are a player that may be considered dominant, that implies quite a certain number of duties and obligations.
Tell me: Where in the entire WORLD is Apple "Dominant" over Android?
I'll wait.
Re: (Score:3)
In competition law, being dominant does not mean being the first on a market. A player can be considered dominant in some jurisdictions with a market share as low as 20%. Apple's market share varies but is close to 30% in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
In competition law, being dominant does not mean being the first on a market. A player can be considered dominant in some jurisdictions with a market share as low as 20%. Apple's market share varies but is close to 30% in Europe.
Well, I need to know what those circumstances and companies were. Because that is not the usual and common meaning of "dominant". And laws in modern times are usually interpreted as words having their usual and common meaning.
But this is Europe; so who the fuck knows?
Re: (Score:2)
In competition law, being dominant does not mean being the first on a market. A player can be considered dominant in some jurisdictions with a market share as low as 20%. Apple's market share varies but is close to 30% in Europe.
Well, I need to know what those circumstances and companies were. Because that is not the usual and common meaning of "dominant". And laws in modern times are usually interpreted as words having their usual and common meaning.
Dominant position is a legal concept that is not necessarily easy to understand without delving into it. Here is a Wikipedia page that may help explain some of these concepts : Dominance (economics) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"A market share of less than 35%, held by one brand, product or service, is not an indicator of strength or dominance and will not raise anti-competitive concerns by government regulators"
Re: (Score:2)
Check a little below for EU: "A dominant position can generally be said to exist once a market share to the order of 40% to 45% is reached. footnote: A dominant position cannot even be ruled out in respect of market shares between 20% and 40%". So the market share is only an indication and even with 20% it can't be excluded.
Re: (Score:2)
In competition law, being dominant does not mean being the first on a market. A player can be considered dominant in some jurisdictions with a market share as low as 20%. Apple's market share varies but is close to 30% in Europe.
Well, I need to know what those circumstances and companies were. Because that is not the usual and common meaning of "dominant". And laws in modern times are usually interpreted as words having their usual and common meaning.
Dominant position is a legal concept that is not necessarily easy to understand without delving into it. Here is a Wikipedia page that may help explain some of these concepts : Dominance (economics) [wikipedia.org]
Ok. Fine.
From your cited "Authority" (that widely-recognized, erudite legal source, Wikipedia) :
"The European Commission equates dominance with the economic concept of substantial market power, which indicates that dominance can be exerted and abused, in its Guidance on A102 Enforcement Priorities.
In paragraph 10 of the Guidance, it is stated that where there is no competitive pressure, an undertaking, which is a legal entity acting in the course of business, is probably able to exercise substantial market
Re: (Score:2)
So, apparently, under these "Guidelines", there can be absolutely no Product Differentiation;
Sure, you can differentiate all you want, but you can't discriminate. The argument is that Apple is using its dominant position in the smartphone market to keep things for itself (NFC for ApplePay) that it doesn't allow others in the application market to access.
So, since Apple is the Only Undertaking in their Market segment (iOS Smartphones), "Competition" is, by the EU's own "Guidelines", a meaningless term.
It should be understood as : if a company is the only one on its market, it is necessarily dominant and cannot create barriers to the entry of others on the market. (That said, the market should be understood here as that of smartphones and not ios
Re: (Score:2)
So, apparently, under these "Guidelines", there can be absolutely no Product Differentiation;
Sure, you can differentiate all you want, but you can't discriminate. The argument is that Apple is using its dominant position in the smartphone market to keep things for itself (NFC for ApplePay) that it doesn't allow others in the application market to access.
So, since Apple is the Only Undertaking in their Market segment (iOS Smartphones), "Competition" is, by the EU's own "Guidelines", a meaningless term.
It should be understood as : if a company is the only one on its market, it is necessarily dominant and cannot create barriers to the entry of others on the market. (That said, the market should be understood here as that of smartphones and not ios smartphones. So Apple is not the only one).
Ok; fine.
Since you have self-limited the Market to be "Smartphones" (Just like U.S. District Court Judge Rogers; with which Definition I happen to agree), then, like Judge Rogers, we must come to the conclusion that Apple certainly isn't the Dominant player, let alone a Monopolist.
Further, the Concept of "Competition" in terms of the "Platform" Definition of "Market" easily fails the 2-prong "Test" set forth in the "Guidelines": "The identification of the relevant and geographic market is assessed through the hypothetical monopolist test, which questions would a party's customer, switch to an alternative supplier located elsewhere, in response to a small relative price increase. Therefore, it is a question of interchangeability and demand substitutability, meaning whether one product can be a substitute for another, and whether an undertaking's market power puts them above price competition. The second stage of the test requires the Commission to look at various factors to see if an undertaking enjoys a dominant position on that relevant market.[26]"
The argument goes like this. If Apple raises the wholesale price of Apple Pay for ex, I as a financial organization or app developer cannot use the NFC chip or turn to a competitor in the API app market that would use the NFC chip. Apple, while being a dominant player in the smartphone market, does not allow competing payment services when it comes to using those smartphone with a payment terminal.
Nice try; but you already defined the Market as "Smartphones"; now, you want to want to further subdivide the Market to be "Smartphone Brands with Branded NFC Payment System" (which, AFAIK, limits it to Apple and Samsung). It does
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try; but you already defined the Market as "Smartphones"; now, you want to want to further subdivide the Market to be "Smartphone Brands with Branded NFC Payment System" (which, AFAIK, limits it to Apple and Samsung). It doesn't work that way.
The EC preliminary view is that Apple abused its dominant position in markets for mobile wallets on iOS devices. By limiting access to standard technology used for contactless payments with mobile devices in stores (‘Near-Field Communication (NFC)' or ‘tap and go'), Apple restricts competition in the mobile wallets market on iOS. The Commission preliminarily considers that Apple enjoys significant market power in the market for smart mobile devices and a dominant position on mobile wallet market
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try; but you already defined the Market as "Smartphones"; now, you want to want to further subdivide the Market to be "Smartphone Brands with Branded NFC Payment System" (which, AFAIK, limits it to Apple and Samsung). It doesn't work that way.
The EC preliminary view is that Apple abused its dominant position in markets for mobile wallets on iOS devices. By limiting access to standard technology used for contactless payments with mobile devices in stores (‘Near-Field Communication (NFC)' or ‘tap and go'), Apple restricts competition in the mobile wallets market on iOS. The Commission preliminarily considers that Apple enjoys significant market power in the market for smart mobile devices and a dominant position on mobile wallet markets.
Their position is briefly but clearly explained in this [europa.eu] article. You can also read this [twobirds.com] other article written earlier, that speculates on what their line will be, but can help understand their current position.
Whatever.
They keep redefining "Markets" and moving goalposts.
Nothing but a bunch of tech-illiterate politicians; as usual. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing but a bunch of tech-illiterate politicians; as usual. . .
Politicians do not need to be. They simply set the legal framework that can then be applied to any type of market. The ones who are driving this are the competitors, the industry players. They are usually the first to complain about possible abuse of a dominant position. And like whistleblowers, they usually prefer to stay in the shadows.
This article [bloomberg.com] indicates that PayPal, for example, was one of many companies to file informal complaints with the Commission, according to individuals who asked not to be ide
Re: (Score:2)
We tend to like a unified system, that does it al, looks the same, and works seamlessly with all other functions.
Which doesn't explain why Apple has delivered apps with as many as three totally different widget sets at once in their operating system distribution itself. Seriously, everything Apple is supposedly doing to ensure a smooth and uniform experience for users across all their device, they are doing badly. Is iTunes still using a different UI than the rest of OSX? It's been a while since I was exposed to it.
Re: (Score:2)
We tend to like a unified system, that does it al, looks the same, and works seamlessly with all other functions.
Which doesn't explain why Apple has delivered apps with as many as three totally different widget sets at once in their operating system distribution itself. Seriously, everything Apple is supposedly doing to ensure a smooth and uniform experience for users across all their device, they are doing badly. Is iTunes still using a different UI than the rest of OSX? It's been a while since I was exposed to it.
iTunes has been GONE for something like Four Years on macOS, and never WAS on iOS.
And actually, "Music" on macOS, iOS, and iPadOS, and even tvOS is closer than ever to the same interface paradigm (unfortunately, IMHO, the iOS version).
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if you want a smartphone system that is more ("more" being the key word here, since Google also strives to make money off Android) open you can always buy an
You mean Apple may be as bad as all the others? (Score:3)
But but... it can't be: Apple's PR people worked so hard to convince me their company was on my side I almost believed it!
Gee... What a disappointment. If you can't trust a monopoly to behave equitably toward their competitors, who can you trust eh?
EU commission press release (Score:4, Informative)
As the link provided is paywalled, here is also the EU press release [europa.eu] that describes its reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
As the link provided is paywalled, here is also the EU press release [europa.eu] that describes its reasoning.
Thanks! I haven't had a good laugh today. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Laughter may be elicited by disbelief, which is often the reaction of those who do not understand the details of anti-competitive laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Laughter may be elicited by disbelief, which is often the reaction of those who do not understand the details of anti-competitive laws.
And sometimes especially by those who do!
You walked right into that one, moron!
Re: (Score:2)
You walked right into that one, moron!
By resorting to insults, you certainly make the most of the relevance of your argument.
Re: (Score:2)
And America isn't just the US. And "Moscow" isn't just shorthand for "The government of Russia", and and and.
Congratulations on pointing out irrelevant details.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably you have a problem when people talk about decisions made in Washington rather than the USA too?