EU Orders Apple To Open Ecosystem To Rivals (reuters.com) 80
EU antitrust regulators ordered Apple on Wednesday to open its closed ecosystem to competitors, detailing how the company must comply with the bloc's Digital Markets Act or face potential fines. The European Commission's decision comes six months after initiating proceedings against the tech giant.
The first order requires Apple to grant rival smartphone, headphone and VR headset manufacturers access to its technology for seamless connectivity with Apple devices. A second order establishes specific processes for responding to app developers' interoperability requests. Apple criticized the decision, saying: "Today's decisions wrap us in red tape, slowing down Apple's ability to innovate for users in Europe." EU antitrust chief Teresa Ribera countered: "We are simply implementing the law." Non-compliance could trigger investigations resulting in fines up to 10% of Apple's global annual sales.
The first order requires Apple to grant rival smartphone, headphone and VR headset manufacturers access to its technology for seamless connectivity with Apple devices. A second order establishes specific processes for responding to app developers' interoperability requests. Apple criticized the decision, saying: "Today's decisions wrap us in red tape, slowing down Apple's ability to innovate for users in Europe." EU antitrust chief Teresa Ribera countered: "We are simply implementing the law." Non-compliance could trigger investigations resulting in fines up to 10% of Apple's global annual sales.
What does this look like in practice? (Score:1)
So does this mean that pressing play on my keyboard will now launch Spotify instead of Apple Music, or what?
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that be nice, to have that be selectable?
legit question... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm no apple fanboi or EU legal expert, but what's the basis for justifying telling a business to allow competitors access to apple's tech?
If apple prefers their walled-garden business strategy, why can't they do just that?
Re:legit question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You have misunderstood who is being protected here. This action isn't about the end user being able to load whatever software they want. The action is instead about Apple abusing its market dominance to keep competitors out of its ecosystem, or to charge developers abusive rates for access to its customers. The injured parties are the app developers who want to reach iPhone customers, but don't want to pay Apple's 30% commissions for everything they sell.
Re:legit question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, but this antitrust protection is aimed at preventing Apple's abuse of other app developers. It's not about YOUR choice of phone. If an app developer wants to reach Apple customers, they must pay Apple's abusive fees, or else not participate in the marketplace.
Re:legit question... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think that's really comparable. Nor do I think GP is understanding correctly. They don't appear to be asking for technology transfers. To put it another way, they're saying if apple makes an icar, it has to be able to drive on regular roads, not just the iroad.
Re: (Score:3)
Upvote this comment
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about letting the iCar only drive on other roads. It's more like say Tesla having their remote app and being forced to allow anyone to make a remote app to talk to the car. Or allow anyone to write their own OS or software for the car.
The same arguments about interoperability versus security/safety apply. I mean, there are surely many companies out there capable of writing their own vehicle control software for a Tesla, or Ford, or GM or whoever, why shouldn't they be allowed to "access" the hard
Re: (Score:3)
It's more like say Tesla having their remote app and being forced to allow anyone to make a remote app to talk to the car.
In other words, a documented API specification. Why do you figure this a problem?
Or allow anyone to write their own OS or software for the car.
This doesn't appear to be part of the scope of what they're asking for. Why are you getting the idea that it is?
The same arguments about interoperability versus security/safety apply.
And they're bullshit in this case, much like the same arguments against right to repair.
Re: (Score:2)
The same arguments about interoperability versus security/safety apply. I mean, there are surely many companies out there capable of writing their own vehicle control software for a Tesla, or Ford, or GM or whoever, why shouldn't they be allowed to "access" the hardware features of the vehicle?
A better comparison might be John Deere.
Re: (Score:3)
they're saying if apple makes an icar, it has to be able to drive on regular roads, not just the iroad.
and that you can put any tire brand you want on it, not just iTires.
Re:legit question... (Score:5, Informative)
They are called antitrust laws, they stop large organizations using their power to unduly influence the market. If you grow big enough you can effectively stifle any competition. Its effectively bulling on an industrial scale.
Re: legit question... (Score:3)
âoeStifling innovationâ. âoeBullying at an industrial scale.â
This is exactly what the EU is doing telling a business how they must play with competitors.
Apple is not a utility.
There are other cell phone, computer, and VR headset makers out there. What specific âoetechnologyâ must Apple share?
Developers can get developer accounts and write apps for the various platforms. They can purchase hardware, like we do if they want to build hardware to extend or interoperate with it.
Wh
Re: (Score:1)
posted from my iPhone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm no apple fanboi or EU legal expert, but what's the basis for justifying telling a business to allow competitors access to apple's tech?
The law of the land. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no apple fanboi or EU legal expert, but what's the basis for justifying telling a business to allow competitors access to apple's tech?
If apple prefers their walled-garden business strategy, why can't they do just that?
I'm surprised to find myself possibly in agreement with you. I hate Apple's products, UI, ecosystem, and lock-in, so their products aren't for me. At the same time, I've come to believe - tentatively - that they have the right to sell their locked-in, locked-down shit in a locked-down market. But I added the "possibly" and "tentatively" because there's an aspect of the smartphone market that really bothers me.
I also believe that people should be able to choose TOTAL freedom over their operating system, apps
Re: (Score:2)
So I feel that some kind of legislative intervention is necessary, to force manufacturers and service providers to offer a freedom-honouring, privacy-honouring option to anyone who wants it.
I don't see how the EU legislation does that. In fact, I would argue it does the opposite. What creates the demand for an alternative when the EU has declared they will step in and micromanage any mobile platform? For the most part their requirements will insist that every platform be the same. They want it to be a PC.
The EU has the power to prop up a third platform that meets all of their specifications. They could put out an RFQ for a mobile platform that meets their specifications, contract it out, and t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no apple fanboi or EU legal expert, but what's the basis for justifying telling a business to allow competitors access to apple's tech?
If apple prefers their walled-garden business strategy, why can't they do just that?
https://digital-markets-act.ec... [europa.eu]
Would love some of this leadership in USA (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Just pull out of the EU then... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is big enough and important enough they could announce they were pulling out of the EU.
This would cause such an uproar that the EU would likely have to rescind the order...
Honestly, this could probably work...but ironically, the fact that it could work is why the mandate is being implemented in the first place.
Re:Just pull out of the EU then... (Score:4, Informative)
The EU has a GDP of almost $21T, 35 million smartphone shipments per year, 33% of those belong to Apple, so about 12 millions phones per year.
Yes, they could drop all that in the hope the public puts their blame on the EU and not Apple themselves and really the answer is they will blame everybody, there's not a world where Apple pulls out of all of the EU and comes out better on the other side. I don't know, I don't see how that is going to end up better for the company than just complying and adding in a feature that less than 10% of your users are going to engage with anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
More than that, the reaction of "well I'm taking my ball and going home" basically proves that they want to have whatever customer-surly behavior they are being accused of.
I don't know why it's such a burden to open up iDevices when they've been doing it for decades on the Mac. Someone has yet to rationally explain that.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know why it's such a burden to open up iDevices when they've been doing it for decades on the Mac. Someone has yet to rationally explain that.
Because I don't want my phone to be a PC, I want it to be an appliance. Apple views the phone as an appliance, their customers view it as an appliance, but malware authors, surveillance state governments, and Epic Games desperately want it to be a PC.
How long before you get the message, "To install Microsoft Teams, you have to first download the Microsoft Store."
"To install your company's 2-factor authorization app, you first have to download the Facebook Store."
"To apply for a loan, you need to install you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Apple should shut down Apple accounts for all EU leaders and bureaucrats, and their families a week later.
Make them feel the pain.
Re: (Score:2)
All this would do create the perfect means for an EU law that says all EU leaders are required to not use Apple phones and given those same leaders an easy soapbox to use this as an example of exactly why Apple needs regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, use your abusive position for abuse. That'll show those antitrust regulators!
Re: (Score:2)
I would genuinely like to see it happen. Mostly because I'd like to see how something like that shakes out. On a regular basis Apple, or Amazon, "Somebody" gets this treatment and I'm not saying that they do or don't have it coming. Not taking a position. We all see this response and yeah, it could happen I guess but what would be the fallout. I'd like to find out just once.
Re: (Score:3)
Or that tactic could massively backfire. An American company deciding they don't like the rules and invoking a bargaining tactic of threatening to leave could create an uproar against Apple. This is especially true in the current political climate. US tech giants aren't exactly at their peak of popularity right now. The desire to reign in these companies may see people side with the government on this one.
The bigger worry for the EU is reprisals from Trump, but since Trump is constantly threatening the EU w
Re: Just pull out of the EU then... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe the next White House South Lawn billionaire-welfare product promotional press event will feature Macs, iPads, and iPhones?
Just think of the poor billionaires!
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason you think that this would hurt the EU more than Apple.
Pot meet kettle (Score:4, Interesting)
And, predictably.... (Score:3)
Apple (via Tim Cook) back in 2017 [cnbc.com]:
Now, who didn't see this coming from Apple from that decision?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
When's the last time Apple innovated something, anyway? AI-generated emoji schlock? A crappy notched screen that is always annoying? Crappy AI that nobody uses because the things that people might want (better Siri) are so shitty that they can't even ship it as a "beta"? Or maybe each version of macOS that is worse than the last one, and doesn't ever fix long-standing issues?
No wait, that last one is a Microsoft "innovation" that debuted with Windows 8.
Re: (Score:2)
Following the law and being happy about it are entirely different things. Complaining about the law doesn't make him a hypocrite, nor does trying to obtain a favorable interpretation of the law in court.
#MAGAtard! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
its quite funny that even you know "jesus, this is probably too stupid for even me to sign my name to"
Re: (Score:2)
Without the US, that would probably be a pretty even match.
Russia has drained their current manpower and armament, and the EU didn't have much to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU countries have air forces which could easily overpower whatever Russia might have in their air force. As we've seen time and again, Russian pilots do not have the skills necessary in modern warfare. Even their maintenance is sub-standard.
As for the remainder, the EU will have learned from Ukraine. I'm not saying it would be a pushover, but the fight would definitely be lopsided in a short time.
Open Market (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey genius, why do you think they call it champagne?
Re:Open Market (Score:5, Informative)
Also Pro Open Market EU: Champagne can only be made in one part of France
Alcoholic drinks labelled as 'Champagne' can only be made in one part of France - doesn't preclude a similar "sparkling wine" [wikipedia.org] from being produced anywhere else.
I believe it's the same with Tequila.
Re: (Score:1)
And Bourbon, in case anyone thinks that the US wouldn't be hypocritical about this.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever purchased bourbon made in EU, UK, Japan or anywhere else in the world?
Re: (Score:2)
Bourbon was (is) the name of the French Royal Family so it would be fair use for the French to make any Bourbon they like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the trade laws that the US has signed with basically everyone saying that the alcoholic beverage titled "bourbon whiskey" must have these three properties:
1. made with at least 51% corn in the mash
2. aged in charred white oak barrels that have never been previously used
3. must be distilled, aged, and bottled within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America
See: 27 CFR 5.22 [cornell.edu] in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we could call it Bourbon Liquor ;-)
I did not know the barrels were single use only. That explains why there is a market for rums aged in Bourbon barrels.
All that talk of good things, got to be 5PM somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, let's smack around the EU for having exclusivity to calling sparkling wine "champagne" all the while being fine with "bourbon" only being able to be produced in the US under the exact same reasoning, with the rest of the world free to create whiskey with a mash that is at least 51% corn, and aged in previously-unused charred white-oak barrels.
ok apple will add an 0.50 euro fee per user for in (Score:2)
ok apple will add an 0.50 euro fee per user for interoperability access.
Re: (Score:2)
ok apple will add an 0.50 euro fee per user for interoperability access.
... thereby proving they're anti-competitive, justifying the regulation.
perhaps (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Europe could replace the iPhone with a local version?
Or just use Android instead.
Re: (Score:1)
Once the EU kicks Apple out they'll need to go after the game consoles, TV manufacturers, car manufacturers, razor manufacturers, printer manufacturers, and so on and so on. It'll be wonderful to watch... from a distance.
Apple should just concede (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that ASML would love to hear your theory about how no innovation is happening in Europe, while they're selling the most advanced chipmaking machines on the planet to TSMC to manufacture the devices you're using to bitch on the Internet with.
Does this apply to Samsung? (Score:1)
I know Samsung has propriatary codecs to support some extra features on their models(like 360 audio) and Google auto enables reading notifications and some stuff on their models. I'm guessing that will need to now be available to any random manufacture of ear pods.
I'm guessing the EU will announce the crackdown on Samsung... someday... maybe when Samsung headquarters in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
The regulation in question is the "Digital Markets Act". It applies to digital services only, not hardware at all. I do hope they one day force Samsung, Google (and I guess Apple as well) to open their proprietary earbud systems, but it is not under the scope of this law.