Here's some context which a lot of people, including most news media, seem to have missed:
The reason Apple is still playing games with the EC is that they're waiting on an EU Court's ruling[1] on whether Article 6 (7), the provision that mandates free of charge iOS APIs for all developers, is "constitutional" within the EU framework itself.
Most people who call out the Core Technology Fee use that provision as one of their main arguments, and it's one of their strongest, because the "free of charge" language throws away the general idea that the law doesn't want to interfere with Apple's monetization strategies. Since Apple could very well have chosen to monetize certain local API access in the past, the fact that this provision put a stop to that effectively nullifies Apple's argument (to the courts) that the law could never have meant to actually control how they make money.
I wonder if this will come down to an arguement of 'letter' and 'spirit' of the law; clearly Apple's lawyers will say 'notarization' is for security which is explicitly allowed under the DMA. However Europe will argue Apple takes it 'too far' and has imposed terms to make it less likely for developers to use new app stores and thus undermines what the law is intended to do.
In the end, what will happen is Apple will cave (not by choice), with this press release being a warning shot. Many money will be spent on lawyers on both sides, however Apple will have gotten a few extra months before being required to change their design to be in compliance.
For Apple, every day of stalling is more revenue and profits under their 'old' but 'dying' (in the EU) model, but at some point in the next 12-24 months expect to see a number of changes to satisfy the commission. It's extremely unlikely Apple will escape by having to do nothing, that's clearly not the intention of the commission and they usually get their own way. Expect to see the CTF gone and a much friendly way of installing app stores - I even expect the text/interfaces the user sees to be designed/approved by the commission.
Although I will be unable to edit this comment I will check back on 24th June 2025 to see whether this was right.
> I wonder if this will come down to an arguement of 'letter' and 'spirit' of the law; clearly Apple's lawyers will say 'notarization' is for security which is explicitly allowed under the DMA. However Europe will argue Apple takes it 'too far' and has imposed terms to make it less likely for developers to use new app stores and thus undermines what the law is intended to do.
If the commission wanted to move faster then they should just move the notarization to a neutral third party, as we do for DNS.
Hear, hear. Apps signed using code signing certificates that are in turn signed by roots in the OS trust store should run no questions asked (unless they are revoked of course), there needs to be a way to bypass this too, but that can be a "developer mode" of sorts and doesn't need to be easily accessible to the masses. (Thinking of something like Androids "tap the build ID 7 times to become a developer" approach.)
Have notarization - sure, but they recently prevented a DOS emulator to being distributed in third party stores, which goes directly against what this law is for.
> When interpreting EU law, the CJEU pays particular attention to the aim and purpose of EU law (teleological interpretation), rather than focusing exclusively on the wording of the provisions (linguistic interpretation). This is explained by numerous factors, in particular the open-ended and policy-oriented rules of the EU Treaties, as well as by EU legal multilingualism. Under the latter principle, all EU law is equally authentic in all language versions. Hence, the Court cannot rely on the wording of a single version, as a national court can, in order to give an interpretation of the legal provision under consideration. Therefore, in order to decode the meaning of a legal rule, the Court analyses it especially in the light of its purpose (teleological interpretation) as well as its context (systemic interpretation).
Facebook, too, tried rules-lawyering EU regulations only to be slapped with a huge fine. This shit doesn't fly here.
I don't think this is a special feature of EU law. Legal judgments in other places also rely on the intent of a law to clarify potentially ambiguous text.
The special feature is that EU laws are written in so many different languages that a textual interpretation is not only not preferred, but completely impossible.
US law places a moderate degree of emphasis on textualism in statutory interpretation, at least for a Common Law jurisdiction. Even the word “textualism” comes from the US. It’s somewhat common for courts in the US courts to pull out a copy of Webster’s dictionary in order to interpret a statue, that kind of thing rarely happens in English law.
There are definitely some jurisdictions within the EU that place a much higher degree of emphasis on the text of a law than the US does, in their domestic legal systems, e.g. Germany. So I don’t think it’s the case that US companies are unprepared to deal with a legal system that is based on intention compared to EU companies.
Having spoken with many Apple execs about these issue in the past (as a journalist) the impression you’re left is a mix between an attempt at steering the narrative (which is normal PR) and a honest, heartfelt, sense of disbelief that the EU wouldn’t understand their points about security and privacy.
They have trouble grasping that the EU moves from a clear principle: States make the law and regulations, while your size or intents as a company Can Not and Should Not play a part in steering what is possible or allowed in the market. That’s EU “free market” capitalism 101.
I have a feeling that US companies experience something akin to a culture shock when they’re faced with this reality.
Personally I see the consequences for consumer, but in the long run I believe this is a best way to ensure a fairer and better consumer quality of life.
This has proven true many times before with similar regulation pushes (forced EU roaming and USB-C, naming two off the top of my head)
Malicious compliance may work as a strategy in Common Law jurisdictions like the US, but not in the EU where Civil (Roman) Law means exactly what it says and judges apply it, as opposed to inventing excuses for not doing so like Robert Bork's gutting of both letter and spirit of antitrust law.
Full title (too long for HN): "Commission sends preliminary findings to Apple and opens additional non-compliance investigation against Apple under the Digital Markets Act"
If Apple pulls out of EU there will be no excuse for a homegrown startup not to take its place. The domestic market is smaller than US and China, but with less competition you stand a chance.
EU is 450 millions customers, I don't see them missing out on this market. Add to the fact that they can also grow marketshare in a landscape which is still dominated by Android.
Yes, however due to how homogenous the US is in comparison to the EU it is a lot easier to market products there.
I definitely don't expect Apple to come to the conclusion that they should pull out of the EU, just suggesting that the US 330M population is easier to target than the EUs 450M, and that therefore the US market (rightfully) probably weighs higher than the EU.
Funny to use that homogeneity of the market as an argument here. The EU is the very institution that is working to make the market more homogeneous in Europe, and the DMA is part of that same goal.
The US is easier to target because the EU has stronger consumer protections and stronger laws against monopolies (and other forms of market distortion). The reason Apple has a harder time targeting the EU is because the US is weak, not because it's more homogeneous.
> Funny to use that homogeneity of the market as an argument here. The EU is the very institution that is working to make the market more homogeneous in Europe, and the DMA is part of that same goal.
Regardless of EU efforts, the EU can never be as homogenous of a market as the US. Even if all laws become uniform across the whole of the EU and there are no longer VAT, legal incorporation, etc. differences (probably ot happening in our lifetimes) if nothing else, any company has to translate all their content, apps, websites, etc. to the respective language(s - yes, there are countries with more than one official language, a few of them in fact) of each EU country to be able to cover the whole EU market.
Apple has a 100% monopoly it's AppStore on 2 billion devices though which $90,000,000,000 in trade is conducted. If that's not a market big enough to be considered for Anti-Competitive practices and illegally maintaining a monopoly then I don't know what is.
The argument "people can just buy an android" didn't work for Microsoft with the Internet Browser abuse.
McDonalds has 100% monopoly on happy meals. That doesn't make it a monopoly in the sense that you're using the term. And IOS's position in the EU or even the US looks nothing like "Microsoft" and IE.
This isn't about monopoly in the EU. This is about the EU not being competitive in the mobile space, or software in general and wanting to foster local development without having to pay a tax to US corporations.
What you're seeing is some of the first shots in attempts to unwind globalization.
Apple has exclusive control over a market (AppStore), which has almost 2 million different products (Apps), 820,000 suppliers (app publishers) and over 1 billion customers which conducts more trade than the entire GDP of Luxemburg.
Happy Meals are a product, not a market.
If you can't see why one is subject to anti-trust laws and abuse of a monopoly, I can't help you. but regulators are taking action.
Happy Meals are not built and sold by third parties who also sell outside of McDonalds. It's more like Apple having a monopoly on petrol stations and deciding who can or cannot sell drinks at a station - and when criticized, they say "you can go buy an electric car".
> This is about the EU not being competitive in the mobile space
> And IOS's position in the EU or even the US looks nothing like "Microsoft" and IE.
Does it not? Apple's stance on marketing Safari as a "feature" instead of a product arguably goes further than Microsoft ever did. Combined with their unique stance on limiting alternate app stores it doesn't look any better in Apple's favor. Whether they did it deliberately or not, Apple has put themselves in a monopoly position that they use to specifically deny certain competitors from providing alternatives to Apple services.
> This is about the EU not being competitive in the mobile space, or software in general
Nobody is competitive in the mobile space. There are two software vendors; Apple and the catchall, Google. Both of them are American-owned and controlled. The only other "competitors" exist in places like China and Russia that are forcibly denied access to the duopoly. You can't scaremonger with a straight-face like this when everyone is in the pocket of American manufacturers.
And that's the problem. The EU can bring the axe down because Apple doesn't deserve to set their own fee. They can kick and scream and piss and moan, but it only makes their situation look uglier and prolongs the inevitable. Apple has tested the limits for years, and now that we've documented their trespass it's time to teach them their lesson. The EU started it, but Japan is headed in the same direction and the current US administration has started their own investigation into Apple.
> What you're seeing is some of the first shots in attempts to unwind globalization.
Right now I'm only seeing a bunch of whiny apologists that want their segregated market back. You can have your App Store as long as the App Store customers aren't ideologically banned from getting software anywhere else. That's what a free market looks like, and Apple doesn't get a free pass for drafting their App Store rules with crayons and colored pencils.
In what way is any of this intended to bring competition into the mobile space? By letting some entrants provide alternative app distribution?
The only plausible outcome of this is that Apple reduces their involvement in Europe (it’s already happening with features in the latest iOS that aren’t coming to European users) at which point Google will become the only software vendor. Congrats?
> You can't scaremonger with a straight-face like this when everyone is in the pocket of American manufacturers.
You had me at mobile OSes, but the majority of phones sold in Europe are produced and sold by companies in China and Korea.
You can't see why making companies abide by anti-competition laws would make the mobile space more competitive?
The only plausible outcome is Apple stops it's anti-competitive practices globally. I don't know why you're singling out the EU because the US is doing the exact same thing.
Okay, what's a shorter stretch of imagination, that Google and Apple are a duopoly, or that Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube Music, Amazon Music, Tidal, Deezer etc etc, all of which share pretty much the same music library, are a monopoly by any definition?
There's a difference between "distribute music controlled largely by the 4 big labels" and "be a part of a duopoly that controls the distribution of literally everything pertaining to modern life"
What, in any of these regulations, is expected to encourage a greater number of platforms?
If anything the net result of this regulation will be to make Apple products less competitive. The expected outcome of this regulation is an increase Android’s relative market share from 70% to something higher.
The App Store is content distribution in the exact same way that Spotify is. Third parties produce content, that content is delivered to users by an intermediate.
Spotify is like an old-time records store where you'd get the chance to listen to a CD/vinyl record you picked from the aisle before buying it (except that in this case it's a subscription and you stay in the "store" the whole time)
The App Store is like an electronics market where you purchase appliances that you take home and use later.
If you get big enough to be an "infrastructure" then yes, you did it (congrats!), but you are so important that your company should have some democratic controls on it. Take it as a badge of honor!
You seem to be taking the stance that this is an attack on the United States. I think a better stance is to view big tech anti-consumer behavior as the attacking force.
Here's some context which a lot of people, including most news media, seem to have missed:
The reason Apple is still playing games with the EC is that they're waiting on an EU Court's ruling[1] on whether Article 6 (7), the provision that mandates free of charge iOS APIs for all developers, is "constitutional" within the EU framework itself.
Most people who call out the Core Technology Fee use that provision as one of their main arguments, and it's one of their strongest, because the "free of charge" language throws away the general idea that the law doesn't want to interfere with Apple's monetization strategies. Since Apple could very well have chosen to monetize certain local API access in the past, the fact that this provision put a stop to that effectively nullifies Apple's argument (to the courts) that the law could never have meant to actually control how they make money.
[1] https://curia.europa.eu/juris/fiche.jsf?id=T%3B1080%3B23%3BR...
The preliminary findings in this case are not related to the "Core Technology Fee" as far as I can tell.
The findings here are about steering. That Apple disallows app developers to steer users to alternative distribution channels on Apple's AppStore.
They do also announce that they have opened new investigations, which include the "Core Technology Fee", but they have no findings yet.
Interesting. Is there any indication as to when we can expect the ruling?
Drop the notarization and core technology fee and we're all good
I wonder if this will come down to an arguement of 'letter' and 'spirit' of the law; clearly Apple's lawyers will say 'notarization' is for security which is explicitly allowed under the DMA. However Europe will argue Apple takes it 'too far' and has imposed terms to make it less likely for developers to use new app stores and thus undermines what the law is intended to do.
In the end, what will happen is Apple will cave (not by choice), with this press release being a warning shot. Many money will be spent on lawyers on both sides, however Apple will have gotten a few extra months before being required to change their design to be in compliance.
For Apple, every day of stalling is more revenue and profits under their 'old' but 'dying' (in the EU) model, but at some point in the next 12-24 months expect to see a number of changes to satisfy the commission. It's extremely unlikely Apple will escape by having to do nothing, that's clearly not the intention of the commission and they usually get their own way. Expect to see the CTF gone and a much friendly way of installing app stores - I even expect the text/interfaces the user sees to be designed/approved by the commission.
Although I will be unable to edit this comment I will check back on 24th June 2025 to see whether this was right.
> I wonder if this will come down to an arguement of 'letter' and 'spirit' of the law; clearly Apple's lawyers will say 'notarization' is for security which is explicitly allowed under the DMA. However Europe will argue Apple takes it 'too far' and has imposed terms to make it less likely for developers to use new app stores and thus undermines what the law is intended to do.
If the commission wanted to move faster then they should just move the notarization to a neutral third party, as we do for DNS.
Hear, hear. Apps signed using code signing certificates that are in turn signed by roots in the OS trust store should run no questions asked (unless they are revoked of course), there needs to be a way to bypass this too, but that can be a "developer mode" of sorts and doesn't need to be easily accessible to the masses. (Thinking of something like Androids "tap the build ID 7 times to become a developer" approach.)
Have notarization - sure, but they recently prevented a DOS emulator to being distributed in third party stores, which goes directly against what this law is for.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding which keeps causing trouble for US companies:
In European law, the letter of the law doesn't matter. The intent does.
It's called teleological interpretation, here's an EU document with a bit more background: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/5993...
Key quote:
> When interpreting EU law, the CJEU pays particular attention to the aim and purpose of EU law (teleological interpretation), rather than focusing exclusively on the wording of the provisions (linguistic interpretation). This is explained by numerous factors, in particular the open-ended and policy-oriented rules of the EU Treaties, as well as by EU legal multilingualism. Under the latter principle, all EU law is equally authentic in all language versions. Hence, the Court cannot rely on the wording of a single version, as a national court can, in order to give an interpretation of the legal provision under consideration. Therefore, in order to decode the meaning of a legal rule, the Court analyses it especially in the light of its purpose (teleological interpretation) as well as its context (systemic interpretation).
Facebook, too, tried rules-lawyering EU regulations only to be slapped with a huge fine. This shit doesn't fly here.
I don't think this is a special feature of EU law. Legal judgments in other places also rely on the intent of a law to clarify potentially ambiguous text.
The special feature is that EU laws are written in so many different languages that a textual interpretation is not only not preferred, but completely impossible.
US law places a moderate degree of emphasis on textualism in statutory interpretation, at least for a Common Law jurisdiction. Even the word “textualism” comes from the US. It’s somewhat common for courts in the US courts to pull out a copy of Webster’s dictionary in order to interpret a statue, that kind of thing rarely happens in English law.
There are definitely some jurisdictions within the EU that place a much higher degree of emphasis on the text of a law than the US does, in their domestic legal systems, e.g. Germany. So I don’t think it’s the case that US companies are unprepared to deal with a legal system that is based on intention compared to EU companies.
Underestimated perspective. Very well said.
Having spoken with many Apple execs about these issue in the past (as a journalist) the impression you’re left is a mix between an attempt at steering the narrative (which is normal PR) and a honest, heartfelt, sense of disbelief that the EU wouldn’t understand their points about security and privacy. They have trouble grasping that the EU moves from a clear principle: States make the law and regulations, while your size or intents as a company Can Not and Should Not play a part in steering what is possible or allowed in the market. That’s EU “free market” capitalism 101.
I have a feeling that US companies experience something akin to a culture shock when they’re faced with this reality.
Personally I see the consequences for consumer, but in the long run I believe this is a best way to ensure a fairer and better consumer quality of life. This has proven true many times before with similar regulation pushes (forced EU roaming and USB-C, naming two off the top of my head)
Apple seems to be falling pretty short of the letter of the law also.
Malicious compliance may work as a strategy in Common Law jurisdictions like the US, but not in the EU where Civil (Roman) Law means exactly what it says and judges apply it, as opposed to inventing excuses for not doing so like Robert Bork's gutting of both letter and spirit of antitrust law.
Full title (too long for HN): "Commission sends preliminary findings to Apple and opens additional non-compliance investigation against Apple under the Digital Markets Act"
[flagged]
If Apple pulls out of EU there will be no excuse for a homegrown startup not to take its place. The domestic market is smaller than US and China, but with less competition you stand a chance.
EU is 450 millions customers, I don't see them missing out on this market. Add to the fact that they can also grow marketshare in a landscape which is still dominated by Android.
It'd be especially weird for them to pull out of the EU when it contains two of the countries most of their revenue flows through.
The population of EU is roughly 450 million compared to 330 million in the US.
Yes, however due to how homogenous the US is in comparison to the EU it is a lot easier to market products there.
I definitely don't expect Apple to come to the conclusion that they should pull out of the EU, just suggesting that the US 330M population is easier to target than the EUs 450M, and that therefore the US market (rightfully) probably weighs higher than the EU.
Funny to use that homogeneity of the market as an argument here. The EU is the very institution that is working to make the market more homogeneous in Europe, and the DMA is part of that same goal.
The US is easier to target because the EU has stronger consumer protections and stronger laws against monopolies (and other forms of market distortion). The reason Apple has a harder time targeting the EU is because the US is weak, not because it's more homogeneous.
> Funny to use that homogeneity of the market as an argument here. The EU is the very institution that is working to make the market more homogeneous in Europe, and the DMA is part of that same goal.
Regardless of EU efforts, the EU can never be as homogenous of a market as the US. Even if all laws become uniform across the whole of the EU and there are no longer VAT, legal incorporation, etc. differences (probably ot happening in our lifetimes) if nothing else, any company has to translate all their content, apps, websites, etc. to the respective language(s - yes, there are countries with more than one official language, a few of them in fact) of each EU country to be able to cover the whole EU market.
I’m not sure why companies think it’s okay to not translate products in my language just because I could possibly know some other.
Money
Marketing campaigns also often reference culture, which differs heavily across the EU.
Some more recent discussion:
Apple set to be first Big Tech group to face charges under EU digital law
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40681920
Good. The way to fix it is still to break Apple up, but we might have to do the merry go round a few more times until regulators realise that.
Honestly, kudos to EU! Not sure how this will pan out, but it's great to see someone is willing to set up to big-tech.
To non-EU big tech that is. They are very happy to protect Spotify.
European companies are hit with fines if they misbehave:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1338745/competition-poli...
"It is equally illegal for the rich and the poor to panhandle under bridges"
Spotify's not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination.
And Apple is, in Europe? iOS market share is something like 30%. I'd wager Spotify's share of the music streaming market is much higher.
EU does not assert that Apple is a monopoly. It says Apple abuses its "dominant position on the market".
Spotify surely enjoys a dominant position, but im not sure it abuses it. Certainly, the record labels hold a very dominant influence over Spotify.
Right. These gatekeeper laws are literally being created to combat "not-a-monopoly"-entities dominant positions in the market.
Apple has a 100% monopoly it's AppStore on 2 billion devices though which $90,000,000,000 in trade is conducted. If that's not a market big enough to be considered for Anti-Competitive practices and illegally maintaining a monopoly then I don't know what is.
The argument "people can just buy an android" didn't work for Microsoft with the Internet Browser abuse.
> Apple has a 100% monopoly it's AppStore
McDonalds has 100% monopoly on happy meals. That doesn't make it a monopoly in the sense that you're using the term. And IOS's position in the EU or even the US looks nothing like "Microsoft" and IE.
This isn't about monopoly in the EU. This is about the EU not being competitive in the mobile space, or software in general and wanting to foster local development without having to pay a tax to US corporations.
What you're seeing is some of the first shots in attempts to unwind globalization.
Apple has exclusive control over a market (AppStore), which has almost 2 million different products (Apps), 820,000 suppliers (app publishers) and over 1 billion customers which conducts more trade than the entire GDP of Luxemburg.
Happy Meals are a product, not a market.
If you can't see why one is subject to anti-trust laws and abuse of a monopoly, I can't help you. but regulators are taking action.
Happy Meals are not built and sold by third parties who also sell outside of McDonalds. It's more like Apple having a monopoly on petrol stations and deciding who can or cannot sell drinks at a station - and when criticized, they say "you can go buy an electric car".
> This is about the EU not being competitive in the mobile space
Lol, the tinfoil looks shiny.
> And IOS's position in the EU or even the US looks nothing like "Microsoft" and IE.
Does it not? Apple's stance on marketing Safari as a "feature" instead of a product arguably goes further than Microsoft ever did. Combined with their unique stance on limiting alternate app stores it doesn't look any better in Apple's favor. Whether they did it deliberately or not, Apple has put themselves in a monopoly position that they use to specifically deny certain competitors from providing alternatives to Apple services.
> This is about the EU not being competitive in the mobile space, or software in general
Nobody is competitive in the mobile space. There are two software vendors; Apple and the catchall, Google. Both of them are American-owned and controlled. The only other "competitors" exist in places like China and Russia that are forcibly denied access to the duopoly. You can't scaremonger with a straight-face like this when everyone is in the pocket of American manufacturers.
And that's the problem. The EU can bring the axe down because Apple doesn't deserve to set their own fee. They can kick and scream and piss and moan, but it only makes their situation look uglier and prolongs the inevitable. Apple has tested the limits for years, and now that we've documented their trespass it's time to teach them their lesson. The EU started it, but Japan is headed in the same direction and the current US administration has started their own investigation into Apple.
> What you're seeing is some of the first shots in attempts to unwind globalization.
Right now I'm only seeing a bunch of whiny apologists that want their segregated market back. You can have your App Store as long as the App Store customers aren't ideologically banned from getting software anywhere else. That's what a free market looks like, and Apple doesn't get a free pass for drafting their App Store rules with crayons and colored pencils.
> Nobody is competitive in the mobile space.
In what way is any of this intended to bring competition into the mobile space? By letting some entrants provide alternative app distribution?
The only plausible outcome of this is that Apple reduces their involvement in Europe (it’s already happening with features in the latest iOS that aren’t coming to European users) at which point Google will become the only software vendor. Congrats?
> You can't scaremonger with a straight-face like this when everyone is in the pocket of American manufacturers.
You had me at mobile OSes, but the majority of phones sold in Europe are produced and sold by companies in China and Korea.
You can't see why making companies abide by anti-competition laws would make the mobile space more competitive?
The only plausible outcome is Apple stops it's anti-competitive practices globally. I don't know why you're singling out the EU because the US is doing the exact same thing.
> Apple to be sued by US Department of Justice for antitrust as soon as tomorrow > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39775719
Okay, what's a shorter stretch of imagination, that Google and Apple are a duopoly, or that Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube Music, Amazon Music, Tidal, Deezer etc etc, all of which share pretty much the same music library, are a monopoly by any definition?
Sorry, you mean Apple, Samsung, Xiaomi, Huawei, and Google?
Spotify has north of 50% market share in Europe. Apple doesn’t even come close.
There's a difference between "distribute music controlled largely by the 4 big labels" and "be a part of a duopoly that controls the distribution of literally everything pertaining to modern life"
You are saying duopoly when it isn't one i.e. Apple has 30% share.
https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/europe
Do you know what duopoly means?
Pray tell, who is the other singular entity selling cell phones in Europe?
I think you're capable of finding the other singular entity that controls a smartphone platform
What, in any of these regulations, is expected to encourage a greater number of platforms?
If anything the net result of this regulation will be to make Apple products less competitive. The expected outcome of this regulation is an increase Android’s relative market share from 70% to something higher.
> is expected to encourage a greater number of platforms?
That's not the point. The point is to ensure access to any platform once they get big enough to dictate market conditions.
Spotify sells content distribution. Apple sells the permission to have your own content, that you distribute, run on devices that your users own.
The App Store is content distribution in the exact same way that Spotify is. Third parties produce content, that content is delivered to users by an intermediate.
The consumption happens inside Spotify however.
Spotify is like an old-time records store where you'd get the chance to listen to a CD/vinyl record you picked from the aisle before buying it (except that in this case it's a subscription and you stay in the "store" the whole time)
The App Store is like an electronics market where you purchase appliances that you take home and use later.
The consumption of apps happens inside Apple devices.
The only meaningful difference is the subscription model vs. purchasing.
> The consumption of apps happens inside Apple devices.
...which the users own (including the individual iOS copy inside, with all the APIs those apps use)
You have strayed so far from the original point I have no idea how this is relevant.
The users own their devices and the iOS copies inside them. Apple has no business being in the middle once the initial device sale is concluded.
What type of regulatory action would you like to see on Spotify?
Force Spotify to actually implement the APIs they complain Apple doesn't provide for them.
They seem to hold off specifically to have something to complain about.
Please quote the part of the DMA that lists which specific APIs companies are forced to implement.
Funny how Spotify keeps getting hit with GDPR fines if that's the case.
There's basically no EU big tech, so what can you do
So this is my takeaway:
You can start a company with the very end goal of providing a carefully curated ecosystem to your customers.
No one will say shit.
Then, once your company beats the odds and becomes successful, f you you have to share.
It’s not like apple didn’t set out with this goal in mind.
If you get big enough to be an "infrastructure" then yes, you did it (congrats!), but you are so important that your company should have some democratic controls on it. Take it as a badge of honor!
[dead]
[flagged]
Neither of those things are remotely likely.
0 chance
Europe will become Androidland
It is past time for the US to start hitting back at the EU. To start with they need to cut funding and become hostile to products made in the EU.
Before or after the DOJ finishes hitting back at Apple?
You seem to be taking the stance that this is an attack on the United States. I think a better stance is to view big tech anti-consumer behavior as the attacking force.
What a really odd take on this whole matter.
Just leave NATO. Make us pay for our own defense.