Apple Loses EU Fight Over App Store Gatekeeper Label (macrumors.com) 26
Europe's General Court dismissed Apple's challenge to the EU's designation of its App Stores and iOS as "gatekeepers" under the Digital Markets Act. The ruling means Apple remains subject to DMA obligations requiring it to allow alternative app stores, support interoperability with rival services, and avoid favoring its own services over competitors. MacRumors reports: Apple took its case to Luxembourg's General Court in 2024 after the European Commission designated its five App Stores -- on the iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple TV, and Apple Watch -- as a single core platform service under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a label that brings with it a set of strict obligations. Designated "gatekeepers" are prohibited from favoring their own services over those of rivals, and are prevented from combining personal data across different services. They also have to give users the option to use alternative app stores.
Apple also challenged the EU's designation of iOS as a gateway platform, a status that requires the operating system allows rival services to interoperate with it. The company also disputed the classification of iMessage as a number-independent interpersonal communications service, or NIICS, which would subject the app to EU telecoms rules. But the General Court said Apple's actions regarding the iMessage service are inadmissible.
Apple also challenged the EU's designation of iOS as a gateway platform, a status that requires the operating system allows rival services to interoperate with it. The company also disputed the classification of iMessage as a number-independent interpersonal communications service, or NIICS, which would subject the app to EU telecoms rules. But the General Court said Apple's actions regarding the iMessage service are inadmissible.
Re: (Score:2)
You're so brainwashed you think a monopoly is a great thing, and no one should be allowed to compete with it.
Go move to Russia.
Fuck you forever and ever.
Cancerous growth is not sustainable (Score:2)
You seem to be arguing with a cloud of no ones about nothing substantive, though you do raise the freedom issue in the mist.
However I see most problems in terms of time these years. The humans making the decisions are mostly motivated by short term considerations. They are trying to claim as much money as possible before they die. Freedom and innovation are mostly irrelevant to their business decisions. In particular, the current winners see freedom and innovations as threats. They don't want customers who
Re: Cancerous growth is not sustainable (Score:2)
What is or isn't a monopoly is literally irrelevant here, that is not at issue. They don't have to be a monopoly to be a gatekeeper. They only need control over an influential platform.
Re: Imagine... (Score:2)
Imagine a company selling devices to billions of people and then using local laws to stop them from using those devices how they want.
Apple is a scummy company with no regard for capitalist rules of competition. They are just butthurt their homegrown strategies of buying politicians isn't working overseas.
Correct analogy (Score:3)
Imagine:
You own a shop which is the ONLY place where people can buy parts for their car. When a competitor wants to sell parts as well, they need to go through YOUR shop. Because it's your shop, you ask companies who want to offer products via your shop to pay 30% of their revenue to you. They are also required to use all your other services. When you notice someone has a good product, you start offering the EXACT same thing, but cheaper.
In what universe is this called fair? It's a good thing the EU actuall
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine:ford saying all parking, tolls, gas, etc. Must be paid under ford pay that changes an 15-30% service fee.
Re: Imagine... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can I buy my BMW seat heat from another party?
Not really surprising (Score:2)
Apple had to try to avoid the designation (the restrictions and requirements were not to Apple's liking (and profit margins)). And the attempt was also almost certainly doomed to fail.
Digital Markets Act (Score:2)
I agree that this sector needs to be regulated in order for there to be a fair playing field for all participants. But let's not forget that DMA was written with Apple and Google in mind, it is not much surprise that their cases are going to be lost in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to carry water for trillion dollar corporations that rake in record profits every year through subtle and not-so-subtle anti-competitive practices.
The users currently get a walled garden system. With Apple locking other markets out almost entirely. And Google playing whack-o-mole with user-installed open source markets and subtle limitations for OEMs that want to maintain capability with Play store but also run their own store and own search partner.
The current market is not consumer friendly.
Re: Digital Markets Act (Score:2)
Users want interoperability and apple is against it
Land of the free (Score:2)
Re: Land of the free (Score:2)
Consoles? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a good thing yes.
But it's still different. Historically, you could always buy a game from brick and mortar store not owned by Nintendo or Sony. That was never possible with the iPhone.
Not sure how it is with digital stores now, but I wouldn't be surprised if they followed Apple's "lead" in that vendor lock-in department as well.
Still, console makers would argue that they sell consoles at loss and they make profit with the games. Apple makes a huge profit on phones. It appears the EU DMA applies
Denies water is wet (Score:2)
The company also disputed the classification of Water being wet. Later the company disputed the claim of what goes up, must come down. Tomorrow they are expected to file a brief claiming the classification of having trillions upon trillions of dollars, operating the #1 closed source product, and having captive lock in capability is just a way to "provide jobs".
Re: Denies water is wet (Score:2)