7 ms·

One would think that if there is truly a Europe wide market for such an unlocked device a competitor should be able to challenge Apple and Google dominance. Eur

One would think that if there is truly a Europe wide market for such an unlocked device a competitor should be able to challenge Apple and Google dominance. Europe could even subsidize it. But instead, it’s more engineering by bureaucrats. Why is Europe so afraid of competing in the open market?

Gareth321 4y ago
>Why is Europe so afraid of competing in the open market? The open market employs children to work in coal mines. No one should trust the open market.
JohnGB 4y ago
That's an ironic take given that these rules are there to take away monopoly power and have an actual open market.
- bun_at_work 4y ago
  How does Apple have a monopoly? The only thing that comes close is the App Store, which requires you buy an iPhone, which is not the most common mobile device. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe Further, other phone companies start from nothing and become quite successful in market place, and some fail, but consider OnePlus - they decided to make a "Flagship Killer" and are still delivering high quality devices.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    > How does Apple have a monopoly? They have monopoly power and control over app developers' access to iPhone users. If supermarkets offered a loyalty card program that made it physically impossible for you to shop at another supermarket, then this would be a monopoly/anti-trust issue too, even if no supermarket had a majority share of the market. The usual response of Apple fans is "You can just buy a second phone", but asking app developers to give away free Android phones to their iPhone-using potential customers is not really a viable competitive strategy.
    - googlryas 4y ago
      That example only works if you were denied using the actual loyalty card for shopping at another market, which is actually the case? Nothing about the Apple ecosystem means you can't buy an Android and continue using it
      - dane-pgp 4y ago
        As expected, this is the "Just buy an extra phone, 4Head" suggestion that we always hear. (I'm assuming users would still want to access the apps and media they bought on their iPhone). If switching from an iPhone to an Android device required the user to jump through literal hoops, on camera, Apple fans would probably complain about governments forbidding hoop-jumping clauses in EULAs.
        bagacrap 4y ago
        I mean I also can't use the app I bought for my iPhone on my Windows desktop.... why would I expect two separate operating systems to interoperate?
        dane-pgp 4y ago
        I'm not suggesting that the government should require all OSes to provide identical APIs for apps to run on them, for example, as obviously that sort of "interoperability" would place an unreasonable burden on companies. However, there are anti-competitive policies of Apple which burden not just app developers and users but Apple themselves, and it's really hard to justify their existence other than "monopolies are very profitable". https://www.reddit.com/r/swift/comments/3d8koa/apple_rejected_app_for_having_link_to_website/ https://www.reddit.com/r/swift/comments/3d8koa/apple_rejecte...
        googlryas 4y ago
        I wasn't saying "Just buy an extra phone, 4Head" - I was pointing out how your analogy was actually the equivalent of "Just buy an extra phone, 4Head", because loyalty cards can't be taken and used at unaffiliated stores, and yet people are more than welcome to open multiple loyalty accounts, one with each store.
  - ThatPlayer 4y ago
    Monopoly power is not the same as a literal monopoly. The FTC has a pretty good definition of it: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
- antonymy 4y ago
  Apple is not even close to a monopoly, especially in Europe, where they have less than a third of the mobile market. That said, the rest of the market is divided up between several different Android phone companies, so Apple is in fact the largest single mobile vendor in the EU (Samsung is neck and neck with them though, and may have overtaken them since I last checked). So from a regulatory standpoint, Apple is the problem child even if it isn't a monopoly. The EU sees a third of its phone-using population as being "captured" by a uncompetitive foreign corporation that is far more restrictive and locked down than any of its competitors. Apple has also tenaciously resisted any attempts to open its platform by citing user security as a reason for its draconian level of control over the iPhone platform, so it became necessary for the EU to resort to powerful big-guns legislation to act. Well the big guns are here, and I don't think Apple's "user security" defense is going to be aegis enough against them.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    > where they have less than a third of the mobile market Its amazing how some people are SO obsessed with their favorite brand that they cant see outside its limits: Apple controls ~30%, Google controls ~30%, thats pretty much majority of the 'market'. And that 'market' is actual people, having to daily use these devices. There being 3-4 companies implementing exactly similar business practices does not make an 'open market'. It makes uncoordinated, non-conspiratorial monopolies.
efsavage 4y ago
> Why is Europe so afraid of competing in the open market? Because they haven't been winning. It's not a coincidence that the revenue thresholds for this bill is conveniently higher than any Europe-based companies.
delecti 4y ago
The "invisible hand of the free market" doesn't work when manufacturing a device requires such a huge infrastructure around it, and benefits so much from economy of scale. "Exploitative business practices must not be that bad or the free market would step in" is a painfully naive take.
- peytoncasper 4y ago
  You're totally right. How ever will a tiny company like Apple compete against Blackberry with their massive marketshare advantage and extensive supply chain...
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    Blackberry was never "massive" in the same way that either Android or Apple are today. Blackberry had about 85 million users at its peak and while that sounds like a lot, it was essentially a fancy phone for checking emails and such, and is nowhere near the pervasive penetration in all aspects of society that have happened since then. All sorts of daily activities are harder – or even outright impossible – without an Android or iPhone.
    - peytoncasper 4y ago
      Thats not the argument though. The argument was about the ability for smaller companies to compete with larger incumbents. Specifically, around the impact that advanced manufacturing and supply chain relationships have on that competitiveness. Blackberry certainly had all those advantages at the time. You're talking about features, of which a company can also develop themselves. There is no app so pervasive on either platform that makes owning an Android or iPhone such a requirement that automatically disqualifies any competitor. Unless of course you mean the UX provided by the OS. It may be a pain to switch to some new phone or start up, but thats the job of a business. To convince me that their product is worth paying them money for. Love the username :)
      - Beltalowda 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
notanormalnerd 4y ago
Because it is not "one market". There is free movement of good, services, money and people. But it is still 28 similar markets with different cultures, different languages, different bureaucracies and sometimes different currency. It is 400 million people but comparing the EU to the US is wrong on so many levels. Also calling the US an "open" market is like saying China is a "free" democracy. "One would think that if there is truly a US wide market for such an affordable healthcare service a competitor should be able to challenge the current market dominance. The US could even subsidize it." Also it doesn't matter if the EU could do it themselves. Our market, our rules. If you don't like the rules, don't play.
- from 4y ago
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    The U.S. itself is also pursuing tech antitrust. This is a global phenomenon. https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/40669/apple-faces-us-antitrust-suit-over-apple-pay https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/40669/apple-faces-us-an... https://macdailynews.com/2022/07/19/facing-stalemate-backers-of-u-s-big-tech-antitrust-bill-push-for-vote/ https://macdailynews.com/2022/07/19/facing-stalemate-backers... https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/antitrust-veteran-plaintiffs-firm-hausfeld-leaves-doj-2022-07-18/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/antitrust-vetera...
    - from 4y ago
      These are mostly class action suits that will result in a settlement. Antitrust enforcement in America usually just means the company will sell some of its divisons (maybe Google sells the ad business). Half the push for tech regulation comes from Republicans looking to "own" the Democrats. This EU law would not fly at all in America.
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
Beltalowda 4y ago
> One would think that if there is truly a Europe wide market for such an unlocked device a competitor should be able to challenge Apple and Google dominance. The problem is that such a device doesn't really have a chance because it's not compatible with existing infrastructure such as WhatsApp, Instagram, your banking app, what-have-you. It could be the best device in the world, but there's always a catch-22 problem with software that's fundamentally closed and can't be implemented by a third party.
izacus 4y ago
Talking about "free market" when the gatekeeping megacorp selects winners in multiple downstream markets is ridiculous. I thought it's common knowledge that consolidation and cartels cripple free markets to the point of not functioning and benefiting society anymore?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pb7 4y ago
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  The Open App Markets Act and the American Innovation and Choice Online Act are currently making their way through the House.
  - pb7 4y ago
    What does that have to do with the fact that EU produces virtually nothing relative to its size and economy in terms of tech? They wouldn't have to be constantly passing these knee-capping regulations if they had a competitive industry of their own to spread out the market share. It's downright embarrassing.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      The point is, it's rather shortsighted to call out the EU for regulating tech when the U.S. and many other governments are actively doing so as well.
      - pb7 4y ago
        The difference is that the US is the market where these companies are born and develop their innovation so it makes sense for regulation to be passed as needed. The EU is nothing but a leech. It could focus on actually creating competition which would naturally resolve the problem but no, it chooses the easy way out by passing regulation year after year instead.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        It is not a leech to create legislation that is intended to act as consumer protection for your citizens. Quite the opposite actually. You may argue that the legislation doesn't do what it claims to do, but it makes no sense to call them a leech when Apple is operating in their market, and thus subject to the rules of their market. Perhaps you may think of the EU as Apple and the common market as the App Store if it will make it any more palatable.
alaric410 4y ago
This is opening the market. A few megacorps have created walled gardens that prevent competition. EU finally says "no more".

Gareth321 4y ago

>Why is Europe so afraid of competing in the open market? The open market employs children to work in coal mines. No one should trust the open market.

JohnGB 4y ago

That's an ironic take given that these rules are there to take away monopoly power and have an actual open market.

bun_at_work 4y ago
How does Apple have a monopoly? The only thing that comes close is the App Store, which requires you buy an iPhone, which is not the most common mobile device. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe Further, other phone companies start from nothing and become quite successful in market place, and some fail, but consider OnePlus - they decided to make a "Flagship Killer" and are still delivering high quality devices.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > How does Apple have a monopoly? They have monopoly power and control over app developers' access to iPhone users. If supermarkets offered a loyalty card program that made it physically impossible for you to shop at another supermarket, then this would be a monopoly/anti-trust issue too, even if no supermarket had a majority share of the market. The usual response of Apple fans is "You can just buy a second phone", but asking app developers to give away free Android phones to their iPhone-using potential customers is not really a viable competitive strategy.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    That example only works if you were denied using the actual loyalty card for shopping at another market, which is actually the case? Nothing about the Apple ecosystem means you can't buy an Android and continue using it
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      As expected, this is the "Just buy an extra phone, 4Head" suggestion that we always hear. (I'm assuming users would still want to access the apps and media they bought on their iPhone). If switching from an iPhone to an Android device required the user to jump through literal hoops, on camera, Apple fans would probably complain about governments forbidding hoop-jumping clauses in EULAs.
      - bagacrap 4y ago
        I mean I also can't use the app I bought for my iPhone on my Windows desktop.... why would I expect two separate operating systems to interoperate?
        dane-pgp 4y ago
        I'm not suggesting that the government should require all OSes to provide identical APIs for apps to run on them, for example, as obviously that sort of "interoperability" would place an unreasonable burden on companies. However, there are anti-competitive policies of Apple which burden not just app developers and users but Apple themselves, and it's really hard to justify their existence other than "monopolies are very profitable". https://www.reddit.com/r/swift/comments/3d8koa/apple_rejected_app_for_having_link_to_website/ https://www.reddit.com/r/swift/comments/3d8koa/apple_rejecte...
      - googlryas 4y ago
        I wasn't saying "Just buy an extra phone, 4Head" - I was pointing out how your analogy was actually the equivalent of "Just buy an extra phone, 4Head", because loyalty cards can't be taken and used at unaffiliated stores, and yet people are more than welcome to open multiple loyalty accounts, one with each store.
- ThatPlayer 4y ago
  Monopoly power is not the same as a literal monopoly. The FTC has a pretty good definition of it: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
antonymy 4y ago
Apple is not even close to a monopoly, especially in Europe, where they have less than a third of the mobile market. That said, the rest of the market is divided up between several different Android phone companies, so Apple is in fact the largest single mobile vendor in the EU (Samsung is neck and neck with them though, and may have overtaken them since I last checked). So from a regulatory standpoint, Apple is the problem child even if it isn't a monopoly. The EU sees a third of its phone-using population as being "captured" by a uncompetitive foreign corporation that is far more restrictive and locked down than any of its competitors. Apple has also tenaciously resisted any attempts to open its platform by citing user security as a reason for its draconian level of control over the iPhone platform, so it became necessary for the EU to resort to powerful big-guns legislation to act. Well the big guns are here, and I don't think Apple's "user security" defense is going to be aegis enough against them.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > where they have less than a third of the mobile market Its amazing how some people are SO obsessed with their favorite brand that they cant see outside its limits: Apple controls ~30%, Google controls ~30%, thats pretty much majority of the 'market'. And that 'market' is actual people, having to daily use these devices. There being 3-4 companies implementing exactly similar business practices does not make an 'open market'. It makes uncoordinated, non-conspiratorial monopolies.

efsavage 4y ago

> Why is Europe so afraid of competing in the open market? Because they haven't been winning. It's not a coincidence that the revenue thresholds for this bill is conveniently higher than any Europe-based companies.

delecti 4y ago

The "invisible hand of the free market" doesn't work when manufacturing a device requires such a huge infrastructure around it, and benefits so much from economy of scale. "Exploitative business practices must not be that bad or the free market would step in" is a painfully naive take.

peytoncasper 4y ago
You're totally right. How ever will a tiny company like Apple compete against Blackberry with their massive marketshare advantage and extensive supply chain...
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  Blackberry was never "massive" in the same way that either Android or Apple are today. Blackberry had about 85 million users at its peak and while that sounds like a lot, it was essentially a fancy phone for checking emails and such, and is nowhere near the pervasive penetration in all aspects of society that have happened since then. All sorts of daily activities are harder – or even outright impossible – without an Android or iPhone.
  - peytoncasper 4y ago
    Thats not the argument though. The argument was about the ability for smaller companies to compete with larger incumbents. Specifically, around the impact that advanced manufacturing and supply chain relationships have on that competitiveness. Blackberry certainly had all those advantages at the time. You're talking about features, of which a company can also develop themselves. There is no app so pervasive on either platform that makes owning an Android or iPhone such a requirement that automatically disqualifies any competitor. Unless of course you mean the UX provided by the OS. It may be a pain to switch to some new phone or start up, but thats the job of a business. To convince me that their product is worth paying them money for. Love the username :)
    - Beltalowda 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

notanormalnerd 4y ago

Because it is not "one market". There is free movement of good, services, money and people. But it is still 28 similar markets with different cultures, different languages, different bureaucracies and sometimes different currency. It is 400 million people but comparing the EU to the US is wrong on so many levels. Also calling the US an "open" market is like saying China is a "free" democracy. "One would think that if there is truly a US wide market for such an affordable healthcare service a competitor should be able to challenge the current market dominance. The US could even subsidize it." Also it doesn't matter if the EU could do it themselves. Our market, our rules. If you don't like the rules, don't play.

from 4y ago
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  The U.S. itself is also pursuing tech antitrust. This is a global phenomenon. https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/40669/apple-faces-us-antitrust-suit-over-apple-pay https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/40669/apple-faces-us-an... https://macdailynews.com/2022/07/19/facing-stalemate-backers-of-u-s-big-tech-antitrust-bill-push-for-vote/ https://macdailynews.com/2022/07/19/facing-stalemate-backers... https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/antitrust-veteran-plaintiffs-firm-hausfeld-leaves-doj-2022-07-18/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/antitrust-vetera...
  - from 4y ago
    These are mostly class action suits that will result in a settlement. Antitrust enforcement in America usually just means the company will sell some of its divisons (maybe Google sells the ad business). Half the push for tech regulation comes from Republicans looking to "own" the Democrats. This EU law would not fly at all in America.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago

Beltalowda 4y ago

> One would think that if there is truly a Europe wide market for such an unlocked device a competitor should be able to challenge Apple and Google dominance. The problem is that such a device doesn't really have a chance because it's not compatible with existing infrastructure such as WhatsApp, Instagram, your banking app, what-have-you. It could be the best device in the world, but there's always a catch-22 problem with software that's fundamentally closed and can't be implemented by a third party.

izacus 4y ago

Talking about "free market" when the gatekeeping megacorp selects winners in multiple downstream markets is ridiculous. I thought it's common knowledge that consolidation and cartels cripple free markets to the point of not functioning and benefiting society anymore?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pb7 4y ago

Apocryphon 4y ago
The Open App Markets Act and the American Innovation and Choice Online Act are currently making their way through the House.
- pb7 4y ago
  What does that have to do with the fact that EU produces virtually nothing relative to its size and economy in terms of tech? They wouldn't have to be constantly passing these knee-capping regulations if they had a competitive industry of their own to spread out the market share. It's downright embarrassing.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    The point is, it's rather shortsighted to call out the EU for regulating tech when the U.S. and many other governments are actively doing so as well.
    - pb7 4y ago
      The difference is that the US is the market where these companies are born and develop their innovation so it makes sense for regulation to be passed as needed. The EU is nothing but a leech. It could focus on actually creating competition which would naturally resolve the problem but no, it chooses the easy way out by passing regulation year after year instead.
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        It is not a leech to create legislation that is intended to act as consumer protection for your citizens. Quite the opposite actually. You may argue that the legislation doesn't do what it claims to do, but it makes no sense to call them a leech when Apple is operating in their market, and thus subject to the rules of their market. Perhaps you may think of the EU as Apple and the common market as the App Store if it will make it any more palatable.

alaric410 4y ago

This is opening the market. A few megacorps have created walled gardens that prevent competition. EU finally says "no more".