9 ms·
Commission opens additional DMA investigation against Apple
- jeroenhd 2y agoFull title (too long for HN): "Commission sends preliminary findings to Apple and opens additional non-compliance investigation against Apple under the Digital Markets Act"
- codetrotter 2y ago[flagged]
- frank_bb 2y ago[dead]
- kklisura 2y agoHonestly, 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.
- robertfall 2y agoTo non-EU big tech that is. They are very happy to protect Spotify.
- input_sh 2y agoSpotify's not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination.
- stouset 2y agoAnd 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.
- EMIRELADERO 2y agoSpotify sells content distribution. Apple sells the permission to have your own content, that you distribute, run on devices that your users own.
- stouset 2y agoThe 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.
- EMIRELADERO 2y agoThe 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.
- stouset 2y agoThe consumption of apps happens inside Apple devices. The only meaningful difference is the subscription model vs. purchasing.
- EMIRELADERO 2y ago> 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)
- stouset 2y agoYou have strayed so far from the original point I have no idea how this is relevant.
- madeofpalk 2y agoWhat type of regulatory action would you like to see on Spotify?
- Mindwipe 2y agoFunny how Spotify keeps getting hit with GDPR fines if that's the case.
- CaptainZapp 2y agoEuropean companies are hit with fines if they misbehave: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1338745/competition-policy-eu-antitrust-fines/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1338745/competition-poli...
- dmitrygr 2y ago"It is equally illegal for the rich and the poor to panhandle under bridges"
- akmarinov 2y agoThere's basically no EU big tech, so what can you do
- akmarinov 2y agoDrop the notarization and core technology fee and we're all good
- magnio 2y ago[flagged]
- aboringusername 2y agoI 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.
- madeofpalk 2y agoApple seems to be falling pretty short of the letter of the law also.
- fmajid 2y agoMalicious 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.
- Mindwipe 2y ago> 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.
- zkirill 2y agoIf 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.
- drno123 2y agoThe population of EU is roughly 450 million compared to 330 million in the US.
- rekoil 2y agoYes, 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.
- tremon 2y agoFunny 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.
- sofixa 2y ago> 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.
- EMIRELADERO 2y agoHere'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%3BRD%3B1%3BP%3B1%3BT2023%2F1080%2FP&nat=or&mat=or&pcs=Oor&jur=T&num=T-1080%252F23&for=&jge=&dates=&language=en&pro=&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&oqp=&td=%3BALL&avg=&lgrec=en&lg=&cid=3423184 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/fiche.jsf?id=T%3B1080%3B23%3BR...
- MilaM 2y agoInteresting. Is there any indication as to when we can expect the ruling?
- SigmundurM 2y agoThe 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.
- Mindwipe 2y agoGood. 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.
- throwawa14223 2y agoIt 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.
- card_zero 2y agoBefore or after the DOJ finishes hitting back at Apple?
- HumblyTossed 2y agoWhat a really odd take on this whole matter.
- causal 2y agoYou 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.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y agoJust leave NATO. Make us pay for our own defense.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ChrisArchitect 2y agoSome 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40681920
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- gxs 2y agoSo 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.
- mqus 2y agoIf 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!