Apple Attacks EU Crackdown in Digital Law's Biggest Court Test (irishexaminer.com) 23
Apple lashed out at the European Union's attempts to tame the power of Silicon Valley in the most far-reaching legal challenge of the bloc's Big Tech antitrust rules. From a report: The iPhone maker's lawyer Daniel Beard told the General Court in Luxembourg on Tuesday that the Digital Markets Act "imposes hugely onerous and intrusive burdens" at odds with Apple's rights in the EU marketplace.
The DMA came onto the EU's books in 2023 and is designed to clip the wings of the world's largest technology platforms with a slew of dos and don'ts. But over recent months, the law has also drawn the ire of US President Donald Trump and plagued EU-US trade talks. Apple -- seen as the biggest renegade against the EU's crackdown -- challenged the law on three fronts: EU obligations to make rival hardware work with its iPhone, the regulator's decision to drag the hugely profitable App Store under the rules, and a decision to probe whether iMessage should have faced the rules, which it later escaped.
The DMA came onto the EU's books in 2023 and is designed to clip the wings of the world's largest technology platforms with a slew of dos and don'ts. But over recent months, the law has also drawn the ire of US President Donald Trump and plagued EU-US trade talks. Apple -- seen as the biggest renegade against the EU's crackdown -- challenged the law on three fronts: EU obligations to make rival hardware work with its iPhone, the regulator's decision to drag the hugely profitable App Store under the rules, and a decision to probe whether iMessage should have faced the rules, which it later escaped.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or they could, ya kinow, challenge legal decisions in the courts, which is what they're doing. They don't have to take their ball and go off in a huff just yet.
Lashing out (Score:4, Insightful)
"Lashed out" = Filed a lawsuit with the European court
"Attacked" = Issued a press release detailing their court case.
Coming soon:
"Murdered" = Made a compelling argument in open court
"Nuked from orbit" = Motion for continuance "Slaughtered" = Won a court motion
"Destroyed" = Favorable court ruling
"Strangled" = Disagreed with loosing a motion
Re: (Score:2)
This is an argument in favor of an AI agent to read the news for me and summarize the results in neutral language.
Re: (Score:2)
Or read the news for you and make up what it expect you want to hear.
I know which I find more likely.
Re: Well, Tim... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It’s completely reasonable that companies can challenge regulations in the courts, especially when those regulations are novel and onerous, as here.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, onerous to Apple, and creating costs and friction for consumers of their products. Obviously to Apple. Obviously Apple is going to act in what it thinks is in its interests. It's not obliged to just put up with it, it's entitled to challenge.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s completely reasonable that companies can challenge regulations in the courts
Why is that reasonable? Most of us don't have the realistic ability to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
People challenge government decisions all the time in the courts, and lobby their elected representatives for change, and write to the newspapers, and make blogs and post on socials etc. It's not a perfect system by any means -- we are human after all -- but there's mechanisms for seeking to change the law and they succeed quite frequently. And it's not like these laws that the EU have brought in are obviously pro-consumer at the expense of Apple; there's plenty of pro-consumer organisations who don't like
Re: (Score:3)
Some people believe that those they don't like shouldn't have rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations should have no rights at all--it's a fucking stupid concept to begin with.
They are not natural, and exist only because a huge legal and regulatory framework exists to permit them to.
Well that's unfortunate (Score:2)
However will the world's biggest and most valuable company cope with the burden? But honestly this isn't the story. They are massively burying the lead here, their core argument is:
1. Interoperability somehow is an invasion of user's privacy.
2. Pre-empting another court by saying the app store isn't covered, despite the fact that it has legally been decided it did cover and there's a current massive fine outstanding.
3. Claiming something something iMessage isn't covered because no money is being made (I can
Translation: We were right about Lightning (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: We were right about Apple sticking doggedly with Lightning on the iPhone for so long being entirely about the loss of MFi profits. Europe forced them to use USB-C, which eliminated their ability to force everyone to buy custom authenticator chips from them and their ability to control who could make hardware for iPhone.
It should be glaringly obvious to anyone with half a brain that forcing companies like Apple to open up more is in the public interest, and that their claims of "security concerns" are nothing more than a desperate attempt at a power grab.
But what's not so obvious is that opening up is also in Apple's best interest. The authenticator nonsense was half the reason why so many cheap third-party iPhone knock-off cables stopped working after a few days in the early days of Lightning. It tarnished Apple's reputation indirectly.
It also delayed accessories that people badly needed, like longer Lightning cables, both because of the licensing itself and because Apple's plug casing couldn't accommodate the larger wire gauge need for longer runs, which meant that when they finally did come on the market, depending on what case your phone was in, you often couldn't plug them in without removing your phone from its case.
All of that was because Apple wanted to be the one source for Lightning connectors instead of implementing something that conformed to a standard. Lightning sucked. Period. I tolerated it because it was the only option without going to Android, but from the moment I first tried it, there was never even a moment when I didn't think it was a mistake, starting with a bug I filed only about two weeks in about how flimsy the Lightning cables were compared with the previous cables and how easily vacuum cleaners ripped the connectors off.
It's also the reason that a lot of people who could afford to buy an iPhone don't do so. They see the high price of accessories for iPhone as a reason to buy Android, knowing that the accessories aren't better, just more expensive.
This is doubly true for the App Store. There are plenty of things Apple can't and won't sell, like adult content. Apple loses a decent chunk of the market because they don't have adult content and nobody can add it. Having third-party app stores fixes that problem immediately without Apple having to put its merchant account agreements at risk by selling it themselves.
The problem with Apple right now is the same as it was in various other periods in the past, like the closed-box original Mac era, like the first month or so of the Intel transition, etc. Apple's desire for complete control over the platform damages the platform, but they're too blinded by their desire for control to recognize that it is not in their best interests to keep such tight control.
As a user and as a shareholder, I couldn't agree with the EU's decisions more. This is not just what the public needs. It's also what Apple needs.
Re: Translation: We were right about Lightning (Score:2)
âoe It should be glaringly obvious to anyone with half a brain that forcing companies like Apple to open up more is in the public interest, and that their claims of "security concerns" are nothing more than a desperate attempt at a power grab.â
The power grab is using âoepublic interestâ as the excuse to force companies to open up. Apple doesnâ(TM)t have a monopoly on hand held computing software, hardware, or any other component used in their products, much less the whole of any spe
Re: (Score:2)
Its not an excuse, its the whole point. The EU exists to serve the public interest, in Europe, and when foreign companies trade in Europe then they follow europes laws.
And who gives a fuck if Apple are successful or not. Thats Apples concern, its not Europes concern. Europes concern is that foreign monopolists, or duopolists do not use their monopolie to leverage themselves into new markets. And to be clear they 100% have a monopoly. Can Epic create their own iPhone store if Apple chooses not to? No? Then i
Re: (Score:2)
Then its a monopoly.
So is almost every major company. That's the whole point of brands, trademarks, copyright and patents. You want a Nike shoe, you have to buy it from Nike. Apple spends a lot of money to make their monopoly valuable.
That's the way our current economic system works. It has nothing to do with the "free market" or "capitalism". Its all about building and increasing the value of monopolies. Because you can make a lot more money when no one else can produce the same product at a lower price.
Re: (Score:1)
They have a complete monopoly on Software, Hardware and any other component (I'm not clear what other sort of component there is other than Software, or Hardware, but I'm humoring your wierd argument here out of respect) , on iphones . That isn't controversial, its a simple statement of reality.
What kind of fuckery are these arguments? Tesla has a monopoly on the software and hardware in their products. Can anybody else than Tesla make a Tesla? WE MUST REGULATE THEM UNTIL WE CONTROL THEIR BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY'RE CLEARLY A MONOPOLY BY THE WAY THINGS WORK IN MY HEAD.
The DMA doesn't claim Apple has a monopoly; they define Apple as a gatekeeper. Try reading and understanding the thing you're blindly defending here. You might find that it's not as wonderful and consumer-friendly as you imagine.
Re: (Score:1)
That's a fine rant, but you're being disingenuous imho. These examples, and the Lightning case in particular, are so profoundly different to DMA as to be incomparable.
Nobody's avoiding buying an iPhone because Apple disagrees with DMA. Plenty of people disagree with swaths of the DMA, European consumers included (I'm one of them).
And fwiw, Lightning was kind great for its time, and was a main source of the tech in USB-C. Apple was a main driver in the development of USB-C.
Translation (Score:2)
I'm not against testing the law but Apple's argument is obvious: We're too big to jail so do what I say.