The EU's Digital Markets Act Demands That Apple Agree To Its Demise
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM - MARCH 25: EU Commissioner for A Europe Fit for the Digital Age - Executive Vice ... More President Margrethe Vestager talks to media about non-compliance investigations against Alphabet, Apple and Meta under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) in the Berlaymont, the EU Commission headquarter on March 25, 2024 in Brussels, Belgium. Today, the Commission has opened non-compliance investigations under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) into Alphabet's rules on steering in Google Play and self-preferencing on Google Search, Apple's rules on steering in the App Store and the choice screen for Safari and Meta's "pay or consent model". The Commission suspects that the measures put in place by these gatekeepers fall short of effective compliance of their obligations under the DMA. ()
Apple has to keep getting the future right. It's that simple. The present of business is the past, which means an inability to consistently see what's ahead is the path to decline. This persistent, ruthless truth rates prominent mention as the EU foists the Digital Market Act (DMA) on Apple.
Precisely because Apple is on top, CEO Tim Cook and his team are under relentless pressure not to merely meet the needs of present and future customers, but lead them. The latter is a necessary pre-condition of commercial success, but also a reminder of the ephemeral quality of it. Particularly in consumer technology. Since the profits for the winners in this space are so immense, the challenges associated with remaining a winner are intensely grueling.
Imagine having to continually see around the proverbial corner in pursuit of what's next so that buyers will be eager to purchase what's next. In a sports sense it's the equivalent of picking not this year's World Series winner, but the one five or ten years from now.
It's something to keep in mind as the EU continues to harass Apple with demands that it make Apple products more compatible and operable with products of other companies, including rivals. Stop and think about the superfluity, along with the impossibility of such demands. Let's start with their superfluous nature.
Exactly because Apple is working feverishly to anticipate and lead the needs of arguably the world's most discerning customer base, no force is required for it to work closely with others. As evidenced by the myriad non-Apple products and services that can already be found on Apple products, Apple is very much in the business of scanning the wide array of known and unknown innovators out there with an eye on working alongside them in order to create the ultimate user experience for existing and would-be customers. Really, what choice does it have?
In asking the question, it's useful for readers to pick up their iPhone, iPad, or much more useful, for them to take a look at their smartphones and computers that aren't made by Apple. To do so is to see that stasis is the path to commoditization. What's hot today is routinely behind the times tomorrow as competitors commoditize what used to be sui generis.
Which is once again a sign that Apple doesn't need the DMA to avail itself of the many great advances taking place outside of Apple, and that are being created by competitors or would-be competitors. A desire to maintain its perch at the top means that if there's someone out there worth it for Apple to work with, the DMA won't be the instigator.
Which brings us to the impossible aspect of the DMA. Implicit in the law is that there are some rivals and would-be partners that Apple is not eagerly trying to work with. Well, yes. A blinding glimpse of the obvious yes. Apple is discerning about those it works with, by necessity. See above. Apple is toiling tirelessly to avoid the commoditization that would end its reign at the top of the technology pyramid.
It's really that simple. For Apple to pursue compatibility or operability with all who want to be associated with Apple based on EU force would be for Apple to agree to its own rather rapid demise. No thanks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
26 minutes ago
Federal judge sides with Meta in AI copyright case
SAN FRANCISCO -- Federal judge sides with Meta in AI copyright case but leaves door open for similar lawsuits.
27 minutes ago
Judge dismisses authors' copyright lawsuit against Meta over AI training
A federal judge on Wednesday sided with Facebook parent Meta Platforms in dismissing a copyright infringement lawsuit from a group of authors who accused the company of stealing their works to train its artificial intelligence technology. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabri was the second in a week from San Francisco's federal court to dismiss major copyright claims from book authors against the rapidly developing AI industry. Chhabri found that 13 authors who sued Meta 'made the wrong arguments' and tossed the case. But the judge also said that the ruling is limited to the authors in the case and does not mean that Meta's use of copyrighted materials is lawful. Lawyers for the plaintiffs — a group of well-known writers that includes comedian Sarah Silverman and authors Jacqueline Woodson and Ta-Nehisi Coates — didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday. Meta also didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. 'This ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta's use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful,' Chhabri wrote. 'It stands only for the proposition that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one.' On Monday, from the same courthouse, U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that AI company Anthropic didn't break the law by training its chatbot Claude on millions of copyrighted books, but the company must still go to trial for illicitly acquiring those books from pirate websites instead of buying them. But the actual process of an AI system distilling from thousands of written works to be able to produce its own passages of text qualified as 'fair use' under U.S. copyright law because it was 'quintessentially transformative,' Alsup wrote. Chhabria, in his Meta ruling, criticized Alsup's reasoning on the Anthropic case, arguing that 'Alsup focused heavily on the transformative nature of generative AI while brushing aside concerns about the harm it can inflict on the market for the works it gets trained on.' Chhabria suggested that a case for such harm can be made. In the Meta case, the authors had argued in court filings that Meta is 'liable for massive copyright infringement' by taking their books from online repositories of pirated works and feeding them into Meta's flagship generative AI system Llama. Lengthy and distinctively written passages of text — such as those found in books — are highly useful for teaching generative AI chatbots the patterns of human language. 'Meta could and should have paid' to buy and license those literary works, the authors' attorneys argued. Meta countered in court filings that U.S. copyright law 'allows the unauthorized copying of a work to transform it into something new' and that the new, AI-generated expression that comes out of its chatbots is fundamentally different from the books it was trained on. "After nearly two years of litigation, there still is no evidence that anyone has ever used Llama as a substitute for reading Plaintiffs' books, or that they even could,' Meta's attorneys argued. Meta says Llama won't output the actual works it has copied, even when asked to do so. 'No one can use Llama to read Sarah Silverman's description of her childhood, or Junot Diaz's story of a Dominican boy growing up in New Jersey,' its attorneys wrote. Accused of pulling those books from online 'shadow libraries," Meta has also argued that the methods it used have 'no bearing on the nature and purpose of its use' and it would have been the same result if the company instead struck a deal with real libraries. Such deals are how Google built its online Google Books repository of more than 20 million books, though it also fought a decade of legal challenges before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 let stand lower court rulings that rejected copyright infringement claims. The authors' case against Meta forced CEO Mark Zuckerberg to be deposed, and has disclosed internal conversations at the company over the ethics of tapping into pirated databases that have long attracted scrutiny. 'Authorities regularly shut down their domains and even prosecute the perpetrators,' the authors' attorneys argued in a court filing. "That Meta knew taking copyrighted works from pirated databases could expose the company to enormous risk is beyond dispute: it triggered an escalation to Mark Zuckerberg and other Meta executives for approval. Their gamble should not pay off.' "Whatever the merits of generative artificial intelligence, or GenAI, stealing copyrighted works off the Internet for one's own benefit has always been unlawful,' they argued. The named plaintiffs are Jacqueline Woodson, Richard Kadrey, Andrew Sean Greer, Rachel Louise Snyder, David Henry Hwang, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Laura Lippman, Matthew Klam, Junot Diaz, Sarah Silverman, Lysa TerKeurst, Christopher Golden and Christopher Farnsworth. Most of the plaintiffs had asked Chhabria to rule now, rather than wait for a jury trial, on the basic claim of whether Meta infringed on their copyrights. Two of the plaintiffs, Ta-Nehisi Coates and Christopher Golden, did not seek such summary judgment. Chhabri said in the ruling that while he had 'no choice' but to grant Meta's summary judgment tossing the case, 'in the grand scheme of things, the consequences of this ruling are limited. This is not a class action, so the ruling only affects the rights of these 13 authors -- not the countless others whose works Meta used to train its models.'
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Want to Invest in Quantum Computing? 2 Stocks That Are Great Buys Right Now.
Quantum computing is still in its early stages, but investor excitement is already running high. Alphabet and IBM are leading the charge in this exciting market's research and development. While pure-play quantum stocks could soar, it's safer to stick with established leaders. 10 stocks we like better than Alphabet › Quantum computing will change the world someday. Next-generation systems will be able to do certain kinds of advanced math and pattern-matching much faster than today's digital chips. The quantum computing era will change everything you know about encryption and data security, but will also enable incredible innovation in fields such as medical research, weather forecasting, and economics. So the "quantum advantage" and "quantum supremacy" milestones are coming up, eventually making quantum systems incomparably more powerful for a very specific set of tasks. Problems involving large data sets and extremely precise calculations may look impossible now, but quantum computers may breeze through them quickly. It's a long journey, though. Investors recently got very excited about a couple of baby steps toward this future, sending a few quantum computing stocks sky-high in just a few months. As of June 23, early favorites IonQ (NYSE: IONQ) and D-Wave Quantum (NYSE: QBTS) have seen price gains of 471% and 1,188% over the last year, respectively. But I don't think these are the best bets on quantum computing in 2025. Many of the biggest names in Silicon Valley are funneling their massive resources into quantum research, and I'd much rather hitch my wagon to these innovative powerhouses instead. My preferred quantum computing investments happen to be the engines behind the recent market uproar. Google parent Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOG) (NASDAQ: GOOGL) got the ball rolling with the Willow chip in December 2024. This small quantum computing processor features advanced error correction, which is an important function in the noisy and error-prone quantum computing process. As impressive as the Willow chip's performance was, it's just the second milestone on the 6-step road to quantum supremacy. Each step so far has taken several years. Just a couple of weeks ago, IBM (NYSE: IBM) announced the construction of a large quantum computer with its own set of powerful error correction features. Mind you, this system is more of a plan than a real-world project. IBM expects the Starling computer to be available in 2029. Alphabet and IBM can invest billions of dollars in quantum computing research without breaking a sweat. As the largest company on the pure-play side of the quantum computing fence, IonQ has just $588 million of cash equivalents available. IonQ also burned more than $127 million of cash in 2024, and its cash pile won't last forever. It may sound crass, but this cash advantage gives IBM and Google a huge leg up on the smaller and deeply unprofitable competition. A single dead-end research project or management misstep could be enough to put the smaller organizations out of business, or at least make them easy targets for deep-discount buyouts. The tech giants don't work under the same sink-or-swim pressure. They can rely on an established portfolio of profitable business operations to get over any quantum computing setbacks. Meanwhile, they can enjoy success in unrelated business operations, like Google's online search and advertising or IBM's consulting services. Investing in D-Wave and IonQ is very risky in this early stage. Sure, they could evolve into solid sector leaders in due time, but they are also vulnerable to greater risks along the way. At the same time, IBM and Alphabet happen to trade at very reasonable valuation ratios right now. Picking these tech giants is not an act of high-wire acrobatics, but more like resting on fluffy blankets. And make no mistake -- IBM and Google are right on the leading edge of quantum computing research. What's not to love in this blend of investor safety and long-term growth opportunity? Long story short, the pure plays can be exciting but the real smart money is on the tech giants. Before you buy stock in Alphabet, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Alphabet wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $689,813!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $906,556!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 809% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 175% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 23, 2025 Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Anders Bylund has positions in Alphabet and International Business Machines. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet and International Business Machines. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Want to Invest in Quantum Computing? 2 Stocks That Are Great Buys Right Now. was originally published by The Motley Fool
