According to Bloomberg, the European Union Anti-trust regulators will be investigating Apple, along with five of the major eBook publishers, for possible collusion to help stifle competition within the eBook marketplace.

The European Commission in Brussels today said it opened a formal probe to examine whether the publishing groups and Apple, maker of the iPad tablet computer, engaged in agreements that would harm competition in the 27-nation EU. The probe will examine deals between Apple and Lagardere’s Hachette Livre, News Corp.’s Harper Collins, CBS Corp.’s Simon & Schuster, Pearson Plc’s Penguin and Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH.

The commission believes Apple and the publishers may have formed a sort of ‘cartel’ in the eBook market by practicing price-fixing techniques in order to ensure an ongoing revenue stream for all parties. Apple currently takes a 30% cut of eBook sales from within their own iBookstore.

This announcement comes after the EU conducted raides on a handful of publishers back in March along with a probe held by the U.K. Office of Fair Trading. The publishers, of course, say they haven’t done anything wrong and will work closely with the EU to help get to the bottom of it.

Fortune chimed in saying the reason the EU included Apple is because of a deal Steve Jobs set up with the five publishers shortly after the release of the original iPad in 2010, which was followed by a similar investigation in the U.S. looking into anti-competitive behavior with Apple and the publishers to help drive up eBook prices from Amazon.

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out and if the impact, if any, has any direct relation to eBook pricing as it currently stands.

Source: Bloomberg, Fortune

Word is the US federal government, and the always eager European Union, are looking into Apple’s new in-app subscription service. Last year, following complaints from Adobe, they looked into Apple’s ban on cross-compilers for iOS and policies on competing advertisers like Google’s AdMob. Apple ultimately reversed their decision on cross-compilers and Apple may well alter their in-app subscription plans as well but here’s the thing — why is the government looking into Apple?

Most cable companies are monopolies that can package channels in a way that force consumers to pay more than they would if they had a-la-carte alternatives. They can sell cable boxes that haven’t evolved in 10 years while making sure cablecards are difficult to obtain. They can use and abuse copy protection and can lock down your cable box to the extent that you can’t even watch previously recorded programs in your own home on your own TVs. They can set bandwidth caps low enough to dissuade users from Netflix, iTunes, and other competitive services and, apparently, can even buy their own TV networks. They have a complete lock in. Likewise PayPal can freeze your account with little in the way of recourse or accountability, pretty much doing what they want with potentially vast amounts of your money. They have total power over your cash. Verizon can lock down GPS, forcibly put un-removable Bing and crapware on their phones, and get Google to agree to horribly backwards net neutrality concessions. They own your telephonics.

How about the US and EU look into them. How about they fix them. How about they protect consumers money and public airwaves and critical infrastructure elements before they worry so much about our toys. Not to get all Aaron Sorkin on them but just because Apple is a sexy headline and trendy target doesn’t mean every time a huge mega-corporation gets upset with Cupertino the regulators need to rev up their anti-trust PR reps.

If Apple steps out of bounds, if they’re anti-competitive or abusing monopoly position or illegally restraining trade by all means, investigate them and take action. But investigate cable and carriers first. Investigate defacto banks that act with impunity and first.

Protect us first.

The European Commission is calling off the investigation into Apple’s ban on cross-compilers after Apple reversed the policy. The EU also claims that the policy change was a direct result of their investigation.

“Apple’s response to our preliminary investigations shows that the Commission can use the competition rules to achieve swift results on the market with clear benefits for consumers, without the need to open formal proceedings,” Almunia said.

While the FTC/EU investigation is certainly one of the leading theories behind Apple’s new App Store policies and guidelines, others have suggested increased competition from Google’s Android, and a desire to have games in the App Store based on engines like Unity and Unreal.

So which theory is correct? Or was it a combination of factors that made Apple change their minds?

[Electronista, Engadget]

This is an official entry by Slyfi in TiPb’s next top blogger contest. Think you have what it takes to join Team TiPb? Bring it!

The European Union is known to be a little more hard core than North American regulators. Just ask Microsoft about their Windows monopoly fines, or Apple about iTunes pricing and DRM. Now, however, Apple Insider reports that the EU might just be getting ready to fire another shot across Apple’s bow with a “New Batteries Directive” that says power cells must be “readily removable”:

Gary Nevison, writing for New Electronics, said [PDF] “the requirement is clearly intended to ensure that users can remove batteries by opening a cover by hand or after removal of one or two screws. The producer will also have to provide the user with details on how to remove the battery safely.”

Of course, Apple and their design guru, Jonathan Ive, have long weighed the extra juice — and clean lines — of a single, integrated unit, so this may cause no end of frustrations in Cupertino. (Though the iPhone 3G does, of course, sport two new screws at the bottom, the battery removable process could still never be mistaken for “ready”).

What do you think? Removable batteries a plus for consumers and the environment? Or a harbinger of less sleek, less iconic iPhone designs? Is it better to look good, or be good?