Well I don't think they are being anticompetitive, but for you all smart asses out there, that is what their job is.... They should investigate and check companies from time to time. We can't let them just run however they please all the freaking time..
These kinds of positions are quite disgusting in their anti-capitalist positions.
Companies that develop products or services in a commercial environment have the right (and responsibility) to decide to make such products or services as closed or as open as they wish. Not only for their success as an commercial entity (and as a return on their enormous development, support, and marketing investments), but, in cases such as this, for concerns of user security.
A company's decisions in all ways impact go-to-market risks - and inform the considerations of the consumer whether they want to purchase. In this case, too open and you invite potential security risk and lack of cohesive user experience - too closed, and you run the risk of alienating consumers and making it too difficult to use. If Apple has shown anything, it's that they get the blend of open and closed quite right far more often than they get it wrong. Its success is the penultimate marker for this.
If one does not like Apple's (low) walled-garden approach, there are a multitude of Android alternatives one can move to. That's competition.
Apple and everyone else out there have to continually compete, which seems to be forgotten by some. Competing means, among other things, offering differentiated features, sometimes exclusive, sometimes open, to make your mark. The consumers will decide if those offerings are of value or not. If too many people feel Apple Pay's approach is too limited, they won't use it. Or, if significant enough of a concern, they'll leave the platform.
I lived in a mixed economy. There are other aspects than pure capitalism involved.
Competition is one of those aspects and this might be a competition issue. The only way to know for sure is to investigate.
There is nothing disgusting about the position. There are rules and regulations. There are safeguards.
If Apple doesn't represent an abuse of competition regulations it has nothing to worry about. Simply being better or worse is irrelevant.
Competition is relevant.
Hopediddy....there goes the darn EU again. Mind your own backyard firsthand. If you don’t like Apple pay don’t use it....I still use paypal and hardly Apple pay. Didn’t sign up to Apple card cause my Amex is good enough, my choice not them. EU commissioner go pound a sand. Hahahahaha
Your comment is off topic. It is about Apple not allowing competing financial payment solutions to use the NFC functionality of iPhones.
The main question will be if Apple can prove that the security argument is valid. Remember Microsoft used exactly the same argument with Internet Explorerties to Windows
The difference between Apple's success and other tech companies, like Microsoft, is for the most part Apple has succeeded because people actually want to buy their products. Microsoft's monopolistic practices had to do with Microsoft forcing PC vendors to license their operating system. Apple is vertically integrated, which is unique in the tech world. Because of that, ignorant competition commissioners just don't understand how to deal with this type of company. Tesla is also vertically integrated and I can't wait for the first complaint from the EU (backed by auto manufacturers) that Tesla should be broken up.
Yes, basically Apple is dominating the market simply because they are, far and away, THE best. That's not anti-competitive unless they abuse the power that that dominance gives them.
In the EU's defense, I did not hear them accuse Apple of anything. Instead they said they would investigate as he result of receiving "Formal complaints". OK, that's fair. If somebody complains it is good to investigate -- as long as any investigation is fair, honest and impartial.
I'll take longer vacation periods, greater consumer protections, WEEE, RoHS, common fisheries policy, universal health coverage, free movement etc, over almost any of the other options out there.
Everybody I have ever known from outside the EU has stated that they would love to live here. That is everyone withoutexception (including my Brexit voting brother who fell ill while staying with me and required health centre attention followed by emergency hospital attention and promptly changed his tune on that one).
For all its imperfections, people still want to live here.
I also have family in Brazil who live very privileged lives but within a 'security compound'. Even taxi drivers are vetted before entering. Living inside a bubble, for all the luxuries, doesn't do much for your quality of life at the end of the day. They visit the EU every single year.
I'll take longer vacation periods, greater consumer protections, WEEE, RoHS, common fisheries policy, universal health coverage, free movement etc, over almost any of the other options out there.
Everybody I have ever known from outside the EU has stated that they would love to live here. That is everyone withoutexception (including my Brexit voting brother who fell ill while staying with me and required health centre attention followed by emergency hospital attention and promptly changed his tune on that one).
For all its imperfections, people still want to live here.
I also have family in Brazil who live very privileged lives but within a 'security compound'. Even taxi drivers are vetted before entering. Living inside a bubble, for all the luxuries, doesn't do much for your quality of life at the end of the day. They visit the EU every single year.
Why aren’t people storming your borders then?
Actually they are! This is from 2016 but the issue remains.
I'll take longer vacation periods, greater consumer protections, WEEE, RoHS, common fisheries policy, universal health coverage, free movement etc, over almost any of the other options out there.
Everybody I have ever known from outside the EU has stated that they would love to live here. That is everyone withoutexception (including my Brexit voting brother who fell ill while staying with me and required health centre attention followed by emergency hospital attention and promptly changed his tune on that one).
For all its imperfections, people still want to live here.
I also have family in Brazil who live very privileged lives but within a 'security compound'. Even taxi drivers are vetted before entering. Living inside a bubble, for all the luxuries, doesn't do much for your quality of life at the end of the day. They visit the EU every single year.
Why aren’t people storming your borders then?
Migrants are doing just that. But Europe isn't dealing using fear mongering, hate and racism for political gain - and they don't take kids away from their parents and put them in cages.
These kinds of positions are quite disgusting in their anti-capitalist positions.
Companies that develop products or services in a commercial environment have the right (and responsibility) to decide to make such products or services as closed or as open as they wish. Not only for their success as an commercial entity (and as a return on their enormous development, support, and marketing investments), but, in cases such as this, for concerns of user security.
A company's decisions in all ways impact go-to-market risks - and inform the considerations of the consumer whether they want to purchase. In this case, too open and you invite potential security risk and lack of cohesive user experience - too closed, and you run the risk of alienating consumers and making it too difficult to use. If Apple has shown anything, it's that they get the blend of open and closed quite right far more often than they get it wrong. Its success is the penultimate marker for this.
If one does not like Apple's (low) walled-garden approach, there are a multitude of Android alternatives one can move to. That's competition.
Apple and everyone else out there have to continually compete, which seems to be forgotten by some. Competing means, among other things, offering differentiated features, sometimes exclusive, sometimes open, to make your mark. The consumers will decide if those offerings are of value or not. If too many people feel Apple Pay's approach is too limited, they won't use it. Or, if significant enough of a concern, they'll leave the platform.
I lived in a mixed economy. There are other aspects than pure capitalism involved.
Competition is one of those aspects and this might be a competition issue. The only way to know for sure is to investigate.
There is nothing disgusting about the position. There are rules and regulations. There are safeguards.
If Apple doesn't represent an abuse of competition regulations it has nothing to worry about. Simply being better or worse is irrelevant.
Competition is relevant.
Hopediddy....there goes the darn EU again. Mind your own backyard firsthand.
That is literally what they are doing.
Our backyard, our rules. If you don't give a shit about anticompetitive behaviour, that's your problem.
We do. And if there's complaints or indication that this might be happening, then it's the Commission's job to investigate.
I agree that Apple gets the balance right more than most anybody else, but as a trillion-dollar company, they have rather different marketing clout than they did in the late '90s, and we need to ensure that they don't abuse it, whether inadvertently or with intent to corner a market.
This sort of investigation happens every day, btw. — both here in Europe and in the United States. Corporations from all industries and all countries get slapped with fines etc.
Nothing to see here. Europe will let you know how it pans out.
Whats anti-competitive about Apple only offering Apple Pay on their own product? It's their hardware, it's their software, it's their total responsibility. Revenues, profits, development, support, marketing, user experience, PR, legal ramifications, (massive) etc...
If Apple somehow was interfering with other platforms offering their own payment systems on their own devices to "force" people to buy iPhones and force them to use Apple Pay, you'd have a discussion. Otherwise, you have nothing.
What is anticompetitive about it is subject to investigation.
My guess is, not much.
I can imagine that there might be merit to the complaint that Apple is contractually forcing retailers to support Apple Pay if they sell Apple products, but beyond that...we shall see.
Our backyard, our rules. If you don't give a shit about anticompetitive behaviour, that's your problem.
We do. And if there's complaints or indication that this might be happening, then it's the Commission's job to investigate.
I agree that Apple gets the balance right more than most anybody else, but as a trillion-dollar company, they have rather different marketing clout than they did in the late '90s, and we need to ensure that they don't abuse it, whether inadvertently or with intent to corner a market.
This sort of investigation happens every day, btw. — both here in Europe and in the United States. Corporations from all industries and all countries get slapped with fines etc.
Nothing to see here. Europe will let you know how it pans out.
The size of Apple's bank account shouldn't have anything to do with it, as estimated capitalization is not a crime. Neither is an intent to "corner a market". Not having seen any part of the actual complaints, I'm not sure what the issue is. It's not a crime to be popular. It's not a crime if stores want to sign on to have those minority of the market Apple users use Apple Pay to buy stuff, the terminals will still work for other payers. Is Apple preventing anyone else from using Google Pay or Sammy Pay instead?
The size of their bank account, no. Their marketing clout — definitely. I should have been more clear.
These kinds of positions are quite disgusting in their anti-capitalist positions.
Companies that develop products or services in a commercial environment have the right (and responsibility) to decide to make such products or services as closed or as open as they wish. Not only for their success as an commercial entity (and as a return on their enormous development, support, and marketing investments), but, in cases such as this, for concerns of user security.
A company's decisions in all ways impact go-to-market risks - and inform the considerations of the consumer whether they want to purchase. In this case, too open and you invite potential security risk and lack of cohesive user experience - too closed, and you run the risk of alienating consumers and making it too difficult to use. If Apple has shown anything, it's that they get the blend of open and closed quite right far more often than they get it wrong. Its success is the penultimate marker for this.
If one does not like Apple's (low) walled-garden approach, there are a multitude of Android alternatives one can move to. That's competition.
Apple and everyone else out there have to continually compete, which seems to be forgotten by some. Competing means, among other things, offering differentiated features, sometimes exclusive, sometimes open, to make your mark. The consumers will decide if those offerings are of value or not. If too many people feel Apple Pay's approach is too limited, they won't use it. Or, if significant enough of a concern, they'll leave the platform.
I lived in a mixed economy. There are other aspects than pure capitalism involved.
Competition is one of those aspects and this might be a competition issue. The only way to know for sure is to investigate.
There is nothing disgusting about the position. There are rules and regulations. There are safeguards.
If Apple doesn't represent an abuse of competition regulations it has nothing to worry about. Simply being better or worse is irrelevant.
Competition is relevant.
By "competition" you mean companies who've copied Apple to the letter and release stolen designed knockoffs for profit off the back of Apples hard work. Cry elsewhere.
I hope you realise that 'competition' applies to far, far more than Apple's CE focus.
Now you are not only repeating utterly absurd claims of 'copying to the letter', after having previously claimed that competitors had simply 'seen' Apple patents and rushed products to market, but now claim they 'stole Apple's designs'!
And all Apple's hard work was ripped off!
Fasten your seat belt because sooner or later you will wake up to harsh reality.
But what does all that have to do with the case at hand?
Facts and history are not "absurd claims". I expect no more from a Huawei fan.... SMH.
"Now you are not only repeating utterly absurd claims of 'copying to the letter', after having previously claimed that competitors had simply 'seen' Apple patents and rushed products to market, but now claim they 'stole Apple's designs'!"
That is LITERALLY the same thing. Oh well... you tried.
"Fasten your seat belt because sooner or later you will wake up to harsh reality."
Of Apples inventions like iPhone/iPad/Watch/AirPods being massively successful and knockoffs copyingtheir designs and patents? lol. Yeah Apple is doomed...
I’ll be interested to see where this leads, I’d agree Apple has a monopoly possibly over electronic pay, but it’s nothing compared to bank cards, Apple do do electronic pay security very well, I have no problem using it. Overall I’d say I’m a little confused as to the complaint at hand here?
I'll take longer vacation periods, greater consumer protections, WEEE, RoHS, common fisheries policy, universal health coverage, free movement etc, over almost any of the other options out there.
Everybody I have ever known from outside the EU has stated that they would love to live here. That is everyone withoutexception (including my Brexit voting brother who fell ill while staying with me and required health centre attention followed by emergency hospital attention and promptly changed his tune on that one).
For all its imperfections, people still want to live here.
I also have family in Brazil who live very privileged lives but within a 'security compound'. Even taxi drivers are vetted before entering. Living inside a bubble, for all the luxuries, doesn't do much for your quality of life at the end of the day. They visit the EU every single year.
Why aren’t people storming your borders then?
Migrants are doing just that. But Europe isn't dealing using fear mongering, hate and racism for political gain - and they don't take kids away from their parents and put them in cages.
Uncontrolled migration will have consequences for us all i suspect.
I'll take longer vacation periods, greater consumer protections, WEEE, RoHS, common fisheries policy, universal health coverage, free movement etc, over almost any of the other options out there.
Everybody I have ever known from outside the EU has stated that they would love to live here. That is everyone withoutexception (including my Brexit voting brother who fell ill while staying with me and required health centre attention followed by emergency hospital attention and promptly changed his tune on that one).
For all its imperfections, people still want to live here.
I also have family in Brazil who live very privileged lives but within a 'security compound'. Even taxi drivers are vetted before entering. Living inside a bubble, for all the luxuries, doesn't do much for your quality of life at the end of the day. They visit the EU every single year.
Why aren’t people storming your borders then?
Migrants are doing just that. But Europe isn't dealing using fear mongering, hate and racism for political gain - and they don't take kids away from their parents and put them in cages.
No, we let thousands of them drown in the Mediterranean when their utterly overloaded dinghies sink, and the kids that survive are put in squalid camps together with their parents.
And then, some of our leaders take those to court who dare to patrol the ocean and rescue whom they can — for human trafficking.
We’re not much better, make no mistake.
We just don’t have an out-of-control toddler at the helm.
I'll take longer vacation periods, greater consumer protections, WEEE, RoHS, common fisheries policy, universal health coverage, free movement etc, over almost any of the other options out there.
Everybody I have ever known from outside the EU has stated that they would love to live here. That is everyone withoutexception (including my Brexit voting brother who fell ill while staying with me and required health centre attention followed by emergency hospital attention and promptly changed his tune on that one).
For all its imperfections, people still want to live here.
I also have family in Brazil who live very privileged lives but within a 'security compound'. Even taxi drivers are vetted before entering. Living inside a bubble, for all the luxuries, doesn't do much for your quality of life at the end of the day. They visit the EU every single year.
Why aren’t people storming your borders then?
Migrants are doing just that. But Europe isn't dealing using fear mongering, hate and racism for political gain - and they don't take kids away from their parents and put them in cages.
Uncontrolled migration will have consequences for us all i suspect.
In the 1940's being Jewish had consequences for us all.
Evil people can always rationalize their evil -- and pick up a few followers on the way.
I'll take longer vacation periods, greater consumer protections, WEEE, RoHS, common fisheries policy, universal health coverage, free movement etc, over almost any of the other options out there.
Everybody I have ever known from outside the EU has stated that they would love to live here. That is everyone withoutexception (including my Brexit voting brother who fell ill while staying with me and required health centre attention followed by emergency hospital attention and promptly changed his tune on that one).
For all its imperfections, people still want to live here.
I also have family in Brazil who live very privileged lives but within a 'security compound'. Even taxi drivers are vetted before entering. Living inside a bubble, for all the luxuries, doesn't do much for your quality of life at the end of the day. They visit the EU every single year.
Why aren’t people storming your borders then?
Migrants are doing just that. But Europe isn't dealing using fear mongering, hate and racism for political gain - and they don't take kids away from their parents and put them in cages.
No, we let thousands of them drown in the Mediterranean when their utterly overloaded dinghies sink, and the kids that survive are put in squalid camps together with their parents.
And then, some of our leaders take those to court who dare to patrol the ocean and rescue whom they can — for human trafficking.
We’re not much better, make no mistake.
We just don’t have an out-of-control toddler at the helm.
As long as they are not pushing merchants to only accept ApplePay they will be fine, where I live, merchants accept several wireless methods for payment, ApplePay is just one of them ... it's the one you see used the most by far, so maybe these companies try to limit Apple's success, by making false assumptions ... Misses Vestager is keen on taking on the big bad corporations, that is a market that gives here a big pool of voters, it's just economics from here side as well ... that's how nowadays the game is played, it has nothing to do with the "well" being of the consumer, it's just self interest, nothing more, nothing less.
The difference between Apple's success and other tech companies, like Microsoft, is for the most part Apple has succeeded because people actually want to buy their products. Microsoft's monopolistic practices had to do with Microsoft forcing PC vendors to license their operating system. Apple is vertically integrated, which is unique in the tech world. Because of that, ignorant competition commissioners just don't understand how to deal with this type of company. Tesla is also vertically integrated and I can't wait for the first complaint from the EU (backed by auto manufacturers) that Tesla should be broken up.
Yes, basically Apple is dominating the market simply because they are, far and away, THE best. That's not anti-competitive unless they abuse the power that that dominance gives them.
In the EU's defense, I did not hear them accuse Apple of anything. Instead they said they would investigate as he result of receiving "Formal complaints". OK, that's fair. If somebody complains it is good to investigate -- as long as any investigation is fair, honest and impartial.
If Vestager investigates every time Daniel Ek complains about Apple the EU would be investigating Apple every day
Comments
In the EU's defense, I did not hear them accuse Apple of anything. Instead they said they would investigate as he result of receiving "Formal complaints". OK, that's fair. If somebody complains it is good to investigate -- as long as any investigation is fair, honest and impartial.
https://www.euroxpress.es/noticias/will-the-migrant-crisis-destroy-europe
The size of their bank account, no. Their marketing clout — definitely. I should have been more clear.
"Now you are not only repeating utterly absurd claims of 'copying to the letter', after having previously claimed that competitors had simply 'seen' Apple patents and rushed products to market, but now claim they 'stole Apple's designs'!"
That is LITERALLY the same thing. Oh well... you tried.
"Fasten your seat belt because sooner or later you will wake up to harsh reality."
Of Apples inventions like iPhone/iPad/Watch/AirPods being massively successful and knockoffs copyingtheir designs and patents? lol. Yeah Apple is doomed...
Overall I’d say I’m a little confused as to the complaint at hand here?