Apple considering allowing third-party apps to replace defaults on iOS, HomePod

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 59
    LeoMCLeoMC Posts: 102member
    jbdragon said:
    KeyChain is pretty basic.
    You obviously don't know what KeyChain can do.
    I have certificates, secure notes, keys and of course passwords for websites, ssh, ftp, network shares; I can share my password protected wifi without exposing the password; encrypt the data on a disk; and, of course, everything is synced through the cloud and secured on the device rather than the cloud (where the government of a country like US - where human rights are being given a slightly smaller protection than in EU - can ask Last Pass or 1Pass to give them access to my whole password collection, even if I'm not its citizen).
    So KC is pretty complex - more than LP or 1P - if you ask me.
  • Reply 42 of 59
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    LeoMC said:
    crowley said:
    LeoMC said:
    When did NY, United States moved to EU?
    Besides, Apple's market share in US is different than its share in EU.
    Does NY, United States qualify as "nobody" then?

    Besides, Apple's share of the eBooks market has never been a majority.

    You are wrong, a company does not have to have majority market share to indulge in anti-competitive behaviour and attract regulatory scrutiny.  Of course, regulators may not pursue such behaviour if they don't think the scale or the damage is worth their time, but that's a different matter entirely.
    In this case, yes it does.
    NY - and whatever a NY court decides - is irrelevant as long as it's not part of EU.
     Since you seem to have missed it, I was referring to:
    LeoMC said:

    You first have to learn what "antitrust issues" are before writing stupid things on the internet.
    As long as the majority of the customers has numerous other choices, it's nobody's business what Apple does inside its ecosystem.
    The only metric that can determine an antitrust investigation is the power it has and power for a company is the market share.
    You don't mention the EU at all in there.

    Also, since I agree NY is irrelevant to the point at hand (your incorrectness about the EU), let's move on and ask why didn't you address anything else said?  You haven't pointed to anything that suggests that EU antitrust law in contingent on market dominance.  I'll help you out: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/overview_en.html.  Article 102 says what you think, but there's another article in there, 101, which is more broadly about restricting competition, covers a wider array of activity, and makes no mention of market share.

    QED, you are wrong.
    edited February 2020
  • Reply 43 of 59
    LeoMCLeoMC Posts: 102member
    gatorguy said:
    It's evidence that YOU are wrong. Obviously there would be no investigation if Apple's actions did not fall under antitrust concerns to begin with based on what you believe qualifies. The EU therefore does not agree with your measuring stick. 
    I don't know the legal system in your country but in mine - which is an EU state - the authorities are obligated to investigate when they receive a complaint.
    After they investigate they decide to send the case to a court of law or to dismiss it, but they are obligated to investigate.
  • Reply 44 of 59
    LeoMCLeoMC Posts: 102member
    crowley said:
    You don't mention the EU at all in there.
    101, which is more broadly about restricting competition, covers a wider array of activity, and makes no mention of market share.
    You must have missed the message I have replied to, which makes everything written next to be connected to EU regulations.
    ElCapitan said:
    Are they getting nervous over possible EU antitrust sanctions and fines?
    Moving on to your second point: the article is about something very specific - allowing 3rd party default apps; EC has a few precedents that show us that it only acted when the company has a dominant market (90% - or whatever - Microsoft; 80% - Android; 100% - container shipping/trucks/automobile industry/etc; Visa - it was clearly stated that, because it had over 50% market share in different member states, it could not be exempted; etc).
  • Reply 45 of 59
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    LeoMC said:
    crowley said:
    You don't mention the EU at all in there.
    101, which is more broadly about restricting competition, covers a wider array of activity, and makes no mention of market share.
    You must have missed the message I have replied to, which makes everything written next to be connected to EU regulations.
    I've seen it.  I don't totally agree with it, and I'm not sure if an EU antitrust investigation would either, but they might do.  Either way, your assertions are incorrect.
  • Reply 46 of 59
    LeoMCLeoMC Posts: 102member
    crowley said:
    I've seen it.  I don't totally agree with it, and I'm not sure if an EU antitrust investigation would either, but they might do.  Either way, your assertions are incorrect.
    If you've seen it and it's crystal clear that my reply is in correlation with EU regulations, why do you imply something else?
    I just posted facts, backed up by legislation and case history, but you are, of course, free to believe that Elvis is alive.
    Cheers, I have no intention to talk outside facts.
    edited February 2020
  • Reply 47 of 59
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    LeoMC said:
    crowley said:
    I've seen it.  I don't totally agree with it, and I'm not sure if an EU antitrust investigation would either, but they might do.  Either way, your assertions are incorrect.
    If you've seen it and it's crystal clear that my reply is in correlation with EU regulations, why do you imply something else?
    I just posted facts, backed up by legislation and case history, but you are, of course, free to believe that Elvis is alive.
    Cheers, I have no intention to talk outside facts.
    Only one of us has posted actual legislation, thanks.
  • Reply 48 of 59
    LeoMCLeoMC Posts: 102member
    A link to a law means nothing.
    There you go, every single EU law: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html
  • Reply 49 of 59
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    LeoMC said:
    A link to a law means nothing.
    There you go, every single EU law: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html
    I guess you have no interest in substantiating your claims (or quoting correctly).

    No problem, have a nice evening.
  • Reply 50 of 59
    LeoMCLeoMC Posts: 102member
    crowley said:
    I guess you have no interest in substantiating your claims (or quoting correctly).
    Have you read Article 101 and, if you did, are you really-really-really sure it applies to single entities?
  • Reply 51 of 59
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,284member
    LeoMC said:
    A link to a law means nothing.
    There you go, every single EU law: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html
    Well here's a great suggestion: Wait just a few months and it will be apparent who is right and who is wrong about grounds for an Antitrust/anti-competition action by either the US or EU or both. 
  • Reply 52 of 59
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,038member
    LeoMC said:
    jbdragon said:
    KeyChain is pretty basic.
    So [Keychain Access] is pretty complex - more than LP or 1P - if you ask me.
    That may be the least educated comment I've ever read on these forums.
  • Reply 53 of 59
    LeoMCLeoMC Posts: 102member
    Soli said:
    That may be the least educated comment I've ever read on these forums.
    Suuuure!
    Now go back to the sandbox and play with the other kids that are not able to use arguments; your mamma must be looking for you there.
    edited February 2020
  • Reply 54 of 59
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    LeoMC said:
    crowley said:

    I guess you have no interest in substantiating your claims (or quoting correctly).
    Have you read Article 101 and, if you did, are you really-really-really sure it applies to single entities?
    What does that matter?  The (false) claim I'm addressing is still this one:
    LeoMC said:

    The only metric that can determine an antitrust investigation is the power it has and power for a company is the market share.
    Another firm being involved is of no consequence whatsoever.
  • Reply 55 of 59
    LeoMCLeoMC Posts: 102member
    crowley said:
    What does that matter?

    It matters, because it shows that you don't know the things you talk about (and you don't, just answer the question and I will tell you why is that).
    crowley said:

    Another firm being involved is of no consequence whatsoever.

    Of course it is essential; again, answer the question and I will explain where you are wrong.
  • Reply 56 of 59
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    LeoMC said:
    crowley said:
    What does that matter?

    It matters, because it shows that you don't know the things you talk about (and you don't, just answer the question and I will tell you why is that).

    crowley said:

    Another firm being involved is of no consequence whatsoever.

    Of course it is essential; again, answer the question and I will explain where you are wrong.
    Actually you are right, it is essential. Since your assertion was that the only thing that matters is a company's market share, then the existence of Article 101; which postulates that a collaboration with anti-competitive intent is also grounds for an anti-trust investigation, makes your assertion clearly incorrect. Done and done.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 57 of 59
    LeoMCLeoMC Posts: 102member
    My first statement stands: you need to first learn what antitrust - in EU - is all about and only then you will be able to talk to me; and to help you: 101 does not address individual companies ;).
  • Reply 58 of 59
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,284member
    LeoMC said:
    My first statement stands: you need to first learn what antitrust - in EU - is all about and only then you will be able to talk to me; and to help you: 101 does not address individual companies ;).
    I hope you check back with us in a few months to see just how accurate you were.

    Coming in as a new poster with a dozen or so posts and nearly all starting with the tone of being the smartest guy on the forum isn't the best start IMHO. Waiting a bit to get to know the players to see if there are other 'smart guys" here might be a better choice. BTW, are you an EU based lawyer schooled in antitrust? Just curious. 

    Sidenote: The discussion didn't begin as an EU only one. You decided to restrict it to only that and IMO still are wrong but we'll see. I don't claim to know what the EU will do, while you seem convinced the investigation is just a formality and will disappear without comment from regulators.

    So @LeoMC, why do you think Apple might allow defaults to 3rd party services replacing their own first party ones? Do you even believe the rumor to begin with? 
    edited February 2020
  • Reply 59 of 59
    LeoMCLeoMC Posts: 102member
    Gatorguy, when I decide to be active somewhere I do it in good faith; if I know something and I feel like sharing, I do it, and when I have subjective opinions I always start the post with "I think", "My opinion is" etc.
    Also as an intro: I never intended to please other users with my charm, I just speak my mind - civilised - and if other people like it, they appreciate me (silently or visually - because this forum has the option - I couldn't care less), if they don't, they explain to me why and we all learn from our interactions.
    A troll or a uninformed user will always have a problem with what I say, because I always address only the things I know; you will never hear me speak about how beautiful is to watch the sunset in Austin, because I have never visited Texas, but when it comes to EU legislation, I am a buff, because I live and I run business here; because I know so much, I speak a language that uniformed people don't understand and they easily confuse it with condescension.
    On a forum such as this you don't know who I am and I don't know who you are that's why our (pretended or actual) background doesn't matter, the only thing that matters are the facts.

    The discussion is about Apple allowing 3rd party apps as default ones; one of the users mentioned the fact that EC started an antitrust investigation against Apple and that's where I intervened: my replies - all of them - were and still are around the idea that Apple does not respect the EU antitrust legislation; that and nothing more.

    EU "constitution" is called TFEU; allow me to quote EC explanation of antitrust proceedings:

    European antitrust policy is developed from two central rules set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

    • First, Article 101 of the Treaty prohibits agreements between two or more independent market operators which restrict competition. This provision covers both horizontal agreements (between actual or potential competitors operating at the same level of the supply chain) and vertical agreements (between firms operating at different levels, i.e. agreement between a manufacturer and its distributor). Only limited exceptions are provided for in the general prohibition. The most flagrant example of illegal conduct infringing Article 101 is the creation of a cartel between competitors, which may involve price-fixing and/or market sharing.
    • Second, Article 102 of the Treaty prohibits firms that hold a dominant position on a given market to abuse that position, for example by charging unfair prices, by limiting production, or by refusing to innovate to the prejudice of consumers.
    Now, I don't know how law works in US or elsewhere, but in EU we start with the subject (the person which the law applies to) and, according to 101, there should be 2 or more market operators; according to 102, the subject should be a single firm that holds a dominant position - which is exactly what I have said in my first reply: Apple has 20 - maybe 30% market share in EU (I don't think there's a single country where it has over 50% - maybe GB, but it recently left EU so it doesn't count) so it can't be a subject under EU antitrust law; maybe an investigation finds other things, but it cannot refer to an anticompetitive behaviour as it is stated by the antitrust law. 
    And there is nothing more to say on the subject.

    Getting back to the wider topic, I believe the discussion is a moot point, because iOS already allows the user to set default apps, but it does it on a per app basis and it is up to the developer to offer the support.

    Cheers!
    edited February 2020
Sign In or Register to comment.