New EU rules may force change in how Apple promotes own apps in App Store

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 28
    magman1979magman1979 Posts: 1,207member
    crowley said:
    If this means I stop seeing irritating inserts and notifications to get Apple Music, News+ and TV+ then I'm all for it.  Apple getting a bit obnoxious with those.
    Do you know how NOT to be an obtuse anti-Apple troll???

    Better still, we can all see you HATE everything Apple, why in the HELL do people like you even come onto Apple sites and spew your vomit here???

    Why not go find a nice degenerate Android or Chrome OS site to go blather on and spare us your garbage???
  • Reply 22 of 28
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,824member
    dewme said:
    crowley said:
    dewme said:
    These regulatory agencies have been caught completely off guard because they don’t understand the markets they are trying to regulate. They are treating Apple, Amazon, Google, etc., like they would treat the oil, steel, and railroad barons of the late 19th and early 20th century. They fundamentally do not understand network effects on the one hand and fail to recognize the tenuous nature of the stickiness that the current “platform” owners really have, something that can unravel all of these so called platforms in very short order.

    The traditional platform owners controlled things like natural resources, land, rights of way, physical infrastructure, physical access to markets, licensing codified in laws, transportation systems, etc. Breaking the stickiness of traditional platforms meant replacing or displacing vast infrastructure and wresting political control from well entrenched elites who were in the pockets of those who called the shots. Today’s platform owners pale in comparison and have teflon like stickiness that can crumble in a heartbeat as soon as something better, cooler, and more in tune with the demographics driving purchase decisions arrives on the scene. Apple and Amazon don’t have to carve out or control vast infrastructure assets, resources, or deploy armies of lobbyists to lock in their platforms and exert their dominance. If Apple loses its “coolness” in a particular market they can wither and die in that market no time flat.

    The old style platforms, like railroads and utilities, were very expensive and time consuming to establish and equally difficult to disassemble. Modern platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and the App Store were not difficult to build out, by comparison, they went up pretty quickly and could be disassembled just as easily. Nobody’s properties were taken over by eminent domain, nobody’s homes were bulldozed to lay down tracks, and nobody has to think about how to deal with the blight that ensues when the old infrastructure is abandoned. Facebook or the App Store would go away in a poof of virtual smoke. Easy come, easy go.

    The valued asset in the App Store is the intellectual property represented in the apps themselves. Apple doesn’t own that, the individual developers do. The App Store is nothing like a coal mine where the valued asset is owned by the owner of the mine, who may also own or have a stake the rail system needed to move the coal. If the App Store vanishes, the intellectual property owners still have their assets and can move them to a new store.

    Regulators and backward thinkers see the explosive growth of platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and the App Store and draw a false equivalence to monopolies of the past simply because of the sheer magnitude of the consumers seemingly locked into these platforms. The numbers appear huge, and they are, but the regulators are using the the wrong measuring sticks because they don’t understand network effects and are bedazzled by big numbers. They need to recalibrate to understand the new realities of new markets that are not constrained by traditional impediments to growth or traditional thinking. They are riding on the slow train of backward thinking and outdated expectations.   
    An interesting perspective, but why do you think it makes any practical difference to the need for regulation and the current attitude of regulators?  Why wouldn't the rules that they're seeking to apply work, and what would?
    I see no need for regulation at this time and believe that regulators are overstepping their authority because they don't fully understand the market and volatility of the competitive landscape. The App Store, Facebook, Twitter, etc., could evaporate as quickly as they evolved. The rules that are being proposed are on the path to nationalizing the private investments of corporations, which I'm not a fan of because I believe it stifles innovation, but I understand such a move is always subject for debate in liberal democracies. I'm actually more concerned about moving to nationalize, codify, and establish regulations around the current platforms at a time we are just beginning to understand what these network dominated platforms are capable of achieving. This would, in my opinion, lock us into the current models and remove incentives for up-and-coming innovators and disruptors to take a big swing at knocking off the current dominant players. To me this is like saying "game over" when I believe we should be saying "game on." 
    Seems more than a bit apocalyptic for regulations that seems to be leaning more towards "platform owners can't prioritise their own products in search results and advertising", which is very similar to rules that supposedly govern Google's search results already.  How does it stifle innovation?  What is being nationalised?
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 23 of 28
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,824member
    crowley said:
    Apple are under an obligation to offer a competitive playing field if the law says they have to.
    I agree that the law can say whatever it wants. Especially in dictatorships. But Apple doesn't have to sell anything in a dictatorship and nobody can force Apple to. (I wonder how many dictatorships Apple currently does business in.) If the EU wants to dictate and micromanage every term in Apple's terms of service, Apple should just leave.

    This is just one salvo by the EU in a never-ending salvo of attempts to control the marketplace to favour the local market's produce. It's the EU's right to demand an imbalance, but it's Apple right to leave the market.
    Yes, yes, you keep banging on about Apple leaving markets, but it's clearly not going to happen, so please don't bother.

    Moreover, regulation is not dictatorship, and the EU is not a dictatorship by any understanding of the word, or the union.  This is mad language.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 24 of 28
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,331member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    Apple are under an obligation to offer a competitive playing field if the law says they have to.
    I agree that the law can say whatever it wants. Especially in dictatorships. But Apple doesn't have to sell anything in a dictatorship and nobody can force Apple to. (I wonder how many dictatorships Apple currently does business in.) If the EU wants to dictate and micromanage every term in Apple's terms of service, Apple should just leave.

    This is just one salvo by the EU in a never-ending salvo of attempts to control the marketplace to favour the local market's produce. It's the EU's right to demand an imbalance, but it's Apple right to leave the market.
    Yes, yes, you keep banging on about Apple leaving markets, but it's clearly not going to happen, so please don't bother.

    Moreover, regulation is not dictatorship, and the EU is not a dictatorship by any understanding of the word, or the union.  This is mad language.
    Your visual icon on these forums accurately portrays your personality. Good job.

    You have to be able to enter any negotiations with a tough stance, whether it's for a new car, fair trade, or nuclear weapon reductions. I'm saying Apple should be tough in these issues and be willing to walk away if they don't get fair treatment. You are saying Apple should just agree to comply with anything that any lawmakers say they want. This is the difference between a weak and a strong negotiator. You are behaving like Neville Chamberlain and I'm behaving like Ronald Reagan. By the way, Ronald Reagan got TWO strategic arms reductions agreements with the USSR as a direct result of him being willing to walk away. Do you remember when he literally walked away from Gorbachev at the Iceland Summit? Gorbachev came back begging for a deal, and they made a deal. Do you think the deal would have been as good if Reagan hadn't walked away? I'm directly comparing Chamberlain to you and Reagan to me here.
  • Reply 25 of 28
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,824member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    Apple are under an obligation to offer a competitive playing field if the law says they have to.
    I agree that the law can say whatever it wants. Especially in dictatorships. But Apple doesn't have to sell anything in a dictatorship and nobody can force Apple to. (I wonder how many dictatorships Apple currently does business in.) If the EU wants to dictate and micromanage every term in Apple's terms of service, Apple should just leave.

    This is just one salvo by the EU in a never-ending salvo of attempts to control the marketplace to favour the local market's produce. It's the EU's right to demand an imbalance, but it's Apple right to leave the market.
    Yes, yes, you keep banging on about Apple leaving markets, but it's clearly not going to happen, so please don't bother.

    Moreover, regulation is not dictatorship, and the EU is not a dictatorship by any understanding of the word, or the union.  This is mad language.
    Your visual icon on these forums accurately portrays your personality. Good job.

    You have to be able to enter any negotiations with a tough stance, whether it's for a new car, fair trade, or nuclear weapon reductions. I'm saying Apple should be tough in these issues and be willing to walk away if they don't get fair treatment. You are saying Apple should just agree to comply with anything that any lawmakers say they want. This is the difference between a weak and a strong negotiator. You are behaving like Neville Chamberlain and I'm behaving like Ronald Reagan. By the way, Ronald Reagan got TWO strategic arms reductions agreements with the USSR as a direct result of him being willing to walk away. Do you remember when he literally walked away from Gorbachev at the Iceland Summit? Gorbachev came back begging for a deal, and they made a deal. Do you think the deal would have been as good if Reagan hadn't walked away? I'm directly comparing Chamberlain to you and Reagan to me here.
    What a suitable comparison!

    Needless to say, I won't be responding to that pile of nonsense.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 27 of 28
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,824member
    crowley said:
    If this means I stop seeing irritating inserts and notifications to get Apple Music, News+ and TV+ then I'm all for it.  Apple getting a bit obnoxious with those.
    Do you know how NOT to be an obtuse anti-Apple troll???

    Better still, we can all see you HATE everything Apple, why in the HELL do people like you even come onto Apple sites and spew your vomit here???

    Why not go find a nice degenerate Android or Chrome OS site to go blather on and spare us your garbage???
    Why would I go to an Android of Chrome OS site when I don't own any Android or Chrome OS devices?  I'm just about all Apple in terms of technology, and I like Apple devices very much.  The fact that I like them very much is why the occasions when I don't like them sting so much, and when Apple the company behaves badly I speak up because I want them to be the best they can be.

    Capitalisation and repeated punctuation doesn't make your opinions of me any more correct.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 28 of 28
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,824member
    I tell a lie, my Sony TV has Android on it.  I don't have all that much to say about it though, since just about everything I watch goes in via an Apple TV.
Sign In or Register to comment.