crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day. She used other words that mean the same thing. She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.
If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance.
It’s useless to attempt to have a discussion with him. He only digs his heels in further and will not relent on whatever is pro Vestager.
What a strange thing to say. I'm not being especially pro Vestager here, just making the point that she's not saying what @foregoneconclusion thinks she's saying.
Vestager, EU, and EC… it’s all the same attempted opportunistic money grab. It’s like toxic masculinity. Vestager appears to be suffering from toxic masculinity
crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day. She used other words that mean the same thing. She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.
If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance.
It’s useless to attempt to have a discussion with him. He only digs his heels in further and will not relent on whatever is pro Vestager.
What a strange thing to say. I'm not being especially pro Vestager here, just making the point that she's not saying what @foregoneconclusion thinks she's saying.
Vestager, EU, and EC… it’s all the same attempted opportunistic money grab. It’s like toxic masculinity. Vestager appears to be suffering from toxic masculinity
Well you sure sound open-minded. And yet I'm the one who it's useless to have a discussion with?
I can only assume the dodgy equivalence is an attempt to provoke. Sorry, I'm not triggered that way.
crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day. She used other words that mean the same thing. She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.
If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance.
It’s useless to attempt to have a discussion with him. He only digs his heels in further and will not relent on whatever is pro Vestager.
What a strange thing to say. I'm not being especially pro Vestager here, just making the point that she's not saying what @foregoneconclusion thinks she's saying.
Vestager, EU, and EC… it’s all the same attempted opportunistic money grab. It’s like toxic masculinity. Vestager appears to be suffering from toxic masculinity
Well you sure sound open-minded. And yet I'm the one who it's useless to have a discussion with?
I can only assume the dodgy equivalence is an attempt to provoke. Sorry, I'm not triggered that way.
crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day. She used other words that mean the same thing. She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.
If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance.
It’s useless to attempt to have a discussion with him. He only digs his heels in further and will not relent on whatever is pro Vestager.
What a strange thing to say. I'm not being especially pro Vestager here, just making the point that she's not saying what @foregoneconclusion thinks she's saying.
Vestager, EU, and EC… it’s all the same attempted opportunistic money grab. It’s like toxic masculinity. Vestager appears to be suffering from toxic masculinity
Well you sure sound open-minded. And yet I'm the one who it's useless to have a discussion with?
I can only assume the dodgy equivalence is an attempt to provoke. Sorry, I'm not triggered that way.
I tried for many years Crowley
I don't even recognise your username, so don't have any context to know what you're talking about. Tried what?
crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day. She used other words that mean the same thing. She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.
If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance.
It’s useless to attempt to have a discussion with him. He only digs his heels in further and will not relent on whatever is pro Vestager.
What a strange thing to say. I'm not being especially pro Vestager here, just making the point that she's not saying what @foregoneconclusion thinks she's saying.
Vestager, EU, and EC… it’s all the same attempted opportunistic money grab. It’s like toxic masculinity. Vestager appears to be suffering from toxic masculinity
Well you sure sound open-minded. And yet I'm the one who it's useless to have a discussion with?
I can only assume the dodgy equivalence is an attempt to provoke. Sorry, I'm not triggered that way.
I tried for many years Crowley
I don't even recognise your username, so don't have any context to know what you're talking about. Tried what?
See, you say the same things so many times to different people you don’t even remember. And on these Vestager posts you’re always the first one to post as well.
crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day. She used other words that mean the same thing. She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.
If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance.
It’s useless to attempt to have a discussion with him. He only digs his heels in further and will not relent on whatever is pro Vestager.
Why should he relent if he believes his opinion stands on a solid base?
I don't see him as pro anything, just for the sake of it.
I'd go as far as to say he is one of the more balanced commenters here with well reasoned arguments and the ability to defend them robustly and fairly.
You don't have to agree with everything but mostly his opinions are very valid takes on what is happening.
In this particular case (and it's been said a few times already) some people seem to be interpreting her words in a way that others aren't.
I haven't read any 'pro' Vestager comments here but I have read the usual anti Vestager, EU stuff. Often with radical tints of some kind or another.
Your 'toxic masculinity' comment left me perplexed.
crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day. She used other words that mean the same thing. She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.
If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance.
It’s useless to attempt to have a discussion with him. He only digs his heels in further and will not relent on whatever is pro Vestager.
What a strange thing to say. I'm not being especially pro Vestager here, just making the point that she's not saying what @foregoneconclusion thinks she's saying.
Vestager, EU, and EC… it’s all the same attempted opportunistic money grab. It’s like toxic masculinity. Vestager appears to be suffering from toxic masculinity
Well you sure sound open-minded. And yet I'm the one who it's useless to have a discussion with?
I can only assume the dodgy equivalence is an attempt to provoke. Sorry, I'm not triggered that way.
I tried for many years Crowley
I don't even recognise your username, so don't have any context to know what you're talking about. Tried what?
See, you say the same things so many times to different people you don’t even remember. And on these Vestager posts you’re always the first one to post as well.
crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day. She used other words that mean the same thing. She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.
If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance.
It’s useless to attempt to have a discussion with him. He only digs his heels in further and will not relent on whatever is pro Vestager.
Why should he relent if he believes his opinion stands on a solid base?
I don't see him as pro anything, just for the sake of it.
I'd go as far as to say he is one of the more balanced commenters here with well reasoned arguments and the ability to defend them robustly and fairly.
You don't have to agree with everything but mostly his opinions are very valid takes on what is happening.
In this particular case (and it's been said a few times already) some people seem to be interpreting her words in a way that others aren't.
I haven't read any 'pro' Vestager comments here but I have read the usual anti Vestager, EU stuff. Often with radical tints of some kind or another.
Your 'toxic masculinity' comment left me perplexed.
Winning at all costs is the toxic masculine tendency. Vestager and the EU keep making up contrived concepts like ‘State Aid’ and then losing in their own Supreme Court! We’re in an age where the West is getting it’s a** handed to us by China and Russia and Vestagerand company as well as some in the U.S. want to make it easier for us to be victims of identity theft and such in the guise of ‘competuition’. No thanks. Years of watching the above mentioned contort themselves into a pretzel to give these contrived concepts credence is a waste of anyone’s valuable time.
crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day. She used other words that mean the same thing. She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.
If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance.
It’s useless to attempt to have a discussion with him. He only digs his heels in further and will not relent on whatever is pro Vestager.
Why should he relent if he believes his opinion stands on a solid base?
I don't see him as pro anything, just for the sake of it.
I'd go as far as to say he is one of the more balanced commenters here with well reasoned arguments and the ability to defend them robustly and fairly.
You don't have to agree with everything but mostly his opinions are very valid takes on what is happening.
In this particular case (and it's been said a few times already) some people seem to be interpreting her words in a way that others aren't.
I haven't read any 'pro' Vestager comments here but I have read the usual anti Vestager, EU stuff. Often with radical tints of some kind or another.
Your 'toxic masculinity' comment left me perplexed.
Winning at all costs is the toxic masculine tendency. Vestager and the EU keep making up contrived concepts like ‘State Aid’ and then losing in their own Supreme Court! We’re in an age where the West is getting it’s a** handed to us by China and Russia and Vestagerand company as well as some in the U.S. want to make it easier for us to be victims of identity theft and such in the guise of ‘competuition’. No thanks. Years of watching the above mentioned contort themselves into a pretzel to give these contrived concepts credence is a waste of anyone’s valuable time.
All laws are contrived. What a weird complaint.
I'll assume you mean complicated or convoluted instead, so as to make some measure of sense. Even so:
A company that receives government support gains an advantage over its competitors. Therefore the Treaty generally prohibits State aid unless it is justified by reasons of general economic development. To ensure that this prohibition is respected and exemptions are applied equally across the European Union, the European Commission is in charge of ensuring that State aid complies with EU rules.
As far as laws go, that's pretty darn clear and concise.
And the "Supreme Court" didn't rule against the concept of State Aid, the EU General Court ruled that the Commission has failed to prove its case against Ireland. It's currently being appealed to the European Court of Justice (which you might call the supreme court) and has not yet been judged.
crowley said: You've extrapolated massively. There's no insinuation of proof at all.
Nope. Vestager is definitely insinuating that Apple's privacy/security features are themselves harming competition. That's all the EU has left. Spotify crapped the bed when they had to produce the receipts per their "harm" claims and consumer software prices on iOS are significantly cheaper than Windows/Mac and equivalent to Android.
No she isn't. She's suggesting that Apple are attempting to use privacy and security as a shield from accusations of anti-competitive practices. That the App Store may provide privacy and security for its users, but that isn't in itself a get out clause for being subject to antitrust law. Vestager and the EU's position is that providing privacy and security must come within the framework of fair competition.
And that's fair enough. Apple being committed to privacy and security is great, but it doesn't confer immunity.
So far, even "Google Protect" is not even close to providing the privacy and security, that just disallowing third party app stores and side loading, can provide.
EDIT: Oh gracious, that's an over 4 year old link! No wonder it gets a "page not found"
For what it's worth I was able to locate an article at some other site from 2020, who like you is quoting that older much older one as tho the nothing ever changed since " back then". Clickbait.. . The "failure" that author used as premise is a direct-line comparison to long-established anti-malware companies like McAfee or Symantec. Play Protect is not intended to be an antivirus program and never was.
Here's a more recent views. Only 2 years old, by the same people. And consider this, over half of Android users are on versions that are 2 or more years old.
For sure Google Play Protect is getting better, considering it's free. But the bottom line is that in order to make third party app stores and side-loading inherently safer on Android, Google needs to have this in place, along with being able to not allow download from unknown sources. And even with these in place, it's still not enough for Vestager to claim that ..... ".... customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load.". If Google thought that, Android would be more of a malware magnet, than it is now. Going by the nearly 2B malware that Google Play Protect did manage to catch and prevent from installing, in just 2019. Or maybe this article is the ..... clickbait
Not mentioned in any of those links (because they aren't using recent info less than 2 years old) is the subsequent Google partnership with traditional malware-prevention tech companies like ESET, Lookout, and Zimperium. Not that it necessarily matters to Apple and app security.
So then your argument would be that Apple would not be capable of either securing their operating system or mitigating potential damage from malware if alternate app sources were permitted? If that's not your point not then why is what Google has done to protect Android users from app malware pertinent to what Apple would be able to do? In your opinion isn't Apple even more capable than Google when it comes to addressing software weaknesses?
IMO Apple is not being totally forthright and injecting an element of fear and uncertainty, sowing doubt that installing apps will be safe if Apple is not allowed to maintain their marketplace unopposed Why else for Apple to take a somewhat extreme position and throw Mac security under the bus, a market where Apple doesn't earn much from app sales? Sacrificing a lamb to protect the cows?
So if you believe Apple to be incapable of further developing a system (they're part way there already) to protect users from malware no matter the app source just say so.
No, my argument is that users do give up some privacy and security if third party app stores and side loading are allowed. Contrary to what Vestager thinks.
Look, if Google has go through all this Google Play Protect to make third party stores and side loading safer for Android users, then it's obvious that allowing third party app stores and side loading is not as safe as not allowing them. So one do give up some privacy and security when third party app stores and side loading is allowed. Even with all Google is doing to make it safer. If Google, which IMO is a much better software company that Apple, can't make Android (which allows downloading from third party stores and side loading) as safe as it would be without allowing third party stores and side loading or iOS, then Vestager is wrong to say .....".. I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load."
We all know how you take any comment that makes Google look bad personally, but this is not about any failure by Google. Google is doing the right thing by recommending users to not side load, warning users the danger of downloading apps from a third party app store, implementing "Google Play Protect" and creating their "Advance Protection Program", where third party stores and side loading are not allowed for those enrolled that wants more security when using Android. But the fact that they have to do all of these shows that users do lose some privacy and security if third party app stores and side loading were allowed. As good as a job as Google is doing (feel better now), even you have to admit that allowing third party app stores and side loading, is not as safe for the users as not allowing third party app stores and side loading. Unless you can provide a link where Google Play Protect is stopping 100% of the malware and viruses from being installed, from third party app stores and side loading.
Hey, I bet with Vestager State issued mobile phone, she is not allowed to side load and there are no app stores, let alone a third party one. Most here knows the obvious reasons why, but I bet those reasons escapes her.
When I replied to your original comment (which I bolded) it was this:
"So where's the evidence that the higher level of privacy and security on an iPhone is harmful to consumers?"
In your reply to that comment, it is this:
"Has the EU provided evidence that supports their statement that iOS is anticompetitive?"
To answer that, different question, we'll have to wait for the findings.
"The important thing here is, of course, that it's not a shield against competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload."
That's the direct quote from Vestager. She is equating Apple's higher level of privacy/security vs Windows/Mac/Android to a "shield against competition". Her words, not mine. All of the focus is on the security aspect alone being equal to anticompetitive behavior. Note that Vestager doesn't make any mention of a specific BENEFIT to consumers with her statement. She doesn't claim alternate app stores or side loading will improve security for consumers. She doesn't claim that they'll lower prices for consumers either. Why? Because the EU already knows that they don't have any evidence that supports those kinds of claims. Windows/Mac/Android are not better at security. Windows/Mac/Android do not provide better prices for software.
So, my first quote and second quote speak to the same thing: the EU does think privacy/security on iOS is synonymous with harm to consumers and anticompetitive behavior. But they don't have any evidence to back it up.
She's not talking security or privacy. That's why she doesn't go very far into that terrain.
She's talking competition and basically saying Tim Cook is barking up the wrong tree by bringing those aspects up IMO.
At the same time she is saying that security and privacy are paramount because they are, but not at the cost of competition.
That is not at all what she is saying. She is saying that she doesn't think that third party app stores and side loading present any issue with privacy and security and therefore is not an excuse that Apple should use to not allow third party app stores and side loading. She did not say nor even implied, that she was willing to sacrifice users privacy and security for the sake of competition.
She doesn't want to go very far with the privacy and security issues because she can not win using it. There is a mountain of evidence known as Android, that shows that customers do give up quite a bit of privacy and security, if third party app stores and side loading are allowed. The fact the she made such an ignorant and baseless statement like ..... "I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load.", shows that Apple is "barking up the right tree".
"At the same time she is saying that security and privacy are paramount because they are, but not at the cost of competition."
That is an oxymoron statement and she did not say that. If privacy and security are "paramount", then none of it should be sacrifice for the sake of "competition".
Paramount
adjective
more important than anything else; supreme.
If she knew the scope of how just how much third party app stores and side loading decreases privacy and security for the users, she might .... Think Different.
Your last paragraph opened a new universe for you. The reason she can't get into the details of security and privacy in the context of this case is because it is a moving target. Apple's could easily get worse and Android's could get better. Also security isn't 'tangible' in this context. There are too many variables involved. Beginning with the users themselves. That isn't at the centre of things here. Apple's anti competitive actions are.
Competition, on the other hand, can be nailed down fairly hard and easily. IMO, it is crystal clear what she is saying and it is what I pointed out earlier.
In fact, just take a look at what Reuters interpretated:
"EU's Vestager warns Apple against using privacy, security to limit competition"
There is no oxymoron here because there is a huge amount of interpretation involved. More secure stores than the App Store might already exist. I know you don't accept this idea as you have already stated as much. What knowledge di you have if Android app stores? Is Apple's privacy the best it can be? I say this because it obviously wasn't, out of the gate. If it had been, little would have changed up to now. Yet, Apple would have (and probably has) said in the past that both aspects were 'paramount'. In fact, it seems that the example given for your definition (assuming it came from where I think it did) is telling:
"The education of the children is paramount"
That is actually a good example as education obviously wouldn't override the importance of the mental and physical health and well being of the children in the bigger picture.
You need to understand how words are used, not only their dictionary definitions. After all, what defines a word is its usage in context and all dictionaries will eventually reflect that. It doesn't work the other way around.
She is not a native English speaker. I see no problems in her usage of paramount as long as the context is taken into account. From an interview with a long and thorough technical investigation as a backdrop, you should be able to contextualise a couple of live quotes clearly.
Everyone here is interpreting her words but you are stating you know what she wanted to say. I don't see how you can do that from the few words that were quoted.
The point here is that Apple has been accused of anti-competitive practices. Apple has said that those practices provide users with privacy and security. Margaret is saying that such claims cannot be used as a shield.
"Competition, on the other hand, can be nailed down fairly hard and easily. IMO, it is crystal clear what she is saying and it is what I pointed out earlier."
But anti-competitive can not be nailed down fairly hard and easily. Shielding against competition is not the same as being anti-competitive.
What Reuters "said" is just the headline of the article. Do you actually think Reuters said everything the wanted to say, in just their headline? Do you just read a headlines and automatically know everything said in the article?
If you actual read the article you would know the reason why Vestager warned Apple against using privacy and security to limit competition. It's because she doesn't think that competition by allowing third party store and side loading, will presents any privacy and security issue. As her ."..... because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load.", which is mentioned in the article with that headline. Which even you can not defend, without throwing around a lot of FUD. Like saying if one had 95% privacy and security when third party stores and side loading are not allowed, but if they are, one still have 75% privacy and security. So they did not give up neither privacy nor security when third party app stores and side loading were allowed. That is FUD. If you have less privacy and security after allowing third party stores and side loading, then you gave up privacy and security. The difference between 95% security and 75% security might be the difference between you still being able to use the device and it being held for ransomware. Or the difference between the security of a solid door and a hollow core door.
What she DID NOT say is that she thinks competition is more important than privacy and security. Which you and some seems to believe. She thinks that allowing third party stores and side loading DO NOT present a privacy and security issue. Thus warning Apple against using that argument (with her) as a means to limit competition, by not allowing third party stores and side loading in iOS. She had made no statement saying or implying, that she thinks competition is more important than privacy and security. I bet you didn't get all that from just reading the Reuters headline.
It's the ....".. .because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load." that Apple will capitalize on. She is going to have a hard time explaining why she ... thinks that. It might be different if she had said .... "there is evidence that ...."... or "studies has shown that" ...... or "there is proof that" or even "Android has shown that ..."..... But she said "I think". That's not saying a lot from someone with the position she holds. Imagine a lawyer getting up and saying to the jury, "I think my client is innocent ......".
You're being to sound like @gatorguy when he's defending Google at all cost. Throwing anything and everything on the wall and seeing what sticks. And most of the time ... its only the FUD.
When I replied to your original comment (which I bolded) it was this:
"So where's the evidence that the higher level of privacy and security on an iPhone is harmful to consumers?"
In your reply to that comment, it is this:
"Has the EU provided evidence that supports their statement that iOS is anticompetitive?"
To answer that, different question, we'll have to wait for the findings.
"The important thing here is, of course, that it's not a shield against competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload."
That's the direct quote from Vestager. She is equating Apple's higher level of privacy/security vs Windows/Mac/Android to a "shield against competition". Her words, not mine. All of the focus is on the security aspect alone being equal to anticompetitive behavior. Note that Vestager doesn't make any mention of a specific BENEFIT to consumers with her statement. She doesn't claim alternate app stores or side loading will improve security for consumers. She doesn't claim that they'll lower prices for consumers either. Why? Because the EU already knows that they don't have any evidence that supports those kinds of claims. Windows/Mac/Android are not better at security. Windows/Mac/Android do not provide better prices for software.
So, my first quote and second quote speak to the same thing: the EU does think privacy/security on iOS is synonymous with harm to consumers and anticompetitive behavior. But they don't have any evidence to back it up.
She's not talking security or privacy. That's why she doesn't go very far into that terrain.
She's talking competition and basically saying Tim Cook is barking up the wrong tree by bringing those aspects up IMO.
At the same time she is saying that security and privacy are paramount because they are, but not at the cost of competition.
That is not at all what she is saying. She is saying that she doesn't think that third party app stores and side loading present any issue with privacy and security and therefore is not an excuse that Apple should use to not allow third party app stores and side loading. She did not say nor even implied, that she was willing to sacrifice users privacy and security for the sake of competition.
She doesn't want to go very far with the privacy and security issues because she can not win using it. There is a mountain of evidence known as Android, that shows that customers do give up quite a bit of privacy and security, if third party app stores and side loading are allowed. The fact the she made such an ignorant and baseless statement like ..... "I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load.", shows that Apple is "barking up the right tree".
"At the same time she is saying that security and privacy are paramount because they are, but not at the cost of competition."
That is an oxymoron statement and she did not say that. If privacy and security are "paramount", then none of it should be sacrifice for the sake of "competition".
Paramount
adjective
more important than anything else; supreme.
If she knew the scope of how just how much third party app stores and side loading decreases privacy and security for the users, she might .... Think Different.
Your last paragraph opened a new universe for you. The reason she can't get into the details of security and privacy in the context of this case is because it is a moving target. Apple's could easily get worse and Android's could get better. Also security isn't 'tangible' in this context. There are too many variables involved. Beginning with the users themselves. That isn't at the centre of things here. Apple's anti competitive actions are.
Competition, on the other hand, can be nailed down fairly hard and easily. IMO, it is crystal clear what she is saying and it is what I pointed out earlier.
In fact, just take a look at what Reuters interpretated:
"EU's Vestager warns Apple against using privacy, security to limit competition"
There is no oxymoron here because there is a huge amount of interpretation involved. More secure stores than the App Store might already exist. I know you don't accept this idea as you have already stated as much. What knowledge di you have if Android app stores? Is Apple's privacy the best it can be? I say this because it obviously wasn't, out of the gate. If it had been, little would have changed up to now. Yet, Apple would have (and probably has) said in the past that both aspects were 'paramount'. In fact, it seems that the example given for your definition (assuming it came from where I think it did) is telling:
"The education of the children is paramount"
That is actually a good example as education obviously wouldn't override the importance of the mental and physical health and well being of the children in the bigger picture.
You need to understand how words are used, not only their dictionary definitions. After all, what defines a word is its usage in context and all dictionaries will eventually reflect that. It doesn't work the other way around.
She is not a native English speaker. I see no problems in her usage of paramount as long as the context is taken into account. From an interview with a long and thorough technical investigation as a backdrop, you should be able to contextualise a couple of live quotes clearly.
Everyone here is interpreting her words but you are stating you know what she wanted to say. I don't see how you can do that from the few words that were quoted.
The point here is that Apple has been accused of anti-competitive practices. Apple has said that those practices provide users with privacy and security. Margaret is saying that such claims cannot be used as a shield.
"Competition, on the other hand, can be nailed down fairly hard and easily. IMO, it is crystal clear what she is saying and it is what I pointed out earlier."
But anti-competitive can not be nailed down fairly hard and easily. Shielding against competition is not the same as being anti-competitive.
What Reuters "said" is just the headline of the article. Do you actually think Reuters said everything the wanted to say, in just their headline? Do you just read a headlines and automatically know everything said in the article?
If you actual read the article you would know the reason why Vestager warned Apple against using privacy and security to limit competition. It's because she doesn't think that competition by allowing third party store and side loading, will presents any privacy and security issue. As her ."..... because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load.", which is mentioned in the article with that headline. Which even you can not defend, without throwing around a lot of FUD. Like saying if one had 95% privacy and security when third party stores and side loading are not allowed, but if they are, one still have 75% privacy and security. So they did not give up neither privacy nor security when third party app stores and side loading were allowed. That is FUD. If you have less privacy and security after allowing third party stores and side loading, then you gave up privacy and security. The difference between 95% security and 75% security might be the difference between you still being able to use the device and it being held for ransomware. Or the difference between the security of a solid door and a hollow core door.
What she DID NOT say is that she thinks competition is more important than privacy and security. Which you and some seems to believe. She thinks that allowing third party stores and side loading DO NOT present a privacy and security issue. Thus warning Apple against using that argument (with her) as a means to limit competition, by not allowing third party stores and side loading in iOS. She had made no statement saying or implying, that she thinks competition is more important than privacy and security. I bet you didn't get all that from just reading the Reuters headline.
It's the ....".. .because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load." that Apple will capitalize on. She is going to have a hard time explaining why she ... thinks that. It might be different if she had said .... "there is evidence that ...."... or "studies has shown that" ...... or "there is proof that" or even "Android has shown that ..."..... But she said "I think". That's not saying a lot from someone with the position she holds. Imagine a lawyer getting up and saying to the jury, "I think my client is innocent ......".
You're being to sound like @gatorguy when he's defending Google at all cost. Throwing anything and everything on the wall and seeing what sticks. And most of the time ... its only the FUD.
Firstly, anti-competitive behavior is far easier to handle because there are laws and treaties in place which investigations and rulings will use as clear reference points. There is a lot of hard wiring to guide the process.
Treaties and laws also dictate obligations on privacy and security but those two elements are evolving continuously and are far harder to nail down, especially in a platform comparison debate.
The headline of the Reuters article clearly sums up the key take away from the interview and it is what some of us here are stating. There is no getting away from that. The headline is stating something with crystal clear clarity. She said she shared Tim Cook's concerns but that it couldn't be used as a shield. It's not difficult to grasp what is being said when the headline of the piece is screaming it into your face.
She will not have a hard time explaining what she 'thinks'. It's her opinion based on the findings of the ongoing EU investigations.
You do not have enough to go on to take one simple comment from her against everything that has been concluded from the investigations. There is a huge amount (practically everything) that is unknown to the public at this point.
She leads different teams undertaking different investigations. Look up MaxForce for a famous Apple related example. If you want to get first hand information on the technicalities of what the EU thinks, it will be fruit of those teams and the investigations they have carried out.
She also said she thinks a solution to the problem can be found and admits that changes might be made to her proposals based on feedback from member states. Yes, she can have an opinion too.
I asked you what your knowledge of alternative app stores was. You haven't replied. I asked simply because you defaulted to an 'Android App Stores are worse' stance earlier on. How did you reach that conclusion? If you have knowledge of alternative app stores, now is the time to say so.
I am not throwing anything at the wall in the hope that something will stick. My position hasn't changed in the slightest. At best I think you are nit picking a single sentence and failing to understand that she leads a team of experts in their respective fields. You are also claiming that you 'know' what she means. From the very few sentences that she actually said, I think you simply don't have enough to go on at this point. We aren't talking about a prepared statement here. We are talking about an interview line. Reuters clearly got the gist of what she meant. As did some here. It should have been clear to you too but you are buckling down on something and perhaps not seeing the forest for the trees.
crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day. She used other words that mean the same thing. She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.
If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance.
It’s useless to attempt to have a discussion with him. He only digs his heels in further and will not relent on whatever is pro Vestager.
Why should he relent if he believes his opinion stands on a solid base?
I don't see him as pro anything, just for the sake of it.
I'd go as far as to say he is one of the more balanced commenters here with well reasoned arguments and the ability to defend them robustly and fairly.
You don't have to agree with everything but mostly his opinions are very valid takes on what is happening.
In this particular case (and it's been said a few times already) some people seem to be interpreting her words in a way that others aren't.
I haven't read any 'pro' Vestager comments here but I have read the usual anti Vestager, EU stuff. Often with radical tints of some kind or another.
Your 'toxic masculinity' comment left me perplexed.
Winning at all costs is the toxic masculine tendency. Vestager and the EU keep making up contrived concepts like ‘State Aid’ and then losing in their own Supreme Court! We’re in an age where the West is getting it’s a** handed to us by China and Russia and Vestagerand company as well as some in the U.S. want to make it easier for us to be victims of identity theft and such in the guise of ‘competuition’. No thanks. Years of watching the above mentioned contort themselves into a pretzel to give these contrived concepts credence is a waste of anyone’s valuable time.
All laws are contrived. What a weird complaint.
I'll assume you mean complicated or convoluted instead, so as to make some measure of sense. Even so:
A company that receives government support gains an advantage over its competitors. Therefore the Treaty generally prohibits State aid unless it is justified by reasons of general economic development. To ensure that this prohibition is respected and exemptions are applied equally across the European Union, the European Commission is in charge of ensuring that State aid complies with EU rules.
As far as laws go, that's pretty darn clear and concise.
And the "Supreme Court" didn't rule against the concept of State Aid, the EU General Court ruled that the Commission has failed to prove its case against Ireland. It's currently being appealed to the European Court of Justice (which you might call the supreme court) and has not yet been judged.
Law contrived yet not upheld by any Court of the EU
When I replied to your original comment (which I bolded) it was this:
"So where's the evidence that the higher level of privacy and security on an iPhone is harmful to consumers?"
In your reply to that comment, it is this:
"Has the EU provided evidence that supports their statement that iOS is anticompetitive?"
To answer that, different question, we'll have to wait for the findings.
"The important thing here is, of course, that it's not a shield against competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload."
That's the direct quote from Vestager. She is equating Apple's higher level of privacy/security vs Windows/Mac/Android to a "shield against competition". Her words, not mine. All of the focus is on the security aspect alone being equal to anticompetitive behavior. Note that Vestager doesn't make any mention of a specific BENEFIT to consumers with her statement. She doesn't claim alternate app stores or side loading will improve security for consumers. She doesn't claim that they'll lower prices for consumers either. Why? Because the EU already knows that they don't have any evidence that supports those kinds of claims. Windows/Mac/Android are not better at security. Windows/Mac/Android do not provide better prices for software.
So, my first quote and second quote speak to the same thing: the EU does think privacy/security on iOS is synonymous with harm to consumers and anticompetitive behavior. But they don't have any evidence to back it up.
She's not talking security or privacy. That's why she doesn't go very far into that terrain.
She's talking competition and basically saying Tim Cook is barking up the wrong tree by bringing those aspects up IMO.
At the same time she is saying that security and privacy are paramount because they are, but not at the cost of competition.
That is not at all what she is saying. She is saying that she doesn't think that third party app stores and side loading present any issue with privacy and security and therefore is not an excuse that Apple should use to not allow third party app stores and side loading. She did not say nor even implied, that she was willing to sacrifice users privacy and security for the sake of competition.
She doesn't want to go very far with the privacy and security issues because she can not win using it. There is a mountain of evidence known as Android, that shows that customers do give up quite a bit of privacy and security, if third party app stores and side loading are allowed. The fact the she made such an ignorant and baseless statement like ..... "I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load.", shows that Apple is "barking up the right tree".
"At the same time she is saying that security and privacy are paramount because they are, but not at the cost of competition."
That is an oxymoron statement and she did not say that. If privacy and security are "paramount", then none of it should be sacrifice for the sake of "competition".
Paramount
adjective
more important than anything else; supreme.
If she knew the scope of how just how much third party app stores and side loading decreases privacy and security for the users, she might .... Think Different.
Your last paragraph opened a new universe for you. The reason she can't get into the details of security and privacy in the context of this case is because it is a moving target. Apple's could easily get worse and Android's could get better. Also security isn't 'tangible' in this context. There are too many variables involved. Beginning with the users themselves. That isn't at the centre of things here. Apple's anti competitive actions are.
Competition, on the other hand, can be nailed down fairly hard and easily. IMO, it is crystal clear what she is saying and it is what I pointed out earlier.
In fact, just take a look at what Reuters interpretated:
"EU's Vestager warns Apple against using privacy, security to limit competition"
There is no oxymoron here because there is a huge amount of interpretation involved. More secure stores than the App Store might already exist. I know you don't accept this idea as you have already stated as much. What knowledge di you have if Android app stores? Is Apple's privacy the best it can be? I say this because it obviously wasn't, out of the gate. If it had been, little would have changed up to now. Yet, Apple would have (and probably has) said in the past that both aspects were 'paramount'. In fact, it seems that the example given for your definition (assuming it came from where I think it did) is telling:
"The education of the children is paramount"
That is actually a good example as education obviously wouldn't override the importance of the mental and physical health and well being of the children in the bigger picture.
You need to understand how words are used, not only their dictionary definitions. After all, what defines a word is its usage in context and all dictionaries will eventually reflect that. It doesn't work the other way around.
She is not a native English speaker. I see no problems in her usage of paramount as long as the context is taken into account. From an interview with a long and thorough technical investigation as a backdrop, you should be able to contextualise a couple of live quotes clearly.
Everyone here is interpreting her words but you are stating you know what she wanted to say. I don't see how you can do that from the few words that were quoted.
The point here is that Apple has been accused of anti-competitive practices. Apple has said that those practices provide users with privacy and security. Margaret is saying that such claims cannot be used as a shield.
"Competition, on the other hand, can be nailed down fairly hard and easily. IMO, it is crystal clear what she is saying and it is what I pointed out earlier."
But anti-competitive can not be nailed down fairly hard and easily. Shielding against competition is not the same as being anti-competitive.
What Reuters "said" is just the headline of the article. Do you actually think Reuters said everything the wanted to say, in just their headline? Do you just read a headlines and automatically know everything said in the article?
If you actual read the article you would know the reason why Vestager warned Apple against using privacy and security to limit competition. It's because she doesn't think that competition by allowing third party store and side loading, will presents any privacy and security issue. As her ."..... because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load.", which is mentioned in the article with that headline. Which even you can not defend, without throwing around a lot of FUD. Like saying if one had 95% privacy and security when third party stores and side loading are not allowed, but if they are, one still have 75% privacy and security. So they did not give up neither privacy nor security when third party app stores and side loading were allowed. That is FUD. If you have less privacy and security after allowing third party stores and side loading, then you gave up privacy and security. The difference between 95% security and 75% security might be the difference between you still being able to use the device and it being held for ransomware. Or the difference between the security of a solid door and a hollow core door.
What she DID NOT say is that she thinks competition is more important than privacy and security. Which you and some seems to believe. She thinks that allowing third party stores and side loading DO NOT present a privacy and security issue. Thus warning Apple against using that argument (with her) as a means to limit competition, by not allowing third party stores and side loading in iOS. She had made no statement saying or implying, that she thinks competition is more important than privacy and security. I bet you didn't get all that from just reading the Reuters headline.
It's the ....".. .because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load." that Apple will capitalize on. She is going to have a hard time explaining why she ... thinks that. It might be different if she had said .... "there is evidence that ...."... or "studies has shown that" ...... or "there is proof that" or even "Android has shown that ..."..... But she said "I think". That's not saying a lot from someone with the position she holds. Imagine a lawyer getting up and saying to the jury, "I think my client is innocent ......".
You're being to sound like @gatorguy when he's defending Google at all cost. Throwing anything and everything on the wall and seeing what sticks. And most of the time ... its only the FUD.
Firstly, anti-competitive behavior is far easier to handle because there are laws and treaties in place which investigations and rulings will use as clear reference points. There is a lot of hard wiring to guide the process.
Treaties and laws also dictate obligations on privacy and security but those two elements are evolving continuously and are far harder to nail down, especially in a platform comparison debate.
The headline of the Reuters article clearly sums up the key take away from the interview and it is what some of us here are stating. There is no getting away from that. The headline is stating something with crystal clear clarity. She said she shared Tim Cook's concerns but that it couldn't be used as a shield. It's not difficult to grasp what is being said when the headline of the piece is screaming it into your face.
She will not have a hard time explaining what she 'thinks'. It's her opinion based on the findings of the ongoing EU investigations.
You do not have enough to go on to take one simple comment from her against everything that has been concluded from the investigations. There is a huge amount (practically everything) that is unknown to the public at this point.
She leads different teams undertaking different investigations. Look up MaxForce for a famous Apple related example. If you want to get first hand information on the technicalities of what the EU thinks, it will be fruit of those teams and the investigations they have carried out.
She also said she thinks a solution to the problem can be found and admits that changes might be made to her proposals based on feedback from member states. Yes, she can have an opinion too.
I asked you what your knowledge of alternative app stores was. You haven't replied. I asked simply because you defaulted to an 'Android App Stores are worse' stance earlier on. How did you reach that conclusion? If you have knowledge of alternative app stores, now is the time to say so.
I am not throwing anything at the wall in the hope that something will stick. My position hasn't changed in the slightest. At best I think you are nit picking a single sentence and failing to understand that she leads a team of experts in their respective fields. You are also claiming that you 'know' what she means. From the very few sentences that she actually said, I think you simply don't have enough to go on at this point. We aren't talking about a prepared statement here. We are talking about an interview line. Reuters clearly got the gist of what she meant. As did some here. It should have been clear to you too but you are buckling down on something and perhaps not seeing the forest for the trees.
Whether a third party app store is safe to download from, is not the issue and never was. The issue is whether the OS is safer with or without the ability to download from a third party app store or to side load. And the reason why the OS is not safer with the ability to download from a third party store or to side load is because users can be fooled into thinking that they are downloading an app from a trusted store that is known to be completely safe. That can't happen when there is no third party app store or the ability to side load. So your argument about safe third party app stores is moot. You are just throwing FUD into the argument about whether users give up privacy and security when third party app stores and side loading are allowed.
Here are some scenarios and you tell us how easy it is to determine whether it's anti-completive.
Sandwich Store A owner owns his property and down the block is Sandwich Store B, whose owner have to pay the market rate rent on a lease. Both have similar expenses except for the rent. They both sell fresh made sandwiches. But either Store A makes more profit selling the same sandwich, at the same price, as Store B. Or Store A can sell sandwiches for less than store B and make the same profit as Store B. Is Store A being anti-competitive?
A company owns a patent on a product that consumers are buying like crazy. There is no competition for this product because the company do not license out the patent for it. Is that being anti-competitive because they are shielding themselves from competition, by not licensing out their patent?
Google gives away Android. If they didn't, consumers would probably have another mobile OS or two, to choose from, (developed by the phone makers). On the other hand, Apple do not license out iOS and only Apple devices runs on iOS. Other phone makers can not make and sell phones with iOS. Thus limiting consumers choice of iOS mobile devices to Apple devices. Are either Google or Apple being anti-completive because their practices reduces the choices that consumers have in the mobile OS or the iOS mobile phone market?
When Amazon won the case against the 5 publishers and Apple, they were selling e-Books at or below their cost. The publishers were trying to stop this practice. But colluded to do so and ended up being found guilty of collusion and trying to fix the price of e-books. Which would had raised the cost of e-books for the consumers. So Amazon was able to continue selling e-books at or below whole sale price. The courts rule that Amazon could sell e-books at any price, once they paid the publishers the wholesale price for them. Sounds about right, right? However, because Amazon was able to continue to sell e-books at or below wholesale price for the next 5 years (due to a court order restriction placed on the publishers and Apple), many smaller e-book resellers went out of business because they would take a lost if they try to compete by selling e-books at those prices. Amazon now own about 70% of the e-book market. Any easily determined anti-competitive practice on Amazon part? They did the same with hardbound books and CD's.
The CEO of Epic Games, Sweeney, is known to have bought the exclusive rights to certain games that were deemed destined to be big hits and only making them available in the Epic Game Store. Even after the game developers had already promised that their games were going to be available in other online game stores. This limit the ability of other online game stores to compete with the Epic Game Store. Any anti-competitive practice here?
Costco only takes Visa. Costco shoppers that don't have a Visa card can not charge their purchases. Even though there no reason why, except for an exclusive deal Costco have with Visa. The same with KFC only selling Pepsi. Coca Cola is not allowed to compete for KFC customers, inside a KFC. (KFC was once owned by PepsiCo)
in order to use any of the Google apps that comes with an Android phone, one must have or open a Gmail account. The " G" in Gmail stands for Google. Anti-competitive?
Lucky supermarket is the "gatekeeper" of the store they own. They sell their own brand of soda, right along side of name brands like Coca Cola and Pepsi and at 1/3 to 1/2 the price. Do Coca Cola and Pepsi have a case of Lucky being anti-competitive?
Many anti-completive charges hinges on a company being a "monopoly" but what constitute a "monopoly" is not consistent across industries and across other countries. And having a monopoly is not necessarily illegal or anti-competitive. Recently, a US Federal court dropped anti-completive charges the FTC levied against Facebook because the FTC did not provide enough evidence that Facebook had a "monopoly" in the market as defined by the FTC. Thus the FTC must refile, if they choose to. They are going to have to narrow down the market that Facebook has a monopoly in. But it's going to look awfully silly if the only market Facebook has a monopoly in, is the market of consumers with Facebook accounts.
The problem is that anti-completive laws are not hard wired, as you seem to think. It's wired in such a way that politicians can reconfigure the wiring, depending on which side they want to win. If they were hard wired, the EU would have determined whether or not Apple is being anti-completive (by not allowing third party app stores and side loading) by now. But it takes time to reconfigure the wiring if it not wired to their liking. And what's the use of it being hardwired if the US government could just pass new anti-competitive laws, that only applied to a handful of tech companies, because they didn't like how it was hardwired.
crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day. She used other words that mean the same thing. She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.
If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance.
It’s useless to attempt to have a discussion with him. He only digs his heels in further and will not relent on whatever is pro Vestager.
Why should he relent if he believes his opinion stands on a solid base?
I don't see him as pro anything, just for the sake of it.
I'd go as far as to say he is one of the more balanced commenters here with well reasoned arguments and the ability to defend them robustly and fairly.
You don't have to agree with everything but mostly his opinions are very valid takes on what is happening.
In this particular case (and it's been said a few times already) some people seem to be interpreting her words in a way that others aren't.
I haven't read any 'pro' Vestager comments here but I have read the usual anti Vestager, EU stuff. Often with radical tints of some kind or another.
Your 'toxic masculinity' comment left me perplexed.
Winning at all costs is the toxic masculine tendency. Vestager and the EU keep making up contrived concepts like ‘State Aid’ and then losing in their own Supreme Court! We’re in an age where the West is getting it’s a** handed to us by China and Russia and Vestagerand company as well as some in the U.S. want to make it easier for us to be victims of identity theft and such in the guise of ‘competuition’. No thanks. Years of watching the above mentioned contort themselves into a pretzel to give these contrived concepts credence is a waste of anyone’s valuable time.
All laws are contrived. What a weird complaint.
I'll assume you mean complicated or convoluted instead, so as to make some measure of sense. Even so:
A company that receives government support gains an advantage over its competitors. Therefore the Treaty generally prohibits State aid unless it is justified by reasons of general economic development. To ensure that this prohibition is respected and exemptions are applied equally across the European Union, the European Commission is in charge of ensuring that State aid complies with EU rules.
As far as laws go, that's pretty darn clear and concise.
And the "Supreme Court" didn't rule against the concept of State Aid, the EU General Court ruled that the Commission has failed to prove its case against Ireland. It's currently being appealed to the European Court of Justice (which you might call the supreme court) and has not yet been judged.
Law contrived yet not upheld by any Court of the EU
With the case against Ireland and Apple, the EU courts determined that the EU commission did not prove that Ireland broke the State Aid law, as written. The State Aid law states that an EU country can not offer a company a special lower tax rate, than what they charge any other similar companies. The amount of lost tax collected would be considered as giving State Aid to that company.Which would be illegal, but not always. And each EU country could determine its own tax rate, with no limit on how low it can be, so long as it's applied equally to all companies. But with Ireland, they did offer the same low tax rate to all companies, not just to Apple. Thus the EU Commission failed to prove that the low tax rate Ireland offered to Apple, amounted to State Aid.
Right now, the EU Commission is appealing by trying to convince the higher court that such a low tax rate didn't make sense to begin with and should be considered State Aid, even if every company was offered the same low tax rate. The EU want to make it illegal to offer such a low tax rate to companies that can surely afford to pay more. Even if the EU Commission do win this on appeal with this change in the State Aid law, I don't think they can make Ireland collect any back taxes owed, as even the EU must have some sort of Ex post facto law, where they can't collect back taxes, after they raised the tax rate. But this is the EU after all and it would not be a surprise if they did. But going forward, they could force Ireland to raise their tax rate.
crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day. She used other words that mean the same thing. She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.
If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance.
It’s useless to attempt to have a discussion with him. He only digs his heels in further and will not relent on whatever is pro Vestager.
Why should he relent if he believes his opinion stands on a solid base?
I don't see him as pro anything, just for the sake of it.
I'd go as far as to say he is one of the more balanced commenters here with well reasoned arguments and the ability to defend them robustly and fairly.
You don't have to agree with everything but mostly his opinions are very valid takes on what is happening.
In this particular case (and it's been said a few times already) some people seem to be interpreting her words in a way that others aren't.
I haven't read any 'pro' Vestager comments here but I have read the usual anti Vestager, EU stuff. Often with radical tints of some kind or another.
Your 'toxic masculinity' comment left me perplexed.
Winning at all costs is the toxic masculine tendency. Vestager and the EU keep making up contrived concepts like ‘State Aid’ and then losing in their own Supreme Court! We’re in an age where the West is getting it’s a** handed to us by China and Russia and Vestagerand company as well as some in the U.S. want to make it easier for us to be victims of identity theft and such in the guise of ‘competuition’. No thanks. Years of watching the above mentioned contort themselves into a pretzel to give these contrived concepts credence is a waste of anyone’s valuable time.
All laws are contrived. What a weird complaint.
I'll assume you mean complicated or convoluted instead, so as to make some measure of sense. Even so:
A company that receives government support gains an advantage over its competitors. Therefore the Treaty generally prohibits State aid unless it is justified by reasons of general economic development. To ensure that this prohibition is respected and exemptions are applied equally across the European Union, the European Commission is in charge of ensuring that State aid complies with EU rules.
As far as laws go, that's pretty darn clear and concise.
And the "Supreme Court" didn't rule against the concept of State Aid, the EU General Court ruled that the Commission has failed to prove its case against Ireland. It's currently being appealed to the European Court of Justice (which you might call the supreme court) and has not yet been judged.
Law contrived yet not upheld by any Court of the EU
When I replied to your original comment (which I bolded) it was this:
"So where's the evidence that the higher level of privacy and security on an iPhone is harmful to consumers?"
In your reply to that comment, it is this:
"Has the EU provided evidence that supports their statement that iOS is anticompetitive?"
To answer that, different question, we'll have to wait for the findings.
"The important thing here is, of course, that it's not a shield against competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload."
That's the direct quote from Vestager. She is equating Apple's higher level of privacy/security vs Windows/Mac/Android to a "shield against competition". Her words, not mine. All of the focus is on the security aspect alone being equal to anticompetitive behavior. Note that Vestager doesn't make any mention of a specific BENEFIT to consumers with her statement. She doesn't claim alternate app stores or side loading will improve security for consumers. She doesn't claim that they'll lower prices for consumers either. Why? Because the EU already knows that they don't have any evidence that supports those kinds of claims. Windows/Mac/Android are not better at security. Windows/Mac/Android do not provide better prices for software.
So, my first quote and second quote speak to the same thing: the EU does think privacy/security on iOS is synonymous with harm to consumers and anticompetitive behavior. But they don't have any evidence to back it up.
She's not talking security or privacy. That's why she doesn't go very far into that terrain.
She's talking competition and basically saying Tim Cook is barking up the wrong tree by bringing those aspects up IMO.
At the same time she is saying that security and privacy are paramount because they are, but not at the cost of competition.
That is not at all what she is saying. She is saying that she doesn't think that third party app stores and side loading present any issue with privacy and security and therefore is not an excuse that Apple should use to not allow third party app stores and side loading. She did not say nor even implied, that she was willing to sacrifice users privacy and security for the sake of competition.
She doesn't want to go very far with the privacy and security issues because she can not win using it. There is a mountain of evidence known as Android, that shows that customers do give up quite a bit of privacy and security, if third party app stores and side loading are allowed. The fact the she made such an ignorant and baseless statement like ..... "I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load.", shows that Apple is "barking up the right tree".
"At the same time she is saying that security and privacy are paramount because they are, but not at the cost of competition."
That is an oxymoron statement and she did not say that. If privacy and security are "paramount", then none of it should be sacrifice for the sake of "competition".
Paramount
adjective
more important than anything else; supreme.
If she knew the scope of how just how much third party app stores and side loading decreases privacy and security for the users, she might .... Think Different.
Your last paragraph opened a new universe for you. The reason she can't get into the details of security and privacy in the context of this case is because it is a moving target. Apple's could easily get worse and Android's could get better. Also security isn't 'tangible' in this context. There are too many variables involved. Beginning with the users themselves. That isn't at the centre of things here. Apple's anti competitive actions are.
Competition, on the other hand, can be nailed down fairly hard and easily. IMO, it is crystal clear what she is saying and it is what I pointed out earlier.
In fact, just take a look at what Reuters interpretated:
"EU's Vestager warns Apple against using privacy, security to limit competition"
There is no oxymoron here because there is a huge amount of interpretation involved. More secure stores than the App Store might already exist. I know you don't accept this idea as you have already stated as much. What knowledge di you have if Android app stores? Is Apple's privacy the best it can be? I say this because it obviously wasn't, out of the gate. If it had been, little would have changed up to now. Yet, Apple would have (and probably has) said in the past that both aspects were 'paramount'. In fact, it seems that the example given for your definition (assuming it came from where I think it did) is telling:
"The education of the children is paramount"
That is actually a good example as education obviously wouldn't override the importance of the mental and physical health and well being of the children in the bigger picture.
You need to understand how words are used, not only their dictionary definitions. After all, what defines a word is its usage in context and all dictionaries will eventually reflect that. It doesn't work the other way around.
She is not a native English speaker. I see no problems in her usage of paramount as long as the context is taken into account. From an interview with a long and thorough technical investigation as a backdrop, you should be able to contextualise a couple of live quotes clearly.
Everyone here is interpreting her words but you are stating you know what she wanted to say. I don't see how you can do that from the few words that were quoted.
The point here is that Apple has been accused of anti-competitive practices. Apple has said that those practices provide users with privacy and security. Margaret is saying that such claims cannot be used as a shield.
"Competition, on the other hand, can be nailed down fairly hard and easily. IMO, it is crystal clear what she is saying and it is what I pointed out earlier."
But anti-competitive can not be nailed down fairly hard and easily. Shielding against competition is not the same as being anti-competitive.
What Reuters "said" is just the headline of the article. Do you actually think Reuters said everything the wanted to say, in just their headline? Do you just read a headlines and automatically know everything said in the article?
If you actual read the article you would know the reason why Vestager warned Apple against using privacy and security to limit competition. It's because she doesn't think that competition by allowing third party store and side loading, will presents any privacy and security issue. As her ."..... because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load.", which is mentioned in the article with that headline. Which even you can not defend, without throwing around a lot of FUD. Like saying if one had 95% privacy and security when third party stores and side loading are not allowed, but if they are, one still have 75% privacy and security. So they did not give up neither privacy nor security when third party app stores and side loading were allowed. That is FUD. If you have less privacy and security after allowing third party stores and side loading, then you gave up privacy and security. The difference between 95% security and 75% security might be the difference between you still being able to use the device and it being held for ransomware. Or the difference between the security of a solid door and a hollow core door.
What she DID NOT say is that she thinks competition is more important than privacy and security. Which you and some seems to believe. She thinks that allowing third party stores and side loading DO NOT present a privacy and security issue. Thus warning Apple against using that argument (with her) as a means to limit competition, by not allowing third party stores and side loading in iOS. She had made no statement saying or implying, that she thinks competition is more important than privacy and security. I bet you didn't get all that from just reading the Reuters headline.
It's the ....".. .because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load." that Apple will capitalize on. She is going to have a hard time explaining why she ... thinks that. It might be different if she had said .... "there is evidence that ...."... or "studies has shown that" ...... or "there is proof that" or even "Android has shown that ..."..... But she said "I think". That's not saying a lot from someone with the position she holds. Imagine a lawyer getting up and saying to the jury, "I think my client is innocent ......".
You're being to sound like @gatorguy when he's defending Google at all cost. Throwing anything and everything on the wall and seeing what sticks. And most of the time ... its only the FUD.
Firstly, anti-competitive behavior is far easier to handle because there are laws and treaties in place which investigations and rulings will use as clear reference points. There is a lot of hard wiring to guide the process.
Treaties and laws also dictate obligations on privacy and security but those two elements are evolving continuously and are far harder to nail down, especially in a platform comparison debate.
The headline of the Reuters article clearly sums up the key take away from the interview and it is what some of us here are stating. There is no getting away from that. The headline is stating something with crystal clear clarity. She said she shared Tim Cook's concerns but that it couldn't be used as a shield. It's not difficult to grasp what is being said when the headline of the piece is screaming it into your face.
She will not have a hard time explaining what she 'thinks'. It's her opinion based on the findings of the ongoing EU investigations.
You do not have enough to go on to take one simple comment from her against everything that has been concluded from the investigations. There is a huge amount (practically everything) that is unknown to the public at this point.
She leads different teams undertaking different investigations. Look up MaxForce for a famous Apple related example. If you want to get first hand information on the technicalities of what the EU thinks, it will be fruit of those teams and the investigations they have carried out.
She also said she thinks a solution to the problem can be found and admits that changes might be made to her proposals based on feedback from member states. Yes, she can have an opinion too.
I asked you what your knowledge of alternative app stores was. You haven't replied. I asked simply because you defaulted to an 'Android App Stores are worse' stance earlier on. How did you reach that conclusion? If you have knowledge of alternative app stores, now is the time to say so.
I am not throwing anything at the wall in the hope that something will stick. My position hasn't changed in the slightest. At best I think you are nit picking a single sentence and failing to understand that she leads a team of experts in their respective fields. You are also claiming that you 'know' what she means. From the very few sentences that she actually said, I think you simply don't have enough to go on at this point. We aren't talking about a prepared statement here. We are talking about an interview line. Reuters clearly got the gist of what she meant. As did some here. It should have been clear to you too but you are buckling down on something and perhaps not seeing the forest for the trees.
Whether a third party app store is safe to download from, is not the issue and never was.The issue is whether the OS is safer with or without the ability to download from a third party app store or to side load. And the reason why the OS is not safer with the ability to download from a third party store or to side load is because users can be fooled into thinking that they are downloading an app from a trusted store that is known to be completely safe. That can't happen when there is no third party app store or the ability to side load. So your argument about safe third party app stores is moot. You are just throwing FUD into the argument about whether users give up privacy and security when third party app stores and side loading are allowed.
Here are some scenarios and you tell us how easy it is to determine whether it's anti-completive.
Sandwich Store A owner owns his property and down the block is Sandwich Store B, whose owner have to pay the market rate rent on a lease. Both have similar expenses except for the rent. They both sell fresh made sandwiches. But either Store A makes more profit selling the same sandwich, at the same price, as Store B. Or Store A can sell sandwiches for less than store B and make the same profit as Store B. Is Store A being anti-competitive?
A company owns a patent on a product that consumers are buying like crazy. There is no competition for this product because the company do not license out the patent for it. Is that being anti-competitive because they are shielding themselves from competition, by not licensing out their patent?
Google gives away Android. If they didn't, consumers would probably have another mobile OS or two, to choose from, (developed by the phone makers). On the other hand, Apple do not license out iOS and only Apple devices runs on iOS. Other phone makers can not make and sell phones with iOS. Thus limiting consumers choice of iOS mobile devices to Apple devices. Are either Google or Apple being anti-completive because their practices reduces the choices that consumers have in the mobile OS or the iOS mobile phone market?
When Amazon won the case against the 5 publishers and Apple, they were selling e-Books at or below their cost. The publishers were trying to stop this practice. But colluded to do so and ended up being found guilty of collusion and trying to fix the price of e-books. Which would had raised the cost of e-books for the consumers. So Amazon was able to continue selling e-books at or below whole sale price. The courts rule that Amazon could sell e-books at any price, once they paid the publishers the wholesale price for them. Sounds about right, right? However, because Amazon was able to continue to sell e-books at or below wholesale price for the next 5 years (due to a court order restriction placed on the publishers and Apple), many smaller e-book resellers went out of business because they would take a lost if they try to compete by selling e-books at those prices. Amazon now own about 70% of the e-book market. Any easily determined anti-competitive practice on Amazon part? They did the same with hardbound books and CD's.
The CEO of Epic Games, Sweeney, is known to have bought the exclusive rights to certain games that were deemed destined to be big hits and only making them available in the Epic Game Store. Even after the game developers had already promised that their games were going to be available in other online game stores. This limit the ability of other online game stores to compete with the Epic Game Store. Any anti-competitive practice here?
Costco only takes Visa. Costco shoppers that don't have a Visa card can not charge their purchases. Even though there no reason why, except for an exclusive deal Costco have with Visa. The same with KFC only selling Pepsi. Coca Cola is not allowed to compete for KFC customers, inside a KFC. (KFC was once owned by PepsiCo)
in order to use any of the Google apps that comes with an Android phone, one must have or open a Gmail account. The " G" in Gmail stands for Google. Anti-competitive?
Lucky supermarket is the "gatekeeper" of the store they own. They sell their own brand of soda, right along side of name brands like Coca Cola and Pepsi and at 1/3 to 1/2 the price. Do Coca Cola and Pepsi have a case of Lucky being anti-competitive?
Many anti-completive charges hinges on a company being a "monopoly" but what constitute a "monopoly" is not consistent across industries and across other countries. And having a monopoly is not necessarily illegal or anti-competitive. Recently, a US Federal court dropped anti-completive charges the FTC levied against Facebook because the FTC did not provide enough evidence that Facebook had a "monopoly" in the market as defined by the FTC. Thus the FTC must refile, if they choose to. They are going to have to narrow down the market that Facebook has a monopoly in. But it's going to look awfully silly if the only market Facebook has a monopoly in, is the market of consumers with Facebook accounts.
The problem is that anti-completive laws are not hard wired, as you seem to think. It's wired in such a way that politicians can reconfigure the wiring, depending on which side they want to win. If they were hard wired, the EU would have determined whether or not Apple is being anti-completive (by not allowing third party app stores and side loading) by now. But it takes time to reconfigure the wiring if it bit wired to their liking. And what's the use of it being hardwired if the US government could just pass new anti-competitive laws, that only applied to a handful of tech companies, because they didn't like how it was hardwired.
The issue is anti-competitive behaviour.
It is not whether iOS is safer with or without third party app stores. That is irrevelant to the investigation.
You still haven't replied to my question about your knowledge of Android app stores either.
This is relevant as trusted stores can very much exist outside Apple.
However, no store can be 'completely' safe. Not even the App Store. That said, there is no reason that other stores cannot be safer. App stores are seeing continuous improvements in how they evaluate apps and protect against nefarious behaviour.
That line of argument is basically what Vestager is saying cannot be used as a valid counterpoint. It cannot be used as a shield, she said.
All of your 'scenarios' are irrelevant here.
The investigation is into Apple. That's the story here. Please don't throw other examples into this as it sounds like you are saying 'look at this, and now this, and now this - anything but the case at hand'.
Google is being investigated, too.
Android isn't so much of a problem in a monopolistic context. The problem there is the GMS slant.
Apple is being investigated for good reason. I won't venture an outcome but I do think things won't stay the same.
The sandwich store scenario isn't applicable. Do you pay to enter the store? Does the store try to lock you in? I will say that it is somewhat ironic (but perhaps apt) that you chose a 'store' scenario that used multiple stores as that is exactly part of the problem in this case. The lack of other stores.
The problem is that anti-completive laws are not hard wired, as you seem to think. It's wired in such a way that politicians can reconfigure the wiring, depending on which side they want to win. If they were hard wired, the EU would have determined whether or not Apple is being anti-completive (by not allowing third party app stores and side loading) by now. But it takes time to reconfigure the wiring if it bit wired to their liking. And what's the use of it being hardwired if the US government could just pass new anti-competitive laws, that only applied to a handful of tech companies, because they didn't like how it was hardwired.
Many laws are not "hard-wired", assuming I've understood what you mean by that. They are flexible to accommodate fair and reasonable judgement, acknowledging that the world often isn't simple. Proving guilt can be a difficult thing in court, smoking guns are the exception rather than the norm, so prosecutions need to build a case on obtuse paper trails, circumstance, and cross examination of intent. The fact that a single case was not upheld because the prosecution failed to make its case is basically meaningless as an analysis.
I have little idea what you're talking about with the rest of that, "the problem", "what's the use" etc. Seems to be the vaguest of indignation about how most of the legal system actually works.
The problem is that anti-completive laws are not hard wired, as you seem to think. It's wired in such a way that politicians can reconfigure the wiring, depending on which side they want to win. If they were hard wired, the EU would have determined whether or not Apple is being anti-completive (by not allowing third party app stores and side loading) by now. But it takes time to reconfigure the wiring if it bit wired to their liking. And what's the use of it being hardwired if the US government could just pass new anti-competitive laws, that only applied to a handful of tech companies, because they didn't like how it was hardwired.
Many laws are not "hard-wired", assuming I've understood what you mean by that. They are flexible to accommodate fair and reasonable judgement, acknowledging that the world often isn't simple. Proving guilt can be a difficult thing in court, smoking guns are the exception rather than the norm, so prosecutions need to build a case on obtuse paper trails, circumstance, and cross examination of intent. The fact that a single case was not upheld because the prosecution failed to make its case is basically meaningless as an analysis.
I have little idea what you're talking about with the rest of that, "the problem", "what's the use" etc. Seems to be the vaguest of indignation about how most of the legal system actually works.
I was responding to @AvonB7, who said ..."Firstly, anti-competitive behavior is far easier to handle because there are laws and treaties in place which investigations and rulings will use as clear reference points. There is a lot of hard wiring to guide the process."
But at least both you and I know that anti-competitive laws are not "hardwired" and must not only change with the industry involved but also with time. What is considered anti-competitive behavior in one industry might not be in another. And anti-completive rulings made half a century ago must be interpreted differently now, in order to apply to industries and markets that did not exist half a century ago or even a decade ago. It's not as easy to determine what constitute anti-completive behavior as @AvonB7 think it is. Even if anti-trust laws been around for over a century. (in the US at least.)
The problem is that anti-completive laws are not hard wired, as you seem to think. It's wired in such a way that politicians can reconfigure the wiring, depending on which side they want to win. If they were hard wired, the EU would have determined whether or not Apple is being anti-completive (by not allowing third party app stores and side loading) by now. But it takes time to reconfigure the wiring if it bit wired to their liking. And what's the use of it being hardwired if the US government could just pass new anti-competitive laws, that only applied to a handful of tech companies, because they didn't like how it was hardwired.
Many laws are not "hard-wired", assuming I've understood what you mean by that. They are flexible to accommodate fair and reasonable judgement, acknowledging that the world often isn't simple. Proving guilt can be a difficult thing in court, smoking guns are the exception rather than the norm, so prosecutions need to build a case on obtuse paper trails, circumstance, and cross examination of intent. The fact that a single case was not upheld because the prosecution failed to make its case is basically meaningless as an analysis.
I have little idea what you're talking about with the rest of that, "the problem", "what's the use" etc. Seems to be the vaguest of indignation about how most of the legal system actually works.
I was responding to @AvonB7, who said ..."Firstly, anti-competitive behavior is far easier to handle because there are laws and treaties in place which investigations and rulings will use as clear reference points. There is a lot of hard wiring to guide the process."
But at least both you and I know that anti-competitive laws are not "hardwired" and must not only change with the industry involved but also with time. What is considered anti-competitive behavior in one industry might not be in another. And anti-completive rulings made half a century ago must be interpreted differently now, in order to apply to industries and markets that did not exist half a century ago or even a decade ago. It's not as easy to determine what constitute anti-completive behavior as @AvonB7 think it is. Even if anti-trust laws been around for over a century. (in the US at least.)
Ok, that's fair enough, I think I misunderstood your point. Apologies.
Comments
I can only assume the dodgy equivalence is an attempt to provoke. Sorry, I'm not triggered that way.
I don't see him as pro anything, just for the sake of it.
I'd go as far as to say he is one of the more balanced commenters here with well reasoned arguments and the ability to defend them robustly and fairly.
You don't have to agree with everything but mostly his opinions are very valid takes on what is happening.
In this particular case (and it's been said a few times already) some people seem to be interpreting her words in a way that others aren't.
I haven't read any 'pro' Vestager comments here but I have read the usual anti Vestager, EU stuff. Often with radical tints of some kind or another.
Your 'toxic masculinity' comment left me perplexed.
I don't feel ashamed by consistency.
I'll assume you mean complicated or convoluted instead, so as to make some measure of sense. Even so:
As far as laws go, that's pretty darn clear and concise.
And the "Supreme Court" didn't rule against the concept of State Aid, the EU General Court ruled that the Commission has failed to prove its case against Ireland. It's currently being appealed to the European Court of Justice (which you might call the supreme court) and has not yet been judged.
Look, if Google has go through all this Google Play Protect to make third party stores and side loading safer for Android users, then it's obvious that allowing third party app stores and side loading is not as safe as not allowing them. So one do give up some privacy and security when third party app stores and side loading is allowed. Even with all Google is doing to make it safer. If Google, which IMO is a much better software company that Apple, can't make Android (which allows downloading from third party stores and side loading) as safe as it would be without allowing third party stores and side loading or iOS, then Vestager is wrong to say .....".. I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load."
We all know how you take any comment that makes Google look bad personally, but this is not about any failure by Google. Google is doing the right thing by recommending users to not side load, warning users the danger of downloading apps from a third party app store, implementing "Google Play Protect" and creating their "Advance Protection Program", where third party stores and side loading are not allowed for those enrolled that wants more security when using Android. But the fact that they have to do all of these shows that users do lose some privacy and security if third party app stores and side loading were allowed. As good as a job as Google is doing (feel better now), even you have to admit that allowing third party app stores and side loading, is not as safe for the users as not allowing third party app stores and side loading. Unless you can provide a link where Google Play Protect is stopping 100% of the malware and viruses from being installed, from third party app stores and side loading.
Hey, I bet with Vestager State issued mobile phone, she is not allowed to side load and there are no app stores, let alone a third party one. Most here knows the obvious reasons why, but I bet those reasons escapes her.
But anti-competitive can not be nailed down fairly hard and easily. Shielding against competition is not the same as being anti-competitive.
What Reuters "said" is just the headline of the article. Do you actually think Reuters said everything the wanted to say, in just their headline? Do you just read a headlines and automatically know everything said in the article?
If you actual read the article you would know the reason why Vestager warned Apple against using privacy and security to limit competition. It's because she doesn't think that competition by allowing third party store and side loading, will presents any privacy and security issue. As her ."..... because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load.", which is mentioned in the article with that headline. Which even you can not defend, without throwing around a lot of FUD. Like saying if one had 95% privacy and security when third party stores and side loading are not allowed, but if they are, one still have 75% privacy and security. So they did not give up neither privacy nor security when third party app stores and side loading were allowed. That is FUD. If you have less privacy and security after allowing third party stores and side loading, then you gave up privacy and security. The difference between 95% security and 75% security might be the difference between you still being able to use the device and it being held for ransomware. Or the difference between the security of a solid door and a hollow core door.
What she DID NOT say is that she thinks competition is more important than privacy and security. Which you and some seems to believe. She thinks that allowing third party stores and side loading DO NOT present a privacy and security issue. Thus warning Apple against using that argument (with her) as a means to limit competition, by not allowing third party stores and side loading in iOS. She had made no statement saying or implying, that she thinks competition is more important than privacy and security. I bet you didn't get all that from just reading the Reuters headline.
It's the ....".. .because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they side load." that Apple will capitalize on. She is going to have a hard time explaining why she ... thinks that. It might be different if she had said .... "there is evidence that ...."... or "studies has shown that" ...... or "there is proof that" or even "Android has shown that ..."..... But she said "I think". That's not saying a lot from someone with the position she holds. Imagine a lawyer getting up and saying to the jury, "I think my client is innocent ......".
You're being to sound like @gatorguy when he's defending Google at all cost. Throwing anything and everything on the wall and seeing what sticks. And most of the time ... its only the FUD.
Treaties and laws also dictate obligations on privacy and security but those two elements are evolving continuously and are far harder to nail down, especially in a platform comparison debate.
The headline of the Reuters article clearly sums up the key take away from the interview and it is what some of us here are stating. There is no getting away from that. The headline is stating something with crystal clear clarity. She said she shared Tim Cook's concerns but that it couldn't be used as a shield. It's not difficult to grasp what is being said when the headline of the piece is screaming it into your face.
She will not have a hard time explaining what she 'thinks'. It's her opinion based on the findings of the ongoing EU investigations.
You do not have enough to go on to take one simple comment from her against everything that has been concluded from the investigations. There is a huge amount (practically everything) that is unknown to the public at this point.
She leads different teams undertaking different investigations. Look up MaxForce for a famous Apple related example. If you want to get first hand information on the technicalities of what the EU thinks, it will be fruit of those teams and the investigations they have carried out.
She also said she thinks a solution to the problem can be found and admits that changes might be made to her proposals based on feedback from member states. Yes, she can have an opinion too.
I asked you what your knowledge of alternative app stores was. You haven't replied. I asked simply because you defaulted to an 'Android App Stores are worse' stance earlier on. How did you reach that conclusion? If you have knowledge of alternative app stores, now is the time to say so.
I am not throwing anything at the wall in the hope that something will stick. My position hasn't changed in the slightest. At best I think you are nit picking a single sentence and failing to understand that she leads a team of experts in their respective fields. You are also claiming that you 'know' what she means. From the very few sentences that she actually said, I think you simply don't have enough to go on at this point. We aren't talking about a prepared statement here. We are talking about an interview line. Reuters clearly got the gist of what she meant. As did some here. It should have been clear to you too but you are buckling down on something and perhaps not seeing the forest for the trees.
Here are some scenarios and you tell us how easy it is to determine whether it's anti-completive.
Sandwich Store A owner owns his property and down the block is Sandwich Store B, whose owner have to pay the market rate rent on a lease. Both have similar expenses except for the rent. They both sell fresh made sandwiches. But either Store A makes more profit selling the same sandwich, at the same price, as Store B. Or Store A can sell sandwiches for less than store B and make the same profit as Store B. Is Store A being anti-competitive?
A company owns a patent on a product that consumers are buying like crazy. There is no competition for this product because the company do not license out the patent for it. Is that being anti-competitive because they are shielding themselves from competition, by not licensing out their patent?
Google gives away Android. If they didn't, consumers would probably have another mobile OS or two, to choose from, (developed by the phone makers). On the other hand, Apple do not license out iOS and only Apple devices runs on iOS. Other phone makers can not make and sell phones with iOS. Thus limiting consumers choice of iOS mobile devices to Apple devices. Are either Google or Apple being anti-completive because their practices reduces the choices that consumers have in the mobile OS or the iOS mobile phone market?
When Amazon won the case against the 5 publishers and Apple, they were selling e-Books at or below their cost. The publishers were trying to stop this practice. But colluded to do so and ended up being found guilty of collusion and trying to fix the price of e-books. Which would had raised the cost of e-books for the consumers. So Amazon was able to continue selling e-books at or below whole sale price. The courts rule that Amazon could sell e-books at any price, once they paid the publishers the wholesale price for them. Sounds about right, right? However, because Amazon was able to continue to sell e-books at or below wholesale price for the next 5 years (due to a court order restriction placed on the publishers and Apple), many smaller e-book resellers went out of business because they would take a lost if they try to compete by selling e-books at those prices. Amazon now own about 70% of the e-book market. Any easily determined anti-competitive practice on Amazon part? They did the same with hardbound books and CD's.
The CEO of Epic Games, Sweeney, is known to have bought the exclusive rights to certain games that were deemed destined to be big hits and only making them available in the Epic Game Store. Even after the game developers had already promised that their games were going to be available in other online game stores. This limit the ability of other online game stores to compete with the Epic Game Store. Any anti-competitive practice here?
Costco only takes Visa. Costco shoppers that don't have a Visa card can not charge their purchases. Even though there no reason why, except for an exclusive deal Costco have with Visa. The same with KFC only selling Pepsi. Coca Cola is not allowed to compete for KFC customers, inside a KFC. (KFC was once owned by PepsiCo)
in order to use any of the Google apps that comes with an Android phone, one must have or open a Gmail account. The " G" in Gmail stands for Google. Anti-competitive?
Lucky supermarket is the "gatekeeper" of the store they own. They sell their own brand of soda, right along side of name brands like Coca Cola and Pepsi and at 1/3 to 1/2 the price. Do Coca Cola and Pepsi have a case of Lucky being anti-competitive?
Many anti-completive charges hinges on a company being a "monopoly" but what constitute a "monopoly" is not consistent across industries and across other countries. And having a monopoly is not necessarily illegal or anti-competitive. Recently, a US Federal court dropped anti-completive charges the FTC levied against Facebook because the FTC did not provide enough evidence that Facebook had a "monopoly" in the market as defined by the FTC. Thus the FTC must refile, if they choose to. They are going to have to narrow down the market that Facebook has a monopoly in. But it's going to look awfully silly if the only market Facebook has a monopoly in, is the market of consumers with Facebook accounts.
The problem is that anti-completive laws are not hard wired, as you seem to think. It's wired in such a way that politicians can reconfigure the wiring, depending on which side they want to win. If they were hard wired, the EU would have determined whether or not Apple is being anti-completive (by not allowing third party app stores and side loading) by now. But it takes time to reconfigure the wiring if it not wired to their liking. And what's the use of it being hardwired if the US government could just pass new anti-competitive laws, that only applied to a handful of tech companies, because they didn't like how it was hardwired.
Right now, the EU Commission is appealing by trying to convince the higher court that such a low tax rate didn't make sense to begin with and should be considered State Aid, even if every company was offered the same low tax rate. The EU want to make it illegal to offer such a low tax rate to companies that can surely afford to pay more. Even if the EU Commission do win this on appeal with this change in the State Aid law, I don't think they can make Ireland collect any back taxes owed, as even the EU must have some sort of Ex post facto law, where they can't collect back taxes, after they raised the tax rate. But this is the EU after all and it would not be a surprise if they did. But going forward, they could force Ireland to raise their tax rate.
Many thousands of other cases where State Aid was prosecuted are publicly viewable at https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm?clear=1&policy_area_id=3
Please stop speaking from ignorance.
It is not whether iOS is safer with or without third party app stores. That is irrevelant to the investigation.
You still haven't replied to my question about your knowledge of Android app stores either.
This is relevant as trusted stores can very much exist outside Apple.
However, no store can be 'completely' safe. Not even the App Store. That said, there is no reason that other stores cannot be safer. App stores are seeing continuous improvements in how they evaluate apps and protect against nefarious behaviour.
That line of argument is basically what Vestager is saying cannot be used as a valid counterpoint. It cannot be used as a shield, she said.
All of your 'scenarios' are irrelevant here.
The investigation is into Apple. That's the story here. Please don't throw other examples into this as it sounds like you are saying 'look at this, and now this, and now this - anything but the case at hand'.
Google is being investigated, too.
Android isn't so much of a problem in a monopolistic context. The problem there is the GMS slant.
Apple is being investigated for good reason. I won't venture an outcome but I do think things won't stay the same.
The sandwich store scenario isn't applicable. Do you pay to enter the store? Does the store try to lock you in? I will say that it is somewhat ironic (but perhaps apt) that you chose a 'store' scenario that used multiple stores as that is exactly part of the problem in this case. The lack of other stores.
I have little idea what you're talking about with the rest of that, "the problem", "what's the use" etc. Seems to be the vaguest of indignation about how most of the legal system actually works.
But at least both you and I know that anti-competitive laws are not "hardwired" and must not only change with the industry involved but also with time. What is considered anti-competitive behavior in one industry might not be in another. And anti-completive rulings made half a century ago must be interpreted differently now, in order to apply to industries and markets that did not exist half a century ago or even a decade ago. It's not as easy to determine what constitute anti-completive behavior as @AvonB7 think it is. Even if anti-trust laws been around for over a century. (in the US at least.)