avon b7 said: The issue is anti-competitive behaviour.
And to prove anti-competitive behavior, the EU has to show harm to consumers. That's their current problem: they don't really have anything to show per harm to consumers. iOS is more secure than Windows/Mac/Android and does not have higher prices for software than Windows/Mac/Android. The EU's attempt at using Spotify as their "harm" champion proved the reverse of what they intended: Spotify turned out to be lying and iOS users turned out to be capable of using the internet to pay for a subscription.
avon b7 said: The issue is anti-competitive behaviour.
And to prove anti-competitive behavior, the EU has to show harm to consumers. That's their current problem: they don't really have anything to show per harm to consumers. iOS is more secure than Windows/Mac/Android and does not have higher prices for software than Windows/Mac/Android. The EU's attempt at using Spotify as their "harm" champion proved the reverse of what they intended: Spotify turned out to be lying and iOS users turned out to be capable of using the internet to pay for a subscription.
Have you had access to the findings of the investigation?
All I've seen so far are a couple of Tweets, some vague references and a couple of very basic interviews.
crowley said: ? No you don't. The harm could be to other businesses.
Yes, they do need to find harm to consumers if they want to claim the issue is with competition and antitrust. The purpose of business competition is to benefit consumers. The purpose of antitrust laws is to protect consumers.
avon b7 said: Have you had access to the findings of the investigation?
All I've seen so far are a couple of Tweets, some vague references and a couple of very basic interviews.
Here's what I know that the EU will not find:
• That Spotify was telling the truth about how Apple's App Store commission impacted their business • That a 30% commission is unusually high in software markets or any other type of market • That preventing links to outside places of purchase is unusual in electronic stores • That iOS users don't pay for products/services on the internet • That iOS users can't use products/services purchased on the internet within App Store apps • That iOS doesn't have better security/privacy than Windows/Mac/Android • That iOS has higher software prices than Windows/Mac/Android
Based on that, what's left for the EU to find? Personally, I find it hard to think of anything substantive...which is why I believe the EU is trying to switch to saying alternate app stores and side loading are the "benefit" to consumers and that Apple preventing them is the "harm", despite already knowing that alternate app stores and side loading don't provide better security or better prices for consumers. They're going to try and run with that because it's all they've got.
crowley said: ? No you don't. The harm could be to other businesses.
Yes, they do need to find harm to consumers if they want to claim the issue is with competition and antitrust. The purpose of business competition is to benefit consumers. The purpose of antitrust laws is to protect consumers.
Ultimately yes, but they don't need to prove harm. Predatory pricing and dumping is anti-competitive behaviour which in the short term is beneficial to consumers through lower prices, but can still attract regulatory scrutiny. Behaviour that places undue burdens on other businesses, stifling their ability to compete can still be prosecutable if an abuse of a dominant market position can be proven.
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
Yet somehow, again, NOT Apple. No ignorance and your salty and intentionally inaccurate comments and name calling under the guise of intelligent comment. AppleInsider is about Apple and so are my comments no matter how much you try to stretch your contrived “law” to fit Apple.
avon b7 said: The issue is anti-competitive behaviour.
And to prove anti-competitive behavior, the EU has to show harm to consumers.
? No you don't. The harm could be to other businesses.
Yeah, Spotify which is beating the crap out of Apple Music despite how much Daniel Ek cries Apple is so unfair. He just wants the stock price to go up. It’s so lame.
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
Yet somehow, again, NOT Apple. No ignorance and your salty and intentionally inaccurate comments and name calling under the guise of intelligent comment. AppleInsider is about Apple and so are my comments no matter how much you try to stretch your contrived “law” to fit Apple.
?
You were criticising the “contrived concept” of state aid!
And you claimed the Apple case was not upheld by the EU Supreme Court!
I don’t know what you think is intentionally inaccurate about what I’ve said, all the inaccuracy that I can see is coming from you.
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
Yet somehow, again, NOT Apple. No ignorance and your salty and intentionally inaccurate comments and name calling under the guise of intelligent comment. AppleInsider is about Apple and so are my comments no matter how much you try to stretch your contrived “law” to fit Apple.
?
You were criticising the “contrived concept” of state aid!
And you claimed the Apple case was not upheld by the EU Supreme Court!
I don’t know what you think is intentionally inaccurate about what I’ve said, all the inaccuracy that I can see is coming from you.
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
Yet somehow, again, NOT Apple. No ignorance and your salty and intentionally inaccurate comments and name calling under the guise of intelligent comment. AppleInsider is about Apple and so are my comments no matter how much you try to stretch your contrived “law” to fit Apple.
?
You were criticising the “contrived concept” of state aid!
And you claimed the Apple case was not upheld by the EU Supreme Court!
I don’t know what you think is intentionally inaccurate about what I’ve said, all the inaccuracy that I can see is coming from you.
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
Yet somehow, again, NOT Apple. No ignorance and your salty and intentionally inaccurate comments and name calling under the guise of intelligent comment. AppleInsider is about Apple and so are my comments no matter how much you try to stretch your contrived “law” to fit Apple.
?
You were criticising the “contrived concept” of state aid!
And you claimed the Apple case was not upheld by the EU Supreme Court!
I don’t know what you think is intentionally inaccurate about what I’ve said, all the inaccuracy that I can see is coming from you.
I already corrected that point and now you’re trying to use the same point I already corrected to make your subtle abusive commentary seem legitimate while you try to frame those who disagree with you as illegitimate. Always the same circular obfuscation with you to your own need to feel like you won the argument. 6-7 years later you have not changed despite having nothing but imagined wins against Apple.
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
Yet somehow, again, NOT Apple. No ignorance and your salty and intentionally inaccurate comments and name calling under the guise of intelligent comment. AppleInsider is about Apple and so are my comments no matter how much you try to stretch your contrived “law” to fit Apple.
?
You were criticising the “contrived concept” of state aid!
And you claimed the Apple case was not upheld by the EU Supreme Court!
I don’t know what you think is intentionally inaccurate about what I’ve said, all the inaccuracy that I can see is coming from you.
I already corrected that point and now you’re trying to use the same point I already corrected to make your subtle abusive commentary seem legitimate while you try to frame those who disagree with you as illegitimate. Always the same circular obfuscation with you to your own need to feel like you won the argument. 6-7 years later you have not changed despite having nothing but imagined wins against Apple.
I didn't see any substantive correction, just a statement that the Ireland-Apple decision hasn't been upheld by any EU Court (it's only been in front of two, the first that judged against Ireland, the second for, with a third in the wings). You still haven't clarified what you mean by "intentionally inaccurate comments", and now you accuse me of obfuscation (over what I can't imagine). And as for need to win the argument, just today I admitted that I got the wrong end of the stick and apologised to you!
You seem to have taken offence over some affront I've committed in the past that I can't recall and have decided to make this entire exchange vindictive. Sorry, but I don't have the time for that, even though I've never said your opinion was illegitimate. I don't need to win that much (against Apple? I haven't even been arguing against Apple?).
Sigh at this entire exchange. It could have been a proper discussion but you came in guns blazing against me from the start.
Comments
All I've seen so far are a couple of Tweets, some vague references and a couple of very basic interviews.
• That Spotify was telling the truth about how Apple's App Store commission impacted their business
• That a 30% commission is unusually high in software markets or any other type of market
• That preventing links to outside places of purchase is unusual in electronic stores
• That iOS users don't pay for products/services on the internet
• That iOS users can't use products/services purchased on the internet within App Store apps
• That iOS doesn't have better security/privacy than Windows/Mac/Android
• That iOS has higher software prices than Windows/Mac/Android
Based on that, what's left for the EU to find? Personally, I find it hard to think of anything substantive...which is why I believe the EU is trying to switch to saying alternate app stores and side loading are the "benefit" to consumers and that Apple preventing them is the "harm", despite already knowing that alternate app stores and side loading don't provide better security or better prices for consumers. They're going to try and run with that because it's all they've got.
You were criticising the “contrived concept” of state aid!
And you claimed the Apple case was not upheld by the EU Supreme Court!
I don’t know what you think is intentionally inaccurate about what I’ve said, all the inaccuracy that I can see is coming from you.
You seem to have taken offence over some affront I've committed in the past that I can't recall and have decided to make this entire exchange vindictive. Sorry, but I don't have the time for that, even though I've never said your opinion was illegitimate. I don't need to win that much (against Apple? I haven't even been arguing against Apple?).
Sigh at this entire exchange. It could have been a proper discussion but you came in guns blazing against me from the start.