Does the EU know technology? It’s apparent they don’t. Having more people with access to your information is inherently less secure.
What information are you referring to?
Either way, that is not the point here. It's about choice, competition and a level playing field.
Choice and competition come from other device and OS makers. That’s your level playing field. Throwing those words around like slogans is meaningless in an environment where they’re selectively enforced for the benefit of entrenched and influential interests. It’s exactly like the endemic green-washing perpetrated by companies. Competitors in weaker positions have weaponized these terms to gain unfair, unearned advantages.
Does the EU force Philips to make Hue systems interoperable with competitor’s systems? Do they open the control software and hardware for direct access by competitors? Nope. They have licensees that work through Philip’s APIs and their hardware has to meet pretty stiff requirements.
Does the EU get involved on customers behalf while Nestle privatizes or steals public water through tactics that would make organized crime proud? Nope. Because the EU isn’t actually interested in what’s best for people, but in maintaining it’s power and authority. If the cost of that is half-decent social systems so that people don’t look to closely at what those in power are actually up to, they’ll do that. It doesn’t make them more pro-people than any other system.
There should be limits to what governments can dictate in terms of competition i.e. you shouldn’t be able to legislate a company’s competitive advantages out of existence.
All of the EU’s efforts have been targeted toward bringing the market down to the lowest common denominator, not up to the best possible solution. That’s anticompetitive on the face of it, and that practice is what mired the mobile space for decades under the control of rent-seeking European companies that failed to innovate, and prevented the entire market from moving forward in any significant way.
This is all very plainly protectionism for the EU’s corrupt financial institutions and it’s own entrenched corporate influence.
I’d hazard a guess that part of the issue is that so many executives and employees of mobile companies that no longer exist because of competition from Apple (and to a lesser extent Google) are now in regulatory positions that enable them to grind their personal axes.
Sorry for the diatribe, but I’m kinda sick of people drinking the EU Kool-Aid, taking their stated motivation at face-value, and not considering what similar efforts have done to hobble actual competition and choice. (For example, people like to cite the breakup of Ma Bell as a pro-competitive “good thing”, without examining the significant downsides it introduced, how it reduced actual competition in regional markets, the adverse effects it had on employees, and how it led directly to the telecommunications mess we have today.)
One word: gatekeeper.
The EU has detailed exactly why it is treating gatekeepers like they do.
You can argue about how gatekeeper criteria were cooked up but not how the EU is dealing with this.
Philips Hue is not a gatekeeper.
Two things:
In the prior post the author explicitly says “open access to the NFC chip.”
Philips Hue absolutely is a gatekeeper in the technological and economic sense. Use a dictionary.
Telling me I can’t argue with something seems pretty… European. The EU can make up its rationales all they want, it doesn’t mean they’re true. And, once again, it’s selective in its disapproval of gate-keeping.
Does the EU know technology? It’s apparent they don’t. Having more people with access to your information is inherently less secure.
What information are you referring to?
Either way, that is not the point here. It's about choice, competition and a level playing field.
Choice and competition come from other device and OS makers. That’s your level playing field. Throwing those words around like slogans is meaningless in an environment where they’re selectively enforced for the benefit of entrenched and influential interests. It’s exactly like the endemic green-washing perpetrated by companies. Competitors in weaker positions have weaponized these terms to gain unfair, unearned advantages.
Does the EU force Philips to make Hue systems interoperable with competitor’s systems? Do they open the control software and hardware for direct access by competitors? Nope. They have licensees that work through Philip’s APIs and their hardware has to meet pretty stiff requirements.
Does the EU get involved on customers behalf while Nestle privatizes or steals public water through tactics that would make organized crime proud? Nope. Because the EU isn’t actually interested in what’s best for people, but in maintaining it’s power and authority. If the cost of that is half-decent social systems so that people don’t look to closely at what those in power are actually up to, they’ll do that. It doesn’t make them more pro-people than any other system.
There should be limits to what governments can dictate in terms of competition i.e. you shouldn’t be able to legislate a company’s competitive advantages out of existence.
All of the EU’s efforts have been targeted toward bringing the market down to the lowest common denominator, not up to the best possible solution. That’s anticompetitive on the face of it, and that practice is what mired the mobile space for decades under the control of rent-seeking European companies that failed to innovate, and prevented the entire market from moving forward in any significant way.
This is all very plainly protectionism for the EU’s corrupt financial institutions and it’s own entrenched corporate influence.
I’d hazard a guess that part of the issue is that so many executives and employees of mobile companies that no longer exist because of competition from Apple (and to a lesser extent Google) are now in regulatory positions that enable them to grind their personal axes.
Sorry for the diatribe, but I’m kinda sick of people drinking the EU Kool-Aid, taking their stated motivation at face-value, and not considering what similar efforts have done to hobble actual competition and choice. (For example, people like to cite the breakup of Ma Bell as a pro-competitive “good thing”, without examining the significant downsides it introduced, how it reduced actual competition in regional markets, the adverse effects it had on employees, and how it led directly to the telecommunications mess we have today.)
One word: gatekeeper.
The EU has detailed exactly why it is treating gatekeepers like they do.
You can argue about how gatekeeper criteria were cooked up but not how the EU is dealing with this.
Philips Hue is not a gatekeeper.
Two things:
In the prior post the author explicitly says “open access to the NFC chip.”
Philips Hue absolutely is a gatekeeper in the technological and economic sense. Use a dictionary.
Telling me I can’t argue with something seems pretty… European. The EU can make up its rationales all they want, it doesn’t mean they’re true. And, once again, it’s selective in its disapproval of gate-keeping.
'Open' access does not mean direct access.
Philips Hue is absolutely not a gatekeeper.
There are many industry alternatives to choose from and Hue is limited to lighting.
You cannot argue with that because you clearly didn't understand how the term is used.
'Rationales' being 'true' (according to who?) or not are irrelevant. The definitions have been set. Feel free to argue how those definitions were cooked up, though.
Irrelevant. iPhone is a toaster. A sealed end-to-end solution. Developers and banks are not Apple's customers. People that buy iPhones are Apple's customers, and most of us buy into Apple's ecosystem because Apple is the gatekeeper. There is choice and competition already, but folks like you continuously tip-toe over it. You want that kind of openness - as usual - BUY AN ANDROID PHONE!
Only a vocal, loud, whining minority are raising a stink and they are not customers. They are corporations, and sketchy developers that want to ride the coattails of Apple's work. They know that there is no money to be made on Android, and iPhone users is where the money is at. It's not about "competition". NFC does not "require" that everyone have access to that technology on every product.
A) A toaster takes any bread that's small enough to fit into the slots. So not a particularly good examples. Still waiting for the first toaster manufacturer that limits it's intake to bread manufactured by the toaster manufacturer. --- So a particularly bad example.
That 'vocal, loud, whining minority' is called Europe and has more potential customers (450Million*) than there are in the US (only 337 Million*). So who's the minority here? So why should the EU let itself being dictated by a big corporation in a smallish little country somewhere in the west?
Fact is Tim Cook has no creative ideas for Apple, beyond trying to milk it's customer base to the max. Instead of big new Ideas (iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad) like Steve Jobs in his last run, Tim only nows how to suck money out of their customers.
I've been a longtime Apple fan since before it was 'cool' (even worked at Apple for some years) and am completely bought into the Apple ecosystem myself (and literally earned millions by buying into AAPL stocks in the early 00s). But for the last few years (ever since they tried to push for the service based model) I more and more regret going in that deep (and am actually started selling off my AAPL stocks, because I am loosing faith in Apple's ability to truly innovate).
The fundamental issue here needs to be clearly addressed by both sides.
Does the existence of NFC hardware in Apple’s products obligate Apple to allow others to use it? More importantly, in what way is Apple stifling competition when there are other products consumers can use, and is Apple stopping the development of new competing NFC-equipped devices?
It seems like the EU and those who support their perspective see Apple’s devices as an isolated market, as if they exist separately from other markets and other competing products aren’t actually competition and consumer choice. i.e. A user shouldn’t have to switch devices to get the function they want. That obviously makes no sense, but that’s what they’re saying. So the question is why are they saying it?
The fundamental issue here needs to be clearly addressed by both sides.
Does the existence of NFC hardware in Apple’s products obligate Apple to allow others to use it? More importantly, in what way is Apple stifling competition when there are other products consumers can use, and is Apple stopping the development of new competing NFC-equipped devices?
It seems like the EU and those who support their perspective see Apple’s devices as an isolated market, as if they exist separately from other markets and other competing products aren’t actually competition and consumer choice. i.e. A user shouldn’t have to switch devices to get the function they want. That obviously makes no sense, but that’s what they’re saying. So the question is why are they saying it?
Why would it be wrong for Apple to limit wifi or Bluetooth to its own ecosystem products?
If you can answer that question you should be able to understand why NFC falls into the same category.
After all, even on Apple devices, it is designed to work with non-Apple NFC hardware.
georgie01 said: It seems like the EU and those who support their perspective see Apple’s devices as an isolated market, as if they exist separately from other markets and other competing products aren’t actually competition and consumer choice. i.e. A user shouldn’t have to switch devices to get the function they want. That obviously makes no sense, but that’s what they’re saying. So the question is why are they saying it?
Both the EU and U.S. Congress appear to believe that a low percentage of consumers switching platforms = high barrier to switching. Part of the problem with that is they seem to be ignoring customer satisfaction data at the same time that they're citing data about platform switching. And IMO, it would be very difficult to claim the barrier for switching on mobile is somehow higher than on desktop/laptop since the cost of software on the latter is so much higher.
The fundamental issue here needs to be clearly addressed by both sides.
Does the existence of NFC hardware in Apple’s products obligate Apple to allow others to use it? More importantly, in what way is Apple stifling competition when there are other products consumers can use, and is Apple stopping the development of new competing NFC-equipped devices?
It seems like the EU and those who support their perspective see Apple’s devices as an isolated market, as if they exist separately from other markets and other competing products aren’t actually competition and consumer choice. i.e. A user shouldn’t have to switch devices to get the function they want. That obviously makes no sense, but that’s what they’re saying. So the question is why are they saying it?
Why would it be wrong for Apple to limit wifi or Bluetooth to its own ecosystem products?
If you can answer that question you should be able to understand why NFC falls into the same category.
After all, even on Apple devices, it is designed to work with non-Apple NFC hardware.
From an anti-trust point of view, it wouldn't be wrong at all. But from a marketing and business point of view, it would not be the right move or the wisest, as this would hurt Apple hardware sales. But limiting third parties access to NFC probably would not hurt hardware sales at all. In the US, less than 10% of iPhone users uses NFC with their Apple Pay Wallet. Even though over 50% of iPhone users uses Apple Pay. Most Apple iPhone users, like the vast majority of consumers that uses NFC technology for payments, pull out their chipped CC when paying at a retail store POS terminal.
Remember, "mobile payment" is any payment using a smartphone or tablet and not necessarily using NFC. Using a smartphone to pay for an eBay purchase with PayPal, using a browser to access eBay website, counts as a "mobile payment". So does ordering and paying for an Amazon purchase using a smartphone. So one needs to be careful with surveys that deal with "mobile payments". Some surveys regarding NFC payments also includes payments using a chipped CC and not necessarily only using the NFC chip in a smartphone.
Apple pays for a license to have BT, WiFi and NFC on their devices. They are not free for Apple to use. Apple might be paying a fee per device sold. Apple also invested in RD to have iOS communicate with the chips of these features. The chips to these features are not plug and play and automatically communicate with another similar chip, without software specially developed for the devices they are installed on. Give PayPal access to the NFC chip and there's still no way for PayPal to use it without using Apple IP. It's the same with Android, only Android is open source and they wouldn't need to pay to use it. But Apple could very well charge developers to have access to these features, as it cost Apple to have and maintain these features and develop the software so others can access them. Charging a fee is in a way "limiting" access to NFC.
The Germany courts ruled that Apple must allow access to their NFC technology, but also ruled that Apple can charge an "appropriate" fee for that access. Plus denied access if there is a legitimate security and privacy concern.
>System enterprises can legally refuse to grant access to an infrastructure if there are objective reasons to deny that access, such as for example a concrete threat to the safety and integrity of its technical infrastructure services. The system enterprise bears the burden of proof of the existence of a "concrete threat". In addition, the system enterprise should be able to demonstrate that it has made reasonable efforts in order to minimise the security risk of that concrete threat materialising.
The system enterprise is entitled to charge "an appropriate fee" for granting access to the PSP. Obviously what constitutes an appropriate fee will be up for discussion.<
Now from an anti-trust point of view, it would only be wrong to limit access, if Apple had a true monopoly with their devices and not some made up as they go along, EC DMA rules about "gatekeepers" and "dominate marketshare" in a made up market that only pertains to the big 5 US techs. The reason why Microsoft had to open up access to Windows is because Windows is a true monopoly on the global computer market (it might no longer be over 90% but still in true monopoly range), not because of some BS that Microsoft is a "gatekeeper". iPhones and iOS market shares are no where near that of Windows.
Plus, if consumers can't use their smartphone to make a contactless mobile payments, they can use their plastic CC. It's 3x smaller, over 5x thinner and don't require a battery. It's not like Apple Pay on an iPhone have anywhere near a monopoly or dominate marketshare when it comes to contactless payments using the POS terminal at a retail store. And from the consumer standpoint, just input the CC and bank account on your PayPal account, into your Apple Wallet and there would be no need to have PayPal needing access to Apple NFC chip. It cost the iPhone users nothing to use Apple Pay with NFC, regardless of the CC or bank used for payment.
Comments
In the prior post the author explicitly says “open access to the NFC chip.”
Philips Hue absolutely is a gatekeeper in the technological and economic sense. Use a dictionary.
Telling me I can’t argue with something seems pretty… European. The EU can make up its rationales all they want, it doesn’t mean they’re true. And, once again, it’s selective in its disapproval of gate-keeping.
Philips Hue is absolutely not a gatekeeper.
There are many industry alternatives to choose from and Hue is limited to lighting.
See here:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en#who-are-the-gatekeepers
You cannot argue with that because you clearly didn't understand how the term is used.
'Rationales' being 'true' (according to who?) or not are irrelevant. The definitions have been set. Feel free to argue how those definitions were cooked up, though.
Fact is Tim Cook has no creative ideas for Apple, beyond trying to milk it's customer base to the max. Instead of big new Ideas (iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad) like Steve Jobs in his last run, Tim only nows how to suck money out of their customers.
I've been a longtime Apple fan since before it was 'cool' (even worked at Apple for some years) and am completely bought into the Apple ecosystem myself (and literally earned millions by buying into AAPL stocks in the early 00s). But for the last few years (ever since they tried to push for the service based model) I more and more regret going in that deep (and am actually started selling off my AAPL stocks, because I am loosing faith in Apple's ability to truly innovate).
* According to CIA World Factbook
Does the existence of NFC hardware in Apple’s products obligate Apple to allow others to use it? More importantly, in what way is Apple stifling competition when there are other products consumers can use, and is Apple stopping the development of new competing NFC-equipped devices?
It seems like the EU and those who support their perspective see Apple’s devices as an isolated market, as if they exist separately from other markets and other competing products aren’t actually competition and consumer choice. i.e. A user shouldn’t have to switch devices to get the function they want. That obviously makes no sense, but that’s what they’re saying. So the question is why are they saying it?
If you can answer that question you should be able to understand why NFC falls into the same category.
After all, even on Apple devices, it is designed to work with non-Apple NFC hardware.
>System enterprises can legally refuse to grant access to an infrastructure if there are objective reasons to deny that access, such as for example a concrete threat to the safety and integrity of its technical infrastructure services. The system enterprise bears the burden of proof of the existence of a "concrete threat". In addition, the system enterprise should be able to demonstrate that it has made reasonable efforts in order to minimise the security risk of that concrete threat materialising.
The system enterprise is entitled to charge "an appropriate fee" for granting access to the PSP. Obviously what constitutes an appropriate fee will be up for discussion.<
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Red_Hen
with apple being the hen, and the EU the other farm animals, except they are trying to force apple to share.