How can the CTF qualify as "barrier to entry" when it only applies to for-profit apps that have more than one million unique downloads?
The whole "barrier to entry" aspect is flimsy to begin with considering that apps like Spotify figured out how to be available to download from the App Store + never pay Apple a commission for anything back in 2008 when the store originally launched. All they had to do was have a free ad-supported version in the store and have customers sign up for the premium subscription online. iPhone/iOS gave users access to the App Store + internet + a variety of communication methods like email, texts and social media so it wasn't really that hard to make users aware of how it worked. All you have to do is look at Spotify's growth curve for both free and premium subscriptions to see that there was never a substantial barrier to their business with the pre-DMA approach by Apple.
How can the CTF qualify as "barrier to entry" when it only applies to for-profit apps that have more than one million unique downloads?
The whole "barrier to entry" aspect is flimsy to begin with considering that apps like Spotify figured out how to be available to download from the App Store + never pay Apple a commission for anything back in 2008 when the store originally launched. All they had to do was have a free ad-supported version in the store and have customers sign up for the premium subscription online. iPhone/iOS gave users access to the App Store + internet + a variety of communication methods like email, texts and social media so it wasn't really that hard to make users aware of how it worked. All you have to do is look at Spotify's growth curve for both free and premium subscriptions to see that there was never a substantial barrier to their business with the pre-DMA approach by Apple.
Perhaps the thinking is that the CTF shouldn't exist in any shape or form.
We'll have to wait and see if a fine is imposed and the specifics behind it.
It could even be a few different things. Until something becomes official we can't know.
avon b7 said: Perhaps the thinking is that the CTF shouldn't exist in any shape or form.
The rumored reason is that the EU will claim the CTF violates the rule that the "gatekeeper" can't monetize companies steering customers outside the App Store. The obvious issue there is that the CTF is specific to for-profit apps that go above a total number of unique installs. The trigger isn't related to steering AND steering isn't really the only way that users of the apps could find them outside the App Store. Consider that hard copies of console games still involve commissions to the 1st party even though they're not being sold in the 1st party digital store.
How can the CTF qualify as "barrier to entry" when it only applies to for-profit apps that have more than one million unique downloads?
The whole "barrier to entry" aspect is flimsy to begin with considering that apps like Spotify figured out how to be available to download from the App Store + never pay Apple a commission for anything back in 2008 when the store originally launched. All they had to do was have a free ad-supported version in the store and have customers sign up for the premium subscription online. iPhone/iOS gave users access to the App Store + internet + a variety of communication methods like email, texts and social media so it wasn't really that hard to make users aware of how it worked. All you have to do is look at Spotify's growth curve for both free and premium subscriptions to see that there was never a substantial barrier to their business with the pre-DMA approach by Apple.
Perhaps the thinking is that the CTF shouldn't exist in any shape or form.
We'll have to wait and see if a fine is imposed and the specifics behind it.
It could even be a few different things. Until something becomes official we can't know.
So funny to see you unwittingly validate my entire argument. There's no written law, no written regulation, no written anything to consult, we have to know their "thinking", and we have to "wait and see" and, "Until something becomes official we can't know. "
How can you even make your arguments with a straight face when you then validate all my criticisms. As John Gruber wrote today, "The EU’s self-induced slide into a technological backwater continues."
How can the CTF qualify as "barrier to entry" when it only applies to for-profit apps that have more than one million unique downloads?
The whole "barrier to entry" aspect is flimsy to begin with considering that apps like Spotify figured out how to be available to download from the App Store + never pay Apple a commission for anything back in 2008 when the store originally launched. All they had to do was have a free ad-supported version in the store and have customers sign up for the premium subscription online. iPhone/iOS gave users access to the App Store + internet + a variety of communication methods like email, texts and social media so it wasn't really that hard to make users aware of how it worked. All you have to do is look at Spotify's growth curve for both free and premium subscriptions to see that there was never a substantial barrier to their business with the pre-DMA approach by Apple.
Perhaps the thinking is that the CTF shouldn't exist in any shape or form.
We'll have to wait and see if a fine is imposed and the specifics behind it.
It could even be a few different things. Until something becomes official we can't know.
So funny to see you unwittingly validate my entire argument. There's no written law, no written regulation, no written anything to consult, we have to know their "thinking", and we have to "wait and see" and, "Until something becomes official we can't know. "
How can you even make your arguments with a straight face when you then validate all my criticisms. As John Gruber wrote today, "The EU’s self-induced slide into a technological backwater continues."
No. Sorry but no. I'm not validating anything. I'm saying we don't know what specifics the EU will name if they fine Apple. That is is why I preceded my comment with 'perhaps'.
How can the CTF qualify as "barrier to entry" when it only applies to for-profit apps that have more than one million unique downloads?
The whole "barrier to entry" aspect is flimsy to begin with considering that apps like Spotify figured out how to be available to download from the App Store + never pay Apple a commission for anything back in 2008 when the store originally launched. All they had to do was have a free ad-supported version in the store and have customers sign up for the premium subscription online. iPhone/iOS gave users access to the App Store + internet + a variety of communication methods like email, texts and social media so it wasn't really that hard to make users aware of how it worked. All you have to do is look at Spotify's growth curve for both free and premium subscriptions to see that there was never a substantial barrier to their business with the pre-DMA approach by Apple.
Perhaps the thinking is that the CTF shouldn't exist in any shape or form.
We'll have to wait and see if a fine is imposed and the specifics behind it.
It could even be a few different things. Until something becomes official we can't know.
So funny to see you unwittingly validate my entire argument. There's no written law, no written regulation, no written anything to consult, we have to know their "thinking", and we have to "wait and see" and, "Until something becomes official we can't know. "
How can you even make your arguments with a straight face when you then validate all my criticisms. As John Gruber wrote today, "The EU’s self-induced slide into a technological backwater continues."
No. Sorry but no. I'm not validating anything. I'm saying we don't know what specifics the EU will name if they fine Apple. That is is why I preceded my comment with 'perhaps'.
Wow. You really don't understand what you are saying, do you? "No one can know what the law says until they tell us what they decide it says and issue fines." That's completely absurd. If we can't know, how can anyone, including Apple, know? At this point, it's getting so it's almost not worth the hassle for Apple to do business in the EU. You already aren't getting features that the rest of the world is going to get because of your inscrutable anti-privacy regulations. Is it really worth the effort for Apple to disable these features in the EU or should they just cut it off and let EU customers buy grey market phones?
How can the CTF qualify as "barrier to entry" when it only applies to for-profit apps that have more than one million unique downloads?
The whole "barrier to entry" aspect is flimsy to begin with considering that apps like Spotify figured out how to be available to download from the App Store + never pay Apple a commission for anything back in 2008 when the store originally launched. All they had to do was have a free ad-supported version in the store and have customers sign up for the premium subscription online. iPhone/iOS gave users access to the App Store + internet + a variety of communication methods like email, texts and social media so it wasn't really that hard to make users aware of how it worked. All you have to do is look at Spotify's growth curve for both free and premium subscriptions to see that there was never a substantial barrier to their business with the pre-DMA approach by Apple.
Perhaps the thinking is that the CTF shouldn't exist in any shape or form.
We'll have to wait and see if a fine is imposed and the specifics behind it.
It could even be a few different things. Until something becomes official we can't know.
So funny to see you unwittingly validate my entire argument. There's no written law, no written regulation, no written anything to consult, we have to know their "thinking", and we have to "wait and see" and, "Until something becomes official we can't know. "
How can you even make your arguments with a straight face when you then validate all my criticisms. As John Gruber wrote today, "The EU’s self-induced slide into a technological backwater continues."
No. Sorry but no. I'm not validating anything. I'm saying we don't know what specifics the EU will name if they fine Apple. That is is why I preceded my comment with 'perhaps'.
Wow. You really don't understand what you are saying, do you? "No one can know what the law says until they tell us what they decide it says and issue fines." That's completely absurd. If we can't know, how can anyone, including Apple, know? At this point, it's getting so it's almost not worth the hassle for Apple to do business in the EU. You already aren't getting features that the rest of the world is going to get because of your inscrutable anti-privacy regulations. Is it really worth the effort for Apple to disable these features in the EU or should they just cut it off and let EU customers buy grey market phones?
No one outside the body that might (or might not) be preparing the fine.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
And I have news for you. Apple has access to EU channels and is in communication with them. Apple will not be receiving a fine through Fox News (in the event that they are fined).
How can the CTF qualify as "barrier to entry" when it only applies to for-profit apps that have more than one million unique downloads?
The whole "barrier to entry" aspect is flimsy to begin with considering that apps like Spotify figured out how to be available to download from the App Store + never pay Apple a commission for anything back in 2008 when the store originally launched. All they had to do was have a free ad-supported version in the store and have customers sign up for the premium subscription online. iPhone/iOS gave users access to the App Store + internet + a variety of communication methods like email, texts and social media so it wasn't really that hard to make users aware of how it worked. All you have to do is look at Spotify's growth curve for both free and premium subscriptions to see that there was never a substantial barrier to their business with the pre-DMA approach by Apple.
Perhaps the thinking is that the CTF shouldn't exist in any shape or form.
We'll have to wait and see if a fine is imposed and the specifics behind it.
It could even be a few different things. Until something becomes official we can't know.
So funny to see you unwittingly validate my entire argument. There's no written law, no written regulation, no written anything to consult, we have to know their "thinking", and we have to "wait and see" and, "Until something becomes official we can't know. "
How can you even make your arguments with a straight face when you then validate all my criticisms. As John Gruber wrote today, "The EU’s self-induced slide into a technological backwater continues."
No. Sorry but no. I'm not validating anything. I'm saying we don't know what specifics the EU will name if they fine Apple. That is is why I preceded my comment with 'perhaps'.
Wow. You really don't understand what you are saying, do you? "No one can know what the law says until they tell us what they decide it says and issue fines." That's completely absurd. If we can't know, how can anyone, including Apple, know? At this point, it's getting so it's almost not worth the hassle for Apple to do business in the EU. You already aren't getting features that the rest of the world is going to get because of your inscrutable anti-privacy regulations. Is it really worth the effort for Apple to disable these features in the EU or should they just cut it off and let EU customers buy grey market phones?
No one outside the body that might (or might not) be preparing the fine.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
And I have news for you. Apple has access to EU channels and is in communication with them. Apple will not be receiving a fine through Fox News (in the event that they are fined).
But it's all based on "their thinking". Nothing based on actual written law or regulation, just "their thinking". Your words, not mine.
How can you even continue to defend this lawless system where no one can know what is allowed or not allowed until after the fact. It's a farce. It's a deep stain on Europe's status as an open society under the rule of law. Instead it's become, "at the whim of regulators".
How can the CTF qualify as "barrier to entry" when it only applies to for-profit apps that have more than one million unique downloads?
The whole "barrier to entry" aspect is flimsy to begin with considering that apps like Spotify figured out how to be available to download from the App Store + never pay Apple a commission for anything back in 2008 when the store originally launched. All they had to do was have a free ad-supported version in the store and have customers sign up for the premium subscription online. iPhone/iOS gave users access to the App Store + internet + a variety of communication methods like email, texts and social media so it wasn't really that hard to make users aware of how it worked. All you have to do is look at Spotify's growth curve for both free and premium subscriptions to see that there was never a substantial barrier to their business with the pre-DMA approach by Apple.
Perhaps the thinking is that the CTF shouldn't exist in any shape or form.
We'll have to wait and see if a fine is imposed and the specifics behind it.
It could even be a few different things. Until something becomes official we can't know.
So funny to see you unwittingly validate my entire argument. There's no written law, no written regulation, no written anything to consult, we have to know their "thinking", and we have to "wait and see" and, "Until something becomes official we can't know. "
How can you even make your arguments with a straight face when you then validate all my criticisms. As John Gruber wrote today, "The EU’s self-induced slide into a technological backwater continues."
Have you, in your entire life, EVER followed court proceedings?
You have a REALLY bizarre view of how laws work, and what happens when laws are violated.
No matter how obvious things look to you, personally, or to your favourite talking heads on TV, or to Gruber:
1. Somebody complains, files suit, or presses charges.
2. It's then the job of the judiciary (in most cases, the court and/or a jury) to decide
a) whether any laws have been violated,
b) if yes, which laws have been violated, and
c) to what extent.
A verdict is passed.
3. THEN, after that verdict, a suitable punishment is determined.
Until you have a legal assessment from the people actually in charge of assessing the legal situation (or indeed their verdict), your opinion, or Gruber's, or mine, are as valid as that of the potted plant I'm looking at on the windowsill.
This is how the law works in virtually all civilised nations. Some have provisions for adjusting behaviour/plea bargaining before the verdict.
How can the CTF qualify as "barrier to entry" when it only applies to for-profit apps that have more than one million unique downloads?
The whole "barrier to entry" aspect is flimsy to begin with considering that apps like Spotify figured out how to be available to download from the App Store + never pay Apple a commission for anything back in 2008 when the store originally launched. All they had to do was have a free ad-supported version in the store and have customers sign up for the premium subscription online. iPhone/iOS gave users access to the App Store + internet + a variety of communication methods like email, texts and social media so it wasn't really that hard to make users aware of how it worked. All you have to do is look at Spotify's growth curve for both free and premium subscriptions to see that there was never a substantial barrier to their business with the pre-DMA approach by Apple.
Perhaps the thinking is that the CTF shouldn't exist in any shape or form.
We'll have to wait and see if a fine is imposed and the specifics behind it.
It could even be a few different things. Until something becomes official we can't know.
So funny to see you unwittingly validate my entire argument. There's no written law, no written regulation, no written anything to consult, we have to know their "thinking", and we have to "wait and see" and, "Until something becomes official we can't know. "
How can you even make your arguments with a straight face when you then validate all my criticisms. As John Gruber wrote today, "The EU’s self-induced slide into a technological backwater continues."
Have you, in your entire life, EVER followed court proceedings?
You have a REALLY bizarre view of how laws work, and what happens when laws are violated.
No matter how obvious things look to you, personally, or to your favourite talking heads on TV, or to Gruber:
1. Somebody complains, files suit, or presses charges.
2. It's then the job of the judiciary (in most cases, the court and/or a jury) to decide
a) whether any laws have been violated,
b) if yes, which laws have been violated, and
c) to what extent.
A verdict is passed.
3. THEN, after that verdict, a suitable punishment is determined.
Until you have a legal assessment from the people actually in charge of assessing the legal situation (or indeed their verdict), your opinion, or Gruber's, or mine, are as valid as that of the potted plant I'm looking at on the windowsill.
This is how the law works in virtually all civilised nations. Some have provisions for adjusting behaviour/plea bargaining before the verdict.
I should probably water the plants.
Oh, please, more nonsense to obscure the reality that the law, as written, is just a lot of vague handwaving, there are no published regulations, and it's "interpreted" and enforced according to the whim of the regulators, who have a demonstrated, even a stated, bias against American tech companies and who are in bed with companies such as Spotify. Corruption pure and simple.
How can the CTF qualify as "barrier to entry" when it only applies to for-profit apps that have more than one million unique downloads?
The whole "barrier to entry" aspect is flimsy to begin with considering that apps like Spotify figured out how to be available to download from the App Store + never pay Apple a commission for anything back in 2008 when the store originally launched. All they had to do was have a free ad-supported version in the store and have customers sign up for the premium subscription online. iPhone/iOS gave users access to the App Store + internet + a variety of communication methods like email, texts and social media so it wasn't really that hard to make users aware of how it worked. All you have to do is look at Spotify's growth curve for both free and premium subscriptions to see that there was never a substantial barrier to their business with the pre-DMA approach by Apple.
Perhaps the thinking is that the CTF shouldn't exist in any shape or form.
We'll have to wait and see if a fine is imposed and the specifics behind it.
It could even be a few different things. Until something becomes official we can't know.
So funny to see you unwittingly validate my entire argument. There's no written law, no written regulation, no written anything to consult, we have to know their "thinking", and we have to "wait and see" and, "Until something becomes official we can't know. "
How can you even make your arguments with a straight face when you then validate all my criticisms. As John Gruber wrote today, "The EU’s self-induced slide into a technological backwater continues."
Have you, in your entire life, EVER followed court proceedings?
You have a REALLY bizarre view of how laws work, and what happens when laws are violated.
No matter how obvious things look to you, personally, or to your favourite talking heads on TV, or to Gruber:
1. Somebody complains, files suit, or presses charges.
2. It's then the job of the judiciary (in most cases, the court and/or a jury) to decide
a) whether any laws have been violated,
b) if yes, which laws have been violated, and
c) to what extent.
A verdict is passed.
3. THEN, after that verdict, a suitable punishment is determined.
Until you have a legal assessment from the people actually in charge of assessing the legal situation (or indeed their verdict), your opinion, or Gruber's, or mine, are as valid as that of the potted plant I'm looking at on the windowsill.
This is how the law works in virtually all civilised nations. Some have provisions for adjusting behaviour/plea bargaining before the verdict.
I should probably water the plants.
Oh, please, more nonsense to obscure the reality that the law, as written, is just a lot of vague handwaving, there are no published regulations, and it's "interpreted" and enforced according to the whim of the regulators, who have a demonstrated, even a stated, bias against American tech companies and who are in bed with companies such as Spotify. Corruption pure and simple.
Yes, I know. Because the law doesn't specifically refer to "core technology fee" it's super vague handwaving.
How can the CTF qualify as "barrier to entry" when it only applies to for-profit apps that have more than one million unique downloads?
The whole "barrier to entry" aspect is flimsy to begin with considering that apps like Spotify figured out how to be available to download from the App Store + never pay Apple a commission for anything back in 2008 when the store originally launched. All they had to do was have a free ad-supported version in the store and have customers sign up for the premium subscription online. iPhone/iOS gave users access to the App Store + internet + a variety of communication methods like email, texts and social media so it wasn't really that hard to make users aware of how it worked. All you have to do is look at Spotify's growth curve for both free and premium subscriptions to see that there was never a substantial barrier to their business with the pre-DMA approach by Apple.
Perhaps the thinking is that the CTF shouldn't exist in any shape or form.
We'll have to wait and see if a fine is imposed and the specifics behind it.
It could even be a few different things. Until something becomes official we can't know.
So funny to see you unwittingly validate my entire argument. There's no written law, no written regulation, no written anything to consult, we have to know their "thinking", and we have to "wait and see" and, "Until something becomes official we can't know. "
How can you even make your arguments with a straight face when you then validate all my criticisms. As John Gruber wrote today, "The EU’s self-induced slide into a technological backwater continues."
Have you, in your entire life, EVER followed court proceedings?
You have a REALLY bizarre view of how laws work, and what happens when laws are violated.
No matter how obvious things look to you, personally, or to your favourite talking heads on TV, or to Gruber:
1. Somebody complains, files suit, or presses charges.
2. It's then the job of the judiciary (in most cases, the court and/or a jury) to decide
a) whether any laws have been violated,
b) if yes, which laws have been violated, and
c) to what extent.
A verdict is passed.
3. THEN, after that verdict, a suitable punishment is determined.
Until you have a legal assessment from the people actually in charge of assessing the legal situation (or indeed their verdict), your opinion, or Gruber's, or mine, are as valid as that of the potted plant I'm looking at on the windowsill.
This is how the law works in virtually all civilised nations. Some have provisions for adjusting behaviour/plea bargaining before the verdict.
I should probably water the plants.
Oh, please, more nonsense to obscure the reality that the law, as written, is just a lot of vague handwaving, there are no published regulations, and it's "interpreted" and enforced according to the whim of the regulators, who have a demonstrated, even a stated, bias against American tech companies and who are in bed with companies such as Spotify. Corruption pure and simple.
Yes, I know. Because the law doesn't specifically refer to "core technology fee" it's super vague handwaving.
Bla bla bla
It doesn't even remotely refer to anything like the CTF. Yeah, I know, "spirit of the law", which is just short hand for the law is whatever we decide we want it to be whenever we decide it.
How can the CTF qualify as "barrier to entry" when it only applies to for-profit apps that have more than one million unique downloads?
The whole "barrier to entry" aspect is flimsy to begin with considering that apps like Spotify figured out how to be available to download from the App Store + never pay Apple a commission for anything back in 2008 when the store originally launched. All they had to do was have a free ad-supported version in the store and have customers sign up for the premium subscription online. iPhone/iOS gave users access to the App Store + internet + a variety of communication methods like email, texts and social media so it wasn't really that hard to make users aware of how it worked. All you have to do is look at Spotify's growth curve for both free and premium subscriptions to see that there was never a substantial barrier to their business with the pre-DMA approach by Apple.
Perhaps the thinking is that the CTF shouldn't exist in any shape or form.
We'll have to wait and see if a fine is imposed and the specifics behind it.
It could even be a few different things. Until something becomes official we can't know.
So funny to see you unwittingly validate my entire argument. There's no written law, no written regulation, no written anything to consult, we have to know their "thinking", and we have to "wait and see" and, "Until something becomes official we can't know. "
How can you even make your arguments with a straight face when you then validate all my criticisms. As John Gruber wrote today, "The EU’s self-induced slide into a technological backwater continues."
No. Sorry but no. I'm not validating anything. I'm saying we don't know what specifics the EU will name if they fine Apple. That is is why I preceded my comment with 'perhaps'.
Wow. You really don't understand what you are saying, do you? "No one can know what the law says until they tell us what they decide it says and issue fines." That's completely absurd. If we can't know, how can anyone, including Apple, know? At this point, it's getting so it's almost not worth the hassle for Apple to do business in the EU. You already aren't getting features that the rest of the world is going to get because of your inscrutable anti-privacy regulations. Is it really worth the effort for Apple to disable these features in the EU or should they just cut it off and let EU customers buy grey market phones?
No one outside the body that might (or might not) be preparing the fine.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
And I have news for you. Apple has access to EU channels and is in communication with them. Apple will not be receiving a fine through Fox News (in the event that they are fined).
But it's all based on "their thinking". Nothing based on actual written law or regulation, just "their thinking". Your words, not mine.
How can you even continue to defend this lawless system where no one can know what is allowed or not allowed until after the fact. It's a farce. It's a deep stain on Europe's status as an open society under the rule of law. Instead it's become, "at the whim of regulators".
Their thinking as they are the ones considering the fines. As in not mine.
I can't know. I'm not involved in the process.
Even then, if Apple disagrees, it has process to appeal but I can already see your response to that: "but the judges are interpreting things wrong and are anti-American!"
It sounds very Trump to be honest.
Why not simply wait for a decision to be made? See what it is based on and then give your opinion.
Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.
If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.
This is gobbledygook.
Forcing Apple to promote a competitor is nonsense, and investing CTF as though Apple has no right to profit from its IP is insanity at any level. It's the competitors who want unfair access to Apple's ecosystem without paying a thing. Vestegar and her cronies are looking to milk money and unfairly leverage Apple's success for its regional corporations.
Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.
If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.
This is gobbledygook.
Forcing Apple to promote a competitor is nonsense, and investing CTF as though Apple has no right to profit from its IP is insanity at any level. It's the competitors who want unfair access to Apple's ecosystem without paying a thing.
Whether it applies to Apple or not, you should read up on what antitrust regulation actually IS an why it exists.
Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.
If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.
This is gobbledygook.
Forcing Apple to promote a competitor is nonsense, and investing CTF as though Apple has no right to profit from its IP is insanity at any level. It's the competitors who want unfair access to Apple's ecosystem without paying a thing. Vestegar and her cronies are looking to milk money and unfairly leverage Apple's success for its regional corporations.
It's utter horseshit.
Radio access.
Why doesn't Apple shore off access to Wi-Fi and charge users for data transfer over cellular?
That ship sailed before Apple could monetise it. Not unlike the carriers who missed the email and IM monetisation options too.
The world is better off for it.
Why does Apple not allow users to direct transfer by Bluetooth?
Money is the answer. Not providing profile support for direct Bluetooth file transfers means you have to look for Apple only or Apple licenced solutions or some kind of kludge.
The same applies to NFC access. Apple wants you to use only its solutions and take a cut out of every financial transaction that travels over that.
Of course NFC is not only used for financial transfers which is why it can be used to travel all over Barcelona's transport system using a phone - unless you have an iPhone. Because Apple has not given 'permission' for that.
Users could argue that having paid such a premium for a phone with the full gamut of radio access options that they should not be shackled to Apple only solutions.
Comments
The whole "barrier to entry" aspect is flimsy to begin with considering that apps like Spotify figured out how to be available to download from the App Store + never pay Apple a commission for anything back in 2008 when the store originally launched. All they had to do was have a free ad-supported version in the store and have customers sign up for the premium subscription online. iPhone/iOS gave users access to the App Store + internet + a variety of communication methods like email, texts and social media so it wasn't really that hard to make users aware of how it worked. All you have to do is look at Spotify's growth curve for both free and premium subscriptions to see that there was never a substantial barrier to their business with the pre-DMA approach by Apple.
We'll have to wait and see if a fine is imposed and the specifics behind it.
It could even be a few different things. Until something becomes official we can't know.
How can you even make your arguments with a straight face when you then validate all my criticisms. As John Gruber wrote today, "The EU’s self-induced slide into a technological backwater continues."
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
And I have news for you. Apple has access to EU channels and is in communication with them. Apple will not be receiving a fine through Fox News (in the event that they are fined).
How can you even continue to defend this lawless system where no one can know what is allowed or not allowed until after the fact. It's a farce. It's a deep stain on Europe's status as an open society under the rule of law. Instead it's become, "at the whim of regulators".
No matter how obvious things look to you, personally, or to your favourite talking heads on TV, or to Gruber:
This is how the law works in virtually all civilised nations. Some have provisions for adjusting behaviour/plea bargaining before the verdict.
I should probably water the plants.
I can't know. I'm not involved in the process.
Even then, if Apple disagrees, it has process to appeal but I can already see your response to that: "but the judges are interpreting things wrong and are anti-American!"
It sounds very Trump to be honest.
Why not simply wait for a decision to be made? See what it is based on and then give your opinion.
Forcing Apple to promote a competitor is nonsense, and investing CTF as though Apple has no right to profit from its IP is insanity at any level. It's the competitors who want unfair access to Apple's ecosystem without paying a thing. Vestegar and her cronies are looking to milk money and unfairly leverage Apple's success for its regional corporations.
It's utter horseshit.
Why doesn't Apple shore off access to Wi-Fi and charge users for data transfer over cellular?
That ship sailed before Apple could monetise it. Not unlike the carriers who missed the email and IM monetisation options too.
The world is better off for it.
Why does Apple not allow users to direct transfer by Bluetooth?
Money is the answer. Not providing profile support for direct Bluetooth file transfers means you have to look for Apple only or Apple licenced solutions or some kind of kludge.
The same applies to NFC access. Apple wants you to use only its solutions and take a cut out of every financial transaction that travels over that.
Of course NFC is not only used for financial transfers which is why it can be used to travel all over Barcelona's transport system using a phone - unless you have an iPhone. Because Apple has not given 'permission' for that.
Users could argue that having paid such a premium for a phone with the full gamut of radio access options that they should not be shackled to Apple only solutions.