From the first paragraph from that Wikipedia article:
Apple is no where near monopoly so there is a big difference. They are not a monopoly in digital music distribution and not even close to a monopoly in smartphones.
I did read the article and I am aware that it is all about monopoly. Which Apple does not have, as you said, by market share. Maybe by profit it has... (I do not know which metric applies to establish whether a company has a monopoly and what the threshold is.)
However, Apple clearly has the monopoly within the Apple ecosystem as the App Store is the only official source for apps. That doesn't appear to count then. Again, this is fine for me
My conclusion is that it's ok to have a "local" monopoly as long as there are viable alternatives. As soon as your "local" becomes somehow "too big" it stops being ok.
From the first paragraph from that Wikipedia article:
Apple is no where near monopoly so there is a big difference. They are not a monopoly in digital music distribution and not even close to a monopoly in smartphones.
Apart from that fact that finding an objective metric for what constitutes a monopoly (100% of rev? 96,55? PI*e%?), then this is driving what's just or not, endnote the terms and conditions by themselves. In other words, it is ok (and it is for me) that Apple asks 30% as long as they do not have a monopoly, but if they did it would be not ok. I find this logic flawed, or at least, not consequent. In addition, Apple indeed constitutes a monopoly within the iOS-boundaries, and that obviously does not count. So I still do not understand the logic behind this. if e.g. let's say Apple had 85,543%, and by whatever metric this means it is on the border of not being a monopoly, then the terms and conditions are ok. One more subscriber and suddenly it is not? Hm....
Oh man, now I know you're just trolling. You're "you need to learn to read" and "you deliberately misread" schtick is well past it's sell by date and now you claim you've never done it? Absolutely goddamn ridiculous you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Enjoy the next few years, then.
Not even sure what this means; you're going to continue to say that I ignore your salient points (try making some) for the next few years?
Great. You're a real piece of work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It’s almost as though you living in Europe is relevant to a discussion about European beliefs or something…
This thread is about European beliefs? What rubbish, it's about an EU antitrust investigation. If it was about beliefs then I could see your point, as all British people think the same way. Except not, of course, so it'd still be irrelevant.
No one else in this thread has brought up my nationality, yet you have, and it's far from the first time you've interjected it into a discussion, along with bank handed swipes about Britain being Orwellian. You have some weird hang up that you need to get over, along with all your other neurosis and attention seeking.
I mean seriously, what have straw men got to do with anything? Aside from the fact that you've proved repeatedly that you don't have the slightest idea what the straw man argument is, you've made these claimss dozens of times before, "you need to read", "you're illiterate", "you're wilfully ignoring blah blah blah", towards me and towards others, and now you're claiming that it's the "first time". It's right there in your post, three posts up from this one! No straw man in sight, you plainly said it!
Police state for christ's sake, you've got no idea about anything. What foam-mouthed gibberish. When the real world finally hits you it's going to knock you out.
I mean seriously, what have straw men got to do with anything?
Not making up garbage out of nothing that was said tend to have something to do with it.
Originally Posted by Crowley
Police state for christ's sake, you've got no idea about anything.
So you’re paid by the government to say this, then. Good on you; way to show your support for King and Country.
The UK spends the largest amount in the OECD on law and order as a percentage of GDP, with nearly 40% more in real terms spent in 2006/07 than in 1997/98. This is higher than the US, double that of Sweden, France and Denmark and around 50% greater than that of Canada, Germany and Japan. The UK is ranked the 23rd most democratic country, 25th least surveilled one (worst ranking EU country) and 11th lowest perceived level of corruption.
The Police stop and search people without the need to show that they have reasonable suspicion an offence is being committed (under the power of the infamous Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000). Less than half a percent of those stopped and searched are arrested in connection with terrorism (even less are convicted).
The Police search the home of arrested (not charged) people without the need for a warrant (Section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984).
The Police collect and retain fingerprints, palm prints and DNA samples of all those arrested for a recordable offence, including of innocents, i.e. even when the arrestee is not charged with any offence or has been acquitted of an alleged offence. DNA profiles are kept in the National DNA Database (NDNAD) and DNA samples are stored by the laboratories which analyse them - forever.
UK leads the world in the collection of individual DNA records having collected the DNA profiles of more than 5,296,313 individuals (as of 2008-09-01). This includes DNA profiles of between 573,639 to 857,366 innocents individuals never convicted, cautioned, warned or reprimanded. The England & Wales police forces have sampled an estimated 303,393 individuals aged 10-17 year-old, including at least 39,095 innocents (as of 2008-04-10). In 2007, the profiles of 108 children under 10, along with 883,888 people aged between 10 and 17, 46 people more than 90 years old and a one seven-month-old baby girl were held on the NDNAD.
The yearly average number of subject profiles added to the NDNAD by the England and Wales police forces for the the financial years 2005-07 was 646,767 while the average number of profiles removed for the calendar years 2005-07 was only 221. In 2006/07, 667,737 profiles were added on the National DNA Database (NDNAD), including that of about 160,000 young people aged 10-17; only 115 removed. By July 2006, 3,457,000 individuals were on the NDNAD. By December 2005, 3,130,429 people had had their DNA taken from them. By March 2004, it was 2,527,728people or 5.24% of the UK population; this compared to 0.98% in Austria, 0.83% in Switzerland, 0.50% in the USA and 0.41% in Germany.
...and fingerprints are required to hire a car at Stanstead Airport.
The Police keep records in the Police National Computer of arrests details of innocents, including mentions of 'non-conviction' until the subject reaches 100 years old.
The Police Federation, according to Bob Elder, the chairman of the constables' central committee, is apparently considering shooting the public without even pretending that they may be terrorists. Asked if, in the event of a dirty bomb, he could foresee officers firing on civilians, he said: ‘It's an option the government is going to have to consider. We haven't got enough cops trained to deal with full-scale containment and it's putting everyone at risk.’
Innocents (not even charged) can be disappeared for 14-28 days. They are usually held in stations such as Paddington Green in such poor conditions, that after a 14-day interview period even their lawyers are often ill. Will it be extended soon to 28 days? Will it be extended soon to 42 days?Section 23 of the Terrorism Act 2006 became law on 2006-03-30. Apparently, this is the longest allowed in any western European country.
Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA) outlaws protests without prior police authorisation within a designated area of 1 km straight line from the central part of Parliament Square. Several individuals involved in peaceful protests have been arrested; see a diary of events related to SOCPA since it came into force on 2005-08-01. (You may want to join in a mass lone demonstration.)
Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBO) affect people that are different including children, protesters and the mentally ill. in 1998, the then Home Secretary Jack Straw said there was a target for ‘5,000 [ASBOs to be issued] annually’ after their introduction on 1999-04-01. A total of 9,853 have been issued between 1999-04-01 and 2005-12-31. In the Serious Crime Act 2007, the Home Office introduced 'serious crime prevention orders' (SCPO) targeted at those whom police believe are likely to commit violence, i.e. including those who have not yet have committed an offence - and may never commit any. With the Mental Health Bill, ministers are also attempting to allow enforced detention of people who are mentally ill, even if they have not committed any crime.
Control orders and even more restrictive special bail surety conditions force persons to live in what amounts to being under quarantine. The Home Office sentences acquittedpersons with control orders.
Phone companies have to retain traffic data for all phone services including voice, voicemail and conference and data calls, call forwarding and call transfer, SMS, EMS and MMS for one year (Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2007). This includes the telephone number from which the call was made and the dialled phone number, and the name and address of the subscriber and registered user of those telephone numbers; and the date and time of the start and end of the calls. For mobile calls this includes the International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) and the International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) of the phones; the cell ID at the start of the communication; and for pre-paid anonymous services, the date and time of the initial activation of the service and the cell ID from which the service was activated. In April 2009, these data retention rules were extended to cover internet use (websites visited, emails and VoIP calls). The government is also considering a massive government database holding details of every phone call, email and time spent on the internet.
Refusing to disclose, on request, the secret cryptographic decryption key(s) - that you may have forgotten - or to provide plaintext decrypted versions of protected data you may have on your computer is punishable by up to five years in jail. There's a provision for a ‘tipping off’ offence if you mention the initial request to anyone. (Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 commenced on 2007-10-01 after seven years lain dormant and the first person jailed under these draconian UK police powers was a schizophrenic science hobbyist with no previous criminal record.) Local councils are using RIPA to target surveillance on the likes of fishermen and a family applying to a popular primary school. In 2007, councils and government departments made 12,494 applications for ‘directed surveillance’ according to the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner.
Taking pictures, filming or even just drawing sketches of buildings is now often considered ‘hostile reconnaissance’ and risks you being stopped and searched, or even arrested. (Many persons who were intimidated in such circumstances by the Police emailed me, including one person who was arrested for ‘sketching pictures of the Southbank’ and another for taking a picture that includes a petrol station and in 2006-08 an Iraqi was charged for filming Big Ben, the Houses of Parliament and the London Eye, eventually found not guilty, to be put under a control order. On 2007-05-14, two students are arrested after taking snapshots of Tower Bridge. Even my innocent doodles were construed by the Police as being a tube station plan.)
The legal definition of terrorism, specified in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (amended by the Terrorism Act 2006) is very broad. The government is discussing even more lax definitions.
Under the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 the Treasury can freeze the assets of whoever they designate. They do not have to give any hard evidence. They can do so in secrecy. And they are above the law ('An action done under this Schedule is not to be treated as a breach of any restriction imposed by statute or otherwise.')
With the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, the Home Office willextend the pre-charge detention period for ‘terror suspects’ to 42 days, hold inquests in secrecy, allow post-charge questioning of ‘terror suspects’ (possibly right up to the trial date, presuming that the ‘suspects’ are guilty), create a new criminal offence of seeking ‘information which could be useful for terrorism’, impose travel restrictions for ‘suspects’, punish families of convicted terrorists by confiscating their property (bank accounts, vehicles, computers, homes, etc.), and other proposals which undermine the rights of ‘suspects’ to due legal process, impose ever greater punishment without trial and further create a climate of fear.
The Home Office, the Metropolitan Police and the Department of Health secretly established in October 2006, the London based Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) staffed by police and psychiatrists; they have the power to detain suspects indefinitely using mental health laws.
After arresting a member of the opposition, since cleared, the police went on a fishing expedition checking his e-mails and documents for communication over the past few years between this opposition politician and a civil liberties campaigner, although this had nothing to do with the investigation. The police passed secret police intelligence to a firm. The Home Secretary ignored a judge's decision, kidnapped bailed men and imprisoned them.
Secret evidence that the defendent or his lawyers cannot challenge is used in British courts. Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), which assesses deportation cases, often taking evidence in closed sessions. This leads to situations where defendents do not understand why they are sentenced to prison and judges cannot explain why.
A dozen London boroughs have implemented a "risk assessment" policy for vetting live music that permits the police to ban any performance if they fail to receive personal details from the performers 14 days in advance. The demand explicitly singles out performances and musical styles favoured by the black community: garage and R&B, and MCs and DJs. Organisers must complete Form 696 with personal details of all artists, music style to be played and some information on the audience.
Community Safety Accreditation Schemes enable chief constables to grant some police powers to employees of other organisations including private companie, such as security guards, park and dog wardens, beach patrols and shopping centre guards. Powers include power to require giving of name and address, power to photograph persons away from a police station, power to issue penalty notices (for disorder, truancy, cycling on a footpath, dog fouling, graffiti, littering, etc.), power to surrender alcohol, etc. Accredited Persons undergo training and pay a fee to their local police force.
The Identity & Passport Service decides whether people's legal names are good enough to be able to get a passport and travel.
You've been saving that up haven't you? Congratulations on thoroughly proving my point about you having a weird hang up about Britain, that you extend to all British people, and interject into threads where it is irrelevant.
You've been saving that up haven't you? Congratulations on thoroughly proving my point about you having a weird hang up about Britain, that you extend to all British people, and interject into threads where it is irrelevant.
<li id="user_ranking" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">The UK spends the
largest amount in the OECD on law and order as a percentage of GDP, with nearly 40% more in real terms spent in 2006/07 than in 1997/98. This is higher than the US, double that of Sweden, France and Denmark and around 50% greater than that of Canada, Germany and Japan. The UK is ranked the 23rd most democratic country, 25th least surveilled one (worst ranking EU country) and 11th lowest perceived level of corruption.</li>
<li id="user_stop_search" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">The Police stop and search people without the need to show that they have reasonable suspicion an offence is being committed (under the power of the infamous Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000). Less than half a percent of those stopped and searched are arrested in connection with terrorism (even less are convicted).</li>
<li id="user_search_home" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">The Police search the home of arrested (not charged) people without the need for a warrant (Section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984).</li>
<li id="user_arrest_powers" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">The Police have powers of arrest without warrant, which make all offences, no matter how trivial, into arrestable offences (Section 110 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, came into force on 2006-01-01).</li>
<li id="user_dna" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">The Police collect and retain fingerprints, palm prints and DNA samples of all those arrested for a recordable offence, including of innocents, i.e. even when the arrestee is not charged with any offence or has been acquitted of an alleged offence. DNA profiles are kept in the National DNA Database (NDNAD) and DNA samples are stored by the laboratories which analyse them - forever.
UK leads the world in the collection of individual DNA records having collected the DNA profiles of more than 5,296,313 individuals (as of 2008-09-01). This includes DNA profiles of between 573,639 to 857,366 innocents individuals never convicted, cautioned, warned or reprimanded. The England & Wales police forces have sampled an estimated 303,393 individuals aged 10-17 year-old, including at least 39,095 innocents (as of 2008-04-10). In 2007, the profiles of 108 children under 10, along with 883,888 people aged between 10 and 17, 46 people more than 90 years old and a one seven-month-old baby girl were held on the NDNAD.
The yearly average number of subject profiles added to the NDNAD by the England and Wales police forces for the the financial years 2005-07 was 646,767 while the average number of profiles removed for the calendar years 2005-07 was only 221. In 2006/07, 667,737 profiles were added on the National DNA Database (NDNAD), including that of about 160,000 young people aged 10-17; only 115 removed. By July 2006, 3,457,000 individuals were on the NDNAD. By December 2005, 3,130,429 people had had their DNA taken from them. By March 2004, it was 2,527,728people or 5.24% of the UK population; this compared to 0.98% in Austria, 0.83% in Switzerland, 0.50% in the USA and 0.41% in Germany.
...and fingerprints are required to hire a car at Stanstead Airport.</li>
<li id="user_non_conviction" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">The Police keep records in the Police National Computer of arrests details of innocents, including mentions of 'non-conviction' until the subject reaches 100 years old.</li>
<li id="user_firing_on_civilians" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">The Police Federation, according to Bob Elder, the chairman of the constables' central committee, is apparently considering shooting the public without even pretending that they may be terrorists. Asked if, in the event of a dirty bomb, he could foresee officers firing on civilians, he said: ‘It's an option the government is going to have to consider. We haven't got enough cops trained to deal with full-scale containment and it's putting everyone at risk.’</li>
<li id="user_shootings" style="margin-bottom:.3em;"><span style="line-height:1.4em;">Innocents (not even charged) can be disappeared for 14-28 days. They are usually held in stations such as Paddington Green in such poor conditions, that after a 14-day interview period even their lawyers are often ill. Will it be extended soon to 28 days? </span>
<a href="http://gizmonaut.net/blog/uk/oppose_extension_to_the_pre-charge_detention_period.html" style="line-height:1.4em;color:rgb(51,51,51);" target="_blank">Will it be extended soon to 42 days?</a>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> </span>
<a href="http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=2321013&ActiveTextDocId=2321048" style="line-height:1.4em;color:rgb(51,51,51);" target="_blank">Section 23</a>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> of the </span>
<a href="http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?activeTextDocId=2321013" style="line-height:1.4em;color:rgb(51,51,51);" target="_blank">Terrorism Act 2006</a>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> became law on 2006-03-30. Apparently, this is the longest allowed in any western European country.</span>
</li>
<li id="user_right_to_protest" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA) outlaws protests without prior police authorisation within a designated area of 1 km straight line from the central part of Parliament Square. Several individuals involved in peaceful protests have been arrested; see a diary of events related to SOCPA since it came into force on 2005-08-01. (You may want to join in a mass lone demonstration.) Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (SCA) makes it an offence to encourage or assist in the taking part in or organising of a demonstration not authorised under SOCPA (modified by the SCA) possibly further criminalising peaceful opposition to the government.
<li id="user_asbo" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBO) affect people that are different including children, protesters and the mentally ill. in 1998, the then Home Secretary Jack Straw said there was a target for ‘5,000 [ASBOs to be issued] annually’ after their introduction on 1999-04-01. A total of 9,853 have been issued between 1999-04-01 and 2005-12-31. In the Serious Crime Act 2007, the Home Office introduced 'serious crime prevention orders' (SCPO) targeted at those whom police believe are likely to commit violence, i.e. including those who have not yet have committed an offence - and may never commit any. With the Mental Health Bill, ministers are also attempting to allow enforced detention of people who are mentally ill, even if they have not committed any crime.</li>
<li id="user_control_orders" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">Control orders and even more restrictive special bail surety conditions force persons to live in what amounts to being under quarantine. The Home Office sentences acquittedpersons with control orders.</li>
<li id="user_data_retention" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">Phone companies have to retain traffic data for all phone services including voice, voicemail and conference and data calls, call forwarding and call transfer, SMS, EMS and MMS for one year (Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2007). This includes the telephone number from which the call was made and the dialled phone number, and the name and address of the subscriber and registered user of those telephone numbers; and the date and time of the start and end of the calls. For mobile calls this includes the International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) and the International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) of the phones; the cell ID at the start of the communication; and for pre-paid anonymous services, the date and time of the initial activation of the service and the cell ID from which the service was activated. In April 2009, these data retention rules were extended to cover internet use (websites visited, emails and VoIP calls). The government is also considering a massive government database holding details of every phone call, email and time spent on the internet.</li>
<li id="user_surveillance" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">Refusing to disclose, on request, the secret cryptographic decryption key(s) - that you may have forgotten - or to provide plaintext decrypted versions of protected data you may have on your computer is punishable by up to five years in jail. There's a provision for a ‘tipping off’ offence if you mention the initial request to anyone. (Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 commenced on 2007-10-01 after seven years lain dormant and the first person jailed under these draconian UK police powers was a schizophrenic science hobbyist with no previous criminal record.) Local councils are using RIPA to target surveillance on the likes of fishermen and a family applying to a popular primary school. In 2007, councils and government departments made 12,494 applications for ‘directed surveillance’ according to the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner.</li>
<li id="user_hostile_recon" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">Taking pictures, filming or even just drawing sketches of buildings is now often considered ‘hostile reconnaissance’ and risks you being stopped and searched, or even arrested. (Many persons who were intimidated in such circumstances by the Police emailed me, including one person who was arrested for ‘sketching pictures of the Southbank’ and another for taking a picture that includes a petrol station and in 2006-08 an Iraqi was charged for filming Big Ben, the Houses of Parliament and the London Eye, eventually found not guilty, to be put under a control order. On 2007-05-14, two students are arrested after taking snapshots of Tower Bridge. Even my innocent doodles were construed by the Police as being a tube station plan.)
<li id="user_terrorism" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">The legal definition of terrorism, specified in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (amended by the Terrorism Act 2006) is very broad. The government is discussing even more lax definitions.</li>
<li id="user_encouragement" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">Saying or wearing the wrong words may get you arrested. The Terrorism Act 2006 introduced new offences of Encouragement of terrorism and Preparation of terrorist acts. These are so broad that they likely constitute an incursion on free speech.</li>
<li id="user_asset_freeze" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">Under the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 the Treasury can freeze the assets of whoever they designate. They do not have to give any hard evidence. They can do so in secrecy. And they are above the law ('An action done under this Schedule is not to be treated as a breach of any restriction imposed by statute or otherwise.')</li>
<li id="user_counter_terrorism" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">With the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, the Home Office willextend the pre-charge detention period for ‘terror suspects’ to 42 days, hold inquests in secrecy, allow post-charge questioning of ‘terror suspects’ (possibly right up to the trial date, presuming that the ‘suspects’ are guilty), create a new criminal offence of seeking ‘information which could be useful for terrorism’, impose travel restrictions for ‘suspects’, punish families of convicted terrorists by confiscating their property (bank accounts, vehicles, computers, homes, etc.), and other proposals which undermine the rights of ‘suspects’ to due legal process, impose ever greater punishment without trial and further create a climate of fear. </li>
<li id="user_larr" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 lets ministers alter the law - to some extent. Used to attempt to restrict what we can obtain under the Freedom of Information Act.</li>
<li id="user_mental_health" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">The Home Office, the Metropolitan Police and the Department of Health secretly established in October 2006, the London based Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) staffed by police and psychiatrists; they have the power to detain suspects indefinitely using mental health laws. </li>
<li id="user_political_policing" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">After arresting a member of the opposition, since cleared, the police went on a fishing expedition checking his e-mails and documents for communication over the past few years between this opposition politician and a civil liberties campaigner, although this had nothing to do with the investigation. The police passed secret police intelligence to a firm. The Home Secretary ignored a judge's decision, kidnapped bailed men and imprisoned them.</li>
<li id="user_secret_evidence" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">Secret evidence that the defendent or his lawyers cannot challenge is used in British courts. Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), which assesses deportation cases, often taking evidence in closed sessions. This leads to situations where defendents do not understand why they are sentenced to prison and judges cannot explain why.</li>
<li id="user_form_696" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">A dozen London boroughs have implemented a "risk assessment" policy for vetting live music that permits the police to ban any performance if they fail to receive personal details from the performers 14 days in advance. The demand explicitly singles out performances and musical styles favoured by the black community: garage and R&B, and MCs and DJs. Organisers must complete Form 696 with personal details of all artists, music style to be played and some information on the audience.</li>
<li id="user_police_powers_privatisation" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">Community Safety Accreditation Schemes enable chief constables to grant some police powers to employees of other organisations including private companie, such as security guards, park and dog wardens, beach patrols and shopping centre guards. Powers include power to require giving of name and address, power to photograph persons away from a police station, power to issue penalty notices (for disorder, truancy, cycling on a footpath, dog fouling, graffiti, littering, etc.), power to surrender alcohol, etc. Accredited Persons undergo training and pay a fee to their local police force.</li>
<li id="user_ips" style="margin-bottom:.3em;">The Identity & Passport Service decides whether people's legal names are good enough to be able to get a passport and travel.</li>
Compare and contrast to the land of the free and home of the brave?
Where on earth did you did that huge pile of steaming tripe from?
By the way it's "Queen and Country " and has been since 1953. Please keep up with current affairs will you old chap.
Nah. Then again, I expected absolutely nothing even remotely approaching an apology or even acceptance of you being wrong, so this is par for the course.
Congratulations on thoroughly proving my point about you having a weird hang up about Britain, that you extend to all British people, and interject into threads where it is irrelevant.
Don’t flatter yourself. Airstrip One had a chance to save itself from insanity ~145 years ago and didn’t take it.
Originally Posted by singularity
Compare and contrast to the land of the free and home of the brave?
Whataboutisms are the Russians’ purview. You’re supposed to be better than that.
Where on earth did you did that huge pile of steaming tripe from?
Dismissal of content requires refutation thereof. I’ll wait.
Nah. Then again, I expected absolutely nothing even remotely approaching an apology or even acceptance of you being wrong, so this is par for the course.
Why would I apologise or admit being wrong? I didn't claim that the British police or justice system was perfect, I just mocked you bringing extremist rhetoric about Britain being a "police state" into an unrelated thread. Which you did, and then doubled down on, dramatically. I have no interest in delving into your bulleted list of stuff that has nothing to do with this thread. Obsess about your hang ups somewhere else.
How Orwellain, encouraging people to take some social responsibility!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The UK spends the largest amount in the OECD on law and order as a percentage of GDP, with nearly 40% more in real terms spent in 2006/07 than in 1997/98. This is higher than the US, double that of Sweden, France and Denmark and around 50% greater than that of Canada, Germany and Japan. The UK is ranked the 23rd most democratic country, 25th least surveilled one (worst ranking EU country) and 11th lowest perceived level of corruption.
2006/07?!! how relevant is that in 2015?
The UK (in 2014 so slightly more relevant )ranks 14th least corrupt higher than the USA. thus we can conclude that the US is a cesspit of corruption according to your rational ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The Police stop and search people without the need to show that they have reasonable suspicion an offence is being committed (under the power of the infamous Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000). Less than half a percent of those stopped and searched are arrested in connection with terrorism (even less are convicted).
Section 44 and the Counter-Terror Review
In July 2010 the Government announced that it was suspending the police’s power to stop and search an individual without suspicion under section 44. Liberty submitted a detailed response on section 44, calling for its repeal. Read our response (PDF).
The Home Secretary’s roll-back of section 44 powers has been confirmed in the Government’s Review of Counter-Terrorism and Security Powers. The Review recognised that change was needed in this area to comply with the Gillan and Quintonjudgment, and that the broad framework of the legislative provision has lead to valid concerns about misuse. Accordingly the Review recommended that section 44 be repealed. However, it also recommended that there be provision for the power to be used:
In exceptional emergencies, but;
Only where a senior police officer who reasonably suspects an act of terrorism will take place authorises its use in circumstances where the powers are considered 'necessary' (rather than the current requirement that the powers be ‘expedient’) to prevent such an act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The Police Federation, according to Bob Elder, the chairman of the constables' central committee, is apparently considering shooting the public without even pretending that they may be terrorists. Asked if, in the event of a dirty bomb, he could foresee officers firing on civilians, he said: ‘It's an option the government is going to have to consider. We haven't got enough cops trained to deal with full-scale containment and it's putting everyone at risk.’
The Police federation is the Police "union and Bob can only speak from that viewpoint and not as an policy maker in the government and this appears to be his point of view and not a policy statement from government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Innocents (not even charged) can be disappeared for 14-28 days. They are usually held in stations such as Paddington Green in such poor conditions, that after a 14-day interview period even their lawyers are often ill. Will it be extended soon to 28 days? Will it be extended soon to 42 days?Section 23 of the Terrorism Act 2006 became law on 2006-03-30. Apparently, this is the longest allowed in any western European country.
they are not disappeared but held in custody for upt o 28 days and funny enough all those who have been held have failed to sue for the horrible conditions or their solicitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBO) affect people that are different including children, protesters and the mentally ill. in 1998, the then Home Secretary Jack Straw said there was a target for ‘5,000 [ASBOs to be issued] annually’ after their introduction on 1999-04-01. A total of 9,853 have been issued between 1999-04-01 and 2005-12-31. In the Serious Crime Act 2007, the Home Office introduced 'serious crime prevention orders' (SCPO) targeted at those whom police believe are likely to commit violence, i.e. including those who have not yet have committed an offence - and may never commit any. With the Mental Health Bill, ministers are also attempting to allow enforced detention of people who are mentally ill, even if they have not committed any crime.
Now under review and are likely to be replaced but you keep using stats and info from 8 years+ ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Control orders and even more restrictive special bail surety conditions force persons to live in what amounts to being under quarantine. The Home Office sentences acquittedpersons with control orders.
You do have some relevant information and points surrounded by out of date cr*p which just reduces any credibility of the argument you are trying to make (IMHO very badly)
I did read the article and I am aware that it is all about monopoly. Which Apple does not have, as you said, by market share. Maybe by profit it has... (I do not know which metric applies to establish whether a company has a monopoly and what the threshold is.)
However, Apple clearly has the monopoly within the Apple ecosystem as the App Store is the only official source for apps. That doesn't appear to count then. Again, this is fine for me
My conclusion is that it's ok to have a "local" monopoly as long as there are viable alternatives. As soon as your "local" becomes somehow "too big" it stops being ok.
Apart from that fact that finding an objective metric for what constitutes a monopoly (100% of rev? 96,55? PI*e%?), then this is driving what's just or not, endnote the terms and conditions by themselves. In other words, it is ok (and it is for me) that Apple asks 30% as long as they do not have a monopoly, but if they did it would be not ok. I find this logic flawed, or at least, not consequent. In addition, Apple indeed constitutes a monopoly within the iOS-boundaries, and that obviously does not count. So I still do not understand the logic behind this. if e.g. let's say Apple had 85,543%, and by whatever metric this means it is on the border of not being a monopoly, then the terms and conditions are ok. One more subscriber and suddenly it is not? Hm....
The logic (or the way anti-trust laws are structured) is this. If iOS was a true monopoly in the mobile device market, Apple can not unfairly compete by not allowing competitors fair access to market their product in iOS. That's because most competitors that market products for mobile devices could not survive otherwise.
In the case of MS with Windows, Windows is a true monopoly. It's on over 90% of desktop PC's. Therefore, in order for software makers to survive, they must have access to Windows. They can not survive by marketing their products to less than 10% of the other computer users. So MS must allow all software makers, even their competitors, fair access to Windows or otherwise face anti-trust lawsuits.
But iOS is not a monopoly. Not even close. No matter what metric you use. It's only on about 25% of mobile devices. Mobile software makers can survive without iOS users because they still can market their products to the other 75% of mobile users. They are not dependent on the 25% of iOS users to survive. No one is forcing them to write software only for iOS. Plus mobile OS's are just a part of all OS's. Software makers like Spotify can still market (and do) their products for Windows and OSX desktops. And as far as I know, all iOS users have access to Spotify on their internet browser. On their mobile devices and desktops.
And then, if Spotify want to market their products to Android users in Google Play Store or Windows users in the Windows Music Store, they must pay the same 30% commission. So one can construe that the 30% commission Apple charges for access to their ecosystem is fair, whether they have a monopoly or not. If Spotify want to start their own ecosystem where that can avoid the 30% commission, they are free to do so. If they want access to someones ecosystem, they must pay. And when Apple makes Apple Music available for Android, they will have to pay Google a 30% commission if they want to go through the Google Play Store.
The logic (or the way anti-trust laws are structured) is this. If iOS was a true monopoly in the mobile device market, Apple can not unfairly compete by not allowing competitors fair access to market their product in iOS. That's because most competitors that market products for mobile devices could not survive otherwise.
In the case of MS with Windows, Windows is a true monopoly. It's on over 90% of desktop PC's. Therefore, in order for software makers to survive, they must have access to Windows. They can not survive by marketing their products to less than 10% of the other computer users. So MS must allow all software makers, even their competitors, fair access to Windows or otherwise face anti-trust lawsuits.
But iOS is not a monopoly. Not even close. No matter what metric you use. It's only on about 25% of mobile devices. Mobile software makers can survive without iOS users because they still can market their products to the other 75% of mobile users. They are not dependent on the 25% of iOS users to survive. No one is forcing them to write software only for iOS. Plus mobile OS's are just a part of all OS's. Software makers like Spotify can still market (and do) their products for Windows and OSX desktops. And as far as I know, all iOS users have access to Spotify on their internet browser. On their mobile devices and desktops.
And then, if Spotify want to market their products to Android users in Google Play Store or Windows users in the Windows Music Store, they must pay the same 30% commission. So one can construe that the 30% commission Apple charges for access to their ecosystem is fair, whether they have a monopoly or not. If Spotify want to start their own ecosystem where that can avoid the 30% commission, they are free to do so. If they want access to someones ecosystem, they must pay. And when Apple makes Apple Music available for Android, they will have to pay Google a 30% commission if they want to go through the Google Play Store.
So let me try to think this through.
You say that Apple cannot compete unfairly when they have a monopoly. So it is allowed to compete unfairly as long as Apple has no monopoly?
I do not want to split hairs here, I just still do not see that something is considered unfair when by some metric you have a monopoly, while the exact same behavior is ok when the metric says you do not have a monopoly. Like I pointed out before, let's say you have one subscriber before the metric calls you a monopolist and you can do what you are doing. With the very next subscriber it suddenly is not ok then.
This is in consequence what you (or the anti-trust laws) say?
Next, assume Apple reaches monopoly. Then, if Apple would split off their subscription service and subjects it to the same rules then basically it has not discriminated any competitor, yet the 30% constitute moving cash from one pocket within Apple Holding (or whatever) to another. Then that would be ok again?
Spotify is not the issue for me. IMO they do not have a case here, also for the reasons you pointed out.
I just think that this anti-trust thing is not consequent, and certainly not objective, since terms such as "unfair", "monopoly" are not based on an objective metric.
Let's say I am a farmer and have the only shop in town to sell food. Other farmers ask me to sell their goods through my store and I say "Fine, you will have top split the money with me according to my terms". Then this is not allowed by anti-trust because I have a monopoly although it is MY store?
And if I make a great product (and through this in addition I create a business opportunity for my competition!) I loose sovereignty when my competition s**ks and has an inferior offering, just because I happen to reach monopoly?
I do not follow this.
Actually, I do not know how Microsoft really established their monopoly, but I do not care and to me they could have bundles whatever they like with their stuff. Simply, because I had always a choice and made it by buying from the competition.
If one day iOS would reach monopoly because of the quality (difference) then it reached this by choice of customers who then should be protected by stimulating weaker competition?
So if AppleWatch soon would dominate the wearables market then their Store policy is abusing?
Where i DO see the need for regulation is in the case where I as customer never had a choice in the first place. For example, a monopoly of electricity provider, internet provider etc. If I have a choice, then of course, it would be nice, if all is cheap, ideally for free, but that is not how it works. And why should there be a right e.g. that you can have Spotify on your iPhone at the same price like any other service? If you do not like it, don't take it.
…extremist rhetoric about Britain being a “police state”…
Ah, truth is ‘extremist rhetoric’ now. No wonder you guys are a police state.
I have no interest in delving into your bulleted list of stuff…
Good for you. That doesn’t magically make it untrue. You’re wrong. It’s a police state.
Originally Posted by singularity
How Orwellain, encouraging people to take some social responsibility!!
I can see that you are suffering from either brainwashing or an unrelated mental deficiency. “Anti-social” behavior being illegal in a country is mentally defective enough as it is, but in Britain it refers to “any behavior that any other person doesn’t like”. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF ORWELLIAN.
2006/07?!! how relevant is that in 2015?
You’re joking, right? This is a joke.
funny enough all those who have been held have failed to sue
What’s this? Someone wrongfully detained by a police state failed to sue the same police state? Why, that couldn’t possibly be out of fear of being detained again, could it?
Now under review and are likely to be replaced
Well, until it actually is…
you keep using stats and info from 8 years+ ago.
Your point is what? If you’ve information that shows you’re NOT a police state anymore, feel free to post it.
Ah, truth is ‘extremist rhetoric’ now. No wonder you guys are a police state.
Good for you. That doesn’t magically make it untrue. You’re wrong. It’s a police state.
I can see that you are suffering from either brainwashing or an unrelated mental deficiency. “Anti-social” behavior being illegal in a country is mentally defective enough as it is, but in Britain it refers to “any behavior that any other person doesn’t like”. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF ORWELLIAN.
You’re joking, right? This is a joke.
What’s this? Someone wrongfully detained by a police state failed to sue the same police state? Why, that couldn’t possibly be out of fear of being detained again, could it?
Well, until it actually is…
Your point is what? If you’ve information that shows you’re NOT a police state anymore, feel free to post it.
Again, you must be joking.
Your asking to prove a negative..
But as I can criticise the the government without fear and do a whole host of things that would be impossible in a true police state you can continue with your delusions if you so wish.
Comments
I did read the article and I am aware that it is all about monopoly. Which Apple does not have, as you said, by market share. Maybe by profit it has... (I do not know which metric applies to establish whether a company has a monopoly and what the threshold is.)
However, Apple clearly has the monopoly within the Apple ecosystem as the App Store is the only official source for apps. That doesn't appear to count then. Again, this is fine for me
My conclusion is that it's ok to have a "local" monopoly as long as there are viable alternatives. As soon as your "local" becomes somehow "too big" it stops being ok.
Apart from that fact that finding an objective metric for what constitutes a monopoly (100% of rev? 96,55? PI*e%?), then this is driving what's just or not, endnote the terms and conditions by themselves. In other words, it is ok (and it is for me) that Apple asks 30% as long as they do not have a monopoly, but if they did it would be not ok. I find this logic flawed, or at least, not consequent. In addition, Apple indeed constitutes a monopoly within the iOS-boundaries, and that obviously does not count. So I still do not understand the logic behind this. if e.g. let's say Apple had 85,543%, and by whatever metric this means it is on the border of not being a monopoly, then the terms and conditions are ok. One more subscriber and suddenly it is not? Hm....
Uh huh.
First time.
Enjoy the next few years, then.
It’s almost as though you living in Europe is relevant to a discussion about European beliefs or something…
First time.
Oh man, now I know you're just trolling. You're "you need to learn to read" and "you deliberately misread" schtick is well past it's sell by date and now you claim you've never done it? Absolutely goddamn ridiculous you are.
Enjoy the next few years, then.
Not even sure what this means; you're going to continue to say that I ignore your salient points (try making some) for the next few years?
Great. You're a real piece of work.
It’s almost as though you living in Europe is relevant to a discussion about European beliefs or something…
This thread is about European beliefs? What rubbish, it's about an EU antitrust investigation. If it was about beliefs then I could see your point, as all British people think the same way. Except not, of course, so it'd still be irrelevant.
No one else in this thread has brought up my nationality, yet you have, and it's far from the first time you've interjected it into a discussion, along with bank handed swipes about Britain being Orwellian. You have some weird hang up that you need to get over, along with all your other neurosis and attention seeking.
?? Oh, won’t you please, Mr. Strawman-son, knock off your invented arguments. Ments-ments-ments… ??
Not even sure what this means
Learn how to read, then. How much of a Briton are you, honestly, if you cannot even follow English language spelling, grammar, and context?
This thread is about European beliefs? What rubbish
See above.
You don’t even KNOW my point (as per above), but you’re basically a broken record now.
Whoop-de-frick.
Orwell was British, so it tends to apply.
Oh, and the fact that you’re a police state tends to make it valid.
You make no sense at all and I've lost patience with you. Respond to debate like a normal human being, or shut up. No one cares about your ignorance.
I mean seriously, what have straw men got to do with anything? Aside from the fact that you've proved repeatedly that you don't have the slightest idea what the straw man argument is, you've made these claimss dozens of times before, "you need to read", "you're illiterate", "you're wilfully ignoring blah blah blah", towards me and towards others, and now you're claiming that it's the "first time". It's right there in your post, three posts up from this one! No straw man in sight, you plainly said it!
You're on a different planet.
Police state for christ's sake, you've got no idea about anything. What foam-mouthed gibberish. When the real world finally hits you it's going to knock you out.
You know exactly how to fix that.
Not making up garbage out of nothing that was said tend to have something to do with it.
So you’re paid by the government to say this, then. Good on you; way to show your support for King and Country.
UK leads the world in the collection of individual DNA records having collected the DNA profiles of more than 5,296,313 individuals (as of 2008-09-01). This includes DNA profiles of between 573,639 to 857,366 innocents individuals never convicted, cautioned, warned or reprimanded. The England & Wales police forces have sampled an estimated 303,393 individuals aged 10-17 year-old, including at least 39,095 innocents (as of 2008-04-10). In 2007, the profiles of 108 children under 10, along with 883,888 people aged between 10 and 17, 46 people more than 90 years old and a one seven-month-old baby girl were held on the NDNAD.
The yearly average number of subject profiles added to the NDNAD by the England and Wales police forces for the the financial years 2005-07 was 646,767 while the average number of profiles removed for the calendar years 2005-07 was only 221. In 2006/07, 667,737 profiles were added on the National DNA Database (NDNAD), including that of about 160,000 young people aged 10-17; only 115 removed. By July 2006, 3,457,000 individuals were on the NDNAD. By December 2005, 3,130,429 people had had their DNA taken from them. By March 2004, it was 2,527,728people or 5.24% of the UK population; this compared to 0.98% in Austria, 0.83% in Switzerland, 0.50% in the USA and 0.41% in Germany.
...and fingerprints are required to hire a car at Stanstead Airport.
Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (SCA) makes it an offence to encourage or assist in the taking part in or organising of a demonstration not authorised under SOCPA (modified by the SCA) possibly further criminalising peaceful opposition to the government.
The police use of the kettling tactic at demonstrations effectively imprison people behaving lawfully for several hours. The police also use Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 to move away photographers and journalists from protests.
Filming or taking photographs of London tube stations without obtaining a permit in advance is illegal since July 2005. Ironically we are being told: ‘Detectives have issued an urgent appeal for any photographs, video footage or mobile phone images’.
You've been saving that up haven't you? Congratulations on thoroughly proving my point about you having a weird hang up about Britain, that you extend to all British people, and interject into threads where it is irrelevant.
Not all British people, most likely. Just you.
Sheesh, you people.
Where on earth did you did that huge pile of steaming tripe from?
By the way it's "Queen and Country " and has been since 1953. Please keep up with current affairs will you old chap.
Nah. Then again, I expected absolutely nothing even remotely approaching an apology or even acceptance of you being wrong, so this is par for the course.
Don’t flatter yourself. Airstrip One had a chance to save itself from insanity ~145 years ago and didn’t take it.
Whataboutisms are the Russians’ purview. You’re supposed to be better than that.
Dismissal of content requires refutation thereof. I’ll wait.
Insanity
You're off the hook. Have you even been to the UK? We all cower in fear of the state in our hobbit holes you know.
2006/07?!! how relevant is that in 2015?
The UK (in 2014 so slightly more relevant )ranks 14th least corrupt higher than the USA. thus we can conclude that the US is a cesspit of corruption according to your rational ;-)
Section 44 and the Counter-Terror Review
In July 2010 the Government announced that it was suspending the police’s power to stop and search an individual without suspicion under section 44. Liberty submitted a detailed response on section 44, calling for its repeal. Read our response (PDF).
The Home Secretary’s roll-back of section 44 powers has been confirmed in the Government’s Review of Counter-Terrorism and Security Powers. The Review recognised that change was needed in this area to comply with the Gillan and Quinton judgment, and that the broad framework of the legislative provision has lead to valid concerns about misuse. Accordingly the Review recommended that section 44 be repealed. However, it also recommended that there be provision for the power to be used:
The Police federation is the Police "union and Bob can only speak from that viewpoint and not as an policy maker in the government and this appears to be his point of view and not a policy statement from government.
Quote:
they are not disappeared but held in custody for upt o 28 days and funny enough all those who have been held have failed to sue for the horrible conditions or their solicitors.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Now under review and are likely to be replaced but you keep using stats and info from 8 years+ ago.
Quote:
The Prevention of Terrorism Act and control orders were repealed in December 2011 by the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.
Once again your information is out by 4 years.
You do have some relevant information and points surrounded by out of date cr*p which just reduces any credibility of the argument you are trying to make (IMHO very badly)
I did read the article and I am aware that it is all about monopoly. Which Apple does not have, as you said, by market share. Maybe by profit it has... (I do not know which metric applies to establish whether a company has a monopoly and what the threshold is.)
However, Apple clearly has the monopoly within the Apple ecosystem as the App Store is the only official source for apps. That doesn't appear to count then. Again, this is fine for me
My conclusion is that it's ok to have a "local" monopoly as long as there are viable alternatives. As soon as your "local" becomes somehow "too big" it stops being ok.
Apart from that fact that finding an objective metric for what constitutes a monopoly (100% of rev? 96,55? PI*e%?), then this is driving what's just or not, endnote the terms and conditions by themselves. In other words, it is ok (and it is for me) that Apple asks 30% as long as they do not have a monopoly, but if they did it would be not ok. I find this logic flawed, or at least, not consequent. In addition, Apple indeed constitutes a monopoly within the iOS-boundaries, and that obviously does not count. So I still do not understand the logic behind this. if e.g. let's say Apple had 85,543%, and by whatever metric this means it is on the border of not being a monopoly, then the terms and conditions are ok. One more subscriber and suddenly it is not? Hm....
The logic (or the way anti-trust laws are structured) is this. If iOS was a true monopoly in the mobile device market, Apple can not unfairly compete by not allowing competitors fair access to market their product in iOS. That's because most competitors that market products for mobile devices could not survive otherwise.
In the case of MS with Windows, Windows is a true monopoly. It's on over 90% of desktop PC's. Therefore, in order for software makers to survive, they must have access to Windows. They can not survive by marketing their products to less than 10% of the other computer users. So MS must allow all software makers, even their competitors, fair access to Windows or otherwise face anti-trust lawsuits.
But iOS is not a monopoly. Not even close. No matter what metric you use. It's only on about 25% of mobile devices. Mobile software makers can survive without iOS users because they still can market their products to the other 75% of mobile users. They are not dependent on the 25% of iOS users to survive. No one is forcing them to write software only for iOS. Plus mobile OS's are just a part of all OS's. Software makers like Spotify can still market (and do) their products for Windows and OSX desktops. And as far as I know, all iOS users have access to Spotify on their internet browser. On their mobile devices and desktops.
And then, if Spotify want to market their products to Android users in Google Play Store or Windows users in the Windows Music Store, they must pay the same 30% commission. So one can construe that the 30% commission Apple charges for access to their ecosystem is fair, whether they have a monopoly or not. If Spotify want to start their own ecosystem where that can avoid the 30% commission, they are free to do so. If they want access to someones ecosystem, they must pay. And when Apple makes Apple Music available for Android, they will have to pay Google a 30% commission if they want to go through the Google Play Store.
The logic (or the way anti-trust laws are structured) is this. If iOS was a true monopoly in the mobile device market, Apple can not unfairly compete by not allowing competitors fair access to market their product in iOS. That's because most competitors that market products for mobile devices could not survive otherwise.
In the case of MS with Windows, Windows is a true monopoly. It's on over 90% of desktop PC's. Therefore, in order for software makers to survive, they must have access to Windows. They can not survive by marketing their products to less than 10% of the other computer users. So MS must allow all software makers, even their competitors, fair access to Windows or otherwise face anti-trust lawsuits.
But iOS is not a monopoly. Not even close. No matter what metric you use. It's only on about 25% of mobile devices. Mobile software makers can survive without iOS users because they still can market their products to the other 75% of mobile users. They are not dependent on the 25% of iOS users to survive. No one is forcing them to write software only for iOS. Plus mobile OS's are just a part of all OS's. Software makers like Spotify can still market (and do) their products for Windows and OSX desktops. And as far as I know, all iOS users have access to Spotify on their internet browser. On their mobile devices and desktops.
And then, if Spotify want to market their products to Android users in Google Play Store or Windows users in the Windows Music Store, they must pay the same 30% commission. So one can construe that the 30% commission Apple charges for access to their ecosystem is fair, whether they have a monopoly or not. If Spotify want to start their own ecosystem where that can avoid the 30% commission, they are free to do so. If they want access to someones ecosystem, they must pay. And when Apple makes Apple Music available for Android, they will have to pay Google a 30% commission if they want to go through the Google Play Store.
So let me try to think this through.
You say that Apple cannot compete unfairly when they have a monopoly. So it is allowed to compete unfairly as long as Apple has no monopoly?
I do not want to split hairs here, I just still do not see that something is considered unfair when by some metric you have a monopoly, while the exact same behavior is ok when the metric says you do not have a monopoly. Like I pointed out before, let's say you have one subscriber before the metric calls you a monopolist and you can do what you are doing. With the very next subscriber it suddenly is not ok then.
This is in consequence what you (or the anti-trust laws) say?
Next, assume Apple reaches monopoly. Then, if Apple would split off their subscription service and subjects it to the same rules then basically it has not discriminated any competitor, yet the 30% constitute moving cash from one pocket within Apple Holding (or whatever) to another. Then that would be ok again?
Spotify is not the issue for me. IMO they do not have a case here, also for the reasons you pointed out.
I just think that this anti-trust thing is not consequent, and certainly not objective, since terms such as "unfair", "monopoly" are not based on an objective metric.
Let's say I am a farmer and have the only shop in town to sell food. Other farmers ask me to sell their goods through my store and I say "Fine, you will have top split the money with me according to my terms". Then this is not allowed by anti-trust because I have a monopoly although it is MY store?
And if I make a great product (and through this in addition I create a business opportunity for my competition!) I loose sovereignty when my competition s**ks and has an inferior offering, just because I happen to reach monopoly?
I do not follow this.
Actually, I do not know how Microsoft really established their monopoly, but I do not care and to me they could have bundles whatever they like with their stuff. Simply, because I had always a choice and made it by buying from the competition.
If one day iOS would reach monopoly because of the quality (difference) then it reached this by choice of customers who then should be protected by stimulating weaker competition?
So if AppleWatch soon would dominate the wearables market then their Store policy is abusing?
Where i DO see the need for regulation is in the case where I as customer never had a choice in the first place. For example, a monopoly of electricity provider, internet provider etc. If I have a choice, then of course, it would be nice, if all is cheap, ideally for free, but that is not how it works. And why should there be a right e.g. that you can have Spotify on your iPhone at the same price like any other service? If you do not like it, don't take it.
Ah, truth is ‘extremist rhetoric’ now. No wonder you guys are a police state.
Good for you. That doesn’t magically make it untrue. You’re wrong. It’s a police state.
I can see that you are suffering from either brainwashing or an unrelated mental deficiency. “Anti-social” behavior being illegal in a country is mentally defective enough as it is, but in Britain it refers to “any behavior that any other person doesn’t like”. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF ORWELLIAN.
You’re joking, right? This is a joke.
What’s this? Someone wrongfully detained by a police state failed to sue the same police state? Why, that couldn’t possibly be out of fear of being detained again, could it?
Well, until it actually is…
Your point is what? If you’ve information that shows you’re NOT a police state anymore, feel free to post it.
Again, you must be joking.
Your asking to prove a negative..
But as I can criticise the the government without fear and do a whole host of things that would be impossible in a true police state you can continue with your delusions if you so wish.