New EU laws could soften Apple's grip on App Store content and revenue

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    adm1 said:
    nht said:
    gatorguy said:
    It's as I completely expected if this happens. The EU Commission has been on an "unfair competition" witch-hunt for the last several years. I fully believe Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook will be under yet more scrutiny from EU authorities in the next couple of years. It's just beginning. 
    For all his bluster I doubt Trump will protect US interests in this matter where the EU targets US companies because we are successful in building ecosystems and Europeans are not.

    Witch hunt is exactly the right term.
    What could Trump (or any US president) do anyway? Their authority stops at the US border, except of course when the US is "liberating" and bringing "freedom" to resource-rich middle eastern countries as and when they like. 
    Protectionist act by the EU against US tech companies can be met with the maximum tariffs allowed under WTO and favorable trade agreements with the U.K. who will want our help anyway against bullying during brexit.

    We have a negative trade balance with the EU and we provide the bulk of their security.  

    Why are there more US, UK and Canadian troops deployed in Eastern Europe than French and German troops?  Why does a small country like Taiwan have 4 times the number of tanks than Germany when Russia has 20,000 tanks? Why can S Korea afford 400 fighters and France only 300 when Russia has invaded Ukraine and Georgia in the past decade?

    The EU loves to claim being the "bigger" than the US economically but consistently fails to step up when conflicts are on their own doorstep.  The EU spends half what the US does and we have to put troops into the EU to defend you while you make snide comments about us defending your fucking access to Middle East oil.  40% of your oil comes from the Middle East.  30% from Russia.

    We are close to being a net energy exporter while half of your energy needs are imported. 
  • Reply 22 of 36
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,344member
    adm1 said:
    nht said:
    gatorguy said:
    It's as I completely expected if this happens. The EU Commission has been on an "unfair competition" witch-hunt for the last several years. I fully believe Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook will be under yet more scrutiny from EU authorities in the next couple of years. It's just beginning. 
    For all his bluster I doubt Trump will protect US interests in this matter where the EU targets US companies because we are successful in building ecosystems and Europeans are not.

    Witch hunt is exactly the right term.


    The case against google's app store and apple's app store is very different as I see it however. The only trouble I see Apple having in the EU is their policy about competing apps being banned/removed - Apple would have to provide a fairy convincing argument to explain what detriment would be caused by allowing them. On the other side, I don't doubt for a second that Google would highlight their own or certain chosen content ahead of competitors for financial gain, much like they do on search results, shopping results etc.
    Ummmm,  don't those in general have the same goal:  Promoting Apple products/Google products over competing ones? Offering "unfair" advantages to using Apple/Google software products over 3rd party ones? This isn't one of those Apple vs. Google moments. The new rules if put into effect will impact both and I would personally expect bigger yowls from the Apple camp. There already is based on the reading I've do.
    edited May 2017
  • Reply 23 of 36
    asdasd said:
    lkrupp said:
    Why not just ban so-called gatekeepers from proving any service or product that competes with a non-gatekeeper entity like Spotify.
    That is like not allowing a straight A student to use his brain, because that would be anti-competitive in respect to a D grade student.
    Handicapper General
    Well that’s the point of European democratic socialism. Equality of outcome is the goal, not equality of opportunity. In that utopia every individual has the same economic status. Nobody gets a leg up, nobody wins. The playing field is regulated and so is competition. If you don’t believe that just read the comments from the European socialists who chatter on and on about this idea here on AI.
    Equality of outcome is a communist idea. It's not the policy of the capitalist states of Western Europe. 
    Although often conflated with Marx, it isn't a Marxist idea. EOO acknowledges opportunities to begin with aren't equal and then aims to close the gap using extra resources. I doubt communist countries would have such a conception for individual rights or outcomes since the pure utopian version is merely about free access rather than outcome.  
  • Reply 24 of 36

    foggyhill said:
    You sure talk a lot for saying NOTHING. 
    At least relate it to an actual fact about Apple, instead all you got is platitudes.




    Thanks for proving my point foggy, and by the way contradicting yourself. Indeed, you've apparently done the same. 
    The post was about app store and the European commission and I've commended on that. Perhaps take a deep breath and try and comment about that. 
    edited May 2017
  • Reply 25 of 36
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,803member
    nht said:
    adm1 said:
    nht said:
    gatorguy said:
    It's as I completely expected if this happens. The EU Commission has been on an "unfair competition" witch-hunt for the last several years. I fully believe Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook will be under yet more scrutiny from EU authorities in the next couple of years. It's just beginning. 
    For all his bluster I doubt Trump will protect US interests in this matter where the EU targets US companies because we are successful in building ecosystems and Europeans are not.

    Witch hunt is exactly the right term.
    What could Trump (or any US president) do anyway? Their authority stops at the US border, except of course when the US is "liberating" and bringing "freedom" to resource-rich middle eastern countries as and when they like. 
    Protectionist act by the EU against US tech companies can be met with the maximum tariffs allowed under WTO and favorable trade agreements with the U.K. who will want our help anyway against bullying during brexit.

    We have a negative trade balance with the EU and we provide the bulk of their security.  

    Why are there more US, UK and Canadian troops deployed in Eastern Europe than French and German troops?  Why does a small country like Taiwan have 4 times the number of tanks than Germany when Russia has 20,000 tanks? Why can S Korea afford 400 fighters and France only 300 when Russia has invaded Ukraine and Georgia in the past decade?

    The EU loves to claim being the "bigger" than the US economically but consistently fails to step up when conflicts are on their own doorstep.  The EU spends half what the US does and we have to put troops into the EU to defend you while you make snide comments about us defending your fucking access to Middle East oil.  40% of your oil comes from the Middle East.  30% from Russia.

    We are close to being a net energy exporter while half of your energy needs are imported. 
    The protectionist act against US companies? Which act?

    If there is any outcome to the current situation, it will be applied to everybody equally. There will be no singling out of US companies.

    The US is not defending Europe. The US cannot defend Europe. The presence of NATO troops and hardware within Europe is purely symbolic in terms of defence.

    In the event of any agressive act that threatened European member states, there would have to be massive military deployment and the most of the initial response would come through the mobilisation of local forces.

    The US has bases throughout Europe. They are mainly placeholders for US military operations and AFAIK, very few (if any) were actually requested by the national governments that accomodate them. They are there often for strategic purposes and more in the interest of the US than anyone else.

    As for tanks and troops etc, don't forget that some countries are averse to such outrightly military options for historical reasons. That said however, they do provide support infrastructure. Logistical infrastructure, medical support, supplies, intelligence, engineering etc.

    You lost me completely when you gratuitously threw in the oil comments. 

    The EU is making great strides in plans for diversifying sources for its energy demands.

    It is logical that a large chunk of EU gas needs are covered by Russia. They have a lot of it and it makes sense for geopolitical reasons. This in a historical context. The future will see far less dependence on any kind of fossil fuel. Just take a look at the proposals for the North Sea Wind Power Hub, for example.

    singularity
  • Reply 26 of 36
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    Wow. So basically you can't have any ownership over the product or your company service because that will be considered "anti-competitive"? That makes zero sense and that approach is progressive indeed...
    Although, given what happened in the last couple of years, in no way I would consider it as a compliment.

    That is like not allowing a straight A student to use his brain, because that would be anti-competitive in respect to a D grade student.


    First I like your analogy, could not have said it any better.

    This is the world we live in today, those with means, given what ever those means are, whether smarts or just plan old tenacity they are demonizes. We have all these people, groups, organizations, and governments who want everyone to be equal in all ways, want things driven down the lowest common denominator. It is like if you have something which everyone can not have then you are not allowed to have it.

  • Reply 27 of 36
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,803member
    Wow. So basically you can't have any ownership over the product or your company service because that will be considered "anti-competitive"? That makes zero sense and that approach is progressive indeed...
    Although, given what happened in the last couple of years, in no way I would consider it as a compliment.

    That is like not allowing a straight A student to use his brain, because that would be anti-competitive in respect to a D grade student.
    That makes no sense at all. You have ownership of your company's product. When you start asking for money (in cash or otherwise) for your product, your product moves into a different arena and rules apply. This all about the rules, not the product.
  • Reply 28 of 36
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member
    asdasd said:

    Apple can easily benefit from this. At the moment they get exactly nothing from my Amazon prime membership, or my fairly frequent amazon orders. As I now go to the website. 

    Instead of taking 30% of the retail price  -- which eliminates most profit - they need to use Apple Pay and charge a reasonable usage fee, similar to the credit card fee. 

    You do know that Apple does not take a cut of physical goods when purchased through the Amazon app, correct?  Only Kindle books or music would give Apple a cut.  I use their website in Safari to purchase Kindle books.
  • Reply 29 of 36
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    That is like not allowing a straight A student to use his brain, because that would be anti-competitive in respect to a D grade student.
    So the foundation of US education since the 1960s.
  • Reply 30 of 36
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Accusing people of communism, particularly of a free trade block, is really very silly.
    The EU was founded by communists for the purpose of instituting communism. Learn your history or don't post on it.
    Europe has a very keen sense of individual rights
    HAHAHHHAAHAHAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAHAAHHAHAHA
    ...that is, of consumers to get a good deal.
    *continued laughter* The EU is anticompetitive as fuck. It's illegal to use anything that might be better than MicroUSB in a product. You have to keep using old technology, by law, and you have to wait for a new law to be allowed to use new technology.
    Democracy is eternal vigilance
    Democracy is marxism. Particularly universal franchise, which is what you seem so keen to spread around the world.
    If you make a great product, you don't need to act like a monopoly do you?
    A monopoly is a state of being, not a thing. If you make a great product, you can become a monopoly through the product's own merits. And then you're in trouble with the EU for being successful. Can't have that! If you're Microsoft, you become a monopoly through other means.

  • Reply 31 of 36
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,803member
    Accusing people of communism, particularly of a free trade block, is really very silly.
    The EU was founded by communists for the purpose of instituting communism. Learn your history or don't post on it.
    Europe has a very keen sense of individual rights
    HAHAHHHAAHAHAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAHAAHHAHAHA
    ...that is, of consumers to get a good deal.
    *continued laughter* The EU is anticompetitive as fuck. It's illegal to use anything that might be better than MicroUSB in a product. You have to keep using old technology, by law.
    It is ironic that you said that.

    Please read up on why companies have to use USB for charging and the problems it resolved.

    singularity
  • Reply 32 of 36
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    avon b7 said:
    It is ironic that you said that.
    In what way?
    Please read up on why companies have to use USB for charging and the problems it resolved.
    Did the previous solutions catch fire more often? Did they statistically pose a greater threat to the health and safety of the individuals using them than MicroUSB? If not, THE GOVERMENT HAS NO FUCKING BUSINESS DICTATING WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT USE IN THE PRODUCTS I DEVELOP. For every single reason I already stated. Keep cheering complacency; see how far that gets you.
    edited May 2017
  • Reply 33 of 36
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,803member
    avon b7 said:
    It is ironic that you said that.
    In what way?
    Please read up on why companies have to use USB for charging and the problems it resolved.
    Did the previous solutions catch fire more often? Did they statistically pose a greater threat to the health and safety of the individuals using them than MicroUSB? If not, THE GOVERMENT HAS NO FUCKING BUSINESS DICTATING WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT USE IN THE PRODUCTS I DEVELOP. For every single reason I already stated. Keep cheering complacency; see how far that gets you.
    In what way?

    "Learn your history or don't post on it"

    You clearly don't know your history.

    Try reading this:

    europa.eu/geninfo/query/resultaction.jsp?query_source=GROWTH&QueryText=Usb+charging&op=Search&swlang=en&form_build_id=form-mCvlKuiHXVi8WurzWHx2AnTpr8yLPPrfNm0LrOptwBo&form_id=nexteuropa_europa_search_search_form

    As far as I recall, using microUSB is not a legal requisite in the EU and never has been. If it were, how could Apple get away without using it? Didn't that occur to you before posting? Or did you think that EU iPhones have micro USB?

    The current situation came about for reasons that clearly escape you. The documents I have linked to will explain the history of the situation.
  • Reply 34 of 36
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    avon b7 said:
    You clearly don't know your history.
    Where is the irony.
    Try reading this:
    Not seeing anything relevant. 
    Didn't that occur to you before posting?
    It’s so obvious that it did that maybe, just maybe, you should stop and fucking think before posting yourself.
    The current situation came about for reasons that clearly escape you.
    No, I know the exact reasons. I already stated them. You see, learning how to read helps in the comprehension of words in sequence. If you were capable of doing that, you might be able to post some additional content relevant to the question I asked.
     The documents I have linked to will explain the history of the situation.
    I see nothing whatsoever that contradicts what I’ve already said and nothing to answer my question of whether it was also done on the basis of health and safety of the citizens of the EU. It was NOT, in fact, done on that basis, so it should not have been done at all. Government is not your mother and you are not a toddler. Try harder.
  • Reply 35 of 36
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,344member
    So one of the first casualties of the EU's moves against US techs: Google will be found to violate competition laws by seemingly favoring Google Shopping links. That despite relatively few people actually using Google Shopping, with Amazon capturing a third of product search traffic and eBay another huge chunk. 

    So the "cure" will be reportedly around $1B (could have been worse) and making Google Shopping less prominent in comparison to other shopping comparison sites in Europe. Still several EU cases/investigations to go so this is just one of the first of the current batch targeting US technology companies to dole out a fine. 
    edited June 2017
Sign In or Register to comment.