EU law will force Apple to blow open its entire hardware and software stack

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 98
    EsquireCatsEsquireCats Posts: 1,243member
    This is plain silly and shows a limited understanding of technology. If the EU really want to control a smartphone, they're big enough to fork Android and produce their own phone, they don't need to be designing iOS/iPhone by legal proxy.

    A fair chunk of the requirements merely attempt to bring iOS into parity with Android, despite their differences being meaningful for numerous reasons - app stores are a good example. If consumers have to shop around to a myriad of providers and utilise a variety of payment methods only the big guys win.

    I really don't see why the EU needs to be so heavily involved here, it seems the objective is to merely service EU companies that have failed to innovate or compete on merit. This is a failure to understand that even with these accomodations: those companies will still fail, to use paypal's complaint as an example: paypal predates the iPhone and opening NFC doesn't make Paypal suck less. Paypal's problem isn't lack of NFC, it's because their service is garbage.
    Alex1Nbaconstangdewmeradarthekattht
  • Reply 42 of 98
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,035member
    Apple’s solution to this law is to create a stripped down phone with no security features, no pre-installed apps and let the EU created their own App Store and figure how to make everything safe and secure. Then not sell the phone the rest of the world gets. If the EU things they can do it better let them.
    Alex1NradarthekatDBSynclongpath
  • Reply 43 of 98
    longpathlongpath Posts: 385member
    To me, this just looks like a disguised way for governments to get the back doors they are always looking for. I don’t care which government is involved. I don’t care if you love or loathe them. This just looks like an attempt to gain access to private APIs in order to exploit them, with the usual plausible deniability that will allow for subsequent claims of unintended consequences.
    Alex1NJaiOh81baconstangmcdaveentropys
  • Reply 44 of 98
    JFC_PAJFC_PA Posts: 708member
    darkvader said:
    lam92103 said:
    Excellent. Cant wait

    Same.  If Apple doesn't make these changes worldwide (which I think they will, similar legislation is coming in the US soon), I'll be ordering my next iPhone from the EU.

    It's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone, and I should be allowed to install any software of MY choosing on it, from any source of MY choosing.  Apple has no right to stop me, and if legislation is what it takes to force them, then so be it.  Apple should have abandoned the idiotic walled garden nonsense before it ever got started.
    Just buy an Android: Freedom!
    waveparticleJaiOh81dewmedanox
  • Reply 45 of 98
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,606member
    Joer293 said:
    This is almost identical to what occurred to Microsoft Windows decades ago when they were the dominant monopoly. Regulation forced Microsoft to do all of this. They fought it hard, played all the same tricks all your comments are saying apple and Google will attempt. History repeats itself. 

    I’m honestly surprised Microsoft hasn’t been calling foul for decades where apple and Google get away with all the things M$ got in trouble for. 

    Skip to the lessons learned. M$ sacrificed windows OS and Office quality to satisfy regulations. By way of moving software development en mass to developers a country that did not use the product. This Quality disaster opened up the market for a new comer (Apple) to fill the void. If history repeats. Apple and Google sacrifice and open up a market to ????
    "Almost identical" .... nonsense. This is nothing like that at all.

    And ... "dominant" monopoly" is a redundant term. It's like saying "whisper quietly". Can you name any "monopoly", that isn't "dominant"? But there are plenty of companies with products (or services) that is "dominant", but not a "monopoly".   

    Microsoft Windows OS (at one time) was on over 95% of the Worlds consumers desktop computers (Including laptops, which weren't as popular back then.). Windows was a true "monopoly"in the "relevant market" of desktop OS, under every current anti-trust laws at the time. Not just "dominant". Windows is still on over 75% of the Worlds desktops computers and still a "monopoly" in its "relevant market", under current anti-trust laws.

    Here, the EU is trying to pass the DMA that only targets the US big 5 techs because they are "dominant" in a ..... we will make it up as we go along ..... market. A made up market that has no relevance under current anti-trust laws. There is no mention of any of the US big 5 tech needing to be  a true "monopoly" in a "relevant market", like Microsoft Windows, to fall under the DMA regulations. They only have to be labeled a "gatekeeper" (which by DMA design, they all are) and only be "dominant" in a (make up as we go along) market. Saying that Apple have a "monopoly" with the Apple App Store on iOS (or iPhone) is using a BS make up as we go along market.  iOS (iPhone) is only "dominant" in a "relevant market" and no where near the true "monopoly" Microsoft have with Windows in a "relevant market".

    Plus, Microsoft was abusing the monopoly they had with Windows. Microsoft did not get in anti-trust trouble, just because Windows was/is a "monopoly". They were making it difficult to install third party browsers. They were sabotaging other browsers by constantly changing the Windows OS codes and not informing other browsers, thus making it seem other browsers were buggy. They made it impossible to remove IE and IE kept on ending up as the default browser. They were forcing third party computers venders to pay for a Windows license on every computer they sold. Even the ones they sold that didn't have Windows on it. They were forcing third party computers venders on what software could come pre-installed on the computers they sold. Otherwise they stood the chance of losing their Windows license. Does that sound like what Apple and Google been doing for decades?   

    Are you really going to compare Apple iOS, that is only on about 25% of the Worlds mobile devices, with Microsoft Windows "monopoly"? And then say that they are "historically" similar?  Nonsense.  

    Microsoft isn't calling "foul" because they know that what Apple and Google been doing for decades, is no where near what they (MS) was doing with the "monopoly" they had with Windows, back then. This is why the EU has to pass new laws that redefine "anti-trust" and "anti-competition", so they can go after some of the big 5 US tech money. Money that they can't go after under current anti-trust laws. Where it would not only nearly always require a "monopoly" in a "relevant market" but abuse of that "monopoly".     
    edited May 20 Alex1Ndewmeentropyslongpathbestkeptsecretdanox
  • Reply 46 of 98
    Joer293 said:
    This is almost identical to what occurred to Microsoft Windows decades ago when they were the dominant monopoly. Regulation forced Microsoft to do all of this. They fought it hard, played all the same tricks all your comments are saying apple and Google will attempt. History repeats itself. 

    I’m honestly surprised Microsoft hasn’t been calling foul for decades where apple and Google get away with all the things M$ got in trouble for. 

    Skip to the lessons learned. M$ sacrificed windows OS and Office quality to satisfy regulations. By way of moving software development en mass to developers a country that did not use the product. This Quality disaster opened up the market for a new comer (Apple) to fill the void. If history repeats. Apple and Google sacrifice and open up a market to ????
    The 1956 Consent Decree IBM was placed under for 40 years required them to help their competitors.
    darkvader
  • Reply 47 of 98
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,922member
    The EU has no idea what they are doing. What users are demanding this crap? I bet 99% of users say “back off, EU”. 
    DBSynclongpath
  • Reply 48 of 98
    EU should go to what?

    What happened to respectfully disagree? Calling names and swearing doesn’t get us anywhere. I’m Dutch live overseas and love the US. And Apple. And Five Guys and and…

    Apple and a bunch of other big techs are the victim of their own success. Yes, I’m old school and remember the days where Steve was shouting from the barricades about Microsoft’s dominance. Today it’s the other way around and there’s nobody able to protect us. It’s either Apple or Google for our OS. If these two would have been ethical they would have opened up and prevent this situation but shareholders were not going to appreciate that so they went there own ways. On top of that in the US and to a lesser extent the EU, there’s lobbyists who basically pay and get what they want on behalf of their clients. Roosevelt warned the US but nobody listened. After Pegasus we should have learned that IOS isn’t safe so the reasoning that Apple can’t open up the Apple store are nonsense. I’m sure there are various Pegasus versions out there collecting everything we don’t want them to collect. 

    Do we and especially the non technical folks out there, need protection from these two behemoths? We sure do and to be honest, it’s their own fault. 


    muthuk_vanalingamvztrv1darkvader
  • Reply 49 of 98
    thrangthrang Posts: 931member
    JohnDinEU said:
    EU should go to what?

    What happened to respectfully disagree? Calling names and swearing doesn’t get us anywhere. I’m Dutch live overseas and love the US. And Apple. And Five Guys and and…

    Apple and a bunch of other big techs are the victim of their own success. Yes, I’m old school and remember the days where Steve was shouting from the barricades about Microsoft’s dominance. Today it’s the other way around and there’s nobody able to protect us. It’s either Apple or Google for our OS. If these two would have been ethical they would have opened up and prevent this situation but shareholders were not going to appreciate that so they went there own ways. On top of that in the US and to a lesser extent the EU, there’s lobbyists who basically pay and get what they want on behalf of their clients. Roosevelt warned the US but nobody listened. After Pegasus we should have learned that IOS isn’t safe so the reasoning that Apple can’t open up the Apple store are nonsense. I’m sure there are various Pegasus versions out there collecting everything we don’t want them to collect. 

    Do we and especially the non technical folks out there, need protection from these two behemoths? We sure do and to be honest, it’s their own fault. 

    Whaaaa?

    So the billions of people who desire and purchase into the Apple ecosystem because of what it provides, now need “protection” from the company they voluntarily chose (and essentially love given their success)?

    Asinine comes to mind

    If governments keep on this path, tell me what happens to innovation, investment, to risk and reward? This is socialism wearing the stolen robe from Lady Liberty…

    edited May 20 baconstangdewmeradarthekat
  • Reply 50 of 98
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,919member
    aderutter said:
    Even if this happens Apple will not have to make it easy for others to “interoperate” with iMessage for example, and Apple can soon make the experience much nicer on their hardware anyway.
    iMessage is a poor example as other services can already interact with it via SMS. I look forward to FaceBook Messenger, What's App, Google <what-ever-it-is-this-year> and MS Teams/Skype, Instagram, Reddit and all proprietary forum messaging tech also being forced open to 3rd-party clients and services rather than discriminating against Apple.

    Apple needs to look at hybridising it's product & service models to function like iMessage for a poor 3rd-party experience. Though I think it may need to create an Alt-iOS without and 1st-party advantages (App Store, iCloud, hardware acceleration) and throw out thousands of viruses to salt the earth the choice-monkeys walk upon.
  • Reply 51 of 98
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,919member
    oomu said:
    rob53 said:
    EU is a dictatorship, plain and simple. At this point Apple needs to seriously tell the EU to GTH. The US needs to triple import duties on EU goods effectively shutting the EU down. The US should also reduce exports to the EU and cut off any financial support. 
    "EU is a dictatorship, plain and simple"

    I'm living in EU, France.

    European Union is a whole host of democracy, lots of election, regular change of majority and political sides (NOT like in Russia or China, for example)

    lot of laws to preserve rights for minorities and to protect people (again, not like in Russia)

    and also, the commission is composed by elected governments of the members
    and the European parliament are elected by the whole population

    And what about that proposition of European DIRECTIVE (it's not a law yet, it will need to be transposed and voted in each national states to be "law") ?

    I'm all for it.

    To open market, to force manufactures to cease their "walled garden" is a good thing.

    I'm fond of Apple but it's not to Apple to decide for me if Steam or Epic are bad.

    And yes, I don't care at all : I still want to profit from the good work of Apple (hardware quality, easy to use software and so on), I pay of it, and still to open it as much as possible to make it an always more useful tool for _ME_, not apple, ME.

    the less I need to hack, the more I can have software on my Apple's device, the better that device will be.


    ". At this point Apple needs to seriously tell the EU to GTH."

    you're right, it's time to EU to tell the US to GTH. And replace OTAN by a full militarized European Defense.  Like that, next time a new USA isolationist president insult us , we can answer "okay, great, goodbye". and Putin will not have that silly excuse "but but but but the USA... waAAAAAh !" to justify why he harass us.

    haa..maybe one day :)


    " The US needs to triple import duties on EU goods effectively shutting the EU down."

    The UE needs to QUADRUPLE import duties on US goods effectively shutting the US down   (after Avatar 2, 3 and 4 are released, pleased, I love James Cameron :)  maybe we could kidnap him and make him a European citizen ^^,   You know what ? We should kidnap all the good and great American citizens,  okay, it may be a loooot of people... mostly everyone,  but it would be great ! )

    " The US should also reduce exports to the EU and cut off any financial support. "

    The UE should also reduce exports to the US and cut off any financial support.

    I mean, there is a lot of agricultural products, hardware, services and luxury products sold to the USA by UE, and you know it's materialism and pollution. By cutting down the US, we could all collectively attain a glorious Golden Spiritual Age ! Less crap, Less sea polluting boats full of goods !

    (yes... it's SARCASM.  Sarcasm from your friendly neighborhood french citizen)

    So you fight democracy with democracy - wow that really showed them!  All you've done is change the sprinkles on the icing on the cake. See how our defiance of direction betrays us and has us running into the warm embrace of the sycophants offering choices. A choice of pre-determined options does set you free. I'm not sure what the French equivalent is but the solution to Hobson's Choice isn't Hobson's Choices.
  • Reply 52 of 98
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,919member
    crowley said:
    mcdave said:
    crowley said:
    rob53 said:
    EU is a dictatorship, plain and simple. At this point Apple needs to seriously tell the EU to GTH. The US needs to triple import duties on EU goods effectively shutting the EU down. The US should also reduce exports to the EU and cut off any financial support. 
    Weird how the EU dictatorship has so many elections.  
    That how you hide a dictatorship - behind the superficial inclusion of pre-determined options.
    You're suggesting that MEP elections are rigged?   :D
    All Elections are rigged - the options are predetermined.  The voter isn't expressing their opinion, they're witlessly endorsing another's.  What could possibly blind anyone into believing otherwise? 🤣
  • Reply 53 of 98
    dutchlorddutchlord Posts: 61member
    I live in the EU. We are not a democracy anymore. The EU is not serving the people but the people must serve the EU. Do you believe Von der Leyen (failed German MOD) would be elected in a people vote. Unthinkable. She is wildly unpopular while pushing through EU dictatorship (digital identity, digital Euro, digital medical file all tied together by EU rules and aimed at behavioral surveillance).
    New member-states are conditioned and made submissive to EU money and nice positions for local politicians. Country parliaments have no influence on EU policy. The moment they don’t comply hudge pressure and blackmail is used to get them in line. See what happens with Hungary and Poland. Different opinions are not accepted  and considered hostile. The concept of sovereign countries is abandoned. It’s sad to see the wrong direction this is going. 
    edited May 21 dewmeentropyslongpath
  • Reply 54 of 98
    rotateleftbyterotateleftbyte Posts: 1,589member
    entropys said:
    The imperialists will have their vengeance on those uppity colonies and their more dynamic and innovative industries.
    Errrrrr???
    The UK (as in the former imperial owners of the colonies) is no longer part of the EU. 
    Have you never heard of BREXIT? We voted (wrongly IMHO) to leave in June 2016.
    baconstangdarkvader
  • Reply 55 of 98
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,236member
    mcdave said:
    crowley said:
    mcdave said:
    crowley said:
    rob53 said:
    EU is a dictatorship, plain and simple. At this point Apple needs to seriously tell the EU to GTH. The US needs to triple import duties on EU goods effectively shutting the EU down. The US should also reduce exports to the EU and cut off any financial support. 
    Weird how the EU dictatorship has so many elections.  
    That how you hide a dictatorship - behind the superficial inclusion of pre-determined options.
    You're suggesting that MEP elections are rigged?   :D
    All Elections are rigged - the options are predetermined.  The voter isn't expressing their opinion, they're witlessly endorsing another's.  What could possibly blind anyone into believing otherwise? 🤣
    This is so far beyond stupid I don't know where to start.  
    baconstang
  • Reply 56 of 98
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,606member
    crowley said:
    camber said:
    In their own jurisdiction the EU is perfectly entitled to pass whatever laws they think their citizenry will obey. However, there is one aspect of this proposed legislation that is illegal and immoral. The EU does not have the right to levy fines on any company's WORLD WIDE revenue or income. They are only legally entitled to level such fines on revenue or income produced in their jurisdiction!!!
    Why?  If I commit a crime in the USA where the penalty is a fine then I don't get out of it because my income is all outside of the USA.  Judges often set penalties with one eye on ability to pay and appropriate level of discomfort to the judged.
    Here in the US, a "fine" for violating a law, is the same for all that breaks that law, no matter the of income of the person or entity that broke that law. A judge can reduce the fine based on the inability to pay, but can't increase the fine just because the plaintiff can afford to pay more. It's "punitive" damages that can be awarded by the ability of the plaintiff to pay. But the punitive damages can not just be based on the plaintiff wealth or ability to pay. 

    Imagine if the amount of the fine for a parking ticket or for speeding, was based on the income of the driver. If that were the case, parking or speeding tickets would mainly be issued to cars made by the likes of Mercedes, BMW, Porches and Tesla. Why ticket the driver of a $1K 20 year old clunker when the government can most likely get much more in fines by ticketing the Mercedes, for the same effort and offense? The fine should not be different for the driver of a Honda and the driver of a Lamborghini.   

    In the US, there has been many SCOTUS rulings that limits punitive damages. Even if the plaintiff could had easily pay it. Many States place limits on punitive damages. The SCOTUS has ruled that excessive punitive damages can be a violation of the Constitution 8th Amendment, dealing with "excessive fines". The amount of the punitive damages must be in line with the amount of compensatory damages (actual damages and harm), not the income or wealth of the plaintiff. If there's no compensatory damages awarded, then there can not be any award for punitive damages. If compensatory damages (actual damages and harm) can not be proven in a court of law, then how can there be any punitive damages?  What is the plaintiff being punished for? 

    The "fine" should be base on how much actual damages or harm was caused by breaking the law and that fine should be the same for all violators, regardless of income or wealth. Punitive damages should not be excessive when compared to the amount for actual damages and harm. If Apple, Google and Microsoft broke the same EU regulation and cause the same damages, Apple should not have to pay a "fine" of $37B, while Google has to pay $27B and Microsoft only $17B, based on annual global revenue. It's the same "parking ticket"and the fine should be the same for all three. If the EU wants to punish the violator, then the punitive damage should be in line with the compensatory damages, not the violator global revenue.   

    https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-viii/clauses/103 ;

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/2021/04/08/are-constitutionally-excessive-punitive-damages-headed-back-to-the-supreme-court-lets-hope-so/

    If Volkswagen was fined 10% of their $275B global revenue (at the time) for violating emission laws in all the jurisdictions involved, Volkswagen would no longer be in business today, just from having to pay the fines. Never mind the compensatory and civil damages and the cost to fix the damages they caused to all parties. In the US, Volkswagen was fined  about $2.8B in criminal fines and a settlement where Volkswagen had to pay at least another $18B to repair the damages they caused. There was no extra punitive damages levied to punish Volkswagen for violating US emission laws. The $2.8B in criminal fine was based on a set fine for each of the cars they sold in the US (that cheated on emissions). If was not based on any global revenue or cars they sold globally. Not even the EU levied a fine that was based on Volkswagen global revenue or cars sold. The US fine amounted to just a slap on the wrist and the EU fine was just a scolding while waving a finger and saying ... don't let us catch you doing that again. 

    edited May 21 danox
  • Reply 57 of 98
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,236member
    davidw said:
    crowley said:
    camber said:
    In their own jurisdiction the EU is perfectly entitled to pass whatever laws they think their citizenry will obey. However, there is one aspect of this proposed legislation that is illegal and immoral. The EU does not have the right to levy fines on any company's WORLD WIDE revenue or income. They are only legally entitled to level such fines on revenue or income produced in their jurisdiction!!!
    Why?  If I commit a crime in the USA where the penalty is a fine then I don't get out of it because my income is all outside of the USA.  Judges often set penalties with one eye on ability to pay and appropriate level of discomfort to the judged.
    Here in the US, a "fine" for violating a law, is the same for all that breaks that law, no matter the of income of the person or entity that broke that law. A judge can reduce the fine based on the inability to pay, but can't increase the fine just because the plaintiff can afford to pay more. It's "punitive" damages that can be awarded by the ability of the plaintiff to pay. But the punitive damages can not just be based on the plaintiff wealth or ability to pay. 

    Imagine if the amount of the fine for a parking ticket or for speeding, was based on the income of the driver. If that were the case, parking or speeding tickets would mainly be issued to cars made by the likes of Mercedes, BMW, Porches and Tesla. Why ticket the driver of a $1K 20 year old clunker when the government can most likely get much more in fines by ticketing the Mercedes, for the same effort and offense? The fine should not be different for the driver of a Honda and the driver of a Lamborghini.   

    In the US, there has been many SCOTUS rulings that limits punitive damages. Even if the plaintiff could had easily pay it. Many States place limits on punitive damages. The SCOTUS has ruled that excessive punitive damages can be a violation of the Constitution 8th Amendment, dealing with "excessive fines". The amount of the punitive damages must be in line with the amount of compensatory damages (actual damages and harm), not the income or wealth of the plaintiff. If there's no compensatory damages awarded, then there can not be any award for punitive damages. If compensatory damages (actual damages and harm) can not be proven in a court of law, then how can there be any punitive damages?  What is the plaintiff being punished for? 

    The "fine" should be base on how much actual damages or harm was caused by breaking the law and that fine should be the same for all violators, regardless of income or wealth. Punitive damages should not be excessive when compared to the amount for actual damages and harm. If Apple, Google and Microsoft broke the same EU regulation and cause the same damages, Apple should not have to pay a "fine" of $3.7B, while Google has to pay $2.7B and Microsoft only $1.7B, based on annual global revenue. It's the same "parking ticket"and the fine should be the same for all three. If the EU wants to punish the violator, then the punitive damage should be in line with the compensatory damages, not the violator global revenue.   

    https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-viii/clauses/103 ;

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/2021/04/08/are-constitutionally-excessive-punitive-damages-headed-back-to-the-supreme-court-lets-hope-so/

    If Volkswagen was fined 10% of their $275B global revenue (at the time) for violating emission laws in all the jurisdictions involved, Volkswagen would no longer be in business today, just from having to pay the fines. Never mind the compensatory and civil damages and the cost to fix the damages they caused to all parties. In the US, Volkswagen was fined  about $2.8B in criminal fines and a settlement where Volkswagen had to pay at least another $18B to repair the damages they caused. There was no extra punitive damages levied to punish Volkswagen for violating US emission laws. The $2.8B in criminal fine was based on a set fine for each of the cars they sold in the US (that cheated on emissions). If was not based on any global revenue or cars they sold globally. Not even the EU levied a fine that was based on Volkswagen global revenue or cars sold. The US fine amounted to just a slap on the wrist and the EU fine was just a scolding while waving a finger and saying ... don't let us catch you doing that again. 
    As ever, thanks for the lecture about the US Constitution but it doesn't apply in the EU, so doesn't really matter a jot.

    Just because your Supreme Court has hobbled the ability of the law to adequately punish corporate malfeasance doesn't mean the rest of the world has any need to follow in step.
    muthuk_vanalingamgatorguydarkvaderIreneW
  • Reply 58 of 98
    I think everyone is missing a very interesting point. This is the same approach as what the unnamed gaming company is trying to do by having their own store to sell to apple device users.
    And the point is this - Any company that develops Intellectual Property i.e. devices/software/apps=Platform and provides these to customers in an efficient and user enjoyable way plus becomes profitable an “Authority” will step in call it monopoly then realize that there are other “Platforms” therefore CanNot call it Monopoly, then create a new law so that if others say “they want to play in Your backyard” “We - the Authority” are going to Tell you how to run your house so that those “others” can pilfer your profitability. This is the bottom line AND this is going in the direction of what I call socialism. With this approach there is no protection for something that someone designs, develops and markets - where is the incentive to build something of worth that is “Profitable” !?!?
    The Authorities must redefine Intellectual Property and the protections that will be in place!
    Your intellectual property is meaningless if “we” want to change the rules and When “we” want to change the rules !!!

    Now, here is an interesting question - what if I want to setup a store in their store, the “others” store - can I do it?
    I guarantee you there will not be that provision - that will be for the next large company but that’s down the road about a decade or so.
    longpathdanox
  • Reply 59 of 98
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,236member
    With this approach there is no protection for something that someone designs, develops and markets - where is the incentive to build something of worth that is “Profitable” !?!?
    Profit?
  • Reply 60 of 98
    JFC_PAJFC_PA Posts: 708member
    The EU will do what it does. 

    Otoh for anyone that dissatisfied with Apples current approach to apps? Well that’s why there’s a free market with competition (so far) so you can simply vote with your money and buy a competitor that offers that wide open non curated system approach. 

    It’s not like Apple’s approach can come as any sort of surprise: everyone knows going in. Don’t like it? Buy a competitor. Just like with any other commercial product. 
    danox
Sign In or Register to comment.