The EU is desperate to collect a penalty fee. In the U.S. legal system, Spotify wouldn't have had the standing to complain since they had already moved 99% of their iOS subscribers to web payments WITHOUT needing any kind of in-app communication. Nothing about their financial reality supported the complaint. Not the revenue part of it or the communication part of it.
Yes, with a nominal GDP of almost US$20 trillion projected for 2024, I'm sure they're desperate to collect 500 million Euro from a company violating existing antitrust laws.
GDP isn't the same profit, so 500,000,000 € with very little comparative legal and administrative overhead does sound like a huge boon to me.
What does that even mean?
Since when are governments for-profit organisations?
Replace profit with revenue if you find the statement confusing. Either way, more money is beneficial to a governing body. So my question to you is why would you assume that the EU has little interest in 500,000,000 € simply because their GDP is significantly larger, which is something that was never in question?
So probably somewhere around USD 8 trillion, if tax revenue percentage within the EU remains at roughly the same percentage of GDP as it's been for the past decade?
I assume you're one of the guys who believes that fines exist to fill the coffers of administration, and not to discourage illegal behaviour?
Are EU consumers taking advantage of the bludgeoning of the "evil gatekeepers" and suddenly basking in the glory of being able to purchase EU made products and services at more affordable prices? That is the goal, improving choice and driving lower prices, isn't it?
Mac-users as a group have gained most from regulation (though from US). At one point 95% of all users were on the Microsoft IE browser with sites demanding ActiveX that only worked on Windows. It forced consumers to Windows as Mac browsers including IE for Mac didn't work with their banks or other basic systems. I had to switch bank to stay on Mac, but most didn't.
US regulation forced the unbundling of IE from Windows and it opened the web + made Mac a platform that could be used on the level as Windows for most people. And the fear of regulation forced Microsoft to make a deal with Apple to producing MS Office for "at least 5 years" + made a huge investment (+3% of Apple). At that time Apple was 90 days from going bankrupt. Microsoft needed Apple to stay alive to keep US authorities at bay. Thanks to US regulation we still have Apple and competition.
This is the first I've heard that most Mac users were forced to switch to WinPCs to use financial websites. I certainly never had this problem. Would you please post some links showing how widespread this was as I am unable to find any sources myself?
Oh, it happened quite a bit back in the day (twenty years ago).
That link is about purchases, not banking, and it refers to South Korea, not the US.
I'm not saying this didn't happen to you, but I do doubt that your anecdotal experience translated to a mass exodus of Mac users to switch to WinPCs. If something this widespread had occurred I'm surprised that I wasn't aware of it and that there aren't countless articles easily had. Your comment also indicates that you were able to move to a bank whose online system didn't require ActiveX which means that it was possible to use a bank that supported more open web standards.
Please check to see whom you are replying to.
There were plenty of cases where websites did not work without ActiveX. Most of use just moved on and ignored those sites, but plenty of people did not have that option. Having worked in support for many years around and after the turn of the century, I personally dealt with people who had to install virtual machines running Windows specifically for particular websites.
As an Apple shareholder I hope Apple has factored this cost of doing business in Europe into their pricing in Europe. Seems to me Europe looks at large U.S. tech companies like Apple to pay for their bloated national budgets.
The US already supports a lot of the EU making these stupid lawsuits revolting. The EU doesn’t make many products used worldwide, especially compared to the USA. I hope Apple starts charging a high tax on everything going to the EU. The USA will continue to support a dying continent and the EU needs to remember that.
well I book and start charging for operating system going forward in the EU something like $50 for an upgrade per device or $129 or $99 for future release
The EU is desperate to collect a penalty fee. In the U.S. legal system, Spotify wouldn't have had the standing to complain since they had already moved 99% of their iOS subscribers to web payments WITHOUT needing any kind of in-app communication. Nothing about their financial reality supported the complaint. Not the revenue part of it or the communication part of it.
Yes, with a nominal GDP of almost US$20 trillion projected for 2024, I'm sure they're desperate to collect 500 million Euro from a company violating existing antitrust laws.
Apple hasn’t broken any laws. The only laws that Apple appears to have broken are recent laws designed to punish Apple for being successful. Those laws didn’t exist at the time the EU went after Apple.
Incidentally, remember when they created a law forcing a standard power supply being USB-C? They claim Apple was filling their rubbish dumps with their leads. Only, Apple has only ever had 3 leads for their iPhones. 30-pin Dock connector, Lightning, and now USB-C. How many different charger leads existed on the EU’s beloved Nokia? Oh that’s right, there was a different power plug for every single model of Nokia phone until they settled on that crappy USB-Micro connector.
The EU is the biggest bunch of hypocrites which isn’t difficult to understand when Russia is one of the lead countries.
DMA Rules (which effectively were a Spotify Protection Racet) now this (again Spotify) ... there's your reason why Apple Hardware is so much more expensive in the EU than in the US. I mean on top of higher taxes, custom fees and other money grabbing schemes (e.g. for any kind of storys they have to pay a fee to a money collection racket in Germany - the GEMA - because you could potentially store music on that storage)
Btw. Spotify ... is actually losing money, even though they pay less money to the artists for streaming their material than for example Apple does. So they figured to use the EU as a tool to improve their situation.
The EU is desperate to collect a penalty fee. In the U.S. legal system, Spotify wouldn't have had the standing to complain since they had already moved 99% of their iOS subscribers to web payments WITHOUT needing any kind of in-app communication. Nothing about their financial reality supported the complaint. Not the revenue part of it or the communication part of it.
Yes, with a nominal GDP of almost US$20 trillion projected for 2024, I'm sure they're desperate to collect 500 million Euro from a company violating existing antitrust laws.
GDP isn't the same profit, so 500,000,000 € with very little comparative legal and administrative overhead does sound like a huge boon to me.
What does that even mean?
Since when are governments for-profit organisations?
Absolutely had the same issue trying to log into my bank account on a Mac. Back in the early days, my bank used a windows product that only worked for window using customers. This was back in the dial up modem days. They said this was standard and nothing they could do.
The EU is desperate to collect a penalty fee. In the U.S. legal system, Spotify wouldn't have had the standing to complain since they had already moved 99% of their iOS subscribers to web payments WITHOUT needing any kind of in-app communication. Nothing about their financial reality supported the complaint. Not the revenue part of it or the communication part of it.
If confirmed, it would be a penalty fee but not because the EU is desperate to collect anything.
It would be a penalty fee for illegal business practices.
It's not only about Spotify. They lodged the formal complaint but the formal investigation covers the impact of those practices throughout the developer world and on consumers
In this case it is accused (among other things) of contractually forbidding developers of notifying users of cheaper external options.
Doesn't that read as being openly anti-competitive? Do you consider that fair?
Changes made to 'appease' the EU will have a role in reducing the fine if it reaches that point but the changes don't mean they can get away with what went on earlier.
Are EU consumers taking advantage of the bludgeoning of the "evil gatekeepers" and suddenly basking in the glory of being able to purchase EU made products and services at more affordable prices? That is the goal, improving choice and driving lower prices, isn't it?
Mac-users as a group have gained most from regulation (though from US). At one point 95% of all users were on the Microsoft IE browser with sites demanding ActiveX that only worked on Windows. It forced consumers to Windows as Mac browsers including IE for Mac didn't work with their banks or other basic systems. I had to switch bank to stay on Mac, but most didn't.
US regulation forced the unbundling of IE from Windows and it opened the web + made Mac a platform that could be used on the level as Windows for most people. And the fear of regulation forced Microsoft to make a deal with Apple to producing MS Office for "at least 5 years" + made a huge investment (+3% of Apple). At that time Apple was 90 days from going bankrupt. Microsoft needed Apple to stay alive to keep US authorities at bay. Thanks to US regulation we still have Apple and competition.
Thank you for your informative response. Here in the US actions taken to supposedly help US consumers and businesses be more competitive against foreign suppliers very often does little more than force US consumers to pay more for the products that are in the “protected” category.
The revenue collected from tariffs and import surcharges goes directly to public coffers which may have a tiny benefit if it were actually reinvested in helping US producers be more competitive. More typically it just gets spent on something that’s driven by lobbyists trying to enrich their own causes.
The Microsoft IE bundling thing was never a thing in the US. If we apply the EU’s “gatekeepers” approach to IE it seems rather trivial compared to Microsoft’s operating system licensing “tax” that every PC maker was compelled to pay, which was somewhere in the neighborhood of $80 per hardware unit if I recall correctly. No matter which PC maker won or lost competing against one another, Microsoft still got their payment. Sometimes Microsoft’s licensing costs came back to haunt them. In my opinion Windows CE and Embedded licenses priced themselves out of the embedded market even after Microsoft relented on the unit pricing.
Microsoft is still benefiting from Windows licensing even though it is a smaller contributor to their bottom line than it once was. In contrast, Apple gives away their operating system, we’ll sort of, because you can only (practically speaking) install it on Apple hardware. Even though the latest versions of Linux are extremely nice and user friendly, Microsoft still has the PC manufacturers under their thumb and not a single whimper from the EU about that situation.
I suppose Linux gives Microsoft an easy out for deflecting attention away from themselves, which may be a reason why Microsoft has embraced Linux over the past few years. Linux is Microsoft’s hedge against scrutiny. Apple could do something similar by developing a strategic relationship with an EU technology company that has a happy relationship with EU regulators and politicians.
The EU is desperate to collect a penalty fee. In the U.S. legal system, Spotify wouldn't have had the standing to complain since they had already moved 99% of their iOS subscribers to web payments WITHOUT needing any kind of in-app communication. Nothing about their financial reality supported the complaint. Not the revenue part of it or the communication part of it.
If confirmed, it would be a penalty fee but not because the EU is desperate to collect anything.
It would be a penalty fee for illegal business practices.
It's not only about Spotify. They lodged the formal complaint but the formal investigation covers the impact of those practices throughout the developer world and on consumers
In this case it is accused (among other things) of contractually forbidding developers of notifying users of cheaper external options.
Doesn't that read as being openly anti-competitive? Do you consider it fair?
No it’s not anti-competitive. The simple fact of the matter, and one the EU is purposefully ignoring, is that Apple doesn’t have to compete against itself by law. They are Apple’s devices and Apple’s systems. Apple can legally do whatever it wants on their systems.
If you come to my house I expect you to obey my house rules just like I would for your house. Why all of a sudden is it illegal for Apple to set the rules for its house?
In New Zealand we have a term for this sort of behaviour. It’s called “Tall Poppy Syndrome”. It comes from the saying “the tallest poppy is the first to see the lawnmower”.
Everyone was fine when Apple was the underdog. They mocked Apple when it had no market share. Then they sold the iPod and then they sold music and then they sold the iPhone which disrupted so many business models that were screwing over the consumer.
Apple now started to gain market share because people loved their devices because they were getting more of what they wanted.
So rather than move with the times EU companies like Nokia sought to cut down the Apple tree. Only when they tried they died.
Nokia isn’t even a player, not because of Apple directly, but because Apple pulled back the curtain to reveal the man Nokia truly is.
You want to talk about Apple for being a walled garden, why does the EU not talk about the walled garden that was Nokia? Today it might use Android as its OS but Nokia had their own OS that you could only buy apps for using its store. It operated exactly like how Apple operates but it’s ok because Nokia WAS an EU company and Apple isn’t so therefore Apple is bad.
So YES, I do think the way Apple operates is fair.
Are EU consumers taking advantage of the bludgeoning of the "evil gatekeepers" and suddenly basking in the glory of being able to purchase EU made products and services at more affordable prices? That is the goal, improving choice and driving lower prices, isn't it?
Mac-users as a group have gained most from regulation (though from US). At one point 95% of all users were on the Microsoft IE browser with sites demanding ActiveX that only worked on Windows. It forced consumers to Windows as Mac browsers including IE for Mac didn't work with their banks or other basic systems. I had to switch bank to stay on Mac, but most didn't.
US regulation forced the unbundling of IE from Windows and it opened the web + made Mac a platform that could be used on the level as Windows for most people. And the fear of regulation forced Microsoft to make a deal with Apple to producing MS Office for "at least 5 years" + made a huge investment (+3% of Apple). At that time Apple was 90 days from going bankrupt. Microsoft needed Apple to stay alive to keep US authorities at bay. Thanks to US regulation we still have Apple and competition.
Thank you for your informative response. Here in the US actions taken to supposedly help US consumers and businesses be more competitive against foreign suppliers very often does little more than force US consumers to pay more for the products that are in the “protected” category.
The revenue collected from tariffs and import surcharges goes directly to public coffers which may have a tiny benefit if it were actually reinvested in helping US producers be more competitive. More typically it just gets spent on something that’s driven by lobbyists trying to enrich their own causes.
The Microsoft IE bundling thing was never a thing in the US. If we apply the EU’s “gatekeepers” approach to IE it seems rather trivial compared to Microsoft’s operating system licensing “tax” that every PC maker was compelled to pay, which was somewhere in the neighborhood of $80 per hardware unit if I recall correctly. No matter which PC maker won or lost competing against one another, Microsoft still got their payment. Sometimes Microsoft’s licensing costs came back to haunt them. In my opinion Windows CE and Embedded licenses priced themselves out of the embedded market even after Microsoft relented on the unit pricing.
Microsoft is still benefiting from Windows licensing even though it is a smaller contributor to their bottom line than it once was. In contrast, Apple gives away their operating system, we’ll sort of, because you can only (practically speaking) install it on Apple hardware. Even though the latest versions of Linux are extremely nice and user friendly, Microsoft still has the PC manufacturers under their thumb and not a single whimper from the EU about that situation.
I suppose Linux gives Microsoft an easy out for deflecting attention away from themselves, which may be a reason why Microsoft has embraced Linux over the past few years. Linux is Microsoft’s hedge against scrutiny. Apple could do something similar by developing a strategic relationship with an EU technology company that has a happy relationship with EU regulators and politicians.
Of late, much of the reinvestment in American manufacturing by the U.S. Government has been driven by external factors, national security, politics, and foreign subsidy of industries, EV's and EV batteries being great examples. While I don't agree that tariffs are a great measure to introduce to manage imports, they do have the effect of forcing foreign companies to shift manufacturing to the U.S. and U.S. allied nations.
Specifically, wrt Spotify, which by all accounts, appears to me to be "nationalized" by the EU, the consequences for Apple are minimal, albeit it reinforces that the EU is unable to innovate in major consumer technologies. The EU has accepted that Apple is a longterm player, and will continue to legislate Apple as if it is a public utility, rather than the innovative tech behemoth that it is.
Meanwhile, China is going to decimate the EU automotive industry, much as it did the solar photovoltaic panel industry, if the EU doesn't act to protect that industry, which is by and large, orders of magnitude more important to the EU's economy than Spotify.
Perhaps the EU needs to focus on innovation, and possibly consider ejecting from the EU, Hungary, a Russian ally, and malcontent political entity, that has recently implemented security agreements with China;
The EU is desperate to collect a penalty fee. In the U.S. legal system, Spotify wouldn't have had the standing to complain since they had already moved 99% of their iOS subscribers to web payments WITHOUT needing any kind of in-app communication. Nothing about their financial reality supported the complaint. Not the revenue part of it or the communication part of it.
Yes, with a nominal GDP of almost US$20 trillion projected for 2024, I'm sure they're desperate to collect 500 million Euro from a company violating existing antitrust laws.
Apple hasn’t broken any laws. The only laws that Apple appears to have broken are recent laws designed to punish Apple for being successful. Those laws didn’t exist at the time the EU went after Apple.
Incidentally, remember when they created a law forcing a standard power supply being USB-C? They claim Apple was filling their rubbish dumps with their leads. Only, Apple has only ever had 3 leads for their iPhones. 30-pin Dock connector, Lightning, and now USB-C. How many different charger leads existed on the EU’s beloved Nokia? Oh that’s right, there was a different power plug for every single model of Nokia phone until they settled on that crappy USB-Micro connector.
Wait, so you just described how and why the EU created legislation to save themselves from a complete mess of power adapters — and you’re pissed because it also applies to Apple? And THAT is somehow "hypocritical"?
Do you realise how confused you sound?
(Not to mention that you somehow bizarrely seem to believe that Russia — the Russia whose enemy Ukraine the EU is supplying with arms, ammunition, and money — is somehow a leader in the EU??? WTF.)
Are EU consumers taking advantage of the bludgeoning of the "evil gatekeepers" and suddenly basking in the glory of being able to purchase EU made products and services at more affordable prices? That is the goal, improving choice and driving lower prices, isn't it?
Mac-users as a group have gained most from regulation (though from US). At one point 95% of all users were on the Microsoft IE browser with sites demanding ActiveX that only worked on Windows. It forced consumers to Windows as Mac browsers including IE for Mac didn't work with their banks or other basic systems. I had to switch bank to stay on Mac, but most didn't.
US regulation forced the unbundling of IE from Windows and it opened the web + made Mac a platform that could be used on the level as Windows for most people. And the fear of regulation forced Microsoft to make a deal with Apple to producing MS Office for "at least 5 years" + made a huge investment (+3% of Apple). At that time Apple was 90 days from going bankrupt. Microsoft needed Apple to stay alive to keep US authorities at bay. Thanks to US regulation we still have Apple and competition.
This is the first I've heard that most Mac users were forced to switch to WinPCs to use financial websites. I certainly never had this problem. Would you please post some links showing how widespread this was as I am unable to find any sources myself?
I have never personally owned a Windows PC and never will, Amiga then Mac very glad. Only used a PC at work for AutoCad, Navis, and Revit....Too bad Autodesk (like Adobe) doesn't support Apple Silicon hardware today very well despite the fact that it can run software on battery on and off at warp speed compared to Intel and AMD solutions, in addition the iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch together would work extremely well at a job site where power is sometimes sparse if they were supported.
On the financial front the advent of online trading and web solutions thru mobile has put the need for Windows only solutions to bed for most. All the financial institutions today have web and App solutions to serve their customers. On the business side Microsoft's reach is also declining because of the web and mobile app development.
Yes Microsoft are still big but they are slowly declining AI won't save them they need Windows (all their programs) on Arm to work like Windows on Intel, and AMD processors. In short they need to get mobile it is never too late. The same applies to Apple with gaming and servers.
The EU is desperate to collect a penalty fee. In the U.S. legal system, Spotify wouldn't have had the standing to complain since they had already moved 99% of their iOS subscribers to web payments WITHOUT needing any kind of in-app communication. Nothing about their financial reality supported the complaint. Not the revenue part of it or the communication part of it.
If confirmed, it would be a penalty fee but not because the EU is desperate to collect anything.
It would be a penalty fee for illegal business practices.
It's not only about Spotify. They lodged the formal complaint but the formal investigation covers the impact of those practices throughout the developer world and on consumers
In this case it is accused (among other things) of contractually forbidding developers of notifying users of cheaper external options.
Doesn't that read as being openly anti-competitive? Do you consider it fair?
No it’s not anti-competitive. The simple fact of the matter, and one the EU is purposefully ignoring, is that Apple doesn’t have to compete against itself by law. They are Apple’s devices and Apple’s systems. Apple can legally do whatever it wants on their systems.
If you come to my house I expect you to obey my house rules just like I would for your house. Why all of a sudden is it illegal for Apple to set the rules for its house?
What on Earth makes you think that you can legally do whatever you want in your house, just because it’s your house?
Of course the laws of the country/state/city where your house stand still apply to your conduct within the house.
Apple by law does not have to "compete against itself". Apple does, however, by law have to enable — or at least not actively hinder — others to compete against them.
In New Zealand we have a term for this sort of behaviour. It’s called “Tall Poppy Syndrome”. It comes from the saying “the tallest poppy is the first to see the lawnmower”.
Everyone was fine when Apple was the underdog. They mocked Apple when it had no market share. Then they sold the iPod and then they sold music and then they sold the iPhone which disrupted so many business models that were screwing over the consumer.
Apple now started to gain market share because people loved their devices because they were getting more of what they wanted.
So rather than move with the times EU companies like Nokia sought to cut down the Apple tree. Only when they tried they died.
The nature of antitrust legislation is that it only applies when you’re big enough to use your market power to illegally disadvantage your competitors.
Are EU consumers taking advantage of the bludgeoning of the "evil gatekeepers" and suddenly basking in the glory of being able to purchase EU made products and services at more affordable prices? That is the goal, improving choice and driving lower prices, isn't it?
Mac-users as a group have gained most from regulation (though from US). At one point 95% of all users were on the Microsoft IE browser with sites demanding ActiveX that only worked on Windows. It forced consumers to Windows as Mac browsers including IE for Mac didn't work with their banks or other basic systems. I had to switch bank to stay on Mac, but most didn't.
US regulation forced the unbundling of IE from Windows and it opened the web + made Mac a platform that could be used on the level as Windows for most people. And the fear of regulation forced Microsoft to make a deal with Apple to producing MS Office for "at least 5 years" + made a huge investment (+3% of Apple). At that time Apple was 90 days from going bankrupt. Microsoft needed Apple to stay alive to keep US authorities at bay. Thanks to US regulation we still have Apple and competition.
This is the first I've heard that most Mac users were forced to switch to WinPCs to use financial websites. I certainly never had this problem. Would you please post some links showing how widespread this was as I am unable to find any sources myself?
I have never personally owned a Windows PC and never will, Amiga then Mac very glad. Only used a PC at work for AutoCad, Navis, and Revit....Too bad Autodesk (like Adobe) doesn't support Apple Silicon hardware today very well despite the fact that it can run software on battery on and off at warp speed compared to Intel and AMD solutions, in addition the iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch together would work extremely well at a job site where power is sometimes sparse if they were supported.
On the financial front the advent of online trading and web solutions thru mobile has put the need for Windows only solutions to bed for most. All the financial institutions today have web and App solutions to serve their customers. On the business side Microsoft's reach is also declining because of the web and mobile app development.
Yes Microsoft are still big but they are slowly declining AI won't save them they need Windows (all their programs) on Arm to work like Windows on Intel, and AMD processors. In short they need to get mobile it is never too late. The same applies to Apple with gaming and servers.
I'm an Autodesk user, and I recently purchased a Dell Precision 3660 with a 13 gen i9, and a Quadro RTX 4500, all just for Autodesk Inventor Pro.
Fusion 360 appears to run native on Apple Silicon,
All you have to do is to restart Fusion 360 to update to the latest version. If you’re running Fusion 360 on a M1 or M2 chip, Fusion 360 will automatically run the native ARM64 version of the application. You can confirm which version of Fusion 360 is running by checking Help > About. The architecture will be listed after the application version.
Some Rosetta requirements still exist.
The main Fusion 360 application and its default add-ins now all run natively on Apple silicon. However, some individual processes and back-end services still temporarily require Rosetta 2 to be installed for Fusion 360 to run. This should not impact the performance of how Fusion 360 runs on your machine.
Will I see any performance benefits?
Absolutely. Through our internal testing, we’ve seen noticeable improvements in two key areas: compute performance and battery life/usage. Modeling and assembly modeling tasks are generally 30% faster on Apple silicon compared to Intel/Rosetta 2. Local Rendering also saw a noticeable boost in speed, enabling you to achieve a finished render faster than ever before.
The other major benefit here is battery life: Fusion 360 now consumes almost 50% less power. To test this, we ran 5,300 test cases 100 times over on an Apple silicon Mac at 100% battery. By the end of the tests, Fusion 360 x86_64 running via Rosetta 2 translation consumed 77% of the battery life, leaving the computer at only 23% battery life left at the completion of our tests. With native ARM64 code, Fusion 360 only consumed 40% of its battery life, resulting in 60% of the battery still left for use.
Comments
Please check to see whom you are replying to.
How dare they be successful and ensure they get their just due from platform partners.
Incidentally, remember when they created a law forcing a standard power supply being USB-C? They claim Apple was filling their rubbish dumps with their leads. Only, Apple has only ever had 3 leads for their iPhones. 30-pin Dock connector, Lightning, and now USB-C. How many different charger leads existed on the EU’s beloved Nokia? Oh that’s right, there was a different power plug for every single model of Nokia phone until they settled on that crappy USB-Micro connector.
The EU is the biggest bunch of hypocrites which isn’t difficult to understand when Russia is one of the lead countries.
Btw. Spotify ... is actually losing money, even though they pay less money to the artists for streaming their material than for example Apple does. So they figured to use the EU as a tool to improve their situation.
Apple faces 500M euro fineextortion following EU music probe
It would be a penalty fee for illegal business practices.
It's not only about Spotify. They lodged the formal complaint but the formal investigation covers the impact of those practices throughout the developer world and on consumers
In this case it is accused (among other things) of contractually forbidding developers of notifying users of cheaper external options.
Doesn't that read as being openly anti-competitive? Do you consider that fair?
Changes made to 'appease' the EU will have a role in reducing the fine if it reaches that point but the changes don't mean they can get away with what went on earlier.
Apple will almost definitely appeal.
If you come to my house I expect you to obey my house rules just like I would for your house. Why all of a sudden is it illegal for Apple to set the rules for its house?
In New Zealand we have a term for this sort of behaviour. It’s called “Tall Poppy Syndrome”. It comes from the saying “the tallest poppy is the first to see the lawnmower”.
Everyone was fine when Apple was the underdog. They mocked Apple when it had no market share. Then they sold the iPod and then they sold music and then they sold the iPhone which disrupted so many business models that were screwing over the consumer.
Apple now started to gain market share because people loved their devices because they were getting more of what they wanted.
So rather than move with the times EU companies like Nokia sought to cut down the Apple tree. Only when they tried they died.
Nokia isn’t even a player, not because of Apple directly, but because Apple pulled back the curtain to reveal the man Nokia truly is.
You want to talk about Apple for being a walled garden, why does the EU not talk about the walled garden that was Nokia? Today it might use Android as its OS but Nokia had their own OS that you could only buy apps for using its store. It operated exactly like how Apple operates but it’s ok because Nokia WAS an EU company and Apple isn’t so therefore Apple is bad.
So YES, I do think the way Apple operates is fair.
Specifically, wrt Spotify, which by all accounts, appears to me to be "nationalized" by the EU, the consequences for Apple are minimal, albeit it reinforces that the EU is unable to innovate in major consumer technologies. The EU has accepted that Apple is a longterm player, and will continue to legislate Apple as if it is a public utility, rather than the innovative tech behemoth that it is.
Meanwhile, China is going to decimate the EU automotive industry, much as it did the solar photovoltaic panel industry, if the EU doesn't act to protect that industry, which is by and large, orders of magnitude more important to the EU's economy than Spotify.
Perhaps the EU needs to focus on innovation, and possibly consider ejecting from the EU, Hungary, a Russian ally, and malcontent political entity, that has recently implemented security agreements with China;
https://www.reuters.com/world/unusual-move-china-offers-back-hungary-security-matters-2024-02-19/#:~:text=The%20security%20pact%20with%20Hungary,and%20Russia%27s%20invasion%20of%20Ukraine.
(Not to mention that you somehow bizarrely seem to believe that Russia — the Russia whose enemy Ukraine the EU is supplying with arms, ammunition, and money — is somehow a leader in the EU??? WTF.)
I have never personally owned a Windows PC and never will, Amiga then Mac very glad. Only used a PC at work for AutoCad, Navis, and Revit....Too bad Autodesk (like Adobe) doesn't support Apple Silicon hardware today very well despite the fact that it can run software on battery on and off at warp speed compared to Intel and AMD solutions, in addition the iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch together would work extremely well at a job site where power is sometimes sparse if they were supported.
On the financial front the advent of online trading and web solutions thru mobile has put the need for Windows only solutions to bed for most. All the financial institutions today have web and App solutions to serve their customers. On the business side Microsoft's reach is also declining because of the web and mobile app development.
Yes Microsoft are still big but they are slowly declining AI won't save them they need Windows (all their programs) on Arm to work like Windows on Intel, and AMD processors. In short they need to get mobile it is never too late. The same applies to Apple with gaming and servers.
What on Earth makes you think that you can legally do whatever you want in your house, just because it’s your house?
Fusion 360 appears to run native on Apple Silicon,
https://www.autodesk.com/products/fusion-360/blog/running-fusion-360-on-apple-silicon-faq/
Some Rosetta requirements still exist.
Otherwise this kind of extortion will continue everywhere unchecked.