After years of promising a lawsuit, the US Department of Justice has finally brought an antitrust suit against Apple.
That hints at what's going on here. With the election coming up in November, Biden's DOJ is showboating. "See," it is saying, "we're trying to do something about those big tech monopolies." Given how long these disputes last, this lawsuit is unlikely to be decided—perhaps in Apple's favor—before the election.
That 85% don't pay anything is utterly irrelevant. The point is that the remaining share is enough to generate billions upon billions in revenues because there is literally no competition allowed. Everything in that other group goes to Apple because alternative stores are not allowed to exist.
The same applies to the 'reduced' 15%' which only ever came into effect through regulatory scrutiny and complaints. Without that Apple wouldn't have conceded anything.
What are are you saying exactly…that Apple shouldn’t charge anything? That’s not how intellectual property works.
That 85% don't pay anything is utterly irrelevant. The point is that the remaining share is enough to generate billions upon billions in revenues because there is literally no competition allowed. Everything in that other group goes to Apple because alternative stores are not allowed to exist.
The same applies to the 'reduced' 15%' which only ever came into effect through regulatory scrutiny and complaints. Without that Apple wouldn't have conceded anything.
What are are you saying exactly…that Apple shouldn’t charge anything? That’s not how intellectual property works.
Apple can charge whatever it wants. Why not 70%? That isn't the issue.
The issue is that only Apple gets to charge because it doesn't allow other stores to exist.
That 85% don't pay anything is utterly irrelevant. The point is that the remaining share is enough to generate billions upon billions in revenues because there is literally no competition allowed. Everything in that other group goes to Apple because alternative stores are not allowed to exist.
The same applies to the 'reduced' 15%' which only ever came into effect through regulatory scrutiny and complaints. Without that Apple wouldn't have conceded anything.
What are are you saying exactly…that Apple shouldn’t charge anything? That’s not how intellectual property works.
Apple can charge whatever it wants. Why not 70%? That isn't the issue.
The issue is that only Apple gets to charge because it doesn't allow other stores to exist.
So Apple has a monopoly of the Apple market, eh? Kind of like how the movie theater doesn't allow outside food or drink? Or how if you go to your dentist, you can't choose a hygienist from another dentist?
That approach to defining the market is absurd and if that's the basis for the DOJ's case (and it very well might be), then a victory by the DOJ would mean economic chaos. Consumers like bundles of goods and services. They don't want everything unbundled. To force that unbundling would harm consumers because it would impose on them the cost of creating those bundles themselves and doing all the integration themselves.
Apple's practices are only potentially problematic if they are a monopoly. The revenue share argument strikes me as pretty weak. Apple is not stopping any other firm from offering a bundle of goods and services as attractive as theirs. Many other firms have the money and IP portfolios to pull it off. The thing holding them back isn't Apple, it's that their leadership is fundamentally corrupt and uninterested in creating a company like Apple, instead they are only interested in getting rich quick and moving on. That's not Apple's fault.
That 85% don't pay anything is utterly irrelevant. The point is that the remaining share is enough to generate billions upon billions in revenues because there is literally no competition allowed. Everything in that other group goes to Apple because alternative stores are not allowed to exist.
The same applies to the 'reduced' 15%' which only ever came into effect through regulatory scrutiny and complaints. Without that Apple wouldn't have conceded anything.
What are are you saying exactly…that Apple shouldn’t charge anything? That’s not how intellectual property works.
Apple can charge whatever it wants. Why not 70%? That isn't the issue.
The issue is that only Apple gets to charge because it doesn't allow other stores to exist.
So Apple has a monopoly of the Apple market, eh? Kind of like how the movie theater doesn't allow outside food or drink? Or how if you go to your dentist, you can't choose a hygienist from another dentist?
That approach to defining the market is absurd and if that's the basis for the DOJ's case (and it very well might be), then a victory by the DOJ would mean economic chaos. Consumers like bundles of goods and services. They don't want everything unbundled. To force that unbundling would harm consumers because it would impose on them the cost of creating those bundles themselves and doing all the integration themselves.
Apple's practices are only potentially problematic if they are a monopoly. The revenue share argument strikes me as pretty weak. Apple is not stopping any other firm from offering a bundle of goods and services as attractive as theirs. Many other firms have the money and IP portfolios to pull it off. The thing holding them back isn't Apple, it's that their leadership is fundamentally corrupt and uninterested in creating a company like Apple, instead they are only interested in getting rich quick and moving on. That's not Apple's fault.
It's all a question of perspective. These are new times for digital services and hardware. It should all be put into the system, scrutinised and dealt with. The Google search default on iPhones is also being scrutinised. Different places could well see things differently.
This is the beginning. The EU has a lead here and we already know (or have a very good idea) what is expected.
As for food and drink in movie theaters, they try that here (signs and all) but it is actually illegal to stop someone taking their own food and drink into a movie theater if the theater offers its own options. The reason being that food and drink isn't the main business of movie theaters.
Again, different places see things in different ways.
We'll have to wait and see how the DoJ plays it and how Apple responds.
My phone can support Google Pay, Huawei Pay, BBVA Pay and even, theoretically at least, even Apple Pay. An iPhone has only supported Apple Pay, and eliminated competition by simply not allowing it to exist. That is is because there are revenues involved and Apple takes a cut from every single operation and wants the whole pie to itself.
...
I couldn't have said it better myself. I have never understood why competition has to stopped as soon as someone buys an iPhone. From my understanding, there are over a billion iPhones in use, there should be competition on that platform.
The reason being that food and drink isn't the main business of movie theaters.
You mean the 35% - 75% of income derived from food/drink/concessions? Pretty sure you should just concede that point to Blastdoor.
Nope. This has already been through the courts here. The movie theaters cannot stop you from bringing your own food and beverages in if they also sell them.
The reason being that food and drink isn't the main business of movie theaters.
You mean the 35% - 75% of income derived from food/drink/concessions? Pretty sure you should just concede that point to Blastdoor.
Nope. This has already been through the courts here. The movie theaters cannot stop you from bringing your own food and beverages in if they also sell them.
In the U.S., distributors take most of the profit in the first run, and the theater generates most of its profits from selling food and drink. The take goes more to the theater at the end of the run, when the Studios release BD's and to streaming.
The reason being that food and drink isn't the main business of movie theaters.
You mean the 35% - 75% of income derived from food/drink/concessions? Pretty sure you should just concede that point to Blastdoor.
Nope. This has already been through the courts here. The movie theaters cannot stop you from bringing your own food and beverages in if they also sell them.
I appreciate the info from Spain. But you seem to moving the goal posts and your reasoning. Should Gov change laws based on how much revenue is derived from a product? If my restaurant also sells t shirts and artwork and now my revenue is 80% food/drink must I allow customers to bring in their own food/drink? You're reaching (randomly) for changes in law to control private businesses... and in this case, the vast majority of customers holistically enjoy and love their experience with the product/service.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, don't be fooled, this push against Apple is not about consumers, it's about power, control and greed.
But it’s the DOJ. They’re not concerned with actual justice. Just control. Based on the arguments so far, it’s likely the last few years have not been spent researching the case, but rather securing a judge predisposed to rule in their favor.
I don't agree that they are interested in "control." I think the issue is that some anti-trust people at DOJ (and the lefty wing of the Democratic Party, like Warren) are blinded by the ideological view that if a company is persistently earning big profits then they *must* be using monopolistic coercion to extract rents from people. The notion that a company might be highly profitable because they consistently make a better product than everyone else and consumers just really like their products is alien to them.
Ironically, this is the same reason that people on Wall Street, who very much are NOT lefties, consistently undervalued Apple stock for a very long time. They also thought that only a coercive monopolist could earn big profits over the long run, and so they assumed for a very long time that because apple is NOT a coercive monopolist that their profits would go away. The only diff between the Wall Street guys and the lefties is that the Wall Street guys *like* profits earned by coercive monopolists and the lefties do not. But both agreed with the notion that only a coercive monopolist could earn those big profits consistently over time.
The Wall Streeters finally decided that even though Apple isn't a coercive monopolist, they do appear to be able to make profits by just consistently churning out really great products that consumers love. And so they finally decided Apple stock is worth buying and the P/E ratio on apple stock went up.
Some lefties have not yet had the same realization. For them, the realization won't be manifest in the P/E ratio of a stock, but rather in losing court cases and perhaps voters expressing annoyance.
In fairness to both the Wall Street folks and the lefties, it is pretty darned unusual for a company to consistently churn out great products and earn high profits without being a coercive monopolist. Usually other firms figure out the secret sauce and emulate it. Or it turns out the successful company just got lucky and the luck runs out. It's worth asking -- why can't other companies copy Apple's playbook, offer similarly great products, and drive down prices? I think it's because Steve Jobs was able to create a company that other corporations cannot easily copy due to the inherently corrupt structure of most companies, in which fundamentally corrupt managers are answerable to a fundamentally corrupt board of directors, who all are focused more on stripping a company of value and then moving on. Steve Jobs created a company that, at least so far, has been resistant to that corruption. I guess we'll see how long that resistance lasts...
My business neighbor came by to use my forklift. We had a nice conversation, both being mechanical engineers, about how innovation can happen.
The company that he previously worked for, still had the strong imprint of its founder, who ended up creating a lot of niches for his product. After he retired, and sold the company, future niches would almost certainly go undiscovered, because the "numbers don't add up", that's how companies start to die.
That's why I'm still a fan of Job's; he wanted to make great products that "delight the customer",
Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron";
In the year 2081, the Constitution dictates that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General's agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear "handicaps": masks for those who are too beautiful, earpiece radios for the intelligent that broadcast loud noises meant to disrupt thoughts, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic.
George and Hazel Bergeron have a 14-year old son named Harrison. He takes after his father, who is highly intelligent and physically strong. The government removes Harrison from his home. His parents are barely aware because of Hazel's low intelligence and George's mandated handicaps.
George and Hazel watch a ballet on TV. Some dancers are weighed down to counteract their gracefulness and masked to hide their attractiveness. George's thoughts are continually interrupted by the different noises emitted by his handicap radio. Hazel urges George to lie down and rest his "handicap bag", 47 pounds (21 kg) of weights locked around his neck. She suggests taking a few of the weights out of the bag, but George resists because it is against the law.
On TV, a reporter struggles to read a bulletin and hands it to the ballerina wearing the most grotesque mask and heaviest weights. She begins reading in her natural, beautiful voice before switching to a more unpleasant one. Harrison's escape from prison is announced, and a full-body photograph of him is shown. He is seven feet (2.1 m) tall and burdened by three hundred pounds (140 kg) of handicaps.
George recognizes his son for a moment, before having the thought eliminated by his radio. Harrison storms the TV studio in an attempt to overthrow the government. He declares himself Emperor and rips off both his own handicaps and those of a ballerina, whom he chooses as his Empress.
Diana Moon Glampers, (Margrethe Verstager) the Handicapper General, enters the studio and kills Harrison and the Empress with two shotgun blasts. She threatens the musicians at gunpoint to put on their handicaps again. The TV goes dark. George, who left to get a beer and has returned, asks Hazel why she is crying, to which she replies that something sad happened on television that she cannot remember.
There is not enough room in the world for elegant design that delights consumers, so to make it fair to competitors, let's remake it full of friction, inefficiency, and outright ugliness, as long as the competitors get a piece of the action.
That 85% don't pay anything is utterly irrelevant. The point is that the remaining share is enough to generate billions upon billions in revenues because there is literally no competition allowed. Everything in that other group goes to Apple because alternative stores are not allowed to exist.
The same applies to the 'reduced' 15%' which only ever came into effect through regulatory scrutiny and complaints. Without that Apple wouldn't have conceded anything.
What are are you saying exactly…that Apple shouldn’t charge anything? That’s not how intellectual property works.
Apple can charge whatever it wants. Why not 70%? That isn't the issue.
The issue is that only Apple gets to charge because it doesn't allow other stores to exist.
Untrue..... Web apps have existed on macOS for a very long time, and iOS technically before the 3rd party native apps. The function is more limited but still exceeds the needs of a vast amount of apps people use daily. Nothing stopped some groups from creating a storefront and support structure for these apps and selling access to them for mutual profit with the developers. Some tried with limited success (ie Facebook).
The market largely said no because, well, maybe the people trying were not trustworthy enough.
Look at Android, where there are multiple stores, the market largely chooses the main one. There is a real need for consumer trust for people to dip their toes in the water here.
This action will do nothing to change that, so what is the point of it other than the political class wanting what they have always wanted, a backdoor to lawful citizens' lives in order to continue stoking fear?
That 85% don't pay anything is utterly irrelevant. The point is that the remaining share is enough to generate billions upon billions in revenues because there is literally no competition allowed. Everything in that other group goes to Apple because alternative stores are not allowed to exist.
The same applies to the 'reduced' 15%' which only ever came into effect through regulatory scrutiny and complaints. Without that Apple wouldn't have conceded anything.
What are are you saying exactly…that Apple shouldn’t charge anything? That’s not how intellectual property works.
Apple can charge whatever it wants. Why not 70%? That isn't the issue.
The issue is that only Apple gets to charge because it doesn't allow other stores to exist.
Untrue..... Web apps have existed on macOS for a very long time, and iOS technically before the 3rd party native apps. The function is more limited but still exceeds the needs of a vast amount of apps people use daily. Nothing stopped some groups from creating a storefront and support structure for these apps and selling access to them for mutual profit with the developers. Some tried with limited success (ie Facebook).
The market largely said no because, well, maybe the people trying were not trustworthy enough.
Look at Android, where there are multiple stores, the market largely chooses the main one. There is a real need for consumer trust for people to dip their toes in the water here.
This action will do nothing to change that, so what is the point of it other than the political class wanting what they have always wanted, a backdoor to lawful citizens' lives in order to continue stoking fear?
Web apps aren't native apps and it is no excuse for not allowing alternative app stores.
Sadly, I spend too much time watching Youtube video's on economics.
While opinions vary, it is notable that the consensus is that Spain, Italy, and Greece, are already in a demographic crisis of an over-age population, and weak economies, and the remainders are, for the most part, in a very precarious position, excepting Norway, and the Baltic States. The UK, in its own right, is a basket caae.
While it's apparent that the EU believes that punishing the Big Tech "gatekeepers" to level the playing field is a great idea, the reality is that it is lack of investment in innovation has and is hampering the EU. The DMA isn't going to fix that, and it is only going to solidify the Big Tech's in the EU, albeit less profitably.
Sadly, I spend too much time watching Youtube video's on economics.
While opinions vary, it is notable that the consensus is that Spain, Italy, and Greece, are already in a demographic crisis of an over-age population, and weak economies, and the remainders are, for the most part, in a very precarious position, excepting Norway, and the Baltic States. The UK, in its own right, is a basket caae.
While it's apparent that the EU believes that punishing the Big Tech "gatekeepers" to level the playing field is a great idea, the reality is that it is lack of investment in innovation has and is hampering the EU. The DMA isn't going to fix that, and it is only going to solidify the Big Tech's in the EU, albeit less profitably.
Critical point. It is like the old joke of running away from a bear and only having to run faster than the guy beside you to survive. The EU commission is well aware of the lack of sufficient investment for tech to flourish. Many start strong and then wither. That the EU even considers Spotify to be a tech success - when it has never turned a profit despite having 60% of EU music streaming users and continues to lose shareholder money, frankly is a sad joke. Apple is not Spotify's problem but rather its under performing CEO and several bad business decisions. The EU absolutely has a huge potential to innovate and to spawn more tech giants. However the idea that hobbling successful US tech companies by fines or that even more regulations will somehow fix the current gap is wishful thinking. If the EU Commission really believes this will work, then perhaps they should get Peter Pan to replace Ms. Vestager as head of the EU Commission later this year.
Sadly, I spend too much time watching Youtube video's on economics.
While opinions vary, it is notable that the consensus is that Spain, Italy, and Greece, are already in a demographic crisis of an over-age population, and weak economies, and the remainders are, for the most part, in a very precarious position, excepting Norway, and the Baltic States. The UK, in its own right, is a basket caae.
While it's apparent that the EU believes that punishing the Big Tech "gatekeepers" to level the playing field is a great idea, the reality is that it is lack of investment in innovation has and is hampering the EU. The DMA isn't going to fix that, and it is only going to solidify the Big Tech's in the EU, albeit less profitably.
The US truly is a bright spot in a dark world, thanks to a combination of better policy responses to both the financial crisis and the pandemic as well as traditional Americanism. Electing Trump again could negate all of that, but if we can dodge that bullet, we could be on the cusp of a great American resurgence.
That 85% don't pay anything is utterly irrelevant. The point is that the remaining share is enough to generate billions upon billions in revenues because there is literally no competition allowed. Everything in that other group goes to Apple because alternative stores are not allowed to exist.
The same applies to the 'reduced' 15%' which only ever came into effect through regulatory scrutiny and complaints. Without that Apple wouldn't have conceded anything.
What are are you saying exactly…that Apple shouldn’t charge anything? That’s not how intellectual property works.
Apple can charge whatever it wants. Why not 70%? That isn't the issue.
The issue is that only Apple gets to charge because it doesn't allow other stores to exist.
So Apple has a monopoly of the Apple market, eh? Kind of like how the movie theater doesn't allow outside food or drink? Or how if you go to your dentist, you can't choose a hygienist from another dentist?
That approach to defining the market is absurd and if that's the basis for the DOJ's case (and it very well might be), then a victory by the DOJ would mean economic chaos. Consumers like bundles of goods and services. They don't want everything unbundled. To force that unbundling would harm consumers because it would impose on them the cost of creating those bundles themselves and doing all the integration themselves.
Apple's practices are only potentially problematic if they are a monopoly. The revenue share argument strikes me as pretty weak. Apple is not stopping any other firm from offering a bundle of goods and services as attractive as theirs. Many other firms have the money and IP portfolios to pull it off. The thing holding them back isn't Apple, it's that their leadership is fundamentally corrupt and uninterested in creating a company like Apple, instead they are only interested in getting rich quick and moving on. That's not Apple's fault.
It's all a question of perspective. These are new times for digital services and hardware. It should all be put into the system, scrutinised and dealt with. The Google search default on iPhones is also being scrutinised. Different places could well see things differently.
This is the beginning. The EU has a lead here and we already know (or have a very good idea) what is expected.
As for food and drink in movie theaters, they try that here (signs and all) but it is actually illegal to stop someone taking their own food and drink into a movie theater if the theater offers its own options. The reason being that food and drink isn't the main business of movie theaters.
Again, different places see things in different ways.
We'll have to wait and see how the DoJ plays it and how Apple responds.
"The EU has a lead here and we already know (or have a very good idea) what is expected. "
The EU is not leading on anything. This is nothing but the EU trying to regulate their way out of becoming economically irrelevant because they, and their companies, don't have what it takes to compete on an even playing field. If you can't compete, regulate. That's the EU's motto right now. As far as the DOJ's case goes, it is wrong on the facts and the law. It should have never brought. If I were Apple's lawyers, I wouldn't pay the EU a penny of whatever fines they're thinking of levying, and I would go to town on the DOJ.
Sadly, I spend too much time watching Youtube video's on economics.
While opinions vary, it is notable that the consensus is that Spain, Italy, and Greece, are already in a demographic crisis of an over-age population, and weak economies, and the remainders are, for the most part, in a very precarious position, excepting Norway, and the Baltic States. The UK, in its own right, is a basket caae.
While it's apparent that the EU believes that punishing the Big Tech "gatekeepers" to level the playing field is a great idea, the reality is that it is lack of investment in innovation has and is hampering the EU. The DMA isn't going to fix that, and it is only going to solidify the Big Tech's in the EU, albeit less profitably.
The US truly is a bright spot in a dark world, thanks to a combination of better policy responses to both the financial crisis and the pandemic as well as traditional Americanism. Electing Trump again could negate all of that, but if we can dodge that bullet, we could be on the cusp of a great American resurgence.
No the Slumlord is not a good businessman in any sense which is why Mitt Romney just couldn't hold it in anymore had a fit.
That 85% don't pay anything is utterly irrelevant. The point is that the remaining share is enough to generate billions upon billions in revenues because there is literally no competition allowed. Everything in that other group goes to Apple because alternative stores are not allowed to exist.
The same applies to the 'reduced' 15%' which only ever came into effect through regulatory scrutiny and complaints. Without that Apple wouldn't have conceded anything.
What are are you saying exactly…that Apple shouldn’t charge anything? That’s not how intellectual property works.
Apple can charge whatever it wants. Why not 70%? That isn't the issue.
The issue is that only Apple gets to charge because it doesn't allow other stores to exist.
So Apple has a monopoly of the Apple market, eh? Kind of like how the movie theater doesn't allow outside food or drink? Or how if you go to your dentist, you can't choose a hygienist from another dentist?
That approach to defining the market is absurd and if that's the basis for the DOJ's case (and it very well might be), then a victory by the DOJ would mean economic chaos. Consumers like bundles of goods and services. They don't want everything unbundled. To force that unbundling would harm consumers because it would impose on them the cost of creating those bundles themselves and doing all the integration themselves.
Apple's practices are only potentially problematic if they are a monopoly. The revenue share argument strikes me as pretty weak. Apple is not stopping any other firm from offering a bundle of goods and services as attractive as theirs. Many other firms have the money and IP portfolios to pull it off. The thing holding them back isn't Apple, it's that their leadership is fundamentally corrupt and uninterested in creating a company like Apple, instead they are only interested in getting rich quick and moving on. That's not Apple's fault.
It's all a question of perspective. These are new times for digital services and hardware. It should all be put into the system, scrutinised and dealt with. The Google search default on iPhones is also being scrutinised. Different places could well see things differently.
This is the beginning. The EU has a lead here and we already know (or have a very good idea) what is expected.
As for food and drink in movie theaters, they try that here (signs and all) but it is actually illegal to stop someone taking their own food and drink into a movie theater if the theater offers its own options. The reason being that food and drink isn't the main business of movie theaters.
Again, different places see things in different ways.
We'll have to wait and see how the DoJ plays it and how Apple responds.
"The EU has a lead here and we already know (or have a very good idea) what is expected. "
The EU is not leading on anything. This is nothing but the EU trying to regulate their way out of becoming economically irrelevant because they, and their companies, don't have what it takes to compete on an even playing field. If you can't compete, regulate. That's the EU's motto right now. As far as the DOJ's case goes, it is wrong on the facts and the law. It should have never brought. If I were Apple's lawyers, I wouldn't pay the EU a penny of whatever fines they're thinking of levying, and I would go to town on the DOJ.
The EU has led the way on pretty much all the major legislative efforts related to 'digital'.
WEEE, RoHS, GDPR, right to be forgotten, consumer protection, common chargers, Big Tech, Cyber Security...
An AI directive is advancing well.
If you read the just the preamble to most of those directives you will see why they are needed. That is basically accepted by all parties. That is why they got approved.
They are also models for other parts of the world.
The EU competes very well and the last time I checked there were a lot more US-EU strategic dependencies than EU-US strategic dependencies.
Much is being said about the US Chips Act but long before that became something to talk about the EU was implementing its own chip road map.
The EU rolled out widespread EMV payment support about a decade before the US.
Interoperability within the banking and ICT sectors was dealt with long ago.
'Common' policies were introduced to resolve big problems and have succeeded in many areas.
Comments
That hints at what's going on here. With the election coming up in November, Biden's DOJ is showboating. "See," it is saying, "we're trying to do something about those big tech monopolies." Given how long these disputes last, this lawsuit is unlikely to be decided—perhaps in Apple's favor—before the election.
The issue is that only Apple gets to charge because it doesn't allow other stores to exist.
That approach to defining the market is absurd and if that's the basis for the DOJ's case (and it very well might be), then a victory by the DOJ would mean economic chaos. Consumers like bundles of goods and services. They don't want everything unbundled. To force that unbundling would harm consumers because it would impose on them the cost of creating those bundles themselves and doing all the integration themselves.
Apple's practices are only potentially problematic if they are a monopoly. The revenue share argument strikes me as pretty weak. Apple is not stopping any other firm from offering a bundle of goods and services as attractive as theirs. Many other firms have the money and IP portfolios to pull it off. The thing holding them back isn't Apple, it's that their leadership is fundamentally corrupt and uninterested in creating a company like Apple, instead they are only interested in getting rich quick and moving on. That's not Apple's fault.
This is the beginning. The EU has a lead here and we already know (or have a very good idea) what is expected.
As for food and drink in movie theaters, they try that here (signs and all) but it is actually illegal to stop someone taking their own food and drink into a movie theater if the theater offers its own options. The reason being that food and drink isn't the main business of movie theaters.
Again, different places see things in different ways.
We'll have to wait and see how the DoJ plays it and how Apple responds.
They are movie theaters, not food outlets.
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2019/10/16/cinema-in-spain-slapped-with-e3000-fine-for-banning-customers-from-bringing-their-own-food-into-film-screenings/
I've said it before and I'll say it again, don't be fooled, this push against Apple is not about consumers, it's about power, control and greed.
The company that he previously worked for, still had the strong imprint of its founder, who ended up creating a lot of niches for his product. After he retired, and sold the company, future niches would almost certainly go undiscovered, because the "numbers don't add up", that's how companies start to die.
That's why I'm still a fan of Job's; he wanted to make great products that "delight the customer",
Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron";
There is not enough room in the world for elegant design that delights consumers, so to make it fair to competitors, let's remake it full of friction, inefficiency, and outright ugliness, as long as the competitors get a piece of the action.
Web apps have existed on macOS for a very long time, and iOS technically before the 3rd party native apps. The function is more limited but still exceeds the needs of a vast amount of apps people use daily. Nothing stopped some groups from creating a storefront and support structure for these apps and selling access to them for mutual profit with the developers. Some tried with limited success (ie Facebook).
The market largely said no because, well, maybe the people trying were not trustworthy enough.
Look at Android, where there are multiple stores, the market largely chooses the main one. There is a real need for consumer trust for people to dip their toes in the water here.
This action will do nothing to change that, so what is the point of it other than the political class wanting what they have always wanted, a backdoor to lawful citizens' lives in order to continue stoking fear?
While opinions vary, it is notable that the consensus is that Spain, Italy, and Greece, are already in a demographic crisis of an over-age population, and weak economies, and the remainders are, for the most part, in a very precarious position, excepting Norway, and the Baltic States. The UK, in its own right, is a basket caae.
While it's apparent that the EU believes that punishing the Big Tech "gatekeepers" to level the playing field is a great idea, the reality is that it is lack of investment in innovation has and is hampering the EU. The DMA isn't going to fix that, and it is only going to solidify the Big Tech's in the EU, albeit less profitably.
The EU is not leading on anything. This is nothing but the EU trying to regulate their way out of becoming economically irrelevant because they, and their companies, don't have what it takes to compete on an even playing field. If you can't compete, regulate. That's the EU's motto right now. As far as the DOJ's case goes, it is wrong on the facts and the law. It should have never brought. If I were Apple's lawyers, I wouldn't pay the EU a penny of whatever fines they're thinking of levying, and I would go to town on the DOJ.
WEEE, RoHS, GDPR, right to be forgotten, consumer protection, common chargers, Big Tech, Cyber Security...
An AI directive is advancing well.
If you read the just the preamble to most of those directives you will see why they are needed. That is basically accepted by all parties. That is why they got approved.
They are also models for other parts of the world.
The EU competes very well and the last time I checked there were a lot more US-EU strategic dependencies than EU-US strategic dependencies.
Much is being said about the US Chips Act but long before that became something to talk about the EU was implementing its own chip road map.
The EU rolled out widespread EMV payment support about a decade before the US.
Interoperability within the banking and ICT sectors was dealt with long ago.
'Common' policies were introduced to resolve big problems and have succeeded in many areas.