The Trump Administration will not allow the American companies EU bullying to go on any longer. You can bank on that. He already spoke with Tim about how once elected that is not going to happen anymore.
I purged that discussion and if you guys think this needs to go sideways into weird cult worship political nonsense, you've got another thing coming. Stay on topic. Don't be weird.
If this doesn’t show just how evil and overreaching the eu is, Nothing will.
If something is the best, EU VIEWS IT AS ANTICOMPETITIVE. if everyone wants your stuff, because you’re that good, prepare to pay ridiculous fines and get holes poked in your business to make you not so good anymore.
If this doesn’t show just how evil and overreaching the eu is, Nothing will.
If something is the best, EU VIEWS IT AS ANTICOMPETITIVE. if everyone wants your stuff, because you’re that good, prepare to pay ridiculous fines and get holes poked in your business to make you not so good anymore.
Another attack on an American company.
Sickening.
How is it that you have the results of this investigation already?
If this doesn’t show just how evil and overreaching the eu is, Nothing will.
If something is the best, EU VIEWS IT AS ANTICOMPETITIVE. if everyone wants your stuff, because you’re that good, prepare to pay ridiculous fines and get holes poked in your business to make you not so good anymore.
Where is the overreach if an organisation opens an investigation to see if a company is breaking antitrust legislation and is providing the grounds for it?
Should companies be allowed to go unchecked if their business practices might mean they are abusing dominant position, harming competition and stifling innovation?
It's about abusing dominant position and harming competition, which in turn stifles innovation.
The gray area here is how you define “abusing.” There are well established business and marketing strategies that many companies seek lto take advantage of new markets and market segments. For example, there is a “first mover advantage” (FMA) for businesses that bring an innovation or product to market before any of their competitors. This applies to companies worldwide.
When a company has an advantage like FMA they will obviously want to exploit that advantage as long as they can. In modern markets with network effects advantages can easily escalate into dominance in short periods of time.
I think it comes down to what others have said about the EU regulators and their purpose. No matter how you word it, they want to protect their home turf. But it would be unfair to say that what they are doing is categorically wrong because everyone else is doing it too. The US does the same thing on a very large scale and will likely expand that scale significantly in the next few years.
Hopefully these things can be negotiated with some give and take in both sides. But I understand that getting both sides to agree is difficult when one side doesn’t have a lot of tools to negotiate with. It quickly ends up as a legal, regulatory, or taxation/tariff based action from one or both sides. It would be much better in my opinion to deal with these issues through trade or cross licensing agreements. Once one side takes punitive action against the other it never ends well.
If this doesn’t show just how evil and overreaching the eu is, Nothing will.
If something is the best, EU VIEWS IT AS ANTICOMPETITIVE. if everyone wants your stuff, because you’re that good, prepare to pay ridiculous fines and get holes poked in your business to make you not so good anymore.
Where is the overreach if an organisation opens an investigation to see if a company is breaking antitrust legislation and is providing the grounds for it?
Should companies be allowed to go unchecked if their business practices might mean they are abusing dominant position, harming competition and stifling innovation?
bruh. They make screens and screen protectors. They’re really good.
That’s it. There is no anticompetitive bent. They simply make great stuff.
The fact the eu has decided to launch a witch hunt is s as steady showing the overreach. We saw them start this with Apple rtc. With disastrous extortionate results.
What are they going to do? There is nothing they can change. What, make their product less good, give up supplying screens to OEMs? There is nowhere to go here.
This is the problem with the EU today. Just looking for ways to hurt American companies and get rich doing it. Again, sickening.
I can see a tariff or something. If you really want it, pay more. It’s also more honest. But to pretend something is wrong in order to impose fines through the nose of ridiculous.
If this doesn’t show just how evil and overreaching the eu is, Nothing will.
If something is the best, EU VIEWS IT AS ANTICOMPETITIVE. if everyone wants your stuff, because you’re that good, prepare to pay ridiculous fines and get holes poked in your business to make you not so good anymore.
Where is the overreach if an organisation opens an investigation to see if a company is breaking antitrust legislation and is providing the grounds for it?
Should companies be allowed to go unchecked if their business practices might mean they are abusing dominant position, harming competition and stifling innovation?
bruh. They make screens and screen protectors. They’re really good.
That’s it. There is no anticompetitive bent. They simply make great stuff.
The fact the eu has decided to launch a witch hunt is s as steady showing the overreach. We saw them start this with Apple rtc. With disastrous extortionate results.
What are they going to do? There is nothing they can change. What, make their product less good, give up supplying screens to OEMs? There is nowhere to go here.
This is the problem with the EU today. Just looking for ways to hurt American companies and get rich doing it. Again, sickening.
I can see a tariff or something. If you really want it, pay more. It’s also more honest. But to pretend something is wrong in order to impose fines through the nose of ridiculous.
You obviously didn't read the linked explanation of why this is happening.
It has nothing to do with being really good or making great stuff and the grounds for the investigation are clearly laid out.
If this doesn’t show just how evil and overreaching the eu is, Nothing will.
If something is the best, EU VIEWS IT AS ANTICOMPETITIVE. if everyone wants your stuff, because you’re that good, prepare to pay ridiculous fines and get holes poked in your business to make you not so good anymore.
Where is the overreach if an organisation opens an investigation to see if a company is breaking antitrust legislation and is providing the grounds for it?
Should companies be allowed to go unchecked if their business practices might mean they are abusing dominant position, harming competition and stifling innovation?
bruh. They make screens and screen protectors. They’re really good.
That’s it. There is no anticompetitive bent. They simply make great stuff.
The fact the eu has decided to launch a witch hunt is s as steady showing the overreach. We saw them start this with Apple rtc. With disastrous extortionate results.
What are they going to do? There is nothing they can change. What, make their product less good, give up supplying screens to OEMs? There is nowhere to go here.
This is the problem with the EU today. Just looking for ways to hurt American companies and get rich doing it. Again, sickening.
I can see a tariff or something. If you really want it, pay more. It’s also more honest. But to pretend something is wrong in order to impose fines through the nose of ridiculous.
The investigation is regarding Corning tying manufacturers to exclusivity agreements. It’s nothing to do with how good Corning’s products are.
If this doesn’t show just how evil and overreaching the eu is, Nothing will.
If something is the best, EU VIEWS IT AS ANTICOMPETITIVE. if everyone wants your stuff, because you’re that good, prepare to pay ridiculous fines and get holes poked in your business to make you not so good anymore.
Where is the overreach if an organisation opens an investigation to see if a company is breaking antitrust legislation and is providing the grounds for it?
Should companies be allowed to go unchecked if their business practices might mean they are abusing dominant position, harming competition and stifling innovation?
bruh. They make screens and screen protectors. They’re really good.
That’s it. There is no anticompetitive bent. They simply make great stuff.
I take it that this is your conclusion from years of detailed investigation into their competitive business practices?
You should write up a detailed report with your findings and offer your services to the EU as an antitrust consultant!
EU will fine anything for a dollar. Such a useless entity.
EU will go after anything that tries to abuse its market position.
It is in fact their fucking JOB to investigate when it looks like there might be a problem. That's what they're paid to do.
"Investigation" does not mean that there IS a problem, btw.
Do think the US should go after European companies that abuse their positions?
Of course they should! Matter of fact, they regularly do.
This isn’t some stupid partisan issue, though Americans like to pretend it is any time the „EU“ is mentioned: it’s simply a matter of making sure that companies follow the laws of the countries where they do business.
Why you’d expect me not to think so when it comes to European businesses in America is completely beyond me — though it betrays your thinking, perhaps.
The story goes that in 2006, while developing the first iPhone, Steve Jobs knew he wanted the screen to be made from glass rather than plastic. Plastic scratched too easily, and he wanted a product that would feel and look high-quality, something that would age well. So he reached out to Corning Inc., a company known for its expertise in glass manufacturing.
Jobs met with Corning’s then-CEO, Wendell Weeks, and told him that he needed a tough, scratch-resistant glass. Weeks told Jobs about a glass formula Corning had invented in the 1960s called “Gorilla Glass.” Though it was incredibly strong, it hadn’t been commercialized because they hadn’t found a market for it back then.
Jobs was determined to make Gorilla Glass a reality for the iPhone. According to the story, Weeks initially thought it would be impossible to produce enough of this glass in time for Apple’s planned iPhone launch. But Jobs, with his famously persuasive style, told him, “Don’t be afraid. You can do it.”
Corning quickly ramped up production, reactivating the Gorilla Glass formula and scaling it to meet Apple’s demand. By the time the first iPhone launched in 2007, Gorilla Glass was ready, and it went on to become a foundational material in smartphone design, not just for Apple but eventually for much of the mobile industry.
The story goes that in 2006, while developing the first iPhone, Steve Jobs knew he wanted the screen to be made from glass rather than plastic. Plastic scratched too easily, and he wanted a product that would feel and look high-quality, something that would age well. So he reached out to Corning Inc., a company known for its expertise in glass manufacturing.
Jobs met with Corning’s then-CEO, Wendell Weeks, and told him that he needed a tough, scratch-resistant glass. Weeks told Jobs about a glass formula Corning had invented in the 1960s called “Gorilla Glass.” Though it was incredibly strong, it hadn’t been commercialized because they hadn’t found a market for it back then.
Jobs was determined to make Gorilla Glass a reality for the iPhone. According to the story, Weeks initially thought it would be impossible to produce enough of this glass in time for Apple’s planned iPhone launch. But Jobs, with his famously persuasive style, told him, “Don’t be afraid. You can do it.”
Corning quickly ramped up production, reactivating the Gorilla Glass formula and scaling it to meet Apple’s demand. By the time the first iPhone launched in 2007, Gorilla Glass was ready, and it went on to become a foundational material in smartphone design, not just for Apple but eventually for much of the mobile industry.
Jobs actually wanted sapphire glass, but that failed despite Apple investing millions.
It’s unlikely that Steve Jobs considered sapphire glass when he approached Corning for the iPhone in 2006. At that time, synthetic sapphire was primarily used in niche applications—like luxury watch faces, certain industrial tools, and optics where scratch resistance was critical but where brittleness and high production costs weren't major issues. While the tech industry was aware of sapphire's properties, it wasn’t widely considered viable for mass-market applications like smartphone screens.
Jobs was focused on finding a practical, durable solution for the iPhone, so he looked to Corning, whose glass products were already known for their innovation and quality. Corning’s Gorilla Glass, with its superior strength-to-cost ratio, was a much more feasible choice. Even now, synthetic sapphire is far costlier and more challenging to produce in large, thin sheets than Gorilla Glass. So, in the early 2000s, it would have been even more impractical as a display material.
Sapphire glass only began gaining interest in the smartphone industry years after the iPhone launched, as companies started to push for more scratch-resistant surfaces and explored new materials, spurred by Apple’s later interest around 2012. But back in 2006, Jobs’s decision to partner with Corning was a pragmatic one; Gorilla Glass was simply the most viable material available for a high-quality, resilient smartphone screen.
Apple currently uses sapphire glass in a few key areas across its products:
Camera Lenses: Sapphire glass is used to cover the rear camera lenses on iPhones and iPads. Its scratch-resistant properties help protect the lenses from damage, ensuring clear, high-quality photos over the device’s lifespan.
Apple Watch: Sapphire glass is standard on higher-end models of the Apple Watch, such as the Apple Watch Ultra and some stainless steel models. For these models, scratch resistance is especially important, given the device's exposure to daily wear on wrists and, often, during physical activities.
Touch ID Sensors: Sapphire glass has been used on Touch ID sensors in devices like the iPhone and iPad, as it provides durability and scratch resistance for frequent finger contact.
Apple Watch's Heart Rate Sensor: In some Apple Watch models, sapphire is used to cover the heart rate sensor on the back of the watch.
Sapphire glass works well in these areas where components are relatively small, and the primary concern is scratch resistance, not impact resistance. For larger screens, like the iPhone’s main display, Gorilla Glass remains the more practical choice due to its impact durability and cost-effectiveness in large, thin sheets.
So, Apple didn't waste its money on sapphire glass and it didn't fail, it just wasn't the success that those who hyped the stock had hoped for after rumors of iPhone screens using it. If I recall Apple never confirmed those rumors, it was a GT Advanced Technologies that did all the talking.
You’re right that the GT sapphire fiasco wasn’t until much later (Google shows that they signed the ill-fated contract in 2013).
That Jobs wanted sapphire initially was in Isaacson‘s book. Which of course is known to be riddled with factual inaccuracies and anachronisms, so I wouldn’t go to court with the claim.
I presume he wanted it, and the idea was probably shot down within days.
So can someone who is lambasting the EU and defending Corning please write a rational defense explaining why the exclusivity agreements make sense or help anyone other than Corning? Clearly Gorilla Glass is a good product and if it's the best on the market then it deserves the 73% market share. If the only reason it has that share is because of exclusivity agreements then there are likely other good products out there that are getting pushed out. Meaning we're paying more because of less competition.
So can someone who is lambasting the EU and defending Corning please write a rational defense explaining why the exclusivity agreements make sense or help anyone other than Corning? Clearly Gorilla Glass is a good product and if it's the best on the market then it deserves the 73% market share. If the only reason it has that share is because of exclusivity agreements then there are likely other good products out there that are getting pushed out. Meaning we're paying more because of less competition.
The real question is: why would even investigating the question be so rabidly fought? If anything, they should be rallying U.S. antitrust to investigate, as well…!
Since when is the EU the global dictator for how things are made and what is sold? If you don't like it, don't buy it. I need to investigate whether I actually buy any products manufactured in EU companies. I don't buy European vehicles, don't buy European wine (CA and other USA states make fine wine), don't buy EU made bikes, don't buy any cosmetics from any country, don't buy any knives either, in fact I found a website that showed several country's products and I don't believe I ever bought any of their products.
Hi Rob! I hope you are doing great. Can you please tell me why the EU influence how products are made and sold, and is it possible to avoid buying goods from EU companies entirely? Thanks, Mike Taku.
Comments
Did someone jump the gun? Oh…you did.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_5681
Where is the overreach if an organisation opens an investigation to see if a company is breaking antitrust legislation and is providing the grounds for it?
Should companies be allowed to go unchecked if their business practices might mean they are abusing dominant position, harming competition and stifling innovation?
It has nothing to do with being really good or making great stuff and the grounds for the investigation are clearly laid out.
The story goes that in 2006, while developing the first iPhone, Steve Jobs knew he wanted the screen to be made from glass rather than plastic. Plastic scratched too easily, and he wanted a product that would feel and look high-quality, something that would age well. So he reached out to Corning Inc., a company known for its expertise in glass manufacturing.
Jobs met with Corning’s then-CEO, Wendell Weeks, and told him that he needed a tough, scratch-resistant glass. Weeks told Jobs about a glass formula Corning had invented in the 1960s called “Gorilla Glass.” Though it was incredibly strong, it hadn’t been commercialized because they hadn’t found a market for it back then.
Jobs was determined to make Gorilla Glass a reality for the iPhone. According to the story, Weeks initially thought it would be impossible to produce enough of this glass in time for Apple’s planned iPhone launch. But Jobs, with his famously persuasive style, told him, “Don’t be afraid. You can do it.”
Corning quickly ramped up production, reactivating the Gorilla Glass formula and scaling it to meet Apple’s demand. By the time the first iPhone launched in 2007, Gorilla Glass was ready, and it went on to become a foundational material in smartphone design, not just for Apple but eventually for much of the mobile industry.
Jobs was focused on finding a practical, durable solution for the iPhone, so he looked to Corning, whose glass products were already known for their innovation and quality. Corning’s Gorilla Glass, with its superior strength-to-cost ratio, was a much more feasible choice. Even now, synthetic sapphire is far costlier and more challenging to produce in large, thin sheets than Gorilla Glass. So, in the early 2000s, it would have been even more impractical as a display material.
Sapphire glass only began gaining interest in the smartphone industry years after the iPhone launched, as companies started to push for more scratch-resistant surfaces and explored new materials, spurred by Apple’s later interest around 2012. But back in 2006, Jobs’s decision to partner with Corning was a pragmatic one; Gorilla Glass was simply the most viable material available for a high-quality, resilient smartphone screen.
Apple currently uses sapphire glass in a few key areas across its products:
Camera Lenses: Sapphire glass is used to cover the rear camera lenses on iPhones and iPads. Its scratch-resistant properties help protect the lenses from damage, ensuring clear, high-quality photos over the device’s lifespan.
Apple Watch: Sapphire glass is standard on higher-end models of the Apple Watch, such as the Apple Watch Ultra and some stainless steel models. For these models, scratch resistance is especially important, given the device's exposure to daily wear on wrists and, often, during physical activities.
Touch ID Sensors: Sapphire glass has been used on Touch ID sensors in devices like the iPhone and iPad, as it provides durability and scratch resistance for frequent finger contact.
Apple Watch's Heart Rate Sensor: In some Apple Watch models, sapphire is used to cover the heart rate sensor on the back of the watch.
Sapphire glass works well in these areas where components are relatively small, and the primary concern is scratch resistance, not impact resistance. For larger screens, like the iPhone’s main display, Gorilla Glass remains the more practical choice due to its impact durability and cost-effectiveness in large, thin sheets.
So, Apple didn't waste its money on sapphire glass and it didn't fail, it just wasn't the success that those who hyped the stock had hoped for after rumors of iPhone screens using it. If I recall Apple never confirmed those rumors, it was a GT Advanced Technologies that did all the talking.
That Jobs wanted sapphire initially was in Isaacson‘s book. Which of course is known to be riddled with factual inaccuracies and anachronisms, so I wouldn’t go to court with the claim.
Can you please tell me why the EU influence how products are made and sold, and is it possible to avoid buying goods from EU companies entirely?
Thanks,
Mike Taku.