cropr

AppleZulu said:

Let’s hope this scheme is a colossal failure. 

I mean, if someone built an inviting “alternate app store,” it would ultimately not qualify for Epic’s distribution terms, because any quality app store would have to charge for its services. Quality isn’t free. 

jfabula1 said:

Ah EU….sorry but Google is not EU company you can bully. Yes you can tax them the right way but ad is their business. If businesses are really hurting then dont advertise on their platform. Simple enough.

Taxing is not the concern of the European Commission (it are the member states who set up and collect taxes).  The EU commission is primarily concerned about a fair competitive playing field in the EU.  Whatever company that has too much market power in the EU in one domain and abuses this power in another domain, is under the scrutiny of the European Commission.    It appears that Google is abusing its market dominance in the technical ad sales business and the EU is reacting accordingly.    I cannot judge whether this is correct or not, but Google got already 3 times a fine for the abuse of its market dominance, so this is not a complete surprise.       Any EU, American, Chinese, Indian or British (yes they left the EU) company that wants to do business in the EU must comply with the EU rules of fair competition

lkrupp said:

Why bother, Apple? This is a done deal. You actually think you can talk the EU out of $15B? They’re drooling at the mouth to get their hands on that cash, most of which will wind up in their  own and their friends pockets. You worked out a deal with Ireland and years later the EU is now crying foul? How convenient for them. 

strongy said:

cropr said:

The title is misleading:  Apple must not pay the amount to the EU, but to the Irish government.     The court has decided that the reduced tax rate  must be considered as illegal government aid to a private company.  This illegal aid must be reimbursed to Ireland.    

Ireland is on apple's side they said as much, i bet you the all the EU wanted was get its hand on all that money at least they don't get any of it.

Ireland was in competition with other European countries to become Apple's EU headquarter.   The EU commisioner Vestager said from the start that reduced tax rate should be considered as Irish government aid and that Ireland should apply the "nomal" tax rate.    The court just confirmed the position Vestager held all these years.

kiltedgreen said:

Until Apple released the iPhone I doubt Spotify even had personal streaming as a viable proposition (if they even existed then). Given Apple have charged right from the start, Spotify could just have said “We don’t want to use your expensive delivery system” and done it themselves. But they didn’t. And now they complain (or at least some people are).

Calvin_Hobbes said:

"As it turns out, Spotify is mostly not subject to Apple's 30% commission either. After the first year of a subscription, Apple's fees drop to 15%."

oh.

Well that seems more than fair.

And while we're on the topic of complaining: Hey Spotify how about paying an actual user interface designer to clean up the train wreck that is your interface no matter what you're trying to do??

The Romans already said 2000 years ago:" De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum":   I find the Spotify UI better than the Apple Music UI.

loopless said:

And they are not inflating their figures are they? The growth seems unlikely given how popular iPhones are and I would imagine unless you really want to use Spotify you would use Apple Music. For 99% of people they are equivalent services and using Apple Music is frictionless.

Isn't it a little arrogant to assume that a "normal" personal has to choose Apple Music iso Spotify.  Why the heck should I prefer Apple Music above Spotify?    I don't see any technical or commercial advantage.  On the contrary.  In my family we have a multitude of devices (Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, Android). The Apple Music app for Android is no match for the Spotify app and a Linux version is simply not existing. I would not associate Apple Music with a frictionless experience.

teejay2012 said:

I am not looking for more apps asking for access to my financial information. Given how uninformed my own bank is on any technical issues, I would hardly trust them with NFC. I trust Apple and I like the convenience of Apple Pay. Consumers will vote of course but the banks and other vendors will need to buy the votes as they won't win on security or convenience imo.

I do not trust Apple for my financials:  it is a foereign company, the nearest Apple Store is 2 hours driving and I don't get a presonalized service, and it does not support Android (which half of my family is using).   On top of that I don't like vertical integration: Apple is great for its hardware, but I don't want to be locked in in the Apple ecosystem for something like my financials, Apple has no business with my bank account details.

mknelson said:

gatorguy said:

beowulfschmidt said:

Apple, being an American company, is probably going to take the position that, "We don't need to prove our innocence.  If you think we're guilty, prove it."

If DoC thinks Apple is doing the nefarious things, prove it.  It seems at least possible that Apple is indirectly responsible for some of them.  Apple's suppliers might not be as scrupulous as Apple itself, and also might also be victims of bad actors even farther down the chain.

The cases are being heard in France and Belgium, where the DRC has filed its evidence. It's not a case of prove your innocence.

Completing your thought… in that those jurisdictions also assume innocent until proven guilty, so the DRC would have to provide credible evidence to prove guilt. "none of its smelters or refiners have financed armed gangs selling the conflict materials outside of official channels." That's an odd sentence. They finance armed gangs through official channels?

The legal system in Belgium and France are both based on the code Napoleon, which in this case means that Apple is assumed to be innocent until proven, but contrary to American legal system, DRC has not to provide any prove of guilt.  In both countries the the complaint will be handled by an "investigation judge", who will decide how to procede. The investigating judge assembles evidence for and against the complaint, he is assumed to be impartial.  In order to do that he has a lot of power: he can instruct the police to investigate certain aspects, he can arrest people, he can confiscate documents, he can issue search warrants, ....  If the investigating judge concludes the case has its merits, he will transfer the case to a criminal court where a criminal judge will decide (no jury).

anonymouse said:

Like everything else the EU and Eropean countries do, this is like a bad joke. "We didn't say what you needed to do, but, because you didn't do what we wanted, we're fining you."

That's like deciding you want a low speed limit, not setting or posting it, then fining "speeders" for being over the limit by whatever amount you want them to be. Europe and the EU no longer operate under the rule of law, they operate under the whims of the "regulators".

There is a fundamental difference between the way American laws and European laws are applied.   American laws are applied very strictly.  You must do exactly X to comply to the law.  In Europe the spirit of the law is as important as the letter of the law, and it is up to the people to apply the law in good faith according to common sense.   Disclaimers for  products sold in the US are on average 5 times longer than their European counterparts.

I understand that a lot of Americans have cultural issues accepting the way European law is working.  In this case, the court stated that Apple did not fulfill the requirements and that is for Europeans more than sufficient to understand what is meant: Apple should apply ATT for its own apps as well, but it is up to Apple to decide which changes should be made to comply to the rule.

You last sentence is clearly an indication that you fail to understand that any non US law system can have its own merits