thrang

flydog said:

jdw said:

Sorry, but when you are in business, you seek to limit your competition.  Label it Anti-trust or Anti-competitive if you like, but it's only reasonable to buy Instagram as a matter of good business.  And what may be a near Monopoly within the USA is most assuredly not in China, which is a massive country everyone needs to ponder.  China gains when America loses.  And America is not gaining by breaking up its big tech firms.  What you see in the news on this topic is merely a game of envy and revenge and the illusion of "protecting the little guy and increasing competition for the good of all consumers."

It's clear that you have zero understanding of even the fundamental concepts of antitrust law.

FaceBook is not being sued because it tried to limit competition.  FaceBook is being sued because it used illegal means to limit competion, and harmed consumers as a result. 

I can't find any concrete details of "illegal means" so far.

I'm no fan of Facebook, don't have an account, and think the big issue of user data and the opaque nature of how that's manipulated and sold is the real issue that should be addressed.

If there is evidence that Facebook "forced" otherwise independent companies to sell to them, or illegally harmed them in some other way, that's one thing. But most start-ups WANT to be noticed and bought out. That's their payday, their lifelong goal. It doesn't make any sense that the NY AG was warbling about Facebook "buying up" the competition... (and the big acquisitions were government approved as Facebook points out).

So would the government propose PREVENTING small companies from selling themselves to larger companies in the name of some greater good? Better they go out of business? Should companies not offer people more money to jump ship and join them (poach, to use a negative phrase). Thus, should be telling individuals your income potential will be limited for some greater good?

I'm dubious until we see a lot more evidence presented.

What was missing was at the end - all the crushed elements should have been represented on the final shot of the iPad screen, upbeat and animated... thought this the second I saw the ad. I would have made the ad much more about evolution, not scorched earth...

In so many of the attempts to take down successful companies, there seems to be an utter mess of equating the large success of a company with squelching small competitors. Or that designing the products and services they sell to maximize their own revenue is "wring" or "anti-completive."

The nature of free market participation is to bo better than your competitors, to "beat" them in fact. How you do that is of course important, but simply entering a market (AirTag for example) which puts competitive pressure on Tile, is well perfectly legal. And tough cookies for Tile unless they can innovate and compete differently.

Now if Apple clearly stole patented technology, coerced supply chain to restrict  components to a competitor, or put pressure on distribution or retail channels to NOT sell Tile, that would be clear example of offensive and unfair behavior. I've not heard of that in really any of these claims at least as publicized.

 Similar with Sonos. Apple has produced audio products for many years, including speakers (apple HiFi). Regardless, they have the right to enter that market without restriction. and leverage their technology. They further opened Airplay 2 technology for companies to license if they wish (Sonos did), but, for quite reasonable privacy reasons, not Siri. Is that an issue? I can't see how. Apple is not "compelled" to license any and all of its technologies just to appease competitors.

 It's for the for the marketplace to decide whether Apple's approach is too restrictive and buy into other ecosystems instead. And given the size of Apple's user based, there are effectively zero complaints - in fact custsat numbers are generally extremely high.

Apple's business is its ecosystem - their success is because of who they can add overlapping circles on their ever expanding Venn diagram generally with great success for them and great appreciation by its customers.

So yes, really a great model to go after. Governments do so little right it is deeply saddening.... 

This show is really quite horrible... so poorly written and stretched out...

gatorguy said:

rob53 said:

avon b7 said:

This:

"Specifically, we are concerned that the interoperability requirements of the DMA could force us to compromise the integrity of our products in ways that risk user privacy and data security," said Apple. "We are committed to collaborating with the European Commission in an attempt to find a solution that would enable us to deliver these features to our EU customers without compromising their safety."

And then this:

"From previous statements including ones to AppleInsider, it's known that Apple has been continually working with the EU on its responses to the DMA, so it's reasonable to assume that will continue.

Leads to the question: Why even bother putting the subject into the public domain if communication and clarification are ongoing? 

Far better to say as little as possible until things are clarified. All it takes is clarification and all for a roll out that isn't even planned for this year! 

Basically FUD on Apple's part and Vestager has a valid point in her response to a question that wouldn't have been asked if it weren't for Apple. 

Basically FUD on the part of EU-loving commenters. Apple has a right to provide whatever capabilities it wants to in whatever country/region it wants to. You're buying a product with certain features. There's nothing that says Apple has to provide the EU with everything it has the capability of including. The EU can demand Apple provide everything but that's not the way companies work. This is a brand new Apple capability and Apple has the right to provide it when they feel it's ready, not when a corrupt EU demands it. At this point, I feel Apple is well within its rights to start charging for features in countries it wants to. As far as I'm concerned, Apple should start charging for macOS, iOS, tvOS, iPadOS along with every Apple app and feature it wants to. I'd like to see the EU try and force Apple to provide everything for free. It isn't going to happen.

Vestager is not suggesting that Apple needs to deliver AI features to EU users. What she notes is that Apple's statement seems to imply they are not anxious to offer features where competition will be required. Not that it matters in the real world since Apple isn't rolling out some of those features this fall outside of the US and in English anyway, correct? If so, why did Apple say anything at all? My sense is it's a negotiating tactic.

Apple could care less about straight and fair competition. The EU is mandating nothing of the sort. It is forcing them to aide and abet competitors to sell within its IP boundaries, mandate that it has to happen, determine if they can charge or how much they charge for the ability to do so. Its a virus-level intrusion to an alarming level.

The EU is forcing Apple to permit Spotify or others to be able to essentially market/sell their service on Apple devices, with no (or ill-defined), externally-controlled compensation to Apple. Apple is not a market. It is a product and service provider that sells into markets than consumers can choose to buy or not based on how they go to market.

Will Apple be able to freely promote and sell Apple Music within the Spotify app and website?

Who the eff cares about repairing an AirPod themselves? Seriously? Majority of today’s generation can’t even boil water. Give me a break.

When you read the stipulations the judicial branch is stating Apple must follow for its own product/service ecosystem, with no illegal monopoly found, is utterly insane. There are thousands of examples one could rattle off in which no other company in the nation would be compelled to follow this way.

The lack of logic is astounding.

Can Apple now freely make Apple Music purchases or monthly streaming available on the Spotify platform? Does Apple get shelf space for Arcade freely on Epic's platform? Does Hugo Boss get to sell its clothing in Nordstroms and collection 100% of the sale and pay no rent or other costs for leveraging Nordstroms floor space, utilities, marketing, advertising, brand equity, security, retail magnetism? OR conversely, can Boss put up signs (freely or otherwise) in Nordstroms directing people to go out into the mall and visit their corporate retail location?

Why stop here? Why not force Apple to allow third party operating systems? Why have Apple at all?

Well it’s crystal clear Apple should sue BMW, Mercedes and others for maintaining proprietary and monopolistic control over their platforms, denying third parties like Apple from participating and harming consumers by limiting choice….

…just sayin’…

nubus said:

thrang said:

It should be no business of any government to know or consider what a company’s profit margin is for a specific component of their business.. It’s absurd. Companies already report their fiscal performance in whatever way they see fit

You want a free market but at the same time you expect for governments to set laws regarding patents and enforce them. You can't have both.

Protecting against intellectual capital theft, and enforcing that protection, has nothing to do with a company being able to set the margin for specific products or services without government scrutiny. The marketplace will determine if a company is "gouging", and not buy/look elsewhere.

Often, a company being accused of "unfair" or "excessive" margins are ripe for a competition to come in an offer something more attractive. As the App Store is a feature of the iPhone (it has no function or purpose without the iOS hardware to use it). this would take the form of a new phone platform. So far, no on is offering an option, and Apple is doing nothing to prevent a company from entering the market. If they were, that would be a chargeable offense.

So Microsoft couldn't do it, Blackberry failed (that's the big story, given how popular they were and how they failed to leverage their dominance). Nokia, Sony, and others just decided it was too hard to do the whole thing and became part of the Android ecosystem to join Google as Apple's main competitor. So Apple's success is because they make fantastic products and an ecosystem that people feel are worth it.

It's amazing how all these investigations by governments are absent any huge public outcry that something is "wrong" that needs intervention. These are just government sponsored cash grabs, institutional theft from those who know little and do little.

I'm fairly certain margins will fluctuate for products and services all the time, and will be impacted by plans for future investments. Do governments need to know and understand longer-term strategic planning and investment? Fluctuations of infrastructure acquisitions and maintenance? Pricing could also hedge against down economies to maintain stability. There are so many "reasons" none of which are the business - literally or figuratively - justifying scavenging expeditions. Governments get their money on overall financial success from tax revenues. They are not complaining about that, expect they want MORE.

Stop spending so much.

Currently, Apple has an agreement with Open AI, correct?

This can conversely mean something interesting may up between the two, not necessarily an "undefined" negative. I mean, Open AI is not a huge HW company, though they have aspirations.

And conversely (again), if Apple ends the agreement with Open AI in the future and goes in a different direction, you'll know I was pissin in the wind....