gatorguy

blastdoor said:

StrangeDays said:

ssfe11 said:

Yup a Wall Gardened type of security does have its advantages. 

As does being based on OS X which is based off Unix.

Android is based on Linux which is very unixy. 

I’m quite sure that it is not the esoteric differences between Linux and Unix that are driving this but instead Apple’s superior commitment to security and privacy.

anonymouse said:

blastdoor said:

anonymouse said:

blastdoor said:

anonymouse said:

blastdoor said:

Every time I read one of these EU stories I try to think about what Apple should do to deal with this situation. It’s tempting to say Apple should just leave, but it doesn’t make sense to leave money on the table.

They won't be leaving money on the table by pulling out of the EU. First, the EU is just a fraction of what Apple classifies as "Europe" (which includes the Middle East and at least parts, if not all, of Africa), and obviously doesn't include European countries not in the EU, such as the UK and Switzerland. The fines the EU is threatening far eclipse the value of the EU as a market. Second, if EU rules force Apple to cripple, compromise or otherwise dumb down their products, that makes them less competitive in the rest of the world. There is at this point almost no upside for Apple to release anything in the EU and plenty of downside, not to mention all the resources wasted "negotiating" with EU bureaucrats who are not acting in good faith and are making up the rules as the go and changing them retroactively.

So, what exactly is the downside for Apple to simply pull out of the EU until there is a more favorable business climate there? I can't see any upside to staying at this point.

I’ve read that the EU represents about 7% of Apple’s revenues. That’s almost $30 billion a year. I see no reason to walk away from that if you don’t have to. 

I think it's less than that because Apple doesn't break out revenue for the EU as such, only "Europe" which includes the Middle East and Africa. Even actual Europe, you have to drop out revenue from non members of the EU like the UK and Switzerland.

But, even if it is 7%, if they are threatening you with fines of 10%, seems like a no brainer to drop that market. Why sell for a loss?

The point is to avoid the fine by complying with the law. That is, I’m saying Apple should swallow their pride and  sell the dumb products that the EC demands. It might be bad for consumers but that’s on the EC. And only sell the lobotomized product in the EU, obviously. 

Let the baby have its bottle. 

Unless it turns out to be impossible to please the baby, and then leave. 

It’s also better from a PR perspective to let people see that it’s the EC that’s being unreasonable. How they handle this in Europe can affect laws and regulations elsewhere. Apple needs to be seen as the good guys, the EU as the bad guys, so that politicians in other countries conclude they don’t want to follow the EU example 

Well, Apple has already said it will sell the EU the dumbed down products and the EU (Vestager) has said publicly that that is unacceptable, so I think we've already moved well past that point. (Apparently, Microsoft is in trouble for not selling the dumbed down product, so with the EU it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.)

chasm said:

The problem here appears to be less about the DMA and more about a spokesperson for it who is more than happy to go off half-cocked based on incomplete information.

A **professional** would have said simply that the EU maintains its communications with Apple and will be discussing any changes with them, at least until both entities have, in fact, had a chance to get together and discuss recent announcements and what Apple’s concerns are regarding the EU’s rules.

Vestager seems to be the main problem here. Maybe replace her with someone more diplomatic and less dictatorial.

thrang said:

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.

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

anonymouse said:

gatorguy said:

netrox said:

I am guessing it's because it requires that text messages be stored on their data servers waiting for recipients to read and that requires a lot of resources which smaller carriers cannot afford? 

In the US they are using Google Jibe servers

So all your RCS message are belong to Google. What could go wrong?