ericthehalfbee
About
- Username
- ericthehalfbee
- Joined
- Visits
- 209
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 9,787
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 4,499
Reactions
-
Trump Mobile drops false 'made in America' promise
AppleZulu said:Not that consistency has any relevance in this administration, but you’d still have to think that the existence of the Trump phone, even as temporary vaporware, now shields Apple (and others) against the previous threat of a “smartphone tariff.”Trump and Co giving up on the too-easily exposed lie that the T1 would be made in the US means that any tariff on iPhone would also apply to the T1.What if they abandon the T1 altogether? Well, that along with the current concession that it isn’t going to be made in the US demonstrates that the expectation that Apple could build iPhone here anytime soon is impossible. If Trump can’t make a phone in America by August, how could anyone else be expected to do it?
Regarding Trump Mobile itself, it seems more questionable than ever that the T1 will ever materialize. That then brings into question the whole enterprise, because whole the point for any MAGA customer would be the conspicuous consumption of the brand. Paying more to bring your own phone to use Trump Mobile while no one can see you’re using Trump Mobile won’t cut it. Selling branded phone cases might help with that, but manufacturing those for dozens of phone models would be too complicated and would involve way too much cost in overhead (including tariffs!) for holding inventory.Could Trump Mobile be another failed enterprise before it even gets off the ground? Maybe Apple should just be thankful for the comically unforced error, as Tim Cook gently commiserates with the president over just how hard it would be to onshore production so hastily.The entire premise of your argument falls apart because it requires Trump to make decisions based on logic & common sense.
-
US DOJ attacks nearly every aspect of Apple's business in massive antitrust suit
"For years, Apple responded to competitive threats by imposing a series of 'Whack-A-Mole' contractual rules and restrictions that have allowed Apple to extract higher prices from consumers, impose higher fees on developers and creators, and to throttle competitive alternatives from rival technologies," the DOJ antitrust division chief Jonathan Kanter also said.Considering Apple has reduced fees over the years (15% small devs, 15% recurring subs, 0% for subs outside The App Store like Spotify or Netflix) I’m not sure how this idiot can make the claim Apple is imposing higher fees. Fees were their highest in 2008 when everyone paid a flat rate of 30%. Apple has also relaxed or eliminated many other rules over the years. He’s going to have a touch time proving any of this.
Jonathan Kanter is biased against big tech and has faced criticism because of it. Filing a lawsuit against Apple based on feelings instead of facts is not going to turn out well.
In the US being a monopoly isn’t illegal (if the iPhone gets declared a monopoly). It’s only illegal if A) you did something illegal to get to your monopoly position or
once you become a monopoly you start abusing your position.
Neither is true for Apple. They became large by selling superior products that people want, not by limiting competition or anything similar. Apple also can’t be accused of abusing their position as evidenced by their lowering of fees and relaxing rules over many years. That’s the opposite of abuse of monopoly position.
DOJ is going to look like fools trying to claim Apple abused their position when lawyers start to list off alt he things Apple has done (like reducing fees).
-
Under pressure, Apple will restore Epic Games' developer account in the EU
You can’t be this stupid.gatorguy said:
Spin? Why would the EU Commission investigate any company's compliance with a law that wasn't yet in place? As of March 7th, it is. Prior to that, none of the gatekeepers were obligated by law to change anything, and they had right up to midnight (I assume) on the day of the deadline to make any last-second changes they believed were required before authorities were legally tasked with verifying.ericthehalfbee said:gatorguy said:
It's only been two days, not weeks, since the EU DMA rules went into effect. The commission announced in advance that March 7th was the day that active examinations of the gatekeepers compliance would begin.ericthehalfbee said:eeks the EU has done nothing about this. I’ve seen no investigation or even a suggestion of one. Yet this Epic ban apparently needed to be looked at immediately by the EU?
The fact nothing has been done about Apple’s rules suggests that Apple is, in fact, in compliance with the DMA and these rules are staying.
I fully expect a few knocks on doors, and a bit of fine-tuning from the affected big techs, preferably without fines being the driving reason for the requisite changes.That’s quite the spin. There’s no stipulation that says the EU has to wait until the DMA comes into effect before they investigate any potential issues. Especially with the complaints from Epic & Spotify.
If the EU fine tunes the DMA it exposes them as the utter incompetent and idiotic lawmakers they truly are.
They would investigate because Apple announced their rules 6 weeks early, giving them plenty of time to review them.
Much better to talk to Apple and fine tune the rules BEFORE the DMA goes into effect then to have a bunch companies build their new third party stores around Apple’s rules and then have to change them later on. This is a lot of wasted effort for everyone.
The EU could warn Apple of non-compliance and if nothing changes they could hit Apple hard on day one. Given the tone people like Breton have when talking about Apple, I’m convinced there’s nothing they’d like better than to hit Apple hard on day one.
I think they DID have this conversation since Apple made a few last-minute changes to the terms (like the credit requirement). Which I predict means the rest of their conditions will stay.
-
EU tells Apple to justify its blocking of Epic Games
Bullshit. The DMA doesn’t have any language that deals with this scenario. This is contract law and it will have to be decided in a court.Fred257 said:I’ve been following Apple since 1997. Apple Insider I have been following since 1998. Apple is going to be fined on this one. The lawyers for Apple have made the wrong decision
Again for the people in the back: The DMA isn’t a blank cheque that says developers have 100% access to Apple or Google App stores and that Apple/Google can’t do anything about bad actors.
-
European Union smacks Apple with $2 billion fine over music streaming
radarthekat said:
I’m curious, does Spotify discount its service by the amount of Apple’s commission when a customer pays directly through Spotify’s website?avon b7 said:This is part of what the EU had to say:"Today's decision concludes that Apple's anti-steering provisions amount to unfair trading conditions, in breach of Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU'). These anti-steering provisions are neither necessary nor proportionate for the protection of Apple's commercial interests in relation to the App Store on Apple's smart mobile devices and negatively affect the interests of iOS users, who cannot make informed and effective decisions on where and how to purchase music streaming subscriptions for use on their device.
Apple's conduct, which lasted for almost ten years, may have led many iOS users to pay significantly higher prices for music streaming subscriptions because of the high commission fee imposed by Apple on developers and passed on to consumers in the form of higher subscription prices for the same service on the Apple App Store.
... "
Apple makes no reference to its anti-competitive behaviour in its statement and instead tries to put the spotlight on Spotify, its European nature and music streaming.
No. Apple pointed out that Spotify has always charged the same prices and never passed any savings on to consumers.
Spotify has 56% of the EU market. Next is YouTube and Amazon with Apple in 4th place at 11%.So where’s the harm to Spotify? They’re the largest streamer in the world and completely dominate the EU. I’ve heard the idiotic argument that “Spotify could be even more successful if Apple didn’t put up roadblocks”. So…your argument is Spotify didn’t become an even bigger monopoly in music so Apple should pay up?
Same with consumers. Where’s the harm? Spotify hasn’t had in-App subscriptions since 2016. There was a brief period of overlap from 2015 to 2016 where Apple Music and Spotify competed unfairly, and if anything the fine should reflect that period of time only. And where does Vestager get off claiming this has been going on for 10 years when Apple Music has only been around 8 years?
Apple won the Irish tax case on appeal. This case will be easier to overturn as the EU can’t prove harm to…anyone.
