avon b7

charlesn said:

avon b7 said:

charlesn said:

avon b7 said:

charlesn said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

longpath said:

This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.

Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en

By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.

Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.

Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them. 

EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!

EU law makes a mockery of law.

The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective. 

You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers. 

Here's what makes no sense: for MANY years, Apple's stubborn insistence on a walled garden held it back in the marketplace. And no government cared about its walled garden then. But over time, and especially as digital devices proliferated into tablets, wearables, etc, consumers made the free will choice to buy into the tightly controlled Apple ecosystem. In fact, the tightly controlled ecosystem with its focus on privacy, security, seamless operation between devices and "it just works" reliability became THE main reason to choose Apple. Let's face it: it has never been difficult to get more bang for your buck in the world of Windows and Android hardware. But consumers chose to pay more for Apple hardware with its walled garden being a main reason why. And now here comes government, breaking the very thing that tens of millions of consumers have freely chosen in buying Apple products, all in the name of insane, upside down logic of supposedly greater consumer choice. Except you're not allowed to choose a closed and tightly controlled ecosystem and--here comes the upside down logic again--the reason consumers will not be allowed to have that choice is because too many consumers have freely chosen it. 

No one, at no point, voted for a walled garden. Not with their wallets or otherwise. 

I will go much further and argue that the vast majority of iPhone users are completely ignorant to the shackles placed on them by Apple (and others). 

Oh please. To your first point, Apple is and always has been a walled garden since its founding. When you buy an Apple product you are voting with your wallet to go inside the wall because you have a world of choices with no wall and you didn't choose those. The loyalty to Apple is so fierce among its customers because they like the way the Apple ecosystem works. 

To your second point: my god, at least come up with something original. The whole "Apple sheeple" cliche has been around for at least 30 years. Really astonishing how Apple has now been able to cast a spell over the entire world, don't you think? What do you figure it is? Does Apple have a global program of doping the water? Amazing that iPhone has been around for 18 years and is now sold in over 70 countries, but Apple has managed to keep those shackles a secret from everyone! Must be a Matrix kind of thing, right?

Try an informal survey yourself. How aware are the iPhone users you know and meet of Apple's imposed limitations? 

So DO TELL! What are Apple's "imposed limitations" of which I'm "ignorant" to use your description. Do you think I'm interested in an "open" app store where anyone can upload any piece of crap? I'm not. Apple's walled garden app store is a selling point for me. Do you think I care one iota that Apple optimizes its various OSes and hardware to work seamlessly together at the expense of non-Apple hardware or software which, in some cases, will not work as well or not work at all? Nope, not one bit. Again, the seamless integration of the Apple walled garden ecosystem is a selling point for me, it's a main reason I buy Apple products and there's no other company that can come close to matching this kind of integration across such a varied product line. They certainly could if they wanted to make that investment but they don't. Not my problem. Any other big "shackles" that I'm missing here?

The bigger question is: when you have a whole wide world of Windows, Android, Linux, etc to choose from, which will give all the shackle-free freedom you want, why are you so obsessed with breaking the walled garden that Apple buyers want? This would be understandable if Apple were the only choice for tech buyers, but it's not. In fact, when you look at any hardware product line that Apple sells, Apple sales represent a minority, and often a very small one, of overall sales of that product. 

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

davidw said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

longpath said:

This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.

Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en

By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.

Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.

Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them. 

EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!

EU law makes a mockery of law.

The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective. 

You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers. 

But if those numbers are set only for the purpose of insuring that the 5 largest US tech companies are captured as "gatekeepers", then Apple didn't just "fall" into the group of "gatekeepers". And it makes being a "gatekeeper" (under the DMA)  a meaningless label.  

Like I said, that line of argument is open for debate but saying it didn't just 'fall' into the group of 'gatekeepers' is ridiculous because you are pumping the situation full of claims that are just your opinion.

No it's not open for debate, it's established as fact, and he is not "pumping" claims that are "opinion". In fact, it is you who are being entirely disingenuous in this discussion and pimping claims that are false and misleading. 

goofy1958 said:

avon b7 said

I don't need to come up with anything 'original'. My points are clear. 

Try an informal survey yourself. How aware are the iPhone users you know and meet of Apple's imposed limitations? 

Why shouldn't apple just be open about the limitations - just to do the right thing? Like they did with app tracking transparency.

After all, your entire argument is that they won't mind because it's all in their interests. The price one pays for privacy and security (in spite of zero day exploits and non-stop security updates landing on their devices).

My take is that Apple would rather jump through all the EU hoops (malicious compliance included where possible) instead of being open. And we all know why, right? 

So as an Apple user for many years, what, in your opinion, am I missing out on that I might find even remotely interesting or required?

davidw said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

longpath said:

This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.

Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en

By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.

Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.

Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them. 

EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!

EU law makes a mockery of law.

The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective. 

You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers. 

But if those numbers are set only for the purpose of insuring that the 5 largest US tech companies are captured as "gatekeepers", then Apple didn't just "fall" into the group of "gatekeepers". And it makes being a "gatekeeper" (under the DMA)  a meaningless label.  

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

longpath said:

This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.

Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en

By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.

Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.

Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them. 

EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!

EU law makes a mockery of law.