avon b7

The rules are the rules. It's as simple as that.

If Apple thinks it will fall foul to legislation it can always ask the EU for clarification. It has direct communication channels with the relevant parties within the EU. 

Has it done that or simply chosen to make a meal out of things? 

We'll see over the coming months but it's Apple's call and can choose to not implement features if it wishes. 

Currently, as most of the EU wasn't going to get the localised AI features at this point anyway, it's more of a case of FUD by Apple.

Probably not the most 'intelligent' of moves. 

I can't speak of the China side with too much knowledge, but the Huawei side of Apple's problems in China is fairly easy to break down and 'uphill battle' for Apple fits the bill as things stand today (and have been since last August). Almost a full year now. AI is simply part of the puzzle. 

At an OS level, it was rumoured last year that HarmonyOS could surpass iOS in China at some point during 2024.

It seems that came to pass very quickly: in Q1-24:

https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/business/2024/06/21/huawei-mobile-devices-near-a-billion-as-apple-rivalry-heats-up/74168313007/

And just today, HarmonyOS NEXT was officially presented at Huawei's Developer Conference with major new advances in kernel and security aspects. It will debut on the Mate 70 series later this year which Huawei is aligning to go head to head with Apple's end-of-year releases. 

Last year's iPhones saw discounting in China almost from the get go and that discounting had to be increased even further earlier this year. 

Apple’s much anticipated 'large and thin' iPad Pro release this year already had a very high bar to pass because, in China (and globally), it was going up against last year's already large and thin MatePad Pro/M-Pencil combo, with NearLink. Rumours suggest its tablets will get a further update this year and satellite connectivity is already known to be coming (via certification channels) to some of their tablets this year. 

Huawei phones have always been ahead of iPhones in that that regard and connect to high orbit satellites. Something Apple engineers recognised in an interview as 'challenging'. 

Huawei has also included satellite voice calling on its flagships since last year. 

On AI, Huawei has enjoyed a homegrown, full stack solution for years now via its Ascend platform and offshoots. 

LLM's and tLLM's have been deployed across various industries already and today (during the Huawei Developer Conference) it announced major updates across the board on AI. 

On the wearables front Huawei has always had the battery advantage to play off, with watches going a week or two between charges. It has also played well in the fashion side of smartwatches. If those two factors are important it's a no brainer for Chinese consumers. 

According to Digitimes, Huawei is ramping production of Kirin chipsets for wearables right now and Counterpoint was estimating massive gains for Huawei wearables this year. 

In terms of 'ecosystem' Apple can't touch Huawei (or Xiaomi for that matter) in terms of breadth. HomeKit really needed Matter/Thread support to keep it going yet Huawei is already on the 5th generation of its Whole House smart solutions (which cost thousands of dollars) and has agreements with home development companies to include the solutions during construction and HarmonyOS itself is tuned to IoT and multiple devices at its core. 

https://longportapp.com/en/news/108256197

Of course, Huawei extends that idea beyond the consumer home setting into industrial Smart Cities. 

Today Huawei doubled down on the fact that some companies have an OS for every type of device whereas for Huawei it is just 'one' (HarmonyOS) and built from the ground up to be truly multi device. Then there are Open Harmony and Harmony OS Connect which form the base of open source variants and an easy way for appliance vendors, for example, to integrate HarmonyOS support in 'simple' low memory devices. 

Huawei HiSilicon has been producing IoT chipsets for years now which obviously HarmonyOS can target well. 

Apple’s 'new' iPhone 'mirroring' feature has been around on Huawei devices for years now, so Chinese users won't be too impressed by that (or many other new features that Huawei or the wider Android field has had for ages).

Obviously, folding phones are gaining traction in China and Huawei has brought many to market but Apple has none. Likewise Huawei has always had a stellar premium range which takes a cut out of the Chinese premium pie. 

Apple has abandoned its car plans but Huawei has been there for years, providing overall software solutions, cockpit solutions, autonomous driving solutions as well as mini mobile-data-centers for compute and a wide range of key EV and autonomous drivong hardware technologies. Sales are beating expectations and there is now a very wide range of car types with 'Huawei Inside'. 

In April this year, it released its ADS2.0 technology to bolster things. 

Super-fast liquid cooled Huawei car-charging stations are rolling out across China with 100,000 planned for this year alone. 

Everything is tied together over networks and cloud infrastructure and there are continuous advances in its self driving network solutions too. 

Then there is Huawei's Industrial and Residential PV solutions divisions using its cutting edge battery tech. 

It's not hard to see why Huawei has such strong options and according to the Economist, sanctions have simply made it stronger still. 

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2024/06/13/americas-assassination-attempt-on-huawei-is-backfiring

That doesn't mean things are impossible but competition is currently intense while of course, geo-political tensions remain high and last year's iPhone offerings didn't really move the needle in consumer appeal. 

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

spheric said:

anonymouse said:

spheric said:

anonymouse said:

muthuk_vanalingam said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

9secondkox2 said:

nubus said:

Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.

If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.

Apple has always been an open market player. 

So your fluff piece is moot. 

Apple operates a store. Apple gets its commission. Boom done. 

This is how it’s been done in the history of stores to this day. 

What stores dont do:

A) host signs and banners telling you to go to one of your vendors house to get a shirt for cheaper. 

use Billy bobs payment system since Billy Bob sells sandals in your store. 

C) let vendors put up their own store inside of your store and not pay a commission on sold items
and rent) 

it’s flat out criminal what this corrupt organization has done. They’ve basically robbed Apple and then made them pay to operate other people’s marketing, hosting, and discovery. The heck out of here. 

Try selling something through Walmart and pull these things: you’ll ba banned from selling through them and all affiliates and partners for life. And that’s what should have happened here. Penalize the contract-breakers, the thieves, and the hijackers, not the store operator. 

Common sense does not exist in European government. 

The store itself isn't really as much of a problem as the platform it is on. A platform that limits competitors. 

It's not about a store in a store. It's about alternative stores on the platform. 

As Apple has the keys to the gate it was deemed a gatekeeper. It got away with that unfair for years. 

So, you're saying that Apple should be able to sell music through Spotify without paying them anything right? After all, with by far the largest share of the streaming market in Europe, the Spotify platform is a gatekeeper for music, and they don't currently allow anyone else to sell music on their platform, thus limiting competitors. I mean, it's all about alternative stores, right?

What Spotify platform? Where are most Spotify users listening from? Its own platform? Is it limiting users to its own platform? 

Are you implying Spotify has a captive audience? 

So, you don't think its competitors deserve a fair shake inside the Spotify streaming ecosystem? Where's the consumer choice in that? I mean, surely Apple should be allowed to sell music/streaming inside Spotify? I don't get it, do you want to eliminate barriers to competition or not?  

If you don't get it perhaps it's because you don't want to get it.

You've moved from a Spotify 'platform' to a Spotify 'ecosystem'. I'm not seeing either of those. 

I'm seeing a service and a limited service at that because it's mainly audio that has no captive control over its users. 

Right, because you, like the EU, want to define those terms (frankly, I see them as synonymous for practical purposes) in such a way that they only apply to large US tech companies and not to companies like Spotify. Captive control? What a joke. Apple doesn't have captive control over anyone, unless of course you also define that in such a way that it only applies to Apple. People don't use Apple products because Apple has "captive control", they use them because the are typically best in class. The EU doesn't like that — I suppose they are looking nostalgically back at the heyday of Nokia, for example — because there simply aren't EU companies that typically have best in class products. The propping up of Spotify, which actually has majority marketshare and doesn't need propping up, simply highlights how entirely dishonest the rhetoric from the EU on this issue is, and makes clear what their intent really is — to hobble American companies as required to maximize the success of EU companies.

Would it really be asking too much to require that users sign off on the restrictions prior to purchase?

Is this something that EU has asked Apple to do and Apple has refused to do so far? Why is this even relevant to the discussion?

He's just raising a lot of pseudo issues — i.e., blowing smoke — in an attempt to gloss over the lawless, autocratic, protectionist behavior of the EU. The bottom line is, if you are going to require companies to do specific things to do business in the EU, a) those requirements need to be explicitly enumerated in law, and b) unless you are just running a protectionist racket, you don't "craft" them so as to only target large US tech firms.

You haven't read the law. 

Perhaps you can cite the specific sections of the law that spell out, in explicit detail, exactly what DMA compliance consists of?

I actually DO recommend reading the law. It really helps with figuring out what you're talking about, you know. 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2022.265.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2022%3A265%3ATOC

(40)

"To prevent further reinforcing their dependence on the core platform services of gatekeepers, and in order to promote multi-homing, the business users of those gatekeepers should be free to promote and choose the distribution channel that they consider most appropriate for the purpose of interacting with any end users that those business users have already acquired through core platform services provided by the gatekeeper or through other channels. This should apply to the promotion of offers, including through a software application of the business user, and any form of communication and conclusion of contracts between business users and end users. An acquired end user is an end user who has already entered into a commercial relationship with the business user and, where applicable, the gatekeeper has been directly or indirectly remunerated by the business user for facilitating the initial acquisition of the end user by the business user. Such commercial relationships can be on either a paid or a free basis, such as free trials or free service tiers, and can have been entered into either on the core platform service of the gatekeeper or through any other channel. Conversely, end users should also be free to choose offers of such business users and to enter into contracts with them either through core platform services of the gatekeeper, if applicable, or from a direct distribution channel of the business user or another indirect channel that such business user uses.

(41)

The ability of end users to acquire content, subscriptions, features or other items outside the core platform services of the gatekeeper should not be undermined or restricted. In particular, a situation should be avoided whereby gatekeepers restrict end users from access to, and use of, such services via a software application running on their core platform service. For example, subscribers to online content purchased outside a software application, software application store or virtual assistant should not be prevented from accessing such online content on a software application on the core platform service of the gatekeeper simply because it was purchased outside such software application, software application store or virtual assistant."

Which of these bits do you find overly vague or difficult to understand?

There's rather a lot more equally clearly-worded scenarios and explanations. I suggest you read all of them; that should resolve most all of your confusion. 

Well, I don't see anything there that says Apple cannot impose, for example, a core technology fee. Based on that, it seems that they are in full compliance. So what exactly is the EU's problem?

Perhaps it would be useful for you to cite sections that Apple isn't in compliance with as less a waste of everyone's time.

Why not just read through the entire text and learn why it exists? 

"(32)

For the purpose of this Regulation, contestability should relate to the ability of undertakings to effectively overcome barriers to entry and expansion and challenge the gatekeeper on the merits of their products and services. The features of core platform services in the digital sector, such as network effects, strong economies of scale, and benefits from data have limited the contestability of those services and the related ecosystems. Such a weak contestability reduces the incentives to innovate and improve products and services for the gatekeeper, its business users, its challengers and customers and thus negatively affects the innovation potential of the wider online platform economy. Contestability of the services in the digital sector can also be limited if there is more than one gatekeeper for a core platform service. This Regulation should therefore ban certain practices by gatekeepers that are liable to increase barriers to entry or expansion, and impose certain obligations on gatekeepers that tend to lower those barriers. The obligations should also address situations where the position of the gatekeeper may be entrenched to such an extent that inter-platform competition is not effective in the short term, meaning that intra-platform competition needs to be created or increased."

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32022R1925

Are you saying you think Apple's Core Technology Fee works well with that tiny extract? Or does it fly directly in the face of it?

Once you have read the whole text please tell me what the general takeaway is with regards to competition and removing barriers of entry. 

I don't see any mention of anything like Apple's Core Technology Fee. Once again, what's going on here is that the law expresses vague sentiments couched in dense legalese and when the EU doesn't like the compliance they simply make up new rules after the fact. 

You will never ever see a reference to Apple's Core Technology Fee in the legislation. Why would you even expect to? You might see reference to it in any eventual fine, though. 

Part of the law is to effectively overcome barriers of entry and to improve contestability.

The CTF is there and acts as a barrier of entry and reduces contestability. At least IMO. 

Do you think the EU will see things differently if you take into account what is stated in the text?

anonymouse said:

spheric said:

anonymouse said:

spheric said:

anonymouse said:

muthuk_vanalingam said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

9secondkox2 said:

nubus said:

Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.

If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.

Apple has always been an open market player. 

So your fluff piece is moot. 

Apple operates a store. Apple gets its commission. Boom done. 

This is how it’s been done in the history of stores to this day. 

What stores dont do:

A) host signs and banners telling you to go to one of your vendors house to get a shirt for cheaper. 

use Billy bobs payment system since Billy Bob sells sandals in your store. 

C) let vendors put up their own store inside of your store and not pay a commission on sold items
and rent) 

it’s flat out criminal what this corrupt organization has done. They’ve basically robbed Apple and then made them pay to operate other people’s marketing, hosting, and discovery. The heck out of here. 

Try selling something through Walmart and pull these things: you’ll ba banned from selling through them and all affiliates and partners for life. And that’s what should have happened here. Penalize the contract-breakers, the thieves, and the hijackers, not the store operator. 

Common sense does not exist in European government. 

The store itself isn't really as much of a problem as the platform it is on. A platform that limits competitors. 

It's not about a store in a store. It's about alternative stores on the platform. 

As Apple has the keys to the gate it was deemed a gatekeeper. It got away with that unfair for years. 

So, you're saying that Apple should be able to sell music through Spotify without paying them anything right? After all, with by far the largest share of the streaming market in Europe, the Spotify platform is a gatekeeper for music, and they don't currently allow anyone else to sell music on their platform, thus limiting competitors. I mean, it's all about alternative stores, right?

What Spotify platform? Where are most Spotify users listening from? Its own platform? Is it limiting users to its own platform? 

Are you implying Spotify has a captive audience? 

So, you don't think its competitors deserve a fair shake inside the Spotify streaming ecosystem? Where's the consumer choice in that? I mean, surely Apple should be allowed to sell music/streaming inside Spotify? I don't get it, do you want to eliminate barriers to competition or not?  

If you don't get it perhaps it's because you don't want to get it.

You've moved from a Spotify 'platform' to a Spotify 'ecosystem'. I'm not seeing either of those. 

I'm seeing a service and a limited service at that because it's mainly audio that has no captive control over its users. 

Right, because you, like the EU, want to define those terms (frankly, I see them as synonymous for practical purposes) in such a way that they only apply to large US tech companies and not to companies like Spotify. Captive control? What a joke. Apple doesn't have captive control over anyone, unless of course you also define that in such a way that it only applies to Apple. People don't use Apple products because Apple has "captive control", they use them because the are typically best in class. The EU doesn't like that — I suppose they are looking nostalgically back at the heyday of Nokia, for example — because there simply aren't EU companies that typically have best in class products. The propping up of Spotify, which actually has majority marketshare and doesn't need propping up, simply highlights how entirely dishonest the rhetoric from the EU on this issue is, and makes clear what their intent really is — to hobble American companies as required to maximize the success of EU companies.

Would it really be asking too much to require that users sign off on the restrictions prior to purchase?

Is this something that EU has asked Apple to do and Apple has refused to do so far? Why is this even relevant to the discussion?

He's just raising a lot of pseudo issues — i.e., blowing smoke — in an attempt to gloss over the lawless, autocratic, protectionist behavior of the EU. The bottom line is, if you are going to require companies to do specific things to do business in the EU, a) those requirements need to be explicitly enumerated in law, and b) unless you are just running a protectionist racket, you don't "craft" them so as to only target large US tech firms.

You haven't read the law. 

Perhaps you can cite the specific sections of the law that spell out, in explicit detail, exactly what DMA compliance consists of?

I actually DO recommend reading the law. It really helps with figuring out what you're talking about, you know. 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2022.265.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2022%3A265%3ATOC

(40)

"To prevent further reinforcing their dependence on the core platform services of gatekeepers, and in order to promote multi-homing, the business users of those gatekeepers should be free to promote and choose the distribution channel that they consider most appropriate for the purpose of interacting with any end users that those business users have already acquired through core platform services provided by the gatekeeper or through other channels. This should apply to the promotion of offers, including through a software application of the business user, and any form of communication and conclusion of contracts between business users and end users. An acquired end user is an end user who has already entered into a commercial relationship with the business user and, where applicable, the gatekeeper has been directly or indirectly remunerated by the business user for facilitating the initial acquisition of the end user by the business user. Such commercial relationships can be on either a paid or a free basis, such as free trials or free service tiers, and can have been entered into either on the core platform service of the gatekeeper or through any other channel. Conversely, end users should also be free to choose offers of such business users and to enter into contracts with them either through core platform services of the gatekeeper, if applicable, or from a direct distribution channel of the business user or another indirect channel that such business user uses.

(41)

The ability of end users to acquire content, subscriptions, features or other items outside the core platform services of the gatekeeper should not be undermined or restricted. In particular, a situation should be avoided whereby gatekeepers restrict end users from access to, and use of, such services via a software application running on their core platform service. For example, subscribers to online content purchased outside a software application, software application store or virtual assistant should not be prevented from accessing such online content on a software application on the core platform service of the gatekeeper simply because it was purchased outside such software application, software application store or virtual assistant."

Which of these bits do you find overly vague or difficult to understand?

There's rather a lot more equally clearly-worded scenarios and explanations. I suggest you read all of them; that should resolve most all of your confusion. 

Well, I don't see anything there that says Apple cannot impose, for example, a core technology fee. Based on that, it seems that they are in full compliance. So what exactly is the EU's problem?

Perhaps it would be useful for you to cite sections that Apple isn't in compliance with as less a waste of everyone's time.

Why not just read through the entire text and learn why it exists? 

"(32)

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

9secondkox2 said:

nubus said:

Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.

If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.

Apple has always been an open market player. 

So your fluff piece is moot. 

Apple operates a store. Apple gets its commission. Boom done. 

This is how it’s been done in the history of stores to this day. 

What stores dont do:

A) host signs and banners telling you to go to one of your vendors house to get a shirt for cheaper. 

use Billy bobs payment system since Billy Bob sells sandals in your store. 

C) let vendors put up their own store inside of your store and not pay a commission on sold items
and rent) 

it’s flat out criminal what this corrupt organization has done. They’ve basically robbed Apple and then made them pay to operate other people’s marketing, hosting, and discovery. The heck out of here. 

Try selling something through Walmart and pull these things: you’ll ba banned from selling through them and all affiliates and partners for life. And that’s what should have happened here. Penalize the contract-breakers, the thieves, and the hijackers, not the store operator. 

Common sense does not exist in European government. 

The store itself isn't really as much of a problem as the platform it is on. A platform that limits competitors. 

It's not about a store in a store. It's about alternative stores on the platform. 

As Apple has the keys to the gate it was deemed a gatekeeper. It got away with that unfair for years. 

So, you're saying that Apple should be able to sell music through Spotify without paying them anything right? After all, with by far the largest share of the streaming market in Europe, the Spotify platform is a gatekeeper for music, and they don't currently allow anyone else to sell music on their platform, thus limiting competitors. I mean, it's all about alternative stores, right?

What Spotify platform? Where are most Spotify users listening from? Its own platform? Is it limiting users to its own platform? 

Are you implying Spotify has a captive audience?