avon b7

StrangeDays said:

Why do these all seem like silly tech demos to me? I have zero intention to ask an app to write a letter or create a fable. Or to build a grocery list for a meal I can’t be bothered to decide on myself. Oh but this is innovation and Apple is late to the game! lol

andreas71 said:

bloggerblog said:

A Vision Pro could be your personal computer, just like bringing in a laptop or an iPad. Is this only for residents of Germany, are tourists exempt?

Of course tourists are exempt.

Importing a good means you bring it to the EU with the goal for the item to remain there.Travelers with their personal belongings that they bring for the purpose of their trip and take home with them again never pay VAT upon entry.

Now, in situations where a customs officer can question this intent you may have burden of proof that you are a traveler and the device will leave the EU together with you once you go home. If there is doubt VAT payment could be imposed on you to secure compliance with the option of getting it back upon proof of the item leaving the EU. In normal day to day travel this may not occur.

Now, when an EU citizen return from the US with an item not on sale yet in the EU the situation is completely different. Now the assumption is that it is very likely that this device is being imported by an EU citizen with the intent of keeping the device in the EU - therefore customs declaration is mandatory.

Trying this with such a high profile device that has such high publicity at the moment is clearly stupid and everybody who tries this to save paying VAT cannot complain when the gamble does not pay off and the device is gone for some time.

longfang said:

M68000 said:

AppleZulu said:

This won’t happen. It serves no purpose beyond novelty, while adding expense, decreasing durability, increasing warranty claims, and lowering customer satisfaction ratings. 

But some people must want them.  It seems Samsung is selling a lot of them.  

A lot compared to what?

9secondkox2 said:

avon b7 said:

9secondkox2 said:

avon b7 said:

9secondkox2 said:

avon b7 said:

9secondkox2 said:

avon b7 said:

9secondkox2 said:

avon b7 said:

The whole point is choice. 

Contact of any kind, be it in person or online, comes with risks. 

The App Store itself comes with risks and there is literally nothing Apple can do to really eliminate those risks. We live with them and hope a combination of common sense and common protections will reduce the chances of being impacted. 

The risks exist for everyone, though. 

Are those 600 APIs risk free? Probably not. Will there be some nasty bugs sitting in them? We live with these risks day to day. Some malicious, some not. 

It is also entirely possible for an app store to offer more protections and have a better human review process than the official Apple App Store. I wonder what Phil would say to that? 

It can swing both ways but the user must decide, not Apple (or not only Apple at least). 

It's also entirely possible that an app store could be more restrictive than the App Store with regards to content. 

Anyone who thinks it is dangerous to use non-Apple sanctioned app store will be able to completely ignore third party app stores and any of those risks. 

The most important thing though, is that the user will be choosing to do so and not be obliged to pass through one toll gate where only Apple reaps the rewards in detriment to both users and competitors through lack of competition. 

At the end of the day, and Phil understands this, it's more about money than security. 

The Apple App Store has paid out billions, Apple says. It made a pretty penny in the process (even when taking into account running costs). 

What the EU is trying to do is level the field. Choice is part of that. 

People already have choice. Choice of apps, choice of phones, choice of providers, etc. 

What you propose is a misnomer. 

Right now you can get any app from any company on the App Store. Plenty of choice. 

Oh, wait. You’re not talking about choice, you’re talking about stripping the rights of a business to make money off of something they built with their hard earned money, time, energy, and risk taking - in order for others to get a free ride. 

Sorry. That’s not how business work at its core.

companies can sell apps. But they pay apple a platform commission just like you do when you sell anywhere, be it brick and mortar stores, online retailers, bookstores, coffee shops, etc. 

what you advocate is punishing successful companies and removing their right to earn for their hard earned sales space while propping up the less successful by forcibly making the successful pay for their ride. 

That’s theft at gunpoint. 

You clearly haven't read anything on the DMA/DSA package. 

I suggest you do.

"Sorry. That’s not how business work at its core."

You will find that is completely wrong at its core when applied to the situation the EU (with good reason) wants to tackle. 

Now, if Apple agreed with you, it would have taken measures well before now to get any wrongs righted. 

The fact that it hasn't, says it all and it had margin to do so. 

The hard truth is that Apple knows it's a gatekeeper and has been for a while now. 

It had a good ride. Google too! And the others. 

It's been extremely lucky (the EU banks haven't been) that the EU didn't deem the App Store contract clauses abusive and demand the return of funds to developers and customers. 

The complaints never asked for that. 

Over the last ten years Spanish banks alone have had to return billions to customers. 

If it had been up for consideration I wouldn't like to guess which way that would have gone. 

Your idea of how business works is being challenged in the EU, South Korea, Japan (?) and what do you think will happen in the US? The land of the lobby.

Which way do you think things will go there? 

People have not had choice. There is no argument about that and one of the reasons Apple probably hasn't fought this legally is that it knows full well that the 'informational' side of the 'contract' with users is not transparent in any way. 

Choice was taken from them, in the vast majority of cases without them even knowing because they were never informed. 

I have yet to meet an iOS user that has a relatively decent understanding of the restrictions that buying an iDevice brings. 

I would love for someone to officially tackle that particular issue. 

The EU wants to give that choice back to users. 

Apple has made a proposition but, to be brutally honest, I can't see how it meets even the premise of the preamble of the legal text, let alone the text itself.

But we will see. 

You presume so much. I’m guess that helps your narrative rather than actual comprehension. 

I have been following this since it was just a rumor. 

It’s not some great mystery or complex issue. It’s a story of abuse of power on the part of a government and greed on the part of SOME developers. 

Free lesson: the purpose of business is to make a profit. That’s the entire point. Now you have some unscrupulous folks who will do any shady thing (a la epic) to make a dime and then you have Apple, which uses its financial success as a means to bring change for the better in terms of human rights, our God-given resources in this planet, and ethical practices. 

The EU wants to pretend that there is only one side to this issue - that developers are somehow being treated unfairly and that Apple needs to concede its policies and profits in order to benefit those companies. 

There is also Apple’s side as a legit business that has enhanced the lives of countless people the world over. Then there is the third side of this triangle which is the consumer, who purposely buys Apple for the reliability, convenience, security and privacy they offer in comparison to the other choices they have. 

The easily understood problem with that is that there is no problem with the situation as it was. 

Apple had built (at great risk in a cutthroat arena mind you), a platform that is differentiated (another extremely important business principle) by its emphasis on security and privacy while operating one of the first digital stores of its kind. 

This store followed the familiar, fair, and perfectly legal model used by brick and mortar stores, coffee shops, bookstores, Nintendo cartridges or App Store, PlayStation discs or App Store, etc. 

if you have a product that you want discovered and bought by a certain large audience, you pay a commission to be discovered and bought on said platform and enjoy the rewards. 

when you go into a barnes and noble store, you don’t find a competing bookstore operating out of a pop up tent inside. You find books by authors and publishers who’ve partnered with barnes and noble and pay a significant platform fee to be featured at their bookstores. Same thing with Walmart, etc. 

payment systems are another thing. You don’t sell an item through Walmart and then set up your own kiosk inside with your own payment system so Walmart can’t make their just due. You use their payment sustem, they account for it and you get your cut. Your barcodes and shipping numbers ensure that your accounting keeps theirs honest, etc. 

everybody wins. 

What you’re pushing for and want to see the eu do, is that the developers win the lottery at apples expense. It’s unjust, unfair, corrupt, and against basic business ethics and principles. 

Here, let’s put it in common man logic:

sid apple violate any laws in the 15 years or so that the App Store has been running? 

No. 

They literally have to make a new rule in order to force an agenda (whether at the smokescreen behest of some shady developers or not). They literally had to create a box from thin air (“gatekeeper”)to put companies such as apple into in order to make their scheme work. 

Hopefully we see whoever the next American admin is go after the eu for this kind of extortion and stand up for American companies at home and abroad. You don’t just shaft Apple like that in a sweeping legislation as if their side of the story (and the customers!!!) doesn’t matter. 

This has nothing to do with brick and mortar stores and, of course, times have changed.

Hence the DMA/DSA package. 

Business cannot be done at any cost and as you will see right here on AI, a class action suit against the App Store has just been given the go ahead. 

You might be swimming against the current. 

No one is shafting anyone here. 

Of course times change. But the legal principles don’t. Unless of course you’re the eh or similar corrupt organization. 

Swimming against the current is something apple has been doing since inception. Nevertheless it’s the eu that has swam against the current of 15 years precedent in this case. 

Hence as you say a new ruling which goes against the past 15 years of perfectly legal standing. 

And yes the si is shafting apple and consumers here. That’s how it is. You saying the opposite unfortunately doesn’t make it true. 

So, what do you think of the class action suit that just got the go ahead? 

No legal principles have changed but here we have a US judge clearing the case to move forward on anti-trust grounds and harming consumers. 

You are trying to argue business as usual and no wrongdoing but literally all over the world Apple is being accused of abuse for one App Store related issue or another. 

Stay on the subject. There will always be more lawsuits designed to take down successful operations. We are talking about the official ruling from the eu (and related threat to come down hard on apple if they do t like the fact that apple still makes a profit off its platform). Focus man.

I'm not straying. Far from it. 

I'm saying that the same claims (or close variants on them) are playing out in other markets. Many markets. The US included. And surely with more to follow. 

If your claim of 'that is not how business is done' were relevant, surely the same legal issues wouldn't be getting fired at Apple from all sides. 

Clearly there is more to this than EU 'strong action' and that action has nothing to do with why the DMA/DSA was created but for potential non-compliance with it.

It’s not a variant. It’s a separate thing. Seriously bro. 

You’re trying to build your case by saying “oh look. Over here they’re after apple too.”

of course they are. Everyone wants a piece. 

Especially if they smell blood. 

But they’re not related. 

My claim is accurate. That’s not how business is done. You can look literally anywhere. Even in the eu to see the hypocrisy. The way they invented to get away with it is to manufacture the title of “gatekeeper” for successful companies in order to unfairly harm them. 

It’s f course the eh isn’t America where our laws have historically been far more fair and conducive to healthy business and ethics. 

The rules has chosen a tact where they will actively harm a successful company and steal from them in order to “help” a less successful company by forcing the successful company to give them a platform for free - actually not free. At apples expense. 

The way apple has rectified this is masterful. If the eu tries to thwart that as well, that’s when the USA should step in with sanctions, ridiculous tariffs and trade lockdowns.  That’s way out of line. If the eu wants to do that, it furthers the idea that the only reason for this is to force apple and companies that are successful like them to lose money and standing. 

Apple was bullied into this. They were forced to comply. The only other option is to leave the run beteft of their offerings. Something that would not only be undesirable for apple, but would make life miserable for those living under the draconian eu leadership. 

charlesn said:

avon b7 said:

The whole point is choice. 

It can swing both ways but the user must decide, not Apple (or not only Apple at least). 

The user DOES decide at the point of purchase. Don't like the walled garden? Great! Don't buy into it! There's an entire world of Android phones, with far more variety than Apple offers, from which you can choose. People who buy Apple products CHOOSE the walled garden. And what you're saying is that they have no right to make that choice.