avon b7

blastdoor said:

jesusfreak said:

Why is it we can't reproduce this infrastructure?   It seems like it is more a matter of will, then not being able to do it?

In the 90s the US had just won the Cold War and we believed we were invincible. We thought free trade would always work to everyone’s mutual benefit.

Those were not crazy thoughts. They weren’t entirely wrong, either. But our leaders were focused on relatively short term benefits to trade while the Chinese were playing the long game. And we did not appreciate the degree to which their “long game” was not to become more democratic, but rather to make authoritarianism great again. We could have all gotten rich together, but that’s not what the CCP wanted. They wanted to rebuild an empire.

Ross Perot’s warnings about NAFTA were wrong, but if he had made those warnings about China he would have been closer to right. Our industrial base was hollowed out by a deliberate multi decade effort by the Chinese to do exactly that.

The “never” in the title of this article is consistent with the kind of thinking that made that hollowing out possible. In the 90s, it seemed such a thing could ‘never’ happen. But now we find ourselves living in “never.’ 

The bright side is that we can reverse this decline and the CHIPS Act is an example of how to do it. Despite this article’s negative tone, this fab in Arizona is a big deal. With continued efforts, we can rebuild our industrial base. 

With multiple decades of dollar hegemony it's fair to say that the US never really had free trade as a goal.

It created its own empire and with the fall of the Soviet Union, it felt empowered in a mostly uni-polar world. 

The question is if the empire status was abused. Over the coming 10 to 20 years we will see that answered.

In that time the world will, and without doubt, become multi-polar and a new empire will arise. 

How the US reacts to the inevitable is up for interpretation. 

Subsidies are fine (the norm even) but the costs are there. In the case of TSMC they made it clear from the outset that chips made in the US would be more expensive than the same kind of Chips made elsewhere. That is a trade disadvantage. 

teejay2012 said:

When are we all going to be totally exhausted by endless Apple attacks from outraged politicians, regulators and commenters? When you are in charge of making laws, you can make anything illegal. Watching a recent series on Thomas Cromwell during Henry VIII's rule (fascinating), you can see that the UK has lead the world in that LOL. No doubt Apple will be made to conform with 'laws' but really why can't the UK (and EU) be honest about the reason they are doing this? 'We need money, Apple has money. We need to become competitive in global tech. Apple is a leader in global tech that is hard to beat on a level field'. And finally, how do you say 'Apple does NOT have a monopoly' in English?  Saying you have a monopoly on unique devices you make, which are a small part of the market of devices that do the same thing,  can hardly be called a monopoly... unless of course you can make up laws and definitions.

The new laws coming into force around the world and investigations into consumer harm, abusing dominant position etc are all simply a reflection of digital era dynamics. 

Apple, along with all of the other Big Tech players enjoyed 'first mover' status and, until relatively recently at least, fell under the radar of legislators. This is typical of any new technology which has capacity to alter the way we live.

When electric scooters began appearing on our streets and pavements they were simply a curiosity for most people. Fast forward to 2025 and new legislation (local and national) is being pumped out all over the place to regulate what has now become a plague on a global scale. 

If anything has a large enough impact on society you can rest assured that legislation to cover it will arrive at some point. Logically, almost always after the fact. 

Together with that regulation, governing bodies may well decide to take a closer look at how the main players behaved in the past. Especially if complaints are filed. 

All Big Tech has been on the hook for abuses. Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon... 

And often for good and clear reasons. 

Many of them have been found to have abused their dominant positions and tilted the playing fields in their favour.

In the case of the major digital platforms, you should be able to see that many have operated as de facto monopolies and as a result, terms such as 'Gatekeepers' have emerged. It's why we will probably gradually get another accepted meaning for the term 'monopoly'. 

If someone were to take a very deep dive into what has happened over the last ten years we would surely be shocked (are shocked) to see how much some companies have got away with. First mover status often allows you to 'write the rules'. That is until you fall under the microscope. 

It was only recently that the true numbers of Apple's 'Google default search' deal came to light. If it weren't for an investigation, those numbers would have remained well hidden. In that case it is the DoJ. In others it is the EU, Japan, South Korea etc.

From that point on it's mostly a case of Big Tech having to adapt to the new rules (often dragging its collective feet and pushing the limits of compliance). 

We have even seen the term 'malicious compliance' take on new, tech related, significance. 

ssfe11 said:

This ridiculous EU and UK bullying nonsense will absolutely stop under the Trump Administration. Biden did nothing to protect our companies. Beat Apple with innovation not with govt bullying. Stop whining and get to work. 

It is ironic then that one of the common criticisms is that Apple's de facto monopoly status actually stifled innovation along with causing consumer harm through stifling competition.

Trump, in geopolitical terms, is a stop gap. Nothing more. You should be looking beyond his term into what might come after him. That may well see increased scrutiny of Big Tech and especially the people who control it. 

JMaille said:

So if they win their case against Apple does that mean that Sainsbury's, Asda, and others will be able to start sitting up mini-shops inside all the TESCOs without paying TESCO anything and without TESCO being able to stop them?  I mean that would be better for consumers too, wouldn't it?  After all everyone knows TESCO is making enough money as it is, they can afford to allow it, right?

None of those are gatekeepers. Apple is. 

Nothing mentioned in the article from Apple actually hit the complaint head on. 

Developers providing 'free' apps not having to pay Apple is irrelevant to the complaint. 

Whatever percentage of 'free' apps is available is also irrevelant.

That Apple reduced its commissions for some developers in some circumstances is irrevelant too. 

The same arguments were made by Apple in the EU. 

That Apple has a de facto monopoly on iDevices (an entire platform where users cannot move in and out without incurring device specific costs and are never informed of the restrictions Apple imposes prior to purchase) through its gatekeeper status is relevant to the complaint as far as I can tell (without having read through the text), and in the EU and other jurisdictions it is clear that that was considered wrong.

We'll have to wait and see how this plays out. It's not clearcut but I'd say in the not too distant future, and irrespective of this case and possible fine, Apple will have third party App Stores in the UK.

There may be political pushback from the US but I doubt it will be successful. 

Honor was divested from Huawei a few years ago as a result of sanctions.

It is no longer an official subsidiary of Huawei and Huawei itself pulled out of consumer sales in Indonesia in 2020 as a result of government regulations (the same regulations Apple is dealing with). 

I don't know if they have plans to re-enter the market.