foregoneconclusion

Quality of writing and casting are the two most important factors for a TV show. I think Apple has also made some errors with the its choices of source content. Example: Isaac Asimov may be a classic sci-fi writer but his popularity was at its peak back in the 60s and 70s. Pouring money into adapting the Foundation series was always kind of an odd choice. More contemporary sci-fi book adaptations (like what they're going to do with 'Neuromancer') or even something like the Fallout video game adaptation makes more sense from the angle of attracting streaming viewers. 

xRAHx said:

There are two operating systems for smartphones: Android and iOS. Alphabet/Google and Apple have a duopoly here.

----

The EU wants freedom for EU citizens who own computers called smartphones. The owners of the computers shall decide where they buy software. Not Google. Not Apple.

Software developers are the ones who decide where consumers can buy their software. Apple originally chose to use the console model for software on mobile. Google originally chose the Windows model for software on mobile. As it turns out, the console model was the one with users who were more willing to pay for apps. So typically developers would choose to release on iOS first and then release on Android at a later date. Mobile developers preferred to give priority to the platform that had more paying customers. This dynamic is also true on the desktop duopoly. Developers that produce games are more likely to release them on Windows because that's where there are more paying customers. They don't say "we must release on both platforms because they both have the same style of software distribution". This is the fallacy of what the EU (and yourself) are trying to sell. The "freedom" that you're talking about is really just developers looking at which platforms generate the most revenue for them. A consumer may want a macOS version of Elden Ring but it's not the software distribution model that's going to make it happen. 

xRAHx said:

indiebug said:

EU commission head is targeting Apple either because she has clandestinely sided with its competitors or as a means to milk American companies which are far ahead of European counterparts. EU is literally finding ways to squeeze money out of American tech giants. EU s policies are based on protectionism and jealousy towards Big American brands. This is awful and anyone with common sense can understand. Interoperability- nonsense. Next, make iMovie compatible with android. Why does not Microsoft make windows compatible with Mac? Why no android on iPhone.  All nonsensical hogwash 

The EU commission requires owners of market-dominating operating systems not to set their own browsers as the default, but to show users a selection of competing browsers during setup, from which they should choose one as the default.

The EU commission wants the owners of the market-dominating operating systems not to prevent app developers from advertising the sale of licenses in their own apps. 

European iOS and iPadOS users shall become free to choose who they want to buy apps and content from. Apple shall not stay the monopoly reseller of apps for iOS and iPadOS in the EU. The EU does not want Apple to be able to continue to prevent certain apps from being available on iOS and iPadOS. European Users of iOS and iPadOS shall become able to freely develop, distribute, install, sell and buy apps for iOS and iPadOS.

That is more freedom for European users, that is more freedom for developers all over the world who want to sell apps for iOS and iPadOS in the EU, that is less freedom for Apple in the EU.

The EU commission demands that the owners of the market-dominating operating systems do not use the APIs of the operating systems exclusively for themselves, but that the owners of these operating systems allow all app developers to use the APIs of the operating systems so that there are more better applications that run on all operating systems.

The EU commission does not require Apple to develop apps for other operating systems.

First point: I don't think anyone has much of an issue with this. The EU does also require Apple to allow browsers to use their own engine.

Second: Not sure why the EU thinks this is important. Advertising licenses inside an app is not typical for any platform. Smartphone users also have access to all kinds of information outside of apps and the App Store on the same device...internet, social media, email, text messages, direct messages etc. Basically, you have to pretend that smartphone users aren't aware that they can get information about developers and their products/services anywhere other than inside apps or the App Store in order to think this is important.

Third: Apple monopolizes app distribution because iOS/iPadOS and iPhone/iPad hardware are their own IP. That formula has been around for decades and was never previously considered to be anti-competitive since there is a high degree of difficulty in achieving success with it commercially. Think of all the various video game consoles that have either flopped or been unable to maintain viability in the long run. Think of Microsoft's attempt at a smartphone. It's not a magic formula for market dominance. Apple does have limits for what it allows to be sold in the App Store but that is true of any store...digital or brick/mortar. For the most part though, it's really the app developers that choose whether or not to provide their apps on iOS. Example: Microsoft made a big stink about its game streaming app not being allowed on the App Store but they had never previously ported 1st party games to the App Store either. They preferred to limit their own gaming apps to Windows/Xbox.

Fourth: Requiring access to APIs across the board is kind of an odd stance since not every API can be linked to market competition. I can see how it makes sense for something like NFC/Wallet or the browser engine aspect, i.e., targeted situations. This seems like a big overreach on the part of the EU similar to the third point above.  

longfang said:

foregoneconclusion said:

Apple was fined $1.8 billion for the complete fantasy that Apple Music harmed streaming competition so it’s understandable that they would be slow to roll out certain features in the EU. 

Note that Vestager is implying that Apple’s version of AI is somehow anticompetitive even though it isn’t available anywhere in the world at the moment and AI products are flooding the overall martket.

If Apple Intelligence is as Vestager sayd anticompetitive then would withholding it from the EU be a good thing from their perspective?

Not if the point of the DMA is to levy gigantic fines rather than increase competition. 

gatorguy said: What revenue? If Apple complies then there are no fines. Both Google and Microsoft have already dealt with this. For Apple, it's all new. 

The $1.8 billion fine per supposed "abusive" rules for music streaming in the App Store. If you actually look at the history of music streaming on iOS, the level of the fine is totally ridiculous. Spotify, the main complainant, only offered IAP for a total of two years on the App Store and only one of those years involved Apple Music as a competitor. The reality is that Spotify's preferred approach to the App Store was available to them right from the start: have the free ad-supported version available to download from the App Store and have the premium subscription version only available for sign-up online. Apple didn't receive any commission from that approach and Spotify was able to successfully grow their business using it. 

Look at these stats for the United States alone...Spotify's business started a dramatic upward curve in 2016. Abuse? It has no basis in reality. 
https://www.statista.com/statistics/293749/spotify-pandora-number-active-users/