dewme

Apple excels at building products and services that are distinctly different from commodity. Why does the EU want to destroy something that makes Apple so unique and different by forcing Apple to lower its standards down to the level of its competitors? Many of those are barely surviving because they have no distinction with their bland and generic products and services. Is it the EU regulator’s jobs to ensure that even producers who suck still get a piece of the pie?

So does this mean Spotify will now be required to put information and links on their website and apps to let their users know that they can also purchase streaming services on Apple Music and other streaming services? There’s probably millions of EU citizens that have no idea of the existence of any alternatives to Spotify. Sure…

Yeah, this is pure protectionism. I know there’s a lot of folks that will parrot the same list of rules, regulations, and laws that Apple is supposedly violating. But remember that the same folks who are coming after Apple and other highly successful and self-made companies that are not in the EU for massive cash payouts are the same ones who crafted those rules, regulations, and laws. I suspect that the the laws that the EU created were meticulously and precisely crafted to target Apple and other high value non-EU companies. If you make the rules specifically to advance your own position and enforce financial penalties against specific companies or individuals for noncompliance, well that is what is called extortion, at least outside of the EU. 

Where’s the big EU company that is competing with Apple in the same markets that Apple competes in? There aren’t any. Why? So with a lack of an ability to compete for customers based on innovation and value they create regulations, enact laws, and prescribe penalties - all of which they created to weaponize their legal system for lack of being able to compete on a level playing field. If you’re an app developer and you’re not happy with the terms & conditions that Apple defines for Apple’s system, one that was created at great expense, go talk to another system owner. Nobody is forced to partner with Apple. Find someone else or build your own system. Apple is not a public utility created using public funds. It’s not a cartel of one either. Nobody is required to use a single piece of Apple hardware, software, media, or whatever. Don’t like it, don’t like the terms & conditions, don’t like that it’s not homegrown? Find someone else who is more compatible with your needs and quit trying to fix something you don’t own that’s not broken.

dutchlord said:

$10bn gone, no Apple Car, nothing. Who’s head is gonna roll? Insane expensive hobby…..

It's not at all a hobby. It's called R&D.  All R&D is a combination of Research and Development. Those who work in R&D can usually define what proportion of their work is on one side or the other. Some R&D work is pure research, Big R - No D, with no expectation that any sellable product will come out of the project at its completion. But a hell of a lot of intellectual property (IP), new discoveries, and proof of concept prototypes at various levels of granularity may result that have immense value to the company's future. Then there are what some folks call Big R - Little D projects that involve lots of discovery and IP capture and perhaps a significant working prototype at completion. Likewise, Little R - Big D projects that may extend almost-working or working prototypes into systems that can be engineered, refined, and manufactured for use by real customers. And of course there is pure Development.

No two R&D projects are the same and the weighting between the R and the D can be infinitely variable. Some projects start out with one mix of R&D but end up settling for something that is balanced differently. For companies like Apple who are financing their own R&D any change in the balance is up to them, but you can rest assured that Apple will definitely capture real value from what they've invested. The artifacts of the R part is their's to exploit whenever the time or circumstances present themselves. Is there a little bit of making lemonade going on here? Sure, but there are so many variables involved with any R&D project and at some point you have to make the call to get out with what you can before you end up going down a rat hole or money pit, or the ultimate boneheaded move, trying to save face by stumbling along and delaying until all of the time and money has been exhausted and you still have nothing to show for it. This behavior is pretty much called living a lie. 

Like Steve Jobs always alluded to, sometimes you're going to be graded based on what you don't do rather than what you do. 

Edit: If you need to see an example of what happens when a doomed project, one that should have pulled the plug much sooner, stumbles along here you go: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2024-29

But that's a paltry penalty compared to the destruction of hopes and dreams of the people affected. 

avon b7 said:

For a luxury device where the customer has said the device was treated correctly I do believe a 'no questions asked' straight swap would be better than activating the Applecare option as that leaves a bad taste in the mouth but the 'issue' itself, at least right now, still seems to be affecting only a tiny fraction of users. 

Right on. We don't need another "You're holding it wrong" flavored meme associated with this product.

nubus said:

dewme said:

Are EU consumers taking advantage of the bludgeoning of the "evil gatekeepers" and suddenly basking in the glory of being able to purchase EU made products and services at more affordable prices? That is the goal, improving choice and driving lower prices, isn't it? 

Mac-users as a group have gained most from regulation (though from US). At one point 95% of all users were on the Microsoft IE browser with sites demanding ActiveX that only worked on Windows. It forced consumers to Windows as Mac browsers including IE for Mac didn't work with their banks or other basic systems. I had to switch bank to stay on Mac, but most didn't. 

US regulation forced the unbundling of IE from Windows and it opened the web + made Mac a platform that could be used on the level as Windows for most people. And the fear of regulation forced Microsoft to make a deal with Apple to producing MS Office for "at least 5 years" + made a huge investment (+3% of Apple). At that time Apple was 90 days from going bankrupt. Microsoft needed Apple to stay alive to keep US authorities at bay. Thanks to US regulation we still have Apple and competition.

Thank you for your informative response. Here in the US actions taken to supposedly help US consumers and businesses be more competitive against foreign suppliers very often does little more than force US consumers to pay more for the products that are in the “protected” category.