dewme

The tone of these articles seem to present the EU regulators as constantly salivating to inflict as much damage as possible on Apple have me shaking my head. What exactly is it about Apple that the EU regulators so deeply loath? Is this a result of the EU not having an Apple-equivalent company that can compete in the same market that Apple serves? It's not like consumers don't have a choice.

If Nokia was in Apple's current position would they also be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny, forceful oversight, and harassment?  

It's not that the EU doesn't have its own heavyweight companies that dominate the markets that they are in, especially in oil & gas and automotive. Maybe it's hidden out of direct view, but I don't see the US going after the big European automakers who want to sell into the US and trying to yell them how to run their businesses. Quite the contrary, it seems like the EU automakers have worked in a collaborative way with the US to build EU branded automobiles inside the US, some of which get shipped to the EU and other geographies for sale, and US automakers to source components and even assembly from other countries.

Shouldn't the EU work with Apple to come up with ways to collaborate in ways that are mutually beneficial to all parties? Do they not understand the notion of the Carrot and the Stick? The automotive folks seemingly found a way to use the Carrot. That seems to be working, not only with the EU but with Japan and South Korea. So far, I've only seen the EU vociferously waving the Stick when it comes to Apple and other consumer tech giants. They seem infatuated with the power of the Stick and immune or oblivious to using the Carrot. They are drooling at the thought of applying the Stick to Apple, whether or not it is in their best interest or the best interest of their constituents. 

Some commenters have remarked about Apple's products being perceived as being "elite" and "status symbols" in the EU. I assume this has somehow created a sense of resentment. But guess what? The same exact thing can be said of certain makes of EU produced automobiles. Mercedes, Audi, and BMW automobiles are absolutely viewed as being a status symbol of success in the US, at least by those folks who cannot quite afford them or justify their high price tag. But I don't see US regulators going after Mercedes, Audi, and BMW to force them to open-up or modify their product development, partnering, supplier, or marketing strategies in ways that better serve US consumers and component suppliers. 

Can US regulators set a limit on how much EU automotive companies can charge for US sales franchises? What about controlling how much a sales franchise can set dealer markups? How competitive are the contracts for sourcing components and subassemblies into the supply side of Mercedes, Audi, and BMW production? Shouldn't US consumers be able to install their own choice of infotainment systems into Mercedes, Audi, and BMW automobiles and not have to pay for the manufacturer's infotainment system? If I install a Chevy engine in my Audi, should Audi still be responsible for warranty coverage on the entire vehicle? If American regulators require 10-year, 250,000 mile warranty coverage from manufacturers at no extra cost should Mercedes, Audi, and BMW be required to meet this standard to qualify to sell into the US?

The bottom line is that nobody has to buy a BMW and nobody has to buy an iPhone. There are more than enough choices with both types of products to allow consumers to choose to determine the success or failure of these products in the market using their wallets. Imposing unnecessary constraints and penalties on the sale of these products under the veil of "consumer choice" or "consumer protection" or "market competition" is a farce. Why not own it and say what it really is: "protectionism." The US has done it too, e.g., large displacement motorcycles, so there's no shame in admitting that a policy is being employed due to a domestic inability to compete. Better yet, dig around in the closet and find your Carrot. That may result in a better solution, especially when it comes to consumer choice.

JamesCude said:

So confusing to read this site lately. Depending on the writer, the Vision Pro is either the second coming or a total disaster. Isn't the job of the editor to have a consistent tone?

No. All of the content contributors on this site have their own individual and unique experiences, perspectives, and insights. The purpose of this site is not to change your way of thinking or compel you to follow a prescribed pattern or behavior. Presenting different perspectives on the same topic or subject matter allows us to be exposed to more and different ways of looking at something from a group of knowledgeable sources, each of whom has independently considered what the topic or subject matter means to them and how they react in order to identify their own pros and cons.

As readers we are free to absorb all the information, gather insight into perspectives that we may not have considered on our own, and apply our own thought processes and priorities. We have to come up with our own pros and cons based on what matters to us. Some of ours may match some of theirs, but they may also be very different. For example, with all the talk about Apple Watch's evolution, I absorbed other's pros and cons from Series 1 through Series 4. But I can say with certainty that what compelled me to move from Apple Watch Series 0 to Apple Watch Series 5 was the fact that the newer watch was much more water resistant, had an always-on display, and had LTE for the rare times when my Apple Watch and iPhone get separated. I basically use the newer watch exactly as I used the older watch. 

foregoneconclusion said:

dewme said: The Netflix CEO is pretty much at the same place that many of us are at with Vision Pro - "we'll see where things go" which means we will wait and see. I'm waiting too. The big difference is we're all waiting because there is about $4K of our hard earned cash on the line and we don't really know for sure how this thing will fit into our lives other than the gee-whiz and oh-wow factor

If you know how an 100" 4K OLED TV would fit into your life then you already know how the AVP would fit. And you would be saving multiple thousands of dollars by getting the AVP instead of the TV. 

Maybe, but it seriously depends on who the "you" is and "how" the "you" is going to use the thing.

If the "you" is me and I'm looking to buy a 100" 4K OLED TV it's going to live in the family room, man cave, or she shack specifically to serve as a shareable entertainment center. There may be one or there may be a bunch of other (real not virtual) people sitting or mingling around the thing while the 100-incher is showcasing its gloriousness to everyone that's within sight of it. AVP clearly does not "fit" this diverse and flexible use case in a way that I can fathom. But yeah, if the "you" is always going to be one person or one person at a time and the giant TV as a shared entertainment center is not desired, or the single user cannot fit the 100 inch thing into their space or budget, and you're totally cool with strapping something to your face, then no problem. 

If using the Vision Pro as a giant TV replacement is your sole defining objective for buying the device, go for it. But the Vision Pro could potentially do a hell of a lot more than just being a giant single viewer TV or "Movie Theater for One." The possibilities are huge, but we don't yet know how or when those possibilities will be transformed into consumable features, functions, and applications. We only know what current VR headsets do today and not a lot of us are buying them. The Vision Pro is promising so much more than a conventional VR headset but it's still a bit of a mystery for a lot of us exactly what it will personally do for us. If you already know it's going to serve your needs, good for you because it is an amazing piece of technology. 

For me personally, if the Vision Pro was $500 I'd still be taking a wait & see approach with it. There is no downside, for me at least, to wait until I see what it really can do beyond fancy demos to even think about buying one. I had no such hesitancy when I saw the iPhone, iPad, MacBook Air, Apple Watch, HomePod, Apple TV, and paid iCloud services when they all arrived on the market. Nothing Apple sells is cheap, but most of what they sell is very good and I've never questioned the value that came with the purchase.

It's not a knock on the Vision Pro to take a wait & see approach when you honestly don't know how you would employ it in your personal life. I've done deep dives and prototypes that investigated ways to employ Google Glass and Microsoft HoloLens for industrial applications, so it's not like I cannot envision many applications for this type of technology in industry. For personal use, I'm still at a loss for how I'd use the Vision Pro today, other than for entertainment and to escape from reality for short periods of time.

At some point someone will probably show me something that convinces me otherwise and my piggy bank's life will be shattered.

Apple and Vision Pro proponents should not get their skivvies in a twist based on this article's headline. There's a little bit of chum in the water with the "insignificant" part - which does not appear anywhere in the quoted text.

What is relevant and is actually in the quoted text is:

"We have to be careful about making sure that we're not investing in places that are not really yielding a return, and I would say we'll see where things go with Vision Pro," Peters responded. "Certainly we're always in discussions with Apple to try and figure that out but right now, the device is so subscale that it's not really particularly relevant to most of our members."

Apple could change the calculus for Netflix given some incentive, and the Netflix CEO says that route is possible.

"We've worked together for a long time, we've always had active discussions to how we could help each other out," Peters said about incentives. "Sometimes we find a great space of overlap."

tht said:

Sigh. If the government wants to regulate something, they should regulate the open standards that businesses should use. Since it is a "standard" any browser maker can implement them.

As it stands, Google is doing the typical network effect of getting website developers to design their websites for Chrome, not a standard. Since websites work best with Chrome, Chrome will be used more, thereby giving Google a rather huge hand in how the web works.

By  website developers to design to a an open published standard, it levels the playing field and all web browsers should be able to render websites identically.

There's a lot of turtles on top of each other here too. Web data brokers, ad APIs, tracker APIs, who knows what else, are all designed to work best with this or that browser. It's all part of the network effect. This stuff has to be open and standardized so any web browser can implement. Websites surely will have preference with Google as search result placements and ad space money is on the line, and will do a lot to optimize the solution that makes the most money, which is probably Chrome since Google has so much control over the ad placement money.

If someone is penalised, it should be the entities who are trying to break the government approved web standards.