spheric

9secondkox2 said:

avon b7 said:

9secondkox2 said:

spheric said:

lowededwookie said:

avon b7 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

The EU is desperate to collect a penalty fee. In the U.S. legal system, Spotify wouldn't have had the standing to complain since they had already moved 99% of their iOS subscribers to web payments WITHOUT needing any kind of in-app communication. Nothing about their financial reality supported the complaint. Not the revenue part of it or the communication part of it. 

If confirmed, it would be a penalty fee but not because the EU is desperate to collect anything. 

It would be a penalty fee for illegal business practices. 

It's not only about Spotify. They lodged the formal complaint but the formal investigation covers the impact of those practices throughout the developer world and on consumers

In this case it is accused (among other things) of contractually forbidding developers of notifying users of cheaper external options. 

Doesn't that read as being openly anti-competitive? Do you consider it fair?

No it’s not anti-competitive. The simple fact of the matter, and one the EU is purposefully ignoring, is that Apple doesn’t have to compete against itself by law. They are Apple’s devices and Apple’s systems. Apple can legally do whatever it wants on their systems.

If you come to my house I expect you to obey my house rules just like I would for your house. Why all of a sudden is it illegal for Apple to set the rules for its house?

What on Earth makes you think that you can legally do whatever you want in your house, just because it’s your house? 

Of course the laws of the country/state/city where your house stand still apply to your conduct within the house. 

Apple by law does not have to "compete against itself". Apple does, however, by law have to enable — or at least not actively hinder — others to compete against them. 

lowededwookie said:

In New Zealand we have a term for this sort of behaviour. It’s called “Tall Poppy Syndrome”. It comes from the saying “the tallest poppy is the first to see the lawnmower”.

Everyone was fine when Apple was the underdog. They mocked Apple when it had no market share. Then they sold the iPod and then they sold music and then they sold the iPhone which disrupted so many business models that were screwing over the consumer.

Apple now started to gain market share because people loved their devices because they were getting more of what they wanted.

So rather than move with the times EU companies like Nokia sought to cut down the Apple tree. Only when they tried they died.

The nature of antitrust legislation is that it only applies when you’re big enough to use your market power to illegally disadvantage your competitors. 

That is the entire point. 

Of course it doesn’t apply to "the underdog".

Actually, there is unilateral application. If a law was broken, then corrective action is taken. If no laws were broken, all is well. 

Or that’s how it’s SUPPOSED to be. 

Antitrust is when a large corp unfairly uses its established power to thwart smaller businesses. 

In Apples case, there is zero evidence of that anywhere. 

App makers can partner in order to sell apps. Music sellers can also partner. If they want to go on their own and build their own platforms, they can do that too. There is literally nothing stopping them. 

Apple getting paid for the use of its platform is normal, legal, ethical business structure. 

Removing Apple’s financial windfall for their efforts is the unethical take. 

As noted many times before, the retail model is what we are looking at here. Just because it extends beyond Brock and mortar to digital changes nothing. 

If you go to a Barnes and noble, you pay them for a book by a publisher and that publisher and author get  a royalty. There won’t also be a waldenbooks store inside the Barnes and noble. They have to open their own store somewhere else. 

If you go to target, you buy products from retail partners and both target and those partners get paid. But the payment goes through targets systems. Target isn’t forced to have a sign next to the product saying “hey,” you can get this underwear cheaper at example.com.” That’s a disengenuous partner. Trying to use targets platform to steer customers away from target is wrong. Target is paying the overhead and marketing your product, taking up precious retail space. They deserve their cut. 

It’s the same with apple. You buy an iPhone, you get the Apple Store. In it, all the publishers have their wares that you buy and everyone gets paid a fair share. No other stores are there. They don’t belong there. 

But now Apple is forced to host someone’s app, use their platform to build discovery of said app, serve up info on the app (and the app itself), yet they are forced to hang a sign that points people away from them and directly to a company’s alternate store? Heck no. Yes it’s happening but no it isn’t ethical at all. 

In the wake of such nonsensical and downright criminal decisions, they must be applauded for the ways they have navigated this mess in order to protect themselves and their customers. 

Apple is in no way gulilty of antitrust anymore than any successful bookstore or retail store. 

If the rumoured fine is applied it will be for exactly what you say there is no evidence for. Probably other infringements too.

If, as you say, Apple has not broken any law and there is zero evidence of wrongdoing, it will appeal (and with good reason) and go merrily on its way.

Extending the retail model beyond brick and mortar has, in fact, changed everything. 

It's why I asked you to read through the directive and report back. 

Oh wow. Thanks for pointing out the EUs new creation. That changes everything! 

Not. 

read a while ago. It basically is an excuse for the wi to extort apple. No way around it. 

Just because the eu creates a narrative that describes apple’s business as problematic doesn’t make it so. 

As I said earlier, apple did everything right. Therefore the eu had to INVENT reasons to harm them. As in this is new treatment coming from the eu.

9secondkox2 said:

Since apple hasn’t broken any laws that they could use against them, they just INVENT some. It’s criminal

Waiting for the USA to finally step up and go to bat for American companies operating overseas. 

Otherwise this kind of extortion will continue everywhere unchecked. 

9secondkox2 said:

spheric said:

lowededwookie said:

avon b7 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

The EU is desperate to collect a penalty fee. In the U.S. legal system, Spotify wouldn't have had the standing to complain since they had already moved 99% of their iOS subscribers to web payments WITHOUT needing any kind of in-app communication. Nothing about their financial reality supported the complaint. Not the revenue part of it or the communication part of it. 

If confirmed, it would be a penalty fee but not because the EU is desperate to collect anything. 

It would be a penalty fee for illegal business practices. 

It's not only about Spotify. They lodged the formal complaint but the formal investigation covers the impact of those practices throughout the developer world and on consumers

In this case it is accused (among other things) of contractually forbidding developers of notifying users of cheaper external options. 

Doesn't that read as being openly anti-competitive? Do you consider it fair?

No it’s not anti-competitive. The simple fact of the matter, and one the EU is purposefully ignoring, is that Apple doesn’t have to compete against itself by law. They are Apple’s devices and Apple’s systems. Apple can legally do whatever it wants on their systems.

If you come to my house I expect you to obey my house rules just like I would for your house. Why all of a sudden is it illegal for Apple to set the rules for its house?

What on Earth makes you think that you can legally do whatever you want in your house, just because it’s your house? 

Of course the laws of the country/state/city where your house stand still apply to your conduct within the house. 

Apple by law does not have to "compete against itself". Apple does, however, by law have to enable — or at least not actively hinder — others to compete against them. 

lowededwookie said:

In New Zealand we have a term for this sort of behaviour. It’s called “Tall Poppy Syndrome”. It comes from the saying “the tallest poppy is the first to see the lawnmower”.

Everyone was fine when Apple was the underdog. They mocked Apple when it had no market share. Then they sold the iPod and then they sold music and then they sold the iPhone which disrupted so many business models that were screwing over the consumer.

Apple now started to gain market share because people loved their devices because they were getting more of what they wanted.

So rather than move with the times EU companies like Nokia sought to cut down the Apple tree. Only when they tried they died.

The nature of antitrust legislation is that it only applies when you’re big enough to use your market power to illegally disadvantage your competitors. 

That is the entire point. 

Of course it doesn’t apply to "the underdog".

Actually, there is unilateral application. If a law was broken, then corrective action is taken. If no laws were broken, all is well. 

Or that’s how it’s SUPPOSED to be. 

Antitrust is when a large corp unfairly uses its established power to thwart smaller businesses. 

In Apples case, there is zero evidence of that anywhere. 

9secondkox2 said:

Funny how nothing apple does is illegal. 

Then the eu just invents laws designed only to hurt apple. 

How dare they be successful and ensure they get their just due from platform partners.