spheric

mike1 said:

blitz1 said:

mike1 said:

The US should really should be targeting European companies that do significant business in the US and start finding (or making up) reasons to issue significant fines and other penalties. Every time the EU targets an American-based company, the US should do the same. Time to start putting some retaliatory pressure on the EU.

Our market is much too important to the US.

Our iPhones will work differently from the US iPhones. 

We'll have more options and more freedom to choose.

Sorry. The European market is not a major consumer of US-based products outside of food and tech. Not sure how well BMW or Daimler or Airbus or Siemens or the French wine industry would feel about being targeted in one way or another. I generally dislike the idea of tariffs as they only hurt consumers, but inflicting retaliatory pain on European companies so they begin to influence EU decisions is fair game.

kmarei said:

avs_htx said:

lam92103 said:

Free ride? I have paid for my device. That comes with both the hardware and the software. What exactly is Apple doing here for Spotify? 

The only one excuse they have is the AppStore, but then allow people to move off it.

Now this would mean a more fragmented app landscape, and possibly a less secure one, but when the execs at Apple can’t see past their greed, there is not much option left. 

The sane option here would be to let people pay for in-app purchases without asking for a cut. 

They can still make money off App Purchases, which is the model most small developers use. 

Not entirely true on your first line. You, as a consumer always licenses a software based on the terms the company set. This is same as any computing device ever made. You do not own it....just license to use based on how they designed.

i wonder how that goes for a second hand device?
if i buy a used iphone 15, i did not go into an agreement/contract with apple since i did not buy it from them, nor were those terms relayed to me at time of purchase

jbdragon said:

You know what Movie I am seeing left off everyone's list that was the first movie that came to me?

Tom Cruise "Far & Away" Western!!!

Far and Away was released on May 22, 1992 in 1,583 theaters, 163 of which were in 70mm.

It was the first film shot in Panavision Super 70 and the first film to be shot in 70mm in a decade since Tron (1982).  The Arriflex 765 camera was also used, as the camera was capable of 100 frames per second which was used for slow-motion shots during the Oklahoma land rush scene.

That is another one, TRON that no one mentioned above!!!  I'm sure there are others not listed also.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_and_Away

Look, there is a list and more movies,...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_70_mm_films

For whatever reason, I just remember Far and Away being 70mm.  It's funny how you just remember random things like this from far in the past.  Why you may have forgotten what you did the day before.

davidw said:

spheric said:

davidw said:

gatorguy said:

davidw said:

gatorguy said:

So I've read an interesting perspective on Apple and RCS this morning, courtesy of Gruber and PED. 

While many here assume Apple's announcement of RCS coming to iMessage was in response to the EU's DMA, it might actually be due to China. Unlike European regulators who Apple feels free to argue with or if need be "maliciously comply", China is in the process of mandating RCS (without encryption for obvious reasons) despite Apple's preferences.They are a government that when they tell Apple to jump it's only a question of how high. There is no such thing as malicious compliance with China's mandates.

Without integrating RCS, Apple would be banned from China's smartphone market sometime later this year. It wasn't because of the EU if Gruber's sources are to be believed. Further, if those sources are correct I would not hold out hope for E2EE coming to the service with iMessage either even if it makes it into the standard. China requires source code be submitted for inspection in order to "ensure the security and privacy" of the algorithms used before that encryption method is permitted in the country.

It's not any government that will dictate whether Apple have to adopt RCS...

The proposed regulation requires new 5G devices to support RCS (locally called 5G messaging) to get certification. https://www.reddit.com/r/UniversalProfile/comments/153rrwl/chinas_proposed_regulation_could_force_apple_to/

That is not the same as forcing Apple to support RCS  by opening up iMessage or Apple Messages. Apple could satisfy the RCS requirement by letting the carrier install their own RCS client in iOS. The same as what the telecoms did with SMS.

The same as … what exactly? Apple never allowed any third-Party sms clients — or perhaps, it’s just that no one ever offered one. SMS is part of the basic cellphone protocol. Apple could support it in 2007 — or not have text messaging. No telecoms provider forced anything. 

No way that any mobile carriers would support any mobile phone that did not allow SMS messaging. Remember in 2007, the mobile carriers were making a lot of money with text messaging. Texting was not free. But mobile carriers usually offered limited amount of free texting with each plan and offered unlimited monthly texting plans. If Apple did not develop their own SMS and have all the carriers agree to use Apple Text (now Apple Messages) as the default SMS client on iPhones, the carrier would need to install their own SMS client.

9secondkox2 said:

spheric said:

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.

THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT THE DMA. IT IS ABOUT APPLE VIOLATING LAWS THAT HAVE EXISTED FOR DECADES. 

Nope. If it was, the EU wouldn’t need to invent labels and corresponding new rules that target only the successful. Apple has historically ran a clean tight ship, fully compliant with all laws where they operate. When corrupt governments can’t seem to get what they want, they create new laws that target their business model directly in order to manufacture a violation. Again and again. That’s what we see here.