spheric

iamihome said:

The EU is basically acting like the Mafia. Neo-one elects these gangsters. This is why we in the UK voted to leave the EU.

JSR_FDED said:

spheric said:

rob53 said:

I have very serious issues with the dictatorship called the EU. 

The fact that a democratically elected government is "dictating" rules that all businesses — even foreign ones — need to follow (we call them "laws") does not make them a "dictatorship". 

You'd just rather not have to follow the law. 

The aspect that I find troubling, if indeed the statement in this story is correct, is that the DMA and penalties sighted as a remedy for failure to comply, namely: "Under the DMA, the EU has the power to levy a daily penalty of up to 5% of its average daily worldwide turnover. In Apple's case, that potentially means up to $1 billion every day.", in my view is ridiculously punitive and draconian. I agree, if a business such as Apple or any other business operating, selling, manufacturing, marketing etc  products and services should abide by the applicable laws in which that division or business operates. However the extrajudicial enforcement of claiming penalties on world wide revenues is ridiculous. Of course, countries, regions, etc can set whatever laws they like, including punitive ones like these, but to me this seems very prejudicial to penalize a companies revenues that it earns on products and services outside the jurisdiction in where it is alleged it is contravening the laws of the land….

anonymouse said:

spheric said:

anonymouse said:

muthuk_vanalingam said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

9secondkox2 said:

nubus said:

Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.

If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.

Apple has always been an open market player. 

So your fluff piece is moot. 

Apple operates a store. Apple gets its commission. Boom done. 

This is how it’s been done in the history of stores to this day. 

What stores dont do:

A) host signs and banners telling you to go to one of your vendors house to get a shirt for cheaper. 

use Billy bobs payment system since Billy Bob sells sandals in your store. 

C) let vendors put up their own store inside of your store and not pay a commission on sold items
and rent) 

it’s flat out criminal what this corrupt organization has done. They’ve basically robbed Apple and then made them pay to operate other people’s marketing, hosting, and discovery. The heck out of here. 

Try selling something through Walmart and pull these things: you’ll ba banned from selling through them and all affiliates and partners for life. And that’s what should have happened here. Penalize the contract-breakers, the thieves, and the hijackers, not the store operator. 

Common sense does not exist in European government. 

The store itself isn't really as much of a problem as the platform it is on. A platform that limits competitors. 

It's not about a store in a store. It's about alternative stores on the platform. 

As Apple has the keys to the gate it was deemed a gatekeeper. It got away with that unfair for years. 

So, you're saying that Apple should be able to sell music through Spotify without paying them anything right? After all, with by far the largest share of the streaming market in Europe, the Spotify platform is a gatekeeper for music, and they don't currently allow anyone else to sell music on their platform, thus limiting competitors. I mean, it's all about alternative stores, right?

What Spotify platform? Where are most Spotify users listening from? Its own platform? Is it limiting users to its own platform? 

Are you implying Spotify has a captive audience? 

So, you don't think its competitors deserve a fair shake inside the Spotify streaming ecosystem? Where's the consumer choice in that? I mean, surely Apple should be allowed to sell music/streaming inside Spotify? I don't get it, do you want to eliminate barriers to competition or not?  

If you don't get it perhaps it's because you don't want to get it.

You've moved from a Spotify 'platform' to a Spotify 'ecosystem'. I'm not seeing either of those. 

I'm seeing a service and a limited service at that because it's mainly audio that has no captive control over its users. 

Right, because you, like the EU, want to define those terms (frankly, I see them as synonymous for practical purposes) in such a way that they only apply to large US tech companies and not to companies like Spotify. Captive control? What a joke. Apple doesn't have captive control over anyone, unless of course you also define that in such a way that it only applies to Apple. People don't use Apple products because Apple has "captive control", they use them because the are typically best in class. The EU doesn't like that — I suppose they are looking nostalgically back at the heyday of Nokia, for example — because there simply aren't EU companies that typically have best in class products. The propping up of Spotify, which actually has majority marketshare and doesn't need propping up, simply highlights how entirely dishonest the rhetoric from the EU on this issue is, and makes clear what their intent really is — to hobble American companies as required to maximize the success of EU companies.

Would it really be asking too much to require that users sign off on the restrictions prior to purchase?

Is this something that EU has asked Apple to do and Apple has refused to do so far? Why is this even relevant to the discussion?

He's just raising a lot of pseudo issues — i.e., blowing smoke — in an attempt to gloss over the lawless, autocratic, protectionist behavior of the EU. The bottom line is, if you are going to require companies to do specific things to do business in the EU, a) those requirements need to be explicitly enumerated in law, and b) unless you are just running a protectionist racket, you don't "craft" them so as to only target large US tech firms.

You haven't read the law. 

Perhaps you can cite the specific sections of the law that spell out, in explicit detail, exactly what DMA compliance consists of?

tmay said:

spheric said:

tmay said:

spheric said:

tmay said:

Sospheric said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

thrang said:

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Apple should just. let it crash and burn.

And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.

I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table. 

I'll set out my stalk. 

IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them. 

They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations. 

Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions. 

Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores. 

Unaware of the commissions. 

Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.

That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not? 

Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?

I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook. 

What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.

NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit). 

I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.

If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.

If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.

My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.

I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different. 

Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations. 

Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here. 

Everyone here knows that you do not regularly use an iPhone, sure, your wife does, so it isn't hard to imagine that you are invested in a personal crusade against the iPhone. Everyone here knows that you are as well an ardent Huawei advocate, so maybe you need, to chill the fuck out about the iPhone.

Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers.

I have been using iPhones exclusively for 15 years. 

I agree completely with what avon B7 is writing. 

I even agree with him that your, his, or my personal position on what we might prefer is IRRELEVANT. 

Your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem by attacking his surmised preference of technology platform rather than the merits of his argument is NOTED. 


Incidentally, I remember one specific instance of direct harm to consumers, back in 2008: Telekom contracts in Germany did not allow for tethering. An iPhone app hit the App Store that ostensibly did something else (flashlight?), but a hidden screen would allow users to switch on a tethering preference and access the iPhone's internet connection from a tethered laptop. 

Apple killed the app almost immediately and blocked it from their Store, forcing users to pay top dime for USB cellular access points and the associated extortionate data contracts. 

Yeah, because that instance of "harm" to the consumers absolutely violated the App policies of Apple. That's a potential security threat as well, but sure, 2008, and you wanted to avoid paying Telekom. Apple didn't force anyone to do anything other than to have to play by the App store rules. I mean, wtf is that an example of other than an attempt to circumvent Apple's rules?

The toggle switch in itself was NOT "a potential security threat".

Would this app have continued to exist had we had additional App Stores with different rules at the time?
YES.  

Would the existence of this app have allowed tens or hundreds of thousands of customers to circumvent the price-gouging of providers at the time? 

YES. 

WTF is being forced into a technically unnecessary expensive data plan if not "harm to consumers"??? 

Oh FFS. Apple would have potential liability if an App was used in an illegal manner, so of course, Apple has to remove apps in that case.

Tethering was not illegal. 

The point you're trying to make is that Apple was obligated to disable tethering while under exclusive distribution contract with T-Mobile in Germany. 

The point I'm making is that the price-gouging by Telekom might not even have been possible, had multiple app stores existed at the time. We won't know. 
But what we DO know is that Apple DID, at the time, leverage their App Store monopoly on iPhone to block this app and make tethering impossible. 

edit: I just checked, and Tethering actually was not possible AT ALL on iPhones in Germany until 2010 — except with this app, briefly. 

Seriously? It's 2024, let it go…

tmay said:

spheric said:

tmay said:

Sospheric said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

thrang said:

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Apple should just. let it crash and burn.

And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.

I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table. 

I'll set out my stalk. 

IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them. 

They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations. 

Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions. 

Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores. 

Unaware of the commissions. 

Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.

That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not? 

Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?

I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook. 

What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.

NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit). 

I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.

If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.

If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.

My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.

I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different. 

Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations. 

Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here. 

Everyone here knows that you do not regularly use an iPhone, sure, your wife does, so it isn't hard to imagine that you are invested in a personal crusade against the iPhone. Everyone here knows that you are as well an ardent Huawei advocate, so maybe you need, to chill the fuck out about the iPhone.

Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers.

I have been using iPhones exclusively for 15 years. 

I agree completely with what avon B7 is writing. 

I even agree with him that your, his, or my personal position on what we might prefer is IRRELEVANT. 

Your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem by attacking his surmised preference of technology platform rather than the merits of his argument is NOTED. 


Incidentally, I remember one specific instance of direct harm to consumers, back in 2008: Telekom contracts in Germany did not allow for tethering. An iPhone app hit the App Store that ostensibly did something else (flashlight?), but a hidden screen would allow users to switch on a tethering preference and access the iPhone's internet connection from a tethered laptop. 

Apple killed the app almost immediately and blocked it from their Store, forcing users to pay top dime for USB cellular access points and the associated extortionate data contracts. 

Yeah, because that instance of "harm" to the consumers absolutely violated the App policies of Apple. That's a potential security threat as well, but sure, 2008, and you wanted to avoid paying Telekom. Apple didn't force anyone to do anything other than to have to play by the App store rules. I mean, wtf is that an example of other than an attempt to circumvent Apple's rules?

The toggle switch in itself was NOT "a potential security threat".

Would this app have continued to exist had we had additional App Stores with different rules at the time?
YES.  

Would the existence of this app have allowed tens or hundreds of thousands of customers to circumvent the price-gouging of providers at the time? 

YES. 

WTF is being forced into a technically unnecessary expensive data plan if not "harm to consumers"??? 

Oh FFS. Apple would have potential liability if an App was used in an illegal manner, so of course, Apple has to remove apps in that case.