shrave10

mpantone said:

danox said:

Apple is the only one that’s not squatting all over the other platforms ecosystems. (ie..Safari on Windows which was rightfully, canned by Apple)

This is false.

Apple does have a presence on other platforms which Apple has carefully groomed over years. iTunes has been a longtime presence on Windows and is still available to manage media content to transfer to iDevices (iPhones, iPads, old iPods, etc.).

Apple Music has a presence too, including Android devices in the form of an app on the Google Play Store. This includes a separate Apple Classical Music app too.

And let's not forget about Apple TV which is all over the place. My LG OLED television (running webOS) has an Apple TV app. Yes, it's also available on the Google Play Store for Android smartphones as well as streaming devices like Roku.

Shazam is another Apple service that has a longtime Android app.

I think what Danox meant was that Apple is willing to compete fairly on other platforms for some of it's services.  However, they are not willing to pay $ billions to keep competing services off of other platforms like Google is doing.  

Essentially Google is using their big money to keep competing engines off of all Android phones and iPhones, i.e., 100% of smartphones.  They seem to feel that if ChatGPT search or other competitor gets a foot in the smartphone market door, then that door may slowly be pushed wide open.  They are probably right.  

Apple should charge several engines and load up all of them and let users cycle their searches thru all of them without needing to retype their search string.  That may allow other engines to start seeing more revenues and reinvigorate competition & innovation in search.  Apple still collects fees from all engines and Google now has to compete again.  

Google does not want this to happen and that's why they are paying Apple (and Samsung) so much money so they can keep the Apple Garden gate (and Samsung Garden Gate) closed to other engines. 

tiredskills said:

shrave10 said:

tiredskills said:

shrave10 said:

Appeal to what?  A kangaroo court that always fines US companies guilty and EU companies innocent?  

Do you really believe that the US news bubble that you live in would report on the EU Commission fining EU companies?  Newsflash, they have done so many times, you are just ignorant of it.

US does not have any organization that can fine companies 10% of global turnover before any court appeals are done.  If the EU is not a definition of a kangaroo court, I don't know what is

If the only thing you're considering is the available fines then you've got a weird-ass definition of a kangaroo court.

Incidentally, this fine is well short of 10% of global turnover.  It's barely 1% of revenue in the EU.

As per the article  above this comments section, the EU may have lowered their fines so as not to draw too much attention from the White House.  But it failed.  They noticed. 

Reuters is reporting that Whitehouse officials will begin unveiling trade deals within the next 2-3 weeks.  You can bet that when they are negotiating with the EU, the kangaroo court system otherwise known as the DMA will be  rewritten.   

US has no organization that can start fining companies 10% of global annual revenue within 60 days without any due court proceedings.  Currently the EU offers no ability for US companies to contest their viewpoints in an EU court of law before incurring massive fines that include up to 10% of global annual revenue of the company with 60 days warning.  They can also levy up to 5% of average daily worldwide turnover without any court proceedings. 

It’s like they are the judge, jury, and executioner without needing to follow any existing laws.  And they use the act to zero in on U.S. companies while leaving EU and Chinese companies relatively unscathed. 

I suspect the DMA framework will be rewritten during any trade negotiations.  

If the EU does not flex on this, then I would not be surprised if the White House even threatens to put in place a similar entity in US solely for scrutinizing foreign companies doing business in U.S.  and allow them to implement similar penalties on foriegn companies based on 10% of their global revenues within 60 days and without any formal court proceedings to see if any laws are violated. 

Maybe the EU will see the unfairness in their DMA system then?

tiredskills said:

shrave10 said:

Appeal to what?  A kangaroo court that always fines US companies guilty and EU companies innocent?  

Do you really believe that the US news bubble that you live in would report on the EU Commission fining EU companies?  Newsflash, they have done so many times, you are just ignorant of it.

US does not have any organization that can fine companies 10% of global turnover before any court appeals are done.  If the EU is not a definition of a kangaroo court, I don't know what is

gatorguy said:

I think Trump's originally stated goal was to use tariffs as a revenue source to allow US income taxes to be rolled back, a consumption tax in effect. Those are generally considered regressive taxes, a type of taxation that has a disproportionate effect on low and middle-income families. That's why it's favored by the wealthier who don't need to spend the bulk of their income on food and shelter, medical, and various daily needs. 

From my view, the tariffs will be left in place for every country wanting to deal with us, just at a lower rate than the punishment level currently being threatened. In no scenario will the middle class benefit as much as the top 10% among us. It's not designed to, and overall it won't lead to better paying jobs for the 90% either. It's really not about jobs, it's about wealth, which always seems to bubble up faster than trickle down. Fortunately, it isn't as easy to foist on everyone as the Project writers had presumed. If only the world would cooperate and let the US run everything, right?

Lutnik has explained that he wants tariffs to realign supply chains to multiple countries, preferably allies.  This is to ensure reciprocal trade without tendency to go into deficit like what happens when you create a manufacturing monopoly like with a certain communist country.  So, in the longer view,  it not a question of helping out the rich and make the poor pay tariffs for it.  Rather, the supply chains will be realigned if the offending country does not play fair.  So far, the EU has not been playing fair so they are a target of tariffs as well and their manufacturing bases will lose market share if they do not start treating US companies more fairly.  By playing fair, this includes not just tariffs but also b.s. random DMA fines that seem to be all directed towards US companies.  The Whitehouse has good reason to want to step in if they see biased treatment against US companies

avon b7 said:

Apple has choice. Comply or leave are two simple options. If it wants to drag its feet on compliance (in spite of extensive direct communication with the EU) it will simply run into higher fines along the way for 'malicious' compliance. 

Apple has another choice: stay in EU, pay their random b.s. fines then recover the fines when the Whitehouse raises tariffs on EU to cover it.