9secondkox2
About
- Username
- 9secondkox2
- Joined
- Visits
- 706
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 6,427
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 3,705
Reactions
-
Apple EU anti-competition fine is a relatively modest $570 million to avoid Trump retaliat...
100%coolfactor said:Wesley_Hilliard said:Ok, had to delete some incredibly off topic and rule breaking threads that are just useless screaming matches. Let's chill out.
And as a reminder: It isn't illegal to be a monopoly. It is illegal (or at least heavily regulated globally) if a monopoly uses its power of a specific market to manipulate that market or others. The EU has a right to govern how it sees fit, even if some of its policy seems unfairly targeted towards Apple. It is up to Apple to work through the litigation and arrive at a happy medium. These things take time, and the world leaders having pissing matches won't help either.
Patience. This fine was a pittance for the affected companies. We'll see where it goes from here.
Avoid insulting each other, politically charged comments, or leaving the topic entirely to make some kind of random point. There's no need for that.
There also needs to be some safeguards where political regions can't just "change the rules" or implement new rules, and then claim companies are breaking those very same rules. It can take years, even decades, for a large company to build up their sales ecosystem, and then governments come along and just make new rules? One interpretation is that it's a convenient money-grab. Where does this fine money end up in the end? There should be some regulation over that, too.
-
Apple EU anti-competition fine is a relatively modest $570 million to avoid Trump retaliat...
I get that. But those same heels can be dug back out. It’s a rather clear bullying game going on. Wouldn’t be wrong to put significant economic pressure to put the bully in its place.teejay2012 said:
I don't disagree with you, but the EU has dug its heels in. Being practical, I thought simply indicating "Subscription or app prices may be different on the developers site www.spotify.com" might suffice work. Nothing more and as I wrote, certainly Apple should not link the url. But... does Apple need to put in warnings about security concerns for apps downloaded from alternative stores? Does Apple need to state that any problems with transactions outside of Apple are not covered by Apple? I think it is these kinds of 'small' details that are 'big' sticking points for Apple.9secondkox2 said:
A “notice” thst an app can be purchased elsewhere is such an egregious and corrupt thing to force on a company.teejay2012 said:I did not understand the Spotify - Apple Music fine. The Commission conveniently overlooked that it is Spotify that has a monopoly in the EU and is not financially harmed by Apple, even becoming profitable after many years despite Daniel Ek's extravagant CEO lifestyle. Anti steering should have been a simple thing for Apple, with a notice that the app could be purchased on the web. A url could have even have been provided, but I could not see how Apple should provide an actual link on the App Store page. That would be like Walmart arranging for an Uber to take you to Target to buy the product at a lower price. Apple was likely surprised how aggressive Vestager was, and how committed she was to promote EU industry by fining US industry. She is gone. Apple will appeal to the courts, which have in past over ruled the Commission, but the chances are small of reversing this. After all, this is 'only 500 million' and this is Apple...It’s equivalent to a popular exclusive store being forced to put up a sign next to designer jeans pointing people to a sale at wal/mart down the street.Of course Apple must put warnings about security risks. Because there ARE security risks. The reason is that customers are accustomed to having a rather secure system tje way it’s always been snd may not be prepared for what they’re being exposed to now that it’s been tampered with. Some people, like my mom, expect things to be handled the apple way when she installs apps. That’s what she knows. This is changing it up and will cause issues for the less savvy customers otherwise.Likewise customers are used to apple handling everything. So now that third parties have their hands in the mix, customers are unwittingly exposed to new issues. Apple is not responsible for that and needs to let the customer know so that apple isn’t blamed or having support clogged up for non-apple issues. Especially when it’s related to money changing hands and all the ways that can go wrong with anyone selling stuff using their own way to do so.It’s logical. And informative.The only way apple wouldn’t do this is of it didn’t care about its customers. This way they are letting the customer make an informed decision. -
Five years of Apple Silicon: How Apple continues to revolutionize chips
The progress apple has made in such a short time is astounding. Competitors cannot even get reasonably close without treading dangerously close to IP theft (like the kind obtained by hiring ex apple silicon engineers…)
to be brutally honest, I wasn’t all that excited by m1 or even m2, but for the potential those series revealed.However, with m4, apple silicon has become quite dominant across the board. The only drawback being no m4 ultra to dominate the high end completely.The only issue I have with base m series chips is that the ram is optimized for performance but not for managing swap effectively. Too often, on my holdover m series devices, I run out of memory with multiple apps and lots of data being worked on. However, rhis issue is not present on older Intel devices with the same amount of ram.For my next mac (torn between Mac Studio ultra or MacBook Pro max if no large iMac shows up) I’ll definitely load up on RAM even though it’s prohibitively expensive. 16 or 24 gb just won’t cut it (though it does on older Intel models). I think 48 or 64 is the minimum nowadays if you want to do fairly heavy lifting. But I’ll be getting at least 128, bevause of the greater freedom to load up and not have to limit as much of what I’m working on at the same time.
-
Apple EU anti-competition fine is a relatively modest $570 million to avoid Trump retaliat...
There are plenty of mistakes in history. The great thing about it being history is that you can learn from it and avoid similar mistakes in the present and future.mikethemartian said:
The US federal government forced AT&T to provide its patents (including for the transistor) for free to other US companies.danox said:reroll said:Companies must comply with the regulations of the regions in which they operate—no exceptions. Failure to do so results in penalties. In fact, US tariffs have cost Apple significantly more than all the fines the EU has imposed combined.To take the wording of the previous post that would make the US more evil, and Trump more wrong. With that reasoning one could wish biblical judgment on the US. But that’s not the US. It’s just Trump&friends.Another ridiculous action by the EU, I do not expect the Dutch company ASML for example or any company in the United States or anywhere for that matter, be required to give up share their research and development for free because some government somewhere says you should for made up competitive reasons, Apple, ASML got where they did through hard work research and development over time.They did not stop anyone else outside their company from pursuing the same results and the same applies to any company that does the actual research and development, it’s not about tariff escalation you have just given the Bumpkins in the White House, the idea that they can do the same thing in reverse to other companies outside the United States require them to share whatever have of value at a whim.
-
Apple EU anti-competition fine is a relatively modest $570 million to avoid Trump retaliat...
A “notice” thst an app can be purchased elsewhere is such an egregious and corrupt thing to force on a company.teejay2012 said:I did not understand the Spotify - Apple Music fine. The Commission conveniently overlooked that it is Spotify that has a monopoly in the EU and is not financially harmed by Apple, even becoming profitable after many years despite Daniel Ek's extravagant CEO lifestyle. Anti steering should have been a simple thing for Apple, with a notice that the app could be purchased on the web. A url could have even have been provided, but I could not see how Apple should provide an actual link on the App Store page. That would be like Walmart arranging for an Uber to take you to Target to buy the product at a lower price. Apple was likely surprised how aggressive Vestager was, and how committed she was to promote EU industry by fining US industry. She is gone. Apple will appeal to the courts, which have in past over ruled the Commission, but the chances are small of reversing this. After all, this is 'only 500 million' and this is Apple...It’s equivalent to a popular exclusive store being forced to put up a sign next to designer jeans pointing people to a sale at wal/mart down the street.Apple earned the attention they get with the App Store. There’s a reason why vendors give a cut to big box stores. Bevause those stores create discoverability and that has big time value. Without apple, no one would even know most of these apps existed.Barnes and noble never has to put a sign up pointing people to the local mom and pop bookstore that sells the same book. And if a sign was found, it would be immediately removed and legal action taken against whoever put it there.It can seem like a small matter. But in reality, it’s at the core of the issue.There’s a thing called the internet. Threw another thing called the search engine. And believe it or not, people are pretty adept at using both to find what they want and get the deal they want. I know you know this. I’m simply pointing out the obvious fallacy of the EUs argument.
