bshank

crowley said:

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said: The issue is anti-competitive behaviour.

And to prove anti-competitive behavior, the EU has to show harm to consumers.

?  No you don't.  The harm could be to other businesses.

crowley said:

bshank said:

crowley said:

bshank said:

avon b7 said:

bshank said:

foregoneconclusion said:

crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day.  She used other words that mean the same thing.  She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.

If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance. 

It’s useless to attempt to have a discussion with him. He only digs his heels in further and will not relent on whatever is pro Vestager.

Why should he relent if he believes his opinion stands on a solid base?

I don't see him as pro anything, just for the sake of it. 

I'd go as far as to say he is one of the more balanced commenters here with well reasoned arguments and the ability to defend them robustly and fairly.

You don't have to agree with everything but mostly his opinions are very valid takes on what is happening.

In this particular case (and it's been said a few times already) some people seem to be interpreting her words in a way that others aren't. 

I haven't read any 'pro' Vestager comments here but I have read the usual anti Vestager, EU stuff. Often with radical tints of some kind or another. 

Your 'toxic masculinity' comment left me perplexed. 

Winning at all costs is the toxic masculine tendency. Vestager and the EU keep making up contrived concepts like ‘State Aid’ and then losing in their own Supreme Court! We’re in an age where the West is getting it’s a** handed to us by China and Russia and Vestagerand company as well as some in the U.S. want to make it easier for us to be victims of identity theft and such in the guise of ‘competuition’. No thanks. Years of watching the above mentioned contort themselves into a pretzel to give these contrived concepts credence is a waste of anyone’s valuable time.

All laws are contrived.  What a weird complaint. 

I'll assume you mean complicated or convoluted instead, so as to make some measure of sense.  Even so:

A company that receives government support gains an advantage over its competitors. Therefore the Treaty generally prohibits State aid unless it is justified by reasons of general economic development. To ensure that this prohibition is respected and exemptions are applied equally across the European Union, the European Commission is in charge of ensuring that State aid complies with EU rules. 

As far as laws go, that's pretty darn clear and concise.  

And the "Supreme Court" didn't rule against the concept of State Aid, the EU General Court ruled that the Commission has failed to prove its case against Ireland.  It's currently being appealed to the European Court of Justice (which you might call the supreme court) and has not yet been judged.

Law contrived yet not upheld by any Court of the EU

1 case was not upheld by 1 court of the EU.

Many thousands of other cases where State Aid was prosecuted are publicly viewable at https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm?clear=1&policy_area_id=3

Please stop speaking from ignorance.

crowley said:

bshank said:

crowley said:

bshank said:

crowley said:

bshank said:

foregoneconclusion said:

crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day.  She used other words that mean the same thing.  She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.

If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance. 

It’s useless to attempt to have a discussion with him. He only digs his heels in further and will not relent on whatever is pro Vestager.

What a strange thing to say.  I'm not being especially pro Vestager here, just making the point that she's not saying what @foregoneconclusion thinks she's saying.

Vestager, EU, and EC… it’s all the same attempted opportunistic money grab. It’s like toxic masculinity. Vestager appears to be suffering from toxic masculinity

Well you sure sound open-minded.  And yet I'm the one who it's useless to have a discussion with?

I can only assume the dodgy equivalence is an attempt to provoke.  Sorry, I'm not triggered that way.

I tried for many years Crowley

I don't even recognise your username, so don't have any context to know what you're talking about.  Tried what?

crowley said:

bshank said:

crowley said:

bshank said:

foregoneconclusion said:

crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day.  She used other words that mean the same thing.  She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.

If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance. 

It’s useless to attempt to have a discussion with him. He only digs his heels in further and will not relent on whatever is pro Vestager.

What a strange thing to say.  I'm not being especially pro Vestager here, just making the point that she's not saying what @foregoneconclusion thinks she's saying.

Vestager, EU, and EC… it’s all the same attempted opportunistic money grab. It’s like toxic masculinity. Vestager appears to be suffering from toxic masculinity

Well you sure sound open-minded.  And yet I'm the one who it's useless to have a discussion with?

I can only assume the dodgy equivalence is an attempt to provoke.  Sorry, I'm not triggered that way.

foregoneconclusion said:

crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day.  She used other words that mean the same thing.  She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.

If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance.