- Last Active
By disallowing vertical market options and forcing open market options, the EU is reducing genuine choice.
The second paragraph is idealistic and echos Vestager’s comment. The success of the App Store vs others is direct evidence against this.
The EU is pushing choice & informed consent, the most disgraceful way of exploiting people as most can’t resist it’s seduction. What fate do the architects & advocates of this deception deserve?
2. On the contrary. Many people are creatures of habit, and the fact that Apple's App Store is successful could either be: a) An example of customer loyalty; or, b) An example of customer habit. As a former Apple employee myself, I can categorically state that Apple does a remarkable job of building and maintaining its customers' loyalty. Their repeated business is in keeping with the service-profit (satisfaction-profit chain) model of business. That being the case, there should be no fear of informing their customers of alternatives. If the App Store truly does provide the best end-user experience, then customers will inevitably choose it to the competition, but the key point here is that they cannot make that choice under the current model because they lack both the means and the information to make that choice for themselves; this fact alone pushes them into the category of habit as opposed to loyalty, since Apple actually doesn't have to do anything to keep the customer. Supermarkets function in the same way.
3. How exactly is informed consent and choice a bad thing? Far from it, these are the two bedrocks of capitalism (assuming one isn't a monopolist), and the EU should rather be lauded for its efforts to provide a beneficial and fair regulatory, trading, and consumption model in the Single Market. Political economy* is a messy business in which competing interests must constantly be weighed and evaluated against the common benefit. In general, the EU does this very well, and the best way to know this for sure is rather straightforward: If every stakeholder within the system is equally unhappy, then that system is fair; if one particular stakeholder is absolutely happy, then every other stakeholder is likely being exploited, which therefore damages the system.* I dislike the term "economics" as it is an attempt to assert the discipline as an "objective" science akin to physics rather than a "subjective" social science that is itself properly an extension of political philosophy.
mbdrake76 said:What a load of old twaddle from the EU commission. Almost everybody hates them.
From a consumer's point of view, the more transparency about the available products and services, the better, since it is the availability of information which best enables a consumer to make an informed purchasing decision. This is the ideal in any capitalistic system. Think of it this way: in a game of football (European not American), there are two teams to play the game (Let's say "Apple" vs "Spotify"), some rules (the regulatory and legal environment), and a referee (the Commission). Whilst both teams play the same game, clearly it would not be a fair game if the referee wasn't there to ensure the rules were being adhered to, in which case Apple would win in a free-for-all –– as well as making for a very one-sided, hence boring, game. It is the contest that is interesting. With the referee officiating, the rules are enforced equally, in which case both teams have a fair and equal chance –– more or less –– to compete in the hope of getting the win. I say "more or less" because in sport, there is also such a thing as home advantage, so I don't think anyone should be surprised if the EU's institutions act in the self-interest of European companies (Does anyone seriously expect the United States, or its institutions, to act or function any differently?). As with the big clubs of European football (bastards!), Apple could still expect to win most of the time. However, and this is really the key point, by being clever and nimble, as well as resilient, sometimes the smaller and less well-resourced team wins. That is the very definition of a fair contest and if Apple gets to decide upon the rules as well as play the game, then clearly it is no such thing.
Whether or not this initial ruling is definitive still needs to be decided in court; if the ECJ determines that there is a case to answer, then it becomes enforceable. This is a vital step since there remains the possibility, however remote, that the European Commission may have made a category-object error, i.e., that they have confused the effect with the cause. By my reading, they haven't, but it is for the European Court of Justice to determine. You might hate them, and big corporations also, but whatever else they might be, for a capitalist system to function without distortion (because there is no such thing as a perfect capitalist system, still less a self-regulating one; that's a myth), regulators such as the European Commission are an absolutely required and necessary evil.
edac2 said:If these renderings are accurate, the "new" iMac is still basically the the same design as the old iMac, but with a bigger screen. The Surface Studio 2 is far more creative in its design, and it has a touch screen. All it needs is an M1 motherboard retrofit!
Lots of chatting about mini Mac Pros and expandable iMacs. Have you all not seen the writing on the wall with the M1 Macs? Everything forward, except for the current Mac Pro Tower, will be non-expandable and non-upgradable. The M Chip controls everything on the board, and controls way too much. Memory is now on the chip so you will never see a Mac with user-upgradable memory, except for the current Mac Pro. The M chip, like the T2, has way too much control of the flash storage, which Apple will keep it soldered on all Macs going forward. That is dangerous because if a chip fails on the board, your data is history. Gone are the days of pulling a drive or SSD blade and recovering data for anything not yet backed up. So we will be stuck paying the Apple Tax with excessive prices for memory and storage.