freeassociate2

prof said:

You're so horribly misguided in your smear piece but one question that keeps on popping up in my head: Why the frog do you even give a shit? Cui bono? As you've said so eloquently yourself: We Europeans have not requested your opinion and are even less looking for you to be our saviour. If Apple decides that the European market is not relevant enough to comply with the DMA; fair game to not serve it or less well then. I'm thinking hard of desirable features which are missing, I can truly live without the (botched!) Apple AI and US people do envy us for the ability to have third party app stores already... If you want to moan and bitch about bonkus laws, try the UK for the back door requirements or the US for their spy laws... oh wait, supposedly doesn't bother you due to being a US citizen: frog the f off!

Says the person who elected themselves spokesperson for all EU nations/citizens. 

Let me point out that the security and intelligence apparatus of EU member nations are nothing to crow about. Also, I and many others in the U.S. detest the panopticon wannabe that has developed over here. But I’m not in the intelligence community, and I doubt you are either.

And please, don’t lump us all together when choosing your phrasing?

- - -

While I do wish the article went into the nitty-gritty of the politics, I also realize the behind-the-scenes action will likely remain largely opaque, even to journalists. Yet it’s a tad disappointing that the writer seems to just repeat theme of “this will slow development”. I’m not sure this quite flies, as each market already has unique requirements and challenges, leading to the kind of staggered regulatory roll-out we’ve seen as users. There’s perhaps an argument here that regulators are unnecessarily hampering Apple’s competitiveness in the market, which then harms both consumers, as well as shareholders.

I think Apple has a stronger case is in the arguments that these compatibility demands (and they are demands) conflict with the EUs privacy initiatives. Which they seemingly do, on the face of it. I’d also remind readers that Apple the corporate entity has some expectation of privacy, and shouldn’t be required to broadcast their product investments or schedule.

However, there is no denying that from where I’m sitting, these actions by the EC reek of political retribution couched in smiles. Whether it’s regionalism, a response to this Administration’s bizarreness, or pay-back for the Irish tax situation, the EC has a lot of incentive to be petty and all too human.

This is really a tempest in a teapot. With all the shit going on in the world today, this is what people freak out about? Ya’ll need to get your priorities straight.

enossified said:

If it’s anything like the auto industry back in the 1980s and 1990s when all the major foreign car makers from Toyota to BMW to Volkswagen opened plants in the USA, foreign companies will open factories here. It will still take years to get semiconductor foundries up and running so unless you know who flipflops based on promises of massive foreign investment (like the recent TSMC $100 billion offer). there will be higher prices down the road.

You’re kind of on the right track, but missing a few details. The first companies here, like Toyota and Honda, had the advantages of a country that built infrastructure around building cars (delivery systems, parts suppliers, etc), and had a deeply skilled workforce tailor made for it, and gratuitous tax incentives. They still struggled. Even when NAFTA really juiced the whole system. So yeah, it’s gonna be a slog to create that environment. And everyone is conveniently overlooking the impact of climate change on all of this — which should have people realizing that all the rule books and past experiences are about to need re-evaluation. Especially as it’s dedicated institutions that carry out humanity’s truly long term projects, and we’re busy setting fire to them all, or selling them to the lowest bidders. 

chasm said:

dewme said:

The sky’s the limit … for US manufacturers of industrial automation and process control hardware, software, systems, and services companies. 

And for big price increases if more manufacturing is done in North America.

There's a reason why US companies tend to keep the intellectual development and design of consumer products here, and outsource the manufacturing mostly overseas. It's to keep the cost of the products down, and the profit margins up. Changes in the cost of production is always, ALWAYS passed on to the domestic consumer (that is, you and me).

I actually do, believe it or not, get what the president is TRYING to do with his tariff fever, but it's already backfiring and -- despite some lovely PR releases from companies waving the flag -- will only increase costs on North American consumers. The basic problem with his approach is that you can't just wish up more factories in the US over the course of a year or two -- it will take a couple of decades, and in the meantime YOU will be paying quite a bit for practically everything made outside the US.

A plan to increase self-reliance on manufacturing will require a carefully-crafted program that is implemented and executed across the next few decades. The rewards will be long-term, not short term -- sadly this requires some short-term sacrifice, patience, and vision between all branches of federal, state, and local government that I don't see as possible anymore without a major societal sea change away from hyper-partisanization.

I would just add these few things; the U.S. still lacks a sizable trained, experienced workforce for these kinds of products* (and companies have no real plan other than increased automation, as pointed out by others), let alone a workforce that’s used to doing surge work, then moving on when demand slackens (though not for lack of trying on the part of companies).

* U.S. corps are largely responsible for their own predicament; companies routinely shit on these types of workers and the work is looked down on, and consumers rarely want to pay the ‘real’ cost of items (i.e. the externalized costs, like end-of-lifespan issues). Also, companies incurred enormous inefficiencies in transferring skilled work to an initially unskilled workforce during the ‘70s and ‘80s, estimated to have erased any real cost-savings. Look to Apple’s struggles in moving operations to India and elsewhere (some of which is also no-doubt due to infrastructure issues).

22july2013 said:

People here believe that private companies should be allowed to censor their customers and employees, and that the government should not be allowed to stop it. While this is true, the government has many "100% legal options" at their disposal, such as not buying any products for their own employees from companies that censor free speech. Therefore, investigations serve a purpose.

Besides, an investigation is itself protected under free speech laws, since Congress cannot censor itself either, and people typically forget that constitutional rights also apply to elected officials.

“ …100% legal options" at their disposal, such as not buying any products for their own employees from companies that censor free speech.”

How is it that folks don’t understand that the Federal government (or State) trying to control a corporation’s behavior on speech through discriminatory practices IS a giant ducking 1st Amendment violation? Can you imagine if the Dems were doing this? Conservatives would be performatively apoplectic.

Ya’ll have some seriously misguided views of what the real laws are regarding speech in the U.S. Do some research peeps, and leave the legal opinions to people that know what they’re talking about.