thrang

Back to the point of the article: I have no idea who this guy is and if the assumptions are correct, but presuming it is approximately right, it goes to show how anal-ysts often miss the larger picture with Apple. While it's technically one company's it's not difficult to view it as an amalgam of several highly successful companies with huge synergy. This allow them to adjust the dials based on product life cycles to ensure they are protected from significant downturns (political interference not withstanding)

spheric said:

Kuyangkoh said:

avon b7 said:

thrang said:

These kinds of positions are quite disgusting in their anti-capitalist positions.
Companies that develop products or services in a commercial environment have the right (and responsibility) to decide to make such products or services as closed or as open as they wish. Not only for their success as an commercial entity (and as a return on their enormous development, support, and marketing investments), but, in cases such as this, for concerns of user security. A company's decisions in all ways impact go-to-market risks - and inform the considerations of the consumer whether they want to purchase. In this case, too open and you invite potential security risk and lack of cohesive user experience - too closed, and you run the risk of alienating consumers and making it too difficult to use. If Apple has shown anything, it's that they get the blend of open and closed quite right far more often than they get it wrong. Its success is the penultimate marker for this. If one does not like Apple's (low) walled-garden approach, there are a multitude of Android alternatives one can move to. That's competition. Apple and everyone else out there have to continually compete, which seems to be forgotten by some. Competing means, among other things, offering differentiated features, sometimes exclusive, sometimes open, to make your mark. The consumers will decide if those offerings are of value or not. If too many people feel Apple Pay's approach is too limited, they won't use it. Or, if significant enough of a concern, they'll leave the platform.

I lived in a mixed economy. There are other aspects than pure capitalism involved.

Competition is one of those aspects and this might be a competition issue. The only way to know for sure is to investigate. 

There is nothing disgusting about the position. There are rules and regulations. There are safeguards.

If Apple doesn't represent an abuse of competition regulations it has nothing to worry about. Simply being better or worse is irrelevant. 

Competition is relevant.

Hopediddy....there goes the darn EU again. Mind your own backyard firsthand.

That is literally what they are doing. 

Our backyard, our rules. If you don't give a shit about anticompetitive behaviour, that's your problem. 

We do. And if there's complaints or indication that this might be happening, then it's the Commission's job to investigate. 

I agree that Apple gets the balance right more than most anybody else, but as a trillion-dollar company, they have rather different marketing clout than they did in the late '90s, and we need to ensure that they don't abuse it, whether inadvertently or with intent to corner a market. 

This sort of investigation happens every day, btw. — both here in Europe and in the United States. Corporations from all industries and all countries get slapped with fines etc. 

Nothing to see here. Europe will let you know how it pans out. 

Whats anti-competitive about Apple only offering Apple Pay on their own product? It's their hardware, it's their software, it's their total responsibility. Revenues, profits, development, support, marketing, user experience, PR, legal ramifications, (massive) etc...

If Apple somehow was interfering with other platforms offering their own payment systems on their own devices to "force" people to buy iPhones and force them to use Apple Pay, you'd have a discussion. Otherwise, you have nothing.

spice-boy said:

thrang said:

These kinds of positions are quite disgusting in their anti-capitalist positions.
Companies that develop products or services in a commercial environment have the right (and responsibility) to decide to make such products or services as closed or as open as they wish. Not only for their success as an commercial entity (and as a return on their enormous development, support, and marketing investments), but, in cases such as this, for concerns of user security. A company's decisions in all ways impact go-to-market risks - and inform the considerations of the consumer whether they want to purchase. In this case, too open and you invite potential security risk and lack of cohesive user experience - too closed, and you run the risk of alienating consumers and making it too difficult to use. If Apple has shown anything, it's that they get the blend of open and closed quite right far more often than they get it wrong. Its success is the penultimate marker for this. If one does not like Apple's (low) walled-garden approach, there are a multitude of Android alternatives one can move to. That's competition. Apple and everyone else out there have to continually compete, which seems to be forgotten by some. Competing means, among other things, offering differentiated features, sometimes exclusive, sometimes open, to make your mark. The consumers will decide if those offerings are of value or not. If too many people feel Apple Pay's approach is too limited, they won't use it. Or, if significant enough of a concern, they'll leave the platform.

How short some peoples memories are. It is that special free wheeling kind of American capitalism which creates global recessions. Due to a libertarian takeover of our democracy these past 30 year, the foxes been have left in charge of the hen house and regulations are a thing of the past. Most European nations do not subscribe to a boom then bust economy and their restrictions are there because not having them will lead to a disaster. It's an exciting time in America to be part of the top 10%, since the bottom 90% have been convinced that markets should resemble the wild kingdom where only the strong will and should survive. Laws are written because the worst in people (greed) always needs to be kept in check. The time of the Baron Robbers taught us that. 

Whatever you're lumbering and stumbling on about has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Apple invented the entire HW/SW platform. They have a responsibility to the business and to their customers to run it in such a way that it delivers the experiences those customers have demonstrated, (through enormous sales over several years) that they want.

If there is a security risk by opening NFC up, I DON'T WANT IT on my iPhone.  I DON'T WANT Apple to waste resources being forced to try and support that, and then deal with the issues of security cracks that might develop from the forced adoption. It's the same reason I DON'T WANT third party app stores. My view of the Apple ecosystem would diminish greatly if they were compelled to offer this, because I PREFER the walled garden approach, and the vastly (relative) more stable and secure environment it provides.  That remains a large part of my belief in the Apple ecosystem, as it undoubtedly does for a vast majority of consumers who remain with or are attracted to the ecosystem. Any governmental entity's attempt to forcibly changes this goes against the very people they are foolishly  purporting to protect.

Apple can choose what they want on their platform for a myriad of reasons. The market will decide if they want to participate. Plenty of nice Android phones out there that compete with different features and options. Thats' exactly the choice you want - from natural competitive position, not governmental interference.

If I wanted the things Apple did not offer, if I felt constrained or forced, I can go to the store and buy something different that offers the things I feel I'm being denied.

One has every right to prefer socialism, but it's ironic one would desire to convert successful capitalistic ventures to meet a socialist framework!

Instead,  look for the socialist-minded companies that deliver what you want. It would be an incredibly long and unfulfilling search...

These kinds of positions are quite disgusting in their anti-capitalist positions.
Companies that develop products or services in a commercial environment have the right (and responsibility) to decide to make such products or services as closed or as open as they wish. Not only for their success as an commercial entity (and as a return on their enormous development, support, and marketing investments), but, in cases such as this, for concerns of user security. A company's decisions in all ways impact go-to-market risks - and inform the considerations of the consumer whether they want to purchase. In this case, too open and you invite potential security risk and lack of cohesive user experience - too closed, and you run the risk of alienating consumers and making it too difficult to use. If Apple has shown anything, it's that they get the blend of open and closed quite right far more often than they get it wrong. Its success is the penultimate marker for this. If one does not like Apple's (low) walled-garden approach, there are a multitude of Android alternatives one can move to. That's competition. Apple and everyone else out there have to continually compete, which seems to be forgotten by some. Competing means, among other things, offering differentiated features, sometimes exclusive, sometimes open, to make your mark. The consumers will decide if those offerings are of value or not. If too many people feel Apple Pay's approach is too limited, they won't use it. Or, if significant enough of a concern, they'll leave the platform.

who cares