thrang

Half the country doesn't even want to work, you think there is interest in repairing things themselves? HAHAHAHA....

This "Right to Repair" is largely nonsense, and conversely, what Apple says largely makes sense.

For every person that beats their chest that they want to repair their own iPhone, there are likely 50,000 people or more who could give a shit. Making a product "easy to access" for the consumer defeats many of the shock, water and security protections a highly engineered and manufactured product provides.

Owning the product does not necessarily mean you have also purchased the right to repair it either. As a consumer, you can evaluates how important that aspect of a purchase is to you, and either buy or pass on a product based on it level or repairability.

This is another facet of the attacks on Apple and other companies to "open" their systems (ie: app stores, payment systems). These  products (a company' HW,, SW, services, and integration) the company's solution. It's the company's IP! They can do with it what they wish (within the law) and consumers can decide if their approach is "too restrictive" or not in whatever category concerns them. It's not anti-competitive to do any of this. This is the nature of market competition.

Why would Nordstroms or Mark's and Spencer allow an independent retailer to set up a kiosk in their store, for free; to sell products and collect 100% of the revenue for themselves, all while leveraging the enormous costs of the retail space (rent, utilities, insurance, security, marketing and advertising etc.) AND the traffic the stores themselves drive. Again, for free.

What I've always said is please show me extensive evidence that Apple (or other companies of their market position) use that market strength/position to coerce or otherwise influence component suppliers, service suppliers, reseller channels etc. to unfairly impinge or restrict the supply or sale of competitors product because of threats or other non-free market tactics. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but at least for Apple, I rarely if ever see this, and certainly not at a level that would warrant government-level intervention.

nubus said:

Vestager is ultra pro open markets. It seems not all here get that part. She is pushing for competition all the way by keeping competition fair. If you're like Apple doing tax evasion with a "Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich" model then you can expect to take some heat. And EU is by the way not keeping fines. Those fines are 1:1 deducted from what the countries pay and EU can't charge taxes on their own. EU is not like the US government.

If Apple can't handle a person running things by the book, fighting for open markets, and being passionate about fair competition then the person replacing Vestager later this year will be a nightmare to Apple. The election earlier this month gave nationalistic parties more votes. Trade protectionism is high on their agenda. Tim Cook shouting at Vestager has all the way been very unprofessional. You don't see him like that when working with communist dictatorships.

This is gobbledygook.

Forcing Apple to promote a competitor is nonsense, and investing CTF as though Apple has no right to profit from its IP is insanity at any level. It's the competitors who want unfair access to Apple's ecosystem without paying a thing. Vestegar and her cronies are looking to milk money and unfairly leverage Apple's success for its regional corporations.

It's utter horseshit.

avon b7 said:

thrang said:

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Apple should just. let it crash and burn.

And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.

I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table. 

I'll set out my stalk. 

IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them. 

They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations. 

Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions. 

Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores. 

Unaware of the commissions. 

Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.

That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not? 

Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?

I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook. 

What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.

NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit). 

I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.

If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.

If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.

My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.

I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different. 

Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations. 

Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here. 

If Apple's approach impinged negatively upon user experience, users in appreciable numbers would be vocal. It's that simple. Ask the CEO of Sonos that is getting drubbed because of the horrible new version of their app recently launched that broke or removed features the Sonos community used regularly.

You have no logic in your thinking here. Apple customers are extremely pleased with their devices and the  ecosystem. You want to rely on governments to tell/force you what you want??? Let the market decide.

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Apple should just. let it crash and burn.

And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.

I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table. 

I'll set out my stalk. 

IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them. 

They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations. 

Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions. 

Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores. 

Unaware of the commissions. 

Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.

That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not? 

Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?

I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook. 

What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.

NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit). 

I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.

If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.

If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.