davidw

About

Username
davidw
Joined
Visits
178
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
4,612
Badges
1
Posts
2,144

Reactions

2.3KLike7Dislike449Informative

  • EU will force Apple to totally expose its iPhone features to all who ask

    davidwdavidw
    kkqd1337 said:
    I don't understand the horror here?

    I think the EU's position is perfectly reasonable and sensible. 

    Why shouldn't all manufacturers of peripheries such as Digital Watches / Headphones have the same access to the iPhone as Apple's own Watch/headphones?

    Or are we suggesting anyone wanting to make a competing Apple Watch should just go and make their own phone to go with it?

    You are aware that there are other smartwatches and headphones for the iPhone, than just the Apple Watch and Apple brand headphones .... right?



    In case you don't understand, it's not about access to the iPhone, but access to Apple Intellectual Property (IP) in both the Watch and iPhone, IP that gives the Apple Watch a competitive edge. IP that Apple invested 10's of millions of dollars, if not billions, in RD.

    Ask yourself this, why can't we make money selling fancy $20 (Fortnite Bucks) virtual outfits to Epic Games Fortnite players? Are we suggesting that anyone wanting to compete with Epic in selling virtual outfits to customers playing games by Epic Games, develop our own games? You bet that hows it works. Fortnite is Epic Games IP. Nearly all develop countries hands the IP owner a monopoly in the ways they can monetize their IP. Google chose to make their IP (Android) Open Source. Thus (with limits) available for free to use and modify. Apple IP (iOS, Watch OS, iPadOS, etc.) are not Open Source (nor Public Domain) and solely belongs to Apple and only runs on Apple devices . They can charge for the use of their IP to recover the cost of RD or should be able to limit its availability, to give Apple products a competitive advantage. 


    williamlondontiredskills

  • Apple loses antitrust appeal in Germany, now subject to steep fines and regulations

    davidwdavidw
    avon b7 said:
    charlesn said:
    avon b7 said:
    charlesn said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    longpath said:
    This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.

    Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.
    https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en

    By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.

    Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.

    Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them. 


    EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!

    EU law makes a mockery of law.
    The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective. 

    You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers. 
    Here's what makes no sense: for MANY years, Apple's stubborn insistence on a walled garden held it back in the marketplace. And no government cared about its walled garden then. But over time, and especially as digital devices proliferated into tablets, wearables, etc, consumers made the free will choice to buy into the tightly controlled Apple ecosystem. In fact, the tightly controlled ecosystem with its focus on privacy, security, seamless operation between devices and "it just works" reliability became THE main reason to choose Apple. Let's face it: it has never been difficult to get more bang for your buck in the world of Windows and Android hardware. But consumers chose to pay more for Apple hardware with its walled garden being a main reason why. And now here comes government, breaking the very thing that tens of millions of consumers have freely chosen in buying Apple products, all in the name of insane, upside down logic of supposedly greater consumer choice. Except you're not allowed to choose a closed and tightly controlled ecosystem and--here comes the upside down logic again--the reason consumers will not be allowed to have that choice is because too many consumers have freely chosen it. 
    No one, at no point, voted for a walled garden. Not with their wallets or otherwise. 

    I will go much further and argue that the vast majority of iPhone users are completely ignorant to the shackles placed on them by Apple (and others). 
    Oh please. To your first point, Apple is and always has been a walled garden since its founding. When you buy an Apple product you are voting with your wallet to go inside the wall because you have a world of choices with no wall and you didn't choose those. The loyalty to Apple is so fierce among its customers because they like the way the Apple ecosystem works. 

    To your second point: my god, at least come up with something original. The whole "Apple sheeple" cliche has been around for at least 30 years. Really astonishing how Apple has now been able to cast a spell over the entire world, don't you think? What do you figure it is? Does Apple have a global program of doping the water? Amazing that iPhone has been around for 18 years and is now sold in over 70 countries, but Apple has managed to keep those shackles a secret from everyone! Must be a Matrix kind of thing, right?

    I don't need to come up with anything 'original'. My points are clear. 

    Try an informal survey yourself. How aware are the iPhone users you know and meet of Apple's imposed limitations? 

    Why shouldn't apple just be open about the limitations - just to do the right thing? Like they did with app tracking transparency.

    After all, your entire argument is that they won't mind because it's all in their interests. The price one pays for privacy and security (in spite of zero day exploits and non-stop security updates landing on their devices).

    My take is that Apple would rather jump through all the EU hoops (malicious compliance included where possible) instead of being open. And we all know why, right? 

    Another one of your pointless arguments.

    Maybe back in 2010, you might have a point about Apple not informing consumers about some of their limitations, but iPhones were only selling in the tens of millions back then to mainly new users and Nokia still had about 40%of the mobile phone market. (who CEO didn't have a care in the World about Apple getting into the mobile phone market because the iPhone was just s "fad".) Now iPhone sales in the hundred of millions but over 80% of on purchasers are upgrading from an older iPhone. This was true even before the DMA was drafted. Only about 3 percent of mobile phone sales are to consumers that never owned a mobile phone.

    As for your survey, every one I know with an iPhone knows of Apple limitations because every one of them are on at least their second iPhone. And nearly all of them knew about Apple iPhone limitations before they bought their first iPhone. Even though those limitations were not spelled out in their EULA. Which none of them read anyway but agreed to.  In fact, every one I know with an Android phone are aware of Apple iPhone limitations because its one of the reasons why they are using an Android phone.

    Are you so ignorant that you would rather use a mobile phone whose maker is not constantly providing security updates? Just exactly whose mobile OS are you using, that is so secure from the first day it was issued, that they rarely have to provide their users with any further security updates? I'm sorry for your ignorance, but getting constant security updates is one of the main reason why Apple devices are more secure than devices running on Android. Even Google had to come up with ways to force security updates for Android users because many Android mobile phone makers weren't updating their phones in a timely matter, if at all. So you think constantly getting security updates means a mobile phone in not secure?







    muthuk_vanalingam

  • Apple loses antitrust appeal in Germany, now subject to steep fines and regulations

    davidwdavidw
    avon b7 said:
    anonymouse said:
    avon b7 said:
    longpath said:
    This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.

    Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.
    https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en

    By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.

    Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.

    Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them. 


    EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!

    EU law makes a mockery of law.
    The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective. 

    You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers. 

    But if those numbers are set only for the purpose of insuring that the 5 largest US tech companies are captured as "gatekeepers", then Apple didn't just "fall" into the group of "gatekeepers". And it makes being a "gatekeeper" (under the DMA)  a meaningless label.  
    radarthekatjib

  • Apple loses antitrust appeal in Germany, now subject to steep fines and regulations

    davidwdavidw
    EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!

    EU law makes a mockery of law.
    Waves hand broadly. All these laws are a joke! All of them.  

    Thanks for the rational law analysis, anon! I'll be sure to come back here whenever I need more in-depth legal and historical analysis!

    Why wait? Here a good rational article whose authors are not anon! They  are highly educated in the field of economics and they cited the opinions of many that did not remain anon! and also well versed in field of economics and competition. But the article only pertains to the DMA. Which is what we're mainly talking about here.


    >The Commission has not disclosed the thinking behind these thresholds. However, a reading of the Digital Markets Act Impact Assessment support study annex, which reported an analysis of various quantitative indicators[1] for 19 digital firms[2], shows three things: (1) the exercise carried out by the European Commission was subjective. There is no magic economic formula that would suggest that these are the optimal quantitative thresholds that maximise the efficacy of the restrictions and obligations imposed by the DMA. (2) The approach applied by the European Commission was most likely based on a backward induction process: the Commission had a rough idea of the companies that the DMA should capture, it then crafted the thresholds accordingly, to be sure the bigger players would be included. (3) Finally, the Commission had to make a clear trade-off: too-high thresholds would limit the impact of the DMA because companies with strong market leverage and capable of limiting competition in digital markets could fall out of scope; too-low thresholds would, however, entail high costs, for example burdening companies with compliance duties when they do not restrict competition in the digital market, or increasing pressure on resource-constrained public enforcers.<


    And then we have this German member of EU parliament (at the time), who played a major role in the drafting of the DMA.


    >The EU lawmaker who will steer the EU’s flagship tech regulation through the European parliament has said it should focus on the largest five US tech companies.

    Andreas Schwab, a German MEP and longtime critic of Google, spoke after France and Germany both called for the EU to be tougher on Big Tech. He said Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft, were the “biggest problems” for EU competition policy.

    “Let’s focus first on the biggest problems, on the biggest bottlenecks. Let’s go down the line — one, two, three, four, five — and maybe six with Alibaba,” he said to the Financial Times.

    “But let’s not start with number 7 to include a European gatekeeper just to please [US president Joe] Biden,” he added.<


     







    radarthekatanonymouse

  • Calls for Tim Cook's resignation over Apple Intelligence miss that he has made Apple what ...

    davidwdavidw
    tiredskills said:
    davidw said:
    nubus said:
    Cook was an outstanding COO. He became CEO of the most valuable company and kept it like that for the most. Car, AVP, TV+ expenses, panic move away from China, and AI… he is no product or project person. He won’t push Apple forward.

    That is a misleading statement. Cook did not "....... became CEO of the most valuable company". When Cook took over as CEO (after Jobs passing in 2011), Apple, Inc. only had a market cap of about $375B. Apple Inc. did not become the most valuable company until over 7 years later, with Cook as CEO. Apple became the first $1T US company (by market cap) in 2018. The first $2T in 2020 and the first $3T in 2024. Not bad by any metric, for a CEO that bungled its EV venture.
    Not all that misleading.  Apple briefly became the worlds most valuable company in 2011, and vied for the top spot with Exxon for the following few years.  The $1tn market cap milestone was a different matter.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-08-09/apple-rises-from-near-bankruptcy-to-become-most-valuable-company
    https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/ExxonMobil-Overtakes-Apple-to-Become-the-Worlds-Largest-Company.html

    Maybe check these things out before rushing to correct someone with your half-rememberings?

    But Jobs named Cook as interim CEO of Apple in 2009. Cook was doing most of the heavy lifting in running Apple because of Jobs failing health.  Apple became the most valuable US company under Cook's watch. Cook didn't just inherit Apple being the most valuable US company (by market cap), he was running the company well before Apple earned that title around 2011, even if only off and on for the next few years.  Which may have been one of the main reason why Jobs officially named him CEO in 2011. It wasn't until Apple market cap hit about $1T in (2018) that Apple has become known as the most valuable company in the World and not just based on market cap, like it was in 2011. Apple has been  the most profitable company in the US since around 2015 and second most profitable company in the World today. 

    You make it seem as though Cook was just lucky to be in the right place, at the right time and played no role in Apple becoming the most valuable company in the US and then the World. All of those happened when Apple was under his watch.


    ronn