davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 163
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,335
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,053
Reactions
-
Apple will crush the DoJ in court if Garland sticks with outdated arguments
nubus said:
Well.. it is in an interview with Greg Joswiak from Apple that they worked 10 years against EU on this:coolfactor said:
Apple never promised USB-C for 10 years. What nonsense it that?Apple+EU has been a disaster for years. Apple spent 10 years on promising before finally being forced to USB-C. Now EU has had enough with politicians hitting Apple in several ways causing disruptions to hardware and software. Apple is taking a beating every week.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/iphone-will-get-usb-c-charging-as-apple-says-it-will-comply-with-eu-law/
As the article also states it all started in 2009 when Apple signed a proposal for using a common charger to reduce e-waste (EN/IEC 6268). Obviously Apple never delivered on that but allowed other companies to sell dongles so that users could connect to the common charger. That is not how e-waste is reduced. So - either 10 or 15 years.Apple only converted to USB-C after the EU passed the law in 2022 and companies affect have until the end of 2024 to comply. Apple never promised to use USB-C ....... 10 years ago. And they never promised to use USB Micro 15 years ago. That's all in your imagination because of the way you twist the facts or a reading comprehension problem.The 2009 agreement between the telecoms to use a standard USB charger with the Micro connector for charging, that was signed by Apple, only concern the charger. It allowed for the use of a dongle/adapter so that a charger with a USB Micro connector could be use for charging. Which Apple did, rather than to replace their 30pin connector. There was no way that USB Micro connector can replace all the functions of their 30 pin connector. And it would make absolutely no sense to add a USB Micro port on iPhones, just for charging. Apple would not have signed the agreement if it meant replacing the port on iPhones with a USB Micro or USB-C.The agreement also allowed for innovation. Telecom were not restricted from using better developed technology. This allowed for the standard to change from USB Micro to USB-C. If it weren't for this, USB-Micro would still be the standard. In 2009, Apple already had plans to replace their nearly 10 year old 30 pin connector with their Lightening connector, in 2012. Two years before USB-C specs were finalized. iPhones with Lightning connectors were probably already being designed in 2009, for release 2 to 3 years out. And the Lightening connector adhere to the USB charging standards and any USB Micro charger (with the correct adapter), can be used to charge iPhones and iPads.In wasn't until 2022, that the EU mandated that all mobile devices use a USB-C port. Until then, the agreement signed by most of the telecoms in 2009, only required that mobile devices use a USB charger (with either a Micro or C connector) for charging. No where did the 2009 agreement state that the port on the device must be a USB Micro or USB-C. This agreement was to standardize the charger, not the port on the device. As long as the device adopt the USB charging standard, the port on the device didn't matter, so long as it could be adapted to use a standard USB Micro (and later USB -C.) charger. By 2022, the lightening was already 10 years old technology and falling way behind USB3.2 specs. Apple probably already had plans on using USB-C but had to move up their plans because of the new EU law that passed in 2022.
-
Spotify upset over 9 day App Review, cries antitrust to EC
sflagel said:So Spotify is working every angle to maximise returns to their investors, provide more competition, and push updates to their customers as quickly as possible; and most people in this forum side with the $3 Tn company that works every angle so that none of this happens?Gee, I would think most Spotify users and investors would be more concern about when will Spotify catch up with its competitors when it comes to the audio quality of their streams. How long has it been since Spotify promised true lossless audio quality streams. Way more than 9 days.
-
Apple speaks out against Epic's contempt of court accusation
mikethemartian said:
Apple has never dumped on Microsoft?thinkman100000000 said:For all the damage ($$$) Sweeny has caused Apple, they should publicly declare to everyone that Epic is never going to be on Apple devices! Apple, unlike nearly every vindictive company, has never to my recollection ever dumped on them……or anyone. "Them" being Epic, Spotify, X, Microsoft, Samsung………and the list goes on. In the cases of Epic and Spotify, these companies wouldn't be nearly as successful as they are had it not been for Apple.Are you asking because you don't know?Or are you putting it in a form of a question to make it seem that you do know the Apple has dumped on Microsoft and making it seem obvious?If you have have instances of Apple dumping on Microsoft, then I would think many here would like to know what you know, instead of posting it as a question.And we're not referring to "dumping" when for the sake of competition in advertising, PR stunts or to enforce and protect one's IP. We're referring to the likes of Epic and Spotify crying to some government regulatory board on how much money Apple is "undeservingly" making off them or blaming any of their short comings on Apple business practices.I don't recall Apple ever dumping on Microsoft when the EU found them guilty of anti-trust by tying IE to Windows. Nor bitched about to the EU Commission when Microsoft was not doing enough to unbundle IE. I don't recall Apple dumping on Microsoft when Microsoft was fined over $800M for non compliance of allowing Windows customers to easily select their default browser of choice and took years to pay while appealing the fine.I don't recall Apple dumping on Microsoft when the US found them guilty of abusing their Windows monopoly and supported recommendation that Microsoft should be broken up.Has Apple ever blamed their low computer market share on Microsoft abusing their Windows monopoly, to some government regulatory board? Has Apple ever blamed Microsoft for Safari low market share on Windows PC on some anti-competitive practice by Microsoft, to some government regulatory board? When Microsoft bought out Bungie and stopped the much anticipated release (for Mac users) of Halo on Macs and made it an exclusive on the Xbox, did Apple go crying to some government regulatory board about how Microsoft is abusing their monopoly? Did Apple go crying to some government regulatory board when they were losing a tens of millions of dollars every quarter because of low Mac sales, while Microsoft was still profiting from Office for Mac? Has Apple ever filed an anti-trust or unfair competition lawsuit against Microsoft Windows monopoly? Now there have been dozens of anti-trust lawsuits against Microsoft by other companies over the years and I don't ever recall Apple trying to capitalize or profit from any of them. Though they might have supported some of the companies filing lawsuits against Microsoft.But really, if you actually know of any cases where Apple dumped on Microsoft to a government regulatory board, like how Epic and Spotify are dumping on Apple to the EU Commission, I would think many here would appreciate it if you can provide a link.But if you are really asking the question, then unless anyone here can provide a link, the answer might be .... no.
-
EU antitrust chief remarks about $2 billion Apple Music fine ignores Spotify dominance
spheric said:dmitrek said:Well it's good that he said that Apple is punished for the past behaviour. I think laws does not have backward power and past behaviour can not be objected.
The antitrust legislation they violated has existed for decades.
There is absolutely nothing retroactive here.The law existed, Apple broke it, someone complained, Apple got investigated and now gets punished.The end (until appeal).What's being applied retroactive is the way the fine was calculated.Apple is accused of violating EU Anti-trust laws Article 102. Which is a vague and general law stating that any business practice determined to be anti-competitive is a violation of anti-trust. Not unlike the CA Unfair Competition Law that Apple was only found guilty of in the Epic vs Apple lawsuit. The law doesn't state any specific business practices as the being anti-competitive, as same business practice could be deemed anti-competitive with one company and not with another. The market dominance of the company has a lot to do with determining whether a business practice is determined to be anti-competitive.>The Commission found that the anti-steering provisions constituted unfair trading conditions in contravention of Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In the Commission’s view, these provisions were neither necessary nor proportionate to protect Apple’s commercial interests and negatively affected the interests of iOS users by preventing them from making an informed decision about where and how to purchase music streaming subscriptions.<This is the anti-trust law that has existed for decades.However, under this more than a decade old law, (Article102), the fined is calculated as a percentage of the revenue that directly benefited by the anti-competitive business practice.>According to the 2006 Guidelines on Fines, undertaking’s starting point for the fine is a percentage of the company’s annual sales of the product or service concerned by the infringement. The relevant sales are usually the sales of the product or service covered by the infringement during the last full business year of the infringement.<But the EU is fining Apple based on the DMA. Using a percentage of global revenue because Apple is a "gatekeeper". Apple wasn't a "gatekeeper" before being labeled that under the DMA. And the DMA just recently passed and went into affect this month. If Apple was found guilty of violating EU Anti-trust Article 102 5 years ago, the fine would not be based on a percentage of total global revenue.When Google was fined €2.4B for violating anti-trust laws in 2017, the fine was based on the same 2006 Commission Guidelines on fines. Not based on a percentage of Google global revenue.>The Commission's fine of €2 424 495 000 takes account of the duration and gravity of the infringement. In accordance with the Commission's 2006 Guidelines on fines (see press release and MEMO), the fine has been calculated on the basis of the value of Google's revenue from its comparison shopping service in the 13 EEA countries concerned.So even though Apple is violating an EU anti-trust law (Article 102) that's been around for decades, they are being fined under a law (DMA) that hasn't been in affect for a month yet. To be fair, Apple fine should be in accordance with the EU commission 2006 Guidelines on fines, not the DMA. But then again, being "fair" is not what the EU Commission is concern about when it comes to extracting money from any of their pre-determined "gatekeepers" (under the DMA).
-
Apple believes Spotify wants a free ride, and the EU may just give it to them
nubus said:lam92103 said:Free ride? I have paid for my device. That comes with both the hardware and the software. What exactly is Apple doing here for Spotify?The only one excuse they have is the AppStore, but then allow people to move off it.
Indeed! If Apple is right about this, then why is there no enforced 30% Apple Tax on Mac developers? Is Apple saying that macOS is worth nothing to developers? If Apple want even more from us, then first step is durable alternatives to their vegan covers. But this... is some very non-vegan output from Cupertino.Apple do indeed collect a commission on purchased apps and from IAP from apps, that are downloaded from the macOS App Store (on a Mac). And for many Mac developers, it's worth paying the 15/30% commission to be in the macOS App Store. Not every developer have the resources to take online credit card payments or to host a website that potential customers trust from which apps can be securely downloaded or even maintain a secure website at all. And then also have to keep financial records of their customers purchases, along with keeping track of all the sales tax (or VAT) that must be collect and remitted to the various governments. By having their apps in the macOS App Store, all they would need to do is develop their apps with Xcode, have it meet Apple App Store policies and Apple will list in it the macOS App Store, where Mac users can find and download it. Apple will keep the record of customer purchases and collect and remit the sale tax or VAT. Most small app developers will only be paying the 15% rate. And if they're paying 30%, then that means they are making over $1M (a year) with their app(s) in the macOS App Store and shouldn't be complaining at all about the commission. Unless you're like the greedy asshole CEO of Spotify or Epic Games.One must also consider that there are more than one way to develop for macOS (OSX) other than getting an Apple developer account and using Swift/Xcode. And one do not need to use the macOS App Store to get an app installed on to a Mac. OSX dates back to the 80's when it was develop by Next,15 years before the release of Xcode (in 2003). On the other hand, the only way to develop for iOS is to use Swift/Xcode and one need to have a paid Apple developer account in order to get the app installed on iOS.It's really no different than comparing Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Xbox platform. Microsoft collect their 30% from developers developing games for the Microsoft Store on the Xbox but only collect a 15% commission for Windows apps in the Microsoft Store on PC's. But also don't collect any commission for apps that are not installed through the Microsoft Store on PC's. Microsoft lowered their 30% commission to 15%, in order to compete with the 12% commission with the Epic Game Store only in the Microsoft Store on PC's.You know, Apple is not only not forcing you to use Apple devices, they also are not forcing you to buy cases for Apple devices made by Apple (if you choose to use an Apple device). There are over a dozen makers of "non-vegan" cases for Apple devices, that you can choose from.
