davidw

About

Username
davidw
Joined
Visits
185
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
4,743
Badges
1
Posts
2,184
  • EU hits back at Apple withholding Apple Intelligence from the region

    xRAHx said:
    xRAHx said:
    indiebug said:
    EU commission head is targeting Apple either because she has clandestinely sided with its competitors or as a means to milk American companies which are far ahead of European counterparts. EU is literally finding ways to squeeze money out of American tech giants. EU s policies are based on protectionism and jealousy towards Big American brands. This is awful and anyone with common sense can understand. Interoperability- nonsense. Next, make iMovie compatible with android. Why does not Microsoft make windows compatible with Mac? Why no android on iPhone.  All nonsensical hogwash 

    The EU commission requires owners of market-dominating operating systems not to set their own browsers as the default, but to show users a selection of competing browsers during setup, from which they should choose one as the default.

    The EU commission wants the owners of the market-dominating operating systems not to prevent app developers from advertising the sale of licenses in their own apps. 

    European iOS and iPadOS users shall become free to choose who they want to buy apps and content from. Apple shall not stay the monopoly reseller of apps for iOS and iPadOS in the EU. The EU does not want Apple to be able to continue to prevent certain apps from being available on iOS and iPadOS. European Users of iOS and iPadOS shall become able to freely develop, distribute, install, sell and buy apps for iOS and iPadOS.

    That is more freedom for European users, that is more freedom for developers all over the world who want to sell apps for iOS and iPadOS in the EU, that is less freedom for Apple in the EU.

    The EU commission demands that the owners of the market-dominating operating systems do not use the APIs of the operating systems exclusively for themselves, but that the owners of these operating systems allow all app developers to use the APIs of the operating systems so that there are more better applications that run on all operating systems.

    The EU commission does not require Apple to develop apps for other operating systems.

    First point: I don't think anyone has much of an issue with this. The EU does also require Apple to allow browsers to use their own engine.

    Second: Not sure why the EU thinks this is important. Advertising licenses inside an app is not typical for any platform. Smartphone users also have access to all kinds of information outside of apps and the App Store on the same device...internet, social media, email, text messages, direct messages etc. Basically, you have to pretend that smartphone users aren't aware that they can get information about developers and their products/services anywhere other than inside apps or the App Store in order to think this is important.

    Third: Apple monopolizes app distribution because iOS/iPadOS and iPhone/iPad hardware are their own IP. That formula has been around for decades and was never previously considered to be anti-competitive since there is a high degree of difficulty in achieving success with it commercially. Think of all the various video game consoles that have either flopped or been unable to maintain viability in the long run. Think of Microsoft's attempt at a smartphone. It's not a magic formula for market dominance. Apple does have limits for what it allows to be sold in the App Store but that is true of any store...digital or brick/mortar. For the most part though, it's really the app developers that choose whether or not to provide their apps on iOS. Example: Microsoft made a big stink about its game streaming app not being allowed on the App Store but they had never previously ported 1st party games to the App Store either. They preferred to limit their own gaming apps to Windows/Xbox.

    Fourth: Requiring access to APIs across the board is kind of an odd stance since not every API can be linked to market competition. I can see how it makes sense for something like NFC/Wallet or the browser engine aspect, i.e., targeted situations. This seems like a big overreach on the part of the EU similar to the third point above.  
    Great points. 

    No one goes to target or wal mart to find information about what else is available from a handbag maker - or if there are any vendor-specific sales better than what’s at that brick and mortar store. 

    They use the internet, advertising in tv, radio, direct mail, etc. 

    when you go to a Mercedes dealership, they don’t have to post up signs telling you that a certain bmw can be had cheaper for similar horsepower, etc. 

    in the smartphone, you have the whole internet at your disposal. People know what search engines and websites are. Sheesh. It’s not kindergarten where you don’t know something unless it’s in front of you at all times. 

    It’s really quite embarrassing that the eu is forcing a tech company to divert customers to vendors own separate stores -inside their own store. 

    It’s a solution looking for a problem and has indeed become the problem. 

    Brick and mortar stores have digital storefronts/apps. To be fair, that’s a digital market and would need to force them to have a sign next to the Kilauea bananas item in the apps that directed them to Klause’s stall down the street where he sells cheaper because of less overhead. It’s the height of stupidity. 
    In the EU, apart from the youngest children, almost 100 percent of citizens use a smartphone. No more than 30 percent of EU citizens use games consoles.

    Smartphones are (vitally) important. Game consoles are not important.

    Smartphones are now regulated in the EU. Games consoles may be regulated later.

    There are two operating systems for smartphones: Android and iOS. Alphabet/Google and Apple have a duopoly here.

    Google and Apple have agreed that the Google search engine will be the default setting on all smartphones. They made it obvious that they want to manipulate the owners of smartphones in order so squeeze money out of them.

    A smartphone is a computer that is connected to the Internet and GPS and can be used to make phone calls, take photos, navigate, chat, read and listen.

    Anyone who has bought a computer for 1000+ dollars/euros in the EU shall now be able to decide freely in the EU from whom they buy software for this computer.

    The EU has changed the law exactly for this. It doesn't matter what was allowed before. Now it's different. There is a new law.

    The EU wants freedom for EU citizens who own computers called smartphones. The owners of the computers shall decide where they buy software. Not Google. Not Apple.

    Apple doesn't want that. A minority of Apple users in the EU don't want that either, because they are afraid. The majority of citizens in the EU, however, want to be free to decide from whom they can buy software for their computers that they have already paid for.

    The EU wants this rule to apply to both Android and Apple. That's just how it works. This is not unusual in the EU.

    You are living in a fantasy world of wishful thinking. Android has always allowed third party app stores and side loading. So where are all the app stores in Android that Android mobile phone users are flocking to, to buy their apps from?  Why do over 80% of Android users only use the Google Play Store to get their apps? Why is Google Play Store still a monopoly on Android? Why don't the likes of Starbucks, Spotify, Netflix, banks, retailers, CC, stock traders, Whatsapp, Facebook, online stores, etc., open their own app stores to distribute their free apps on Android or have their customers side load or have it available in other app stores? So all Android customers can choose where or how to install their apps?  Why haven't Google been forced to lower their commission due to competition from other apps stores and sideloading? You think it's going to be different with iOS?

    The bottom line is that over 90% of apps on both platforms app stores are free. There is no way that any other app store can afford to offer as many free apps. But free apps is what draws the "foot traffic" to the Apple App Store and Google Play Store. So why should any of the  developers that sells apps, want to offer them in other apps stores that won't even have nearly the "foot traffic" as the Apple App Store and Google Play Store? And why should any of the developers of free apps, want to offer their free apps in any other app stores that few Android users will visit 9much less trust) or have their customer sideload it?

    This isn't about giving the consumers more choice. With Android, consumers already have those choices and have already chosen that they want to get their apps from the Google Play Store, whenever possible and only get it from elsewhere when forced to. This is about giving developers more choice because they want to avoid paying any commission for the commercial use of IP that they don't own or their apps do not pass the policies of the Google Play Store or Apple App Store. Policies that are put in place to protect the users that installs the app on to their devices. 

    Can EU iOS users look forward to having more choices of app stores and being able to choose what ever app they want to install on their iDevice in the next few years, like from these app stores?




    This isn't about making the EU forcing both Android and Apple to obey the rules. This is about forcing Apple to be more like Android and thus removing the choice for EU consumers to use a mobile OS that is safer, more secure and with better privacy protection. 

    When including all OS's, Windows is the most malware infected. Android is a close second. OSX (MacOS) is a distance third or fifth. With iOS having multiple times less malware that even OSX. And guess which of these are on devices that are the least like a desktop computer, that you think smartphones should be like?

    If the EU was concern about the consumers, they would force Android to be more like iOS, not the other way around. But alas, the EU is more concern about the developers. Funny how the EU enforces one of the strictest (the probably the best) consumer data privacy protection regulations in the World and yet willing to look the other way when it comes to a mobile OS that has proven over time to be more private and secure than the mobile OS they are forcing it to be like.


    BTW- and the majority of citizens in the EU that wants to be free to decide from whom they can buy software for their computers that they have already paid for, can do this by buying an Android phone. And the fact that more than 75% of the EU citizens are using an Android phone proves that Apple in not forcing anyone to use iPhones. And if the majority of EU iPhone users also wants this, why don't they switch to an Android phone? Why did they buy an iPhone to begin with, if that's what they wanted? iOS have been the same for over 10 years. What apps are on an iPhone, that can't be found (or least similar ones) on an Android phone?
    danoxmuthuk_vanalingamtmaywatto_cobra
  • Apple Intelligence & iPhone mirroring aren't coming to EU because of the DMA

    gatorguy said:
    LOL. The EU shooting itself in the foot with their nonsense. 
    Am I correct that China accounts for less Apple revenue than the EU? Last report I saw was China @15%.

    Apple seems eager enough to work within Chinese rules, agreeing to roll over on RCS, "that iPhone owners aren't demanding", giving access to Chinese user data to Chinese entities on Chinese-owned and operated servers with the keys to the kingdom in hand, even abandoning privacy (obviously not an Apple "core value"), all market requirements which are far more restrictive than anything the EU has mandated. But the EU is too demanding? 

    That's because China is not forcing Apple to use Google proprietary RCS. (AFAIK) Of course China government is not going to use RCS with E2EE. Notice that even in the US, Apple is not going to be adapting to Google proprietary RCS. Apple is going with the standard RCS and guess what, the mobile telecoms that wants to have RCS on iPhones must also adapt to the standard RCS, even if they were going to use Google proprietary RCS.

    And also notice that the China government, which also controls all the mobile networks in China, mandated that all mobile phones must be capable of receiving and sending RCS messages. AFAIK, China did not mandate that all messaging services must be able to receive and send RCS messages or be interoperable with RCS. So Apple could allow RCS messaging apps on China iPhones to be in compliance or incorporate RCS in iMessage. Like how they incorporate SMM in iMessage now.

    But iMessage itself will still be E2EE. China government still can not intercept and see iMessages in their servers. They don't need to. What China government is able to do is to have all their mobile carriers install apps in all the mobile phones of China citizens, that allows them to see all messaging, after it becomes unencrypted in the users phones. (And probably even before its sent.) They don't need to see the unencrypted messages in their servers. Apple and all the other phone makers, can't do anything about that. And neither can the citizens of China. But if you are a tourist visiting China and use your iPhone to iMessage someone back home, China still can not read that iMessage. 

    On the other hand, the EU is pushing for a ban on E2EE. So to be more like China. Will the EU citizens fight back? Or will they be like China citizens and accept what ever their government decides? 





    BTW- Once again, statistic is not your strong point. Revenue-wise, 15% of China smartphone market is much larger than 20% (or even 25%) of the EU smartphone market. China is a much larger pie to begin with. You need not look any where else but here, to know that China is Apple second largest smartphone market. And I'm sure it means in terms of revenue and not their market share. There are more than a handful of countries where Apple have more percentage of the market share, than the 15% in China.




    >To bring Apple Intelligence to its second-largest smartphone market, Apple is going to have to sign deals with local providers, but so far has had no luck.<



    nubustmaydewmewatto_cobra
  • Man ludicrously blames Apple for his wife catching him communicating with prostitutes

    kkqd1337 said:
    I don't understand, I think his complaint to Apple is quite reasonable.

    He deleted a message. The message was not deleted.

    Due to this he incurred significant loss.

    But I agree it is ludicrous to think he will beat Apple's lawyers and T&Cs.
    If your car won’t start or you crash it into a wall, you can’t sue the automaker for your boss penalizing your tardiness or absence. 

    Best way to not get caught doing evil: don’t do evil. 

    If your Tesla while on "Auto-Pilot" crashes into a wall, while you were playing a video game on your iPhone, not only can you sue the auto-maker, you can sue Apple for not preventing you from playing a video game on an iPhone while driving and also the entity responsible for placing a wall where a car can accidentally crash into it. Doesn't mean you will win, but here in the US, you are still allowed to pay a lawyer to sue. 

    No matter how scuzzy the lawsuit, there's always a scuzzier lawyer willing to take the case, if they get paid whether they win or lose.
    ronn9secondkox2killroywilliamlondonJaiOh81kkqd1337Bart Ywatto_cobra
  • Schiller fails to convince skeptical judge over Apple's App Store fees

    omasou said:
    Apple, tell her to pound sand.

    I seriously doubt that she can specify what she thinks is a fair fee. If she can then perhaps she should tell UPS, FedEx and USPS what she thinks is a fair cost for shipping /s
    The USPS package rates are regulated.

    The USPS is a government regulated monopoly. When the government grant a company a "monopoly" they regulate the rates that the company can charge the public. Your first clue should have been the "US" in USPS. Plus the Postmaster General is cabinet position appointed by the POTUS. Even though the USPS is now suppose to be self funding ( it was once funded by taxpayers money.), the USPS is still considered to be a "public service" regulated by the Federal government.



    The original ATT rates were government regulated (and very affordable). ATT was granted a "monopoly" by the US government and thus their rates were regulated by the government. Most public utilities, like gas and electric service companies, rates are government regulated by the PUC because they were handed a "monopoly" in the region they serve. I bet your garbage collection company has to go through your local government to raise rates. That's because they were handed a government "monopoly" in the area they serve. What local citizens wants to hear the sound of  garbage trucks picking up trash in their neighborhood, every morning of the week, because there are 5 local trash companies serving the area?  Local cable companies are often handed local government monopolies because municipalities do not want several cable companies tearing up their streets or putting up their own poles, to run their cables to the homes they serve.




    Bart Yjdwwatto_cobra
  • Large US developers are avoiding third-party App Store alternate payment plans

    Question: why would developers complain about Apple handling the payment processing if they can't negotiate a better rate than 3% themselves? The reality for credit card processing fees is that online transactions are ALWAYS going to have higher cost than physical transactions with a card. That's how the banks have set it up. 

    It's not so much that Apple has "negotiated" a better transaction fee rate with the  CC banks, but that Apple has managed to bring the average cost of an iTunes account transaction to 3% of the purchase amount.

    One must remember that CC is not the only way iTunes accounts are funded or pre-funded. Account holders (like me) use gift cards to keep a balance in their account and thus Apple pays no CC transaction fee on their purchases. Others iTunes account are tied to a debit card. Those iTunes account purchases only cost Apple a small fee that is not based on the amount of the purchase. Other accounts, specially kids accounts that are managed by their parents, are pre-funded with a balance using a CC, PayPal, debit card or even Apple Pay, maybe just once a month or when the balance runs low. Those  accounts do not incur a CC transaction fee for Apple with purchases.

    So it shouldn't be a surprise to any one that it cost Apple only an average of 3% of the purchase amount to handle the payment process. I'll be surprise of it's even that much, (3% of purchase amount) and that Apple is giving the developers a break by giving them more of a discount than it actually cost Apple to handle ITunes payment. If only 3% of their commission was to cover their payment processing cost, then their commission should only be reduced by 3%, if Apple do not incur the cost of payment processing.  Why should Apple have to subsidize developers own payment processing cost? 

    There's another trick that Apple use to save on CC transaction fees. Though it's way more effective with iTunes Music Store purchases. Steve Jobs once told in an interview on how Apple was able to lower their CC transaction fee with iTunes accounts, by only billing the account holder once a month for CC music purchases. Included in every CC purchase transaction fee is also a small "per transaction fee" that is fixed, no matter the amount of the purchase. It's like $.10 per transaction. Now $.10 is not a big deal with a $10 purchase but it's 10% of a $.99 song purchase from the ITunes Music Store. So what Apple would do is wait until the end of the CC billing period of the account holder, to charge their CC for all their music purchased during the month. This way Apple only incur one "per transaction fee" for all the music the account holder purchased that month.

    For instance, if an iTunes Music Store customer purchased ten $.99 songs at five different times during the month, Apple would charge their CC just once for $9.90. So Apple ended up paying just one CC "per transaction fee" of $.10, instead of $.50 for five separate CC purchases. Of course the customer still see five separate purchases in their iTunes account but only one $9.90 charge for iTunes on their CC bill. When the vast majority of 100's of millions of iTunes Music Store customers are just buying one or just a few songs at a time but several times a month, the saving adds up rather quickly.   
    tenthousandthingswatto_cobra