mark fearing

tylersdad said:

Which poison pill will Apple swallow? Will they aid the Chinese authoritarian regime and protect their profits from China? Or will they protect their customers from the authoritarian regime? 

I have a feeling it's the first option that Apple will choose. 

How about Ford? Samsung? How about Microsoft? Are you recommending that companies ignore local laws? I'm all for a single international government, but something tells me you just want things different ways on different days. A multinational company has no ability to ignore local/national laws. Just as a British company doing business in the US has to follow US Laws.

I don't have an answer here except that in the future this will be a huge issue. Cars will have nav and communication, as will TV's and glasses and coats. 'Data' and all it has grown to encapsulate will only get to be a bigger part of every companies business. So do US companies just ignore the rest of the world when they hit a national law that goes against, well, what exactly? My idea of 'freedom'? Texas' idea of freedom? It's a much more complicated and nuanced issue I think. US businesses wouldn't do well if we decide to ignore every country that has onerous laws. I think everyone happily sells in Saudi Arabia, not even close to being a bastion of freedom. Again, I don't have the answer but it's silly to put this down to 'profit or capitulation' as I'm not even sure exactly what laws in other countries you don't like.

"A group of anti-monopoly organizations" ... yeah, right. A bunch of failed companies or groups supported by file companies looking to cash in on the work of others. They don't care about monopolies, they care about grabbing more money...EPic anyone?

That's because what they are trying to do, much like in the U.S., is target specific firms for no reason OTHER than being quite successful .They are also ignoring the realities of digital platforms, how they work and how they are different from traditional marketplaces and at the same time drawing the wrong conclusions on what differences matter most. 

sdw2001 said:

gatorguy said:

bshank said:

No surprise that Europe’s wants special treatment for its developers. European exceptionalism is on the rise

It's not just the EU involved. The investigations into Apple's (and Google's) mobile OS practices have being coming in from around the world. Japan just this week has announced the fourth antitrust investigation involving Apple, and this one could have the biggest repercussions of all. It's looking into possible monopoly positions held by the two big techs.

Before anyone jumps in with "Apple can't have a monopoly since Android has the majority share of the market" note that in the only relevant market, that of Japan, iOS holds a 70% controlling share with a 30% minority going to Android. 

One doesn't need to have a majority of the market to be an alternative.  No one has to buy an Apple device.  Apple does not have a monopoly.  

And just as importantly - no developer HAS to make an app for an Apple product do they? I mean, they can make other things. How about taking advantage of the wide open X-Box store...oh wait.

tehabe said:

sdw2001 said:
 Apple does not have a monopoly.  

repeating this doesn't make it true, as long as there is no other way to install software on an Apple device, Apple has a monopoly over the software distribution on that device. It doesn't matter if you can buy another one or that only a few people are using it, it is a monopoly. The same is true for Google and the Play Store, Sony and the PlayStation store, Nintendo and their Switch store. It is not true for Apple on macOS or Microsoft on Windows.

It could even be argued that Apple requirement to have a developer license and that applications on macOS have to be signed and notarised that is creating a monopoly.

No, what you write is riddled with non-logic and inconsistencies.  Again - what you are saying is  I can't buy Target products at Trader Joes. And what about grocery stores charging shelf fees? Is THAT illegal? If so on what grounds? If a supplier doesn't pay shelf fees, guess what, they don't get into the store. None of what you say can be applied to any other situation in any way. It's really just anger that another company has had success and you want to make sure they don't.