anonymouse

macgui said:

An iOSeu restricted to the eu might work but I don't know that Apple could do it without giving up proprietary IP. If so that could be a way to go. I'd like to know how just dropping the EU from their phones and any other Apple products would affect their bottom line after a period of adjustment.

No doubt the EU would retaliate some how if they only got an euPhone. Just assume they're never going back. If the EU capitulates then let the negotiating begin. 

Yeah, and they could "accidentally" drop the bottom arm off the 'E' so it becomes iOS-FU and FU-iPhone.

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

davidw said:

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.  

Like I said, that line of argument is open for debate but saying it didn't just 'fall' into the group of 'gatekeepers' is ridiculous because you are pumping the situation full of claims that are just your opinion.

No it's not open for debate, it's established as fact, and he is not "pumping" claims that are "opinion". In fact, it is you who are being entirely disingenuous in this discussion and pimping claims that are false and misleading. 

goofy1958 said:

avon b7 said

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? 

So as an Apple user for many years, what, in your opinion, am I missing out on that I might find even remotely interesting or required?

It's not even my opinion. Prior to the DMA/DSA all iDevice users were subjected to the same, unilateral restrictions.

No choice on wallets. 
No choice on app stores or software. 
No access to NFC hardware unless apple allowed it (and in the case of payments, only Apple). 
Anti-steering
WebKit obligatory use
Restrictions on third party watch features. 
(previously) restrictions on cloud backup of WhatsApp chats (only iCloud)


A lot of that has changed thanks to the EU. 

Now you have choice (at least in the EU) where before, the choice was made for you and without your express consent. 

A. None of these things are of any benefit to me.
B. Most of them represent a weakening of security and privacy.
C. All of them were enacted to benefit European companies, not users, and not anyone else in the world.

Your "points" are just a lot of empty words.

The European countries and the EU are acting like a mafia, constantly shaking down US tech companies for "protection money" and making it difficult for any but the companies run by Europeans to do business. How Spotify constantly needs more protection despite being the dominant music platform is beyond belief unless it's simply because they are European.

And furthermore, this sort of protectionist racket feeds into the sort of right wing politics that are destroying Europe and America, so the net "benefit" will be negative for everyone.

avon b7 said:

davidw said:

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.  

Like I said, that line of argument is open for debate but saying it didn't just 'fall' into the group of 'gatekeepers' is ridiculous because you are pumping the situation full of claims that are just your opinion.

No it's not open for debate, it's established as fact, and he is not "pumping" claims that are "opinion". In fact, it is you who are being entirely disingenuous in this discussion and pimping claims that are false and misleading. 

According to Apple, the following procedure may trigger a MagSafe firmware update:

1. Deplete your iPhone battery to <10%.
2. Make sure you are connected to WiFi (turn off cellular data to insure this).
3. Place your iPhone on the charger.
4. Let it charge to >90%.

It's recommended that you then check your MagSafe firmware version to see if the update occurred.

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. 

🤣