Apple Rivals Unite to Promote Open Ecosystems Using EU Law

[scorpio vega]

It does help explain the cultural differences between the two when it comes to work, and helps shine some light why so many tech giants originated from the US.

It also explains why EU is trying to handicap american companies. Good video though.

 

[scorpio vega]

Maybe you haven't experienced compression but I and many others have. And yes the most basic, old, insecure standard of SMS is what Apple currently renders iMessage users who interact with Android users. It violates the entire idea of security because you want to send a text to a different brand phone. Seems pretty sketchy and illegal to me.

Why is it that Apple is in the right here?

I literally did not make any point for you.

DO you think the average consumer is thinking of things like E2EE? You guys keep throwing that around but you are only thinking of yourself aka people who know what that is.
To the average consumer (we are using America) they simply want to text.

IMessage was created long before RCS was mainstream and Apple has every right to make and keep it for their platform. Just like BBM with Blackberry.

Sure, apple should evolve their messaging protocol but not at the expense of their product or their customerbase who are really not affected. It's an android issue since android fanboys are the ones complaining.

 

[Abazigal]

It also explains why EU is trying to handicap american companies. Good video though.

I won't say handicap as much as the EU seems like they are trying to ensure that their own tech companies are assured a seat at the table.

I am reminded of a saying. There is good in bad, there is bad in good. No doubt the EU has a number of good laws like GDPR that aim to better protect the privacy of its people, but at the same time, it feels to me like it would be impossible for anything within the EU to create a new social network while adhering to its requirements. They simply lack the resources to comply. Meanwhile, while these rules are onerous, later platforms such as Facebook and Instagram are still able to manage them and for these companies, it's simply an additional business cost that they can still afford to absorb because of their immense profitability.

Meanwhile, people like to slag on the US for being more lax with this sort of legislation, and that's precisely how companies like Facebook were able to grow, and grow to be as large as they are today. The next tech giant (if there is still room for more) will likely still come from the US, where the conditions are fertile for its inception.

On the other hand, the next Facebook or Tik Tok or Apple will never come out of the EU, which is also why the EU has no qualms about coming up with these rules that have minimal impact on their own companies. The rumoured ruling in favour of Spotify is, the way I see it, yet another way of EU favouring their own home-grown enterprises.

It's really just protectionism by another name. I am in no position to complain, since I have no skin in the game. Just be honest and upfront about it.

 

[scorpio vega]

I won't say handicap as much as the EU seems like they are trying to ensure that their own tech companies are assured a seat at the table.

It's really just protectionism by another name. I am in no position to complain, since I have no skin in the game. Just be honest and upfront about it.

they are ironically doing what they are accusing Apple of doing: gatekeeping.

 

[Ctrlos]

IOS is not OSX underneath. At least not it is original iteration.

Thats not what he said.

 

[scorpio vega]

Thats not what he said.

IOS and MAcOS are based on the same Kernel (Darwin) but they do differentiate between the devices they are on. So no they are not the exact same OS. Similar yes but not the same.

Similar to how Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8. They shared the same kernel, yes, but they were not the same exact OS(Windows 10 and Windows 10 mobile, were)

 

[0339327]

Remember when everyone loved the EU for pushing Apple into adopting usb C?? Pepperidge Farms remembers.

🍿

Can you explain the Pepperidge Farms reference? Maybe I’m timid but I don’t get it.

 

[Ctrlos]

Meanwhile, people like to slag on the US for being more lax with this sort of legislation, and that's precisely how companies like Facebook were able to grow, and grow to be as large as they are today.

Given how Facebook almost single-handedly destabilised western democracy I'm not sure its the best poster boy for 'look what happens with less regulation'.

 

[jakey rolling]

they are ironically doing what they are accusing Apple of doing: gatekeeping.

Nothing ironic about it. Gatekeeping is exactly something that democratic governments are supposed to do. As opposed to autocratic corporations.

 

[webkit]

Please show a recent finding where apple violated antitrust laws anywhere in the world in line with this conversation.

A lack of court rulings doesn't necessarily mean a company or person didn't or isn't violating laws. It can take years of "illegal" activities before conclusions are reached through investigations, agreements, courts, appeals, etc. Sometimes companies engage in anticompetitive behavior or other illegal activities but decide to comply with the laws to avoid going to court and potentially having a formal ruling against them.

Citing other example of antitrust doesn’t prove a point.

Your comment was that if someone wants to sideload, they can use Android. My point was that just because there may be alternatives is irreverent here as having alternatives does not necessarily matter if a company is violating antitrust laws.

 

[webkit]

Windows had 90% of the PC marketshare in the 90s. This is not that.

iPhone and Android are essentially neck and neck (though I do wish there were more alternatives, like in the Windows Phone and Palm Pre days, but this isn’t going to fix that)

A company doesn’t necessarily have to have 90% share of a market to face antitrust investigations and litigation. Neither Coke nor Pepsi have the market share in their market that MS had in desktop OS but both have dealt with antitrust matters over the years.

 

[scorpio vega]

Nothing ironic about it. Gatekeeping is exactly something that democratic governments are supposed to do. As opposed to autocratic corporations.

No one should be gatekeeping because then the governements are having way too much power and the power should be in the hands of the people. That is in fact democracy.

 

[scorpio vega]

A lack of court rulings doesn't necessarily mean a company or person didn't or isn't violating laws

So you have no current proof is what you are saying. Got it.

 

[scorpio vega]

You realise that those companies would also be subject to these laws, right? Also, those competitors don't make the law — they can advocate for all sorts of things but that doesn't mean they have control over what gets passed.

No they are only advocating for the short term to try and weaken Apple because they are unable to compete with hopes this benefits them in the long run.

 

[webkit]

So you have no current proof is what you are saying. Got it.

Apple wouldn't likely be planning to allow sideloading and/or alternative app stores on iOS in places like the EU if they weren't violating EU law. As I stated, there doesn’t necessarily need to be a formal court ruling. Sometimes companies engage in anticompetitive behavior or other illegal activities but eventually decide to comply with the laws to avoid potential fines, going to court, etc. especially if they don’t think they will win.

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple wouldn't likely be planning to allow sideloading and/or alternative app stores on iOS in places like the EU if they weren't violating EU law. As I stated, there doesn’t necessarily need to be a formal court ruling. Sometimes companies engage in anticompetitive behavior or other illegal activities but eventually decide to comply with the laws to avoid potential fines, going to court, etc. especially if they don’t think they will win.

They didn't "eventually decide to comply with laws". The EU passed new regulations and Apple will comply with them when they go into effect.

 

[I7guy]

A lack of court rulings doesn't necessarily mean a company or person didn't or isn't violating laws.

If you're gonna cry out the "sky is falling" then at least prove some laws were broken. Because a concept of "antitrust" exists doesn't mean guilty unless proven innocent.

It can take years of "illegal" activities before conclusions are reached through investigations, agreements, courts, appeals, etc. Sometimes companies engage in anticompetitive behavior or other illegal activities but decide to comply with the laws to avoid going to court and potentially having a formal ruling against them.

Guilty until proven innocent.

Your comment was that if someone wants to sideload, they can use Android. My point was that just because there may be alternatives is irreverent here as having alternatives does not necessarily matter if a company is violating antitrust laws.

My point is one buys a particular consumer lifestyle device with some expectations. If those expectations aren't met, depending on the company there may be a particular grace period to return the device. So return the device and buy something that meets your requirements. Or alternatively, lobby the government to force the manufacturer to make the changes. Many here go for the latter approach.

 

[VulchR]

... a company shouldn't have the ability to force a bad experience on a competitive platform just because they are trying to leverage their user base against others...

I take it, then, you have never heard of a company called 'Microsoft'. 🤣

 

[Naraxus]

I am not making ''asinine claims'. Nor am I doing their leg work for them. I know you feel the need to rally to defend Androdi but it's not necessary

Your statement: or pirate like most android users do.

Again, since you made the claim, it is up to YOU to prove your claim is true, not for others to prove false. Saying "look at the Play Store itself" is not evidence. Either post some evidence to back up your claim that "most Android users pirate" or admit you made an inaccurate generalization.

 

[webkit]

They didn't "eventually decide to comply with laws". The EU passed new regulations and Apple will comply with them when they go into effect.

After various attempts to fight, Apple did eventually decide (at least according to reports) that they will comply with EU laws regarding sideloading/third party app stores. Otherwise, they would likely be facing an official DOJ-like trial for being in violation of the laws.

 

[webkit]

If you're gonna cry out the "sky is falling" then at least prove some laws were broken. Because a concept of "antitrust" exists doesn't mean guilty unless proven innocent.

Guilty until proven innocent.

Apple has had ample time to argue their side and has, apparently, decided to comply with the EU law but could've instead chosen not to and face potential consequences in a formal trial.

 

[BaldiMac]

After various attempts to fight, Apple did eventually decide (at least according to reports) that they will comply with EU laws regarding sideloading/third party app stores. Otherwise, they would likely be facing an official DOJ-like trial for being in violation of the laws.

You're just making stuff up now. That's neither what you originally claimed, nor what actually happened. There are no reports that Apple seriously considered not complying with the DMA.

 

[Realityck]

related > Commission sends request for information to Apple and Google under the Digital Services Act

Daily News 14 / 12 / 2023

La Commission verse des préfinancements REPowerEU à l\'Estonie, à la France, à Malte, à la Slovaquie et à la Slovénie au titre de la facilité pour la reprise et la résilience\nHier, la Commission a vers

ec.europa.eu

Just their schedule of next event date, everything very calm.

 

[webkit]

You're just making stuff up now. That's neither what you originally claimed, nor what actually happened. There are no reports that Apple seriously considered not complying with the DMA.

It is what I originally claimed, and I am not making stuff up. Apple filed legal challenges against the EU law and when unsuccessful, eventually decided they will comply instead of trying to fight it further. I never said they were “seriously considering” not complying.

 

[BaldiMac]

It is what I originally claimed,

No, it's not. Your original claim is that the were violating EU law and the eventually decided to relent. They were not violating the law since the requirement has not yet gone into affect.

and I am not making stuff up. Apple filed legal challenges against the EU law and when unsuccessful, eventually decided they will comply instead of trying to fight it further. I never said they were “seriously considering” not complying.

Again, you are making that up. When did they file a legal challenge that was unsuccessful in which the sought to avoid adding the ability to sideload?