You will not get answer to your last question because imo, it would appear as backpedaling. Because people throw that word around as if it’s a legal opinion of an illegal monopoly.
It’s interesting that you dismiss new ideas as mere fantasy or wishful thinking.
You're not answering the question, presumably because you don't like the answer. Developers must use Apple's IP to create the apps. Therefore Apple should have a say in what's allowed to run using that IP.
No, they have. They have said "Apple, you created and maintain this software, but you must give access to it to everyone."
It's not a side effect. It's written into the law. I quote: "The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system"
Good to know the ends justify the means.
The EU is demanding Apple give AirDrop to Android. That is a feature Apple used to differentiate its products that is being stolen by Apple and given to its largest competitor; a competitor that has 75% of the market in the EU. How can you argue with a straight face that isn't theft.
Again, I am fine with the government telling companies what to do when there are very good reasons. Things like protecting health and safety of its employees and customers, paying living wages, providing safe working conditions, not dumping toxic chemicals into rivers, not falsely advertising, putting up guardrails when they actually have a monopoly, that sort of thing. Things that don't rise to that level include the distribution of software in their platforms, which charging port their devices use, etc. Those sorts of decisions are best left to the free market.
In this particular case, you're correct, because the EU is interfering with the free market and picking winners and losers. But if a company is doing something you don't like, the answer is to not buy its products, not run to the government to make them do what you want.
I'm not the guy were were replying to, but most apps are "morally objectionable":
Actually whatever you’re saying is that should happen. But I’m not interested in that far fetched future. You or someone else can propose whatever laws they want. When it comes to imagination sky is the limit.
Morally objectable? Anything subjective does not have merit legally.
Apple is a private company and should be able to decide what it does and not support. You seem to think Apple is a government utility and therefore should have to act like a government entity even though an alternative exists. I couldn't disagree more strongly, but suspect that we're never going to agree on this.
I literally just listed 5 entities that have shared oversight active in the US political system.
I'm well aware that Apple as a private company, blocking a certain legal content to it's walled garden where the only entry point of an app is their own App Store in the US.
I think either you or me having some comprehension issues. Must be me.
No. Just like, when you own a weapon, your property is not taken away - even though law my limit what you’re allowed to do with it.
They aren’t. Apple can sell or charge iOS any way they like, for instance.
Normally, companies aren’t regulated by competition law - cause they don’t have vie a dominant market position and/or do not leverage it anticompetitively.
So I guess the answer is Apple should not be allowed to curate the apps. Thanks!
That’s like saying Twinkies are “morally objectionable “ because they are unhealthy.
Again, you don't force the vegetarian grocery store to carry meat just because it is the most convenient store to you and don't want to go to another one. If the product a private company is offering does not meet your needs, the solution is to buy another product, not force them to do things they don't want to do.
No limiting what you can do with your property is taking it away.
Apples property rights were distributed to the wind - no amount of spin can make it seem otherwise.
A gross mischaracterization is to claim anything but apples iPhone was made into a public utility.
Normally dominant isn’t determined by revenue in these markets. It’s determined by product. The eu made up their own definition to trap Apple.
There is no antitrust here. Can you point to anything worldwide relating to the App Store. This was a witch hunt.
It’s a question that tries to be clever (A road @I7guy has gone down, too).
From a legal standpoint, that’s plainly absurd.
Let's take a step back and look at the bigger picture beyond just iOS and the App Store?
Can’t be both ways. Can’t be apples property if they can’t use it as they see fit. (Within the law of course). So you are arguing a contradiction.
It is indeed.
The above is a complete dodge to the question or moving the goalposts.
Your “reasoned” conclusion as posted here in MR, follows the DMA. In other words, you are using the DMA to justify your rational, which results in circular reasoning.
So basically you are admitting calling apple a monopoly is a fallacy. One its not even a monopoly and two it’s clearly not an illegal monopoly.
Property is a legal concept and title.
No, it follows economic teaching.
Apple clearly have a monopoly on the market for iOS apps.
Why do you keep bringing up this strawman?
That’s exactly what it means. Infringement even legally negates the property owners right for use of their property. In the case of the DMA the iPhone is now a public utility.
IMO, the rational are talking points from the DMA. There is no economic teaching that says in a competitive market the comany with the highest revenue will now be obliged to share their intellectual property at no cost to anybody that asks.
