Apple Says It Doesn't Approve of EU Porn App

[AppliedMicro]

That’s exactly what it means. Infringement even legally negates the property owners right for use of their property

Wrong.

Please take an introductory course to law. Or ask ChatGPT or something.

Look, I’m even doing it for you:

(far from saying that you should always trust ChatGPT. But this is an adequate answer)

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.

Straw man.

I said, my assessing (telling) that Apple has a monopoly on certain markets follows economic teaching.
I didn’t say that economic teaching makes such a policy recommendation.

 

[I7guy]

Wrong.

Please take an introductory course to law. Or ask ChatGPT or something.

Look, I’m even doing it for you:

View attachment 2479798

Straw man.

I said, my assessing (telling) that Apple has a monopoly on certain markets follows economic teaching.
I didn’t say that economic teaching makes such a policy recommendation.

What that chat got doesn’t cover which is the crux of the whole thing is not trespassing but giving your property away so legally you have no recourse. The situation you craftily pulled up is not the same as the dma, which makes the iPhone into a public utility in the Eu. Essentially the rebuttal is a straw man.

And your argument that Apple has a monopoly based on revenue is exactly what the dma says. So hence my opinion.

 

[AppliedMicro]

What that chat got doesn’t cover which is the crux of the whole thing is not trespassing but giving your property away so legally you have no recourse.

It is not being given away. Apple may have to allow certain “access rights” and interoperability which limit their property rights in certain aspects. As defined by law - and yes, by definition that means they have little to no recourse in these cases (it’s the law).

That doesn’t negate the fact though that Apple remains owner of their intellectual property (i.e. source code, right to monetise etc.) and can sell, dispose of or use it in any area and anyway that is not prohibited or restricted by law.

And your argument that Apple has a monopoly based on revenue is exactly what the dma says

They have a monopoly on the market for iOS apps (to consumers). Because they are the only firm that can allow them to run - and they haven’t allowed others to distribute working apps to consumers.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I have to admit, I'm starting to become fascinated to see how long this can go on
😂

 

[I7guy]

It is not being given away. Apple may have to allow certain “access rights” and interoperability which limit their property rights in certain aspects.

That’s giving apples property away phrased in a less aggressive manner.

As defined by law - and yes, by definition that means they have little to no recourse in these cases (it’s the law).

Yes it’s giving apples property away and they have no recourse. The iPhone is now a public utility.

That doesn’t negate the fact though that Apple remains owner of their intellectual property (i.e. source code, right to monetise etc.) in any area and way that is not prohibited or restricted by law.

They remain owner but unable to use their property as desired, no extract income as desired. So for all intents and purposes the iPhone is a public utility, much like a public phone used to be.

They have a monopoly on the market for iOS apps (to consumers).

Yes, they have a monopoly because they created the iOS App Store.

Because they are the only firm that can allow them to run - and they haven’t allowed others to distribute working apps to consumers.

Yes and that is apples prerogative. The fact the dma came in and heavily regulated the iPhone to “spur competition” makes the iPhone a public utility. Regulating a private companies assets away is not spurring competition, it’s playing Robin Hood.

 

[webkit]

No limiting what you can do with your property is taking it away.

So, if someone has a house and the government limits what they can do with it (e.g., can’t open a restaurant in it, can’t turn it into a hotel, etc. etc. etc.) that means they are taking away the property?

Can’t be apples property if they can’t use it as they see fit. (Within the law of course).

Within the law? So, if Apple can't within the law restrict alternative iOS app stores then I guess nothing would be being taken away and it is still Apple's property in that situation?

That’s exactly what it means. Infringement even legally negates the property owners right for use of their property.

What law states that "infringement" negates the property owners rights to use their property?

 

[surferfb]

It is not being given away. Apple may have to allow certain “access rights” and interoperability which limit their property rights in certain aspects. As defined by law - and yes, by definition that means they have little to no recourse in these cases (it’s the law).

Explain how letting Android have AirDrop, which is a feature Apple uses to differentiate its offerings from the competitors is not "giving away" Apple's intellectual property.

That doesn’t negate the fact though that Apple remains owner of their intellectual property (i.e. source code, right to monetise etc.) and can sell, dispose of or use it in any area and anyway that is not prohibited or restricted by law.

So if the EU passed a law saying that Spotify had to give access to its algorithm to Apple Music, Spotify remained the owner, but Apple could use the output of the Spotify algorithm in Apple Music without paying Spotify anything, that isn't theft of Spotify's property?

I'd also point out the EU takes away Apple's right to monetize its intellectual property. 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.

Again - explain how forcing Apple to let third parties use its inventions, like AirDrop, FOR FREE is not theft.

They have a monopoly on the market for iOS apps (to consumers). Because they are the only firm that can allow them to run - and they haven’t allowed others to distribute working apps to consumers.

Even if that were true, and it's not (web apps run on iPhone, jailbroken apps run on iPhone), if consumers don't like that, then they should buy a phone that allows them to run apps from whatever source they want. Not have the government come in and say "you only have 25% of the market, but you have to behave like the market leader because we don't trust our citizens to be able to decide for themselves"

 

[I7guy]

So, if someone has a house and the government limits what they can do with it (e.g., can’t open a restaurant in it, can’t turn it into a hotel, etc. etc. etc.) that means they are taking away the property?

Let’s back up, because when one buys a piece of land they understand the zoning. So let’s try this scenario, one buys a restaurant and this restaurant has been open for a few years and the government creates a regulation that any other food purveyor can use your space for free an sell whatever they want in your space for free.

Within the law? So, if Apple can't within the law restrict alternative iOS app stores then I guess nothing would be being taken away and it is still Apple's property in that situation?

Within the law. For example apple can’t produce a phone with higher SAR limits than what is allowed by law.

What law states that "infringement" negates the property owners rights to use their property?

Within the law apples to the “fit for use” concept, but sure let’s spin this like a top.

 

[9081094]

More than 50% of the Americans watch or have watched porn according to a study:

How Prevalent Is Pornography?

In the internet era, online pornography has become ubiquitous. Roughly six in 10 (58 percent) Americans report having watched pornography at some point in their lives, including more than one in four (27 percent) who have watched it in the past month. But there are massive gender differences in...

ifstudies.org

And the USA is the biggest porn producer in the world:

15 countries that supply maximum pornography online: How much does India contribute?

While India is certainly on the list of countries that consumes maximum porn as per a 2018 report, is it also on the list of maximum producers of porn? Take a look at the market share of the top 10 porn producing nations.

sg.finance.yahoo.com

And somehow people got very upset when there is a sideloading possibility 😂

 

[turbineseaplane]

Be fascinating to see a state by state breakdown also
🤭

 

[I7guy]

More than 50% of the Americans watch or have watched porn according to a study:

How Prevalent Is Pornography?

In the internet era, online pornography has become ubiquitous. Roughly six in 10 (58 percent) Americans report having watched pornography at some point in their lives, including more than one in four (27 percent) who have watched it in the past month. But there are massive gender differences in...

ifstudies.org

And the USA is the biggest porn producer in the world:

15 countries that supply maximum pornography online: How much does India contribute?

While India is certainly on the list of countries that consumes maximum porn as per a 2018 report, is it also on the list of maximum producers of porn? Take a look at the market share of the top 10 porn producing nations.

sg.finance.yahoo.com

And somehow people got very upset when there is a sideloading possibility 😂

Completely misses the point that no matter what goes in in the world, a company, Apple doesn’t want porn apps in its App Store.

 

[BlackSheepAz]

It’s a question that tries to be clever (A road @I7guy has gone down, too).

I'll try to be more surgical about the incisions I make.

Not an argument based in reason - merely an appeal to authority.

Actually the reason behind this question is can you back up your claim, that Apple is a monopoly, so you should be taken seriously in discussion.

1. There are hardly any final decisions by courts of laws on the issue (wherever in the world).

I believe its catogorically wrong. Epic did try to invoke antitrust laws claiming Apple has monopoly over distribution of apps in the App Store. And that lawsuit went all the way up to Supreme Court(even though Supreme Court didn't hear it). So I think that was the final decision by a court of law. Mind you that case was in USA, where Apple has the highest market share compared to other countries(Also in my opinion Judge Rogers wasn't sympathetic towards Apple at all, kind of an activist judge to me).
By the way what was the verdict about Epic's claim.
Well they lost on that monopoly claim. Might be because Epic's solicitors didn't consult you on that matter otherwise it'd be walk in the park for them.

2. Yet we know, such decisions by courts will be made in the future.

Well I'm not a psychic so I humbly decline predicting the future.

3. I, we don’t need a court of law’s verdict to make reasoned conclusions.

Yeah I agree to some extent but those reasoned conclusions would be OPINIONS to me. Also when you claim that some company has the monopoly power it has a legal meaning, and their is a defined procedure in a court of law(not in court of public opinion) to declare a company, monopoly. You can't just slap that label on a company legally speaking.

4. Neither do various regulators that do believe that Apple has a monopoly or dominant position (turning that into an argument would also be fallacy).

First of all their is big difference between a monopoly and dominant position. Please chose your words carefully as they have specific meanings.

Secondly why these regulators are not taking Apple into court so Apple can be legally declared a MONOPOLIST.
I'll give you some hint.
There was a reason European Regulators have to write a new piece of legislation(DMA) consisting of arbitrary thresholds.
Same way in USA, DOJ has to create a new market out of thin air called “performance smartphones”.

 

[webkit]

Let’s back up, because when one buys a piece of land they understand the zoning. So let’s try this scenario, one buys a restaurant and this restaurant has been open for a few years and the government creates a regulation that any other food purveyor can use your space for free an sell whatever they want in your space for free.

They may "understand it" at the time but things like zoning laws can and do change. That still doesn’t mean the government is actually taking away the property.

Within the law. For example apple can’t produce a phone with higher SAR limits than what is allowed by law.

Within the law. For example, Apple can't restrict alternative iOS app stores in the EU.

Based on your reasoning if Apple can't within the law restrict alternative iOS app stores then I guess nothing would be being taken away and it is still Apple's property.

Within the law apples to the “fit for use” concept, but sure let’s spin this like a top.

Again, what law states that "infringement" negates the property owners rights to use their property?

Also, in what way does "fit for use" apply to what you are talking about here?

 

[I7guy]

They may "understand it" at the time but things like zoning laws can and do change. That still doesn’t mean the government is actually taking away the property.

It’s flat out appropriation of intellectual property in the case of apple. And theft of services for the poor restaurant owner.

Within the law. For example, Apple can't restrict alternative iOS app stores in the EU.

This is why it’s theft of services.

Based on your reasoning if Apple can't within the law restrict alternative iOS app stores then I guess nothing would be being taken away and it is still Apple's property.

That’s not my reasoning that’s a “straw man”.

Again, what law states that "infringement" negates the property owners rights to use their property?

Also, in what way does "fit for use" apply to what you are talking about here?

What the DMA is about is intellectual property appropriation. Distributing Apple’s IP like sand blowing in the air.

 

[surferfb]

They may "understand it" at the time but things like zoning laws can and do change. That still doesn’t mean the government is actually taking away the property.

Let's suppose you built a house (iOS) and, to make some money on the side because building houses is really expensive, you offer one of the rooms out on AirB&B (sell apps on the App Store) as long as travelers (developers) follow the rules of your house (App Store terms and conditions). The EU comes in and says it's not fair that other travelers don't have access to your room if they don't agree to your rules. Even though the rules are clearly posted on your AirB&B listing, and there is a building across the street (Android), where they rent rooms that don't have any rules at all. Because travelers who don't want to abide by your rules "deserve" to stay in your house even though there is a perfectly good option across the street they could use, the EU passes a law that says you now have to let anyone on planet Earth stay in your guest room (sell apps on iOS) without abiding by your rules, such as "no smoking in the room" or "don't watch porn in the living room" and, if they ask, you have to let them charge others to sublet the room they're in to someone else (allow third party app stores).

I suspect that if the EU did that to you, you would feel like your property had been taken away from you, as people smoked in your living room, watched porn on your tv, and took food out of your fridge. Sure, technically they haven't taken away your house - your name remains on the deed; and they haven't taken away your "ability" to monetize (but why would people pay you when they can sublet for cheaper from people freeloading off of all the work you put into building and maintaining your house) - but they absolutely have taken your property away from you and given it to others.

Again, what law states that "infringement" negates the property owners rights to use their property?

The EU could pass a law saying "Because Harry Potter has gotten too big, anyone who wants to write a novel using JK Rowling's characters and setting is allowed to without compensating her" - are you suggesting that if such a law were passed, then nothing had been taken away from Rowling? If AppleTV+ comes in and creates a Harry Potter movie without paying her - that's not theft, it's just "a restriction on how she monetizes her ideas"? Or, in this case, a porn production company makes a Harry Potter porno against the wishes of Rowling? Are we really hanging this on a technicality of "she still owns and can monetize the novels she wrote" even as the government demands her ideas be given away to anyone who asks?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Actually the reason behind this question is can you back up your claim

Monopolies are an economic concept.
They are not contingent on decisions from courts of law.

Also, you can have a legal assessment or opinion before them.
Especially when we know that antitrust regulators are only beginning to enforce regulation (or sue) Apple.

I believe its catogorically wrong. Epic did try to invoke antitrust laws claiming Apple has monopoly over distribution of apps in the App Store.

That was one single court decision - in a jurisdiction that arguably doesn’t regulate them as much as Europe.
That considerably hinged on success (or ultimately failure) to prove.
Google on the other was found a monopoly.

Secondly why these regulators are not taking Apple into court so Apple can be legally declared a MONOPOLIST.

Note that they are taking them to court for monopolization.
In the very same jurisdiction as the Epic trial you cited.

I'll try to be more surgical about the incisions I make.

Let me counter with then:

• Is there, in your opinion, a market for iOS applications?
  • If yes: does Apple have a monopoly on it?
  • If no: why not?

I provided my answer above (which does not need to rely on courts of law, but reasons from an economic point of view):

• Consumers commit to one of just relevant two mobile operating systems by way of their “expensive” hardware purchase (and for a period of months to years)
• Depending on their platform chosen, they will demand (as in market demand)
  
  • either iOS or Android applications
  • and they won’t “switch” between the two:
    • An average consumer won’t use or purchase iOS applications today and Android apps tomorrow
    • They will have a demand only for one type of these apps > and that is the relevant market
• (And yes, consumers can have multiple devices and use two operating systems as the same time. But they usually - and on average - do not)

👉 So there we go: do you want to dispute the reasoning with reasoned arguments? And how?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Let's suppose you built a house (iOS) and, to make some money on the side because building houses is really expensive, you offer one of the rooms out on AirB&B (sell apps on the App Store) as long as travelers (developers) follow the rules of your house (App Store terms and conditions). The EU comes in and says it's not fair that other travelers don't have access to your room if they don't agree to your rules.

These comparisons are off-base again and again and again.

Because „a“ house, „one“ house is just one of many houses.
Whereas iOS is one of only two relevant operating systems for consumers to choose from (if we agree that app ecosystems are very relevant).

The difference is small but crucial.
As are entry barriers to the market.


👉 If there were as many mobile operating systems (with comparatively rich app ecosystems) as there are

• Burger restaurants
• Supermarkets for groceries
• Car brands and manufacturers
• Houses, Airbnb rooms or similar traveller accommodation

…I’d be the first one to agree that government regulation and the DMA are ridículous overregulation that is choking digital markets in Europe. And that government should the hell stay away and let me enjoy my one-stop (app) shop provided by Apple - in a competitive market.

 

[I7guy]

These comparisons are off-base again and again and again.

Because „a“ house, „one“ house is just one of many houses.
Whereas iOS is one of only two relevant operating systems for consumers to choose from (if we agree that app ecosystems are very relevant).

This is off base as well because the iOS App Store is one of many other app stores. Your own analogy is flawed, which means you conclusions are also flawed.

The difference is small but crucial.
As are entry barriers to the market.

There are many markets where there is a high barrier to entry. Government doesn’t regulate the incumbents to make it easier. Example: you want to build a nuclear plant. Do the incumbents have to give away their designs, provide the construction equipment and training etc?

👉 If there were as many mobile operating systems (with comparatively rich app ecosystems) as there are

• Burger restaurants
• Supermarkets for groceries
• Car brands and manufacturers
• Houses, Airbnb rooms or similar traveller accommodation

There don’t have to be 50 million App Store. If all of them made 60% of the revenue, the DMA would have still been enacted because their true colors have been shown.

…I’d be the first one to agree that government regulation and the DMA are ridículous overregulation that is choking digital markets in Europe.

What????

And that government should the hell stay away and let me enjoy my one-stop (app) shop provided by Apple - in a competitive market.

How many app stores are there really? There are more than two. The thing is apple is popular and influential. Not monopolistic and greedy.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Explain how letting Android have AirDrop, which is a feature Apple uses to differentiate its offerings from the competitors is not "giving away" Apple's intellectual property.

I think I've mentioned this before. But they've got many options:

1. Monetisation: Nothing stopping Apple from selling AirDrop as an app on their App Store - rather than including it as part of their operating system for free.
2. Exclusivity: Make it so that an iOS device needs to be one of the two devices in the data transfer.
   1. Given how meticulous they are with their developer terms, I'd think they can legally prohibit implementation of it for use between two non-Apple devices. The legislation only requires them to provide interoperability. And we've seen how it turned out to be with sideloading: They still make third-parties sign the paperwork and accept their terms.
   2. Otherwise, they can restrict it technically. Unless one of the two participating devices is an Apple-branded device, just disallow a handshake. They can do it with cryptographic keys. Given how good Apple have proven to be with asymmetric cryptography, that's no biggie.
3. Withdrawal: Apple doesn't have to maintain AirDrop. They're free to withdraw it from the market at any time.
4. Sale: they can sell their IP and code for it to third parties.
5. Licensing: They can license AirDrop to interested parties (say... Samsung) for licensing fees, in order for them to implement it in their own products (that is, for Samsung-to-Samsung data transfer)
6. Certifications: They can also create an "AirDrop" certification program and provide "MfA (Made for AirDrop) certification to other, "certified compatible" devices or software

Again - explain how forcing Apple to let third parties use its inventions, like AirDrop, FOR FREE is not theft.

As you can see, Apple retains ownership of their AirDrop "invention". And they have plenty of ownership rights and options available to make money from it. In addition to benefitting from selling hardware devices with it.

Side note: Just having switched to an Android phone, I've tried out LocalSend from cross-platform file transfer. It's great. Not missing AirDrop very much.

So if the EU passed a law saying that Spotify had to give access to its algorithm to Apple Music, Spotify remained the owner, but Apple could use the output of the Spotify algorithm in Apple Music without paying Spotify anything, that isn't theft of Spotify's property?

That's not what the EU did.

Apple may interface with Spotify - but they don't have to provide access to its algorithm (for Apple to built upon for their own competing service). Spotify would only provide "playlists", so to speak - not their algorithm.

 

[surferfb]

These comparisons are off-base again and again and again.

Because „a“ house, „one“ house is just one of many houses.
Whereas iOS is one of only two relevant operating systems for consumers to choose from (if we agree that app ecosystems are very relevant).

The difference is small but crucial.
As are entry barriers to the market.

Boeing and Airbus are the only two relevant airplane manufacturers for Airlines to choose from. There are huge barriers of entry to that market. Why hasn't the EU demanded that Airbus provide its jet schematics to anyone who asks to help increase competition?

👉 If there were as many mobile operating systems (with comparatively rich app ecosystems) as there are

• Burger restaurants
• Supermarkets for groceries
• Car brands and manufacturers
• Houses, Airbnb rooms or similar traveller accommodation

…I’d be the first one to agree that government regulation and the DMA are ridículous overregulation that is choking digital markets in Europe. And that government should the hell stay away and let me enjoy my one-stop (app) shop provided by Apple - in a competitive market.

You're ignoring that there other computing platforms and other ecosystem developers can use to reach users. Web Apps are absolutely part of the conversation - and they fully function in the iOS browser. Developers can also reach users on other computing platforms. Android exists. Googleless Android exists. A massive number of mobile app stores exist. A massive number of phone manufacturers exist. Your critical mistake is assuming developers should get access to one specific manufacturer's App Store and customers just because. And that is taking another's property and turning into a public utility.

Regulations should be based on actual harm to consumers, and in fact, Apple's closed ecosystem provides significant consumer benefits. The model ensures security, privacy, and quality control. It ensures customers have a single point of contact, that their payment information is not given to dozens of different companies. It ensures the apps adhere to Apple's anti-tracking rules, provide privacy sheets, etc.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Boeing and Airbus are the only two relevant airplane manufacturers for Airlines to choose from. There are huge barriers of entry to that market. Why hasn't the EU demanded that Airbus provide its jet schematics to anyone who asks to help increase competition?

Valid question.

Answers/arguments I can think of to begin with:
They aren't leveraging their platform power on related markets nearly as much as Apple and Google:

- Neither Boeing nor Airbus require revenue commissions on airline ticket sales from the airline operators
- Airlines are free to choose their "in-cabin provider"
- Planes don't have a "kill switch" controlled by the manufacturers (plenty of Boeings and Airbuses still flying for Russian airlines, despite being "unsupported", i.e. the country being sanctioned).
- There's ample evidence of fierce competition. These companies have "normal" profit margins.

 

[surferfb]

The amount of pretzel twisting you’re doing to avoid admitting the obvious fact that the EU is stealing Apple’s IP and giving it away is mind boggling, but sure - let’s go through your options one by one.

I think I've mentioned this before. But they've got many options:

1. Monetisation: Nothing stopping Apple from selling AirDrop as an app on their App Store - rather than including it as part of their operating system for free.

Great, now everyone’s iOS is worse. We can’t assume airdrop is installed on any other iOS device because it’s not built into the system. Thanks for that, EU - always looking out for the consumer!

2. Exclusivity: Make it so that an iOS device needs to be one of the two devices in the data transfer.

1. Given how meticulous they are with their developer terms, I'd think they can legally prohibit implementation of it for use between two non-Apple devices. The legislation only requires them to provide interoperability. And we've seen how it turned out to be with sideloading: They still make third-parties sign the paperwork and accept their terms.
2. Otherwise, they can restrict it technically. Unless one of the two participating devices is an Apple-branded device, just disallow a handshake. They can do it with cryptographic keys. Given how good Apple have proven to be with asymmetric cryptography, that's no biggie.

Pretty sure both of those options are prohibited by the DMA. They’re certainly against the “spirit of the law”.

Withdrawal: Apple doesn't have to maintain AirDrop. They're free to withdraw it from the market at any time.

See point 1 above. While I admit making things worse for everyone in a misguided attempt to make things “fair” is incredibly on-brand for socialism, it’s not usually so blatantly obvious. Thanks for confirming my point that the EU would prefer a worse experience for Apple’s customers.

Sale: they can sell their IP and code for it to third parties.

Yes, because that’s totally Apple’s business model. Invent stuff for others but don’t get to benefit from it themselves.

Licensing: They can license AirDrop to interested parties (say... Samsung) for licensing fees, in order for them to implement it in their own products (that is, for Samsung-to-Samsung data transfer)

Why would anyone do this if they can just get it for free by asking per the DMA. Or in this scenario does iOS disadvantage its own products to build features for their competitors?

Certifications: They can also create an "AirDrop" certification program and provide "MfA (Made for AirDrop) certification to other, "certified compatible" devices or software

See above.

As you can see, Apple retains ownership of their AirDrop "invention". And they have plenty of ownership rights and options available to make money from it. In addition to benefitting from selling hardware devices with it.

All I see is an inability to admit state-sponsored theft. I admit the DMA does a couple of good things. Why can’t you admit it overreaches?

Side note: Just having switched to an Android phone, I've tried out LocalSend from cross-platform file transfer. It's great. Not missing AirDrop very much.

And that’s how it should work! Free market working, not the government giving AirDrop to Android for free

That's not what the EU did.

Apple may interface with Spotify - but they don't have to provide access to its algorithm (for Apple to built upon for their own competing service). Spotify would only provide "playlists", so to speak - not their algorithm.

Yes it’s exactly what the EU did. Why bother building your own algorithm when you can get playlists created by the best in the business for free? Why build a better one if you’re not going to be able to differentiate yourself by playlist quality? Who’s going to license it if they can just get it for free if you use it yourself? And if you can’t differentiate in quality, where can you differentiate? On content. So now we have exclusive agreements between artists and streaming services as the norm. So literally everyone’s products are worse. Thanks EU!

You do realize if the DMA was applied to all companies innovation would come to a screeching halt, right? Any innovation would immediately be given to every competitor.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The amount of pretzel twisting you’re doing to avoid admitting the obvious fact that the EU is stealing Apple’s IP

They aren’t “stealing” it.
Imposing certain obligations and restrictions is not stealing.

Great, now everyone’s iOS is worse

It’s up to Apple to decide whether to do it.
Within their property rights.
We’re talking about rights here, not recommended action.

Pretty sure both of those options are prohibited by the DMA. They’re certainly against the “spirit of the law”

Wrong.

The EU has issued clear guidance on that (contrary to your suggestions that the EU intentionally write vague laws to “get Apple” to enable them to fine Apple for “not reading their minds”):

DMA.100203 - Consultation on the proposed measures for interoperability between Apple’s iOS operating system and connected devices

The commission is consulting on the proposed measures that Apple is to implement to ensure effective interoperability with its iOS operating system for connected devices, as required by Article 6(7) of the Digital Markets Act (“DMA”)

digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu

👉 They clearly (propose to) only require data transfer to and from iOS devices.

See point 1 above. While I admit making things worse for everyone in a misguided attempt to make things “fair” is incredibly on-brand for socialism, it’s not usually so blatantly obvious. Thanks for confirming my point that the EU would prefer a worse experience for Apple’s customers.

Wrong.
Their customers benefit from improved interoperability,

All I see is an inability to admit state-sponsored theft

When a law imposes a limited set of restrictions and obligations imposed on someone or something, that is not stealing.

Free market working, not the government giving AirDrop to Android for free

You’re misrepresenting thing.
They are not “giving it to Android” to use among Android.

Why bother building your own algorithm when you can get playlists created by the best in the business for free? Why build a better one if you’re not going to be able to differentiate yourself by playlist quality? Who’s going to license it if they can just get it for free if you use it yourself?

A playlist is a static set of tracks/songs that has been “tailored” by and/or for someone.
You don’t need an algorithm to make that - you can employ a human DJ.

An algorithm though is capable of generating these playlists and individually and dynamically “tailoring” them to someone and their preferences. That’s something different. And to do that dynamically, you need access to the algorithm operator - who can get compensated.

 

[AppliedMicro]

PS: It’s up to me to disengage from the conversation at this point.

I suppose you know that property rights are almost ever completely limitless. The law very often imposes restrictions on them. And sometimes obligations. Let alone many other conflicting laws that limit what you can do with your property.

But You seem agitated and are clearly stoking the flames with your exaggerated mischaracterisation as “stealing” and “theft”. That doesn’t help to have a nuanced discussion.

In a similar vein, I could write and reiterate paragraphs over paragraphs (though I’d better employ ChatGPT to phrase it for me) about how “Apple’s developer terms are utterly reprehensible ‘legalised extortion’ (of vulnerable developers that are just trying to make a living)” or something similar. And we both’d know that’s a deliberate exaggeration.

 

[surferfb]

PS: It’s up to me to disengage from the conversation at this point.
You seem agitated and are clearly stoking the flames with your mischaracterisation as “stealing” and “theft”.

Although I suppose you know better: That property rights are almost ever completely limitless. The law very often imposes restrictions on them. And sometimes obligations. Let alone many other conflicting laws that limit what you can do with your property.

I’m not agitated or intending to “stoke the flames” - just calling it like I see it.

As I’ve said countless times, I understand property rights aren’t limitless and the government has a right to impose whatever law it wants on whoever it wants. But might doesn’t make right - laws passed by well-meaning governments can still be misguided, immoral, or wrong. And in my opinion that is certainly the case here. I don’t understand how anyone could possibly argue that “Apple has to give AirDrop to competitors” isn’t a massive overreach and theft of Apple’s innovations, but clearly many of you are a-ok with that. I suspect you would feel very differently if it was your product or your company’s product, but obviously we can’t test that theory.

Happy to disengage here as well - we’re looking at the same sky and one of is saying it’s blue and the other is saying it’s green at this point.

Have a good evening, and enjoy your new phone!