Apple Says It Doesn't Approve of EU Porn App

[webkit]

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

What law states that when zoning regulations are added/changed limiting how a property can be used it means that the government is actually taking away the property and/or it is theft of services?

This is why it’s theft of services.

That's why? In what way is it theft of services? What is the law that supports your argument here?

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

Explain how it is "straw man." You had previously stated that it "Can’t be apples property if they can’t use it as they see fit. (Within the law of course)." Well, if within the law Apple can't restrict alternative iOS app stores then how is it not still Apple's property? What is your reasoning?

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

By your response, I guess you don't know of any laws that state that "infringement" negates the property owners rights to use their property? You don't know how "fit for use" applies here?

 

[turbineseaplane]

ATP had a great segment on this in the podcast this week

They correctly pointed out how this whole mess is Apple's doing -- by insisting to interject themselves

Very worth a listen here

It's the latest episode as I post this, #625: Time and Smoke

 

[webkit]

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).

The government is not taking away the property. What law defines this as theft of services?

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.

Feel like? Are you now getting into personal emotions and feelings? Again, the legal reality is that the government has not taken away the 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?

It’s not theft and she still owns and maintains a right to use the "property."

Even if there wasn't a law passed allowing people to use her characters, settings, etc. it still wouldn't be theft in the legal sense. At least not in any legal sense (law) I am aware of.

 

[surferfb]

The government is not taking away the property. What law defines this as theft of services?




Feel like? Are you now getting into personal emotions and feelings? Again, the legal reality is that the government has not taken away the property.




It’s not theft and she still owns and maintains a right to use the "property."

Even if there wasn't a law passed allowing people to use her characters, settings, etc. it still wouldn't be theft in the legal sense. At least not in any legal sense (law) I am aware of.

If you want to hang your hat on a technicality that theft is only the physical removal of something preventing you from owning/using it, then I concede that the DMA is not theft. However, that also means software piracy isn't theft, corporate espionage isn't theft, a significant portion of hacking (stealing customer lists, PII data, etc.) isn't theft.

 

[webkit]

If you want to hang your hat on a technicality that theft is only the physical removal of something preventing you from owning/using it, then I concede that the DMA is not theft. However, that also means software piracy isn't theft, corporate espionage isn't theft, a significant portion of hacking (stealing customer lists, PII data, etc.) isn't theft.

I am essentially "hanging my hat" on the law(s) rather than things like feelings, emotions, etc.

 

[I7guy]

The government is not taking away the property. What law defines this as theft of services?




Feel like? Are you now getting into personal emotions and feelings? Again, the legal reality is that the government has not taken away the property.




It’s not theft and she still owns and maintains a right to use the "property."

Even if there wasn't a law passed allowing people to use her characters, settings, etc. it still wouldn't be theft in the legal sense. At least not in any legal sense (law) I am aware of.

I am “hanging my hat” on actions. And appropriating intellectual property regulation is theft even if it’s the law of the land.

 

[surferfb]

I am essentially "hanging my hat" on the law(s) rather than things like feelings, emotions, etc.

Ok. Follow-up question. Is software piracy theft?

 

[webkit]

I am “hanging my hat” on actions. And appropriating intellectual property regulation is theft even if it’s the law of the land.

No, you are hanging your hat on bogus theories and analogies, using legal terms that don't apply and/or you don't seem to understand the meaning of, etc.

 

[webkit]

Ok. Follow-up question. Is software piracy theft?

Laws can vary by country but no, software piracy is not typically considered theft. Software piracy can violate copyright laws but typically not physical property laws which are what are associated (in legal terms) with theft.

 

[surferfb]

Laws can vary by country but no, software piracy is not typically considered theft. Software piracy can violate copyright laws but typically not physical property laws which are what are associated (in legal terms) with theft.

Ok - well then I will happily concede that the DMA does not steal Apple's intellectual property but legalizes the piracy of Apple's intellectual property by its competitors.

 

[I7guy]

No, you are hanging your hat on bogus theories and analogies, using legal terms that don't apply and/or you don't seem to understand the meaning of, etc.

My hat is being hung on the obvious. The fact the dma is law doesn’t diminish what is happening and doesn’t diminish the net effect.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Piracy?
That implies unlawful force and violence.
And then being able to do what you want with what you took.

I’d rather call it mandatory fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing.

 

[surferfb]

Maybe there's a different word in your native language (assuming you're not a native speaker), but in English "piracy" includes the illegal downloading of shows, movies, music, books, and software all the time. No swords/cannons/peg legs/parrots/force/violence required.

Licensing usually requires payment, which is verboten under the DMA.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Hot Tub App made the Colbert Show

 

[carigis]

Apple, this statement is not needed

If anything you're bringing more attention to the porn app and third party marketplaces that allow users more freedom on how they use their iOS devices

exactly.. free advertising. and incentive to switching to escape censorship on your $1300 device

 

[Abazigal]

Laws can vary by country but no, software piracy is not typically considered theft. Software piracy can violate copyright laws but typically not physical property laws which are what are associated (in legal terms) with theft.

I am interested to know why people feel entitled to access content they otherwise did not pay for.

 

[hagar]

Because you can’t have dedicated porn apps on the App Store

X is a dedicated porn app. It just happens to also offer fake news and posts by enraged people.

 

[webkit]

Ok - well then I will happily concede that the DMA does not steal Apple's intellectual property but legalizes the piracy of Apple's intellectual property by its competitors.

Not really. Perhaps it could be called mandated sideloading or more specifically mandated alternative app stores. How about mandated gatekeeper ecosystem openness?

Anyway, there are MANY laws that "legalize" or "mandate" what otherwise might not be legal or allowed if not for government involvement, laws/regulations, etc. The reality is that individuals and businesses can face all sorts of laws that impact their ability to do certain things, have financial implications, etc. and can potentially result in what might otherwise be considered "theft", "infringement" or whatever. It's how societies, laws and regulations work.

 

[webkit]

My hat is being hung on the obvious. The fact the dma is law doesn’t diminish what is happening and doesn’t diminish the net effect.

Clearly not. Your use of bogus theories and analogies, legal terms that don't apply and/or you don't seem to understand the meaning of, etc. show just how little you comprehend what is obvious and not obvious.

 

[surferfb]

Not really. Perhaps it could be called mandated sideloading or more specifically mandated alternative app stores. How about mandated gatekeeper ecosystem openness?

Giving AirDrop to Android has nothing to do with App Stores. The DMA goes significantly further than that.

Anyway, there are MANY laws that "legalize" or "mandate" what otherwise might not be legal or allowed if not for government involvement, laws/regulations, etc. The reality is that individuals and businesses can face all sorts of laws that impact their ability to do certain things, have financial implications, etc. and can potentially result in what might otherwise be considered "theft", "infringement" or whatever. It's how societies, laws and regulations work.

Yes, but that does not make it moral or correct. The EU has lots of examples in the histories of its countries of such laws being in place. For an extreme example, in the jurisdiction I live in, it used to be illegal for black people or Jews to own property in certain neighborhoods purely because of their skin color or religion. The United States took property from Native Americans and gave it to others. It was completely legal. It was wrong and immoral.

I am not saying the EU doesn’t have the right to do what it is doing, just that what it is doing is also wrong. To be abundantly clear, what the EU is doing is nowhere close to as wrong as saying “you can’t own property on this neighborhood because of your skin color or religion” but it is wrong and immoral nonetheless.

 

[I7guy]

Clearly not. Your use of bogus theories and analogies, legal terms that don't apply and/or you don't seem to understand the meaning of, etc. show just how little you comprehend what is obvious and not obvious.

Clearly so. The intent of the dma is to strip Apple of its vertical integration by mandating free and unfettered access. In any other world that’s theft of services. And your couching it under the umbrella of the dma doesn’t change that.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Giving AirDrop to Android has nothing to do with App Stores.

It's not "given to them". It merely enables other devices to send/receive files from iOS devices. Which is a good thing. Especially given how Apple does not support standard Bluetooth file transfer.

Basic file transfer capability between devices from different manufacturers is a good thing.

Arguing that such capability should be gatekept as platform-exclusive and prevent ordinary people (friends or family members) from sharing memories through photos or videos - just because one of them uses an iPhone and the other an Android device - is nasty and anti-consumer.

 

[BlackSheepAz]

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

Wrong again(please do make a tally about how many times you’re flat out wrong in this discussion).
Monopolies might be concept of economics but to legally declare a company, monopoly, you sure need some court verdict. Because there’s a big difference between an Opinion and a Court Verdict. A very fitting example in this case, has Apple been declared a monopoly even though you have been banging this monopoly drum for that many years. The answer is a big fat NO.

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.

If they’re starting to enforce regulation then please answer me
a) why in Europe they’d to write a whole new legislation(DMA) instead of suing Apple with the existing antitrust laws
b) why DOJ in USA had to invent a brand new market of “Performance Smartphone”(which is absurd in my OPINION)

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.

I agree when it comes to regulation EU is far far ahead than everyone else. There is nice joke i read some months ago.
America: Let's have a party. I'll bring the software!
China: I'll bring the hardware!
EU: I'll bring the regulation!



It’s sad state of affairs in EU especially. Nothing to be proud of.

But jokes aside in the same jurisdiction where Apple has the largest market share. And Google lost because of multitude of factors which are not applicable is Apple’s case.

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


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?

In my opinion the market is for smartphone. And Apple’s low share of market share in every jurisdiction insulates them from antitrust laws to some extent, also that business model from the start is like that.
Market for iOS applications in not a market. That’s why its was thrown out when Epic tried to go for it in their lawsuit.

Only Apple Haters can do as much as chest thumping they want but the reality is that Apple is not declared a monopoly
You can have whatever OPINION you want but at the end of the day it’ll be merely just your opinion.
Apple will not become officially a monopoly no matter how loud your chanting is.

So do you agree with me that officially and legally Apple is NOT a monopoly?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Wrong again(please do make a tally about how many times you’re flat out wrong in this discussion).
Monopolies might be concept of economics but to legally declare a company, monopoly, you sure need some court verdict.

Ignoring the ad hominem argument:
I am not a judge, so I do not and did not make legal declarations.
That doesn't mean I can't form, hold or share an opinion - whether of legal or economic nature.

A very fitting example in this case, has Apple been declared a monopoly even though you have been banging this monopoly drum for that many years. The answer is a big fat NO.

I have suffered crimes without anyone ever having been convicted for them.
The absence of a legal verdict proves nothing.

In my opinion the market is for smartphone

Software applications aren't bought on "the market for smartphones".
These are two different - although of course very related - things and markets.

Market for iOS applications in not a market.

Not a market? That's ridiculous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_(economics)

It also takes me about 10 seconds on Google to find a this 1991 article in the New York Times stating that Microsoft
"dominates the market for Windows applications."

👉 Similarly, there's a market for iOS applications (and their distribution).

 

[I7guy]

Ignoring the ad hominem argument:

I am not a judge, so I do not and did not make legal declarations.
That doesn't mean I can't form, hold or share an opinion - whether of legal or economic nature.


I have suffered crimes without anyone ever having been convicted for them.
The absence of a legal verdict proves nothing.


Software applications aren't bought on "the market for smartphones".


Not a market?
That's ridiculous

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_(economics)

It takes me about 10 seconds on Google to find a this 1991 article in the New York Times stating that Microsoft
"dominates the market for Windows applications."

👉 Similarly, there's a market for iOS applications (and their distribution).

It takes me a blink of an eye to understand Microsoft’s “dominance” vs Apple’s “dominance” is being measured differently - as in moving the goalposts.

Microsoft’s dominance is by the number of units not revenue. No one would dispute Windows is the most popular desktop operating system.

By the numbers, which is units, it is not IOS. So that DMA takes revenue into consideration as if it didn’t it could not consider apple a “gatekeeper”.