Agree 100% here. Healthcare is a human right. Using iOS and getting an open ecosystem is not.S(n)ide note:
I believe "you" (the U.S.), could use a tiny bit more socialism.
Such as in your health care system, for example.
Agree 100% here. Healthcare is a human right. Using iOS and getting an open ecosystem is not.S(n)ide note:
I believe "you" (the U.S.), could use a tiny bit more socialism.
Such as in your health care system, for example.
Agree 100% here. Healthcare is a human right.
Regardless of your opinions on the rest of the DMA, do you agree with the EU demand that Apple give AirDrop to its competitors?
I’d would agree it isn’t wrong to want that, but it is wrong to force your desires on those who don’t want it, including the company and a large portion of their customers who chose that company because of the lack of alternative stores. Particularly when the market leader with 50% more market share already does exactly what the government professes to want.
Again, not wrong to want that, but the way the EU is going about it is wrong. If I don’t want people to die in car crashes, banning cars will achieve that goal, but would clearly create more harm to society than good. Same thing is happening here. Severely discouraging innovation, harming security, and trampling on the free market is significantly worse than whatever supposed harm having one company with 25% of the market being closed causes.
Again, just because they feel it’s not wrong doesn’t mean it’s not wrong. And it is wrong. Android exists. If consumers want more choice and control they have that option. We don’t need the government coming in and picking which business models win and lose, particularly when that government has a long history of making terrible choices when trying to regulate the industry and stifling innovation throughout its jurisdiction.
Long time ago I watched some Harvard lecture regarding Justice and Utilatarianism.
In one of the example in that lecture there are five guys in hospital waiting for an organ transplant otherwise they’ll die. A healthy guy comes in for just a normal checkup. Would it not be beneficial if five organs are taken out of that healthy person and put them in those five patients. Loss of one life can give life to five.
Foster more competion and choice. But at what cost? Some sacrifice from Apple….
if someone is convinced taking things from others is justified then there’s no convincing them that might doesn’t make right.
Unfollowing the thread and disengaging. Cheers everyone.
When it comes to balancing consumers' and suppliers' interests, the principle works just as well for smartphones (and their OS) as it does for healthcare systems.Agree 100% here. Healthcare is a human right.
...and that, to a certain degree, is good for consumers and society.“It’s better for society if we take property away and distribute it to all” is literally the definition of socialism.
...and sharing photos with friends and family is not a human right - but a basic desire and need when using a smartphone.Healthcare is a human right. Using iOS and getting an open ecosystem is not.
Again, it's a compromise. Apple should be allowed to make good money from hardware. Even their software, if they so desire.Again why is hardware different than software?
...and companies don't deserve to gatekeep their ideas from everyone else for limitless pursuit of profit.You don’t deserve other’s ideas just because you want them
👉 How does exclusivity for AirDrop benefit you and me, normal consumers and people?
That’s exactly what it is. The DMA is giving apples ip away for free. Playing Robin Hood.
Requiring interoperability is not giving away IP for free or theft of services.
Yes they do. It’s called capitalism....and companies don't deserve to gatekeep their ideas from everyone else for limitless pursuit of profit.
Doesn’t matter the question. AirDrop is not the eu’s to giveaway.There's a very simple question to ask:
👉 How does exclusivity for AirDrop benefit you and me, normal consumers and people?
...unless, and @surferfb does somewhat have a point there, it otherwise discourages companies from inventing, implementing - and sometimes taking risks - in the first place.It doesn't
...unless, and @surferfb does somewhat have a point there, it otherwise discourages companies from inventing, implementing - and sometimes taking risks - in the first place.
Surely there must be incentive to do so. And exclusivity or free-to-decide pricing to reward them.
At soon 15 years after AirDrop's introduction, there's no such risk. Apple have made billions after billions from their device that ship it - and in the long-term, it now only serves as an anti-consumer customer lock-in.
...unless, and @surferfb does somewhat have a point there, it otherwise discourages companies from inventing, implementing - and sometimes taking risks - in the first place.
Surely there must be incentive to do so. And exclusivity or free-to-decide pricing to reward them.
Since I got tagged, and in the spirit of compromise, I will add that if the DMA were amended to put a reasonable exclusivity period on Apple’s ability to differentiate through software features, that would go a long way to making me less vehemently opposed to the law. To be clear, it wouldn’t change my opinion that giving the features away is a form of theft/piracy/whatever you want to call it and that doing so is wrong, but at least Apple would have the opportunity to be rewarded for developing and differentiate its products with that feature.A good clarification and very fair and accurate point 👏
Since I got tagged, and in the spirit of compromise, I will add that if the DMA were amended to put a reasonable exclusivity period on Apple’s ability to differentiate through software features, that would go a long way to making me less vehemently opposed to the law. To be clear, it wouldn’t change my opinion that giving the features away is a form of theft/piracy/whatever you want to call it and that doing so is wrong, but at least Apple would have the opportunity to be rewarded for developing and differentiate its products with that feature.
As the law is written now, it’s immediate. Brand new feature comes out for iOS and Apple is in violation of the DMA if they don’t offer others the ability to implement that feature on Day 1.
Ok - leaving the thread for good now.
At the risk of lying to all of you repeatedly about leaving the thread, a lot of my issues with the DMA are related with how they are targeted to a specific industry, particularly one where the EU has few, if any, major companies participating in that industry. If the EU had said “this applies to all large companies in the EU”, I’d still think it’s a ridiculous law that stifles innovation, but it’s their market. But the DMA was written with a laser focus to make sure it only applied to non-EU companies, to the point of excluding an entire product category for seemingly no other reason that “don’t hurt Spotify”, and then on top of that they had it apply to iPad OS, that doesn’t even meet the definition they wrote into the law, just because.Some of this is akin to the issues with patents and/or patent law
If exclusivity is allowed to persist indefinitely, it grinds innovation and development to a halt eventually
This seems unintutive to some, as the focus is often on "incentives to innovate and push", but legal exclusivity ends up as massive drag on the overall system.
(folks tend to not realize how much of "everything" is simply iteration and further development of existing concepts and technologies)
To be clear, not only do I have no issue with patents expiring or copyright expiring after an appropriate time frame, but in fact support it for the reasons you mentioned. But I would absolutely have a problem with them expiring after five or ten years - and in the EU, Apple’s software has to be made immediately available to competitors.
This entire discussion and the title of the thread in the forum wouldn’t exist without the draconian unprecedented DMA regulations that took aim at Apple.Since I got tagged, and in the spirit of compromise, I will add that if the DMA were amended to put a reasonable exclusivity period on Apple’s ability to differentiate through software features, that would go a long way to making me less vehemently opposed to the law. To be clear, it wouldn’t change my opinion that giving the features away is a form of theft/piracy/whatever you want to call it and that doing so is wrong, but at least Apple would have the opportunity to be rewarded for developing and differentiate its products with that feature.
As the law is written now, it’s immediate. Brand new feature comes out for iOS and Apple is in violation of the DMA if they don’t offer others the ability to implement that feature on Day 1.
Ok - leaving the thread for good now.
At the risk of lying to all of you repeatedly about leaving the thread, a lot of my issues with the DMA are related with how they are targeted to a specific industry, particularly one where the EU has few, if any, major companies participating in that industry. If the EU had said “this applies to all large companies in the EU”, I’d still think it’s a ridiculous law that stifles innovation, but it’s their market. But the DMA was written with a laser focus to make sure it only applied to non-EU companies, to the point of excluding an entire product category for seemingly no other reason that “don’t hurt Spotify”, and then on top of that they had it apply to iPad OS, that doesn’t even meet the definition they wrote into the law, just because.
The DMA got the attention because it shortened apples protections on new features (patented or not) to 1 day.Just because the DMA happens to focus on digital/tech markets doesn't mean Europe and the EU don't have plenty of other laws and regulations that address antitrust/competition matters within various industries e.g., there are several articles of the TFEU that do just that. The European Commission proposes, implements and enforces many antitrust/competition laws across many industries.
Obviously, the DMA is what gets the attention here because this is a digital/tech-related forum.
And to state the obvious after two years countless threads and probably thousands of posts nobody has changed anybody else’s position in this particular matter.
A journey to me is open ended where discovery is a possibility. These are circular reframed closed ended discussions.Opinion and debate are a journey, not a destination![]()
The DMA got the attention because it shortened apples protections on new features (patented or not) to 1 day.
While some cheer the busting open of apple as business as usual for those who believe everything is an antitrust violation it’s a bad law, imo. And hence the various descriptions which cannot be hand waved away. And to state the obvious after two years countless threads and probably thousands of posts nobody has changed anybody else’s position in this particular matter.
The dma gets attention due to the overbearing and overreaching and singling out of apple. As well as giving away a companies ip for free. That’s why the dma gets attention lot of attention on these forums.There are many Europe/EU laws that don't get any attention here because they don’t have to do with digital/tech-related topics. Again, the DMA gets attention here because this is a digital/tech-related forum.
I have never seen anyone engaged with a closed-ended discussion proclaim that they’ve seen the light. With the regard I agree with the above. I would think someone at some point would have if it were that. Common sense prevails here.I wouldn't know if anyone's mind has been changed as I haven't spoken to everyone who has posted one of the "thousands of posts" about the DMA. You have?
A lot of the discussion is applicable to being truthful about what is really taking taking place.Besides, not all of the discussions are about trying to completely change people’s minds. Sometimes it's about things like questioning or correcting the terminology or analogies that get inappropriately thrown around here.
The dma gets attention due to the overbearing and overreaching and singling out of apple. As well as giving away a companies ip for free. That’s why the dma gets attention lot of attention on these forums.
I have never seen anyone engaged with a closed-ended discussion proclaim that they’ve seen the light. With the regard I agree with the above. I would think someone at some point would have if it were that. Common sense prevails here.
A lot of the discussion is applicable to being truthful about what is really taking taking place.