Apple Says It Doesn't Approve of EU Porn App

[surferfb]

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.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Sorry to have chimed back in.
It just seems like you guys have done all manner of back and forth and simply disagree
🤷‍♂️ 😂 🙏

Agree 100% here. Healthcare is a human right.

YES!

 

[webkit]

Regardless of your opinions on the rest of the DMA, do you agree with the EU demand that Apple give AirDrop to its competitors?

No. Requiring interoperability not ownership transfer. Can Samsung, Google, Motorola, etc. use AirDrop with their devices exclusively i.e., without any Apple/Apple device involvement? Apple still maintains ownership and a lot of control of AirDrop.

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.

Wrong? Laws and regulations do this sort of thing quite often. Just because not every company or individual wants certain laws that exist in their lives doesn’t necessarily mean those laws are “wrong” or shouldn’t exist.

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.

There are often differences of opinion regarding antitrust/competition laws including the DMA. I'm sure there are plenty of laws out there that some people disagree with but that doesn’t necessarily mean the laws are "wrong", shouldn't be followed, etc.

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.

The existence of alternatives does not negate antitrust laws and regulations or mean a company can engage in anticompetitive behavior.

Again, there are often differences of opinion regarding antitrust/competition laws including the DMA. I'm sure there are plenty of laws out there that some people disagree with but that doesn't necessarily mean the laws are "wrong", shouldn't be followed, etc.

 

[webkit]

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….

Plenty of laws can result in "some sacrifices" from companies including antitrust/competition laws, environment laws, safety laws, labor and wage laws, compliance laws, international trade laws, tax laws, etc.

 

[surferfb]

Yep. We’re far off topic and 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.

 

[turbineseaplane]

if someone is convinced taking things from others is justified then there’s no convincing them that might doesn’t make right.

No offense meant, but this is kind of a twisting of what people have been saying

Having laws and rules is always going to mean sacrifices and tradeoffs to achieve outcomes

Framing that as "taking things" is inappropriate

Unfollowing the thread and disengaging. Cheers everyone.

Understood -- I fully get it, as this has run its course - Cheers!

 

[AppliedMicro]

Agree 100% here. Healthcare is a human right.

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.

Sure, there's often another hospital you can go to.

“It’s better for society if we take property away and distribute it to all” is literally the definition of socialism.

...and that, to a certain degree, is good for consumers and society.
Just as with taxes - and careful balancing (not to under- or overtax) is key.

Just as when it comes to Apple: Requiring Apple to make AirDrop interoperable is taking a small part of their property away. But it's not taking their whole property.

And in this case, it's for the benefit of consumers.

Healthcare is a human right. Using iOS and getting an open ecosystem is not.

...and sharing photos with friends and family is not a human right - but a basic desire and need when using a smartphone.

Again why is hardware different than software?

Again, it's a compromise. Apple should be allowed to make good money from hardware. Even their software, if they so desire.

But they should not withhold functionality and interoperability that satisfies basic consumers' needs and stifle competition.

 

[AppliedMicro]

You don’t deserve other’s ideas just because you want them

...and companies don't deserve to gatekeep their ideas from everyone else for limitless pursuit of profit.

There's a very simple question to ask:

👉 How does exclusivity for AirDrop benefit you and me, normal consumers and people?

 

[turbineseaplane]

👉 How does exclusivity for AirDrop benefit you and me, normal consumers and people?

It doesn't
The argument always shifts to what "the Corporation deserves"

There's just way too much deference to corporate interests and it honestly has perverted societies across the world

It's a little interesting to me that one is stating emphatically how "healthcare is a human right!", without realizing that we don't have it in the USA specifically because of corporate interests and how they continue to rig the political winds against it ever happening

 

[I7guy]

Requiring interoperability is not giving away IP for free or theft of services.

That’s exactly what it is. The DMA is giving apples ip away for free. Playing Robin Hood.

 

[I7guy]

...and companies don't deserve to gatekeep their ideas from everyone else for limitless pursuit of profit.

Yes they do. It’s called capitalism.

There's a very simple question to ask:

👉 How does exclusivity for AirDrop benefit you and me, normal consumers and people?

Doesn’t matter the question. AirDrop is not the eu’s to giveaway.

 

[AppliedMicro]

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. And if Apple'v

At soon 15 years after AirDrop's introduction, there's no such risk (of discouraging innovation). If Apple needed a reward, they got it. They 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.

And with that, I'm disengaging as well.

 

[turbineseaplane]

...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.

A good clarification and very fair and accurate point 👏

 

[surferfb]

...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.

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.

 

[turbineseaplane]

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.

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 a massive drag on the overall system.

(folks tend to not realize how much of "everything" is simply iteration and further development of existing designs, concepts and technologies)

Sort of returns us to the concept of "balance is needed" in all this

 

[surferfb]

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)

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.

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.

 

[turbineseaplane]

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.

Got it! Great clarity on your position, thank you!

(Sorry to keep pulling you back in -- didn't mean to)

 

[I7guy]

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.

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.

As alleged by @AppliedMicro a company can’t juice its patents forever. They have 28 years. The DMA shortened that period to 1 day. This imo has ripple effect of ensuring big tech companies won’t proliferate or even get to be big in the eu with overarching anti business regulations.

As for the differing opinions, which is better? Vanilla or chocolate.

 

[webkit]

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.

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.

 

[I7guy]

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.

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.

 

[turbineseaplane]

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.

Opinion and debate are a journey, not a destination

 

[I7guy]

Opinion and debate are a journey, not a destination

A journey to me is open ended where discovery is a possibility. These are circular reframed closed ended discussions.

 

[webkit]

The DMA got the attention because it shortened apples protections on new features (patented or not) to 1 day.

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[I7guy]

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

A lot of the discussion is applicable to being truthful about what is really taking taking place.

 

[webkit]

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.