The point is any device with bluetooth is technically capable of receiving notifications on the device. Fitbit was able to do it. If your Galaxy Watch doesn't, it's just the matter of Samsung writing the software for it. Apple provided the capability so it's not Apple's fault.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sued by U.S. Department of Justice, Says Lawsuit is 'Wrong'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The old you can lead a horse to water analogy works.
The rest of the world has moved on to better tools.
Apple is not responsible for consumer behavior.
They make apps available for all consumers everywhere to use.
What more can they do?
What? I've never said, implied, or even thought that. Maybe you need to reread the entire exchange.
Then you of all people should know that no one can know the code of an entire OS perfectly.
Case in point.
Again, I'm not debating the concept of bug bounties.
I mean, I'm not sure where you're going with this since it uses WebKit under the hood. But anyway pretty much any desktop browser has a mobile counterpart.
That's not the definition of "gatekeeper" that the EU employs.
As with all things, it's useful to have a clear threshold as to not fall into the Sorites paradox.
Those comments are about as useful as the "just use Android" comments under other posts lmao
you know most platforms, even with 44 million purchasers, would say "we have a heap of players" and we are successful.
we arent taling about whittling a number down to one.
that's your paradox and takes things to the extreme.
i can easily say i have a love affair with bluetooth speakers.
I have too many.
I have a heap. Nothing like 44 million though.
44 million is not a small or insignificant amount and shouldnt be dismissed as such.
they also purchase lots of game and services.
and they can only buy and load those purchases through one vendor who controls what is offered.
those comments to use WhatsApp and Android at least offer you viable existing options that work and meet the needs you stated you want. openness to load anything. ability to send large files.
you have issues. people offer you solutions.
noone can make you use them.
but if someone said they were hungry and i offered them an apple, if they didnt eat it i would think at least i tried.
go listen to Devo "Freedom of Choice" for further examples.
"In ancient Rome, there was a peom..."
you guys like paradoxes.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_ass
In practice, this analogy is very flawed. Would you repeatedly push a hamburger on someone who's vegan and say you tried? Because that's exactly the case here. (Before this turns into a battle of analogies, that's not the point, so don't come at me with "well you have the choice of vegan stores" because the hypothetical hamburger place is running a campaign whereby vegans are shamed, ok?)
In practice, that doesn't apply here. Assuming you have two phones that are the exact same in terms of functionality and cost the same, implicit human biases come into play (such as "my friend has X phone, so maybe I'll get that..." or "Y celebrity, whom I hate, has Z phone, so I won't get *that*")
hint: That's not what the paradox says. It states that, given a large (ie. more than 45 million people large) group of rice grains (ie. people), removing them one by one, when does the heap (ie. gatekeeper) stop being that? The EU says, for the sake of regulation, that 45m is a good threshold.
odd how everyone's analogies are always flawed when people try to explain things to you... perhaps analogies are not for you maybe?
I didnt offer you a burger.
you've siderailed a reasonable analogy and twisted it your way.
it matters not if i offered you an apple. i could have said i offered them their favourite food. whatever.
you offer a starving person something they will eat to them. there. done. theu still choose not to eat it.
you too have that same choice.
you want a phone. you need a phone.
you have two similar but different options.
you can pick either.
but you refuse to accept the offer that meets you stated needs.
the refusal lies with you not the people offering you the phone.
you.
the EU does not get to decide what a threshhold should be.
it's arbitrary as was pointed out by someone else.
44m or 45m should still be treated the same.
both are large numbers.
to put a limit on it is artificial and no amount of nonense can justify why they chose that number.
46m could have been just as likely a number or 3m.
the number is not based on any logic.
even the EU fine is based on some arbitrary calculation of wolrdside sales.
flawed as it was, it was based on something.
the 45m is not.
were they having a drink and someone threw a number up in the air?
"how does 45m sound as a gatekeeper threshold?"
why did they put a number on at all?
probably to limit their actions being called out in similar hardware/software control issues - like game consoles.
it's tiring reading the clearly anti Apple posts...
i'm just going to put my trust that Apple engage some expensive legal eagles and push through the BS complaint and make mincemeat of them.
discussing what ifs with you wont change your opinions.
perhaps on some sad level, this is the only time people engage with you.
i feel sad if that's the case.
nothing anyone says here will change or influence the outcomes.
perhaps Apple might have people reading this and get some ideas from those of us who disagree with what's happening and read the opposite comments and use them to find legal workarounds... we can hope.
i'm just going to put my trust that Apple engage some expensive legal eagles and push through the BS complaint and make mincemeat of them.
discussing what ifs with you wont change your opinions.
perhaps on some sad level, this is the only time people engage with you.
i feel sad if that's the case.
nothing anyone says here will change or influence the outcomes.
perhaps Apple might have people reading this and get some ideas from those of us who disagree with what's happening and read the opposite comments and use them to find legal workarounds... we can hope.
Who are we? Who do you think brought Hitler to power and made sure that he has manufacturing capabilities and fuel for his tanks right until 1945? We can all conceptually agree that Hitler was a puppet.
Your "opposition leader" is yet another puppet who had zero conceptual power. MI6 can explain it to you that it is very easy to kill somebody and make it look like someone else did it.
If the only way you can defend your analogies is by insulting the intelligence of the reader then maybe you need to rethink your analogies.
Ok then. You offered me an apple and I'm exclusively carnivore. It doesn't affect my point.
Of course it doesn't matter to you; if it did, your analogy would fall apart. Except this is not math class, so you can't just "restrict the domain" of your analogy to something where it makes sense because it doesn't make sense here and it's not how it works.
Sure. Let's pretend users pick Apple or Samsung or Xiaomi purely for ideological reasons. That's totally realistic.
Uhh yes they do? Unless you'd be willing to say the US doesn't get to define its national borders either, which is insane.
I've been saying it's arbitrary all along; you've been so worked up about the fact I linked to the Sorites paradox (the audacity!) that you've completely missed the point of my entire discourse. Speaks volumes about what you're actually arguing about.
The truth is that, like many things in life, you need a tradeoff between effectiveness and reasonability. Evidently the EU chose 45m as that threshold (granted, you don't think the EU is a sovereign alliance of countries).
Oh, now it makes sense? It hasn't made sense to you for the last 2 months.
To prevent people like you from arguing that the regulation is too vague and it can be applied unreasonably. By providing a clear, tangible threshold, it's indisputable whether or not someone could classify as a gatekeeper, at least by this particular criterion.
This argument will be meaningless until you spend at least a month with a game console using it instead of your phone. Oh, you can't? That's because they're different devices.
Oh wow, more ad-hominems. Color me surprised.
Last edited:
It’s funny that a lot of these arguments were used a decade ago to explain why Apple was destined to lose the smartphone wars to android. I know because I argued against so many of them back then. The iPhone was too locked down and limited, too expensive, developers would abandon the iOS App Store in favour of the google play store with its superior market share, folding phones were the future, yadda yadda.
Instead, what would happen was that people who bought an iPhone who go on to buy an iPhone every single time they were eligible to upgrade their smartphone. Even right now as we speak, more people are switching from android to the iPhone, than the other way around, and I am supposed to believe that people are flocking to the iPhone despite it lacking features that the platform they are migrating away from has had for well over a decade now, and the solution is to make iOS more like Android?!?
It can't be because they value the features that make the iPhone different from iOS? One man's inability to download game emulators is another man's protection from malware via shady Facebook ads. Who is to say that one is any more or less important than the other?
Claiming that users are locked in because of products like the Apple Watch sound like nothing more than sour grapes when the real reason is that the competition is floundering and rudderless. It seems like Apple's only crime is making too good a product that made people willing to pay handsome margins for them.
There are no moral absolutes.
Sure, but I'd expect a better reason than the fact that most people have 10 fingers. (45 million is based on 10% of the EU population.)
Would you have preferred them to lower the threshold, or would that have been too "harsh on US companies"?
I'd have preferred no threshold. I'd have preferred due process with expert analysis of individual markets. I'd have preferred remedies for actual harm proven in a court of law.
Who are you quoting?
Do you think the Commission hasn't done their research before publishing the DMA?
Edit: besides, this is an ex-ante law, as has been explained by @Sophisticatednut
The myriad of comments that say the EU targets US companies in favor of their own and other similar nonsense.
That's like asking if the prosecution has done their research. Should we just assume that because the prosecution has done their research, there is no need for the defense or trial?
So you just make up a quote to imply I said that?
And, of course, the EU did specifically target US companies with the DMA. That's simply a fact. Not sure why you would dismiss that as nonsense other than it is inconvenient to your argument. Of course, an EU company will eventually qualify as well.
EU targets US companies because they are simply following the agenda of the US government. Yes, US government feels threatened by the giant digital corporations and it does make sense.
Market power, importance, and influence
This was answered by my edit.
Oh no, sorry. I didn't mean to imply you said it. But I do see that comment quite frequently. I wasn't referring to anyone particularly though. Perhaps I should've been more specific.
The second part contradicts the first part. If they were targeting American companies, wouldn't they implement safeguards to make sure that doesn't happen to EU companies? Correlation ≠ causation (inb4 "but that would be too obvious" ok we're descending into conspiracy theory territory)
We agree on many things in this thread but the EU does get to write its own laws. They don't need to make sense, or be beneficial to anyone outside the EU. The EU approach is actually a little bit better in actually picking a number. The DoJ has thus far not done the same. Is it fair that these numbers are retroactive, no. Apple will find a way to adjust.
That's not an answer. You're just calling it by it's name. Are you going to respond to my actual question?
No, it doesn't. Targeting specific companies doesn't prevent other companies from qualifying as well.
They have an innate safeguard in that there are no EU companies that meet that threshold. That is likely by design. If and its a big if, this legislation helps foster competition and bring new players that are EU based, they can and likely will re-write the law to suit them again.
A name that has a meaning that explains precisely why there has been no due process on damage.
But it does contradict the claim that it exclusively targets American companies because they are American