Apple VP Referred for Criminal Contempt After 'Outright Lies' in Epic Games Ruling

[Kal Madda]

Yes. And now they can decide (choose) even more:
Decide to buy Apple's product or not.
And decide where to get/but their digital content and applications from: Apple - or someone else.
The choices have been untied - which benefits consumers.


Which are now required - by law - to be nondiscriminate (in Europe).

And Apple's terms and conditions must abide by the guidelines set by law (and the law's intent).


Anticompetitive conduct by a dominant firm is not a "basic right". And no, they haven't restricted them to "prop up" other businesses - they have restricted Apple's ability to heep them down and gain an unfair advantage.

Markets should be contestable and competitive. That's what it's about. If Apple Music - a service provided from a company of American (non-European) origin takes over the streaming market from Spotify, that's totally fine with the Digital Markets Act - as long as such competition happens on a level playing field.

I believe everything you say there is wrong, and I have provided rebuttals to every point in the other thread.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I believe everything you say there is wrong

"Everything"?
Even that Apple's terms must abide by the law is "wrong"? 🤔

Well, if you say so...

 

[Kal Madda]

"Everything"?
Even that Apple's terms must abide by the law is "wrong"? 🤔

Well, if you say so...

You know what I mean, and you read my rebuttal. It is not within the proper scope of government authority to dictate to businesses what kinds of rent they can collect from vendors. It isn’t within the proper scope of government authority for government to dictate to shopping centers that they can’t collect percentage rent from vendors…

I laid this all out in the other thread…

 

[bcortens]

You know what I mean, and you read my rebuttal. It is not within the proper scope of government authority to dictate to businesses what kinds of rent they can collect from vendors. It isn’t within the proper scope of government authority for government to dictate to shopping centers that they can’t collect percentage rent from vendors…

I laid this all out in the other thread…

You should at least have the courtesy to link to your other thread posts, personally I am not going to try and find your other posts so, just going on what you've said in this thread, I'll just say that your opinion of what is and what is not in the scope of government authority is just that, your opinion.

There is a reason why there have been centuries of philosophical debates about the scope of government authority.

 

[Kal Madda]

You should at least have the courtesy to link to your other thread posts, personally I am not going to try and find your other posts so, just going on what you've said in this thread, I'll just say that your opinion of what is and what is not in the scope of government authority is just that, your opinion.

There is a reason why there have been centuries of philosophical debates about the scope of government authority.

I don’t know how to link to other thread posts. I’ll have to try to figure out how to do that.

And yes, I openly admit and have said it is my opinion, and that of many others. But I believe it’s an opinion that is very well substantiated by logical argument and historical record. I believe it is the system that works best towards preserving individual liberties, and limiting government from becoming a totalitarian system. And so do many others.

Also, what isn’t my opinion are written Constitutions and structures of government which have been set in place to limit the scope of an overreaching government. I freely admit, I am not an expert about European law, but here in the US, there is a Constitution in place ment to uphold and defend the rights of individuals and limit the scope of government and prevent government from falling into Totalitarian rule. The proper scope of government authority was very well defined here in the US via Constitution, division of powers, etc. Some in the US have attempted to erode at these over the years, and expand government authority beyond these proper confines, but that doesn’t mean that it’s right. As far as I know about the law in the EU, the DMA even seems to go against the EUs own laws and the intent of their government system, and I have seen several people much better informed in that aspect say the same.

 

[Kal Madda]

You should at least have the courtesy to link to your other thread posts, personally I am not going to try and find your other posts so, just going on what you've said in this thread, I'll just say that your opinion of what is and what is not in the scope of government authority is just that, your opinion.

There is a reason why there have been centuries of philosophical debates about the scope of government authority.

Here, I think I figured out how to link to my reply in the other thread:

A. Those are all multimillion dollar apps that are trying to push for this so that they can cheat Apple out of the commissions they owe, and try to still benefit from Apple’s property. They have no grasp of what is “fair”, because their definition of “fair” is “I’m entitled to your platform without abiding by your terms”…

B. So can Apple customers. They could easily buy an Android phone instead, or any number of other alternative devices… Or they could use web apps. What consumers can’t do is substitute Walmart products on Walmart’s property, which is the same for Apple’s property…

C. I do believe that, and governments try to subvert and work outside of the proper scope of government in many different countries including the US at times, and I firmly oppose that because it’s wrong…

D. No, because Apple did allow it, not the DMA, and it’s merely speculative to claim it’s the result of the DMA, when emulators were available on the App Store before. And again, it’s off-topic, and trying to deflect from the main points at hand…

E. Which means all of the power is in the hands of app developers, not Apple. Because if developers felt Apple’s terms were bad, they could easily withdraw their iPhone apps and move to other platforms, which would draw users with them… So again, you refuse to address the glaring issue with your argument. On one hand you argue “the developers have no choice, and are being suppressed by Apple”, but then on the other hand you claim “consumers don’t go to other platforms because popular apps (controlled by said developers) aren’t available there”. So you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Your argument doesn’t work, because developers actually hold all the cards, and you’ve even admitted so whether you’re willing to acknowledge it or not…

In regards to your other comment in the other thread:

A. No, a few apps can cheat Apple out of due commissions, and consumers can no longer choose a system that is more closed and secure, instead they’re stuck with this.

B. No, government is trying to force Apple to allow some developers to make use of their property without abiding by the terms they agreed to, and not paying the commissions that are due…

C. It is not within the proper scope of government authority to tell private businesses what commissions they can collect from other businesses to access their property…

D. Requiring other companies to pay commissions for access to their own property is not “anticompetitive”, and it is their basic right.

E. Markets should be free, and governments should not be trying to tear some down to prop others up as the EU is attempting to do. That is outside of the proper scope of government authority… Governments trying to dictate what terms Apple’s allowed to apply on the use of their own platform is outside of the proper scope of government authority. Apple has an inherent right to control iOS (their platform and property) because they built it and it’s their property. Developers don’t have an inherent right to create an iPhone app…

It’s a split response, so first part is in response to a comment in that thread, and the lower part is in response to this one. 👍🏻