On one hand it’s features in maps on the other it’s universal health care. It’s a balance I guess.
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 Will Delay Bringing New Features to Users in the EU
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
On one hand it’s features in maps on the other it’s universal health care. It’s a balance I guess.
It’s far more nuanced than that. “Antitrust” is a vaguely defined term that is not so often very clear cut. The doj for one example does not win every antitrust suit.
I like the general idea and it has done quite a bit of good, however there are many issues that need attention and reform. Anyway I live in Switzerland so will likely get access to the features and products EU citizens won't get this fall. I do think big tech needs reigning in however.
A very fair opinion.
There are always many issues that need attention & reform, in all systems.
Good governing is an active process. As many Americans are finding out, if you don't stay involved enough, things can run away from you. It will never not be maddening to me that so many tens of millions of Americans simply don't bother to vote, as one example. It's quite an example of not appreciating what one has.
well you can take ASML (Netherlands)The only company in the world that makes EUV lithography machines. No ASML, no cutting-edge chips. Apple, Nvidia, AMD, TSMC, Intel.
SAP (Germany) Runs 87% of global commerce through its enterprise systems. Name a Fortune 500 and it’s 9/10 running SAP.
Ericsson (Sweden) They supply over half of the world’s 5G RAN infrastructure. In the U.S, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile all use their gear.
EU doesn’t own the Uk anything when making a deal. UK just didn’t have the leverage they thought.
Well antitrust is fairly well defined( aka anti competitive)
Article 101
(ex Article 81 TEC)1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:
(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;
(c) share markets or sources of supply;
(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
Article 102
(ex Article 82 TEC)Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.
Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;
(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
It’s all a matter of interpretation and no it’s not clear cut. There is not one size that fits all. That’s why there is a court system. While Apple lost a case they are in fact mostly allowed to manage their assets as they see fit.
As far as this topic goes in the US, we will see.
Last edited:
87% really sounds like a potential gatekeeper. I’d really like to hear your explanation for why SAP wasn’t designated as one.
Im pretty sure they have more than 10,000 business users. A quick check of their revenue shows the meet the revenue threshold.
Why wasn’t enterprise system software designated a “core platform service”? Or why not their cloud computing service or intermediation platform? Why not at least perform a market investigation?
I have my theory, what’s yours?
Well good question, could be the limited regulatory access to the U.S. legal code 🤷♂️ and as far as I’m aware they are likely having close to 0 monthly end users.
So I could ask EU but I don’t think Trump will allow them to ask Apple or Google to use oracle instead.
But jokes aside SAP is covered under the Digitsl service act.
The Impact of the Digital Services Act (DSA) on SAP Community
âOn February 17, the SAP Community site -- along with many other online platforms -- will need to comply with Digital Services Act (DSA) regulations set forth by the European Union (EU). As a result, we will be rolling out site changes and processes that will have a major impact on how...
It is not about the EU owing the UK anything, it is about the EU making fair deals which never happened. The EU bigs itself up about making sure companies operating in the EU operate in a fair manner towards other companies and EU customers but when it came to the UK wanting out of the EU, the EU did everything in it's power to make things.
The EU acted the bully. It's ego got bruised because how dare the UK have the audacity to want to leave the EU. No one leaves the EU!!!. The EU should have treated the UK with decency and respect, respect the decision of the UK people and the decency in how it dealt with the UK leaving the EU but it did neither.
The EU behaved atrociously towards the UK. It wanted to teach the UK a lesson and a lesson it did which is no one leaves the EU because if you do, you will be treated extremely harshly, with contempt and distain.
All the EU had to do was say to the UK 'we respect the decision of your people, we do not like it, we are not happy with it but we respect it. We will do our best to make the transition of leaving the EU as painless as possible'. Did they do any of that?? no.
The UK put up with a lot of crap from the EU but what broke it in my opinion was when the EU ruled that prisoners in the UK are to be allowed to vote in the general elections, something prisoners in the UK are not allowed to do. The UK public was outraged at this which pushed the UK publics resolve to want to leave the EU.
Poland suffered extensive interference from the EU over it's judiciary reforms. Poland is a sovereign country and yet the EU was preventing it from making judiciary reforms. Which is way Poland's resolve to leave the EU is very strong but they will no longer do so because of what the EU did to the UK.
Why should the EU have made leaving as painless as possible? That’s not their role. Their role was to look after citizens of the remaining 27 states which they did. The fact the UK Leave faction completely overplayed what was to be gained from leaving wasn’t the EU’s fault but the UK public’s fault for falling for it.
So your saying if a EU member state wants to leave the EU then the EU has the right to make leaving extremely difficult? If you believe that then you are wrong. The ONLY reasons why the EU would behave in such a way is because their pride and ego got hurt b a member state saying they are not doing things right and as a result it is affecting how the country runs.
As for your other points, the UK did not overplay anything. The UK asked if they could keep certain things such as cross co-operation with security/criminal information/data, freedom of movement and controls of goods going in and out of the UK to the EU and visa versa but the EU said no, once you leave the EU you basically go it alone. The UK tried to co-operate with the EU but the EU was having none of it.
A big part of why the UK is in the mess it is is directly because of the EU and it's hardline on refusing to co-operate with the UK on how best to leave the EU.
Why do you think France is behaving the way it is in allowing thousands upon thousands of illegal immigrants to leave France in small boats to head off to the UK? because the UK is no longer in the EU and thus cannot use EU law to stop France doing what it is doing. Go look at the figures. Illegal immigrants leaving France increased heavily once the UK had officially left the EU.
Last year or the year before that the EU put pressure on an Eastern European country (I forget the countries name), telling it to stop what it is doing regarding it's boarder control in stopping illegal immigrants entering it's country. The EU was effectively saying the country must let all the illegal immigrants in and if they do not the EU will give the country fines.
Is this is not how the European countries expected the EU to behave, it is not what they signed up for all those years ago.
The EU performed its role of protecting the member states. It didn’t deliberately make things difficult, that just happened because what the UK wanted was in conflict with what was best for the member states.
France has no obligation to stop people leaving and yes the UK left the Dublin agreement so it cannot return someone who previously applied for asylum in the EU. Did you know the EU wanted the Dublin agreement on the table during exit talks but Boris refused.
At the end of the day you don’t leave a club , stop paying your subscription but ask to continue using the bar.
You will find the reason the UK refused the Dublin agreement is because the EU had been abusing it for years at the UK's expense due to something called 'Family Reunification' which meant the EU country the asylum seeker applies in can transfer that asylum seeker to where their family legally reside in. This meant thousands upon thousands of Africans, Arabs and Asian's were allowed to be transferred to the UK because they had a relative living in the UK, always turned out to be someone who emigrated to the UK 20-30 years ago. So naturally when the Dublin agreement came up for discussion during the brexit talks, Boris said no to it.
It is clear to see the Dublin agreement is not worth the paper it is written on because ten's of thousands of illegal immigrants enter Italy every year and yet they are allowed to leave Italy to spread throughout Europe. The Dublin agreement makes it clear that anyone seeking asylum is to do so in the first EU country they enter but that is not happening and the EU is not enforcing it and has not done so for years.
Boris was right not to agree to the Dublin agreement at the brexit talks because he knew the EU was abusing it. The problem is the EU is still abusing it by allowing France to mass tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to mass at it's shores instead of France either getting them to claim asylum in France or to deport them if they do not claim asylum.
No that isn’t why Boris refused to have it on the table. Various legislation stops me revealing how I know that so you’ll just have to trust me.
The convention of refugees specifically states that asylum can be sought in the country of the seeker’s choosing, it isn’t down to a country to insist.
You still haven’t really explained why the EU should put themselves out to help a state that has chosen to leave. I still remember the “they need us more than we need them” statements. Turns out they don’t. And “we hold all the cards” again it turned out we didn’t.
I have explained why, you just do not want to see it. Any way this little debate has gone on long enough because it has detracted from the main reason for this thread.
EU has a responsibility to make a fair deal to itself and uphold it’s principles. The UK leaving was respected, you just couldn’t agree what Brexit.
what does it even mean to make it as painless as possible? The Uk wanted to have their cake and eat it. Free movement of goods is not provided to non EU members.
Uk signed the paper and knew exactly what they got. Prisoners getting to vote is part of the human rights awarded to them.
It’s easy, nobody prevented the UK from cutting off every trade agreement with a clean Brexit but Boris didn’t think about Norden Ireland and Republic of Ireland being split as a result.
Freedom of movement is incompatible with Brexit, unless you stay like Norway. Goods can’t have free movement unless you’re in EU.
They are core principles that EU states as non negotiable. The Uk doesn’t have the privilege to keep what they had as a member. The UK had the exact same privileges as Morocco
It’s up to the UK how to leave. And a new trade agreement is negotiated.
French rules ends at their border. If people want to go from the French border to non EU borders by boat they can’t stop them as that’s outside their jurisdiction
You can dislike it all you want. But EU is enforcing the treaties they all signed and agreed on. Its explicitly what they signed up for.