Sorry ... wrong. I can sort through arguments just fine. I just have a lot of legal experience so I know what courts do and what they don't do. Do you?
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.
EU Approves Landmark Legislation to Regulate Apple and Other Big Tech Firms
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you going to shout “screw the US!” as well, in Leland, North Carolina - if and once the U.S. pass their own act that would tell Apple what they have to do and what they can’t do?
(Well, you might say “screw our politicians!” but that doesn’t answer my question of whether you’d like Apple to stop operation/sales in the U.S. in that case)
What would be the argument? Market cap is market cap. Apple's market cap is no different in Europe than it is in North America than it is in Australia than it is in Asia, etc. Again, market cap assesses the company as a whole (globally).
They have the right to pass whatever legislation they want for business being conducted in EU member nations, just as
the U.S. has the right to pass legislation for business being conducted here.
They are "going after" Microsoft. Microsoft will be subject to the same laws/regulations as Apple, Google, Amazon, Meta, etc.
Why would how much a company amasses in other parts of the world have any bearing on the EU?
Why is their worth outside of the EU relevant to EU regulation?
Whether or not the rules are talking about the NASDAQ or EU exchanges?
Are they talking about what Apple's EU operations is worth? if so, how would they they calculate it?
In the text, they talk of €7.5B EU turnover then they move to €75 market cap without clearly specifying from which exchange. And they didn't specify global market cap.
Anything can be argued. It may even be done with issues they know they'll lose to drag things out.
Last edited:
You're generous. I think people working at Apple HQ are doing just fine though.
It's not about what they would kill for. I'm sure they would kill for double their current market share. Go earn it.
And if for some reason Google is doing something that is preventing (in the illegal sense) DDG from growing. Then they should bring it to the courts. If they just suck at search, then they deserve their share in life.
So even big bad M$ can't crack the search engine nut. Clearly they are trying harder than DDG. So is Google once again doing something illegal to prevent the power house that is M$ from gaining ground? If so, please inform us.
I don't have to portray anything. IT IS. When the next one up is over 2x larger!!! WT Living F. Yeah, it's not that much when the next one up is twice your size and your NOT going to gain much ground. Single digit % points here and there.
Only when comparing it to something real, like you know a significantly larger company in the same business as Apple. If Apple is 30%, and google is 60%+. What are we doing wasting our time with Apple for? Break up Google. Make Android as an OS a new separate business. License it out like Microsoft does to handset manufactures. Let them put whatever they want on it. Seems to work for Microsoft just fine, and you get everything you want. Plus, plus! You don't even need to alter the OS much. It already does everything you and the EU want.
No I can't. The minute I need to install After Effects, or Photoshop (not some obscure program you know), I need to leave the walled garden and download it from Adobe's website.
This is like saying the government should step in because I bought an AMD graphics card but I need to use CUDA. So they should force NVIDIA to "open up" and allow others to use CUDA technologies. Where instead it is my fault for not getting an NVIDIA graphics card to begin with.
And this will make it worse. Its just common sense. If a walled garden OS is this insecure, removing the walled garden will not INCREASE the security but DECREASE it. So expect more stories due to this.What security are you talking about regards iPhone? This one?
Hacked! Chinese hackers break into iPhone 13 Pro in 15 seconds, do Apple users need to worry?
Kunlun Lab was successful in breaking into the iPhone 13 Pro in under 15 seconds.zeenews.india.com
Feel free to think that iOS is more secure than the other OSes. It is not.
A glut of iOS 0-days pushes their price below cost of those for Android
Top price for unpublished Android exploits reaches $2.5 million, a 25% premium over iOS.arstechnica.com
No, Your iPhone Is Not More Secure Than Android, Warns Cyber Billionaire
An alarming new surge in malicious apps is a much more serious threat to iPhone users than you might think...www.forbes.com
Yours and the EU's view is stated pretty clearly. But, both of you fail to realize that Apple is NOT the dominate player here. There is a dominate player. One with greater than 50% marketshare. And the easier answer is right in front of you all. Android is already open and it would take very little to make it do everything the EU wants. Instead, lets go after Apple.
They haven't done so with email and it has been around for longer than this regulation will be. Email is one of the most highly insecure means of communication in IT. So much bad stuff happens because of it. You have to do A LOT of things to truly validate and sometimes even these can be tricky. And this is just to validate if an email came from the right person.
I still don't see where willingly disqualifying yourself is not allowed. The first part you highlighted specifically says, "beyond revenue or market cap" and focuses on core platform services. The second part you highlighted talks about suspension of being considered a gatekeeper. The third part you highlighted talks about emerging gatekeepers.
I found the following to be great.. They just have to convince a jury that removing the walled garden will harm public interest which is too costly to society as a whole.
I didn’t write the EU legislation. I am simply pointing out that "market cap" is going to be the same regardless of country, exchange, etc.
Given Apple's massive market cap, even if were to be tied to just their EU operations it would still be well over 75 billion euros anyway. Apple generates significant revenue and profits from EU countries.
Not putting words in your mouth... Just listing some possible arguments Apple lawyers can raise in court.
If you have plenty of legal experience then you should realize a judge agreeing with the argument that the law was intended only to apply to companies on EU exchanges is simply fantasy. If not, then your legal experience seems to not be worth much at all. It’s such a ridiculous suggestion that I would be stunned if Apple even attempts to offer it as an argument. Though perhaps your mighty legal experience would suggest otherwise.
I think some folks have finally moved on to the bargaining phase on this issue. We saw the denials that this would ever happen. Then when this news came out a few days ago we saw the anger over it. Now folks are bargaining with ridiculous fantasies on how Apple will be able to skirt their way around this law. Depression will likely soon follow and perhaps one day folks here will finally accept the reality.
It would be if there were no other choices. But there are. There's a whole Android universe out there with sideloading and alternate AppStores.
So now there will be at least one less choice in the world. There may be more false choices among nearly identical AppStores driving a race to the bottom in service quality, but there will be zero choice allowing the walled garden many of us currently enjoy.
I don't see how many versions of the same thing is a choice at all.
Is that the only way people know how to argue this point? Just wrap this whole discussion in a while(1) loop?
Click back through the link backs to the point that this last came up, around post 711 and read forward from there if you want to see how the conversation goes from here...
There is no economic driving force to make email more secure. On top of that, there are those who want to keep email less secure. Hardly very surprising that email doesn’t have end to end encryption.
Take it from me, I have seen very seemingly tenuous arguments made in court that sometime lead to all manner of judicial interventions. Arguments about statutory vagueness are often an invitation to explore issues relating to legislative intent. You can say I am wrong about that fact -- but I would not be wrong in actuality. I grant you that my post was not particularly an insightful observation but I offered it solely as a counterpoint to your conclusory dismissal about another poster's argument as being laughable and poor.If you have plenty of legal experience then you should realize a judge agreeing with the argument that the law was intended only to apply to companies on EU exchanges is simply fantasy. If not, then your legal experience seems to not be worth much at all. It’s such a ridiculous suggestion that I would be stunned if Apple even attempts to offer it as an argument. Though perhaps your mighty legal experience would suggest otherwise.
However, just so we are clear, I never said anything about the merits of anyone's argument or, more specifically, about EU exchanges. You seem to think I did for some reason. I would guess the poster there is trying to point out that the law is intended to be applied according to a company's EU market share versus global market share -- perhaps as measured by market capitalization?
I do not really know. If so, issues about market share are certainly relevant in most anti-trust litigation/legislation and such arguments do not strike me as being laughable and poor.They should make their OS more secure by making it more secure not by locking it.
Wrong analogy, but I will work with it.
If you bought an AMD graphics card, and the OS or first party vendor exclusively uses CUDA but does not allow you or other programs to use CUDA by blocking access to CUDA, then the government must step in and allow others to use CUDA.
That is what is happening here. NFC is available in iPhones, which is restricted to Apple Pay. Not acceptable.
Why do you have to buy an iPhone? Maybe you just don't believe that people are actually have a "free will" to decide on what device they should buy? After all it is not a secret that the marketing technologies abuse the ability to attack the subconscious mind and influence the decision making in purchasing things.
Obviously marketing technologies naturally go out of the window in a situation where middle class disappears and people have very limited ability to buy expensive things.
You are completely wrong as you don’t know what dominant position means in EU.
A firm is in a dominant position if it has the ability to behave independently of its competitors, customers, suppliers and, ultimately, the final consumer. A dominant firm holding such market power would have the ability to set prices above the competitive level to sell products of an inferior quality or to reduce its rate of innovation below the level that would exist in a competitive market. Under EU competition law, it is not illegal to hold a dominant position, since a dominant position can be obtained by legitimate means of competition, for example by inventing and selling a better product. Instead, competition rules do not allow companies to abuse their dominant position