I would argue the openness of the internet and computer industry is the reason we have it such great products.
Indeed I am. These are two different conditions with two different markets and two different user bases. Pretending and saying otherwise is a false equivalency.
Imagine if everything was developed to the lowest common denominator. Imagine if companies were not allowed to pursue their dreams because nanny EU would force the lowest common denominator. That is where we are now.
I’m intrigued of your definition of lowest common denominator and how a standard between actors prevents superior standards and superior products to be created.
I love that you admonish me for not providing examples to back my claim and then, in the same paragraph, make a claim about privacy without providing any examples.
Don't forget that AT&T-approved cellphones would be allowed (to connect) on their network.
"When Apple Airlines cares less than they do today about safety, we can talk (about regulation being needed)"
Yeah maybe...
I guess it's not a sexy headline to say "EU Planning To Force Telegram To Interoperate with SnapChat..." ?
But seriously... and as I said before... who is asking for this? Users? Companies? Governments?
Do all these messaging platforms really want interoperability with each other? Did they all have a meeting to discuss this?
Should I be able to send a Telegram user a message without having a Telegram account? By just using my email address or telephone number?
Coming soon... anyone can reply to this comment without having a MacRumors account! Freedom!!!!
So should Apple make all the new rules work with all their older stuff? You know, before the rules changed? Should Apple be responsible for making this software change work for everything that is currently supported by iOS 15?
I thought they wouldn't be missed at all. As in you wouldn't even notice the lack of stores. I mean, who goes to these places anyway?
BY WHO? A company that comes from the EU? Don't make me laugh. Go to China and or South Korea for something to replace Apple. It's not happening in the EU. I would say Japan with Sony, but they don't make enough to supply the markets anymore. Plus they and everyone else run Android in its many versions on many devices.
Depending on how the rules shake out. They very well may leave. OR, they change up the game plan to give the EU what they want at a new cost.
So would AMD and now intel. What's your point? How does this mean they are not ahead of their competitors? How does this invalidate Apple's current CPU advantage in performance per watt?
The next company that has an innovative idea for an app store, probably won't deploy it to the EU.
Tech companies are not power companies. Power has to be delivered to standards and plugs to the wall are a hundred year old standard even though there are multiple types.
Sure household appliances and cars are more efficient today than yesteryear.
None of these are consumer oriented mass-produced electronic devices where innovation reigns. Can you cite one example where government actually regulated a company who lost billions on their ip and the industry was better as a whole? In the US the breakup of ATT didn't really have the effect, the government hoped it would 40 years ago. Today we have 3 overpriced major cell phone carriers.
Hard to comprehend why they wouldn't - considering the EU will have enabled them to compete (on iOS) in the first place.
No one is going to lose huge amounts in lost IP on regulating interoperability between communication services and software installations. Text-/speech-/video-based communication protocols are no rocket science, and neither is encryption.
Because it’s a losing proposition.
Very narrow example.
That exactly what the eu is regulating against with these nanny rules. Capitalism is about buying products that meet your requirements, not regulating those which don’t.
It's literally one of the main points raised in the original Macrumors article that this thread is for.
9to5google.com
It’s literally baloney because network protocols are standard. App stores aren’t standard.
Every company that operates in the EU does so by following the “current rules” and regulations. There are certain businesses that are not allowed in the EU by the “current rules“ and regulations, and many that ARE allowed to operate in the EU due to the “current rules” and regulations. Apple’s current business is one that IS allowed by the “current rules” and regulations in the EU. If, when Apple was incorporated, the “current rules” and regulations at the time didn’t allow for Apple to exist in the EU, then Apple wouldn’t exist in the EU… because those “current rules” and regulations at the time would not have allowed Apple to exist, no matter how much profit there is to be made. It’s entirely possible, and it’s in the EU’s right, to change the “current rules” and regulations to support or punish whatever actions they’d like to support or punish. And, there’s no requirement that the EU takes into account the impact their decisions would make on the companies operating in the region. IF a company reviews the updated “current rules” and regulations and the company finds that operating in the region requires an expenditure that trends too closely to that of the potential profits, the company (if it wants to continue operating in the EU) will perform an ROI assessment to determine if it’s worth maintaining operations in the region. If it’s not, then the company will do the fiscally responsible thing and curtail operations in that region. This is the same calculation that occurs with every proposed rule change. If (given the exchange rates) a dollar invested in Japan would return 10 dollars and a dollar invested in the EU would return 2 dollars, it would make sense to take dollars that would have been invested in the EU and redirect them to Japan even though the company is still technically making a profit in the region.
No, Apple SHOULDN’T cripple their products, they should merely follow the rules and laws defined by the EU and I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. IF, in the act of following the rules, products end up losing features OR some products become too costly to produce for the defined market, then companies wouldn’t be arbitrarily crippling their products, they’d be meeting the requirements set out by the EU. Which, again, I think everyone believes, whether they’d feel the rules are fair or not, that if the rules are on the books, the companies should follow them.
Apple makes almost 20% of their total operating profit in Europe TODAY, under the current rules. Changes like the EU are proposing aren’t free for companies to implement. And, once implemented the ongoing support over time for those changes are also costly. If the cost of doing business in the EU rises to the point where that 20% operating profit is reduced to 5%, the shareholders would be asking some REALLY tough questions to Apple’s board about their commitment of dollars towards such a small return.
It’s not an argument, it’s a statement.
It’s only irrelevant because it’s an activity that’s occurring in reality right now where multiple companies based outside of a region are being affected such that it no longer is beneficial to maintain operations in that region. If the EU puts in place new rules and regulations such that multiple companies based outside of a region are being affected such that it no longer is beneficial to maintain operations in that region, THEN it would immediately become relevant.