Yes, and there's an Apple Retail Germany GmbH and an iTunes corporation registered in Luxembourg. Apple is a global corporation on all levels, and will be subject to global legislation and regulations.
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 Regulators Expected to Decide on Apple's Acquisition of Beats By July 30
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, and there's an Apple Retail Germany GmbH and an iTunes corporation registered in Luxembourg. Apple is a global corporation on all levels, and will be subject to global legislation and regulations.
Actually, the Beats Pro product is quite nice - good feel, good sound, quality feel. Just no better than products half or even a third the price.
But, yeah, anything with the horrible Beats 'sound enhancement' is garbage - buy some basic Sennheisers for half the money and be done with it.
From the article:
I think they famously made some restrictions on the distribution of Explorer in Windows for anti competitive reasons, just to give an example.
Exactly.
I dont understand... If USA allows the merger and EU does not, what does that mean? Does that mean the merger cannot take place? or does Apple take over all of Beats EXCEPT for its EU division?
If the merger cannot take place without the consent of the EU, does that mean ANY country can veto a merge? Who gets to decide if a certain governing body has the right to veto? Can Vanuatu (pop. ~225,000 or 0.003% of the world pop) veto a merge?
If Apple takes over Beats everywhere except the EU, does beats turn into a european company? Can they never sell their headsets outside the EU? I would think the only way to sell beats outside the EU would be for them to create brand new headphones that circumvent US patent laws and also create a new brand name. It essentially would be a death wish for beats... which, in my opinion, would defeat the purpose of blocking the merger in the first place.
If the merger cannot take place without the consent of the EU, does that mean ANY country can veto a merge? Who gets to decide if a certain governing body has the right to veto? Can Vanuatu (pop. ~225,000 or 0.003% of the world pop) veto a merge?
If Apple takes over Beats everywhere except the EU, does beats turn into a european company? Can they never sell their headsets outside the EU? I would think the only way to sell beats outside the EU would be for them to create brand new headphones that circumvent US patent laws and also create a new brand name. It essentially would be a death wish for beats... which, in my opinion, would defeat the purpose of blocking the merger in the first place.
Actually they probably can't. Remember Ping? Mobile Me? Until recently iCloud was anaemic junk.
You would have thought too that Google + would have had Facebook beat in two minutes flat given Google's might. But it's now a flop that pollutes other Google offerings as they flog the dead horse.
Beats streaming had a pretty decent launch and the headphones (either junky, overpriced, often both) have been a massive success, convincing the youth market, that probably spent $30 on headphones pre-Beats, to spend $300. And that's one thing that set US capitalism apart from, say, European capitalism - 'good marketing' of a crap product is respected rather than cynically written off as a sort of fraud.
It means that Apple will get a list of requirements that they will need to fulfill, or promise to have fulfilled before some posted date. Failure to do so would lead to either fines or possible ban on Apple products and services in the EU.
And yes, obviously any country can do the same. China being a prime example of banning several very common and popular products and/or services from the west due to "non-compliance". It is then up to Apple to decide if they care that they are being banned from the Vanuatuan market or not.
Of course it is a routine check
But Apple buying their way into a market and using their weight to squash out other competitors can be an anti-competitive move and something the EU will examine.
Ahh...Ping. I went on there once, got confused to its purpose and never went back. Good times.
Huh? How is it racist to call someone out on advocating murdering someone of a particular race?
Seriously, that is just wrong and Apple should indeed be ashamed of themselves for giving an executive role to someone who has done this.
I don't care what race might have been used, it is wrong no matter what to do such things. Yet, that is exactly why this new Apple Executive has done.
I use this. Shure SE846's with the Sony PHA-1 and custom ear inserts and Oxygen Free Copper cables. The Shures sound better than the FitEar ToGo 334's in my opinion.
Attachments
It's the law. Why it made the headlines is the actual question here.
EDIT: The EU dictates that whenever there's a merger/acquisition where the compound revenue is over 5 billion and the revenue from business within the union is more than 250 million an approval is required.
If the EU Commission rejects a merger then (I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me) the European operations of the two companies cannot merge. However, the EU is such a large market that failing to get EU approval can cause the two companies to call the merger off completely rather than attempt to create a complex (and costly) set up of subsidiaries to abide by any veto.
For instance, Honeywell and General Electric called off the merger after the EU rejected it whilst at the same time the U.S. approved of it.
http://money.cnn.com/2001/07/03/europe/ge_eu/
Umm.....Steve Jobs also had a shady past prior to starting Apple involving illegal drugs and ripping off other people. Not to mention he was a terrible father with his first daughter and that was after he started Apple. Besides, what Dr. Dre did (aside from his actual illegal activities) was nothing more than entertainment. But you know what? People grow up. Steve Jobs became a respectable businessman and a better father while Dre moved away from the shadier side of the music business to become a successful producer and businessman.
Let's also not forget that Dr. Dre was one of the first people who got to see an early version of the iTunes store. Who was it that showed him iTunes? It was Steve Jobs.
Because god forbid that a private company allocate their capital in the way that they think would best benefit them and therefore their customers. At least I'm not paying for that mess too...
Maybe you come from a planet where companies always do what is best for their customers first and themselves next, but on this Earth prices *always* go up when there is only one vendor for a given product with no substitutes. How is that good for customers? In addition innovation goes out the door in these situations.
The European Union might be a bureaucratic monstrosity, but Kroes' (you probably haven't heard of her, but she was in charge of these things) efforts have improved situations and for example helped in drastically reducing mobile roaming prices.
It looks very much like you do not know what you are talking about.
Apple and Beats are both American companies, why the **** is eurpe involved in this at all?
----------
if they try breaking up the merger I hope Apple completely pulls their products from europe
----------
You're goddamn right it does, **** the commies.
----------
Because the other 4 countries in 5 eyes are european...
----------
if they try breaking up the merger I hope Apple completely pulls their products from europe
----------
You're goddamn right it does, **** the commies.
----------
Because the other 4 countries in 5 eyes are european...
I thought it was two companies from the United States merging ?
Does they mean that two EU companies merging also need the United States approval ?
Does they mean that two EU companies merging also need the United States approval ?
You thought wrong, then. It's one huge global conglomerate with several subsidiaries in Europe acquiring another large international company.
Big noses? Didn't the US just fine a French bank $10 billion for banned transactions that didn't take place between US companies nor occur in the US just because they took place in dollars. This is a global economy.
ol·i·gar·chy noun \ˈä-lə-ˌgär-kē, ˈō-\
: a country, business, etc., that is controlled by a small group of people
: the people that control a country, business, etc.
: government or control by a small group of people
What does the oil industry have to do with Comcast now owning 75%+ of the cable market in the United States? They don't have a monopoly, but they do have an oligarchy, with more lobbyists thus control thus dictating policy (ex. internet censorship, price gauging, control of available media, etc)