Oh, ask the owners of Google and Facebook. They earned their money by providing services for free to ordinary people. A perplexed US senator once asked Mark Zuckerberg how he amassed his fortune while giving services away for free. You know the answer.
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.
Report: Apple Nearing Agreement With EU Over App Store Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think anyone here wants Apple following Google and Meta's business models, and I really don't think it'd be better for EU consumers if Apple's choices are "give away stuff to competitors for free" or "destroy our brand promise and start treating our customers as the product".
Maybe the EU disagrees though. I mean, if Apple started installing vanilla Android on all of its devices in the EU, their DMA problems go away and EU consumers have ZERO choice. I suspect Apple would still sell a lot of iPhones too. Probably not as many as they do now, but definitely wouldn't have to worry about getting randomly fined 20% of worldwide revenue for not reading some bureaucrat's mind on what an incredibly unclear regulation means that particular day.
Something for all of those who think the DMA inherently will lead to more competition to think about.
There's a very real difference between "less regulation" and "penalties that are so low that they're inconsequential, and thus ineffective".
It effectively means there are no rules in too many situations.
Oh, Apple can't, iPhones don't have enough parts inside to run Android.
But, certain Android phones can do this and more...
like remote controlling a Mac, which an iPhone cannot.
I don’t believe so. I know people who’ve worked just as hard as I have, if not harder, who are in a worse spot. Life is a roll of the dice. The sooner one realizes that, the better off we’ll all be.
It's a great point.
So many societal issues (in America in particular) are downstream of not having empathy and compassion.
Working hard doesn't prevent them from being idiots.
The wealthy are just people too ... mostly those who played by the rules, worked really hard, and contribute to society. They are, by and large, not "pushing" anyone down.
You'll have to tighten up who exactly you mean by "the wealthy" here I think.
The last poor US president was Harry Truman, a century ago...
Half of C-Suite in Silicon Valley are foreign born. They, like many immigrants, come to the United States for a reason. The leftist narrative of the wealthy (especially in America) being evil and selfish is mostly ... bullocks.
Some more good news for us in America!
Great to see all that burdensome regulation getting removed!
Let the "innovation" free at the ISPs!
It's just too much hassle to have the database show a list of all the fees they are tacking onto everyone each month. The computers need rest breaks maybe?
Great to see all that burdensome regulation getting removed!
Let the "innovation" free at the ISPs!
It's just too much hassle to have the database show a list of all the fees they are tacking onto everyone each month. The computers need rest breaks maybe?
No need to export this kind of innovation. Thank you very much 😂.
So, your argument seems to be that since some wealthy people are immigrants, some wealthy people aren't "evil and selfish". Therefore, people on the left shouldn't complain about problems created by wealthy people.
I'm not sure that passes the logic test.
It would be fair to make an argument that perhaps some penalties should be higher or some even lower but in response to your last sentence, that's kind of the point. Lower restrictions or lower barriers are incentives to conduct business and vice versa.
Either way, 5% of global revenue daily is ludicrous.
In my opinion fines are not an effective tool - they are usually too high or too low. It's just a regulators way of trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Strawman or you missed the point. The general counter argument had to do with the "wealthy" and that the size of a person's bank account does not determine their character. Wealthy people, by and large, are not evil and/or selfish. You can complain about problems all you want but the strategy of creating groups in order to denigrate them is not constructive. America is the "shining city on the hill" and the so-called "wealthy" are not pushing anyone down.
I want to see the fees. It’s a free money grab by the government and people should know exactly how much the fees are. But oh well.
Funny, because the same thing could be said about your current economic policy regarding trade and immigration. I'm really curious how this is going to work out for the US in the mid-term.
Ahhh. So you are just creating a strawman yourself. You're pretending that the "leftist narrative" is that all wealthy people are evil and selfish. When the real narrative is that evil and/or selfish wealthy people are a significant problem.
I merely rebutted the misguided but common "leftist" argument about the rich (as a group) pushing people down -- directly raised by another poster stating that "the wealthy are already ready to push you down that hill."
Your qualified argument is not as sweeping but equally unavailing -- that evil and/or selfish wealthy people are a significant problem. Okay -- then maybe evil and/or selfish poor people are a significant problem too. Maybe some other evil and/or selfish group is a significant problem too. Why not just say that evil and/or selfish people are a significant problem.
I must say that my characterizing agruments against the so-called wealthy as "leftist narrative," if that is what gets you, is not baseless. The entire framework for this type of attack on the wealthy or powerful as a group (or those who control resources) stems from Das Kapital. Let's put people in their groups and call one of those groups oppressor or a "significant problem."
The EU said to Microsoft, “Give everyone the same access to the kernel as you have.”
Microsoft let them know that was a bad idea.
The EU said “DO it and we’ll let you off the hook, don’t and we’ll fine you.”
Microsoft did what the EU said.
Crowdstrike happened.
CrowdStrike Crash: Regulators, Please Don’t Interfere
A botched CrowdStrike software update might seem to justify regulatory "oversight" for security's sake. The opposite is true.
Now, if the EU understood tech (of course they don’t) they would have understood before asking how insane of an ask that was and would have let Microsoft do the OTHER things and would have had regular reviews noting Microsoft’s progress towards making changes that wouldn’t make it an automatic bad idea.
That would have prevented Crowdstrike.
Did the EU Regulators understand where they were off track, learn from their mistake and release a statement indicating they will exhibit more caution in the future?
Nope, nothing’s ever wrong with the regulation!
Nice tale. If MSFT thought it's such a bad idea back then, why did they not plug the hole everywhere else? Crowdstrike happened everywhere, not just in the EU.
Sure, but that's simply a strawman interpretation that you've chosen to make a disingenuous argument. A more reasonable interpretation is that extreme wealth allows people to exercise outsized power to push people down.
Arguing one group is a significant problem doesn't preclude another group from also being a problem. It's certainly reasonable to focus on the evil and selfish people with the most power.
Your whole strategy here is to ignore the any real arguments in favor of your strawman. Even going so far as to equate the left in the US to Marxists despite the fact that the left is overwhelming centrist in it's policies.