Abuse of power problem for Apple?

[Galvanic]

So what’s your argument?

My argument is that Apple's not a monopoly. Tweaking you about your tendency to rhetorical gimmickry is side entertainment.

Prior anti-trust regulation was based on the idea that certain amounts of market power were undesirable because they strangled the economic activity of others in an anti-social way

Any company with any level of market power has some ability to impinge the economic activity of others, which is why the bar is set *very* high for anti-trust regulation. That Apple does things that impinge on the economic activity of others is not, no matter how much you want it to be, actual evidence by itself of "monopoly abuse." Your argument that the regulations have to be changed sounds more like a desire to get what you want rather than a reasoned consideration of whether current anti-trust regulations actually work.

Does Apple really have less market power than Bell? Does Amazon have less market power than the railroads?

100% yes to both those questions, and that you even ask them reflects a massive lack of knowledge about history.

 

[wrylachlan]

I guess we just fundamentally disagree that “monopoly” is the right bar. It may have been in the past when it was inconceivable for a proportion of the economy as large as what flows through Apple today flowing through a non-monopoly. Now that we see it is possible for organizations that are not monopolies to control such vast swathes of the economy it’s time to change the bar in the US. And in the EU “monopoly” has just never been the bar, so nothing to change there.

 

[ant1pathy]

True. I do think that the answer is ‘no - our legal frameworks shouldn’t be fixed in time and unresponsive to changing reality.’ While reasonable people can have reasonable discussions about what the regulatory framework should be, I find the pearl clutching at the very thought of new regulation to be pretty histrionic and ridiculous. The world works in vastly different ways now than it did when the current regulations were written. Of course we need to update.

I think it’s perfectly rational to ask why we would throw away time-tested regulations which have been vetted by the courts and are foundational parts of our legal jurisprudence in favor of a random rewriting that’s driven more by fads than anything logical.

See? Fun, but it’s a rhetorical gimmick, not an argument.

So what’s your argument? What makes you think that the current situation is similar enough to prior situations that new regulation is not needed?

Prior anti-trust regulation was based on the idea that certain amounts of market power were undesirable because they strangled the economic activity of others in an anti-social way. Are you arguing that platforms don’t have the economic power to strangle others activity? Or that the results of that strangling aren’t anti-social?

I’m not sure how you can argue that platforms like the App Store and Google Play don’t have market power that is on par with and in many cases much much greater than organizations that we as a society have chosen to regulate in the past. Does Apple really have less market power than Bell? Does Amazon have less market power than the railroads?

You say "strangle", I say "firm hand on the reins". If iOS is so stifling and restrictive, we should expect to see a blossoming proliferation of innovation on the open platform of Android, right?

I feel that I should clarify that I have no problem with regulation, or investigation. What I do have a problem with is ham-fisted policy with blinders on for "what might the unintended consequences be?". Feels similar to the dogmatic "OPEN BETTER CLOSED BAD" mindset, with no consideration for the stance of "I do not wish to be a technology janitor in my personal life, is there a platform I can invest in that is more integrated and locked down and curated", but rather demanding that no platform can be integrated / locked down / curated because... reasons.

 

[Galvanic]

I guess we just fundamentally disagree that “monopoly” is the right bar.

Seemingly.

It may have been in the past when it was inconceivable for a proportion of the economy as large as what flows through Apple today flowing through a non-monopoly.

Early 20th Century Sears, Roebuck might have a comment about that -- and this illustrates the problems with these conversations in general -- they're marred by both legal ignorance and a shaky sense of history.

 

[Megalodon]

Any company with any level of market power has some ability to impinge the economic activity of others, which is why the bar is set *very* high for anti-trust regulation.

Not as high for Europe. And they're better off because of it.

That Apple does things that impinge on the economic activity of others is not, no matter how much you want it to be, actual evidence by itself of "monopoly abuse."

It is sufficient that it's abuse of market power. Your argument comes down to the contention Apple does not meet a threshold that isn't even the legal threshold for regulatory intervention in the EU.

I would go so far as to argue the consumer welfare standard in the US is actually designed to let companies get away with monopoly abuses, so the fact the bar to intervention is higher in the US should be regarded as a bug, not a feature. This notion the EU should have to leave itself open to abuse in this way seems nonsensical, and the correct policy direction which I'm glad to see they've taken is to disregard it entirely.

 

[lithven]

Is it a shock to you that different legal jurisdictions have different definitions for an abusive use of your position in the marketplace?

Is it a shock to you that because of those different definitions I would want a court case in that different legal jurisdiction that actually declares Apple a monopoly?

And using your position abusively may or may not require you to be in a monopolistic position? And that anti-trust regulation does not always address monopolies since trust and monopolies are not the same thing?

Are you aware that in this thread I'm responding to an OP who claimed "monopoly abuse" on the part of Apple?

So is your answer, no, I can't point to a European court case that has declared Apple a monopoly?

You seem to be purposefully ignoring the point of the comment you are replying to. Apple doesn't need to be "declared a monopoly" for the EU to decide some of their actions are anti-competitive and need to be regulated. Yes EH labeled the thread using the M word but his poor choice in title does not change the laws in the EU or determine how they regulate businesses operating within their borders. Your entire argument and obsession with them being declared a monopoly in the courts is bonkers.

Is this how you see the EU regulators working?

Bureaucrat 1: We were going to regulate Apple but someone on the internet made a forum post that said our regulations would be because Apple is a monopoly.
Bureaucrat 2: Oh shoot. We don't have any court cases saying Apple is a monopoly. I guess we can't regulate them.
Bureaucrat 3: Um, why?
Bureaucrat 1: Because they're not specifically a monopoly, at least according to current legal findings.
Bureaucrat 3: But they don't need to be according to our laws.
Bureaucrat 2: Doesn't matter. Someone from the US posted on the Internet something implying this regulation is a result of Apple being a monopoly, because we don't have any court cases saying they are a monopoly, we can't do anything.
Bureaucrat 1: Exactly. A person on the Internet said the magic monopoly word when talking about us therefore we would first have to find they are a monopoly. Makes the job a real challenge sometimes.
Bureaucrat 3: ...

Side question for you. Should internet providers be regulated or should it be "their network their rules"? None of them have 90+% of the market and even if they meet that bar in a local area for fixed line internet you can almost always use cellular/mobile/satellite. You can also always move to a different area with a different provider.

 

[Galvanic]

Your argument comes down to the contention Apple does not meet a threshold that isn't even the legal threshold for regulatory intervention in the EU

You seem to be purposefully ignoring the point of the comment you are replying to. Apple doesn't need to be "declared a monopoly" for the EU to decide some of their actions are anti-competitive and need to be regulated.

As I've mentioned a number of times, I'm replying to an OP who declared Apple guilty of "monopoly abuse" so my focus has been on whether Apple has been declared a monopoly by any court -- not in the US and (apparently) not in Europe.

 

[YoHo]

Just as a point of order,

The United States has plenty of regulatory interest and enforcement of business practices outside of "monopoly." They may not be as aggressive as the EU, but they do exist. So a lot of the bickering in this thread about the US vs. EU and in fact the initial topic of this thread are pretty infuriatingly bad. Market Regulation happens in all these countries. Often prior to or regardless of whether the company is a monopoly.




On some of the more specific recent discussion. Comparing Amazon to the Railroads is dumb, because the Railroads weren't a single company. They were multiple companies and their domination was largely related to their Physical plant and those restrictions.

Comparing Apple to the Railroads is SLIGHTLY better, but even then it falls flat. To be a true comparison, all the phone providers would need to act in the same manner restricting things. They don't.

Apple might, MIGHT be compared to a single Railroad like the New York Central or the Pennsylvania. MAYBE. Even that is terrible. Worse than a car analogy.



Ignoring all that discussion,
One interesting thing I'd like to address is the Apple Fan Drawer statement that "Apple needs it's closed ecosystem to Innovate."
Does anyone have an actual concrete example of that statement being true.

Apple certainly does drive a lot of innovative uses of hand held computing, but in almost all cases, Google is a fast follower. Apple came out with apple pay First true enough, but Google pay was right behind them. I don't hear any significant complaints about google pay on Android's open platform.

So is there anything, anything at all that Apple has done that actually depends on their lock in?

My guess is there maybe some social and business advantages, especially with something like Apple pay where the banks were more willing to agree, but at the end of the day, it has meant nothing from a technology perspective.

 

[Galvanic]

The United States has plenty of regulatory interest and enforcement of business practices outside of "monopoly." They may not be as aggressive as the EU, but they do exist. So a lot of the bickering in this thread about the US vs. EU and in fact the initial topic of this thread are pretty infuriatingly bad. Market Regulation happens in all these countries. Often prior to or regardless of whether the company is a monopoly.

Agreed -- this is a critical point. The US can regulate companies in all sorts of ways without having to wait until they’re considered monopolies.

Apple might, MIGHT be compared to a single Railroad like the New York Central or the Pennsylvania. MAYBE. Even that is terrible. Worse than a car analogy

Agreed. This also illustrates the way in which competition can be a bad thing. Early railroad companies spaced their rails different distances apart (the “gauge”) which made it extremely different to connect to each other and greatly lengthening travel time. The government had to step in in the 1860s and enforce a standardized gauge on everyone. Here, competition made things worse rather than better.

(There was even a ‘war’ over this -- the Erie Gauge War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Gauge_War )

Apple came out with apple pay First true enough, but Google pay was right behind them

Google Pay came out first (as “Google Wallet”)

 

[Louis XVI]

I don’t know enough about European antitrust law or tech regulation to have an opinion on this, but assuming you’re right, discussing this in the context of a monopoly is a pretty easy mistake to make in this thread given, well, its title. And the original post.

So given your professed ignorance on this topic, do you think perhaps after hearing opinions from people who are knowledgeable about it, and DO live in the jurisdiction in question, that perhaps the OP posed the topic in a slanted way to begin with that maybe influenced the discussion based on an incorrect premise? And maybe the OP is equally ignorant about the topic as you are?

Um...yes?

Or maybe we can only accept what the OP is saying as true in every discussion thread on the Internet, and the discussion must flow from there, even if the original premise is incorrect.

I'm not sure what set you off on this bizarre rage fest, but Megalodon seemed to be getting frustrated that people kept talking about regulating Apple in the context of a monopoly, when that's not the standard in the EU. I pointed out that it's not surprising for people to frame the discussion in terms of a monopoly when that's exactly what the OP and title of the thread did, even if it's an incorrect standard. Megalodon then reasonably responded that he was trying to move the conversation in the direction of the correct regulatory standard.

I'm still trying to figure out how that pissed you off as much as it seem to have, but whatever.

 

[Echohead2]

Say that they open NFC for any and all competitors. If something goes wrong with the Deutsche Bank Pay app that accesses the iPhone NFC. would consumers call Deutsche Bank first or Apple. I believe they will call Apple first even if Apple had nothing to do with that transaction. So now Apple has to hire addition support personnel to answer those calls and triage the problem. Even if the fault lies with a bank's app and Apple redirects the inquiry to the appropriate app maker/bank Apple personnel spent time/money answering the call. That costs money. Who will pay for those additional people? If we are fair, all app makers that access the NFC need to be accessed some fee to compensate. Then those banks will complain that Apple Pay has an unfair advantage because they don't have to pay those fees. It's twisted, man.

and what if I have a problem with my Samsung Pay apps on Android...do I call google? What if there is a problem with my Google Pay on my Samsung phone...do I call Samsung or Google?

 

[Echohead2]

How is Apple a monopoly?

They don't have anything approaching 50% in any EU market.

Isn't this a pretty clear monopoly abuse?

Apple is not a monopoly.

They own 100% of the iOS platform and are using that monopoly power to block all other competitors from accessing the platform.

You can argue that Apple is not an absolute monopoly given their marketshare and the existence of other platforms, but that is obviously not the criterion applied here, so it's a pointless argument, no matter how true it is.

I don't know...I've hear now for like 14 years how Apple DOMINATES the smartphone market. Gets the vast majority of profits, sets direction for everyone, etc. So all of a sudden Apple doesn't dominate the market...they are just a bit player?

Is this the part where you make up completely non-sequitur imaginary arguments that you can then disagree with?

No...I'm accepting the old arguments that Apple dominates smartphones. Not sure why that is a problem.

 

[Echohead2]

If someone said “wow, I really murdered that sandwich” after a big lunch, would you accuse them of homicide?

Did you hear about the guy at Lowe's (or Home Depot) who told people as they were going into the bathroom as he was exiting that he "blew up" the toilet?

You’re not supporting your point about “monopoly” by acknowledging that Apple allows a lot of third party access to its phones. That’s hardly abusive.

If Monopoly is your sticking point, forget that term.

They are open to others on all the other tech on teh phone, but not the NFC. What would be the result if they blocked those other things?

You can’t regulate use anti-monopoly regulation on companies unless you actually find them to be a monopoly, yes. Is that a shock to you?

Those aren't the only laws in the world.

 

[Galvanic]

Did you hear about the guy at Lowe's (or Home Depot) who told people as they were going into the bathroom as he was exiting that he "blew up" the toilet?

Him I might accuse of homicide.

If Monopoly is your sticking point, forget that term

No, thanks. I’m having the discussion I want to have.

Those aren't the only laws in the world

They’re the laws I’m talking about, though.

 

[Echohead2]

Your argument comes down to the contention Apple does not meet a threshold that isn't even the legal threshold for regulatory intervention in the EU

You seem to be purposefully ignoring the point of the comment you are replying to. Apple doesn't need to be "declared a monopoly" for the EU to decide some of their actions are anti-competitive and need to be regulated.

As I've mentioned a number of times, I'm replying to an OP who declared Apple guilty of "monopoly abuse" so my focus has been on whether Apple has been declared a monopoly by any court -- not in the US and (apparently) not in Europe.

There...I've edited out the horrible M word. Now you can you stop this line of silly posts and maybe post something worthwhile.

 

[Echohead2]

Did you hear about the guy at Lowe's (or Home Depot) who told people as they were going into the bathroom as he was exiting that he "blew up" the toilet?

Him I might accuse of homicide.

https://www.tmz.com/2018/11/19/willies- ... -bathroom/
https://canoe.com/news/weird/blow-it-up ... t-cops-say

For your entertainment.

 

[Galvanic]

There...I've edited out the horrible M word. Now you can you stop this line of silly posts and maybe post something worthwhile.

Thanks! I consider it quite worthwhile that I got you to correct the woefully wrong original post.

 

[bigsnake499]

Say that they open NFC for any and all competitors. If something goes wrong with the Deutsche Bank Pay app that accesses the iPhone NFC. would consumers call Deutsche Bank first or Apple.

Anyone who is familiar with contactless payment (or even modern banking, for that matter) would call their bank if their banking card doesn't work. You go to the issuing institution. Maybe that's not an Americans' first instinct, since they are not used to contactless payment, but this is how we've done things in the over two decades we've had contactless payments in Canada. I would assume the EU is similar.

Honest question, if you have a problem with your physical Citibank MasterCard, do you call Citibank, or do you try to dig up some publicly available contact number for MasterCard, if you can even find it? Similarly, if you can't login to the Citibank app on your iPhone, do you call Apple or Citibank?

You do realize just like the back of a physical credit or debit card, an app is able to present a hotline number for customers to call in case of issues, right?

This is not about you and I, I will do the triage myself if the payment system goes awry. This is about your aunt, your wife, your uncle your father that are not technical people. Also now you replace your contactless card with your phone. If you call Apple no matter who's card is in there, Apple has to take that call. Even just entering that call costs money. Apple is very good about answering their calls, Google on the other hand...

 

[lithven]

Say that they open NFC for any and all competitors. If something goes wrong with the Deutsche Bank Pay app that accesses the iPhone NFC. would consumers call Deutsche Bank first or Apple.

Anyone who is familiar with contactless payment (or even modern banking, for that matter) would call their bank if their banking card doesn't work. You go to the issuing institution. Maybe that's not an Americans' first instinct, since they are not used to contactless payment, but this is how we've done things in the over two decades we've had contactless payments in Canada. I would assume the EU is similar.

Honest question, if you have a problem with your physical Citibank MasterCard, do you call Citibank, or do you try to dig up some publicly available contact number for MasterCard, if you can even find it? Similarly, if you can't login to the Citibank app on your iPhone, do you call Apple or Citibank?

You do realize just like the back of a physical credit or debit card, an app is able to present a hotline number for customers to call in case of issues, right?

This is not about you and I, I will do the triage myself if the payment system goes awry. This is about your aunt, your wife, your uncle your father that are not technical people. Also now you replace your contactless card with your phone. If you call Apple no matter who's card is in there, Apple has to take that call. Even just entering that call costs money. Apple is very good about answering their calls, Google on the other hand...

By that argument Apple shouldn't allow any third party software on "their" phone. In fact they should probably own the mobile networks and all other interfaces too (bank, payment network, any bluetooth/USB devices, ad infinitum) because someone may call them for a problem that isn't technically their fault in the current scenario.

 

[hestermofet]

Are you aware that in this thread I'm responding to an OP who claimed "monopoly abuse" on the part of Apple?

So the OP has a monopoly on the correct interpretation of EU anti-trust law? You are missing the essential point that the whole thread is based on a flawed premise. This is an anti-trust issue, not a monopoly issue. It's not the EU's fault for the OP not understanding basic legal principles in other jurisdictions.

 

[hestermofet]

Say that they open NFC for any and all competitors. If something goes wrong with the Deutsche Bank Pay app that accesses the iPhone NFC. would consumers call Deutsche Bank first or Apple.

Anyone who is familiar with contactless payment (or even modern banking, for that matter) would call their bank if their banking card doesn't work. You go to the issuing institution. Maybe that's not an Americans' first instinct, since they are not used to contactless payment, but this is how we've done things in the over two decades we've had contactless payments in Canada. I would assume the EU is similar.

Honest question, if you have a problem with your physical Citibank MasterCard, do you call Citibank, or do you try to dig up some publicly available contact number for MasterCard, if you can even find it? Similarly, if you can't login to the Citibank app on your iPhone, do you call Apple or Citibank?

You do realize just like the back of a physical credit or debit card, an app is able to present a hotline number for customers to call in case of issues, right?

This is not about you and I, I will do the triage myself if the payment system goes awry. This is about your aunt, your wife, your uncle your father that are not technical people.

How stupid exactly do you think my family is? Speak for yourself. They all understand the simple concept that if you have an issue with a payment card, you contact the issuing bank. Simple. So please don't call my family stupid. Not being tech savvy is not the same as being stupid.

If you call Apple no matter who's card is in there, Apple has to take that call.

If you have have a problem with swiping your Citibank card, do you expect people to call Calvin Klein because that's who made the wallet the card is kept in? Maybe Apple DOES deserve to take on the cost of those calls for selling their products to such idiotic morons.

 

[hestermofet]

Any company with any level of market power has some ability to impinge the economic activity of others, which is why the bar is set *very* high for anti-trust regulation.

In the US. Who fucking cares about the legal tradition in the US when we are discussing Apple's actions in the EU?

 

[hestermofet]

That Apple does things that impinge on the economic activity of others is not, no matter how much you want it to be, actual evidence by itself of "monopoly abuse."

It is sufficient that it's abuse of market power. Your argument comes down to the contention Apple does not meet a threshold that isn't even the legal threshold for regulatory intervention in the EU.

*golf clap*

What a brilliant position to take.

 

[ant1pathy]

Side question for you. Should internet providers be regulated or should it be "their network their rules"? None of them have 90+% of the market and even if they meet that bar in a local area for fixed line internet you can almost always use cellular/mobile/satellite. You can also always move to a different area with a different provider.

I feel like this example falls very short because of the triviality of switching phone platforms. Alternative options to wired broadband are generally insufficient, areas often have single providers (in the US), and "move houses" is a massively higher bar than "sell the phone for ~70% of what you paid for it and buy an Android".

So is there anything, anything at all that Apple has done that actually depends on their lock in?

I would argue that the success of the App Store model in general was in large part due to trust and low friction between intent and action to purchase, to say nothing of the hard line stance taken with the carriers regarding their fiddling with the phone stack as a whole. No carrier branding, no carrier software, no carrier approval, etc. Apple built the platform because of the inherent tradeoffs of their model, not in spite of it.

 

[hestermofet]

I don’t know enough about European antitrust law or tech regulation to have an opinion on this, but assuming you’re right, discussing this in the context of a monopoly is a pretty easy mistake to make in this thread given, well, its title. And the original post.

So given your professed ignorance on this topic, do you think perhaps after hearing opinions from people who are knowledgeable about it, and DO live in the jurisdiction in question, that perhaps the OP posed the topic in a slanted way to begin with that maybe influenced the discussion based on an incorrect premise? And maybe the OP is equally ignorant about the topic as you are?

Um...yes?

Or maybe we can only accept what the OP is saying as true in every discussion thread on the Internet, and the discussion must flow from there, even if the original premise is incorrect.

I'm not sure what set you off on this bizarre rage fest, but Megalodon seemed to be getting frustrated that people kept talking about regulating Apple in the context of a monopoly, when that's not the standard in the EU. I pointed out that it's not surprising for people to frame the discussion in terms of a monopoly when that's exactly what the OP and title of the thread did, even if it's an incorrect standard. Megalodon then reasonably responded that he was trying to move the conversation in the direction of the correct regulatory standard.

I'm still trying to figure out how that pissed you off as much as it seem to have, but whatever.

Sorry for my tone, and jumping to conclusions. But in my defense, it's the BF.

 

[hestermofet]

Say that they open NFC for any and all competitors. If something goes wrong with the Deutsche Bank Pay app that accesses the iPhone NFC. would consumers call Deutsche Bank first or Apple. I believe they will call Apple first even if Apple had nothing to do with that transaction. So now Apple has to hire addition support personnel to answer those calls and triage the problem. Even if the fault lies with a bank's app and Apple redirects the inquiry to the appropriate app maker/bank Apple personnel spent time/money answering the call. That costs money. Who will pay for those additional people? If we are fair, all app makers that access the NFC need to be accessed some fee to compensate. Then those banks will complain that Apple Pay has an unfair advantage because they don't have to pay those fees. It's twisted, man.

and what if I have a problem with my Samsung Pay apps on Android...do I call google? What if there is a problem with my Google Pay on my Samsung phone...do I call Samsung or Google?

If you have a problem with Apple Pay, you call Verizon, and if you have a problem with Verizon, you call the President, because he nominates the FCC chairpeople who regulates Verizon.

If you bought a shirt that doesn't fit from Saks Fifth Avenue, you call Ralph Lauren,

So in conclusion, if your Deutsche Bank app doesn't work right on an iPhone, you yell at clouds.

I guess???

 

[YoHo]

I would argue that the success of the App Store model in general was in large part due to trust and low friction between intent and action to purchase, to say nothing of the hard line stance taken with the carriers regarding their fiddling with the phone stack as a whole. No carrier branding, no carrier software, no carrier approval, etc. Apple built the platform because of the inherent tradeoffs of their model, not in spite of it.

So the initial success and transition to modern smartphones was enabled in part by the lockin.
I might be willing to agree with that, so 15 years ago, the platform's nature was able to revolutionize mobile computing,

However, once that transition occurred, the advantages of the platform seem rather less?

It may be that some subset of people are more willing to do things on the phone because of it, but that subset wouldn't be all apple users much less all mobile computer users.

 

[hestermofet]

sorry, duplicate post

 

[Galvanic]

So the OP has a monopoly on the correct interpretation of EU anti-trust law? You are missing the essential point that the whole thread is based on a flawed premise

There’s no reason not to respond to an incorrect assertion, even if it’s part of the flawed premise, and I did, in fact, get the OP to correct that flaw.

How stupid exactly do you think my family is?

Wow, that was the most impressive softball pitch of a comment I’ve seen in a while. I’m kind of frozen in place because there are so many deliciously mean responses.

Eh, I’ll refrain.

Who fucking cares about the legal tradition in the US when we are discussing Apple's actions in the EU?

Well, me, for one. But in any case, US standards are set higher than EU ones, but I think that EU standards are still pretty high, so my point stands.

 

[hestermofet]

I’m kind of frozen in place because there are so many deliciously mean responses.

This tells me absolutely everything I need to know about you. You are an obnoxious waste of space, and I truly believe this community would be better without you. You have absolutely nothing meaningful to contribute here. I hope you someday find a meaning in life other than to be an asshole to others.

 

[Galvanic]

I’m kind of frozen in place because there are so many deliciously mean responses.

This tells me absolutely everything I need to know about you. You are an obnoxious waste of space, and I truly believe this community would be better without you. You have absolutely nothing meaningful to contribute here. I hope you someday find a meaning in life other than to be an asshole to others.

What did a poster just say? "In my defense, it's the BF "

I am amused that someone who apologized on this page for having a "bizarre rage fest" is now harrumphing about other people.

 

[Echohead2]

There...I've edited out the horrible M word. Now you can you stop this line of silly posts and maybe post something worthwhile.

Thanks! I consider it quite worthwhile that I got you to correct the woefully wrong original post.

I'm so happy that your life is now worthwhile.

 

[Echohead2]

Any company with any level of market power has some ability to impinge the economic activity of others, which is why the bar is set *very* high for anti-trust regulation.

In the US. Who fucking cares about the legal tradition in the US when we are discussing Apple's actions in the EU?

Well...part of the point of the thread is to discuss BOTH.

 

[Echohead2]

So the OP has a monopoly on the correct interpretation of EU anti-trust law? You are missing the essential point that the whole thread is based on a flawed premise

There’s no reason not to respond to an incorrect assertion, even if it’s part of the flawed premise, and I did, in fact, get the OP to correct that flaw.

Captain Pedantic to the rescue!

 

[ant1pathy]

I would argue that the success of the App Store model in general was in large part due to trust and low friction between intent and action to purchase, to say nothing of the hard line stance taken with the carriers regarding their fiddling with the phone stack as a whole. No carrier branding, no carrier software, no carrier approval, etc. Apple built the platform because of the inherent tradeoffs of their model, not in spite of it.

So the initial success and transition to modern smartphones was enabled in part by the lockin.
I might be willing to agree with that, so 15 years ago, the platform's nature was able to revolutionize mobile computing,

However, once that transition occurred, the advantages of the platform seem rather less?

Do they? To whom? They're just as great for me when I'm tasked with setting up family with tech products; I strongly recommend turn-key solutions that require less janitorial work to keep running and secure. Not 2 days ago I did the reassurance dance with my partner when she asked about the privacy disclosure on a shopping app. I was able to say with full confidence that iOS is deliberately designed to make it difficult to advertisement cross-track, to require individual requests with easy deny for personal phone data, etc.

It may be that some subset of people are more willing to do things on the phone because of it, but that subset wouldn't be all apple users much less all mobile computer users.

I would bet that it's a larger subset than you think, and advocating for that option to be legislated out of the market when there's an alternative platform with low friction to move to does a significant disservice to people who have sought out or been specifically recommended that set of tradeoffs.

 

[Echohead2]

So to the people who think this is ok...would you also be ok with...


Apple denying access to audio stack and thus blocking Spotify, etc. so that only Apple Music would work
Apple denying access to video stack and thus blocking Netflix, etc. so that only AppleTV would work
Apple denying access to GPS and thus blocking Google Maps so that only Apple Maps could be used
Apple denying access to Apple Pay and thus blocking Visa, Mastercard, etc. and only allowing Apple Card

etc.

Isn't leveraging success in one area to force success in another an abuse of power?

 

[Echohead2]

I would argue that the success of the App Store model in general was in large part due to trust and low friction between intent and action to purchase, to say nothing of the hard line stance taken with the carriers regarding their fiddling with the phone stack as a whole. No carrier branding, no carrier software, no carrier approval, etc. Apple built the platform because of the inherent tradeoffs of their model, not in spite of it.

So the initial success and transition to modern smartphones was enabled in part by the lockin.
I might be willing to agree with that, so 15 years ago, the platform's nature was able to revolutionize mobile computing,

However, once that transition occurred, the advantages of the platform seem rather less?

Do they? To whom? They're just as great for me when I'm tasked with setting up family with tech products; I strongly recommend turn-key solutions that require less janitorial work to keep running and secure. Not 2 days ago I did the reassurance dance with my partner when she asked about the privacy disclosure on a shopping app. I was able to say with full confidence that iOS is deliberately designed to make it difficult to advertisement cross-track, to require individual requests with easy deny for personal phone data, etc.

It may be that some subset of people are more willing to do things on the phone because of it, but that subset wouldn't be all apple users much less all mobile computer users.

I would bet that it's a larger subset than you think, and advocating for that option to be legislated out of the market when there's an alternative platform with low friction to move to does a significant disservice to people who have sought out or been specifically recommended that set of tradeoffs.

But blocking other wallets access to NFC doesn't change any of that.

 

[hestermofet]

They own 100% of the iOS platform and are using that monopoly power to block all other competitors from accessing the platform.

Lots of companies own 100% of their platform and block other competitors from accessing that platform. That does not make them a monopoly anymore than Apple is. Fox owns 100% of its platform and does not let MSNBC broadcast their shows on Fox. MSNBC owns 100% of its platform and does not let Fox broadcast its shows on NBC. Hilton Hotels owns 100% of its platform and does not let Hyatt sell their rooms.

If, however, MSNBC owned hotels and did not let Fox broadcast there — do you think they’d be able to do that?

...yes? And if people specifically choose the MSNBC hotels because they didn't allow Fox to broadcast, is the best solution to remove the choice to select a hotel that provides a desired restriction?

Um, yes. You have freedom of conscience in most democratic, western countries. If a hotel kicked you out for watching Fox or whatever the hell you wanted on your personal device, they sure as hell should be sanctioned.

Freedom of association. Unless it's a protected class, you can discriminate on any criteria you choose. A hotel chain that has the policy of "no Fox News" is 100% legal (in the US). Your freedom of conscience is from government interference, not businesses.

It’s also 100% legal in the US to parade in front of a black church and black residences with white hoods and burning crosses, so no thanks, I won’t be following the American ideals of what is ethical and what is right.

 

[hestermofet]

I’m kind of frozen in place because there are so many deliciously mean responses.

This tells me absolutely everything I need to know about you. You are an obnoxious waste of space, and I truly believe this community would be better without you. You have absolutely nothing meaningful to contribute here. I hope you someday find a meaning in life other than to be an asshole to others.

What did a poster just say? "In my defense, it's the BF "

I am amused that someone who apologized on this page for having a "bizarre rage fest" is now harrumphing about other people.

I don’t believe I ever insulted anyone’s family AND took pride in it, so FU. I think it’s ok to harrumph about other people being assholes if you are willing to acknowledge and apologize when you yourself are being an asshole. Yet you see apologizing for being an ass as hypocrisy? if you want to double down on being an asshole, go right ahead, but don’t judge me for apologizing when I realize I made a mistake and mistreated others.

At least I have the wherewithal to realize when I made a mistake. You on the other hand seem to be permanently stuck in asshole mode.

 

[lithven]

Side question for you. Should internet providers be regulated or should it be "their network their rules"? None of them have 90+% of the market and even if they meet that bar in a local area for fixed line internet you can almost always use cellular/mobile/satellite. You can also always move to a different area with a different provider.

I feel like this example falls very short because of the triviality of switching phone platforms. Alternative options to wired broadband are generally insufficient, areas often have single providers (in the US), and "move houses" is a massively higher bar than "sell the phone for ~70% of what you paid for it and buy an Android".

With 5G and Starlink I think that argument falls apart since you can get an alternative almost anywhere you are. Further, just because they are both mobile devices and mostly interchangeable that doesn't mean there is no friction in changing devices beyond financial. The UI is similar but different (learning curve), apps could be different or not available, and general communication (especially if you are a heavy iMessage user) are a few examples. So I ask once again to anyone saying "it's Apple's device and their rules" do you feel the same way about ISPs (wired or cellular)? Should they have basically no anti-competitive regulations because they don't control 90% of the market and it's "their network, their rules"?