7 ms·

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if their plan was to get rejected and then sue Apple (in Europe, where they would stand some chance at winning).

stricken 17y ago
Sue them for what?
- jrockway 17y ago
  Anticompetitive actions? Microsoft got in trouble for bundling IE. Why wouldn't Apple get in trouble for actively prohibiting competing browsers? This is Europe, after all, not the US. The average consumer actually has some rights over there. (In the US, we basically have "if it blows up and ruins your face, Apple has to buy you a band-aid" and "you have the right to not buy it".)
  - stricken 17y ago
    I'm probably wrong but I thought Microsoft got in trouble for that because of their market position? There's plenty of other phones for Opera to run it's browser on. That "50 million iPhones sold" from the event was a world wide number wasn't it?
    - jasonlotito 17y ago
      You are wrong. Market position isn't a bad thing. Monopolies aren't illegal in the US. However, the actions you perform can be, and this is what MS did. It wasn't it's position, but how it used that position to stop competitors.
  - rscott 17y ago
    Riiiight. I guess that makes sense if one disregards the fact that the iPhone OS is by no means a standard in the cell phone arena. There is plenty of competition out there, unlike there was for x86, which would be a pillar for an antitrust suit.
    - wooster 17y ago
      Apple operates in dozens of countries. In some of these, the laws around competition are extremely counter-intuitive to American observers.
      - rscott 17y ago
        Do explain.
  - cmelbye 17y ago
    I'd prefer the latter ("you have the right to not buy it") to the government interfering in the internal operations of Apple. If I didn't like how Apple was taking so long to decide on Opera Mini, I would have a world of alternatives. I could use an Android phone, use a Nokia phone, get a cheap flip phone, make my own phone, not use a phone at all. Apple does not have the obligation to approve every last web browser that developers submit, and I'm fine with that, so I've decided to use their phone.
    - biafra 17y ago
      Governments protect companies all over the world. Why shouldn't they protect consumers (or in this case companies against other companies) as well?
    - thingie 17y ago
      Why? If I don't think that "government interfering in the internal operations of some company" is generally bad and morally wrong (and I don't [1]), is there any other reason to think this? Is there any objective reason why should the European governments let Apple do anything it likes at the expense of the European companies and customers? (This is not necessarily the case, but it's close.) I'm not saying that you are wrong and I don't think that some government should "interfere" in this case, but I'd like to know your reasons why it should not. Just curious. [1] I don't even think that we're speaking about "internal operations", there are numerous external companies and customers involved, how is that an "internal operation"?
      - netcan 17y ago
        Are you asking in the very general sense? Of course there are reasons, both "moral" and practical. One important one is that when courts and politicians get involved, manoeuvring in the system is more important then manoeuvring in the market. This becomes the central focus of managers. Managers without talent or experience in this area give way to managers that are. Remember, this is not just a matter of flipping a switch. The case against Microsoft took years. During that time, the beginning of the PC revolution, the most important thing the most important company could do was win a court case and preserve a public image. This is damage that happens so long as the system stays clean. Another problem with this sort of action is that it creates terrible incentive for corruption. Fortunes can be won or lost depending on a political decision. The owners of those fortunes will try to influence the process. On the flip side, it isn't obvious that there is much return to this sort of "intervention." Microsoft & IBM, the two great monopolies of the computer industry both failed to do much harm. The both were clearly affected by competition. The markets stayed competitive. New products appeared. Innovation happened. They made high profits (MS still has great profits), but no obvious damage happened. To see this at work look at telcos and other infrastructure owning companies around the world, where government intervention is usually highest. Look at the CEOs of these companies. These are guys who know how to oil the system, not lay copper wire and certainly not how to answer a customer service call. It is not uncommon for corruption to be present. Many countries have telcos owned by members of a political elite.
  - Anechoic 17y ago
    Microsoft got in trouble for bundling IE. Why wouldn't Apple get in trouble for actively prohibiting competing browsers? Microsoft got in trouble for using IE to strengthen their Windows monopoly - it wasn't too long ago that if you want to online banking, etc, you had to use IE and ActiveX which meant you had to use Windows. Apple has no such monopoly, even in the smartphone space where Finland's Nokia has several times the marketshare of the iPhone.
    - fungi 17y ago
      ...XYZ has no such monopoly... If i had a dollar for every time that had to be explained.
      - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
        I'll take a dollar for every time it has to be explained that government action on "monopoly" doesn't require 100% of a market (and that "market" is a vague concept). I think I'd come out ahead.
        tptacek 17y ago
        It sure as heck takes more than 25%.
    - halo 17y ago
      I'm not sure how you can be so confident that the regulators will conclude that Apple doesn't have a monopoly if investigated by regulators. This can be far from obvious. In the Microsoft case, it was decided that the operating system market is distinct from the web browser market. This conclusion is decidedly non-intuitive, since what does and does not make up a modern operating system is largely arbitrary, as anyone who has used a modular system knows. What's to stop the EC deciding that the iTunes Store is distinct from the phone and MP3 player market? To me, it seems that the distinction between hardware and retail being different markets is much more clear than the line between where an OS ends and where software starts.
      - 17y ago
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
whatusername 17y ago
And Apples delay is likely in talking to legal counsel in Europe. Trying to work out how to defend against a suit like that.

stricken 17y ago

Sue them for what?

jrockway 17y ago
Anticompetitive actions? Microsoft got in trouble for bundling IE. Why wouldn't Apple get in trouble for actively prohibiting competing browsers? This is Europe, after all, not the US. The average consumer actually has some rights over there. (In the US, we basically have "if it blows up and ruins your face, Apple has to buy you a band-aid" and "you have the right to not buy it".)
- stricken 17y ago
  I'm probably wrong but I thought Microsoft got in trouble for that because of their market position? There's plenty of other phones for Opera to run it's browser on. That "50 million iPhones sold" from the event was a world wide number wasn't it?
  - jasonlotito 17y ago
    You are wrong. Market position isn't a bad thing. Monopolies aren't illegal in the US. However, the actions you perform can be, and this is what MS did. It wasn't it's position, but how it used that position to stop competitors.
- rscott 17y ago
  Riiiight. I guess that makes sense if one disregards the fact that the iPhone OS is by no means a standard in the cell phone arena. There is plenty of competition out there, unlike there was for x86, which would be a pillar for an antitrust suit.
  - wooster 17y ago
    Apple operates in dozens of countries. In some of these, the laws around competition are extremely counter-intuitive to American observers.
    - rscott 17y ago
      Do explain.
- cmelbye 17y ago
  I'd prefer the latter ("you have the right to not buy it") to the government interfering in the internal operations of Apple. If I didn't like how Apple was taking so long to decide on Opera Mini, I would have a world of alternatives. I could use an Android phone, use a Nokia phone, get a cheap flip phone, make my own phone, not use a phone at all. Apple does not have the obligation to approve every last web browser that developers submit, and I'm fine with that, so I've decided to use their phone.
  - biafra 17y ago
    Governments protect companies all over the world. Why shouldn't they protect consumers (or in this case companies against other companies) as well?
  - thingie 17y ago
    Why? If I don't think that "government interfering in the internal operations of some company" is generally bad and morally wrong (and I don't [1]), is there any other reason to think this? Is there any objective reason why should the European governments let Apple do anything it likes at the expense of the European companies and customers? (This is not necessarily the case, but it's close.) I'm not saying that you are wrong and I don't think that some government should "interfere" in this case, but I'd like to know your reasons why it should not. Just curious. [1] I don't even think that we're speaking about "internal operations", there are numerous external companies and customers involved, how is that an "internal operation"?
    - netcan 17y ago
      Are you asking in the very general sense? Of course there are reasons, both "moral" and practical. One important one is that when courts and politicians get involved, manoeuvring in the system is more important then manoeuvring in the market. This becomes the central focus of managers. Managers without talent or experience in this area give way to managers that are. Remember, this is not just a matter of flipping a switch. The case against Microsoft took years. During that time, the beginning of the PC revolution, the most important thing the most important company could do was win a court case and preserve a public image. This is damage that happens so long as the system stays clean. Another problem with this sort of action is that it creates terrible incentive for corruption. Fortunes can be won or lost depending on a political decision. The owners of those fortunes will try to influence the process. On the flip side, it isn't obvious that there is much return to this sort of "intervention." Microsoft & IBM, the two great monopolies of the computer industry both failed to do much harm. The both were clearly affected by competition. The markets stayed competitive. New products appeared. Innovation happened. They made high profits (MS still has great profits), but no obvious damage happened. To see this at work look at telcos and other infrastructure owning companies around the world, where government intervention is usually highest. Look at the CEOs of these companies. These are guys who know how to oil the system, not lay copper wire and certainly not how to answer a customer service call. It is not uncommon for corruption to be present. Many countries have telcos owned by members of a political elite.
- Anechoic 17y ago
  Microsoft got in trouble for bundling IE. Why wouldn't Apple get in trouble for actively prohibiting competing browsers? Microsoft got in trouble for using IE to strengthen their Windows monopoly - it wasn't too long ago that if you want to online banking, etc, you had to use IE and ActiveX which meant you had to use Windows. Apple has no such monopoly, even in the smartphone space where Finland's Nokia has several times the marketshare of the iPhone.
  - fungi 17y ago
    ...XYZ has no such monopoly... If i had a dollar for every time that had to be explained.
    - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
      I'll take a dollar for every time it has to be explained that government action on "monopoly" doesn't require 100% of a market (and that "market" is a vague concept). I think I'd come out ahead.
      - tptacek 17y ago
        It sure as heck takes more than 25%.
  - halo 17y ago
    I'm not sure how you can be so confident that the regulators will conclude that Apple doesn't have a monopoly if investigated by regulators. This can be far from obvious. In the Microsoft case, it was decided that the operating system market is distinct from the web browser market. This conclusion is decidedly non-intuitive, since what does and does not make up a modern operating system is largely arbitrary, as anyone who has used a modular system knows. What's to stop the EC deciding that the iTunes Store is distinct from the phone and MP3 player market? To me, it seems that the distinction between hardware and retail being different markets is much more clear than the line between where an OS ends and where software starts.
    - 17y ago
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

whatusername 17y ago

And Apples delay is likely in talking to legal counsel in Europe. Trying to work out how to defend against a suit like that.