3 ms·

Apple engaged in a deal with its chip supplier to restrict downstream competition[0] which was all the suppliers fault of course. Apple had illegal tax arrange

Apple engaged in a deal with its chip supplier to restrict downstream competition[0] which was all the suppliers fault of course. Apple had illegal tax arrangements in the Republic of Ireland[1], which was Irelands fault of course. Apple may just have too much clout in the music biz[2]. This one is on them [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-24/qualcomm-gets-1-2-billion-eu-fine-for-apple-chip-payments https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-24/qualcomm-... [1]http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm [2]http://www.cityam.com/280169/eu-warns-apples-bid-shazam-could-hit-competition-ahead http://www.cityam.com/280169/eu-warns-apples-bid-shazam-coul...

chmod775 9y ago
I don't see how any of this is even tangentially related to the article or what I wrote. Nice anecdotes though?
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  You seemed to be arguing that Apple were in no position to be a monopoly. I was showing that they have had the market position to have been included in some monopoly investigations already, and in that other part of the article have engaged in tax avoidance where they made an illegal sweetheart agreement with a nation state. I am suggesting that they have rather more dominance than you were making out. Now a potential merger is being investigated by competition authorities which supports the article and directly contradicts your comment. Nice brush of though?
- decebalus1 9y ago
  what was that about throwing stones and glass houses?
- thisacctforreal 9y ago
  Those aren't anecdotes. What you posted are anecdotes. My anecdotes largely match your anecdotes though :)
mercutio2 9y ago
You’ve got the causality pretty far out of whack on Qualcomm -> Apple, it seems to me. Apple has been trying to escape from Qualcomm’s non-FRAND licensing terms for a long time, so pointing to a deal Apple didn’t want and saying that was Apple’s doing seems pretty far fetched.
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  It's difficult to say, Apple did benefit from billions of dollars in rebates. However it is also true that years latter Apple did launch legal action to get out of the deal. Perhaps it benefited in the beginning, but by 2016 felt it had enough market clout to get a better deal with Intel? > You’ve got the causality pretty far out of whack on Qualcomm -> Apple, it seems to me. I did say that the regulator found it was Qualcomm that were legally at fault. I don't think I was that far out of whack? Apple did however sign up to and benefit from the deal. The wronged parties were other chip manufacturers. I still think that leaves a moral question hanging over Apple
  - mercutio2 9y ago
    I interpreted your “which was the supplier’s fault, of course” as sarcasm, from using the same phrase for Ireland. Poe’s law strikes! If in fact you weren’t being sarcastic, then I apologize. It’s true that Apple benefitted cost-wise, but note that this deal was generally available (in direction, if not magnitude) to most of Qualcomm’s customers, so I was more making the point that Apple wasn’t particularly special in taking the best deal on offer; they’re more unusual in fighting against Qualcomm.
    - jimnotgym 9y ago
      No I apologise, I think I was being at least half sarcastic. I fully recognize that Apple didn't legally do anything wrong by taking Qualcomm up on a deal which was clearly in breach of competition rules for Qualcomm to offer. However it could only be market abuse due to Apple's size and dominance in the phone/tablet field, and it is also true to say that Apple would have known that the deal they were being offered was unlawful. If they had offered this deal to my kickstarter single board computer project it would have been insignificant. Apple do not have clean hands in this. >they’re more unusual in fighting against Qualcomm. Yes, but didn't this begin in an argument over the size of the rebate they were due? I may be wrong in supposing it was a primary factor. Either way this is after they benefited for some years. I feel like we are agreeing, but emphasizing different areas?

chmod775 9y ago

I don't see how any of this is even tangentially related to the article or what I wrote. Nice anecdotes though?

jimnotgym 9y ago
You seemed to be arguing that Apple were in no position to be a monopoly. I was showing that they have had the market position to have been included in some monopoly investigations already, and in that other part of the article have engaged in tax avoidance where they made an illegal sweetheart agreement with a nation state. I am suggesting that they have rather more dominance than you were making out. Now a potential merger is being investigated by competition authorities which supports the article and directly contradicts your comment. Nice brush of though?
decebalus1 9y ago
what was that about throwing stones and glass houses?
thisacctforreal 9y ago
Those aren't anecdotes. What you posted are anecdotes. My anecdotes largely match your anecdotes though :)

mercutio2 9y ago

You’ve got the causality pretty far out of whack on Qualcomm -> Apple, it seems to me. Apple has been trying to escape from Qualcomm’s non-FRAND licensing terms for a long time, so pointing to a deal Apple didn’t want and saying that was Apple’s doing seems pretty far fetched.

jimnotgym 9y ago
It's difficult to say, Apple did benefit from billions of dollars in rebates. However it is also true that years latter Apple did launch legal action to get out of the deal. Perhaps it benefited in the beginning, but by 2016 felt it had enough market clout to get a better deal with Intel? > You’ve got the causality pretty far out of whack on Qualcomm -> Apple, it seems to me. I did say that the regulator found it was Qualcomm that were legally at fault. I don't think I was that far out of whack? Apple did however sign up to and benefit from the deal. The wronged parties were other chip manufacturers. I still think that leaves a moral question hanging over Apple
- mercutio2 9y ago
  I interpreted your “which was the supplier’s fault, of course” as sarcasm, from using the same phrase for Ireland. Poe’s law strikes! If in fact you weren’t being sarcastic, then I apologize. It’s true that Apple benefitted cost-wise, but note that this deal was generally available (in direction, if not magnitude) to most of Qualcomm’s customers, so I was more making the point that Apple wasn’t particularly special in taking the best deal on offer; they’re more unusual in fighting against Qualcomm.
  - jimnotgym 9y ago
    No I apologise, I think I was being at least half sarcastic. I fully recognize that Apple didn't legally do anything wrong by taking Qualcomm up on a deal which was clearly in breach of competition rules for Qualcomm to offer. However it could only be market abuse due to Apple's size and dominance in the phone/tablet field, and it is also true to say that Apple would have known that the deal they were being offered was unlawful. If they had offered this deal to my kickstarter single board computer project it would have been insignificant. Apple do not have clean hands in this. >they’re more unusual in fighting against Qualcomm. Yes, but didn't this begin in an argument over the size of the rebate they were due? I may be wrong in supposing it was a primary factor. Either way this is after they benefited for some years. I feel like we are agreeing, but emphasizing different areas?