3 ms·

If that is the argument, then I think the priority now for the DWD is to offer a cheaper and better product. I think this also means that the DWD can now be mo

If that is the argument, then I think the priority now for the DWD is to offer a cheaper and better product. I think this also means that the DWD can now be more business orientated and perhaps grow their income? I am not German, but I am trying to see whether this can be to the DWD's advantage.

hef19898 7y ago
Maybe. Not legal expert, but if I remember well, they public broadcasting services were sued (?) for having to many paid commercials. So I could at least imagine the DWD being attacked if they sell their app for 10 cents or so.
luckylion 7y ago
> DWD is to offer a cheaper and better product. How? Their product is "free", unless you count taxes. They could make it "cheaper" by keeping it free and not using taxes.
vgaldikas 7y ago
Well if they do it for cheaper, won't it as well open them up to the same 'unfair advantage' accusations?
travisoneill1 7y ago
Lets say that the government and DWD developed equivalent apps but DWD did it at half the cost. If the government app has to charge users based on its costs, then it will be twice as expensive, and lose out to the more efficient private company. But if they are just allowed to give it out to consumers for free (which a private company can't do) then it will dominate the market even though it is not the best use of resources. I assume that is the rationale for this law.
- xenonite 7y ago
  If you meant DWD (=government) did it at double the cost, then this makes sense.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    I believe travisoneill1 was confusing the government weather service DWD with the firm filing the suit, WetterOnline.
- mikorym 7y ago
  There is another analogy to this: Meteoblue. [1] Maybe they can similarly spin off the weather app into a company with some kind of status that retains some of its original purpose (which I guess is supplying weather information to German nationals). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteoblue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteoblue

hef19898 7y ago

Maybe. Not legal expert, but if I remember well, they public broadcasting services were sued (?) for having to many paid commercials. So I could at least imagine the DWD being attacked if they sell their app for 10 cents or so.

luckylion 7y ago

> DWD is to offer a cheaper and better product. How? Their product is "free", unless you count taxes. They could make it "cheaper" by keeping it free and not using taxes.

vgaldikas 7y ago

Well if they do it for cheaper, won't it as well open them up to the same 'unfair advantage' accusations?

travisoneill1 7y ago

Lets say that the government and DWD developed equivalent apps but DWD did it at half the cost. If the government app has to charge users based on its costs, then it will be twice as expensive, and lose out to the more efficient private company. But if they are just allowed to give it out to consumers for free (which a private company can't do) then it will dominate the market even though it is not the best use of resources. I assume that is the rationale for this law.

xenonite 7y ago
If you meant DWD (=government) did it at double the cost, then this makes sense.
- nybble41 7y ago
  I believe travisoneill1 was confusing the government weather service DWD with the firm filing the suit, WetterOnline.
mikorym 7y ago
There is another analogy to this: Meteoblue. [1] Maybe they can similarly spin off the weather app into a company with some kind of status that retains some of its original purpose (which I guess is supplying weather information to German nationals). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteoblue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteoblue