4 ms·

I don’t see the future, but argument for Apple could go like this: - it is Apple vs EU - US gov has guns and influence and various levers - US gov will defin

I don’t see the future, but argument for Apple could go like this: - it is Apple vs EU - US gov has guns and influence and various levers - US gov will definitely protect Apple from guns of EU (so regulator with guns is a bit mute point) - Apple is important to americans (I think they feel it’s their symbol or something), so officials in US gov might think it’s good opportunity to grab some political points. - US gov might act to help out Apple in this dispute (Nothing like a war, but some slight nod or handshake; maybe via diplomatic backwater; maybe in exchange for something) Though most probably apple will give “something” even if minor change in the rules, at least just so EU would not loose face, to keep relationship friendly. (But it will be move in the right direction)

Rinzler89 2y ago
Did the US attack China over all the regulations Apple and Google have to fall in line with to be compliant over there?
- adolph 2y ago
  The US might have less of a leg to stand on vis-a-vis Bytedance absent China's examples of how to do it.
latexr 2y ago
The US has filed an antitrust case against Apple, which pretty much denies this whole argument. https://www.theverge.com/24107581/doj-v-apple-antitrust-monoply-news-updates https://www.theverge.com/24107581/doj-v-apple-antitrust-mono...
Sakos 2y ago
There is a deep misunderstanding here of US politics and foreign policy. The US might act in various ways to protect American manufacturers, or oil industry, or other industries that are responsible for a lot of jobs in the US or are a strategic resource in some other way. See the 100% tax import for Chinese EVs. The US government doesn't care about Apple. Apple's economic impact is basically irrelevant for the US, because it doesn't provide a noteworthy number of jobs or any significant supply chain within the US. Apple's use as a strategic resource is completely irrelevant based on their antagonistic behavior towards the US government and they've shown themselves to be as eager to comply with Chinese laws as they are to flout US government policies. I'd maybe see the US do something to protect Microsoft, with its deep ties to the military industrial complex, or Intel, which has both these ties and is clearly a strategic resource because of the advanced chips it provides, but really only if there were an existential threat that would also prevent Microsoft or Intel from performing their necessary roles in the US economy, the military and in US foreign policy. But to suggest that US guns are in any way relevant, or that the US would bother trying to protect Apple, is frankly absurd. The EU has smacked down Meta, Google and Microsoft already for things they felt were anti-competitive. The US didn't give a shit. Why would it be any different here?

Rinzler89 2y ago

Did the US attack China over all the regulations Apple and Google have to fall in line with to be compliant over there?

adolph 2y ago
The US might have less of a leg to stand on vis-a-vis Bytedance absent China's examples of how to do it.

latexr 2y ago

The US has filed an antitrust case against Apple, which pretty much denies this whole argument. https://www.theverge.com/24107581/doj-v-apple-antitrust-monoply-news-updates https://www.theverge.com/24107581/doj-v-apple-antitrust-mono...

Sakos 2y ago

There is a deep misunderstanding here of US politics and foreign policy. The US might act in various ways to protect American manufacturers, or oil industry, or other industries that are responsible for a lot of jobs in the US or are a strategic resource in some other way. See the 100% tax import for Chinese EVs. The US government doesn't care about Apple. Apple's economic impact is basically irrelevant for the US, because it doesn't provide a noteworthy number of jobs or any significant supply chain within the US. Apple's use as a strategic resource is completely irrelevant based on their antagonistic behavior towards the US government and they've shown themselves to be as eager to comply with Chinese laws as they are to flout US government policies. I'd maybe see the US do something to protect Microsoft, with its deep ties to the military industrial complex, or Intel, which has both these ties and is clearly a strategic resource because of the advanced chips it provides, but really only if there were an existential threat that would also prevent Microsoft or Intel from performing their necessary roles in the US economy, the military and in US foreign policy. But to suggest that US guns are in any way relevant, or that the US would bother trying to protect Apple, is frankly absurd. The EU has smacked down Meta, Google and Microsoft already for things they felt were anti-competitive. The US didn't give a shit. Why would it be any different here?