5 ms·

Except the smartphone market isn't a monopoly. 20 years ago Europe had a thriving phone industry. Now it's just gone, and they want to blame everyone else for

Except the smartphone market isn't a monopoly. 20 years ago Europe had a thriving phone industry. Now it's just gone, and they want to blame everyone else for this, and fail to reflect on why it happened.

varjag 2y ago
30 years ago maybe. 20 years ago there was a European monopolist which was killed off by Microsoft alumni who sold it to Microsoft.
- fidotron 2y ago
  No, Sony Ericsson was way more successful than the attempts to revise history like to portray. The vision of what to do with the more powerful technology was also better than Nokia, though still not as good as Apple. The whole direction Nokia kept dragging Series 60 in was a dead end, almost from the very start. Edit to add: example of what I'm referring to with S60 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_3650 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_3650 . Just complete madness. Who would waste time on this?
alxlaz 2y ago
Except this has nothing to do with some monopoly on the smartphone market, but with Apple not allowing application developers to enable their users to vote with their wallets on payment methods. From the press release: > Under the DMA, app developers distributing their apps via Apple's App Store should be able to inform customers, free of charge, of alternative offers outside the App Store, steer them to those offers and allow them to make purchases. > > The Commission found that Apple fails to comply with this obligation. Due to a number of restrictions imposed by Apple, app developers cannot fully benefit from the advantages of alternative distribution channels outside the App Store. Similarly, consumers cannot fully benefit from alternative and cheaper offers as Apple prevents app developers from directly informing consumers of such offers. The company has failed to demonstrate that these restrictions are objectively necessary and proportionate. This has nothing to do with smartphones specifically, it applies equally well to anything in the AppStore ecosystem.
- fidotron 2y ago
  This is like arguing McDonalds has a monopoly over food sold in McDonalds outlets, when you have a choice to not go into McDonalds.
  - acdha 2y ago
    Except that there are hundreds of other food options while there are only two realistic options for smartphones, neither of which is cooking at home. The tight control has benefits - Apple’s App Store is much safer than letting your parents install stuff they find on the internet - but there’s a real downside which needs regulation to balance.
    - fidotron 2y ago
      So we want to punish people that choose that option? Europe could easily have had a homegrown alternative to the Play Store on Android. In fact at one time it had several, only the users had no interest at all, and this was before Google went through their phase of locking things down more. The vision for what became the Play Store was born from ex GetJar, and I was told by several Googlers at the time that they were amazed by the lack of serious competing stores that people were running. Many threatened to do so (including my employer) but it was, from the business side, pure bluffing. In China the android market does not rely on the Play Store, so we have definite proof it can be done.
      - LunaSea 2y ago
        > Europe could easily have had a homegrown alternative to the Play Store on Android. In fact at one time it had several, only the users had no interest at all, and this was before Google went through their phase of locking things down more. So why should users not have the option anymore because years ago the existing options were worse than Google's? Should you be forbidden to buy an iPhone because you used until Androids until now and passed on iPhones?
        2y ago
LunaSea 2y ago
The United States regularly spies and throws federal lawfare at European companies. E.g: Alstom So I wouldn't consider the playing field to be fair in the first place.
- orwin 2y ago
  With a lot of help/pressure from banks and rich traitors/politicans (https://www.marianne.net/economie/economie-francaise/dans-le-dossier-alstom-general-electric-la-france-boit-le-calice-jusqua-la-lie https://www.marianne.net/economie/economie-francaise/dans-le...). They mostly use our corruption against us, whis seems fair since it appears a big part of our population like protecting corrupt politicians/criminals
guappa 2y ago
I mean microsoft paid off the CEO of nokia to sink it.
- fidotron 2y ago
  Nokia was worthless by that point. Even had they run with a wild pivot to Android it would have required the strategic vision to also build an Android app store, which would have upset the various European telcos that made a few extra euros that way.
  - guappa 2y ago
    > Nokia was worthless by that point. Not according to the value of their stocks.

varjag 2y ago

30 years ago maybe. 20 years ago there was a European monopolist which was killed off by Microsoft alumni who sold it to Microsoft.

fidotron 2y ago
No, Sony Ericsson was way more successful than the attempts to revise history like to portray. The vision of what to do with the more powerful technology was also better than Nokia, though still not as good as Apple. The whole direction Nokia kept dragging Series 60 in was a dead end, almost from the very start. Edit to add: example of what I'm referring to with S60 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_3650 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_3650 . Just complete madness. Who would waste time on this?

alxlaz 2y ago

Except this has nothing to do with some monopoly on the smartphone market, but with Apple not allowing application developers to enable their users to vote with their wallets on payment methods. From the press release: > Under the DMA, app developers distributing their apps via Apple's App Store should be able to inform customers, free of charge, of alternative offers outside the App Store, steer them to those offers and allow them to make purchases. > > The Commission found that Apple fails to comply with this obligation. Due to a number of restrictions imposed by Apple, app developers cannot fully benefit from the advantages of alternative distribution channels outside the App Store. Similarly, consumers cannot fully benefit from alternative and cheaper offers as Apple prevents app developers from directly informing consumers of such offers. The company has failed to demonstrate that these restrictions are objectively necessary and proportionate. This has nothing to do with smartphones specifically, it applies equally well to anything in the AppStore ecosystem.

fidotron 2y ago
This is like arguing McDonalds has a monopoly over food sold in McDonalds outlets, when you have a choice to not go into McDonalds.
- acdha 2y ago
  Except that there are hundreds of other food options while there are only two realistic options for smartphones, neither of which is cooking at home. The tight control has benefits - Apple’s App Store is much safer than letting your parents install stuff they find on the internet - but there’s a real downside which needs regulation to balance.
  - fidotron 2y ago
    So we want to punish people that choose that option? Europe could easily have had a homegrown alternative to the Play Store on Android. In fact at one time it had several, only the users had no interest at all, and this was before Google went through their phase of locking things down more. The vision for what became the Play Store was born from ex GetJar, and I was told by several Googlers at the time that they were amazed by the lack of serious competing stores that people were running. Many threatened to do so (including my employer) but it was, from the business side, pure bluffing. In China the android market does not rely on the Play Store, so we have definite proof it can be done.
    - LunaSea 2y ago
      > Europe could easily have had a homegrown alternative to the Play Store on Android. In fact at one time it had several, only the users had no interest at all, and this was before Google went through their phase of locking things down more. So why should users not have the option anymore because years ago the existing options were worse than Google's? Should you be forbidden to buy an iPhone because you used until Androids until now and passed on iPhones?
      - 2y ago

LunaSea 2y ago

The United States regularly spies and throws federal lawfare at European companies. E.g: Alstom So I wouldn't consider the playing field to be fair in the first place.

orwin 2y ago
With a lot of help/pressure from banks and rich traitors/politicans (https://www.marianne.net/economie/economie-francaise/dans-le-dossier-alstom-general-electric-la-france-boit-le-calice-jusqua-la-lie https://www.marianne.net/economie/economie-francaise/dans-le...). They mostly use our corruption against us, whis seems fair since it appears a big part of our population like protecting corrupt politicians/criminals

guappa 2y ago

I mean microsoft paid off the CEO of nokia to sink it.

fidotron 2y ago
Nokia was worthless by that point. Even had they run with a wild pivot to Android it would have required the strategic vision to also build an Android app store, which would have upset the various European telcos that made a few extra euros that way.
- guappa 2y ago
  > Nokia was worthless by that point. Not according to the value of their stocks.