Hacker News Reader

Comment by nojito | Hacker News Reader

Imagine thinking that punishing success is the way to go.

Europe loves propping up failing companies and industries. Not very surprising that they would go after a company with barely a 30% share of the market.

View on HN

I think a trillion dollar company can afford to loose some percentage of its income.

Particularly if it opens the door for new innovation. Things like subscription services to alternative Siri/Alexa/Google. Instead of the current Alexa foisting more advertisements and things you don't want onto you, Google's complete invasion of privacy/data, and Apple's complete ineptitude. This is something that can't happen right now because the hooks aren't well designed in iOS or Android. Making it so that you don't have the concept of "private APIs" for such things levels the playing field.

> Not very surprising that they would go after a company with barely a 30% share of the market.

While macrumors.com is, for obvious reasons, most interested in the Apple angle, these rules would obviously apply to Google et al as well.

>Not very surprising that they would go after a company with barely a 30% share of the market.

You do know that the DMA and DSA are not Apple-specific laws, right?

Was I dreaming or was there a $700 billion US banking sector bailout in 2008?

That's a poor comparison both since banks always work a bit differently and since the US Gov made back their money on the bailout.

Indeed. Bailouts were loans, not free money. The US government made money on those loans due to interest.

That's a nice comforting story to believe in. I hope for you it's true. Over here the bailouts were a massive transfer of public to private wealth that led to a decade of "austerity", closed hospitals, collapsed pension schemes and general misery for the poorest people in society.

> Early estimates for the bailout's risk cost were as much as $700 billion; however, TARP recovered $441.7 billion from $426.4 billion invested, earning a $15.3 billion profit or an annualized rate of return of 0.6%, and perhaps a loss when adjusted for inflation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilizati...

Where is "over here," Europe?

Belittling someone - especially over a fact that has a clear true/false outcome - is silly. At best it makes you look like a jerk.

At least google the fact before doubting it.

I'll stick with my own lived experiences and first-hand observations thank you.

So do you not believe in exo-planets since you haven't observed them? Macro-economics? Are foreign countries you've never visited real? What about subatomic particles and radio waves? Do you have germ theory as part of your "own lived experiences"?

Wait, am I real under this model? What about the HN server?

Considering corporate « success » in a capitalist environment amounts to the accumulation of wealth and power outside of the commons, yes, it's absolutely the way to go.

"...amounts to the accumulation of wealth and power outside of the commons..." Considering that we're talking about a publicly traded company, "the commons" (as you decided to label them) have the ability to purchase stocks (the right to recieve a certain percentage of in of the aformentioned company as well as voting power). The legislation doesn't address anything regarding stocks and if anything, it requires companies like Apple to share their work with their competitors South Korea style.

> "the commons" (as you decided to label them)

This is a defined term and doesn't mean a group/class of people (as you seemed to have interpreted it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons

"...doesn't mean a group/class of people..." I'm well aware of that, as well as the definition, however, i've come across incorrect usage of the term on SMS as the short form for "common man/common people". Considering the context of that persons comment, i was under assumption that they use that term incorrectly, hence why i've put it in quotation. Regardless, my point still stands. "The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable Earth. These resources are held in common even when owned privately or publicly. Commons can also be understood as natural resources that groups of people (communities, user groups) manage for individual and collective benefit.". Note that the definition provided by you acknowledges various form of ownerships (private vs public) and that aspect is the core of my response to that comment.

Well it will be a source if fines that they love, which will be handy in paying all those subsidies they are giving other large companies like Intel to build a fab.

Just wished they were proactive about such things instead of letting them fester on in the public eye's for years, but then - how would they make all that lovely income from large fines and PR.

protectionism is not new, but it’s definitely in the eu’s dna. there are huge lobby groups that constantly want more protection in europe. and they almost always get what they want.

> protectionism is not new, but it’s definitely in the eu’s dna.

This is actually the opposite. The EU here is enforcing market competition in segments that became entrenched by monopolies (remember this is not specifically about Apple).

Careful with your glass houses. Without restrictions on Japanese companies selling chips in the US, Silicon Valley would have been very different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com