Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

M384 - Motion to Encourage European Commission Investigation Into Apple Watch

    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    This is a horribly formatted motion with little evidence in terms of links. Lets not start the term on such a low quality ebb.

    As for the matter of hand i actually think you have somewhat of point and there's a lot of logic to your position however the counter argument (and it's the same situation in the printer/ink market) is that the competition exists when you buy a phone, the apps are simply extensions of that device.

    I'd probably abstain if some effort had gone into the presentation.
    This is presented precisely as a motion should be presented. The crest would be out of place because it is not something with legal effect, and a statement of the content is similarly unnecessary. You know that I'm not a person to skimp on formatting, it's just that the formatting correct for a motion is totally different from that for a Bill (though I would be interested to know how you'd present it).

    As for the content, that is a valid counter-argument to any sanction, but one which will undoubtedly be taken into account in any Commission investigation - accordingly, I don't really see it as a counter-argument against the motion, which requests an investigation and makes no conclusion as to the outcome thereof.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The problem is not the impact on customers, but the impact on competitors, actual or potential, in other markets.
    It is ultimately about the impact on customers though, because the importance of the impact on competitors is because of the consequent impact it has on customer choice. Like I said, I agree in part with your argument (I am no Apple fan and have an Android phone instead. I dislike the Lightning cable move as well) but I see it as a non-issue given that no-one has to get an iPhone and thus no-one has to be a customer in a lightning cable market if they don't want to be, regardless of the state of the cable market. My point is similar to Rakas' counterpoint in that there is competition in the market for the device leading to the market in which Apple has greater control over.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I'm I hearing a SOCIALIST arguing that the FREE MARKET absolutely requires REGULATION to be a free market? Last I checked regulated markets are, by definition, in contradiction to a truly free market.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'm I hearing a SOCIALIST arguing that the FREE MARKET absolutely requires REGULATION to be a free market? Last I checked regulated markets are, by definition, in contradiction to a truly free market.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    'Truly free' markets tend to monopoly. Monopolists can erect artificial barriers to entry through e.g. margin squeeze programs. A 'truly free' market is not the same thing as a free market in the sense that the basic economic model does not operate in a 'truly free' market.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    I don't see any issue…

    The lightning connector was developed by Apple and is used almost exclusively by Apple products, so it's nothing special that they have a monopoly ‘in the lightning cable market’. Do patents not have the same effect? If I invent something and patent it, others can licence it if I let them, buy the finished product if I let them, or **** off.

    Are iTunes users forced to use iTunes Music Store or pay for the use of iTunes in any way? Are Apple customers whose products require iTunes to function properly not explicitly informed of the fact prior to the purchase? As I said, the use of their own software provides technical advantages which outbalance the drawbacks and there's no evidence this ‘dominance’ provides them with an unfair advantage over the competition.
    TheDefiniteArticle Well?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    'Truly free' markets tend to monopoly. Monopolists can erect artificial barriers to entry through e.g. margin squeeze programs. A 'truly free' market is not the same thing as a free market in the sense that the basic economic model does not operate in a 'truly free' market.
    Leading to monopolies does not take away from the freeness.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    TheDefiniteArticle Well?
    Patents have the same effect, and indeed are part of the problem. Due to the lack of investigation/lawsuit, Apple has never been made to license the lightning cable on FRAND terms as required by patent law (or at least EU and US patent law).

    I'm interested to know what you think the benefits of forcing everyone to use iTunes are. I strongly recommend you read the case cited in the OP (Microsoft v Commission) to see the CJEU's reasoning behind the same application to Windows Media Player.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Leading to monopolies does not take away from the freeness.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Depends how you define 'free', but even if we adopt your definition of 'free', leading to monopolies does destroy all the benefits of free markets (e.g. the efficient market hypothesis etc).
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Patents have the same effect, and indeed are part of the problem. Due to the lack of investigation/lawsuit, Apple has never been made to license the lightning cable on FRAND terms as required by patent law (or at least EU and US patent law).

    I'm interested to know what you think the benefits of forcing everyone to use iTunes are. I strongly recommend you read the case cited in the OP (Microsoft v Commission) to see the CJEU's reasoning behind the same application to Windows Media Player.



    Depends how you define 'free', but even if we adopt your definition of 'free', leading to monopolies does destroy all the benefits of free markets (e.g. the efficient market hypothesis etc).
    By all definitions I've read a free market is free of external intervention, something regulation trivially breeches. And with even just a quick bit of research EMH and particularly the application and testing seem inherently flawed.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    By all definitions I've read a free market is free of external intervention, something regulation trivially breeches. And with even just a quick bit of research EMH and particularly the application and testing seem inherently flawed.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I do not support EMH but it is a fundamental pillar of much of the right's (in general, not necessarily for you) economic thought.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I do not support EMH but it is a fundamental pillar of much of the right's (in general, not necessarily for you) economic thought.
    Giventhe irrationality of man and empirical evidence it seems entirely irrational to hold it as a fundamental pillar, that and it's inherent untestability. From the bit of research it also seems to run contrary to the core of modern economics anyway.

    Talking to another friend who has probably formally studied it they also agree EMH is a load of *******s

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    what?
    attacking gay icon and legend Chief Tim Cook BSc (Auburn) MBA (Duke)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye. I hope the Commission can also consider something which I consider to be one of the worst restrictive practices, that of ending support for a device after what I think is a short space of time.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Not convinced about this, it could have been done much better - I think this is the wrong way
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    nay, firstly because of the facts and statistics laid out by The Financier on page 1 and secondly because I believe that MHOC without proper links to a MEU as at present is not the place to debate and suggest such measures at this time.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I'm sick of large corporations, especially Amazon, getting away with dodging taxes and so on. I welcome this motion with open arms. Aye.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Nay, and I'm unsure whether this is within our jurisdiction.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I'm sick of large corporations, especially Amazon, getting away with dodging taxes and so on. I welcome this motion with open arms. Aye.
    This has nothing to do with dodging taxes.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Financier)
    This has nothing to do with dodging taxes.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I'm interested to know what you think the benefits of forcing everyone to use iTunes are. I strongly recommend you read the case cited in the OP (Microsoft v Commission) to see the CJEU's reasoning behind the same application to Windows Media Player.
    I may get to it later but these things bore me to sleep so maybe not.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Apple is my friend!
    That's exactly why this should be done - wouldn't you want to know if your friend was a drug dealer or doing something shady?
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 2, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.