Adam Kos On the one hand, we have a product-rich electronic device market here, where seemingly anyone could do whatever they want. On the other hand, variability is a problem. Or not? If one locks something to the other, is that wrong? And even if it is purely his solution? What about the single chargers?
Me, me, me, just me
Apple is a soloist, as everyone knows. But can we blame him? After all, this company created a revolutionary phone, to which it also gave its revolutionary operating system, when the competition was beaten not only in appearance but also in functionality. Apple has also added its own content store, for the distribution of which it takes appropriate "tithes". But the problem is actually all of the above.
Design – it's not so much the design of the phone as the design of the charging connector. So the EU also wants to dictate to American companies how to charge their devices, just so that there is not so much waste and users are not confused about which cables to charge such devices. My opinion: it is bad.
App Store Monopoly – 30% for being able to sell my app through the App Store is perhaps really too much. But how to set the ideal boundary? How much should it be? 10 or 5 percent or perhaps nothing, and Apple should become a charity? Or should he launch more stores on his platform? My opinion is that let apple add alternative stores. Personally, I think that if it comes to that, they will still fail and the overwhelming amount of content will still go to our iPhones only from the App Store.
NFC – our iPhones can do NFC, but only to a limited extent. Near-Field Communication technology is currently being addressed mainly with use with Apple Pay. It is precisely this function that makes it possible to make mobile payments. But only and only via Apple Pay. Even if developers wanted to bring their version of payment to iOS, they can't because Apple won't let them use NFC. My opinion: it's good.
Gallery
Therefore, if I do not agree with the unification of chargers, which seems to me to be a completely unnecessary act of nothing these days, and in the case of the situation around the App Store it is half and half, I unequivocally condemn the fact that Apple does not give access to NFC - not only with regard to payments, but also the other unused potential, especially in connection with the smart home. But the problem here is that even if the European Commission informed Apple of its preliminary opinion, even if Apple backed down and allowed payments to other parties, nothing else would likely change.
It could be interest you
Statement of Objections to Apple Pay Practices
The European Commission has actually sent Apple its preliminary opinion, which you can read read here. The joke is that this is just a preliminary opinion, that the committee is only tentative here, and that Apple can actually rest easy. And this despite the fact that, according to the commission, it has a questionable dominant position on the market for mobile wallets with the iOS operating system and limits economic competition by reserving access to NFC technology only to the Apple Pay platform. See the contrast? It restricts competition by not offering an alternative. In the case of uniform chargers, on the other hand, EK limits his, when she does not want to accept the alternative. What to take from it? Perhaps it's just that if EK wants to hit Apple, he always finds a stick.
