Trump said that their journey is just the beginning. I wonder what he has in store in the next few weeks

It's not their "fault" which is the issue here: they knowingly did so, many knowing full well the good and the bad. It's as much of "their fault" as it's Brexiters "fault" that Britain is no longer in the EU. You need to have a severe case of moral blindness to pass judgement so boldly. 

They have a unique attitude towards it: they are, but they are better off themselves. What part of "voters can be selfish" do you not understand? This election made it as clear as possible. 

You could also be me and do it out of an active desire to deprecate or ruin the image of your own country or make it look bad so people everywhere else lower their standards/leadership is demoralized. Both situations bring about real and sweeping change which can be positive. For one, if the US realized it already lost any power struggle against China and resistance was futile, it would spend a lot less focusing on armies and whatnot and a lot more in welfare and safety and the US would be a much better place to live on. 

I forged my own values by reading up and practicing what I preached. What do you have to say about it. 

None of the bolded could be construed as "bad" per se. I myself embrace those, but for rare reasons (abortion not on demand, but otherwise readily available should the need arise, right to bear arms, but with a limit on the type of fire/where to buy them/requiring training and replacing Obamacare with true UHC, which means repealing the older ACA first, preferably when the groundwork for the UHCA has been laid so as to not pull the carpet beneath people's feet... also, protecting CSA remnants and memories, but keeping them under watch/highlighting what they where about). 

"Client PC operating systems, on the one hand, and streaming media players, on the other hand, constitute two separate products for the purposes of Article 82 EC, in the light of the nature and technical features of the products concerned, the facts observed on the market, the history of the development of the products concerned and also the dominant undertaking’s commercial practice on the market for client PC operating systems." 

"It does not follow from either Article 82(d) EC or the case-law that consumers must necessarily pay a certain price for the tied product in order for it to be concluded that they are subject to supplementary obligations within the meaning of that provision.

Moreover, neither Article 82(d) EC nor the case-law on bundling requires that consumers must be forced to use the tied product or prevented from using the same product supplied by a competitor of the dominant undertaking in order for the condition that the conclusion of contracts is made subject to acceptance of supplementary obligations to be capable of being regarded as satisfied." 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62004TJ0201

I'll spare you the legalese: you're subject to a set of additional obligations by relying on the Apple App Store, which are separate from the main product (iOS and the iPhone) and are therefore considered a separate product. Moreover, the article in question does not require Apple to restrict access to sideloading at all to be non-compliant - They are solely by bundling the App Store and creating a set of obligations (the EULA AKA "that thing Trump was banned from Twitter for") that are separate from the OS (which comes with it's own set of obligations). 

Why if Texas shifted Democrats less likely because they be happy with shit system then?   Bush Jr was last to win popular vote in 2004.   They lost popular vote 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020.  Republicans can't win presidency except with help with electoral college.

We can only base my statements on what I actually stated and nothing else.
To misconstrue it any other way is to twist my original intention to suit whatever agenda someone has, which is blatantly misleading.

The Electoral process in the US still represents the people and it's assumed will.

Plus, the elected "leader" is only part of the story, you have votes that makeup congress and which greatly influence political mandates good and bad... There are policies that Trump couldn't pass because of the representational democracy being at work in congress for example.

More to a vote than who ends up sitting on the iron throne at the end of a campaign.

First off, you've completely abandoned and are avoiding at all cost your initial "it's my phone and I can do what I want" argument, so I take it you concede that I was correct in stating that had nothing to do with monopolies? Really don't appreciate the bait and switch here.

As for your replacement argument, I'm actually fluent in legalese, or at least conversational. And I believe your translation is off.

It seems the factors they're using to determine this are nature and technical features, the facts observed on the market, the history of the development of the products concerned, and the dominant commercial practice of the market.

If we read beyond paragraph 17 of this 1000+ paragraph document (this issue really is far more complex than you're letting on), we can see how some of these factors play out in this case, and how it is different.

"The Commission explains, first, that, according to the case-law, the fact that there are independent manufacturers who specialise in the manufacture of the tied product indicates the existence of separate consumer demand and therefore of a distinct market for the tied product (recital 802 to the contested decision). The Commission therefore considers that the distinctness of products for the purposes of an analysis under Article 82 EC must be assessed in the light of consumer demand, in the sense that if there is no separate demand for what is alleged to be a tied product the products at issue are not distinct (recital 803 to the contested decision)."

It appears a key factor is that there is demand for a the products separately. Is there a demand for a replacement app store? Possibly. Clearly at least one person wants this, but honestly it was a bit hard to find much on it searching through google. I'd say the market is clearly less robust than the market for something like real player.

Second, the Commission observes that ‘the market provides media players separately’ and that there are vendors who develop and supply media players on a standalone basis, separately from operating systems (recital 804 to the contested decision).

There are definitely unofficial app stores, but again a far less robust market than that for media players.

Third, the Commission refers to Microsoft’s practice of developing and distributing versions of Windows Media Player for Apple’s Mac and Sun’s Solaris operating systems (recital 805 to the contested decision). It also notes that Microsoft releases upgrades of its media player, distinct from Windows operating system releases or upgrades (recital 804 to the contested decision).

As far as I know Apple does not release the app store outside of iOS so very different here.

Fourth, the Commission states that a not insignificant number of consumers choose to obtain media players separately from their operating system, including RealPlayer from RealNetworks, which does not develop or sell operating systems (ibid.)

The amount of customers who obtain app stores separately from iOS would be insignificant since it is difficult to do. A more appropriate question would be whether a significant number of users would want to obtain an app store separately. I would wager that the number would be insignificant, especially compared to the number of people who would prefer the iOS is preinstalled.

Fifth, the Commission points out that some operating system users will not need or want a media player (recital 807 to the contested decision).

Virtually no iPhone users would not need or want access to an app store. People are not paying a huge premium for an iPhone without wanting apps.

 Sixth, the Commission rejects Microsoft’s argument that there is no material demand for operating systems without media player technologies (recital 809 to the contested decision).

I would suggest that there is no demand for an iPhone without access to an app store.

Seventh, the Commission observes that Microsoft engages in specific promotions of Windows Media Player, independent of the operating system (recital 810 to the contested decision).

To my knowledge, Apple does not do this. 

Eighth, the Commission explains that client PC operating systems and streaming media players are also different in terms of their functionalities (recital 811 to the contested decision).

I dunno about this one. I'd say an app store is pretty core to the functionality of iOS. If there were no app store, there'd be pretty little need for a robust OS.

Ninth, the Commission states that the two products ‘involve’ different industry structures, as may be seen from the fact that Microsoft still has some competitors on the media players market, whereas its competitors on the client PC operating systems market are insignificant (recital 812 to the contested decision). The price points of the two products are also different (ibid.).

Apple's competition in the OS market, particularly the mobile OS market, is essentially the same as in the phone market. It's chief competitor in both is Android. On the phone side they have more competing manufacturers, but if you add them all up, they are basically the same size as their OS competitor since they're all making Android phones. And all of their competitors bundle an app store with whatever OS they use.

Under the second head of its analysis, the Commission asserts that Microsoft’s argument that its media player technology has been bundled with Windows since 1992 cannot affect the Commission’s conclusion that there are two separate products. It states, in particular, that it ‘takes issue with Microsoft’s conduct at a juncture where tying became more harmful than it had previously been’, and observes, in that regard, that in 1999 Microsoft ‘tied a product (WMP 6) which matched other vendors’ products in the essential functionality that many customers came to expect from a media player (media streaming over the Internet) and with which Microsoft had entered the market for streaming media players in 1998’ (recital 816 to the contested decision). The Commission also observes that the first streaming media player which Microsoft distributed together with Windows, in 1995, was RealNetworks’ RealAudio Player, as at the time Microsoft did not yet have a ‘viable’ streaming media player (recital 817 to the contested decision). The Commission states that the RealAudio Player software code could be fully uninstalled (ibid.).

Essentially the argument is that WMP6 in particular was a reaction to real player, and designed to harm real player. Microsoft started bundling that version (which limited playback format and added features more similar to realplayer) because there was a competitor gaining ground. This is not the case with the app store which had been bundled from the begining.

 Under the third head of its analysis, the Commission refutes Microsoft’s argument that bundling a streaming media player with a client PC operating system is normal commercial practice. First, that argument does not take account of the fact that there are independent suppliers of the tied product; second, Sun and the Linux vendors do not bundle their own media players but third-party media players; and, third, none of those operating system vendors links the media player with the operating system in such a way that it cannot be uninstalled (recitals 821 to 823 to the contested decision).

The only real competitor in this field is Android which does bundle an OS as well, and it is difficult and I think a violation of your warranty to uninstall android.

So there are a lot of factors that weighed in the decision that are not the same in this case. Doesn't mean it would come out differently, but it means you can't say it's the same situation.

______________________________________________________________________________________

My impression of the part of the decision I've read (I'm not going to pretend I'm now an expert on EU tying law) is whether or not there is demand for the products separately on the manufacturing side or on the consumer side.

For Apple at least, we can conclusively say no, there is no demand on the manufacturer side. They make the iPhone and obviously they do not wish to make it without an app store nor have they ever done so. On the consumer side, it's more likely, but still probably not. I'm sure there are a minority of consumers who want to do so, but the vast vast majority would prefer an App store preinstalled. On the android side there is a bigger question, but I think the big draw of using android is for the Play store. If they didn't want that, it would seem foolish to pay Google money for it.

Also note that nowhere in the decision the relevant factor is whether or not manufacturers want ANY media player bundled with the OS. It doesn't require that Microsoft has to give every media player a chance. It seems that if users want a media player there is no reason Microsoft can't include theirs, which I imagine is why things like Microsoft Word can be bundled. I also wonder how this decision would come out now since how we use computers has very much changed.

Ultimately, I think it's fair to say that virtually all users who want an iPhone would want it with an App store, so that would make this a much better case for being part of iOS.

______________________________________________________________________________________

In addressing this issue the obligations they are referring to is on the OEM side. As in, the OEM has an obligation to pay for WMP, which may be passed on to the consumer. They point to the fact that Microsoft internally lists a price for an WMP separately from the OS. 

In US law at least, afaik, obligation refers to something affirmative that you must do, not something you can't do. A EULA typically would not be considered an obligation because I can agree to the EULA and never do anything further. It may trigger obligations in certain circumstances (for example a forum selection/arbitration clause), but in the US itself, you would not be said to have an obligation based purely on agreeing to an EULA (unless it contains some kind of provision, but that would held invalid in most cases). 

______________________________________________________________________________________

So, this is a complex issue, and you should really soften your stance a bit there. From what I've read, it seems pretty clear that there are REALLY big differences between this and the WMP situation. Under your analysis, any product with an EULA that is bundled with an OS is per se tying, and that is clearly, not the case. If that was the case, it would have only taken one sentence in the decision to resolve the issue. The decision in fact does not mention user agreements a single time that I can see.

This is all of course, different from your "It's my phone I'll do what I want" argument, so, you're attempting to pull a switcheroo on me, but at least it was an interesting read.

Yeah, I think the Democrats would be happy with the shit system if everything was the same but Texas shifted blue (depending how far). In that case, they could have lost Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia, and still won. I dunno if republicans would have a chance to win the popular vote with a reliably blue texas, but I think they'd have a better chance then under an electoral college system.

The electoral process doesn't represent the will of the people and it's assumed will. That's a completely conclusory statement. That's what the argument is about.

If you have an argument that it is a better indication of the will of the people than the popular vote, then go for it. But, the electoral college was largely designed the balance the will of the people and federalist ideals and a distrust of the unwashed masses. It was a compromise to get to the states to agree to a unified federal government among other concerns. It was not designed because they felt that electing slates of electors in each state who would then be allowed to vote for the president and if nobody got to 270 Congress decides by state delegation was the best way to the implement will of the people.

Not sure how exactly you can get from Trump getting less votes than Hillary to Trump winning being the will of the people. It's a will of the minority that somehow becomes official due to a framework created by a group of people who really weren't very into direct democracy.

But the will of the people was taken back from electoral college in 2000 and 2016. If we didn't have Bush Jr in 2000 probably wouldn't be endless war in Afghanistan and Iraq. If trump was defeated in 2016 then wouldn't have the Capitol riot.

I will save myself the long response by citing the article I referred to beforehand: 

Article 82 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 86)

Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market insofar as it may affect trade between Member States.

Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:

(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;

(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;

applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts. 

D. In which I (the End User) accept the Apple EULA, which states you agree with the Terms of Use of iOS 14 and at the same time confer agreement to the Apple Services EULA, which by its nature and commercial usage, has no connection with the subject of this contract. 

(a) The Apple Software may enable access to Apple’s iTunes Store, App Store, Apple Books, Game
Center, iCloud, Maps and other Apple and third party services and web sites (collectively and
individually, “Services”). Use of these Services requires Internet access and use of certain Services may
require an Apple ID, may require you to accept additional terms and may be subject to additional fees.
By using this software in connection with an Apple ID, or other Apple Services, you agree to the
applicable terms of service, such as the latest Apple Media Services Terms and Conditions for the
country or region in which you access such Services, which you may access and review at https://
www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/. 

https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms.html

The term “Apps” includes apps and app clips for any Apple platform and/or operating system, including any in-app purchases, extensions (such as keyboards), stickers, and subscriptions made available in such apps or app clips.

- Individuals acting on behalf of a commercial enterprise, governmental organization or educational institution (an “Enterprise”) may download and sync non-Arcade Apps for use by either (i) a single individual on one or more devices owned or controlled by an Enterprise; or (ii) multiple individuals on a single shared device owned or controlled by an Enterprise. For the sake of clarity, each device used serially or collectively by multiple users requires a separate license.

Long story short, the last two bolded phrases are essentially the same as the reason why WMP was removed: you cannot require usage of a device to force you to agree to a second EULA, and by bundling the App Store, you're already agreeing to it, despite the fact there's no link between App Store and iPhone (one is a software distribution service, the other is a phone). 

Moreover, if the EC were to force Apple to allow download of a ipsw file without the App Store, they would be forced to enable side loading of applications from external sources based on premise A of Article 82: Imposing an unfair trading condition by having a dominant position. Do note "dominant" does not mean "majority". It means "little alternatives". In an Android Phone, you can unlock the bootloader and load stock Android or any other OS to the ROM. You cannot do that on an iPhone. 

This ties into my "I do what I want" argument. Apple has no right to restrict side loading because it constitutes an unnecessary hassle and thus an unfair business practice as per A82. The WMP argument works because it highlights that Apple is bundling a service with different EULA terms, available in other devices (iPadOS) and denying the ability of users to resort to an alternative source within the iPhone. 

Simply put, the App Store has a monopoly in their ecosystem. It doesn't matter if people have Android or other phones. Having the position they have means they are already liable to provide an alternative to the App Store because they are claiming sole rights to sell and provide software on their OS. 

Dude I just skipped through your post as a term of service agreement. I know nothing what the fuck you are talking about.

Article 82 b blah blah blah.

Oh... so you're just going to ignore everything I said and repeat your argument again?

"Despite the fact there's no link between App Store and iPhone (one is a software distribution service, the other is a phone)"

Oh it's that simple? Wonder why those idiot judges went on and on over 100 paragraphs about it. Dumbass judges analyzed those ten factors (and much more) when they could have said "Derrrrrr... that's an OS and that's an Media Player! THEY'RE DIFFERENT!"

The court went through those ten factors, and a lot of other things, because the issue is not that clear cut. Sometimes different things are put together and they make one thing. Like how a controller and Astro Bot are considered part of the PS5. When these products are expected to and traditionally come together, they are considered to be one product for anti-trust purposes. It's not like someone buys an iPhone and says HOLY SHIT THERE'S AN APP STORE ON THIS?! They expect it to be there.

That's why the court went through all of those factors. So... you should look through them. Is the situation the same there as it is here? That's how legal precedent works.

"Long story short, the last two bolded phrases are essentially the same as the reason why WMP was removed: you cannot require usage of a device to force you to agree to a second EULA"

No... That's completely not the case. The decision specifically states that it doesn't matter if the customer never users WMP, in which case you'd never have to agree to a second EULA. The decision only discusses licensing on the manufacturer end.

The determining factor was not that WMP had a EULA. This isn't in the decision at all, it's just a rule that as far as I can tell you made that up yourself. I feel like you just saw the word contract and just decided any included product that has a contract is an anti-trust violation, but that's not the case.

Just set aside the statute you don't understand for a second, and think on a common sense basis here. Why would having a product with a EULA bundled with an OS which also has an EULA be a restriction of competition that would be so severe that it'd be illegal? If WMP doesn't have a EULA does it restrict competition less? Why is a EULA relevant at all to competition?

I'm honestly not sure if you know what a monopoly is here. Monopolies relate to unfair restriction of competition. Whether or not you click a box when you use Windows Media Player has nothing to do with competition.

"may require you to accept additional terms"

This is not in any way subjecting you to a supplementary obligation. You only will have the obligation if you decide to use another app. And again (you seem to just be ignoring the points) accepting terms on its own is typically not considered a legal obligation. Maybe that's what you'd like it to mean, but it doesn't in the US, and probably doesn't in EU. 

This ties into my "I do what I want" argument. Apple has no right to restrict side loading because it constitutes an unnecessary hassle and thus an unfair business practice as per A82.

Dude, you even reading at this point? Because it says nothing about unfair business practices. It says "unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions".

This is neither a purchase, selling price, or unfair trading condition. In statutes words are important. You can't just make it say what you want. This statute is also clearly focused on interactions between manufacturers and other business entities and not directly with users.

And no this still has nothing to do with anti-trust laws. Anti-trust laws are about unfair restriction of competition not "unnecessary hassle". If a product is a pain in the ass to use that's not an anti-trust issue. 

Simply put, the App Store has a monopoly in their ecosystem. It doesn't matter if people have Android or other phones. Having the position they have means they are already liable to provide an alternative to the App Store because they are claiming sole rights to sell and provide software on their OS. 

Natural monopolies are legal in the US. You are fully allowed to have a monopoly over your own ecosystem. A business absolutely can have the sole right to sell products over their OS, like Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo do. 

Further, a valid anti-trust market has to include any potential replacement product. I.e. a company that controlled 75% of the cellophane market was ruled not to have a monopoly because there were other flexible plastic products that served the same function. (United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377 (1956)) So, yes, it does matter if people have other phones. You may have decided it does, but as far as I can tell the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, and they have a bit more pull. 

I'm guessing you have not done any legal analysis before? I have done a fair bit. You are reading a statute, and just kind of making your own rules, vaguely waving at some case you think stands for your point. But it does not.

So... if you want to continue, you'll have to first look through the factors the court used to determine whether WMP was a separate product, and see if those apply in this case. Then, you'd have to point to some evidence in the decision that a EULA counts as a supplementary obligation.

Because otherwise one of us is doing actual legal analysis (the court's decisions say that the statute means this...) and one of us is just talking out of their ass (well I personally think the statute means this).