“The European Union’s antitrust authority has cleared Apple’s $3 billion deal to buy Beats Electronics, which makes headphones and offers music streaming services,” The Associated Press reports.
“The 28-nation bloc’s executive Commission said Monday the transaction does not threaten competition because the firms’ combined European market share in both fields will be low while facing strong competitors,” AP reports. “The move to buy Beats, founded by rapper Dr. Dre and Jimmy Iovine, was widely seen as a bid to counter the increasing threat posed by music streaming services like Pandora and Spotify to Apple Inc.’s iTunes store.”
Brief article in full here.
Can someone explain to me why Apple cares what the EU does. I realize the EU could block the sale of some of Apple/Beat’s products. But what am I missing here?
*sigh* From my understanding of the situation, the EU has the best of intentions, but their governance is swayed by some of the dire socialist member nations (hello France!…). As a result, they’ve gone into loon level liberal thought realm territory and become obsessive and over-protective of the citizenry. It’s the opposite of the USA’s ‘Kill The Poor, Feed The Rich’ dire obsession of our era. Over there it gets severely into ‘Kill The Rich, Feed The Poor’. Neither strategy of course is remotely sane. But I drone…
If Apple wants to sell to EU countries, and they do, Apple has to play their particular version of the ‘Screw Apple’ game. The idiotic Obama administration has their rules of the game. The idiotic EU government has their rules of the game.
IOW: ‘Play the stupid game our world territory demands or don’t sell here.’ Such is the state of our ‘New World Order’ all over the planet. Note that China has their own idiotic game playing. So does Australia. So does North Korea. On and on, barf and barf. 😛
Real, sane, citizen driven, useful regulations are fine with me! Keep the point of them as being personal responsibility for one’s choices and actions. But there’s always some loon who either wants to HURT others and BENEFIT themselves by destroying regulations, or HURT others and BENEFIT themselves by creating ONEROUS regulations. They either SHOUT the loudest or they have the most $$$$$$.
Why is sane, thoughtful moderation NOT the default the world over? Beats the hell out of me! (o_O)
It is typically lazy thinking to declare France as socialist. During the entire period of the Fifth Republic, France has had only two socialist Presidents – the present one and Mitterrand. All the other Presidents have been on the right.
France has the fifth largest economy in the world, is the largest agricultural exporter in Europe and the third in the world. It is fourth in the Fortune Global 500, ahead of both Germany and England.
It does not have a socialist economy. It has a mixed economy. It is the third largest outward investor in the OECD.
The USA pays lip service to an unrestrained capitalist economy or “capitalisme sauvage”. The reality is very different, given the high levels of subsidies for various industries and the mountain of regulation.
Most of the countries of the EU promote markets rather than laissez-faire capitalism. It considers that markets are fragile and that businesses must be forced to compete. The USA behaves the same way – as we can see with the actions against Microsoft and now Apple in relation to ebooks. It is against EU law for EU countries to subsidise companies and there is an internal market Commissioner to enforce capitalist markets in goods and service.
As to your suggestion of the “Screw Apple Game”, the USA is not above playing politics with foreign companies, imposing large fines on foreign owned banks or energy companies under the guise of regulation, when it is really just another act of protectionism.
I had no interest in reading past your first statement:
It is typically lazy thinking to declare France as socialist.
Not on this planet. I suggest you research what you’re talking about next time you wish to lecture me. *yawn*
Force yourself. You will learn something.
The mirror won’t speak back to you, unfortunately.
You write a message criticising France based on lazy cliches and then try and insult your way our of your own error. Pathetic.
I certainly don’t live there. Neither do I fall for baloney, however elaborate, long and loud, that says France does ‘not’ have a socialist government. Why people like you are so ADAMANT to deny this simple fact is beyond my comprehension. I gave up on the willfully ignorant and deluded decades ago. But I’ll always point out that you are indeed willfully ignorant and deluded.
Now be sure to rant a book’s worth of rubbish at me in reply. Just know that I won’t be bothering to read it. So sorry. Au revoir, not!
I’m sure that you think that you’re right, pronouncing on a foreign country from your armchair.
Because Apple wants to sell its products in the EU. The same way European companies have to put up with American interference when it sells in America.
I believe both Apple and Beats have bases / are registered companies in the EU. They also have a lot of cash there.
That was meant to be a reply to “bildad”
Also, the EU market is about 60% larger than the USA market so if Apple wants to sell to that market it needs to follow its rules.
I see.
I’m just not a believer in the EU and especially the ramifications of “single market”. More centralized big government meddling in every aspect of people’s lives.
United States of Europe, on socialist steroids, is where they’re headed. Not pretty. I know I’ll take a lot of heat for thinking this way so I will zip it up and not reply anymore.
It works the other way as well. Years ago the lovely looking MGB GT was butchered with horrible big black rubber bumpers (fenders?) to comply with the American market regs at the time.
You sound antagonistic, try thinking like Apple … sagacious and worldly.
I found this on wiki – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law
European Union competition law arose out of the desire to ensure that the efforts of government could not be distorted by corporations abusing their market power. Hence under the treaties are provisions to ensure that free competition prevails, rather than cartels and monopolies sharing out markets and fixing prices. Competition law in the European Union has some similarities with the law in the United States antitrust, though there are some key differences.
Four main policy areas include:
Cartels, or control of collusion and other anti-competitive practices that affect the EU (or, since 1994, the European Economic Area). This is covered under Articles 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
Market Dominance, or preventing the abuse of firms’ dominant market positions. EU law can apply for “dominant” market players with as little as 38% market share, compared to the US where a market share of 60%+ is usually required to trigger intervention. This is governed by Article 102 TFEU. This article also gives rise to the Commission’s authority under the next area,
Mergers, control of proposed mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures involving companies that have a certain, defined amount of turnover in the EU/EEA. This is governed by the Council Regulation 139/2004 EC (the Merger Regulation).[1]
State aid, control of direct and indirect aid given by Member States of the European Union to companies. Covered under Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which now supersedes the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC).[2] Article 107 of the TFEU is equivalent to Article 87 of the TEC.[3]
This last point is a unique characteristic of the EU competition law regime. As the EU is made up of independent member states, both competition policy and the creation of the European single market could be rendered ineffective were member states free to support national companies as they saw fit. A 2013 Civitias report lists some of the artifices used by participants to skirt the state aid rules on procurement.[4] Primary authority for applying EU competition law rests with European Commission and its Directorate General for Competition, although state aids in some sectors, such as transport, are handled by other Directorates General. The Directorates can mandate that improperly-given state aid be repaid, as was the case in 2012 with Malev Hungarian Airlines.[5] On 1 May 2004 a decentralised regime for antitrust came into force to increase application of EU competition law by national competition authorities and national courts.
more can be found at –
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner_for_Competition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_v._Microsoft
enjoy.
… Kewl. 😀 Just in time for the Bose lawsuit against Beats. 😛