Maria the Shoopkeeper

Maria’s shop, brimming with handmade goods and fresh produce, was the heartbeat of the marketplace. The air buzzed with the hum of trade—a shining example of free enterprise. Maria and the shopkeepers who provided excellent goods and services flourished, while those who failed to innovate and take care of their customers struggled.

Our village elders, concerned that all should succeed no matter what, started rolling out regulations. At first, it made sense—simple rules to prevent fraud and ensure safety. However, some shopkeepers complained they still couldn’t compete.

Over time, the council’s ambitions grew. They introduced permits, strict product standards, complex tax codes, and incessant inspections. Maria, our resilient shopkeeper, found herself ensnared in a web of frustration and bureaucracy. Her time, once spent crafting and selling her beloved products, was now eaten up by paperwork as compliance costs soared.

Our marketplace began to wither. Maria and the creative shopkeepers moved to less restrictive towns. Goods became scarce, prices climbed, and the diversity and quality we once took pride in began to fade. The town suffered, and its population dwindled. It was a sobering sight.

Maria’s story, our story, teaches a crucial lesson: balance is key. Too many well-meaning rules can turn into a tangle of regulation and red tape. Those who perform will thrive, leaving the lazy or unoriginal behind. But in the end, it is the town’s citizens who suffer the most.

Look at that EU rules highly important !!! Here.:yawning_face: Yes we voted and paid for that… so Apple… not even an animal just a fruit :crazy_face: Here the EU rules for that Here. I know I’m leaving :rofl:

Since the EU keeps punishing Apple for being so – according them – anti-competitive, I would have thought that the EU bureaucrats would have been happy to see Apple being less innovative and not shipping their best stuff so that EU manufacturers could step up and offer products that at least are equivalent to the sub-par Apple offerings. Looks like a now-win situation for Apple.

There are two truths here.

One is that Apple is acting like a toddler. They’re angry about the whole forcibly opening up the platform because the EU says so, and very likely to be fined a huge sum in the near future, and is now trying to make a point by not releasing the latest tech in the EU.

The EU has already responded that they see no reason why Apple Intelligence would be considered vendor lock in at the moment.

The other is that the EU needs to be clearer to manufacturers (in any branche) when it comes to communication about upcoming legislation - it’s very often not crystal clear what is covered by new legislation as the EU generally keeps things too vague.

What you can’t deny (wether you’re for or against the EU) is that the way the EU is forcing big tech to open up is actually helping you as a consumer.

Thanks to the EU, USB-C is now quickly becoming a standard for data and charging for example. You’re also way less tracked on the web than people from most countries outside the EU are.

And whether you’re planning to use it or not, forcing Apple to allow third party app stores on their devices does give you more choice and developers more incentive to develop for the platforms in question.

Cheers,
Erwin

2 Likes

The EU rules are vague for a reason, my feelings are you cant sue people/companies if the rules are Cleary Defined and companies follow them. They are Vague so the EU has legal room to manoeuvre if they think the company is breaking the spirit of the law rather than a specific case.

Or that it’s the fact that we all vote for technophobes that dont understand technology enough to even pass a clear law because they have little technical knowledge of what the heck they are legislating against.

Either Case no matter what any company does my view is that you’re never going to make the bureaucrats of the world happy no matter what.

1 Like

I have to disagree with your premise that what the EU is doing is helping consumers. I think what they are doing is causing greater cost and complexity for the consumer. Consumer’s already had choice. They could purchase phones from any number of other suppliers. If Apple had an actual monopoly, I would agree with you, but they don’t.

As to USB-C, that is a short-term bureaucratic win. Perhaps it did cause Apple to adopt a better technology than Lightning this time. They also shut down any incentive for companies to develop a better physical connecter that USB-C because that has now been written into law. And you know how hard it is to get laws changed. And if you recall, when Lightning was introduced into the world, our USB choices were USB-B and USB-mini. Lightning was clearly superior. Imagine if the law had been passed when we only had USB-mini to work with…we would now all be forced to use USB-mini. That is certainly not a win for consumers.

1 Like

Imagine what if they said oh everyone use 1980s-1990s Serial port as it is better at backwards compatibility when would this end LOL

Well… since one mega is enough for everyone… :crazy_face:

1 Like

The people you vote for sometimes know what they’re talking about, and sometimes don’t. But luckily, they have a few hundred government employees behind the scenes who are the ones that actually write up the proposals. And those people often do know what they’re talking about thankfully, or else have themselves consulted (publicly via an open consultation, or privately by the likes of PwC, KPMG etc.).

Now, some choices they make are questionable (the whole “Chatcontrol” currently in the works is one of the examples). But although this may seem as having a lack of sense about technology on the outside, it’s more often than not a political view that wins from the tech consultants who say otherwise.

Chatcontrol is actually a great example. Originally, the proposal demanded that chat platforms that use end-2-end encryption (E2EE) should be able to detect the type of photo/video material sent over the platform and should listen for certain keywords being used. The consultants involved managed to convince the government workers that E2EE isn’t possible with such a construction. Eventually they settled on on-device scanning instead.[1]

Cheers,
Erwin

[1] Don’t get me wrong, I’m strongly opposed to Chatcontrol, whatever tech is used, as the government has no business knowing to who I chat and what about

Totally agree but I am part of a country which has just penalized (few weeks ago) comments made in private that are offensive towards third parties… I don’t think we are moving towards more freedom of expression (despite our constitution), it’s a bad clue I think for futur. Speaking in chatcontrol does anyone know if “Echelon” is still active? With the AI ​​it should expand at speed V now. :yum:

1 Like

I think the story stands for itself—freedom, sharing, personal accountability, innovation, and community.

I support an altruistic free enterprise system, but alas, we lost that at Genesis 3 with the fall of humanity. Yet my hope lies in Revelation 21 with the restoration of all things. Until then, I live out Matthew 22:37-40, loving God and loving others to the best of my ability and asking for forgiveness when I fall short.

1 Like

need to re read the book “1984”

2 Likes

With « the sheep look up » and « the shockwave rider » (John Brunner) :+1:

1 Like

Speaking in chatcontrol does anyone know if “Echelon” is still active?

That seems something one could easily verify, but at the risk of life imprisonment without trial of course. :wink:

With the risk of this turning into a slow chat:

Any means of actively monitoring private comms on the internet is moot. The ones who have something they don’t want the government or law enforcement to listen in on, will simply use a communication system that doesn’t implement Chatcontrol. There are oodles of chat systems out there, and with even Apple now allowing sideloading of apps, anyone can release a chat client onto pretty much any platform.

So what do they (the EU) get? Small fish - people who lack the knowledge to do the above. The big criminal organisations come with their own IT guys, and will simply not use the clients that comply with Chatcontrol.

And false positives. Parents sharing pictures of their kids in bath tubs or whatever are suddenly suspects of distributing CSAM. Meanwhile, the dark web will continue to flourish because, you’d never guess, that’s where the actual perpetrators hang out.

Cheers,
Erwin

3 Likes

@Heroic_Nonsense Hi, I think unfortunately you are right. Sad :zipper_mouth_face: