Apple Responds to EU's Decision to Narrow Antitrust Case Prompted by Spotify

[OneBar]

No. They can do it against the will of the land owner.

But to reiterate, government absolutely can take property (such as land) against the owner's will.
Even if the land owner does not agree to the price that's offered or determined as fair compensation.

Government can only do so on a legal basis of course (such as is provided for many construction projects). The taking authority is required to negotiate a fair price in good faith first. If there's no agreement, the land owner may of course challenge the taking it in court, which will determine if the taking is justified. And that may prolong and complicate the case, which is why in in practice the government agency may want to avoid it.

Eminent domain is the legal concept to be able to take it regardless. Without an agreement.

Honestly, I think there's no point in rehashing that discussion. Anyone could consult the statutes of his directions, ask a lawyer or just read one of the more accessible explanations (such as this one). It's very simple.

Yet you keep pointing to that one particular project of yours, for which government can't or has decided not to take such action. There may be good reasons or that (opposition in court or public, resulting in further delays or costs). Even if they can‘t your one particular case, that doesn‘t mean that government can never do it against the will of the property owner. And it doesn’t mean that they always have to reach agreement.

Actually I've referred to several projects, I just haven't named them. The biggest one was the USHWY 69 project that had federal and state backing and a 25 year old DOT approved plan and was derailed because land owners said no. They were going to acquire the needed land for the realignment through eminent domain until the land owners denied them. If the government could arbitrarily come and claim your land, they would already own the entire country and we'd be renting from them.

What's iOS or Android? They're both open source operating systems that run a proprietary layer on top.
Same as for many utility or infrastructure providers.

No, they are both proprietary that you cannot download and modify yourself. They are not open source. You do not own the software when you purchase the phone.

Yes - and it may still not as comfortable as doing it in-app for many people.
Also, not every app developer has the advertising resources that Spotify has.

Malarky. If typing spotify dot com is uncomfortable, then there isn't even a point. That's just plain lazy. Advertising on your own platform is essentially free as you can write off advertising as corporate expenses.

I don't go to my bank's website, when I can make payment with an app more comfortably.

You're not purchasing anything from your bank. The bank's app is free and they pay Apple nothing for hosting it.

Also, an app developer may advertise "add-ons" and additional functionality in-app. It's additional "friction" from a user experience point of view, if I have to go to an external website (that Apple even prohibits them from pointing me to) and will lower the "conversion rate" of such ads into paying customers.

Again, that's just being lazy if typing in a website prevents you from spending money on something you want. And yet people type in websites and spend money all day every day. Spotify advertises the add-ons for Premium and directs you to their website. Nothing on Apple's end prevents them or anyone from plugging their website.

That said, as well-known as Spotify is and as relatively their range of subscriptions is, they probably may not even be the very best example of suffering from the Apple tax.

Of course they're not the best example because they aren't and never have suffered. They've done nothing but grow, even when they had to remove in-app Premium purchases.