If you're saying there's a mix of monetization methods, sure, I don't disagree with that. Just like cable or streaming has both ads and subscription revenue. I'm not sure what your point is. If you want less monetization of you, where "less" is anywhere from 1% to 100% less, then you have to pay an amount more.

Except that that's literally how the web runs - either you pay yourself, or you allow the monetization of yourself so that others will pay for you. I'm not sure what the EU expects anyone to do without those options?

I honestly don't even know what you're asking for 2, and obviously you didn't actually ask anything on 1.
Back to 2, though, if you said something similar on reddit... what do you expect people to respond with? "that sucks"? Like, what were you looking for?

Oh for sure, I never thought you meant that. I mean, I took a shop class and a couple coding classes.

That's the best explanation/comparison I've ever heard for this.
It's not that coding isn't important, it's that it's important to only a subset of people. It's not core knowledge, it's shop class.

Um, what? They've had offline playback since... pretty much always?

That's... not how that works. You sue someone (in a case like this) to determine if they're breaking the law. YOU (the EU) believe they are. That doesn't mean they are.

This sounds like the same thing people said when the iPod came out, and the iPhone, etc. But here's the thing - when those came out, Apple wasn't "Apple". And yet somehow, those are the products that everyone knows, and turned Apple into a $3T company. You're right in that Apple isn't the first - they've never been the first at anything. But they've been the best at repeatedly taking a product and turning it into something people actually can use, and want to use. Is it "revolutionary"? Well, depends on your definition. But the words you're using are a repetitive argument that has been pointless before, even when Apple was tiny, and may (or may not) be pointless again. Only time will tell.

But that assumes that actually happens. The self checkout in front of you causing an error that takes an employee forever to clear is even more annoying than rolling your eyes at an old lady. And people checkout slower than cashiers do to begin with, so it relies on having enough functional machines to start with. Then add to that that stores then reduce staff, so although yeah you might have gotten stuck behind a an old lady in a line... there used to be more open lines.

That's basically the point though... if you're economically dependent on a single company to bring in the majority of your work, you aren't a contractor. You are an employee. Your CPA example... a typical CPA has hundreds of clients. He's not dependent on any one of them. If he's really just a CPA for IBM or whatever, he's not a contractor, he's an employee.

I don't think so. Certainly on the iTunes Store even if the movie is no longer available, if you've purchased it, you keep it.

That's becoming more and more common with local merchants in the US through a program called "cash discount" - effectively, having discounts for people paying cash versus card. While the idea isn't new, the fact that processors are actually pushing it now IS.

While I agree, most aren't (Duck Duck Go is probably the most popular that is), this response is way over the top. And I can't answer his question, either - I don't know of any reasons it (and others) aren't. The App Store does make things easier, and since they're free anyway, it's not a cost reason to not.

No. Google claims competition IS possible. But then was doing underhanded things to make sure it didn't happen.