Just as I suspected, you are the one who was happy to challenge my Spotify comment by saying that that is what competition is, but when I politely ask you to explain the reasoning, you back slide and weasel your way out.
Hey, I'm a reasonable guy, I'll happily change my mind with some well argued reasoning, so please explain to me how using one's financial might to pay for the ad revenue lost if they refuse to allow ad supported streaming on Spotify, is classed as 'competition', to me it's the very model of a modern major general principal of anti-competitive behaviour.
Not dissimilar to the way Apple is targeting Spotify and other streaming supplier's free tiers. Is that how they use their tax minimisation dollars? To stop other companies from supplying a product that others want, so they themselves can charge for it and make more minimised tax dollars. Making out Apple to be a victim is risible.
This post is indicative of all the other posts in this thread that seem to imply that Apple is wonderful and blameless and that Australia should be grateful to the pitiful taxes that Apple pays. The 'Apple should pull out of Australia' sentiments are so ludicrously childish. There would be few people who enjoy Apple products and who have such a great affection for Apple and the values of design, typography, and a genuine desire to improve humanity's interaction with...
OK, I can see the argument both ways. Wholesale price of finished object seems a bit rich, but then again, phones were not so pricey in the past, so Ericsson want more profit from their tech. I think Apple is doing the right thing to have this settled in court, but it should go to a specialist court that would set a precedent. Maybe Apple should have gone for an independent arbitrator who was a retired judge with experience in this field.
Apple and Rolex will not collide, they'll pass through one another as if each were not there. There will be Apple Watch buyers and high end luxury watch buyers, and there will be those who purchase both, but there won't be more than a handful of people (if any) who would purchase an A watch over a Rolex or vice versa. Apple is likely to eventually make a dent in the $1000 watch market though. Check out ablogtowatch for an insight into watch world.
Had you finished reading my post your pointlessly flamey reply would have been unnecessary. I say how it appears to the lay person then I accept there are other intricies. The point of my post is to implore AI to take this case when it is finished and explain how the actual arguements go.
On the face of it Apple looks like a bit of a dick in this case, as it would seem that it would be a simple matter of basing the fee on what everyone else is paying. How complicated can that be. However, I can only presume that there must be convoluted intricacies too subtle for the lay person to comprehend. Therefore it would be excellent if AppleInsider could follow this one up to the final judgement and publish the court's full reasoning, so that Joe Public can see for...