Please learn to comprehend what I am writing rather than making things up and pretending that I said them.
The problem is we ARE comprehending what you are writing and it flies agains all logic and precedent.
It is YOU who seems to be attempting to redefine what anticompetitive is, and then applying that definition into a self defeating example.
A result of legal competition is not anticompetitive as it pertains to antitrust law. Ever.
You can use inherently imprecise language (English) and disregard standing definitions and make the sentence look however you want, but that doesn't redefine what the term anticompetitive practices mean. It's just some irrelevant sentence.
The problem is we ARE comprehending what you are writing and it flies agains all logic and precedent.
It is YOU who seems to be attempting to redefine what anticompetitive is, and then applying that definition into a self defeating example.
A result of legal competition is not anticompetitive as it pertains to antitrust law. Ever.
You can use inherently imprecise language (English) and disregard standing definitions and make the sentence look however you want, but that doesn't redefine what the term anticompetitive practices mean. It's just some irrelevant sentence.
Sorry, but you are imagining things. Somehow, you think that YOUR erroneous interpretation the only one that exists. Too bad.
Sorry, but you are imagining things. Somehow, you think that YOUR erroneous interpretation the only one that exists. Too bad.
Well. I'm sure the masses out there are willing to follow you blindly now.
It truly takes a staunch and blind eye to ignore the mass of evidence to the contrary when you google-up something as simple as "anticompetitive law" and get thousands of hits citing federal law, state law and court rulings, not to mention international laws. And that's after you ignore all the blog post noise.
Dude, it takes balls to own being wrong as hard as you are holding on to it.
Go start your own app store then. Make your own phone and infrastructure.
Who give YOU the right to specify what Apple should or shouldn't do? Apple has millions of happy customers and a very successful business model. The way the process works is that Apple decides what to offer. If enough people like Apple's offering, they stay in business and thrive. If Apple's offering is unpopular, Apple fails.
Arbitrary demands of what they should or shouldn't publish don't make any sense - they simply make you look like a whining juvenile.
Why should I have to build a phone if I want to open a store?
Does Best Buy have to make its own hardware so it can sell software for Macs & PCs?
Why should I have to build a phone if I want to open a store?
Does Best Buy have to make its own hardware so it can sell software for Macs & PCs?
You just took that to a whole new irrational level by failing to comprehend what a free market is. If a company doesn't wish to license or sell their product to you for resale then that is that. If you want to open a store you are still bound to only buy items that are available to you.
You just took that to a whole new irrational level by failing to comprehend what a free market is. If a company doesn't wish to license or sell their product to you for resale then that is that. If you want to open a store you are still bound to only buy items that are available to you.
How is "nobody can sell software for my device except through my store, and only if I approve it" a free market?
How is "nobody can sell software for my device except through my store, and only if I approve it" a free market?
It's the very definition of a closed market.
It's a free market because the seller has a choice of what to sell and buyer has a choice of where to shop. For instance, Wal-Mart doesn't have to carry Hustler magazine simply because Larry Flynt says so. He can't argue, but by not doing so limits my distribution possibilities.
It's a free market because the seller has a choice of what to sell and buyer has a choice of where to shop. For instance, Wal-Mart doesn't have to carry Hustler magazine simply because Larry Flynt says so. He can't argue, but by not doing so limits my distribution possibilities.
The key point you're missing is that every human shares the same hardware (body) and software (brain) and so there is no lock-in. I can choose to shop at Wal-Mart or choose to shop at Big Tits Books--or I can shop at both. There are no extra or hidden costs to me, because my eyes and brain can read a magazine from any source.
However, If I have an iPhone ($200) running iOS4 that runs only on Apple hardware on AT&T (2-year contract, minimum $70/mo = $1680) and dozens or hundreds of movies ($10+ a pop) and books ($10+ a pop), I have thousands and thousands of dollars invested in that platform.
If I can't get Hustler on the iPhone, am I going to throw away that investment of thousands of dollars? Is that in any way comparable to shopping at Wal-Mart vs. Big Tits Books?
It's a free market because the seller has a choice of what to sell and buyer has a choice of where to shop.
Precisely. Thank you.
There are valid complaints about Apple's app distribution model. But it seems that people are struggling to accurately describe those valid complaints.
The device in itself isn't a free market but the consumer still has a choice of which device to buy in a free market.
Key concept to understand: A single product within a market is not the same thing as an entire market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
Precisely. Thank you.
There are valid complaints about Apple's app distribution model. But it seems that people are struggling to accurately describe those valid complaints.
I realize we posted at the same time, but please read my reply in case you missed it:
The key point you're missing is that every human shares the same hardware (body) and software (brain) and so there is no lock-in. I can choose to shop at Wal-Mart or choose to shop at Big Tits Books--or I can shop at both. There are no extra or hidden costs to me, because my eyes and brain can read a magazine from any source.
However, If I have an iPhone ($200) running iOS4 that runs only on Apple hardware on AT&T (2-year contract, minimum $70/mo = $1680) and dozens or hundreds of movies ($10+ a pop) and books ($10+ a pop), I have thousands and thousands of dollars invested in that platform.
If I can't get Hustler on the iPhone, am I going to throw away that investment of thousands of dollars? Is that in any way comparable to shopping at Wal-Mart vs. Big Tits Books?
No, of course not.
I would agree that there are valid complaints about Apple's app store distribution model.
"Thousands and thousands of dollars" though? That seems like overstating the case a bit. While it could be true for you, the typical non-transferable software/media investment is probably less than $100. Keep in mind that the music is now DRM free. As for software being non-transferable, that is true of pretty much every computing platform now and throughout all of history.
Those other costs don't seem to have anything to do with the App store or Apple. I would agree that the phone/phone-service pricing model is bad. I'd even call it somewhat predatory. Subsidized hardware with higher monthly bills and a minimum contract period always seems like a bad situation for consumers. Note how the monthly bill doesn't go back down after having paid off the subsidized hardware.
So again, i'll agree that there are reasonable complaints to be made about the phone industry as well as Apple's roll in it. But it seems that people are struggling to voice those complaints in an accurate and reasonable manner. All of the topics are getting muddled together and terminology is being used rather loosely.
To illustrate this point, I think Solipsism would agree with much of the above despite him jumping in to correct the usage of the term "free-market". (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)
I would agree that there are valid complaints about Apple's app store distribution model.
"Thousands and thousands of dollars" though? That seems like overstating the case a bit. While it could be true for you, the typical non-transferable software/media investment is probably less than $100. Keep in mind that the music is now DRM free. As for software being non-transferable, that is true of pretty much every computing platform now and throughout all of history.
Those other costs don't seem to have anything to do with the App store or Apple. I would agree that the phone/phone-service pricing model is bad. I'd even call it somewhat predatory. Subsidized hardware with higher monthly bills and a minimum contract period always seems like a bad situation for consumers. Note how the monthly bill doesn't go back down after having paid off the subsidized hardware.
So again, i'll agree that there are reasonable complaints to be made about the phone industry as well as Apple's roll in it. But it seems that people are struggling to voice those complaints in an accurate and reasonable manner. All of the topics are getting muddled together and terminology is being used rather loosely.
To illustrate this point, I think Solipsism would agree with much of the above despite him jumping in to correct the usage of the term "free-market". (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)
Others may be, but I'm certainly not "struggling to voice those complaints". My complaints are detailed and specific. (Where is solipsism now?)
This is nothing like the PC industry. Sure, if you buy a PC and switch to a Mac, you'll have to re-purchase some software. In some cases, though, such as Adobe, you can switch your license for a small fee. This can't be done when switching to Android. why? Because Apple does not give software sellers any information (not even an email address) about the customers their software is sold to. So there's no way to verify a person is your customer. So how can you give them a discount on switching to another platform?
Also Apple controls what software is sold on the iDevices, unlike the Mac, where you can get software anywhere. So a company may want to produce an iApp, but Apple won't allow it to be sold by them--or anyone else.
I didn't mention music, so please don't bring that into the picture. I specifically mentioned books and video (movies, TV shows). Both are heavily DRMed. In apps alone, Apple has sold almost one and a half a billion dollars to its almost 100,000,000-iDevice customers. That's $14/device--a lot, when you consider it's only been a year or so that these huge number of devices have existed. Certainly, huge numbers of people have hundreds of dollars invested.
And video & books will probably sell a lot better on the iPad with its larger screen. And, over time, people/families will buy more and more content. More hundreds of dollars invested in the platform.
And unlike physical books and movies, you cannot sell these if you switch platforms. You just lose them. On the PC platform, iTunes/Quicktime runs on both Mac and Windows. On portable devices, it's iOS or nothing.
So the DRM lock-in (in addition to the 2year contracts mentioned previously) means that customers are forced to not stray from Apple devices for fear of losing their entire media/app investment.
Thus customers have no choice but to buy and consume apps that only Apple says are OK, using content that Apple has specific rules for (Apple controls not only what apps users can buy, but also the policies on how to use them! For example, every "chat" app has rules about provocative language or partial nudity in profile pictures--Apple is controlling apps *and* content, i.e., how *you* use the app you paid for!)
Others may be, but I'm certainly not "struggling to voice those complaints". My complaints are detailed and specific. (Where is solipsism now?)
This is nothing like the PC industry. Sure, if you buy a PC and switch to a Mac, you'll have to re-purchase some software. In some cases, though, such as Adobe, you can switch your license for a small fee. This can't be done when switching to Android. why? Because Apple does not give software sellers any information (not even an email address) about the customers their software is sold to. So there's no way to verify a person is your customer. So how can you give them a discount on switching to another platform?
Also Apple controls what software is sold on the iDevices, unlike the Mac, where you can get software anywhere. So a company may want to produce an iApp, but Apple won't allow it to be sold by them--or anyone else.
I didn't mention music, so please don't bring that into the picture. I specifically mentioned books and video (movies, TV shows). Both are heavily DRMed. In apps alone, Apple has sold almost one and a half a billion dollars to its almost 100,000,000-iDevice customers. That's $14/device--a lot, when you consider it's only been a year or so that these huge number of devices have existed. Certainly, huge numbers of people have hundreds of dollars invested.
And video & books will probably sell a lot better on the iPad with its larger screen. And, over time, people/families will buy more and more content. More hundreds of dollars invested in the platform.
And unlike physical books and movies, you cannot sell these if you switch platforms. You just lose them. On the PC platform, iTunes/Quicktime runs on both Mac and Windows. On portable devices, it's iOS or nothing.
So the DRM lock-in (in addition to the 2year contracts mentioned previously) means that customers are forced to not stray from Apple devices for fear of losing their entire media/app investment.
Thus customers have no choice but to buy and consume apps that only Apple says are OK, using content that Apple has specific rules for (Apple controls not only what apps users can buy, but also the policies on how to use them! For example, every "chat" app has rules about provocative language or partial nudity in profile pictures--Apple is controlling apps *and* content, i.e., how *you* use the app you paid for!)
Doesn't that scare you?
Well you're complaints are definitely specific, but I wouldn't go so far as to say detailed. I feel your pain and even agree with the sentiment. Where I like to temper that sentiment is in our perspective on the topic.
To put the valid criticism in perspective:
* Software has never been transferable between platforms.
* Apple would love to sell DRM free media and does exactly that when content owners permit it.
* AT&T is the entity requiring a 2 year contract. Where not contractually prohibited from selling a contract free phone, apple does exactly that.
* All stores have criteria for what they sell and what they choose not to sell.
If looking to enact change and push the balance of power back to consumers, it is important to recognize who is doing what and how that compares to the rest of the business world.
To answer your question, I'm not scared of Apple's iOS platform. Instead, I am happily vigilant. If apple becomes the only option, then their current business practices would be bad for consumers. However, with multiple vertically integrated hardware/software/app-store options available to consumers, the situation is actually quite good, or perhaps even excellent.
Personally, I'm not feeling locked in because I chose to not invested in a media library known to only work on a single platform. Consumers have the choice to avoid this problem. There is nobody forcing us to buy badly DRM'd media.
Well I guess we're just going in circles, because my last 3 posts addressed all of your it's-not-Apple's-fault lines of reasoning.
We've failed to communicate if you are interpreting my position as "it's-not-Apple's-fault".
I've bent over backwards to make it clear that there are valid complaints about Apple. However, those complaints are being bundled with a bunch of other nonsense. Teasing those apart should not be viewed as absolving Apple of criticism.
Comments
I'm not saying any such thing.
Please learn to comprehend what I am writing rather than making things up and pretending that I said them.
The problem is we ARE comprehending what you are writing and it flies agains all logic and precedent.
It is YOU who seems to be attempting to redefine what anticompetitive is, and then applying that definition into a self defeating example.
A result of legal competition is not anticompetitive as it pertains to antitrust law. Ever.
You can use inherently imprecise language (English) and disregard standing definitions and make the sentence look however you want, but that doesn't redefine what the term anticompetitive practices mean. It's just some irrelevant sentence.
The problem is we ARE comprehending what you are writing and it flies agains all logic and precedent.
It is YOU who seems to be attempting to redefine what anticompetitive is, and then applying that definition into a self defeating example.
A result of legal competition is not anticompetitive as it pertains to antitrust law. Ever.
You can use inherently imprecise language (English) and disregard standing definitions and make the sentence look however you want, but that doesn't redefine what the term anticompetitive practices mean. It's just some irrelevant sentence.
Sorry, but you are imagining things. Somehow, you think that YOUR erroneous interpretation the only one that exists. Too bad.
Sorry, but you are imagining things. Somehow, you think that YOUR erroneous interpretation the only one that exists. Too bad.
Well. I'm sure the masses out there are willing to follow you blindly now.
It truly takes a staunch and blind eye to ignore the mass of evidence to the contrary when you google-up something as simple as "anticompetitive law" and get thousands of hits citing federal law, state law and court rulings, not to mention international laws. And that's after you ignore all the blog post noise.
Dude, it takes balls to own being wrong as hard as you are holding on to it.
Go start your own app store then. Make your own phone and infrastructure.
Who give YOU the right to specify what Apple should or shouldn't do? Apple has millions of happy customers and a very successful business model. The way the process works is that Apple decides what to offer. If enough people like Apple's offering, they stay in business and thrive. If Apple's offering is unpopular, Apple fails.
Arbitrary demands of what they should or shouldn't publish don't make any sense - they simply make you look like a whining juvenile.
Why should I have to build a phone if I want to open a store?
Does Best Buy have to make its own hardware so it can sell software for Macs & PCs?
Why should I have to build a phone if I want to open a store?
Does Best Buy have to make its own hardware so it can sell software for Macs & PCs?
You just took that to a whole new irrational level by failing to comprehend what a free market is. If a company doesn't wish to license or sell their product to you for resale then that is that. If you want to open a store you are still bound to only buy items that are available to you.
You just took that to a whole new irrational level by failing to comprehend what a free market is. If a company doesn't wish to license or sell their product to you for resale then that is that. If you want to open a store you are still bound to only buy items that are available to you.
How is "nobody can sell software for my device except through my store, and only if I approve it" a free market?
It's the very definition of a closed market.
How is "nobody can sell software for my device except through my store, and only if I approve it" a free market?
It's the very definition of a closed market.
It's a free market because the seller has a choice of what to sell and buyer has a choice of where to shop. For instance, Wal-Mart doesn't have to carry Hustler magazine simply because Larry Flynt says so. He can't argue, but by not doing so limits my distribution possibilities.
How is "nobody can sell software for my device except through my store, and only if I approve it" a free market?
It's the very definition of a closed market.
The device in itself isn't a free market but the consumer still has a choice of which device to buy in a free market.
Key concept to understand: A single product within a market is not the same thing as an entire market.
It's a free market because the seller has a choice of what to sell and buyer has a choice of where to shop. For instance, Wal-Mart doesn't have to carry Hustler magazine simply because Larry Flynt says so. He can't argue, but by not doing so limits my distribution possibilities.
The key point you're missing is that every human shares the same hardware (body) and software (brain) and so there is no lock-in. I can choose to shop at Wal-Mart or choose to shop at Big Tits Books--or I can shop at both. There are no extra or hidden costs to me, because my eyes and brain can read a magazine from any source.
However, If I have an iPhone ($200) running iOS4 that runs only on Apple hardware on AT&T (2-year contract, minimum $70/mo = $1680) and dozens or hundreds of movies ($10+ a pop) and books ($10+ a pop), I have thousands and thousands of dollars invested in that platform.
If I can't get Hustler on the iPhone, am I going to throw away that investment of thousands of dollars? Is that in any way comparable to shopping at Wal-Mart vs. Big Tits Books?
No, of course not.
It's a free market because the seller has a choice of what to sell and buyer has a choice of where to shop.
Precisely. Thank you.
There are valid complaints about Apple's app distribution model. But it seems that people are struggling to accurately describe those valid complaints.
The device in itself isn't a free market but the consumer still has a choice of which device to buy in a free market.
Key concept to understand: A single product within a market is not the same thing as an entire market.
Precisely. Thank you.
There are valid complaints about Apple's app distribution model. But it seems that people are struggling to accurately describe those valid complaints.
I realize we posted at the same time, but please read my reply in case you missed it:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...5&postcount=90
The key point you're missing is that every human shares the same hardware (body) and software (brain) and so there is no lock-in. I can choose to shop at Wal-Mart or choose to shop at Big Tits Books--or I can shop at both. There are no extra or hidden costs to me, because my eyes and brain can read a magazine from any source.
However, If I have an iPhone ($200) running iOS4 that runs only on Apple hardware on AT&T (2-year contract, minimum $70/mo = $1680) and dozens or hundreds of movies ($10+ a pop) and books ($10+ a pop), I have thousands and thousands of dollars invested in that platform.
If I can't get Hustler on the iPhone, am I going to throw away that investment of thousands of dollars? Is that in any way comparable to shopping at Wal-Mart vs. Big Tits Books?
No, of course not.
I would agree that there are valid complaints about Apple's app store distribution model.
"Thousands and thousands of dollars" though? That seems like overstating the case a bit. While it could be true for you, the typical non-transferable software/media investment is probably less than $100. Keep in mind that the music is now DRM free. As for software being non-transferable, that is true of pretty much every computing platform now and throughout all of history.
Those other costs don't seem to have anything to do with the App store or Apple. I would agree that the phone/phone-service pricing model is bad. I'd even call it somewhat predatory. Subsidized hardware with higher monthly bills and a minimum contract period always seems like a bad situation for consumers. Note how the monthly bill doesn't go back down after having paid off the subsidized hardware.
So again, i'll agree that there are reasonable complaints to be made about the phone industry as well as Apple's roll in it. But it seems that people are struggling to voice those complaints in an accurate and reasonable manner. All of the topics are getting muddled together and terminology is being used rather loosely.
To illustrate this point, I think Solipsism would agree with much of the above despite him jumping in to correct the usage of the term "free-market". (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)
I would agree that there are valid complaints about Apple's app store distribution model.
"Thousands and thousands of dollars" though? That seems like overstating the case a bit. While it could be true for you, the typical non-transferable software/media investment is probably less than $100. Keep in mind that the music is now DRM free. As for software being non-transferable, that is true of pretty much every computing platform now and throughout all of history.
Those other costs don't seem to have anything to do with the App store or Apple. I would agree that the phone/phone-service pricing model is bad. I'd even call it somewhat predatory. Subsidized hardware with higher monthly bills and a minimum contract period always seems like a bad situation for consumers. Note how the monthly bill doesn't go back down after having paid off the subsidized hardware.
So again, i'll agree that there are reasonable complaints to be made about the phone industry as well as Apple's roll in it. But it seems that people are struggling to voice those complaints in an accurate and reasonable manner. All of the topics are getting muddled together and terminology is being used rather loosely.
To illustrate this point, I think Solipsism would agree with much of the above despite him jumping in to correct the usage of the term "free-market". (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)
Others may be, but I'm certainly not "struggling to voice those complaints". My complaints are detailed and specific. (Where is solipsism now?)
This is nothing like the PC industry. Sure, if you buy a PC and switch to a Mac, you'll have to re-purchase some software. In some cases, though, such as Adobe, you can switch your license for a small fee. This can't be done when switching to Android. why? Because Apple does not give software sellers any information (not even an email address) about the customers their software is sold to. So there's no way to verify a person is your customer. So how can you give them a discount on switching to another platform?
Also Apple controls what software is sold on the iDevices, unlike the Mac, where you can get software anywhere. So a company may want to produce an iApp, but Apple won't allow it to be sold by them--or anyone else.
I didn't mention music, so please don't bring that into the picture. I specifically mentioned books and video (movies, TV shows). Both are heavily DRMed. In apps alone, Apple has sold almost one and a half a billion dollars to its almost 100,000,000-iDevice customers. That's $14/device--a lot, when you consider it's only been a year or so that these huge number of devices have existed. Certainly, huge numbers of people have hundreds of dollars invested.
And video & books will probably sell a lot better on the iPad with its larger screen. And, over time, people/families will buy more and more content. More hundreds of dollars invested in the platform.
And unlike physical books and movies, you cannot sell these if you switch platforms. You just lose them. On the PC platform, iTunes/Quicktime runs on both Mac and Windows. On portable devices, it's iOS or nothing.
So the DRM lock-in (in addition to the 2year contracts mentioned previously) means that customers are forced to not stray from Apple devices for fear of losing their entire media/app investment.
Thus customers have no choice but to buy and consume apps that only Apple says are OK, using content that Apple has specific rules for (Apple controls not only what apps users can buy, but also the policies on how to use them! For example, every "chat" app has rules about provocative language or partial nudity in profile pictures--Apple is controlling apps *and* content, i.e., how *you* use the app you paid for!)
Doesn't that scare you?
Others may be, but I'm certainly not "struggling to voice those complaints". My complaints are detailed and specific. (Where is solipsism now?)
This is nothing like the PC industry. Sure, if you buy a PC and switch to a Mac, you'll have to re-purchase some software. In some cases, though, such as Adobe, you can switch your license for a small fee. This can't be done when switching to Android. why? Because Apple does not give software sellers any information (not even an email address) about the customers their software is sold to. So there's no way to verify a person is your customer. So how can you give them a discount on switching to another platform?
Also Apple controls what software is sold on the iDevices, unlike the Mac, where you can get software anywhere. So a company may want to produce an iApp, but Apple won't allow it to be sold by them--or anyone else.
I didn't mention music, so please don't bring that into the picture. I specifically mentioned books and video (movies, TV shows). Both are heavily DRMed. In apps alone, Apple has sold almost one and a half a billion dollars to its almost 100,000,000-iDevice customers. That's $14/device--a lot, when you consider it's only been a year or so that these huge number of devices have existed. Certainly, huge numbers of people have hundreds of dollars invested.
And video & books will probably sell a lot better on the iPad with its larger screen. And, over time, people/families will buy more and more content. More hundreds of dollars invested in the platform.
And unlike physical books and movies, you cannot sell these if you switch platforms. You just lose them. On the PC platform, iTunes/Quicktime runs on both Mac and Windows. On portable devices, it's iOS or nothing.
So the DRM lock-in (in addition to the 2year contracts mentioned previously) means that customers are forced to not stray from Apple devices for fear of losing their entire media/app investment.
Thus customers have no choice but to buy and consume apps that only Apple says are OK, using content that Apple has specific rules for (Apple controls not only what apps users can buy, but also the policies on how to use them! For example, every "chat" app has rules about provocative language or partial nudity in profile pictures--Apple is controlling apps *and* content, i.e., how *you* use the app you paid for!)
Doesn't that scare you?
Well you're complaints are definitely specific, but I wouldn't go so far as to say detailed. I feel your pain and even agree with the sentiment. Where I like to temper that sentiment is in our perspective on the topic.
To put the valid criticism in perspective:
* Software has never been transferable between platforms.
* Apple would love to sell DRM free media and does exactly that when content owners permit it.
* AT&T is the entity requiring a 2 year contract. Where not contractually prohibited from selling a contract free phone, apple does exactly that.
* All stores have criteria for what they sell and what they choose not to sell.
If looking to enact change and push the balance of power back to consumers, it is important to recognize who is doing what and how that compares to the rest of the business world.
To answer your question, I'm not scared of Apple's iOS platform. Instead, I am happily vigilant. If apple becomes the only option, then their current business practices would be bad for consumers. However, with multiple vertically integrated hardware/software/app-store options available to consumers, the situation is actually quite good, or perhaps even excellent.
Personally, I'm not feeling locked in because I chose to not invested in a media library known to only work on a single platform. Consumers have the choice to avoid this problem. There is nobody forcing us to buy badly DRM'd media.
Well I guess we're just going in circles, because my last 3 posts addressed all of your it's-not-Apple's-fault lines of reasoning.
We've failed to communicate if you are interpreting my position as "it's-not-Apple's-fault".
I've bent over backwards to make it clear that there are valid complaints about Apple. However, those complaints are being bundled with a bunch of other nonsense. Teasing those apart should not be viewed as absolving Apple of criticism.