Well, I really want to blame google, but they are just using their strengths. Apple is no little boy, they have everything (rightfully) now. Don't like it? Then make a better search engine.
Good point and just as Google gives Android away for free, might Apple do the same for search ads or cut charges to ads to just cover costs of running it.
You sure that you're not a closet Google-head? Because you want everything for free.
What? Who told you that? I don't want things for free. I Want great things. Apple does that.
In most countries, a 300 dollar no contract phone is expensive. a 700 dollar pc is expensive. a tablet is a luxury. On those countries (like Portugal) Apple gains 0 and the others gain everything that can be gained, especially market share and relevance. If Apple deployed a part of their ecosystem on Android (itunes, a store, iWork, ibooks, maps, safari etc), they could make a great profit without spending a lot. Have you seriously read my post?
Who told you those things would be "free"? Are they free on Apple devices? Of course not.
For example, if you buy a smartphone (FIRST TIME) it's almost certain it will be a cheap Android. With time, you go up and upgrade, but when you want/can justify a high end phone, you already invested on Android, so there's a chance a lot of people won't change platforms. How much money will they give Apple? 0.
Apple can easily change that. It's not the first time, and they didn't even tried that hard. Now imagine something as big as what i wrote on the second paragraph.
1) They say "these digital devices" and the only one with a Samsung logo is the TV, the others say mobile or tablet below them and I think they have some WWE logo on their displays.
2) Pro tip: You can post exactly where you want people to start playing a clip by adding $t=XXhXXmXXs on the URL. For example: (Note that I excluded the hours and minutes portion as it wasn't germane. You can also a single digital if there is a preceding zero)
And the phone and tablet shown are the iPhone and the iPad.
What? Who told you that? I don't want things for free. I Want great things. Apple does that.
In most countries, a 300 dollar no contract phone is expensive. a 700 dollar pc is expensive. a tablet is a luxury. On those countries (like Portugal) Apple gains 0 and the others gain everything that can be gained, especially market share and relevance. If Apple deployed a part of their ecosystem on Android (itunes, a store, iWork, ibooks, maps, safari etc), they could make a great profit without spending a lot. Have you seriously read my post?
Who told you those things would be "free"? Are they free on Apple devices? Of course not.
For example, if you buy a smartphone (FIRST TIME) it's almost certain it will be a cheap Android. With time, you go up and upgrade, but when you want/can justify a high end phone, you already invested on Android, so there's a chance a lot of people won't change platforms. How much money will they give Apple? 0.
Apple can easily change that. It's not the first time, and they didn't even tried that hard. Now imagine something as big as what i wrote on the second paragraph.
Then reread your own post. You want 'free transportation infrastructure' and 'free ultra fast internet', or did I make that up?
Then reread your own post. You want 'free transportation infrastructure' and 'free ultra fast internet', or did I make that up?
Are you doing that on purpose?
Apple earns 0 from what you pay to your (even if not "you", millions of people then) shitty internet provider and their shitty services.
If Apple deploys ultrafast internet (free of charge or very cheap. unlimited) with great services and assistance, you will change from your internet provider to Apple, and the Apple ecosystem will become even more integrated, cloud services will work better (faster internet, more reliable (so Apple can actually gain directly from this), better assistance, your data that can be useful and will be used accordingly, etc) and by default the experience will be better.
With such great experience, you (millions of people) will gladly pay Apple for iCloud/services/ecosystem and become even more tied to it. You will pay less but gain more, Apple will gain more, your provider will lose.
You are so limited...
bolded part: I do not ask for "free", i ask for "better".
Well, I really want to blame google, but they are just using their strengths. Apple is no little boy, they have everything (rightfully) now. Don't like it? Then make a better search engine.
Google has a monopoly in search. It is abusing its power with search results.
2) Pro tip: You can post exactly where you want people to start playing a clip by adding $t=XXhXXmXXs on the URL. For example: (Note that I excluded the hours and minutes portion as it wasn't germane. You can also use a single digit if there would be a preceding zero)
If deliberate, it is anti-competitive and may well be illegal. Oh, and Google, even if not illegal, it is yet another example of how your jiggering of search results (paid ads at top) is a betrayal of public trust.
Apple earns 0 from what you pay to your (even if not "you", millions of people then) shitty internet provider and their shitty services.
If Apple deploys ultrafast internet (free of charge or very cheap. unlimited) with great services and assistance, you will change from your internet provider to Apple, and the Apple ecosystem will become even more integrated, cloud services will work better (faster internet, more reliable (so Apple can actually gain directly from this), better assistance, your data that can be useful and will be used accordingly, etc) and by default the experience will be better.
With such great experience, you (millions of people) will gladly pay Apple for iCloud/services/ecosystem and become even more tied to it. You will pay less but gain more, Apple will gain more, your provider will lose.
You are so limited...
bolded part: I do not ask for "free", i ask for "better".
.
Speak for yourself, I get great internet speeds and services because I pay for it. Very few companies are end all be all. If you buy a car you have to buy gasoline and drive it on roads not sold or made by the car company. I've told you before that networks are not cheap to build, run, and maintain. Don't complain if you inexpensive service plan has lousy service. People shouldn't buy things if the ongoing costs are too expensive for them. And yes I'm doing it on purpose because you did in fact ask for that stuff to be free, and another question, is Apple the only company that should be able to make money? Should their hand be in everyone's pocket?
Do they? Is Google the only search engine available to us?
Google has almost 68% of the search inquiries - and over 4 times their nearest competitor. That's enough to easily put them in the range where their behavior should be getting scrutiny to ensure that they're not abusing their market position. Of course, they spend enough money lobbying that that isn't going to happen in the US, at least, but they're certainly in that range.
Google has almost 68% of the search inquiries - and over 4 times their nearest competitor. That's enough to easily put them in the range where their behavior should be getting scrutiny to ensure that they're not abusing their market position. Of course, they spend enough money lobbying that that isn't going to happen in the US, at least, but they're certainly in that range.
I agree that they should be scrutinized so that they don't abuse their market position but they're in no way a monopoly and that's something even you can agree on.
I agree that they should be scrutinized so that they don't abuse their market position but they're in no way a monopoly and that's something even you can agree on.
By "monopoly" I think most people refer to antitrust laws, which can apply when you get around 70% market share. So yes, they could legally speaking have a "monopoly".
In reality, very few companies every have a total monopoly. But the laws aren't written just to protect a total monopoly.
By your def, I guess Windows never had a monopoly.
That's vastly different. One could not choose a different OS when buying a PC. There were search engines before Google and there are even more after . Does Apple have a monopoly on tablets just because their market share is so high?
By "monopoly" I think most people refer to antitrust laws, which can apply when you get around 70% market share. So yes, they could legally speaking have a "monopoly".
In reality, very few companies every have a total monopoly. But the laws aren't written just to protect a total monopoly.
Mono means one and only one. Being the most popular a monopoly does not make.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
Well, I really want to blame google, but they are just using their strengths. Apple is no little boy, they have everything (rightfully) now. Don't like it? Then make a better search engine.
Good point and just as Google gives Android away for free, might Apple do the same for search ads or cut charges to ads to just cover costs of running it.
Sounds Samity Sam-fair to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
You sure that you're not a closet Google-head? Because you want everything for free.
What? Who told you that? I don't want things for free. I Want great things. Apple does that.
In most countries, a 300 dollar no contract phone is expensive. a 700 dollar pc is expensive. a tablet is a luxury. On those countries (like Portugal) Apple gains 0 and the others gain everything that can be gained, especially market share and relevance. If Apple deployed a part of their ecosystem on Android (itunes, a store, iWork, ibooks, maps, safari etc), they could make a great profit without spending a lot. Have you seriously read my post?
Who told you those things would be "free"? Are they free on Apple devices? Of course not.
For example, if you buy a smartphone (FIRST TIME) it's almost certain it will be a cheap Android. With time, you go up and upgrade, but when you want/can justify a high end phone, you already invested on Android, so there's a chance a lot of people won't change platforms. How much money will they give Apple? 0.
Apple can easily change that. It's not the first time, and they didn't even tried that hard. Now imagine something as big as what i wrote on the second paragraph.
And the phone and tablet shown are the iPhone and the iPad.
But that in itself doesn't prevent the use of the image. I see no false advertising.
Then reread your own post. You want 'free transportation infrastructure' and 'free ultra fast internet', or did I make that up?
What you are suggesting is a ok is anti competitive behavior for which Eric Schimdt was brought before congress to testify for.
As for the rest if your post, I'm glad you don't run Apple for you learned nothing from thier success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Then reread your own post. You want 'free transportation infrastructure' and 'free ultra fast internet', or did I make that up?
Are you doing that on purpose?
Apple earns 0 from what you pay to your (even if not "you", millions of people then) shitty internet provider and their shitty services.
If Apple deploys ultrafast internet (free of charge or very cheap. unlimited) with great services and assistance, you will change from your internet provider to Apple, and the Apple ecosystem will become even more integrated, cloud services will work better (faster internet, more reliable (so Apple can actually gain directly from this), better assistance, your data that can be useful and will be used accordingly, etc) and by default the experience will be better.
With such great experience, you (millions of people) will gladly pay Apple for iCloud/services/ecosystem and become even more tied to it. You will pay less but gain more, Apple will gain more, your provider will lose.
You are so limited...
bolded part: I do not ask for "free", i ask for "better".
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmarcoot
What you are suggesting is a ok is anti competitive behavior for which Eric Schimdt was brought before congress to testify for.
As for the rest if your post, I'm glad you don't run Apple for you learned nothing from thier success.
Apple's success formula: Evolution, change, new areas, new markets, disruption.
That's what we are talking about, it doesn't take a genius to figure that ecosystem is the big thing now.
if they are using their advantage unfairly to bury links then I would agree but so far there is no proof they have done anything wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
2) Pro tip: You can post exactly where you want people to start playing a clip by adding $t=XXhXXmXXs on the URL. For example:
Now, that's just being a smarty pants :-)
Click on the link and scrub like a man !
Speak for yourself, I get great internet speeds and services because I pay for it. Very few companies are end all be all. If you buy a car you have to buy gasoline and drive it on roads not sold or made by the car company. I've told you before that networks are not cheap to build, run, and maintain. Don't complain if you inexpensive service plan has lousy service. People shouldn't buy things if the ongoing costs are too expensive for them. And yes I'm doing it on purpose because you did in fact ask for that stuff to be free, and another question, is Apple the only company that should be able to make money? Should their hand be in everyone's pocket?
Do they? Is Google the only search engine available to us?
Google has almost 68% of the search inquiries - and over 4 times their nearest competitor. That's enough to easily put them in the range where their behavior should be getting scrutiny to ensure that they're not abusing their market position. Of course, they spend enough money lobbying that that isn't going to happen in the US, at least, but they're certainly in that range.
I agree that they should be scrutinized so that they don't abuse their market position but they're in no way a monopoly and that's something even you can agree on.
By "monopoly" I think most people refer to antitrust laws, which can apply when you get around 70% market share. So yes, they could legally speaking have a "monopoly".
In reality, very few companies every have a total monopoly. But the laws aren't written just to protect a total monopoly.
By your def, I guess Windows never had a monopoly.
That's vastly different. One could not choose a different OS when buying a PC. There were search engines before Google and there are even more after . Does Apple have a monopoly on tablets just because their market share is so high?
Mono means one and only one. Being the most popular a monopoly does not make.