Actually, the key reason for upholding Apple’s model is, choice. If Apple are forced to open iOS to other App stores they follow the fragmented model of the other platforms leaving us no integrated option for a mainstream mobile platform. Apple’s closed system currently gives us that option.
That's fine on paper but the moment Apple opened iOS to third party apps, through its own obligatory store and began taking a piece of the pie from developers and establishing how much, there was the risk of someone taking issue with the situation and placing a formal complaint.
I think Apple will have an easier time arguing the benefits of how their platform works (security, privacy, stability etc.) than the plaintiffs will arguing that consumers/developers are hurt by allegedly anti-competitive behavior from Apple. The only people arguing this are geeks who want to be able to tinker around with their hardware and software. And even when jailbreaking was still a thing it was usually either piracy or to get around a restriction (like their telecom data plan not allowing tethering). How many people were jailbreaking to get an app cheaper or an app not on the App Store (that wasn’t breaking any rules, using private APIs etc.)? My guess is not many.
I often scratch my head when commenters try to call Apple a monopoly and anti-competitive inside their own ecosystem. Apple is a company who, while it is the largest company in the world by market capitalization, has a minority market share in just about every market in which it participates. So you can’t install any apps outside the App Store? How is Apple being anti-competitive when you can literally walk across the street and get an Android phone for FREE from any of a dozen cellphone stores and load anything you want to on your new phone? The “It’s my device and I can do anything I want with it” crowd always tries to peddle its twaddle about Apple being a monopoly that should be broken up. Gimme a break. I’m hoping the SCOTUS shuts this down but who knows.
It isn't as simple as that. If you look at things from a vendor perspective, Apple is far from small fry and can effectively have monopolistic behaviour on key components and their availability. It is attempting to secure key components right now which could have a disastrous effect on smaller players.
Apple as an OS platform is not a monopoly but the company can be monopolistic in creating the hardware platform that the OS runs on from a supply chain perspective.
That is monopsony behavior, not monopoly behavior, and is quite legal.
You probably aren't aware that all of those profits that Apple generates make it quite easy for Apple to purchase massive future supplies of NAND and LPDDR memory at guaranteed volumes and pricing. As Apple uses an estimated 30% of the world's supply, capturing large supplies of components is a necessity. This goes as well for a number to tentpole feature components like FaceID and customized OLED displays.
It is also the case that since Apple build such large volumes of few models, they often cannot take advantage of boutique technologies that are in limited supply. Hence why so many Android OS users are always bragging about their leading features, though curiously, always in limited edition models that find few buyers.
avon b7 said: Never say never. It wasn't long ago that carriers were forced to share infrastructure.
Orange is currently installing Fibre in my street but will have to open it up to its competitors. State bodies along with the carriers themselves negotiate the terms but they have no option but to accept the situation.
Because Orange does not own the street. See how that works. Orange has a choice. They could decide not to build out the fibre, but perhaps they find it acceptable to play by the government rules. Same thing with Apple and its customers. The customer can decide not to purchase an iPhone but most decide it is acceptable and perhaps even advantageous to play by Apple's rules.
to open ios to others stores (to the user's discretion) would be good for consumers.
Enjoy your malware. Explain the legal obligation Apple has to give you other stores, considering its status in the market.
I'm sure if Apple did that, it would open them up to all kinds of new lawsuits. It's already ridiculous as it is when parents sue Apple after their children rack up thousands on the App Store. We unfortunately now live in a blame everyone else society.
From a consumer point of view there is no anti-competitive behaviour: you cannot buy a Mercedes at a BMW dealer.
For an app developer this is a slightly different story. You can only sell your iOS app via the App Store, at the business conditions imposed by Apple. This might be considered as anti-competitive behaviour. But of course this is not at stake at the Supreme Court
But the consumer might be able to buy certain PARTS to fit his Mercedes from the BMW dealer. The Mercedes dealer cannot prevent parts from being used on the owner's vehicle that didn't come directly from Mercedes... Magnuson Moss.
That would be the more proper comparison IMHO. No one is arguing that you should be able to buy the entire iPhone from anyone but Apple.
But if people could install any mods or accessories that they want, it might interfere with the UX. Then they would be unhappy and blame Mercedes.
to open ios to others stores (to the user's discretion) would be good for consumers.
Enjoy your malware. Explain the legal obligation Apple has to give you other stores, considering its status in the market.
I'm sure if Apple did that, it would open them up to all kinds of new lawsuits. It's already ridiculous as it is when parents sue Apple after their children rack up thousands on the App Store. We unfortunately now live in a blame everyone else society.
Exactly. It would be like if you could replace the brakes on your car with parts from some third party company.
Apple Created the iPhone. Apple created the App market and Apps to run on the iPhone. Apple created it all and opened it up for others to create and sell apps in the app store. If you don't like it, don't buy a iPhone. So Android which has a much larger market share. Android for the most part is also locked to Google's App store. You can Unlock it, but few do outside of China. It's a virus infested hell inside China for Android devices. Google is not there taking control of the market.
This is also no different from Game Consoles. MS controls any apps going onto the Xbox. Sony controls what goes onto the Playstation. Nintendo controls what goes on their system.
It's not like Apple is tricking you either. There's zero surprise that you can't get apps someplace else. This whole thing is laughable. App's have gotten so cheap, they've turned into expensive as Freemium. I'd rather pay $9.99 for a full, complete working app, then what many of these Freemium apps could end up costing you.
I think Apple created part of this problem. Because you can't demo a app. So it's either Free or Fremium or you pay for it and then try it. I think All Apps should have a Demo mode, whatever the developer wants, and then if you like it and want to keep using it, you pay the price for it. Because we don't have this, Freemium games have taken over the market and I really can't stand it. The original games were great for many, and then a new Freemium version comes out, and it'\s screwed up the game completely. At this point, I just don't download them. I sure as hell don't pay for that crap.
avon b7 said: Never say never. It wasn't long ago that carriers were forced to share infrastructure.
Orange is currently installing Fibre in my street but will have to open it up to its competitors. State bodies along with the carriers themselves negotiate the terms but they have no option but to accept the situation.
Because Orange does not own the street. See how that works. Orange has a choice. They could decide not to build out the fibre, but perhaps they find it acceptable to play by the government rules. Same thing with Apple and its customers. The customer can decide not to purchase an iPhone but most decide it is acceptable and perhaps even advantageous to play by Apple's rules.
This is not correct. Orange and all the other top tier carriers in Spain require a licence to operate. They have a legal requirement to provide coverage. If this requirement did not exist, fibre would never break out of the cities where it was profitable and a nationalised industry would be necessary (something the carriers obviously do not want) to reach less profitable areas. Communications is not a luxury, it is a 'general interest' infrastructure and is why there are still phone boxes (much less, though) out on the streets.
Of course, you can't roll out fibre to 60 million people in one foul swoop, so for obvious reasons, the most densely populated areas were covered first with smaller towns coming later. There have also been knock on advantages. They are not digging up streets (as happened in Barcelona for example) but taking advantage of existing sewage systems. Also, copper is being phased out completely so the existing overhead lines will disappear.
It also doesn't make sense for each operator to take its infrastructure to the front door of each potential customer. That's why, in my street, Orange is handling all the street work but I will be able to choose from any operator for the actual service.
I often scratch my head when commenters try to call Apple a monopoly and anti-competitive inside their own ecosystem. Apple is a company who, while it is the largest company in the world by market capitalization, has a minority market share in just about every market in which it participates. So you can’t install any apps outside the App Store? How is Apple being anti-competitive when you can literally walk across the street and get an Android phone for FREE from any of a dozen cellphone stores and load anything you want to on your new phone? The “It’s my device and I can do anything I want with it” crowd always tries to peddle its twaddle about Apple being a monopoly that should be broken up. Gimme a break. I’m hoping the SCOTUS shuts this down but who knows.
It isn't as simple as that. If you look at things from a vendor perspective, Apple is far from small fry and can effectively have monopolistic behaviour on key components and their availability. It is attempting to secure key components right now which could have a disastrous effect on smaller players.
Apple as an OS platform is not a monopoly but the company can be monopolistic in creating the hardware platform that the OS runs on from a supply chain perspective.
That is monopsony behavior, not monopoly behavior, and is quite legal.
You probably aren't aware that all of those profits that Apple generates make it quite easy for Apple to purchase massive future supplies of NAND and LPDDR memory at guaranteed volumes and pricing. As Apple uses an estimated 30% of the world's supply, capturing large supplies of components is a necessity. This goes as well for a number to tentpole feature components like FaceID and customized OLED displays.
It is also the case that since Apple build such large volumes of few models, they often cannot take advantage of boutique technologies that are in limited supply. Hence why so many Android OS users are always bragging about their leading features, though curiously, always in limited edition models that find few buyers.
I said monopolistic behaviour. You may label it as you wish but definitely not monopsony. Apple doesn't have the clout to be that on an industry level but it can operate in a monopolistic way at a vendor level and have a negative effect on competition. Having more money is irrelevant and could even be counterproductive. Having too much money to support your behaviour can be considered a factor in any competition ruling.
As for 'boutique technologies', it is precisely Apple's cash hoard that makes them entirely doable on iPhones. It simply chooses not to. As for tent pole features like FaceID, I will remind you that there is nothing new in the mechanics for FaceID hardware. As launched, it was little more than another biometric option (more secure but TouchID was more than secure enough for payments to begin with) with a couple of extras. Honor demoed its own solution (including amoji-like tongue recognition) weeks after Apple's, using the same basic idea but taken to another level. Something that had clearly been in the works for some time. Apple's (and Huawei's) advantage was in the processing - the NPU. Honor later revealed that implementing it today would push the price of the handset up too far and they were already investing in the triple camera array. They also took things beyond Face ID biometric authentication and into sub millimetre precision, small object 3D modelling including hand removal and avatars etc). Not forgetting of course that FaceID only debuted on one of the three new phones which represents a fraction of its overall sales.
Huawei/Honor already had a stunningly fast facial recognition system and AI to handle different aspects related to its use (revealing notifications, eye tracking to turn off screen etc).
From a consumer point of view there is no anti-competitive behaviour: you cannot buy a Mercedes at a BMW dealer.
Yes you can, maybe not in 'merica but certainly, I can walk into a BMW garage here in Scotland and drive away with a Mercedes. In fact, a few years back I bought a run around 3 series from a Ford dealer. I drive past a Peugeot garage on my way to work this morning - they have two delivery-miles Toyota HiLux fully kitted out on the forecourt. I couldn't order a brand new one there personally of course but that's more to do with business contracts and logistics rather than any laws - nothing stopping the garage buying in the cars unregistered and selling them however, which some do.
This is not correct. Orange and all the other top tier carriers in Spain require a licence to operate. They have a legal requirement to provide coverage. If this requirement did not exist, fibre would never break out of the cities where it was profitable and a nationalised industry would be necessary (something the carriers obviously do not want) to reach less profitable areas. Communications is not a luxury, it is a 'general interest' infrastructure and is why there are still phone boxes (much less, though) out on the streets.
Well I know nothing about Spain, although I want to visit there soon. We have similar regulations in the US but only in regard to cell service, not broadband cable, at least not to my knowledge. More common here in the US regarding broadband is that individual cities contract with a carrier and give them exclusive rights to provide internet in exchange for installing the infrastructure. As a consumer you don't usually get a choice of provider since there is often only one, but it would certainly be allowed within the contract to require sharing of the infrastructure, although it is seldom if ever done.
I often scratch my head when commenters try to call Apple a monopoly and anti-competitive inside their own ecosystem. Apple is a company who, while it is the largest company in the world by market capitalization, has a minority market share in just about every market in which it participates. So you can’t install any apps outside the App Store? How is Apple being anti-competitive when you can literally walk across the street and get an Android phone for FREE from any of a dozen cellphone stores and load anything you want to on your new phone? The “It’s my device and I can do anything I want with it” crowd always tries to peddle its twaddle about Apple being a monopoly that should be broken up. Gimme a break. I’m hoping the SCOTUS shuts this down but who knows.
It isn't as simple as that. If you look at things from a vendor perspective, Apple is far from small fry and can effectively have monopolistic behaviour on key components and their availability. It is attempting to secure key components right now which could have a disastrous effect on smaller players.
Apple as an OS platform is not a monopoly but the company can be monopolistic in creating the hardware platform that the OS runs on from a supply chain perspective.
That is monopsony behavior, not monopoly behavior, and is quite legal.
You probably aren't aware that all of those profits that Apple generates make it quite easy for Apple to purchase massive future supplies of NAND and LPDDR memory at guaranteed volumes and pricing. As Apple uses an estimated 30% of the world's supply, capturing large supplies of components is a necessity. This goes as well for a number to tentpole feature components like FaceID and customized OLED displays.
It is also the case that since Apple build such large volumes of few models, they often cannot take advantage of boutique technologies that are in limited supply. Hence why so many Android OS users are always bragging about their leading features, though curiously, always in limited edition models that find few buyers.
I said monopolistic behaviour. You may label it as you wish but definitely not monopsony. Apple doesn't have the clout to be that on an industry level but it can operate in a monopolistic way at a vendor level and have a negative effect on competition. Having more money is irrelevant and could even be counterproductive. Having too much money to support your behaviour can be considered a factor in any competition ruling.
As for 'boutique technologies', it is precisely Apple's cash hoard that makes them entirely doable on iPhones. It simply chooses not to. As for tent pole features like FaceID, I will remind you that there is nothing new in the mechanics for FaceID hardware. As launched, it was little more than another biometric option (more secure but TouchID was more than secure enough for payments to begin with) with a couple of extras. Honor demoed its own solution (including amoji-like tongue recognition) weeks after Apple's, using the same basic idea but taken to another level. Something that had clearly been in the works for some time. Apple's (and Huawei's) advantage was in the processing - the NPU. Honor later revealed that implementing it today would push the price of the handset up too far and they were already investing in the triple camera array. They also took things beyond Face ID biometric authentication and into sub millimetre precision, small object 3D modelling including hand removal and avatars etc). Not forgetting of course that FaceID only debuted on one of the three new phones which represents a fraction of its overall sales.
Huawei/Honor already had a stunningly fast facial recognition system and AI to handle different aspects related to its use (revealing notifications, eye tracking to turn off screen etc).
I often scratch my head when commenters try to call Apple a monopoly and anti-competitive inside their own ecosystem. Apple is a company who, while it is the largest company in the world by market capitalization, has a minority market share in just about every market in which it participates. So you can’t install any apps outside the App Store? How is Apple being anti-competitive when you can literally walk across the street and get an Android phone for FREE from any of a dozen cellphone stores and load anything you want to on your new phone? The “It’s my device and I can do anything I want with it” crowd always tries to peddle its twaddle about Apple being a monopoly that should be broken up. Gimme a break. I’m hoping the SCOTUS shuts this down but who knows.
It isn't as simple as that. If you look at things from a vendor perspective, Apple is far from small fry and can effectively have monopolistic behaviour on key components and their availability. It is attempting to secure key components right now which could have a disastrous effect on smaller players.
Apple as an OS platform is not a monopoly but the company can be monopolistic in creating the hardware platform that the OS runs on from a supply chain perspective.
That is monopsony behavior, not monopoly behavior, and is quite legal.
You probably aren't aware that all of those profits that Apple generates make it quite easy for Apple to purchase massive future supplies of NAND and LPDDR memory at guaranteed volumes and pricing. As Apple uses an estimated 30% of the world's supply, capturing large supplies of components is a necessity. This goes as well for a number to tentpole feature components like FaceID and customized OLED displays.
It is also the case that since Apple build such large volumes of few models, they often cannot take advantage of boutique technologies that are in limited supply. Hence why so many Android OS users are always bragging about their leading features, though curiously, always in limited edition models that find few buyers.
I said monopolistic behaviour. You may label it as you wish but definitely not monopsony. Apple doesn't have the clout to be that on an industry level but it can operate in a monopolistic way at a vendor level and have a negative effect on competition. Having more money is irrelevant and could even be counterproductive. Having too much money to support your behaviour can be considered a factor in any competition ruling.
As for 'boutique technologies', it is precisely Apple's cash hoard that makes them entirely doable on iPhones. It simply chooses not to. As for tent pole features like FaceID, I will remind you that there is nothing new in the mechanics for FaceID hardware. As launched, it was little more than another biometric option (more secure but TouchID was more than secure enough for payments to begin with) with a couple of extras. Honor demoed its own solution (including amoji-like tongue recognition) weeks after Apple's, using the same basic idea but taken to another level. Something that had clearly been in the works for some time. Apple's (and Huawei's) advantage was in the processing - the NPU. Honor later revealed that implementing it today would push the price of the handset up too far and they were already investing in the triple camera array. They also took things beyond Face ID biometric authentication and into sub millimetre precision, small object 3D modelling including hand removal and avatars etc). Not forgetting of course that FaceID only debuted on one of the three new phones which represents a fraction of its overall sales.
Huawei/Honor already had a stunningly fast facial recognition system and AI to handle different aspects related to its use (revealing notifications, eye tracking to turn off screen etc).
I often scratch my head when commenters try to call Apple a monopoly and anti-competitive inside their own ecosystem. Apple is a company who, while it is the largest company in the world by market capitalization, has a minority market share in just about every market in which it participates. So you can’t install any apps outside the App Store? How is Apple being anti-competitive when you can literally walk across the street and get an Android phone for FREE from any of a dozen cellphone stores and load anything you want to on your new phone? The “It’s my device and I can do anything I want with it” crowd always tries to peddle its twaddle about Apple being a monopoly that should be broken up. Gimme a break. I’m hoping the SCOTUS shuts this down but who knows.
It isn't as simple as that. If you look at things from a vendor perspective, Apple is far from small fry and can effectively have monopolistic behaviour on key components and their availability. It is attempting to secure key components right now which could have a disastrous effect on smaller players.
Apple as an OS platform is not a monopoly but the company can be monopolistic in creating the hardware platform that the OS runs on from a supply chain perspective.
That is monopsony behavior, not monopoly behavior, and is quite legal.
You probably aren't aware that all of those profits that Apple generates make it quite easy for Apple to purchase massive future supplies of NAND and LPDDR memory at guaranteed volumes and pricing. As Apple uses an estimated 30% of the world's supply, capturing large supplies of components is a necessity. This goes as well for a number to tentpole feature components like FaceID and customized OLED displays.
It is also the case that since Apple build such large volumes of few models, they often cannot take advantage of boutique technologies that are in limited supply. Hence why so many Android OS users are always bragging about their leading features, though curiously, always in limited edition models that find few buyers.
I said monopolistic behaviour. You may label it as you wish but definitely not monopsony. Apple doesn't have the clout to be that on an industry level but it can operate in a monopolistic way at a vendor level and have a negative effect on competition. Having more money is irrelevant and could even be counterproductive. Having too much money to support your behaviour can be considered a factor in any competition ruling.
As for 'boutique technologies', it is precisely Apple's cash hoard that makes them entirely doable on iPhones. It simply chooses not to. As for tent pole features like FaceID, I will remind you that there is nothing new in the mechanics for FaceID hardware. As launched, it was little more than another biometric option (more secure but TouchID was more than secure enough for payments to begin with) with a couple of extras. Honor demoed its own solution (including amoji-like tongue recognition) weeks after Apple's, using the same basic idea but taken to another level. Something that had clearly been in the works for some time. Apple's (and Huawei's) advantage was in the processing - the NPU. Honor later revealed that implementing it today would push the price of the handset up too far and they were already investing in the triple camera array. They also took things beyond Face ID biometric authentication and into sub millimetre precision, small object 3D modelling including hand removal and avatars etc). Not forgetting of course that FaceID only debuted on one of the three new phones which represents a fraction of its overall sales.
Huawei/Honor already had a stunningly fast facial recognition system and AI to handle different aspects related to its use (revealing notifications, eye tracking to turn off screen etc).
"Kuo's predictions come on the heels of a report that estimated Apple to have a two-year head start over the Android camp in what is becoming a 3D sensing arms race. Suppliers of VCSEL modules and optical filters said they are unlikely to reach production levels adequate for wide adoption until 2019.
Apple, on the other hand, gobbled up parts supply for iPhone X and inked an exclusive deal with key manufacturer Finisar in 2017, promising a substantial leg up on the competition.
Even if companies like Huawei shift from structured light to ToF, supply will continue to be constrained as the two technologies share a number of components including hard to get VCSEL arrays."
Your team Huawei is currently using its front facing camera, not VCSEL. Fast, but is it as secure as Face ID?
I often scratch my head when commenters try to call Apple a monopoly and anti-competitive inside their own ecosystem. Apple is a company who, while it is the largest company in the world by market capitalization, has a minority market share in just about every market in which it participates. So you can’t install any apps outside the App Store? How is Apple being anti-competitive when you can literally walk across the street and get an Android phone for FREE from any of a dozen cellphone stores and load anything you want to on your new phone? The “It’s my device and I can do anything I want with it” crowd always tries to peddle its twaddle about Apple being a monopoly that should be broken up. Gimme a break. I’m hoping the SCOTUS shuts this down but who knows.
It isn't as simple as that. If you look at things from a vendor perspective, Apple is far from small fry and can effectively have monopolistic behaviour on key components and their availability. It is attempting to secure key components right now which could have a disastrous effect on smaller players.
Apple as an OS platform is not a monopoly but the company can be monopolistic in creating the hardware platform that the OS runs on from a supply chain perspective.
That is monopsony behavior, not monopoly behavior, and is quite legal.
You probably aren't aware that all of those profits that Apple generates make it quite easy for Apple to purchase massive future supplies of NAND and LPDDR memory at guaranteed volumes and pricing. As Apple uses an estimated 30% of the world's supply, capturing large supplies of components is a necessity. This goes as well for a number to tentpole feature components like FaceID and customized OLED displays.
It is also the case that since Apple build such large volumes of few models, they often cannot take advantage of boutique technologies that are in limited supply. Hence why so many Android OS users are always bragging about their leading features, though curiously, always in limited edition models that find few buyers.
I said monopolistic behaviour. You may label it as you wish but definitely not monopsony. Apple doesn't have the clout to be that on an industry level but it can operate in a monopolistic way at a vendor level and have a negative effect on competition. Having more money is irrelevant and could even be counterproductive. Having too much money to support your behaviour can be considered a factor in any competition ruling.
As for 'boutique technologies', it is precisely Apple's cash hoard that makes them entirely doable on iPhones. It simply chooses not to. As for tent pole features like FaceID, I will remind you that there is nothing new in the mechanics for FaceID hardware. As launched, it was little more than another biometric option (more secure but TouchID was more than secure enough for payments to begin with) with a couple of extras. Honor demoed its own solution (including amoji-like tongue recognition) weeks after Apple's, using the same basic idea but taken to another level. Something that had clearly been in the works for some time. Apple's (and Huawei's) advantage was in the processing - the NPU. Honor later revealed that implementing it today would push the price of the handset up too far and they were already investing in the triple camera array. They also took things beyond Face ID biometric authentication and into sub millimetre precision, small object 3D modelling including hand removal and avatars etc). Not forgetting of course that FaceID only debuted on one of the three new phones which represents a fraction of its overall sales.
Huawei/Honor already had a stunningly fast facial recognition system and AI to handle different aspects related to its use (revealing notifications, eye tracking to turn off screen etc).
"Kuo's predictions come on the heels of a report that estimated Apple to have a two-year head start over the Android camp in what is becoming a 3D sensing arms race. Suppliers of VCSEL modules and optical filters said they are unlikely to reach production levels adequate for wide adoption until 2019.
Apple, on the other hand, gobbled up parts supply for iPhone X and inked an exclusive deal with key manufacturer Finisar in 2017, promising a substantial leg up on the competition.
Even if companies like Huawei shift from structured light to ToF, supply will continue to be constrained as the two technologies share a number of components including hard to get VCSEL arrays."
Your team Huawei is currently using its front facing camera, not VCSEL. Fast, but is it as secure as Face ID?
I've already answered you - multiple times - on this subject and just didn't want this thread to go too far off course.
Huawei has been in the VCSEL industry for far longer than Apple, and has had far more dealings with Finisar than Apple could dream of. Finisar was even one of Huawei's Golden Core partners. Their VCSEL relationship goes back more than a decade! Parts are not the problem for Huawei. If we talk about the broader Android industry, that is a different matter. Cost is the problem, and I provided you with a link in that other thread to an interview with a Huawei executive that said exactly that!
I even gave you the background information on their reasoning.
I often scratch my head when commenters try to call Apple a monopoly and anti-competitive inside their own ecosystem. Apple is a company who, while it is the largest company in the world by market capitalization, has a minority market share in just about every market in which it participates. So you can’t install any apps outside the App Store? How is Apple being anti-competitive when you can literally walk across the street and get an Android phone for FREE from any of a dozen cellphone stores and load anything you want to on your new phone? The “It’s my device and I can do anything I want with it” crowd always tries to peddle its twaddle about Apple being a monopoly that should be broken up. Gimme a break. I’m hoping the SCOTUS shuts this down but who knows.
It isn't as simple as that. If you look at things from a vendor perspective, Apple is far from small fry and can effectively have monopolistic behaviour on key components and their availability. It is attempting to secure key components right now which could have a disastrous effect on smaller players.
Apple as an OS platform is not a monopoly but the company can be monopolistic in creating the hardware platform that the OS runs on from a supply chain perspective.
That is monopsony behavior, not monopoly behavior, and is quite legal.
You probably aren't aware that all of those profits that Apple generates make it quite easy for Apple to purchase massive future supplies of NAND and LPDDR memory at guaranteed volumes and pricing. As Apple uses an estimated 30% of the world's supply, capturing large supplies of components is a necessity. This goes as well for a number to tentpole feature components like FaceID and customized OLED displays.
It is also the case that since Apple build such large volumes of few models, they often cannot take advantage of boutique technologies that are in limited supply. Hence why so many Android OS users are always bragging about their leading features, though curiously, always in limited edition models that find few buyers.
I said monopolistic behaviour. You may label it as you wish but definitely not monopsony. Apple doesn't have the clout to be that on an industry level but it can operate in a monopolistic way at a vendor level and have a negative effect on competition. Having more money is irrelevant and could even be counterproductive. Having too much money to support your behaviour can be considered a factor in any competition ruling.
As for 'boutique technologies', it is precisely Apple's cash hoard that makes them entirely doable on iPhones. It simply chooses not to. As for tent pole features like FaceID, I will remind you that there is nothing new in the mechanics for FaceID hardware. As launched, it was little more than another biometric option (more secure but TouchID was more than secure enough for payments to begin with) with a couple of extras. Honor demoed its own solution (including amoji-like tongue recognition) weeks after Apple's, using the same basic idea but taken to another level. Something that had clearly been in the works for some time. Apple's (and Huawei's) advantage was in the processing - the NPU. Honor later revealed that implementing it today would push the price of the handset up too far and they were already investing in the triple camera array. They also took things beyond Face ID biometric authentication and into sub millimetre precision, small object 3D modelling including hand removal and avatars etc). Not forgetting of course that FaceID only debuted on one of the three new phones which represents a fraction of its overall sales.
Huawei/Honor already had a stunningly fast facial recognition system and AI to handle different aspects related to its use (revealing notifications, eye tracking to turn off screen etc).
"Kuo's predictions come on the heels of a report that estimated Apple to have a two-year head start over the Android camp in what is becoming a 3D sensing arms race. Suppliers of VCSEL modules and optical filters said they are unlikely to reach production levels adequate for wide adoption until 2019.
Apple, on the other hand, gobbled up parts supply for iPhone X and inked an exclusive deal with key manufacturer Finisar in 2017, promising a substantial leg up on the competition.
Even if companies like Huawei shift from structured light to ToF, supply will continue to be constrained as the two technologies share a number of components including hard to get VCSEL arrays."
Your team Huawei is currently using its front facing camera, not VCSEL. Fast, but is it as secure as Face ID?
I've already answered you - multiple times - on this subject and just didn't want this thread to go too far off course.
Huawei has been in the VCSEL industry for far longer than Apple, and has had far more dealings with Finisar than Apple could dream of. Finisar was even one of Huawei's Golden Core partners. Their VCSEL relationship goes back more than a decade! Parts are not the problem for Huawei. If we talk about the broader Android industry, that is a different matter. Cost is the problem, and I provided you with a link in that other thread to an interview with a Huawei executive that said exactly that!
I even gave you the background information on their reasoning.
It looks like Apple is going to be buying something on the order of 120 to 140 million next generation VCSEL components from Finsar's new production facility for this fall's iPhones. Is that the kind of "far more dealings with Finisar than Apple could dream of" that you are talking about?
I often scratch my head when commenters try to call Apple a monopoly and anti-competitive inside their own ecosystem. Apple is a company who, while it is the largest company in the world by market capitalization, has a minority market share in just about every market in which it participates. So you can’t install any apps outside the App Store? How is Apple being anti-competitive when you can literally walk across the street and get an Android phone for FREE from any of a dozen cellphone stores and load anything you want to on your new phone? The “It’s my device and I can do anything I want with it” crowd always tries to peddle its twaddle about Apple being a monopoly that should be broken up. Gimme a break. I’m hoping the SCOTUS shuts this down but who knows.
It isn't as simple as that. If you look at things from a vendor perspective, Apple is far from small fry and can effectively have monopolistic behaviour on key components and their availability. It is attempting to secure key components right now which could have a disastrous effect on smaller players.
Apple as an OS platform is not a monopoly but the company can be monopolistic in creating the hardware platform that the OS runs on from a supply chain perspective.
That is monopsony behavior, not monopoly behavior, and is quite legal.
You probably aren't aware that all of those profits that Apple generates make it quite easy for Apple to purchase massive future supplies of NAND and LPDDR memory at guaranteed volumes and pricing. As Apple uses an estimated 30% of the world's supply, capturing large supplies of components is a necessity. This goes as well for a number to tentpole feature components like FaceID and customized OLED displays.
It is also the case that since Apple build such large volumes of few models, they often cannot take advantage of boutique technologies that are in limited supply. Hence why so many Android OS users are always bragging about their leading features, though curiously, always in limited edition models that find few buyers.
I said monopolistic behaviour. You may label it as you wish but definitely not monopsony. Apple doesn't have the clout to be that on an industry level but it can operate in a monopolistic way at a vendor level and have a negative effect on competition. Having more money is irrelevant and could even be counterproductive. Having too much money to support your behaviour can be considered a factor in any competition ruling.
As for 'boutique technologies', it is precisely Apple's cash hoard that makes them entirely doable on iPhones. It simply chooses not to. As for tent pole features like FaceID, I will remind you that there is nothing new in the mechanics for FaceID hardware. As launched, it was little more than another biometric option (more secure but TouchID was more than secure enough for payments to begin with) with a couple of extras. Honor demoed its own solution (including amoji-like tongue recognition) weeks after Apple's, using the same basic idea but taken to another level. Something that had clearly been in the works for some time. Apple's (and Huawei's) advantage was in the processing - the NPU. Honor later revealed that implementing it today would push the price of the handset up too far and they were already investing in the triple camera array. They also took things beyond Face ID biometric authentication and into sub millimetre precision, small object 3D modelling including hand removal and avatars etc). Not forgetting of course that FaceID only debuted on one of the three new phones which represents a fraction of its overall sales.
Huawei/Honor already had a stunningly fast facial recognition system and AI to handle different aspects related to its use (revealing notifications, eye tracking to turn off screen etc).
"Kuo's predictions come on the heels of a report that estimated Apple to have a two-year head start over the Android camp in what is becoming a 3D sensing arms race. Suppliers of VCSEL modules and optical filters said they are unlikely to reach production levels adequate for wide adoption until 2019.
Apple, on the other hand, gobbled up parts supply for iPhone X and inked an exclusive deal with key manufacturer Finisar in 2017, promising a substantial leg up on the competition.
Even if companies like Huawei shift from structured light to ToF, supply will continue to be constrained as the two technologies share a number of components including hard to get VCSEL arrays."
Your team Huawei is currently using its front facing camera, not VCSEL. Fast, but is it as secure as Face ID?
I've already answered you - multiple times - on this subject and just didn't want this thread to go too far off course.
Huawei has been in the VCSEL industry for far longer than Apple, and has had far more dealings with Finisar than Apple could dream of. Finisar was even one of Huawei's Golden Core partners. Their VCSEL relationship goes back more than a decade! Parts are not the problem for Huawei. If we talk about the broader Android industry, that is a different matter. Cost is the problem, and I provided you with a link in that other thread to an interview with a Huawei executive that said exactly that!
I even gave you the background information on their reasoning.
It looks like Apple is going to be buying something on the order of 120 to 140 million next generation VCSEL components from Finsar's new production facility for this fall's iPhones. Is that the kind of "far more dealings with Finisar than Apple could dream of" that you are talking about?
You are so full of shit.
Ah, now it's shit. Maybe it's you who should try harder.
Let me put things a different way. In spite of iPhone X and AirPod sales, VCSEL production is still higher in the optical communications area than the smartphone sector. Surprised? Finisar is far from the only company making VCSELs. There are lots (with others beginning to enter the market) and Huawei has business with more than Finisar. Apple has put money on the table to increase capacity for its own needs. Do you think Huawei (one of the most vertically integrated companies on the planet) could not do the same? Really? Philips Photonics has even said it can double or even treble its capacity for 2018 if necessary. All this just off the top my head.
Huawei has stated that it doesn't want to increase the cost of its phones unnecessarily. It decided to put more focus on the camera and AI and they now have arguably the best smartphone of 2018 and it breaking records at a price point hundreds of dollars below the iPhone X. In hindsight, what would iPhone X users prefer: FaceID - at a cost - or equivalent features from the P20 Pro for $300 less?
That's a burning question for all iPhone X owners.
I often scratch my head when commenters try to call Apple a monopoly and anti-competitive inside their own ecosystem. Apple is a company who, while it is the largest company in the world by market capitalization, has a minority market share in just about every market in which it participates. So you can’t install any apps outside the App Store? How is Apple being anti-competitive when you can literally walk across the street and get an Android phone for FREE from any of a dozen cellphone stores and load anything you want to on your new phone? The “It’s my device and I can do anything I want with it” crowd always tries to peddle its twaddle about Apple being a monopoly that should be broken up. Gimme a break. I’m hoping the SCOTUS shuts this down but who knows.
It isn't as simple as that. If you look at things from a vendor perspective, Apple is far from small fry and can effectively have monopolistic behaviour on key components and their availability. It is attempting to secure key components right now which could have a disastrous effect on smaller players.
Apple as an OS platform is not a monopoly but the company can be monopolistic in creating the hardware platform that the OS runs on from a supply chain perspective.
That is monopsony behavior, not monopoly behavior, and is quite legal.
You probably aren't aware that all of those profits that Apple generates make it quite easy for Apple to purchase massive future supplies of NAND and LPDDR memory at guaranteed volumes and pricing. As Apple uses an estimated 30% of the world's supply, capturing large supplies of components is a necessity. This goes as well for a number to tentpole feature components like FaceID and customized OLED displays.
It is also the case that since Apple build such large volumes of few models, they often cannot take advantage of boutique technologies that are in limited supply. Hence why so many Android OS users are always bragging about their leading features, though curiously, always in limited edition models that find few buyers.
I said monopolistic behaviour. You may label it as you wish but definitely not monopsony. Apple doesn't have the clout to be that on an industry level but it can operate in a monopolistic way at a vendor level and have a negative effect on competition. Having more money is irrelevant and could even be counterproductive. Having too much money to support your behaviour can be considered a factor in any competition ruling.
As for 'boutique technologies', it is precisely Apple's cash hoard that makes them entirely doable on iPhones. It simply chooses not to. As for tent pole features like FaceID, I will remind you that there is nothing new in the mechanics for FaceID hardware. As launched, it was little more than another biometric option (more secure but TouchID was more than secure enough for payments to begin with) with a couple of extras. Honor demoed its own solution (including amoji-like tongue recognition) weeks after Apple's, using the same basic idea but taken to another level. Something that had clearly been in the works for some time. Apple's (and Huawei's) advantage was in the processing - the NPU. Honor later revealed that implementing it today would push the price of the handset up too far and they were already investing in the triple camera array. They also took things beyond Face ID biometric authentication and into sub millimetre precision, small object 3D modelling including hand removal and avatars etc). Not forgetting of course that FaceID only debuted on one of the three new phones which represents a fraction of its overall sales.
Huawei/Honor already had a stunningly fast facial recognition system and AI to handle different aspects related to its use (revealing notifications, eye tracking to turn off screen etc).
"Kuo's predictions come on the heels of a report that estimated Apple to have a two-year head start over the Android camp in what is becoming a 3D sensing arms race. Suppliers of VCSEL modules and optical filters said they are unlikely to reach production levels adequate for wide adoption until 2019.
Apple, on the other hand, gobbled up parts supply for iPhone X and inked an exclusive deal with key manufacturer Finisar in 2017, promising a substantial leg up on the competition.
Even if companies like Huawei shift from structured light to ToF, supply will continue to be constrained as the two technologies share a number of components including hard to get VCSEL arrays."
Your team Huawei is currently using its front facing camera, not VCSEL. Fast, but is it as secure as Face ID?
I've already answered you - multiple times - on this subject and just didn't want this thread to go too far off course.
Huawei has been in the VCSEL industry for far longer than Apple, and has had far more dealings with Finisar than Apple could dream of. Finisar was even one of Huawei's Golden Core partners. Their VCSEL relationship goes back more than a decade! Parts are not the problem for Huawei. If we talk about the broader Android industry, that is a different matter. Cost is the problem, and I provided you with a link in that other thread to an interview with a Huawei executive that said exactly that!
I even gave you the background information on their reasoning.
It looks like Apple is going to be buying something on the order of 120 to 140 million next generation VCSEL components from Finsar's new production facility for this fall's iPhones. Is that the kind of "far more dealings with Finisar than Apple could dream of" that you are talking about?
You are so full of shit.
Ah, now it's shit. Maybe it's you who should try harder.
Let me put things a different way. In spite of iPhone X and AirPod sales, VCSEL production is still higher in the optical communications area than the smartphone sector. Surprised? Finisar is far from the only company making VCSELs. There are lots (with others beginning to enter the market) and Huawei has business with more than Finisar. Apple has put money on the table to increase capacity for its own needs. Do you think Huawei (one of the most vertically integrated companies on the planet) could not do the same? Really? Philips Photonics has even said it can double or even treble its capacity for 2018 if necessary. All this just off the top my head.
Huawei has stated that it doesn't want to increase the cost of its phones unnecessarily. It decided to put more focus on the camera and AI and they now have arguably the best smartphone of 2018 and it breaking records at a price point hundreds of dollars below the iPhone X. In hindsight, what would iPhone X users prefer: FaceID - at a cost - or equivalent features from the P20 Pro for $300 less?
That's a burning question for all iPhone X owners.
Comments
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopsony.asp
You probably aren't aware that all of those profits that Apple generates make it quite easy for Apple to purchase massive future supplies of NAND and LPDDR memory at guaranteed volumes and pricing. As Apple uses an estimated 30% of the world's supply, capturing large supplies of components is a necessity. This goes as well for a number to tentpole feature components like FaceID and customized OLED displays.
It is also the case that since Apple build such large volumes of few models, they often cannot take advantage of boutique technologies that are in limited supply. Hence why so many Android OS users are always bragging about their leading features, though curiously, always in limited edition models that find few buyers.
This is also no different from Game Consoles. MS controls any apps going onto the Xbox. Sony controls what goes onto the Playstation. Nintendo controls what goes on their system.
It's not like Apple is tricking you either. There's zero surprise that you can't get apps someplace else. This whole thing is laughable. App's have gotten so cheap, they've turned into expensive as Freemium. I'd rather pay $9.99 for a full, complete working app, then what many of these Freemium apps could end up costing you.
I think Apple created part of this problem. Because you can't demo a app. So it's either Free or Fremium or you pay for it and then try it. I think All Apps should have a Demo mode, whatever the developer wants, and then if you like it and want to keep using it, you pay the price for it. Because we don't have this, Freemium games have taken over the market and I really can't stand it. The original games were great for many, and then a new Freemium version comes out, and it'\s screwed up the game completely. At this point, I just don't download them. I sure as hell don't pay for that crap.
Of course, you can't roll out fibre to 60 million people in one foul swoop, so for obvious reasons, the most densely populated areas were covered first with smaller towns coming later. There have also been knock on advantages. They are not digging up streets (as happened in Barcelona for example) but taking advantage of existing sewage systems. Also, copper is being phased out completely so the existing overhead lines will disappear.
It also doesn't make sense for each operator to take its infrastructure to the front door of each potential customer. That's why, in my street, Orange is handling all the street work but I will be able to choose from any operator for the actual service.
As for 'boutique technologies', it is precisely Apple's cash hoard that makes them entirely doable on iPhones. It simply chooses not to. As for tent pole features like FaceID, I will remind you that there is nothing new in the mechanics for FaceID hardware. As launched, it was little more than another biometric option (more secure but TouchID was more than secure enough for payments to begin with) with a couple of extras. Honor demoed its own solution (including amoji-like tongue recognition) weeks after Apple's, using the same basic idea but taken to another level. Something that had clearly been in the works for some time. Apple's (and Huawei's) advantage was in the processing - the NPU. Honor later revealed that implementing it today would push the price of the handset up too far and they were already investing in the triple camera array. They also took things beyond Face ID biometric authentication and into sub millimetre precision, small object 3D modelling including hand removal and avatars etc). Not forgetting of course that FaceID only debuted on one of the three new phones which represents a fraction of its overall sales.
Huawei/Honor already had a stunningly fast facial recognition system and AI to handle different aspects related to its use (revealing notifications, eye tracking to turn off screen etc).
EDIT: The AI link to a previous article
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/03/23/kuo-android-devices-to-rely-on-alternate-3d-sensing-tech-after-iphone-x-takes-early-lead-with-truedepth
Deja vu all over again for you.
"Kuo's predictions come on the heels of a report that estimated Apple to have a two-year head start over the Android camp in what is becoming a 3D sensing arms race. Suppliers of VCSEL modules and optical filters said they are unlikely to reach production levels adequate for wide adoption until 2019.
Apple, on the other hand, gobbled up parts supply for iPhone X and inked an exclusive deal with key manufacturer Finisar in 2017, promising a substantial leg up on the competition.
Even if companies like Huawei shift from structured light to ToF, supply will continue to be constrained as the two technologies share a number of components including hard to get VCSEL arrays."
Your team Huawei is currently using its front facing camera, not VCSEL. Fast, but is it as secure as Face ID?
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/12/apple-awards-finisar-390-million-from-its-advanced-manufacturing-fund/
Now that's is monopsony behavior...
I've already answered you - multiple times - on this subject and just didn't want this thread to go too far off course.
Huawei has been in the VCSEL industry for far longer than Apple, and has had far more dealings with Finisar than Apple could dream of. Finisar was even one of Huawei's Golden Core partners. Their VCSEL relationship goes back more than a decade! Parts are not the problem for Huawei. If we talk about the broader Android industry, that is a different matter. Cost is the problem, and I provided you with a link in that other thread to an interview with a Huawei executive that said exactly that!
I even gave you the background information on their reasoning.
You are so full of shit.
Let me put things a different way. In spite of iPhone X and AirPod sales, VCSEL production is still higher in the optical communications area than the smartphone sector. Surprised? Finisar is far from the only company making VCSELs. There are lots (with others beginning to enter the market) and Huawei has business with more than Finisar. Apple has put money on the table to increase capacity for its own needs. Do you think Huawei (one of the most vertically integrated companies on the planet) could not do the same? Really? Philips Photonics has even said it can double or even treble its capacity for 2018 if necessary. All this just off the top my head.
Huawei has stated that it doesn't want to increase the cost of its phones unnecessarily. It decided to put more focus on the camera and AI and they now have arguably the best smartphone of 2018 and it breaking records at a price point hundreds of dollars below the iPhone X. In hindsight, what would iPhone X users prefer: FaceID - at a cost - or equivalent features from the P20 Pro for $300 less?
That's a burning question for all iPhone X owners.