Apple is opening itself for an antitrust case by removing competition from the store.
Can't understand why there are a lot of people dumping on this excellent observation.
There's no accounting for wishful thinking. Regardless of what the anti-antitrusters believe, this will cause a great deal of short-term problems for Apple, especially with the Congressional anti-trust on big tech expected soon. Ultimately it may resolve in Apple's favor -- or not -- but to pretend that this will not cause problems is silly.
The original comment is total BS but your response has validity because you have qualified it with the word “congressional.” Another equivalent way of saying the same thing would be to say “if you suspend logic, facts, and legal precedent” then the original comment may carry water, at least in a similar manner that a high capacity diaper is able to absorb a fair amount of moisture.
The original comment is total bullshit but the initial response has only some validity and is partially bullshit, if even based on the ignorance of the respondent.
To not understand why cb is being dumped on is laughable. The guy is incorrect. And he came here, like the other troll, merely to troll. There is another poster who's clearly as clueless.
As someone previously pointed out, this is conflating anti-trust with optics and purporting them to be the same. That's ridiculous.
Now it's entirely possible that some clever wag in Congress with try to do the same as burr's defender, thinking they're smarter than Apple's lawyers but will get schooled accordingly.
To pretend this will cause Apple any problem, let alone one of significance, is silly. Imagined anti-trust issues might have some sway in a jury trial were jurors can be baffled by bullshit, but Congress will have to rely more on factual evidence.
Beats said: It's really dumb logic. Apple was being nice by offering shelf space to 3rd parties at all. This is like your neighbor feeling sorry for your kid and allowing him to mow his lawn but when your neighbor hires a professional service you wanna sue because it's not fair!!
That's a really dumb statement. Apple was not "being nice". There was no "You know how could use a break selling their stuff– Master and Dynamics! Oh, and struggling B&W!"
No, it was a sound business decision to bring some third-party products into the Apple Stores. Over all, it attracts more customers. That's sound business.
Now that Apple might be bringing out a line of their own headphones, getting rid of the competition is also a sound business practice. Having the customer focus on this new Apple line is a sound business practice. It will offend people who don't know dick about anti-trust and people who believe a non-Apple product that's been in the Stores for some time has earned tenant's rights. As stupid as feeling offended or otherwise put off as that is, the self-righteous indignation will subside and it will have never caused Apple a tick's bother.
Japhey said: 10 years ago my friends and I would say “Cool, let’s go to the Apple Store!” Now we’re more like “Ugh, we have to go to the Apple Store”. We’re a small sample size, but I know we’re not the only ones with that attitude as I’ve talked with several other people on here about it in the past. I was being rhetorical when I asked if I was the only one, lol. Anyway, consider yourself lucky your own experiences are still positive.
Talk about a head up ass response. First, not only are Apple Stores not what they were 10yrs ago, but you and your small sample size and "several other people" are – wait for it— still a small sample size, and I'm guessing small enough to be near inconsequential. So maybe it's you who should consider yourselves (that's you, your small sample group, and the "several other people, wherever they are" unlucky your own experiences are (apparently) not positive.
Speaking of pre-COVID times: I have lived near four Apple Stores, five if I want an additional 25-30 minute drive) and for the last ~10 years, they've been packed almost every day, severely impacting the chances of getting a walk-in appointment. So much so that all five have expanded their floor space, two of them by four times the square footage. Now they'e no longer packed, just crowded. So much so that employees now "triage" customers when the store opens to get them to an associate for whatever particular want the customer has.
You're feelings and impressions are yours and I wouldn't argue against you having them, just that I believe they are in the underwhelming minority. more so than you care to believe.
Now that Apple might be bringing out a line of their own headphones, getting rid of the competition is also a sound business practice. Having the customer focus on this new Apple line is a sound business practice. It will offend people who don't know dick about anti-trust and people who believe a non-Apple product that's been in the Stores for some time has earned tenant's rights. As stupid as feeling offended or otherwise put off as that is, the self-righteous indignation will subside and it will have never caused Apple a tick's bother...
I would just enhance this by pointing out that they're not even "getting rid of the competition." They're just no longer displaying the competition themelves. You can still purchase those products elsewhere.
Comments
To not understand why cb is being dumped on is laughable. The guy is incorrect. And he came here, like the other troll, merely to troll. There is another poster who's clearly as clueless.
As someone previously pointed out, this is conflating anti-trust with optics and purporting them to be the same. That's ridiculous.
Now it's entirely possible that some clever wag in Congress with try to do the same as burr's defender, thinking they're smarter than Apple's lawyers but will get schooled accordingly.
To pretend this will cause Apple any problem, let alone one of significance, is silly. Imagined anti-trust issues might have some sway in a jury trial were jurors can be baffled by bullshit, but Congress will have to rely more on factual evidence.
That's a really dumb statement. Apple was not "being nice". There was no "You know how could use a break selling their stuff– Master and Dynamics! Oh, and struggling B&W!"
No, it was a sound business decision to bring some third-party products into the Apple Stores. Over all, it attracts more customers. That's sound business.
Now that Apple might be bringing out a line of their own headphones, getting rid of the competition is also a sound business practice. Having the customer focus on this new Apple line is a sound business practice. It will offend people who don't know dick about anti-trust and people who believe a non-Apple product that's been in the Stores for some time has earned tenant's rights. As stupid as feeling offended or otherwise put off as that is, the self-righteous indignation will subside and it will have never caused Apple a tick's bother.
Talk about a head up ass response. First, not only are Apple Stores not what they were 10yrs ago, but you and your small sample size and "several other people" are – wait for it— still a small sample size, and I'm guessing small enough to be near inconsequential. So maybe it's you who should consider yourselves (that's you, your small sample group, and the "several other people, wherever they are" unlucky your own experiences are (apparently) not positive.
Speaking of pre-COVID times: I have lived near four Apple Stores, five if I want an additional 25-30 minute drive) and for the last ~10 years, they've been packed almost every day, severely impacting the chances of getting a walk-in appointment. So much so that all five have expanded their floor space, two of them by four times the square footage. Now they'e no longer packed, just crowded. So much so that employees now "triage" customers when the store opens to get them to an associate for whatever particular want the customer has.
You're feelings and impressions are yours and I wouldn't argue against you having them, just that I believe they are in the underwhelming minority. more so than you care to believe.