You can get genuine parts from ifixit or no one at all.
This is progress. Referring to ifixit as a "monopoly" when it comes to Google part supply is as slow-witted as claiming getting repairs only from the Apple Store is "pro-choice". When the alternatives to tossing your broken device are buying a new phone or getting a repair at the Apple store, someone else being provided the parts to perform a repair for you literally only increase your options.
LOL...you get one option: iFixit. What happened to all the "competition" stuff?
Lol. As the title of the article says, it is one more than what Apple provides (zero). And that one option provided is a pretty good one with a good reputation. Not a bad place to be in, as far as Google is concerned.
The problem is that the title as usual is disingenuous. Google has not launched this copy of Apple’s announcement. This is also an announcement. It is scheduled for later in 2022 with is more vague than even Apple’s Early 2022. Neither Google or Samsung has an active program or a real start date.
LOL...you get one option: iFixit. What happened to all the "competition" stuff?
Lol. As the title of the article says, it is one more than what Apple provides (zero). And that one option provided is a pretty good one with a good reputation. Not a bad place to be in, as far as Google is concerned.
So a monopoly then.
Interesting use of the word. So iFixIt can have a monopoly of parts for Google phones, despite the fact that those are parts like cameras and screens, of which there are many, many others available for many other phones. That logic suggests that there is truth in claims that Apple have a monopoly on selling iOS apps.
If you can have a local monopoly on parts for a particular phone then surely you can have a local monopoly on apps for a particular phone/OS.
You are taking @mcdave reply to @muthuk_vanalingam ; out of context and injecting your own words into his.
@mcdave reply was referring to @muthuk_vanalingam description of the iFixit Store (being the only supplier of Google Pixel phone parts) ......... "And that one option provided is a pretty good one with a good reputation. Not a bad place to be in, as far as Google is concerned." Well, that description for the iFixit Store, fits the Apple App Store to a tee. Since there are people that thinks that the Apple App Store is a "monopoly", then @muthuk_vanalingam description can be construed as implying that the iFixit Store is a "monopoly". Even though @muthuk_vanalingam never directly said that the iFixit Store was a "monopoly" nor hinted that he thought it was one.
And @mcdave never said that the iFixit Store was a "monopoly", he was nearly pointing out that @muthuk_vanalingam description of it can imply that the iFixit Store was a "monopoly". Thus his reply .... "So a monopoly then."
But you brought up a very good and logical point on why the iFixit Store is not "monopoly", even though they are (for now) the only supplier of Pixel parts, with ....... "the fact that those are parts like cameras and screens, of which there are many, many others available for many other phones." Use that same logic on those that thinks the Apple App Store is a "monopoly" and you'll get a blank stare and a reply ...... "what does that have to do with it"?
You can have a local monopoly on parts for a particular phone and you can have a local monopoly on apps for a particular phone/OS. But neither of them would be the monopoly that is subject to anti-trust scrutiny, unless there was anti-competitive behavior involve. Just having a "monopoly", is not proof of anti-competitive behavior. There is nothing in current anti-trust laws that states a "monopoly", is illegal.
The truth is that if the EU and US politicians thought Apple have a "monopoly" with the Apple App Store and was abusing it, they would not need to wait and pass new laws, in order to force Apple into allowing third party stores or side loading. They would be able to do that using current anti-trust laws. The Apple App Store been the only app store for iOS, for over 12 years.
LOL...you get one option: iFixit. What happened to all the "competition" stuff?
Lol. As the title of the article says, it is one more than what Apple provides (zero). And that one option provided is a pretty good one with a good reputation. Not a bad place to be in, as far as Google is concerned.
So a monopoly then.
Interesting use of the word. So iFixIt can have a monopoly of parts for Google phones, despite the fact that those are parts like cameras and screens, of which there are many, many others available for many other phones. That logic suggests that there is truth in claims that Apple have a monopoly on selling iOS apps.
If you can have a local monopoly on parts for a particular phone then surely you can have a local monopoly on apps for a particular phone/OS.
You are taking @mcdave reply to @muthuk_vanalingam ; out of context and injecting your own words into his.
@mcdave reply was referring to @muthuk_vanalingam description of the iFixit Store (being the only supplier of Google Pixel phone parts) ......... "And that one option provided is a pretty good one with a good reputation. Not a bad place to be in, as far as Google is concerned." Well, that description for the iFixit Store, fits the Apple App Store to a tee. Since there are people that thinks that the Apple App Store is a "monopoly", then @muthuk_vanalingam description can be construed as implying that the iFixit Store is a "monopoly". Even though @muthuk_vanalingam never directly said that the iFixit Store was a "monopoly" nor hinted that he thought it was one.
And @mcdave never said that the iFixit Store was a "monopoly", he was nearly pointing out that @muthuk_vanalingam description of it can imply that the iFixit Store was a "monopoly". Thus his reply .... "So a monopoly then."
So where did I take him out of context then? I've obviously read the thread already, no need for the play-by-play.
Of course I injected my own words, otherwise I'd be replying to him with his exact same word; not much of a conversation.
But you brought up a very good and logical point on why the iFixit Store is not "monopoly", even though they are (for now) the only supplier of Pixel parts, with ....... "the fact that those are parts like cameras and screens, of which there are many, many others available for many other phones." Use that same logic on those that thinks the Apple App Store is a "monopoly" and you'll get a blank stare and a reply ...... "what does that have to do with it"?
You can have a local monopoly on parts for a particular phone and you can have a local monopoly on apps for a particular phone/OS. But neither of them would be the monopoly that is subject to anti-trust scrutiny, unless there was anti-competitive behavior involve. Just having a "monopoly", is not proof of anti-competitive behavior. There is nothing in current anti-trust laws that states a "monopoly", is illegal.
The truth is that if the EU and US politicians thought Apple have a "monopoly" with the Apple App Store and was abusing it, they would not need to wait and pass new laws, in order to force Apple into allowing third party stores or side loading. They would be able to do that using current anti-trust laws. The Apple App Store been the only app store for iOS, for over 12 years.
Ok? Not really anything to do with the point I was making, but fine. Apart from the very confusing part where you say 'the iFixit Store is not "monopoly"', and then proceed to accept that there is a monopoly, but not abuse. You should probably take a moment to decide whether you think there is a monopoly and then try again.
LOL...you get one option: iFixit. What happened to all the "competition" stuff?
Lol. As the title of the article says, it is one more than what Apple provides (zero). And that one option provided is a pretty good one with a good reputation. Not a bad place to be in, as far as Google is concerned.
So a monopoly then.
There's also a long-time agreement between Google and iBreakUfix for repairs. I'm not certain if they'll sell parts alone or only as part of a repair they do. I thought that batteries could be purchased, perhaps screens too, but I'd have to call and confirm.
Not only is the current Pixel made by HTC, Google owns a big chunk of HTC.
HTC has nothing to do with manufacturing current Pixel phones. You're confused. Google outright purchased the Powered by HTC unit from them for something under $2Billion back in 2017, and rolled them into Google's own engineering team.
It's Foxconn building the Google-designed Pixel 3, 4, 5 and 6 series, the same Foxconn building iPhones among others. I believe the last Pixel designed and manufactured by HTC was the smallish Pixel 2 roughly 5 years ago. Even the 2XL that year was an LG manufactured phone, both models of course marketed by Google.
LOL...you get one option: iFixit. What happened to all the "competition" stuff?
Lol. As the title of the article says, it is one more than what Apple provides (zero). And that one option provided is a pretty good one with a good reputation. Not a bad place to be in, as far as Google is concerned.
So a monopoly then.
Interesting use of the word. So iFixIt can have a monopoly of parts for Google phones, despite the fact that those are parts like cameras and screens, of which there are many, many others available for many other phones. That logic suggests that there is truth in claims that Apple have a monopoly on selling iOS apps.
If you can have a local monopoly on parts for a particular phone then surely you can have a local monopoly on apps for a particular phone/OS.
Apple also has a monopoly on all their product designs & OS development. I’m just pointing out it’s all the rage & perhaps it should be, after all, choices are how evil people control foolish people.
Comments
This is progress. Referring to ifixit as a "monopoly" when it comes to Google part supply is as slow-witted as claiming getting repairs only from the Apple Store is "pro-choice". When the alternatives to tossing your broken device are buying a new phone or getting a repair at the Apple store, someone else being provided the parts to perform a repair for you literally only increase your options.
@mcdave reply was referring to @muthuk_vanalingam description of the iFixit Store (being the only supplier of Google Pixel phone parts) ......... "And that one option provided is a pretty good one with a good reputation. Not a bad place to be in, as far as Google is concerned." Well, that description for the iFixit Store, fits the Apple App Store to a tee. Since there are people that thinks that the Apple App Store is a "monopoly", then @muthuk_vanalingam description can be construed as implying that the iFixit Store is a "monopoly". Even though @muthuk_vanalingam never directly said that the iFixit Store was a "monopoly" nor hinted that he thought it was one.
And @mcdave never said that the iFixit Store was a "monopoly", he was nearly pointing out that @muthuk_vanalingam description of it can imply that the iFixit Store was a "monopoly". Thus his reply .... "So a monopoly then."
But you brought up a very good and logical point on why the iFixit Store is not "monopoly", even though they are (for now) the only supplier of Pixel parts, with ....... "the fact that those are parts like cameras and screens, of which there are many, many others available for many other phones." Use that same logic on those that thinks the Apple App Store is a "monopoly" and you'll get a blank stare and a reply ...... "what does that have to do with it"?
You can have a local monopoly on parts for a particular phone and you can have a local monopoly on apps for a particular phone/OS. But neither of them would be the monopoly that is subject to anti-trust scrutiny, unless there was anti-competitive behavior involve. Just having a "monopoly", is not proof of anti-competitive behavior. There is nothing in current anti-trust laws that states a "monopoly", is illegal.
The truth is that if the EU and US politicians thought Apple have a "monopoly" with the Apple App Store and was abusing it, they would not need to wait and pass new laws, in order to force Apple into allowing third party stores or side loading. They would be able to do that using current anti-trust laws. The Apple App Store been the only app store for iOS, for over 12 years.
Of course I injected my own words, otherwise I'd be replying to him with his exact same word; not much of a conversation.
Ok? Not really anything to do with the point I was making, but fine. Apart from the very confusing part where you say 'the iFixit Store is not "monopoly"', and then proceed to accept that there is a monopoly, but not abuse. You should probably take a moment to decide whether you think there is a monopoly and then try again.
HTC has nothing to do with manufacturing current Pixel phones. You're confused. Google outright purchased the Powered by HTC unit from them for something under $2Billion back in 2017, and rolled them into Google's own engineering team.
It's Foxconn building the Google-designed Pixel 3, 4, 5 and 6 series, the same Foxconn building iPhones among others. I believe the last Pixel designed and manufactured by HTC was the smallish Pixel 2 roughly 5 years ago. Even the 2XL that year was an LG manufactured phone, both models of course marketed by Google.