Weird that Apple feels so easily threatened these days. My local Apple Store was right above a Microsoft store for years. Back then, that just served to visually demonstrate the huge difference in consumer attention between the two.
Not really. If they are going to go into a new country, area and mall and build it up they are the Anchor. Why should they allow a direct competitor to try to feed off of what they have created? Opening and marketing a new store is something Apple is really good at and their competitors suck at. It’s why every Microsoft Store was usually a few doors down from a successful Apple Store in the same mall. Since Apple was a first mover at this scale they didn’t expect this. Try finding a Verizon and AT&T store in the same mall.
I'm not sure if the US is representative of global tendencies.
Wherever I've been, anchor stores in shopping centres are always hypermarkets. Carrier stores are a plenty, often lined up one after another and with 'pop up' stores for virtual carriers occupying transit space.
Apple’s original retail stores were very similar to FNAC stores in design, layout and staffing.
There were differences in flooring and staircases.
FNAC fell victim to digitalisation of leisure activities and hasn't really recovered.
Ya think, hence why Apple has such a dominant share of the revenue and profits in the smartphone market.
Who could possibly imagine that stacking competitors side by side, to encourage customer browsing, would be very detrimental to profits?
You seem to be forgetting that there are comparatively very, very, very few Apple retail stores in shopping centres.
Of all the shopping centres within a 60km radius of me, only one has an Apple Retail Store and right below it there is an even bigger MediaMarkt selling a huge range of Android devices (along with iPhones).
iPhones sold in shopping centres do not make up its core sales channel.
There are only 11 Apple retail stores in Spain. There are logically vastly more shopping centres.
Competition is healthy and necessary. Trying to curtail it within a retail ecosystem, and to your own advantage, is questionable on many levels yet you have avoided touching on that.
I also doubt Apple (when compared to Android) generates more revenue in the smartphone space not that profits or revenues are irrelevant here anyway.
Weird that Apple feels so easily threatened these days. My local Apple Store was right above a Microsoft store for years. Back then, that just served to visually demonstrate the huge difference in consumer attention between the two.
Not really. If they are going to go into a new country, area and mall and build it up they are the Anchor. Why should they allow a direct competitor to try to feed off of what they have created? Opening and marketing a new store is something Apple is really good at and their competitors suck at. It’s why every Microsoft Store was usually a few doors down from a successful Apple Store in the same mall. Since Apple was a first mover at this scale they didn’t expect this. Try finding a Verizon and AT&T store in the same mall.
I'm not sure if the US is representative of global tendencies.
Wherever I've been, anchor stores in shopping centres are always hypermarkets. Carrier stores are a plenty, often lined up one after another and with 'pop up' stores for virtual carriers occupying transit space.
Apple’s original retail stores were very similar to FNAC stores in design, layout and staffing.
There were differences in flooring and staircases.
FNAC fell victim to digitalisation of leisure activities and hasn't really recovered.
Ya think, hence why Apple has such a dominant share of the revenue and profits in the smartphone market.
Who could possibly imagine that stacking competitors side by side, to encourage customer browsing, would be very detrimental to profits?
You seem to be forgetting that there are comparatively very, very, very few Apple retail stores in shopping centres.
Of all the shopping centres within a 60km radius of me, only one has an Apple Retail Store and right below it there is an even bigger MediaMarkt selling a huge range of Android devices (along with iPhones).
iPhones sold in shopping centres do not make up its core sales channel.
There are only 11 Apple retail stores in Spain. There are logically vastly more shopping centres.
Competition is healthy and necessary. Trying to curtail it within a retail ecosystem, and to your own advantage, is questionable on many levels yet you have avoided touching on that.
I also doubt Apple (when compared to Android) generates more revenue in the smartphone space not that profits or revenues are irrelevant here anyway.
Yeah, you are correct; Apple only had 42% of worldwide revenue, so, maybe not "dominant", depending on what "dominant" means to you.
FFS, Apple has every right, ethically, to determine the terms of its mall lease wrt competitor siting.
Weird that Apple feels so easily threatened these days. My local Apple Store was right above a Microsoft store for years. Back then, that just served to visually demonstrate the huge difference in consumer attention between the two.
Not really. If they are going to go into a new country, area and mall and build it up they are the Anchor. Why should they allow a direct competitor to try to feed off of what they have created? Opening and marketing a new store is something Apple is really good at and their competitors suck at. It’s why every Microsoft Store was usually a few doors down from a successful Apple Store in the same mall. Since Apple was a first mover at this scale they didn’t expect this. Try finding a Verizon and AT&T store in the same mall.
I'm not sure if the US is representative of global tendencies.
Wherever I've been, anchor stores in shopping centres are always hypermarkets. Carrier stores are a plenty, often lined up one after another and with 'pop up' stores for virtual carriers occupying transit space.
Apple’s original retail stores were very similar to FNAC stores in design, layout and staffing.
There were differences in flooring and staircases.
FNAC fell victim to digitalisation of leisure activities and hasn't really recovered.
Ya think, hence why Apple has such a dominant share of the revenue and profits in the smartphone market.
Who could possibly imagine that stacking competitors side by side, to encourage customer browsing, would be very detrimental to profits?
You seem to be forgetting that there are comparatively very, very, very few Apple retail stores in shopping centres.
Of all the shopping centres within a 60km radius of me, only one has an Apple Retail Store and right below it there is an even bigger MediaMarkt selling a huge range of Android devices (along with iPhones).
iPhones sold in shopping centres do not make up its core sales channel.
There are only 11 Apple retail stores in Spain. There are logically vastly more shopping centres.
Competition is healthy and necessary. Trying to curtail it within a retail ecosystem, and to your own advantage, is questionable on many levels yet you have avoided touching on that.
I also doubt Apple (when compared to Android) generates more revenue in the smartphone space not that profits or revenues are irrelevant here anyway.
Yeah, you are correct; Apple only had 42% of worldwide revenue, so, maybe not "dominant", depending on what "dominant" means to you.
FFS, Apple has every right, ethically, to determine the terms of its mall lease wrt competitor siting.
So you saying it is acceptable for Apple to require, under contract, that competitors are not allowed to operate near it within a retail ecosystem which would inevitably have a knock on negative effect for consumers of those listed brands.
Weird that Apple feels so easily threatened these days. My local Apple Store was right above a Microsoft store for years. Back then, that just served to visually demonstrate the huge difference in consumer attention between the two.
Not really. If they are going to go into a new country, area and mall and build it up they are the Anchor. Why should they allow a direct competitor to try to feed off of what they have created? Opening and marketing a new store is something Apple is really good at and their competitors suck at. It’s why every Microsoft Store was usually a few doors down from a successful Apple Store in the same mall. Since Apple was a first mover at this scale they didn’t expect this. Try finding a Verizon and AT&T store in the same mall.
I'm not sure if the US is representative of global tendencies.
Wherever I've been, anchor stores in shopping centres are always hypermarkets. Carrier stores are a plenty, often lined up one after another and with 'pop up' stores for virtual carriers occupying transit space.
Apple’s original retail stores were very similar to FNAC stores in design, layout and staffing.
There were differences in flooring and staircases.
FNAC fell victim to digitalisation of leisure activities and hasn't really recovered.
Ya think, hence why Apple has such a dominant share of the revenue and profits in the smartphone market.
Who could possibly imagine that stacking competitors side by side, to encourage customer browsing, would be very detrimental to profits?
You seem to be forgetting that there are comparatively very, very, very few Apple retail stores in shopping centres.
Of all the shopping centres within a 60km radius of me, only one has an Apple Retail Store and right below it there is an even bigger MediaMarkt selling a huge range of Android devices (along with iPhones).
iPhones sold in shopping centres do not make up its core sales channel.
There are only 11 Apple retail stores in Spain. There are logically vastly more shopping centres.
Competition is healthy and necessary. Trying to curtail it within a retail ecosystem, and to your own advantage, is questionable on many levels yet you have avoided touching on that.
I also doubt Apple (when compared to Android) generates more revenue in the smartphone space not that profits or revenues are irrelevant here anyway.
Yeah, you are correct; Apple only had 42% of worldwide revenue, so, maybe not "dominant", depending on what "dominant" means to you.
FFS, Apple has every right, ethically, to determine the terms of its mall lease wrt competitor siting.
So you saying it is acceptable for Apple to require, under contract, that competitors are not allowed to operate near it within a retail ecosystem which would inevitably have a knock on negative effect for consumers of those listed brands.
I don't think that is acceptable at all.
Okay, but what does the law allow?
In the U.S., there wouldn't be any question at all of that since the Mall would be under private ownership, and the rules are set by the existing owners and tenants. As long as there are no violations of civil rights, or other federal, state, or local laws, then it isn't an issue.
Even in this particular case, Apple only is asking for specific exclusions from the mall, and has no control of adjacent buildings and property. Would consumers really be inconvenienced by this,
Your arguments for this indicates to me that you believe that Apple's brand is really the issue, drawing the best consumers to shop at Apple first, perhaps even consummating a sale, without ever visiting a competitor.
Weird that Apple feels so easily threatened these days. My local Apple Store was right above a Microsoft store for years. Back then, that just served to visually demonstrate the huge difference in consumer attention between the two.
Not really. If they are going to go into a new country, area and mall and build it up they are the Anchor. Why should they allow a direct competitor to try to feed off of what they have created? Opening and marketing a new store is something Apple is really good at and their competitors suck at. It’s why every Microsoft Store was usually a few doors down from a successful Apple Store in the same mall. Since Apple was a first mover at this scale they didn’t expect this. Try finding a Verizon and AT&T store in the same mall.
I'm not sure if the US is representative of global tendencies.
Wherever I've been, anchor stores in shopping centres are always hypermarkets. Carrier stores are a plenty, often lined up one after another and with 'pop up' stores for virtual carriers occupying transit space.
Apple’s original retail stores were very similar to FNAC stores in design, layout and staffing.
There were differences in flooring and staircases.
FNAC fell victim to digitalisation of leisure activities and hasn't really recovered.
Ya think, hence why Apple has such a dominant share of the revenue and profits in the smartphone market.
Who could possibly imagine that stacking competitors side by side, to encourage customer browsing, would be very detrimental to profits?
You seem to be forgetting that there are comparatively very, very, very few Apple retail stores in shopping centres.
Of all the shopping centres within a 60km radius of me, only one has an Apple Retail Store and right below it there is an even bigger MediaMarkt selling a huge range of Android devices (along with iPhones).
iPhones sold in shopping centres do not make up its core sales channel.
There are only 11 Apple retail stores in Spain. There are logically vastly more shopping centres.
Competition is healthy and necessary. Trying to curtail it within a retail ecosystem, and to your own advantage, is questionable on many levels yet you have avoided touching on that.
I also doubt Apple (when compared to Android) generates more revenue in the smartphone space not that profits or revenues are irrelevant here anyway.
Yeah, you are correct; Apple only had 42% of worldwide revenue, so, maybe not "dominant", depending on what "dominant" means to you.
FFS, Apple has every right, ethically, to determine the terms of its mall lease wrt competitor siting.
So you saying it is acceptable for Apple to require, under contract, that competitors are not allowed to operate near it within a retail ecosystem which would inevitably have a knock on negative effect for consumers of those listed brands.
I don't think that is acceptable at all.
Okay, but what does the law allow?
In the U.S., there wouldn't be any question at all of that since the Mall would be under private ownership, and the rules are set by the existing owners and tenants. As long as there are no violations of civil rights, or other federal, state, or local laws, then it isn't an issue.
Even in this particular case, Apple only is asking for specific exclusions from the mall, and has no control of adjacent buildings and property. Would consumers really be inconvenienced by this,
Your arguments for this indicates to me that you believe that Apple's brand is really the issue, drawing the best consumers to shop at Apple first, perhaps even consummating a sale, without ever visiting a competitor.
Laws aren't at issue here. I would imagine the legality of the contract meets requirements.
Nor is the Apple brand at issue.
What is at issue is a claimed wilful attempt to restrict competition.
Weird that Apple feels so easily threatened these days. My local Apple Store was right above a Microsoft store for years. Back then, that just served to visually demonstrate the huge difference in consumer attention between the two.
Not really. If they are going to go into a new country, area and mall and build it up they are the Anchor. Why should they allow a direct competitor to try to feed off of what they have created? Opening and marketing a new store is something Apple is really good at and their competitors suck at. It’s why every Microsoft Store was usually a few doors down from a successful Apple Store in the same mall. Since Apple was a first mover at this scale they didn’t expect this. Try finding a Verizon and AT&T store in the same mall.
I'm not sure if the US is representative of global tendencies.
Wherever I've been, anchor stores in shopping centres are always hypermarkets. Carrier stores are a plenty, often lined up one after another and with 'pop up' stores for virtual carriers occupying transit space.
Apple’s original retail stores were very similar to FNAC stores in design, layout and staffing.
There were differences in flooring and staircases.
FNAC fell victim to digitalisation of leisure activities and hasn't really recovered.
Ya think, hence why Apple has such a dominant share of the revenue and profits in the smartphone market.
Who could possibly imagine that stacking competitors side by side, to encourage customer browsing, would be very detrimental to profits?
You seem to be forgetting that there are comparatively very, very, very few Apple retail stores in shopping centres.
Of all the shopping centres within a 60km radius of me, only one has an Apple Retail Store and right below it there is an even bigger MediaMarkt selling a huge range of Android devices (along with iPhones).
iPhones sold in shopping centres do not make up its core sales channel.
There are only 11 Apple retail stores in Spain. There are logically vastly more shopping centres.
Competition is healthy and necessary. Trying to curtail it within a retail ecosystem, and to your own advantage, is questionable on many levels yet you have avoided touching on that.
I also doubt Apple (when compared to Android) generates more revenue in the smartphone space not that profits or revenues are irrelevant here anyway.
Yeah, you are correct; Apple only had 42% of worldwide revenue, so, maybe not "dominant", depending on what "dominant" means to you.
FFS, Apple has every right, ethically, to determine the terms of its mall lease wrt competitor siting.
So you saying it is acceptable for Apple to require, under contract, that competitors are not allowed to operate near it within a retail ecosystem which would inevitably have a knock on negative effect for consumers of those listed brands.
I don't think that is acceptable at all.
Okay, but what does the law allow?
In the U.S., there wouldn't be any question at all of that since the Mall would be under private ownership, and the rules are set by the existing owners and tenants. As long as there are no violations of civil rights, or other federal, state, or local laws, then it isn't an issue.
Even in this particular case, Apple only is asking for specific exclusions from the mall, and has no control of adjacent buildings and property. Would consumers really be inconvenienced by this,
Your arguments for this indicates to me that you believe that Apple's brand is really the issue, drawing the best consumers to shop at Apple first, perhaps even consummating a sale, without ever visiting a competitor.
Laws aren't at issue here. I would imagine the legality of the contract meets requirements.
Nor is the Apple brand at issue.
What is at issue is a claimed wilful attempt to restrict competition.
Show me how Apple is in violation of any existing laws, then you might be on to something. Otherwise, it sounds like you are "concerned" about Apple's brand hegemony, but again, show me that Apple is in violation.
Weird that Apple feels so easily threatened these days. My local Apple Store was right above a Microsoft store for years. Back then, that just served to visually demonstrate the huge difference in consumer attention between the two.
Not really. If they are going to go into a new country, area and mall and build it up they are the Anchor. Why should they allow a direct competitor to try to feed off of what they have created? Opening and marketing a new store is something Apple is really good at and their competitors suck at. It’s why every Microsoft Store was usually a few doors down from a successful Apple Store in the same mall. Since Apple was a first mover at this scale they didn’t expect this. Try finding a Verizon and AT&T store in the same mall.
I'm not sure if the US is representative of global tendencies.
Wherever I've been, anchor stores in shopping centres are always hypermarkets. Carrier stores are a plenty, often lined up one after another and with 'pop up' stores for virtual carriers occupying transit space.
Apple’s original retail stores were very similar to FNAC stores in design, layout and staffing.
There were differences in flooring and staircases.
FNAC fell victim to digitalisation of leisure activities and hasn't really recovered.
Ya think, hence why Apple has such a dominant share of the revenue and profits in the smartphone market.
Who could possibly imagine that stacking competitors side by side, to encourage customer browsing, would be very detrimental to profits?
You seem to be forgetting that there are comparatively very, very, very few Apple retail stores in shopping centres.
Of all the shopping centres within a 60km radius of me, only one has an Apple Retail Store and right below it there is an even bigger MediaMarkt selling a huge range of Android devices (along with iPhones).
iPhones sold in shopping centres do not make up its core sales channel.
There are only 11 Apple retail stores in Spain. There are logically vastly more shopping centres.
Competition is healthy and necessary. Trying to curtail it within a retail ecosystem, and to your own advantage, is questionable on many levels yet you have avoided touching on that.
I also doubt Apple (when compared to Android) generates more revenue in the smartphone space not that profits or revenues are irrelevant here anyway.
Yeah, you are correct; Apple only had 42% of worldwide revenue, so, maybe not "dominant", depending on what "dominant" means to you.
FFS, Apple has every right, ethically, to determine the terms of its mall lease wrt competitor siting.
So you saying it is acceptable for Apple to require, under contract, that competitors are not allowed to operate near it within a retail ecosystem which would inevitably have a knock on negative effect for consumers of those listed brands.
I don't think that is acceptable at all.
Okay, but what does the law allow?
In the U.S., there wouldn't be any question at all of that since the Mall would be under private ownership, and the rules are set by the existing owners and tenants. As long as there are no violations of civil rights, or other federal, state, or local laws, then it isn't an issue.
Even in this particular case, Apple only is asking for specific exclusions from the mall, and has no control of adjacent buildings and property. Would consumers really be inconvenienced by this,
Your arguments for this indicates to me that you believe that Apple's brand is really the issue, drawing the best consumers to shop at Apple first, perhaps even consummating a sale, without ever visiting a competitor.
Laws aren't at issue here. I would imagine the legality of the contract meets requirements.
Nor is the Apple brand at issue.
What is at issue is a claimed wilful attempt to restrict competition.
Show me how Apple is in violation of any existing laws, then you might be on to something. Otherwise, it sounds like you are "concerned" about Apple's brand hegemony, but again, show me that Apple is in violation.
And now we have you wilfully ignoring the whole point!
Weird that Apple feels so easily threatened these days. My local Apple Store was right above a Microsoft store for years. Back then, that just served to visually demonstrate the huge difference in consumer attention between the two.
Not really. If they are going to go into a new country, area and mall and build it up they are the Anchor. Why should they allow a direct competitor to try to feed off of what they have created? Opening and marketing a new store is something Apple is really good at and their competitors suck at. It’s why every Microsoft Store was usually a few doors down from a successful Apple Store in the same mall. Since Apple was a first mover at this scale they didn’t expect this. Try finding a Verizon and AT&T store in the same mall.
I'm not sure if the US is representative of global tendencies.
Wherever I've been, anchor stores in shopping centres are always hypermarkets. Carrier stores are a plenty, often lined up one after another and with 'pop up' stores for virtual carriers occupying transit space.
Apple’s original retail stores were very similar to FNAC stores in design, layout and staffing.
There were differences in flooring and staircases.
FNAC fell victim to digitalisation of leisure activities and hasn't really recovered.
Ya think, hence why Apple has such a dominant share of the revenue and profits in the smartphone market.
Who could possibly imagine that stacking competitors side by side, to encourage customer browsing, would be very detrimental to profits?
You seem to be forgetting that there are comparatively very, very, very few Apple retail stores in shopping centres.
Of all the shopping centres within a 60km radius of me, only one has an Apple Retail Store and right below it there is an even bigger MediaMarkt selling a huge range of Android devices (along with iPhones).
iPhones sold in shopping centres do not make up its core sales channel.
There are only 11 Apple retail stores in Spain. There are logically vastly more shopping centres.
Competition is healthy and necessary. Trying to curtail it within a retail ecosystem, and to your own advantage, is questionable on many levels yet you have avoided touching on that.
I also doubt Apple (when compared to Android) generates more revenue in the smartphone space not that profits or revenues are irrelevant here anyway.
Yeah, you are correct; Apple only had 42% of worldwide revenue, so, maybe not "dominant", depending on what "dominant" means to you.
FFS, Apple has every right, ethically, to determine the terms of its mall lease wrt competitor siting.
So you saying it is acceptable for Apple to require, under contract, that competitors are not allowed to operate near it within a retail ecosystem which would inevitably have a knock on negative effect for consumers of those listed brands.
I don't think that is acceptable at all.
Okay, but what does the law allow?
In the U.S., there wouldn't be any question at all of that since the Mall would be under private ownership, and the rules are set by the existing owners and tenants. As long as there are no violations of civil rights, or other federal, state, or local laws, then it isn't an issue.
Even in this particular case, Apple only is asking for specific exclusions from the mall, and has no control of adjacent buildings and property. Would consumers really be inconvenienced by this,
Your arguments for this indicates to me that you believe that Apple's brand is really the issue, drawing the best consumers to shop at Apple first, perhaps even consummating a sale, without ever visiting a competitor.
Laws aren't at issue here. I would imagine the legality of the contract meets requirements.
Nor is the Apple brand at issue.
What is at issue is a claimed wilful attempt to restrict competition.
Show me how Apple is in violation of any existing laws, then you might be on to something. Otherwise, it sounds like you are "concerned" about Apple's brand hegemony, but again, show me that Apple is in violation.
And now we have you wilfully ignoring the whole point!
Oh, noes, "wilfully ignoring the point", the "point" of which you are attempting to make, being that by definition, Apple's brand doesn't allow a level playing field, so let's handicap Apple by allowing little shitbox retailers selling Android OS knockoffs to fuck up the shopping experience of Apple consumers.
Weird that Apple feels so easily threatened these days. My local Apple Store was right above a Microsoft store for years. Back then, that just served to visually demonstrate the huge difference in consumer attention between the two.
Not really. If they are going to go into a new country, area and mall and build it up they are the Anchor. Why should they allow a direct competitor to try to feed off of what they have created? Opening and marketing a new store is something Apple is really good at and their competitors suck at. It’s why every Microsoft Store was usually a few doors down from a successful Apple Store in the same mall. Since Apple was a first mover at this scale they didn’t expect this. Try finding a Verizon and AT&T store in the same mall.
I'm not sure if the US is representative of global tendencies.
Wherever I've been, anchor stores in shopping centres are always hypermarkets. Carrier stores are a plenty, often lined up one after another and with 'pop up' stores for virtual carriers occupying transit space.
Apple’s original retail stores were very similar to FNAC stores in design, layout and staffing.
There were differences in flooring and staircases.
FNAC fell victim to digitalisation of leisure activities and hasn't really recovered.
Ya think, hence why Apple has such a dominant share of the revenue and profits in the smartphone market.
Who could possibly imagine that stacking competitors side by side, to encourage customer browsing, would be very detrimental to profits?
You seem to be forgetting that there are comparatively very, very, very few Apple retail stores in shopping centres.
Of all the shopping centres within a 60km radius of me, only one has an Apple Retail Store and right below it there is an even bigger MediaMarkt selling a huge range of Android devices (along with iPhones).
iPhones sold in shopping centres do not make up its core sales channel.
There are only 11 Apple retail stores in Spain. There are logically vastly more shopping centres.
Competition is healthy and necessary. Trying to curtail it within a retail ecosystem, and to your own advantage, is questionable on many levels yet you have avoided touching on that.
I also doubt Apple (when compared to Android) generates more revenue in the smartphone space not that profits or revenues are irrelevant here anyway.
Yeah, you are correct; Apple only had 42% of worldwide revenue, so, maybe not "dominant", depending on what "dominant" means to you.
FFS, Apple has every right, ethically, to determine the terms of its mall lease wrt competitor siting.
So you saying it is acceptable for Apple to require, under contract, that competitors are not allowed to operate near it within a retail ecosystem which would inevitably have a knock on negative effect for consumers of those listed brands.
I don't think that is acceptable at all.
Okay, but what does the law allow?
In the U.S., there wouldn't be any question at all of that since the Mall would be under private ownership, and the rules are set by the existing owners and tenants. As long as there are no violations of civil rights, or other federal, state, or local laws, then it isn't an issue.
Even in this particular case, Apple only is asking for specific exclusions from the mall, and has no control of adjacent buildings and property. Would consumers really be inconvenienced by this,
Your arguments for this indicates to me that you believe that Apple's brand is really the issue, drawing the best consumers to shop at Apple first, perhaps even consummating a sale, without ever visiting a competitor.
Laws aren't at issue here. I would imagine the legality of the contract meets requirements.
Nor is the Apple brand at issue.
What is at issue is a claimed wilful attempt to restrict competition.
Show me how Apple is in violation of any existing laws, then you might be on to something. Otherwise, it sounds like you are "concerned" about Apple's brand hegemony, but again, show me that Apple is in violation.
And now we have you wilfully ignoring the whole point!
Oh, noes, "wilfully ignoring the point", the "point" of which you are attempting to make, being that by definition, Apple's brand doesn't allow a level playing field, so let's handicap Apple by allowing little shitbox retailers selling Android OS knockoffs to fuck up the shopping experience of Apple consumers.
Re-read my previous posts.
Nothing to do with branding. Nothing to do with legality. Nothing to do with handicapping Apple.
Comments
Of all the shopping centres within a 60km radius of me, only one has an Apple Retail Store and right below it there is an even bigger MediaMarkt selling a huge range of Android devices (along with iPhones).
iPhones sold in shopping centres do not make up its core sales channel.
There are only 11 Apple retail stores in Spain. There are logically vastly more shopping centres.
Competition is healthy and necessary. Trying to curtail it within a retail ecosystem, and to your own advantage, is questionable on many levels yet you have avoided touching on that.
I also doubt Apple (when compared to Android) generates more revenue in the smartphone space not that profits or revenues are irrelevant here anyway.
FFS, Apple has every right, ethically, to determine the terms of its mall lease wrt competitor siting.
I don't think that is acceptable at all.
In the U.S., there wouldn't be any question at all of that since the Mall would be under private ownership, and the rules are set by the existing owners and tenants. As long as there are no violations of civil rights, or other federal, state, or local laws, then it isn't an issue.
Even in this particular case, Apple only is asking for specific exclusions from the mall, and has no control of adjacent buildings and property. Would consumers really be inconvenienced by this,
Your arguments for this indicates to me that you believe that Apple's brand is really the issue, drawing the best consumers to shop at Apple first, perhaps even consummating a sale, without ever visiting a competitor.
Nor is the Apple brand at issue.
What is at issue is a claimed wilful attempt to restrict competition.
Nothing to do with branding.
Nothing to do with legality.
Nothing to do with handicapping Apple.