foregoneconclusion

All four are Republicans. All four voted against an investigation of the January 6th insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. That gives you an idea of how deep their support of "democratic principles" actually goes. 

Pascalxx said:

As I understand it, Facebook basically wants to allow small businesses to receive donations through the platform, without taking a cut and wants Apple to do the same. It doesn’t seem like an unreasonable suggestion to me. Are there no App Store fee waivers for donations?

According to the article, it's paid online events that Facebook was adding. They're trying to characterize it as charitable, but it's hard to see how it would meet the standard of a charitable donation. These are for-profit businesses and influencers. 

10 years ago, it made sense to buy a Mac Pro for use with software like Adobe Photoshop. These days, that's not really a high-end software use anymore. Photoshop can easily be handled by a standard iMac. I think people who complain about what the 2019 version of the Mac Pro represents don't really understand just how much more powerful hardware is today vs. 10 years ago. The 'Pro' end for desktop is MUCH more specialized than it used to be. Only the heaviest of heavy lifting through software requires 'Pro' models anymore.

gatorguy said: Google is the first big tech, in fact the first company of their size in any industry, to use 100% renewable energy across all their operations for consecutive years. 

Google doesn't actually "use" 100% renewable. They buy renewable energy that offsets the amount of non-renewables that they use. 

"Google says it currently has contracts to purchase three gigawatts of output from renewable energy projects, and while it says “it’s not yet possible to “power” a company of our scale by 100 percent renewable energy,” these purchases do have a positive impact."

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/4/17197342/google-renewable-energy-climate-change

Per the "forbids them to inform of alternative subscription options", that's an industry standard for e-commerce. Try and name a retail web site or digital download store that allows sellers to advertise alternate ways of purchasing the product within the store or site itself. It just doesn't happen. Amazon, eBay, WalMart...they all have clauses that forbid that type of communication. That has never been unique to Apple at any time. 

elijahg said: So this means the AppleTV is really $149 + $99 for a PS4 controller that is pretty much essential if you want to play 3D games.

PS4/PS5 or Xbox controllers are fine if you already own them with a console, but if you're going to buy something new for App Store or Apple Arcade gaming you would be better off with a SteelSeries Nimbus+ due to the significantly better battery life per charge. That model gets 50 hours on a single charge, while the Sony/MS controllers are going to be around 10-15 hours with a rechargeable battery. 

brian.on.android said: And yet Spotify is making a case that there IS a problem. https://www.androidauthority.com/spotify-vs-apple-eu-1222451/

Spotify completely misrepresented its own financial position to the EU. They spent a lot of time complaining about Apple's 30% commission, then their own financial records showed that less than 1% of their iOS subscribers were subject to Apple's commission AND that the commission they were subject to was 15%, not 30%. 

99% of their subscription business on iOS didn't involve Apple making a cent. That hardly seems unreasonable. 

It's ironic that part of Epic's complaints against Apple are that they supposedly don't do enough to warrant a 30% cut, but the EU's solution would be to introduce stores run by middle-men who would still charge a commission while also having absolutely no role (and no risk) in developing the hardware or the OS or the developers tools. 

LOL...what "strategy" do Amazon and Roku have for hardware? They're selling iterations of the same tech they've always sold. 

A. Psystar lawsuit: verdict was that Apple's hardware cannot be considered a monopoly unto itself. Apple could limit installation of its operating systems to its own hardware and could not be forced to allow 3rd parties to install it on Mac clone systems they were selling to the general public. 

B. BlueMail lawsuit: dismissed by judge due to BlueMail's success on alternate platforms with the same app. That success (which BlueMail touted in their own marketing) was considered proof that Apple's control of the App Store did not rise to the level of an anti-trust issue. BlueMail was not dependent on the App Store. 

C. Epic lawsuit: verdict did not conclude that federal anti-trust laws had been violated.

Obviously, Congress can still pass legislation that regulates the App Store regardless of those rulings, but they can't honestly claim it's due to anti-trust issues. The anti-trust claims have failed over and over again in court per Apple's control of its hardware/OS/store.