foregoneconclusion

avon b7 said:

This is part of what the EU had to say:
"Today's decision concludes that Apple's anti-steering provisions amount to unfair trading conditions, in breach of Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU'). These anti-steering provisions are neither necessary nor proportionate for the protection of Apple's commercial interests in relation to the App Store on Apple's smart mobile devices and negatively affect the interests of iOS users, who cannot make informed and effective decisions on where and how to purchase music streaming subscriptions for use on their device.

Nutshell: EU is arguing that smartphone users only have access to information that's inside the App Store and apps. They're totally ignoring the fact that an iPhone also has access to the internet, social media, phone calls/texts, email and push notifications. Apple doesn't control the content in any of those. The idea that consumers in 2024 have no idea where to get information without the app telling them is TOTALLY BONKERS. 

This is additional proof that Trump's claim of an "economic emergency" that gives him the power to levy tariffs through the IEEPA has no basis in reality. Add to that the fact that the IEEPA was intended by Congress to give the executive branch the power to do sanctions on foreign governments (freeze assets/seize property) and not to control domestic economics through tariffs and the whole things is a complete farce. 

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. 

LOL at "hostile and political". The current administration is intentionally vandalizing the economy in every way possible. 

dominikhoffmann said: Let’s not bitch about a 10% tariff, when the last four years brought us > 25% inflation on groceries, which make for a much larger proportion of a family’s budget than an iPhone or two a year.

See the chart below...your theory isn't off to a good start. It appears the business world views the Trump administration as a green light for more predatory practices. 

libertyandfree said:

DAalseth said:

Don’t bother trying to put lipstick on a pig. The next few years will be bad for everyone. Cook’s relationship with the man known for stabbing his friends in the back will not make any difference.

Well history of the first four years of the Trump Administration proved you wrong and most Americans, via the recent election, disagree with you.  

You should revisit Trump's use of tariffs from his first term. The soybean tariffs were such a disaster for American farmers that Republicans had to do a taxpayer funded bailout of those same farmers. So instead of boosting trade, it depressed trade and created debt levels so high that it could have destabilized American soybean production.

FYI: the "Department of Government Efficiency" isn't part of the government at all. It's just a glorified task force.

This is all illegal and unconstitutional. The IEEPA is intended to be used for sanctions against foreign governments. It make no mention of tariffs or taxes. 

"Under art. 1, § 8 of the Constitution, Congress has sole authority to control tariffs, which it has done by passing detailed tariff statutes. The President cannot bypass those statutes by invoking “emergency” authority in another statute that does not mention tariffs. His attempt to use the IEEPA this way not only violates the law as written, but it also invites application of the Supreme Court’s Major Questions Doctrine, which tells courts not to discern policies of “vast economic and political significance” in a law without explicit congressional authorization. If the IEEPA were held to permit this executive order, then the statute would run afoul of the nondelegation doctrine because it lacks an “intelligible principle” to limit or guide the president’s discretion in imposing tariffs."

https://nclalegal.org/press_release/ncla-sues-to-stop-trump-admin-from-imposing-emergency-tariffs-that-congress-never-authorized/