foregoneconclusion

Some relevant info from the settlement...

"Apple is confident that if this litigation were to continue, Apple would defeat class certification and/or Apple would prevail at trial. The Court is aware from the Epic trial, including the testimony of Apple’s most senior executives, of Apple’s commitment to building and maintaining the App Store as a great place for both developers and consumers to transact in apps and in-app purchases. The evidence of record establishes that the practices challenged in this and other cases are both lawful and well-justified by business necessity—including the protection of Apple’s intellectual property, and protecting the security and privacy of Apple’s customers.

FYI: this is happening in part because $52 billion in federal support for the chip industry was passed by Congress and signed into law. Intel will be getting a grant from the U.S. government as part of the funding. 

hodar said: Seems that Twitter is the one that not only misrepresented themselves, but also committed fraud to both stockholders, as well as advertisers.  I would expect to see a class action lawsuit from stockholders, as well as advertisers, who made business decisions, based upon what is supposed to be accurate data.

Here are some other examples of misrepresentation by another publicly held company:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/15/elon-musk-promises/

• March 2016: The Tesla Model 3 will cost $35,000

• January 2017: Full self-driving Tesla cars ready in 6 months

• November 2017: A Tesla Semi truck will arrive by 2019

• April 2019: 1 million robotaxis on the road by 2020

• November 2019: Tesla Cybertruck to begin production in 2021

• April 2022: Tesla’s humanoid robot will be ready for production in 2023

This is from the ACT-App web site:

Your Data is Facebook's Reward, Says Congress

The bills’ proponents are willing to open up unfettered access to your data, device features like your camera and microphone, and even your wallet to Facebook and to blatant fraudsters, in order to achieve their antitrust expansion priorities. Funny how their interests line up neatly with those of Facebook, which, if the bills were enacted, stands to rake back billions in advertising revenue lost when consumers chose not to be tracked across apps on their phones. Of course, the changes these bills force on app stores would benefit the largest companies that do business on the platforms, like Facebook, while hurting App Association member companies the most. If consumers lose trust in the app stores, the resulting reluctance to download new software hits the smallest app makers the hardest.

Small Business Pain is Facebook’s Gain

Facebook clearly places a high value on the ability to evade software platform-imposed restrictions on its data collection and monetization activities. S. 2992 and S. 2710 do not just provide wiggle room, they provide a wide avenue with formidable federal enforcement capabilities keeping the avenue free of obstacles. Unfortunately, that road would be paved with App Association member prospects and the consumer harms certain to result from an ad-supported environment dependent on manipulation, which federal policy would protect, not prohibit.

Congress should ditch these ill-conceived antitrust bills and focus on what consumers and small businesses really want – comprehensive national privacy legislation.

https://actonline.org/2022/03/14/why-is-congress-putting-facebooks-profits-over-small-business/

That does bring in to question how Apple's own ad business may be profiting from the same privacy features that are costing others money.

Such questions are likely to feature heavily in the many antitrust cases being brought, or considered, against Apple. Schiller has already been a key witness in those, and his App Store role looks to guarantee that he'll continue to be so.

Apple is profiting from ads that don't track users across other apps and web sites. Nothing is preventing other companies from using the same advertising approach as Apple. Companies that do track users across other apps and web sites need to get the users permission first. There is no antitrust issue per ads since there is no competitive double-standard at work. If Apple wanted to track users across other apps and web sites they would also need to ask for permission from the user. 

In the U.S., "shall" is legally interpreted to mean exactly what Apple is arguing. Anything preceded by "shall" is intended to be a requirement. 

Sounds like Evans isn't aware of the iPhone 13 mini. Lighter than the 6s. Bigger screen than the 6s.

iPhone 6s = 143 grams/4.7 inch display

iPhone 13 mini = 141 grams /5.4 inch display

Remember when AppleInsider used to constantly complain about Apple's laptops not getting the Intel chip refreshes as fast as Windows laptops? Now a chip refresh is bad.

avon b7 said: Users will benefit from having more choice and that choice obviously includes choosing not to use third party stores. It is a win win. 

It's the other way around. Users benefited from iOS and the App Store having a different approach from desktop operating systems. Software prices got significantly cheaper. Security was improved. Smaller app developers getting the same contract terms as the titans of legacy desktop software made for better competition. 

The EU is going to find all this out the hard way, unfortunately. Forcing iOS to become a Windows/macOS clone won't help consumers at all. 

FYI: Apple's web site clearly says that the maximum trade-in value for the "computer" category is $1250. Should be obvious that a $50K system isn't the intended target for this kind of program.