tehabe

lkrupp said:

gatorguy said:

Based on somewhat recent events I'm nearly convinced there's some intense behind-the-scene pressure from various agencies around the world that is leading Apple to compromise privacy plans, whole another big tech is forging ahead anyway and paying the consequences in antitrust actions on two continents. 

Yeah, let’s all switch to Android/Chrome so we can be safe. Coffee snorted out of my nose when I read your b.s. post

Beats said:

tehabe said:

lkrupp said:

gatorguy said:

Based on somewhat recent events I'm nearly convinced there's some intense behind-the-scene pressure from various agencies around the world that is leading Apple to compromise privacy plans, whole another big tech is forging ahead anyway and paying the consequences in antitrust actions on two continents. 

Yeah, let’s all switch to Android/Chrome so we can be safe. Coffee snorted out of my nose when I read your b.s. post

Except that Chrome let you encrypt Chrome sync data with an separate passphrase. It is embarrassing that Apple is dropping this feature.

Yeah dude a company known to hack users and who makes 80%+ of its money off user data is the safe route.

Funny how Google doesn’t get the same reputation as Facebook for the same practices.

Also can you give me your bank account info? I’m gonna encrypt it. 

sdw2001 said:

All I can say is I disagree completely.  It is a feature unique to iOS and iPad OS.  It works only with Apple's products.  What you're pushing is literally tantamount to Wal-Mart being forced to sell Target brands.  After all, discount retail is a "marketplace" and everyone needs access.  Right?  

headfull0wine said:

davidmalcolm said:

All this anti-union nonsense from Apple is really sickening. As a share holder I would gladly give up my dividends if it meant Apple was ethically taking care of their workers. Unfortunately Tim would rather pal around with the sociopaths ruining the world in Davos than take care of his workers. 

I’m normally not one to harp on how much I liked Jobs over Cook. But Steve would have found a way to connect with the workers and make them feel heard instead of paying millions to a shady law firm to commit crimes and union bust. 

Apple’s unethical behaviour here isn’t even in line with the standards they set for suppliers. And that’s the thing that really bothers Me. 

How do you know Apples behaviour was unethical?  If Apple prefers dealing with their staff individually with good pay and HR practices, why can’t the advocate for that. And it would be prudent to hire a law firm with experience in this field. In the eyes of a union, any such law firm would be labeled union-busting.  Even if those law firms have painted outside the lines with other clients, it doesn’t mean Apple directed them to do so. What’s missing in all of this is evidence of unethical behaviour.  

I’ve worked as a unionized employee, in a non unionized organization, and now a manager in a union setting. There are pros and cons to both models. 

macuserosu said:

tehabe said:

macuserosu said:

tehabe said:

mark fearing said:

No, what you write is riddled with non-logic and inconsistencies.  Again - what you are saying is  I can't buy Target products at Trader Joes. And what about grocery stores charging SELF fees? Is THAT illegal? If so on what grounds? If a supplier doesn't pay shelf fees, guess what, they don't get into the store. None of what you say can be applied to any other situation in any way. It's really just anger that another company has had success and you want to make sure they don't.

If you don't know what the difference between the compitition between Trader Joe's and Target and the competition between Android and iOS is, that there is no way I can explain it to you.  Why is this so hard to understand what the differences are? Why simple grocery store around the corner and the app store on your phone are not the same? I mean, I could buy an HP printer from store A and get the ink from store B but I can't buy an app for my iPhone from store A today and store B tomorrow. And I would have to switch the entire platform, with all the consequences it entails. How is that the same of getting bread from store A today and store B tomorrow? Sorry, but you really don't understand what a monopoly is and what it isn't.

And if Apple has only success because they use their market power on iOS, I mean they just advertised their services in the settings, than they can go bankrupt for all I care.

I think you need to do some more research into your arguments before you type them.  

Apple offers two things here.  

First it offers a device that you elected to buy knowing it was a walled garden.  As part of that purchase you could use the device as Apple originally sold it to you with only Apples apps.  In that scenario clearly not a monopoly because that arm of Apple sold you a product.

Second part of Apple’s offerings is a market place of goods (software), for the product you bought as an bonus added service to the previous purchase.  You are not required to use this service.  They marketed this service at the purchase as what it is.  

For the general thought, I purchase a membership at Costco.  Costco provides me a card, a tangible object with terms and conditions.  That tangible object it mine to use and enjoy.  I could just put it in my wallet to say I have one or I could take selfies with it at the beach.  My $60 bought me a piece of plastic and the ability to access their walled garden.  Within that walled garden I can only access the products and services that Costco feels are appropriate and receives some revenue from.  My $60 plastic card does not allow we to ask them to carry anything, does not allow we to buy at Sam’s club, or allows me to take their product and pay for  it on the manufacturer’s website.  For my $60, I got the privilege of being able to walk into the walled garden.

While Apple is guilty of being a control freak, they are not a monopoly.  They are nothing more then a device seller and a service provider of a market place.

By the way this is the current legislative benchmark in the US:

“…to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty…” Sherman Act 1890

Thankfully case law has adjusted the scope to align with modern commerce or every grocery store chain, fast food chain, or market that spans multiple state could be considered a monopoly.

Here is thing, a phone is not a membership card. It device you use daily and it is something you only have one of. Sometimes you also have a work phone. But that it. I have a card in front of me, that gives me 25% off tickets with the Deutsche Bahn, I can't use it with Flixtrain or Flixbus or any other rail transport, but it doesn't prevent me from using those. Unlike a phone, if I wanted to use an app from the Play Store i have to switch to an Android device, and back, when want to use an app from the App Store. To believe that is realistic behaviour you don't know anything.

Also you migth be right, Walmart is probably the only (grocery) store for a lot of people within reasonable travelling distance even with a car.

But with one thing you are wrong, the App Store has become so succesful that it became an important market place for people's livelyhood. That means that private company has control over the livelyhood of other private companies and people to tell what they can and cannot do, without the possibilty of checks and balances. That is different with the state, and a reason why I prefer regulation by the state instead of a private company. Rule of law means that rules are decided in a parliament with the public present, rules can be challenged and decisions made because of those rules can be challenged too.

Essentially, because Apple created an exclusive and succesful App Store it created a platform which needs regulation. If it were an unsuccessful platform nobody would care. But Apple has power over people, and it is power without democratic legitimation. You could also say: the App Store is for developers taxation without representation.

You are correct a phone is a phone.  An iPhone is a phone without the App Store.  In fact the first iPhone didn’t even have an App Store.  So like that first iPhone your phone will work as a phone, as an internet device, as an iPod, as a navigation devices, as a measuring tape, as a camera, as a camcorder, as a voice recorder, as a note taker, as a document editor, and as an e-reader all without needing to ever use the App Store. You as the operator choose to use the App Store if you want to access the apps developers created.  

The App Store is regulated by the laws of supply and demand, the laws of each and every jurisdiction it elects to sell its products, and the laws of customer’s preferences.  

Developers are not “taxed without representation”.  They provide a fee or service charge to Apple to use a service.  Their representation was their agreement to Apple’s  terms and  to develop for the platform.  I have several “apps” I use that are web apps that I access through a browser because the developers decided not to create a native app.  That was their representation and I elect to still patronize them.  In fact there are several business that have native apps that I like to utilize the website version over the app.  

Because you feel they need more regulation or that they should be considered a monopoly is your personal belief.  In a free market, the market decides if Apple will be successful, the customers device if they fail, and the faithful will decide if the next thing will be a hit.