thrang

In so many of the attempts to take down successful companies, there seems to be an utter mess of equating the large success of a company with squelching small competitors. Or that designing the products and services they sell to maximize their own revenue is "wring" or "anti-completive."

The nature of free market participation is to bo better than your competitors, to "beat" them in fact. How you do that is of course important, but simply entering a market (AirTag for example) which puts competitive pressure on Tile, is well perfectly legal. And tough cookies for Tile unless they can innovate and compete differently.

Now if Apple clearly stole patented technology, coerced supply chain to restrict  components to a competitor, or put pressure on distribution or retail channels to NOT sell Tile, that would be clear example of offensive and unfair behavior. I've not heard of that in really any of these claims at least as publicized.

 Similar with Sonos. Apple has produced audio products for many years, including speakers (apple HiFi). Regardless, they have the right to enter that market without restriction. and leverage their technology. They further opened Airplay 2 technology for companies to license if they wish (Sonos did), but, for quite reasonable privacy reasons, not Siri. Is that an issue? I can't see how. Apple is not "compelled" to license any and all of its technologies just to appease competitors.

 It's for the for the marketplace to decide whether Apple's approach is too restrictive and buy into other ecosystems instead. And given the size of Apple's user based, there are effectively zero complaints - in fact custsat numbers are generally extremely high.

Apple's business is its ecosystem - their success is because of who they can add overlapping circles on their ever expanding Venn diagram generally with great success for them and great appreciation by its customers.

So yes, really a great model to go after. Governments do so little right it is deeply saddening.... 

It's quite disturbing when governments feel they can decide how a company can or can not develop its business model or run its business internally. Especially when their claims are based on a false assumption - that Apple is an entire market (rather than a participant in a larger market). Apple is as much a "monopoly" as BMW, Mercedes or Tesla is. Each of them "owns" their respective businesses, but are only part of larger marketplaces - not the marketplace itself. Just because iOS is successful doesn't mean it's the monopolistic entity for the "application marketplace" (which comprises dollars spent across all devices). If they wish to define iOS as a marketplace, then that logic would need to be applied to every business that owns 100% - of it's own business!

Why in the world would ANY company invest in innovation if they were forced to give those innovations away freely to competitors, or at a cost far below a required return on investment and to detriment of profitability?

App Store, Wallet, Messages and other technologies are core parts of their ecosystem strategy and are part of their intellectual assets which they solely bore the cost of development (and continue to solely bear ongoing costs to develop, maintain, and support). So now, simply force them to give access to others? For what?

If end users don't like Apple's limitations or exclusions, or don't like the synthesized ecosystem, or their overall business model and cost to live in it, they will decide to go elsewhere. But in fact, users have decided - the success of Apple proves that they love and appreciate the semi-wall garden model, and the handful of complainers are the some app developers who, one way or another, want a free or low cost ride on the coattails of Apple.

This is a suit brought by the government, ostensibly for the people, that the people in fact never clamored for nor wants, and it will harm they very things that attracted them to Apple if it were successful. Astounding...

Here's another insincere idiot wanting free access to someone else's decades long and ongoing investments.

How many third-party companies does Spotify give free access their user bases and services to leverage for their own external benefit?

How many major artists does Spotify give 100% of the revenues to, keeping nothing for themselves?

"It was already clear going in that this was not going to be a year when the Oscars made the best picture be the Best Picture. "

Can this be translated to English?

In other news, tests show that water is wet...

https://chng.it/PPSJPgC94z

Petition to demand DoJ withdraw the suit!

Sweeny, go wash your arse, you seem bothered by something....

I thought Love, From was essential a design firm, which is how Ives deservedly earned his reknown. But not the HW/SW technical underbelly. So Altman and Ive seek a billion dollars for ... an idea? I would think big money would be considered only after a lot more sweat and tears development have been shed, and prototypes have been produced. If its true, that's a lot of money to ask without any mention of the technical and manufacturing prowess underpinning the idear. Sounds like he misses Apple!

Anytime I see sample images from this company I am completely underwhelmed.  I appreciate what they are attempting here, and I would love something like this, but they need substantially better optics and sensor resolution to get me to sniff more closely. It's the kind of thing I think I would use three hours and lose interest

eightzero said:

I don't need a new iPhone. My 5s works just fine, does everything I need or want.

Call Herman Munster and let him know so he can update his numbers...