steven n.

About

Username
steven n.
Joined
Visits
119
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,240
Badges
1
Posts
1,229

Reactions

890Like0Dislike54Informative

  • Apple roped into Juniper Networks patent lawsuit

    steven n.steven n.
    Patent sounds cool (and reasonably novel) but the Apple tie in? Based off of LinkIn profile because someone changed jobs???? Seriously????
    baconstangwatto_cobra

  • Man sues Apple for terminating Apple ID with $24K worth of content

    steven n.steven n.
    AppleUfmyI said:
    I hope he wins regardless of the reason his account was terminated and they are forced to write consumer friendly rules. 
    So a person’s personal actions mean NOTHING to you so long as you agree with the cause? Are you serious?
    jony0n2itivguywatto_cobra

  • Apple TV 'Mythic Quest' video promo has actors testing out toys

    steven n.steven n.
    cia said:
    I really liked Mythic Quest, and am really looking forward to the second season.   The 'Dark Quiet Death' episode was phenomenal TV.
    “Blood Ocean” was great as well as was the Pandemic Special. 
    watto_cobra

  • Apple cites web, third-party markets as evidence against App Store dominance

    steven n.steven n.
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said: Competition regulators tend to take the view that the relevant market is “iOS apps,” and here Apple has a 100% monopoly on their sale and distribution. Edge cases aside, there is no way for a developer to bring an iOS app to market without selling it through the App Store."
    Who is saying this? Did they provide any legal judgements that would support a regulator in a particular country having that view? Law is about precedent. From what I've seen, there isn't much of a precedent worldwide for what Epic is claiming, i.e., an individual OS should be viewed as operating in a competitive vacuum. 

    EDIT: oh, it's from 9to5Mac's "antitrust guide"...no wonder it doesn't make much sense. That site has no clue what it's talking about per antitrust. For example, they treat Apple lowering the cut to 15% for developers making less than one million per year as if it's proof that the 30% cut represents something anticompetitive...which doesn't really make any sense considering 1) 30% still applies to companies making more than one million  AND 2) Google made the same cut despite Android already allowing alternate stores.
    Specifically as it relates to Australian antitrust actions:
    https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1f7e6823-29bc-4e21-95e4-eb61bebb176b

    As" dominance in a market" is determined by the European Union for competition law issues:
    https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/abuse-of-dominance-in-digital-markets-2020.pdf

    And as seen through the eyes of the party currently in full control of the US House, Senate and White House. 
    https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2020/07/28/488201/using-antitrust-law-address-market-power-platform-monopolies/
    The EU document is scary and makes me glad I don’t live there. Two simple (of many) issues:

    1)
    “The conduct results in higher prices or worse quality for consumers”

    the “or” should be an “and”. People should be able to choose quality/cost benefits.

    2)
    “Consumers are not willing or able to switch to away from a dominant firm’s products”

    the “willing or” should be stricken.

    A casual read shows dozens of examples similar to the one above. 
    watto_cobra

  • Apple cites web, third-party markets as evidence against App Store dominance

    steven n.steven n.
    gatorguy said:
    Per another source there's a difference in what each side would like to claim as the marketplace:

    "Apple argues that it does not have a dominant position in this market, as it considers the relevant market to be either “smartphones” or “apps.” Since the company holds a minority share of the smartphone market in most of the countries in which it operates, it believes it cannot be considered to have a dominant position.

    Competition regulators tend to take the view that the relevant market is “iOS apps,” and here Apple has a 100% monopoly on their sale and distribution. Edge cases aside, there is no way for a developer to bring an iOS app to market without selling it through the App Store."

    The problem with this is you can define ANY market so narrowly that it is possible to claim every company on the planet as a monopoly and then use state as a tyrant to take over any industry. 
    ericthehalfbeewatto_cobra