avon b7

applegeorge said:

VictorMortimer said:

Before you whine about the Mango Mussolini's DoJ, remember that this suit is something that was started during a sane administration to give US more rights to the products WE own.

It doesn't go far enough, we need the right to install whatever software we see fit on OUR devices without Apple's permission or interference.  And while some of the issues have already been resolved, they haven't all been, and they definitely need to be resolved in OUR favor, not Apple's favor.

YOU bought the device knowing exactly what the deal was. Don’t like it, don’t buy it. 

That argument wouldn't even reach court. 

The truth is you cannot make statements like that because there is nothing in the purchase process that spells out the Apple imposed limitations (which Apple could make perfectly clear - but doesn't).

But, running with your idea, do you think these limitations should be made clear to users prior to purchase? If not, why not? 

Apple is potentially on the hook for past and present actions.

No amount of change now or recently can affect what went on in the past.

They effectively used 'first mover' status and the ecosystem narrative to lock out true competition and lock in consumers. Right at the outset. In the process, innovation has been stifled and competition harmed. 

Although in the EU, my wife went for years unable to use our bank's wallet system because Apple only allowed one wallet system. Its own.

She also went years without being able to use the Barcelona public transport NFC phone option because Apple didn't allow it. And even after the introduction of the DSA/DMA, the Barcelona transport authority still had to complain to the EU to gain access. 

My wife's Huawei Watch 'works' with her iPhone on some levels. It works with other Android phones on a much better level. This is by design. Apple makes it difficult for competitors to offer a seamless experience with iPhones. If Apple has to rework things from scratch to offer true like-for-like compatibility, it's because that should have been the case right from the beginning. Interoperability should be a design focus for gatekeepers. Just likes 'standards' are in other areas. Times have changed. We now live in a digital world and there should be wide ranging interoperability. 

And if we go back, almost to the beginning, we already know that Apple had 'lock in' well in it's sights. Previous court cases have revealed internal mails that say as much. 

The changes implemented over the years have almost exclusively been in response to investigations or potential fines. Not voluntary actions. 

Apple isn't alone here but the root problems are quite similar across jurisdictions. There are technicalities that set them apart (EU, DoJ, South Korea, Australia, UK, Japan etc) but IMO, Apple has gone out of its way to impede competition to its own benefit. 

Different jurisdictions are now looking at what has gone on. Most of them have raised issues with Apple. 

Can I understand Apple, Google etc? Yes. 

Should governments be stepping in to level the playing field for everyone? Absolutely. 

And, as I've said many times before, I'd go one step further and actually inform potential purchasers of the limitations of choice that the company imposes. If choice will be limited by the company, just inform users prior to purchase. That should be easy enough. 

Or alternatively, make everything first party and closed off to outside sources. 

It would be great if Apple informed users of its own free will. After all, according to Apple these/those limitations, are a key part of what makes the platform a success. Just make purchasers privvy to what Apple is taking away from them. The same would apply to Google, Meta etc. 

And there lies one of the biggest issues and a major part of Apple's reasoning. 

"threatens the very principles that set iPhone apart in a fiercely competitive market". 

Who is arguing that the market isn't competitive? 

But we'd have to define both 'market' and 'competitive' here. Apple obviously makes no such effort. 

In the US the 'market', in platform terms, can be seen as containing just two players. Android and OS. A duopoly. I wouldn't call that competitive or even fiercely competitive. Basically, there is no competition, just two companies dividing up the market and both of them trying to lock their users onto their respective platforms.

If you just scratch the surface,details of things like the long-standing Google/Apple default search deal immediately pop up! And only through court discovery processes. 

Google paying Apple billions to be the default search option or potentially Google paying Apple billions a year to not compete with it. 

Obviously, there were grounds for investigation here (from both suppositions).

The first Trump admin saw Tim Cook meeting Trump. Various times. Almost in the same period, Huawei handsets were banned in the US. That was 'competition' knee-capped by government. Huawei was on course to be the world's dominant handset maker and was a serious threat to both Apple and Samsung. More grounds for investigation? Possibly. 

But, getting back to the point of the quote. 

Maybe those principles were wrong from the outset. 

What is clear to most jurisdictions around the world is that Apple needs to make changes because the current operation is not healthy for consumers (and again and this case apart, this isn't only an Apple thing).

Put simply, Apple did what it did for so long because it could. And it got away with it. 

Times are changing and Apple doesn't want change but change it will have to. 

In the DoJ case specifically, maybe it will or maybe it won't. Currently there is too much political influence being exercised (in all directions) and then there are those technicalities so it's impossible to know how things will go. 

This would be a logical move and something I've argued in favour of for years.

Both the notion of more models and a scaled roll out. 

It's a win-win on every level and competitors have been doing the same for ages. It works. 

Marketing gets something to 'sell' all year round. 

Manufacturing get it's load lightened. 

Engineering gets some respite. 

Logistics becomes more agile. 

Consumers don't have to wait a full year for the 'latest' phones. 

How they would go about it depends on higher management. 

No 'Pro' models early in the year and 'Pro' models prior to Christmas is definitely an option.

Another is one full range in spring and another in autumn.

The strategic benefit to that is being able to release competitive flagships throughout the year and scale features between releases.

Currently Apple releases phones that are often trailing the competition on new features even at release and then they have to wait a full year for another shot and then the same thing happens all over again. 

IMO, that is one of the main reasons Apple has constantly trailed in camera and battery/charging advances. That's setting aside folding phones for a moment. 

It's also the main reason (but not the only one) why it's losing ground and competitiveness in China quarter after quarter and that is having a knock on effect with wearables etc. 

Not having a car and folding phone simply exacerbate the problem. 

macxpress said:

MplsP said:

A coworker has a folding Android phone (I think it’s a Samsung.) It seems nice for the times you have your phone and need something closer to an iPad mini, but there is a very visible bump/crease in the middle where it folds and the screen did seem to be having some issues along the edges. If you’re watching a movie, the aspect ratio doesn’t really work or help you and you end up with a crease down the middle of the image so it’s really no good for that. The form factor also means you can’t have much of a case or a case with a kickstand so in some ways it’s a bit limiting.

For iPads, many of the same limitations apply, only more so. You’re not trying to fit an iPad in your pocket so they don’t have the size constraints that a smart phone has, and iPads are designed to do more work using the entire screen, so having a crease in the middle is even more of an issue. 

Overall, from what I’ve seen I’d take a standard smartphone and skip the folding screen and i can’t really see the use for a folding iPad. 

This is exactly the issue with folding phones (even iPads for that matter). There's minimal value and far too many tradeoffs. I doubt Apple would ever release something with a crease down the center of the screen. Android users don't care about stuff like that. They'll buy nearly anything if it sounds cool and then act like their product is better because it was first to the market so it's "cutting edge" and Apple is always years behind! 

Plus there's only so many folds it can do before it breaks and I wouldn't be surprised if some even broke prematurely. 

Yet the rumours are constant and pointing to ever-increasing probability of a release in the relatively short term so I think Apple has decided to sign off on the product. 

The notch was a huge trade off for something that wasn't even strictly necessary. 

Glass fronts and backs have to be accepted even though there are great alternatives for backs that are far more durable. 

Folding phones, by nature, need extra care and that is a trade off. A hinge is a potential point of failure that slab phones don't have. But then slab phones can't double as mini tablets.

Anything mechanical will have a certain amount of actions before they break. Buttons, physical sliders, even ports
(insertion/removal). 

Modern folding phones are rated for years of use but the target audience at the high end probably renews the device with every hardware upgrade as they have lots of disposable income. 

I can see why that might appeal to Apple. Especially as they might be losing high income users through not having a competing offering. 

As for the crease, even the first foldable phones (with more visible creases) it was a non-issue. They were hardly noticeable in use. Very similar to the situation with the notch. 

If it's 'cheap' and runs macOS there will be a market for it unless it is crippled in someway (RAM etc) or 'Apple upsell' ends up killing the 'cheap' aspect.

To my mind, I think OS 'convergence' is inevitable despite what Apple says and will mark the way forward just like HarmonyOS is doing right now. One OS for every device. 

It will require a huge effort to restructure the OS underpinnings and I think that is already underway even if nothing has been said officially.