foregoneconclusion

mrstep said:

9secondkox2 said:

Seems like a smart man’s genuine appreciation of another smart man. 

Good to see. 

Cook is they’re to look ahead and can see the potential blessing of current moves down the road  

We had 50 years of US leadership selling out our manufacturing base to a Communist regime and it seems most people are only angry at President Trump for trying to change that course.  The CCP is literally fascist. ߤ禺wj;♂️ 

You need to look at factual information about U.S. manufacturing. The manufacturing output of the United States today is much higher than it was during the 1980s. But the number of jobs in manufacturing is much lower. Why? Because U.S. manufacturers primarily focus on automation. 

This reality is one of the reasons many people are skeptical about use of AI. It's yet another way to automate output and it's related to employment areas that previously didn't have much automation. 

apmiller said:

Sounds like most of you are opposed to moving more manufacturing back to the USA by balancing trade inequities through tariffs.

People oppose it because it won't work. For example, tariffs don't just increase the price of consumer products. They also increase the price of industrial supplies and materials that are used by U.S. manufacturers. How is that going to move manufacturing back to the U.S.? The statistics on Trump's more limited 2018/19 trade war in his first term show that the U.S. lost more manufacturing jobs than it created during that time.

We’re living in a very corrupt age and business leaders appear to be fine with a lot of the corruption. 

elijahg said: I'm not saying there is a law around it, but anticompetitive behaviour is very opinionated and it would be much easier for Valve to justify that they "need" that profit to operate and invest than Apple can. This is especially true when you consider the lock-in, when the alternative requires the expenditure in the form of purchasing a different device.

The quote from the court is saying that 30% commission is too high relative to the intellectual property involved which = iPhone hardware + iOS + App Store. That's multiple IP developments versus the app developer that has a single IP development...their app. So the single IP developer gets 70% and the multiple IP developer gets 30%. I'm just saying that I don't follow how that is interpreted as supracompetitive. 

elijahg said: I suspect if the 30% commission was Apple's only major source of profit, like the commission on the Steam store is Valve's only real source of profit, the outcome would have been  different. 

What would that be based on though? Is there a law that limits profit margins based on how many different profit margins you generate? That has always seemed nebulous at best. Tim Sweeney's argument about consoles "losing money" on hardware and profiting on software isn't founded in law. It's just an example of another business model.