foregoneconclusion

gatorguy said:

IMHO, Apple doesn't expect this latest proposal to be any more acceptable to the EU authorities as the initial one was. Both are at odds with “the spirit” of the legislation. 

The "spirit" of the legislation was an attempt at increasing competition not cherry picking which companies are allowed to make money from software development. Apple wants to make money from the development of iOS. Epic and Spotify want to make money from the development of their apps on iOS. All of the complaints from Epic and Spotify now are entirely centered around complaining that Apple wants to monetize iOS.  

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: Apple didn't create the iPad to be a substitute for an Apple laptop. They created the iPad to fit into the functionality gaps between the iPhone and Apple laptops. In other words, there are things that the iPad does better than either of those products. Not everything. Some things. 

There was only a single year where Spotify allowed users to purchase a subscription through the App Store at the same time that Apple Music was a competitor. All the other years (both before and after Apple Music launched) involved Spotify preferring to only offer the free ad-supported version through the App Store. And if you look at that single year in question, it was before streaming services really took off in terms of customer base. Spotify was still relatively tiny at that point. But the EU thinks that single year is worth a $2 billion fine.

motif88 said:

Nothing fake about it… I had my butterfly keyboard replaced twice. Did you try and type on that POS for 2+ years? I did.

Just received my well earned $395 check today.

AppleInsider tried to assess what the repair rates were for the MBPs with butterfly mechanisms. Their final conclusion was that MAYBE the 1st year of MBPs with that mechanism had higher repair rates. That was about as definitive as it ever got. And you have to remember that the MacBook got the butterfly mechanism a year earlier than the MBP and didn't generate complaints. 

DOJ is using Section 2 of the Sherman Act which requires them to prove:

1. That Apple actually has monopoly level control.

AND

2. That Apple’s use of monopoly control has harmed the overall market. Harming competitors isn’t enough. So you can’t just say “Apple used APIs that weren’t available for use by competitors” and expect that to hold up by itself.