teejay2012
About
- Username
- teejay2012
- Joined
- Visits
- 101
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 2,044
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 434
Reactions
-
Google's default search payments to Apple at risk in antitrust lawsuit
Google pays Apple to make Google the default search, but it does not pay to exclude all others. I don't see the case. It is very easy to change search engine by navigating to Settings > Safari > Search Engine and then selecting from the options listed. Currently you can choose from Google, Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, or Ecosia and I think many users have changed. Users have choices. IMO the real questions are whether Google search will be hobbled to allow 'competition' thereby eliminating it as a desirable 'default' option, will Apple be forced to include every search engine on current list of options in iOS, and how can AI search engines like Perplexity be integrated in default search options?
-
Apple files appeal against court ruling that mandated App Store changes
I am not sure why Apple can not have a unique agreement and contract with each developer, or at least the largest ones. Netflix does not pay the 30%, albeit it has a very large base of iPhone users and AFAIK rules for streamers are different. But couldn't Apple renegotiate with others and have as part of the contract, clauses that define a firm but fair share of revenue? Courts are good for identifying issues that need correction, but are generally terrible with 'remedies'. Apple should have read the room and did something concrete the first time around on anti steering, as an angry judge is not what you want.
-
Epic vs. Apple: What Apple is being forced to do to the App Store
Rulings are one thing for the court, remedies are entirely different and they are usually bad in the case of tech. The Apple case is an example in that 'anti steering' is something that many of us would agree with. However this judge has placed a value on Apple's IP that allows the App Store to exist...'zero'. I do not agree. It is worth a lot and all the developers know that. Perhaps the smart people at Apple will figure out something to salvage this. An appeal? That will not work here. The judge is angry and the judge is clear. As an aside, the same issue of remedies will come up with Google which has had 2 rulings against it. We understand the rulings but the remedies that are being suggested?... Break up Google? Sell off Chrome? ... none make sense, but then again, judges are experts in law, not experts in business. Absolutely Apple should have done something concrete about anti steering, and the judge would not have had to wade into remedies that in summary, will harm Apple more than help developers.
-
Judge sanctions Apple for blatantly violating 'Fortnite' App Store order
Tim Cook, the head of the world's largest corporation, wilfully disregarded a court order. Irony after personally supporting Trump's inauguration party, that Cook has caused a 'constitutional crisis' of sorts in his company. The questions on the earnings call today will be brutal and AAPL will take a hit. Thanks Tim. My retirement fund had not shrunk enough.
-
Apple EU anti-competition fine is a relatively modest $570 million to avoid Trump retaliat...
I don't disagree with you, but the EU has dug its heels in. Being practical, I thought simply indicating "Subscription or app prices may be different on the developers site www.spotify.com" might suffice work. Nothing more and as I wrote, certainly Apple should not link the url. But... does Apple need to put in warnings about security concerns for apps downloaded from alternative stores? Does Apple need to state that any problems with transactions outside of Apple are not covered by Apple? I think it is these kinds of 'small' details that are 'big' sticking points for Apple.9secondkox2 said:
A “notice” thst an app can be purchased elsewhere is such an egregious and corrupt thing to force on a company.teejay2012 said:I did not understand the Spotify - Apple Music fine. The Commission conveniently overlooked that it is Spotify that has a monopoly in the EU and is not financially harmed by Apple, even becoming profitable after many years despite Daniel Ek's extravagant CEO lifestyle. Anti steering should have been a simple thing for Apple, with a notice that the app could be purchased on the web. A url could have even have been provided, but I could not see how Apple should provide an actual link on the App Store page. That would be like Walmart arranging for an Uber to take you to Target to buy the product at a lower price. Apple was likely surprised how aggressive Vestager was, and how committed she was to promote EU industry by fining US industry. She is gone. Apple will appeal to the courts, which have in past over ruled the Commission, but the chances are small of reversing this. After all, this is 'only 500 million' and this is Apple...It’s equivalent to a popular exclusive store being forced to put up a sign next to designer jeans pointing people to a sale at wal/mart down the street.
