maestro64

Who want to pay all that money and then have to run around and charge batteries all the time. I am sorry this solution does not pass the wife test, If i installed this and the first time she could not open or close a blind because the batteries need charged they would be torn out.

rcfa said:

What needs to end is either the walled garden or the AppStore monopoly, it should also be possible to delete Apple’s apps to free up storage, not just hide them.

It should also be possible for the user to let apps access hardware info, but it should require user consent and be tied to apps with strict privacy policies.

In other words the restrictions on what sort of apps users may run on their own hardware need to go; but not Apple’s ability to provide an integrated solution.

The fact that Apple make apps only interface to the OS and Hardware via API is the reason that apps always work across all hardware Apple produces and from version to version of Hardware and software. In the Mac world you can always tell the good developers verse the hacks, the apps that did not break when Apple updates the OS or comes out with a new computer, these developer understand how to program within the API and Apple guidelines. On the Mac the system still allowed developers to address the hardware directly, but with the phones this is not easily done which make for a stable product.

StrangeDays said:

Will grocers be required to bid out their in-house bakery space or in-house pharmaceutical clones? Or can they still pre-load them?

There is such a disconnect here.

MS got into monopoly trouble not for merely including IE with Windows, but for using their dominance in the OS space to force desired behavior from partners -- specifically denying OEM computer makers needed Windows licenses unless they promised to stop including Netscape with their computers. That was the anti-competitive behavior. Apple has not done the equivalent of that.

No they will not since these new rules only apply to companies with a Market Cap of $600 bill. This law most likely will fail on this rule alone since in the US laws must be applies equally, you can not favor or disfavor any one or company over another.

It sounds like the government did not realize they already have mechanism to keep companies from buying a competitor. All acquisition have to be approved by the FTC today. Either the legislators are stupid (high probability of that) or they just now realizing the government created this mess by allowing the acquisition in the first place (you think you have problem now wait to see the solution the government comes up with). They are now going to create another set of laws on top of the laws they failed to use properly in the first place to keep companies from buying competitors. That is going to work well.

Apple never bought competitors (very smart on their part) they bough small start ups with technology solution ot help grow their core business or they grew the business organically which is also smart. The government it going to break up Apple by saying you got to big on your own so we want you smaller, they can not even point to any anti-competitive acquisitions they did.

Does this mean Apple has to devest from it Chip Design division, it software development organizations, its retail stores, its online store, its streaming services, it wearable health business, where does the line get drawing. Keep in mind most all of this was home grown. It not like the days of Rockefeller who bough up every competitor up and down stream of his business so it controlled the entire value stream. BTW when the government broke up Standard oil it actually made more money for the Rockefellers, since they owns shares in all the pieces which all grew even larger since they provided services beyond just the Rockefeller businesses. 

The rule use to be does the consumer pay more or loose benefits from a single company doing what they are doing, thus the term antitrust/anticompetitive. Today they are not looking at whether the consumer is harmed ie paying more or not having a choice, they looking at if company is just too big, since they can not prove a consumer pays more. We all know you pay more for an iPhone, but you can always buy a lower cost competitors phone. On Amazon you still have choice and the price is not the same so their is competition and many time the prices are lower than anywhere else so consumer are not paying more.

This is also going to affect Costco and local grocery stores they both offer their own brand product against competitor name brand products. They will write the law so it broad catch all for things they might not thought about. This will have unintended consequences.

 As the saying goes you think you have problem now wait to you see the solution government comes up with.