darelrex

I read this whole article and all the comments, and I still don't know: Are Apple and Google allowed to charge their commission for companies that use alternate payment portals? Because I think that's what's going to happen in the USA after Judge Rogers ruled that California law requires Apple to allow alternate payment portals. Apple will bill those companies for the commission, and if they don't pay then they will be booted off the platform for breach of contract.

Hey, doesn't S. Korea have big companies that do business in the USA? Like, Samsung and Hyundai, just to name two? Maybe the U.S. should pass a law requiring them to offer U.S. consumers a special, lower, pricing tier where the company makes zero profit (or even a significant loss) on the sale. That would teach them a lesson in not taking such a big tax on their own products, over which they currently exert unfair, monopolistic, gate-keeper, toll-taker, rent-seeker control.

Apple has the winning argument here, because it is not actually disabling tracking — it's just giving each individual user the option to allow/disallow tracking in any particular app. Therefore, FaceBook's counterargument becomes, de facto, "every user should be forced to allow tracking whether they want to or not."

dewme said:

"the tech giants would be forced to allow them in their digital storefronts"

That's some very scary Big Brother massively intrusive sh**. Would Walmart, Target, Kroger, etc., allow the government to force them to stock certain products on their shelves even if the retailer did not want to carry such products? This basically amounts to a government takeover of private property.

Also, would Target allow the makers of the products to collect the full purchase price, leaving $0.00 for Target? I think Target would just shut down its Minnesota stores. And guess what: if this law passes, then many other stores — online and brick-&-mortar both — are going to be targeted by huge lawsuits that say this law is a precedent that they must do the same thing. We'll all get to see just how lightning-fast the MN legislature can repeal a law.

What chance does this Intel presentation have to convince Apple to abandon its M-series chip plans, and jump back to Intel 86 chips? Absolutely zero. How many consumers who were going to buy a Mac are going to be persuaded by this presentation to instead buy a Wintel PC? Very, very few. So what purpose does the presentation serve? Just this: to stroke the bruised ego of the new chief executive. When Intel's third CEO in as many years leads off with something like this, it's not an indicator that the company's best days are "in front of it."