tmay

rob53 said:

phillyfanatic09 said:

Market share is not the whole story; to show an illegal monopoly, the DOJ will have to prove that Apple maintains that market share by coercion, market manipulation or price manipulation. If US consumers simply prefer iPhones by a 2 to 1 margin, that’s not illegal. The case, as filed, faces some real challenges.

This happens in every market and rarely anything happens. Ford sells more trucks than any other company. Has the DOJ looked into any market manipulation by Ford? What about all their, and GM’s, manipulation of the truth? Even Microsoft just got off with a hand slap while they continue to coerce and manipulate the PC market. The US government is the largest user of Microsoft products, forcing everyone to use their server products with expensive client licenses yet nothing from the DOJ. 

avon b7 said:

canukstorm said:

avon b7 said:

canukstorm said:

avon b7 said:

blastdoor said:

avon b7 said:

igorsky said:

avon b7 said:

That 85% don't pay anything is utterly irrelevant. The point is that the remaining share is enough to generate billions upon billions in revenues because there is literally no competition allowed. Everything in that other group goes to Apple because alternative stores are not allowed to exist.

The same applies to the 'reduced' 15%' which only ever came into effect through regulatory scrutiny and complaints. Without that Apple wouldn't have conceded anything.

What are are you saying exactly…that Apple shouldn’t charge anything? That’s not how intellectual property works. 

Apple can charge whatever it wants. Why not 70%? That isn't the issue. 

The issue is that only Apple gets to charge because it doesn't allow other stores to exist. 

So Apple has a monopoly of the Apple market, eh? Kind of like how the movie theater doesn't allow outside food or drink? Or how if you go to your dentist, you can't choose a hygienist from another dentist? 

That approach to defining the market is absurd and if that's the basis for the DOJ's case (and it very well might be), then a victory by the DOJ would mean economic chaos. Consumers like bundles of goods and services. They don't want everything unbundled. To force that unbundling would harm consumers because it would impose on them the cost of creating those bundles themselves and doing all the integration themselves. 

Apple's practices are only potentially problematic if they are a monopoly. The revenue share argument strikes me as pretty weak. Apple is not stopping any other firm from offering a bundle of goods and services as attractive as theirs. Many other firms have the money and IP portfolios to pull it off. The thing holding them back isn't Apple, it's that their leadership is fundamentally corrupt and uninterested in creating a company like Apple, instead they are only interested in getting rich quick and moving on. That's not Apple's fault. 

It's all a question of perspective. These are new times for digital services and hardware. It should all be put into the system, scrutinised and dealt with. The Google search default on iPhones is also being scrutinised. Different places could well see things differently. 

This is the beginning. The EU has a lead here and we already know (or have a very good idea) what is expected. 

As for food and drink in movie theaters, they try that here (signs and all) but it is actually illegal to stop someone taking their own food and drink into a movie theater if the theater offers its own options. The reason being that food and drink isn't the main business of movie theaters. 

Again, different places see things in different ways. 

We'll have to wait and see how the DoJ plays it and how Apple responds. 

"The EU has a lead here and we already know (or have a very good idea) what is expected. "

The EU is not leading on anything.  This is nothing but the EU trying to regulate their way out of becoming economically irrelevant because they, and their companies, don't have what it takes to compete on an even playing field.  If you can't compete, regulate.  That's the EU's motto right now.   As far as the DOJ's case goes, it is wrong on the facts and the law.  It should have never brought.  If I were Apple's lawyers, I wouldn't pay the EU a penny of whatever fines they're thinking of levying, and I would go to town on the DOJ.

The EU has led the way on pretty much all the major legislative efforts related to 'digital'. 

WEEE, RoHS, GDPR, right to be forgotten, consumer protection, common chargers, Big Tech, Cyber Security... 

An AI directive is advancing well. 

If you read the just the preamble to most of those directives you will see why they are needed. That is basically accepted by all parties. That is why they got approved. 

They are also models for other parts of the world. 

The EU competes very well and the last time I checked there were a lot more US-EU strategic dependencies than EU-US strategic dependencies. 

Much is being said about the US Chips Act but long before that became something to talk about the EU was implementing its own chip road map. 

The EU rolled out widespread EMV payment support about a decade before the US. 

Interoperability within the banking and ICT sectors was dealt with long ago. 

'Common' policies were introduced to resolve big problems and have succeeded in many areas. 

No, the EU does not compete very well.  It's an economically decaying and cratering system.  The only way it can compete is by legislating itself to death.  A true mark of an irrelevant system.

Ironic that you say it's legislating itself to death when absolutely all the directives I mentioned act to harmonise actions across the union and literally level the playing field for everyone. 

Of the ones I mentioned, where are you seeing problems? Apart from Big Tech of course. 

danox said:

abriden said:

Adobe Creative Cloud is a relative bargain if one is working professionally, on a full-time basis. However, what happens if one's employment is paused or reduced, either by market forces, family commitments or chronic health issues. In these situations, CC is immediately expensive and yet without it one loses access to much of their work as well as the ability to maintain and update their skill-set should circumstances improve.

Furthermore, it used to be possible to work across different disciplines but with each now subject to subscription-pricing it is almost impossible to ...for example, I spent years invested in Cinema 4D but it was not my core speciality and now it's impossible to sustain that subscription alongside Adobe CC and others.

It is fine incentivising students to use certain tools, but with an uncertain job market, globally, how many of them can afford to maintain the software between graduating and finding the roles for which they studied.

I believe that these developers need to rethink their strategies to serve real-world employment circumstances as they evolve throughout one's lifecycle. 

Everything you described applies to the world of cad software Autodesk has a virtual monopoly. EU, DOJ where are you?