gilly33

StrangeDays said:

6502 said:

Great, Oprah's involved. Now I know why the iPhone is so expensive, 30% goes to her. Nothing presented today is anything I'm remotely interested in. Yet another streaming service. I'll happily stick with my $80/mo Uverse+internet. I mostly watch youtube anyway. Apple has jumped the shark.

Ah yes, because theyre the most successful (biggest, profitable, satisfaction ratings, etc) public corp in history, and because people said they're too vested in hardware, now that they increase their services offerings, they've jumped the shark? Yeah no. No one is forcing you to ditch whatever or wherever you get your content. I stream. 

6502 said:

Funny to watch people get so excited about something as mundane as a credit card. Up next, the Apple shoelace! I use my costco card at costco and my 2% back citi MC everywhere else. I don't really care if I miss out on an extra 1% back on a $30 purchase. That extra $0.30 won't make a difference in my life. Outside the iPhone (and less so the Mac), Apple is turning into a company I care less and less about. But, I did make a lot of money on their stock  

sirlance99 said:

Soli said:

sirlance99 said:

rob53 said:

Finally!!!!

Getting this to replace my Costco Citibank VISA card. Better rewards program. 

Will costco allow the MasterCard version or does their Apple Pay use hide the credit card type?

Really?!?! Because 4% for gas and 3% for dining on the Costco Citi Card is a better reward than 2% and 1% for the Apple Card. That’s not better to me. 

What?! The Costco card is 1% for all standard purchases while Card is 2%.

Standard isn’t always best when many cards have better rewards than 2%. Also, my standard purchases are extremely low compared to other categories. There’s practically nowhere that I purchase things that I can’t get at least 3% back and up to 5% on most things. 

ericthehalfbee said:

gatorguy said:

The EU has different competition laws than the US. "Google's platform or OS or ad service and if you don't like it use someone else's" isn't a defense as far as they are concerned. 

You could take that 3rd paragraph, substitute a different name, and perhaps end up with the same result IMHO.
"(Blank) has cemented its dominance in (blank) and shielded itself from competitive pressure by imposing anti-competitive contractual restrictions on third-party (blank)," she said. "This is illegal under EU antitrust rules."

Note that the EU says "market dominance is not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However they have a “special responsibility” not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting direct competition."

Maybe if you hope & pray enough it will happen. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Three words. “Dominant Market Position”

Used in all the various EU cases against Microsoft and Google. Apple doesn’t have this, especially in Europe where Android is dominant.

How can the UE ever fine Apple for being the “dominant market leader” when they just fined Android (Google) for the same thing? How can two competing companies BOTH be declared “dominant”?