davidlewis54

It is a shame when apps are not updated and won’t work on newer OSs. I do, though, see the reasoning. More frustrating is when an app changes developer and has to be paid for again (which I won’t do).

On one other point, I don’t think Apple can be considered a monopoly. There are a number of alternatives.  However, it is entirely fair if Apple controls the content and operation of software run on its hardware.  Apple hardware and software combined are far more secure than, say, MS operating systems because hardware and software are integrated.  If developers are allowed a free-for-all the security will be compromised.  If a developer wants to run its app on an Apple device it should (a) tie in with Apple infrastructure and (b) pay Apple for the ability to do so.

The fees are clearly not illegal.  If the companies sign up for the Apple Pay service, they do so knowingly. If there is another free service, well, fine. Apple is again generating business for the banks and pays for the infrastructure.  Yet another try-on for third parties to make money from Apple with no justification.

I am sure Visa can afford the minimal charges.  I’m in the UK paying 29.9% on my Visa card with a base rate of a 1.25%.  I have never managed to get the rate reduced, there is always another six months to wait.  I have been nowhere near my credit limit for several years and have always paid more than the minimum. The account has been clear for some months.  I also have a very high credit score.  Visa doesn’t reduce my rate because historically I have not been able to clear it, so I was just captive.  Banks charge business more for debits and credits on business accounts which is why personal current accounts are free.  I only use Apple products because they are so secure.

Oh, no! Has the world ended and I’ve missed it?

The home buying and selling analogy as a general thing is hard to use as ultimately any deal depends on its contract. If you find black mould (I’m in the UK) after you’ve bought, it could be your survey didn’t pick up the damp or you didn’t see it.  That would be down you. However, if you asked the seller, perhaps thinking the property might have damp, if the property suffers from mould and the seller says no, knowing there is, that is a misrepresentation so an actionable matter. As I imagine you’re in the US you’d immediately rush off to court claiming billions in damages! In the Twitter/Musk case, and assuming the contract contains the relevant provisions, the questions which have to be answered are (1) can Twitter identify spam and bot accounts and (2) if it can, has it passed the information along. Musk, if he has been given the data is responsible for sifting it to answer his own questions, this being part of his due diligence. Is it, perhaps some buyer’s remorse that having offered the amount per share he did, the value of the shares has dropped, making his purchase not seem such a good idea. This flipping and flopping merely brings the share price down further, so the gamble is to sue, bring the price right down and then re-bid. Neat.