bshank

bwik said:

Spotify makes an interesting argument.  If HBO Now was downloaded from Apple (a fairly small service by Apple), does it mean Apple collects 30% of revenue for the first year and 15% thereafter?  If so, that seems excessive, just for providing a download portal to its users.  Apple could then compete with HBO on a lower cost structure and do its own shows, which apparently it is doing.  Netflix, same?  How about Amazon Prime revenue? 

There is precedent to suggest that Apple can't simply charge a 30% toll on all the revenue producing activities that happen across iOS.  Apple has some arguments that it created the platform.  The literature on railroad competition provides many examples of monopolistic pricing that had to be made illegal.  Usually the solution is to remove the barrier to entry, or if that is impractical (as building totally duplicate rail lines is somewhat impractical), to allow multiple carriers (= other App Stores) on the platform.

Spotify may be right that the current status quo on iOS App Store may be illegal.  Just my opinion as a hobbyist on these topics, not a professional.

Apple provides a lot more than just a download portal buddy

Good opportunity for both. Apple dips it’s toe into a new service and Goldman Sachs can try to help change their reputation 

rob53 said:

MplsP said:

randominternetperson said:

That's the way to do it. If nothing else Apple can keep this out of East Texas.

Is the district of Northern California more friendly to tech companies vs patent trolls like E Texas?

Apple is in the Northern District of CA and any jury would be more favorable to Apple as well as (probably) more technically qualified to understand what’s going on. 

Probably Judge Koh

Latko said:

bshank said:

Who has claimed Apple depends on depleted batteries to spur upgrades? The claim of planned obsolescence is that Apple makes the phones not work on purpose to spur upgrades. A battery is something consumable. Batteries cannot and never have been made to last forever. Apple has long offered battery replacement as a service in store. If a person cannot comprehend the fact that batteries don’t last forever they probably shouldn’t be buying a smartphone. 

Cook’s appreciation for the masses would  have required educating them.
Only giving room to the idea of throttling (while in fact there was the opposite strategy) makes for some of the worst PR seen in Apple history

Silly claim, unless you are a clickbait reader. People in the stores have been mostly happy to replace batteries and keep their iPhone 6 and 6s devices running longer. Again, if people haven’t had enough life experience to know batteries don’t last forever it’s not Tim Cook’s job to educate such sheltered people. Two years ago the complaints were the phones were shutting down suddenly, due to increased impedance on an older battery, and Apple came up with a solution to prevent that. 

Who has claimed Apple depends on depleted batteries to spur upgrades? The claim of planned obsolescence is that Apple makes the phones not work on purpose to spur upgrades. A battery is something consumable. Batteries cannot and never have been made to last forever. Apple has long offered battery replacement as a service in store. If a person cannot comprehend the fact that batteries don’t last forever they probably shouldn’t be buying a smartphone.