qwerty52

brauntj said:

thedba said:

5GB RAM-gate?

I bought the iPad, I should be able to use as much RAM as I want.

That’s why the iPad cannot be used for “real work”. 

Any other upcoming arguments I missed?

This is why we need a third party OS. Apple shouldn’t have a monopoly on their hardware platform like this. 

crowley said:

qwerty52 said:

crowley said:

qwerty52 said:

crowley said:

9secondkox2 said:

Beats said:

gc_uk said:

Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly. 

Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola  has the right to change their rules. 

That’s not a monopoly. 

A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market. 

Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market. 

Case closed. 

There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store.  Case reopened.

Not agree.

Wal-Mart in its own stores, it’s also not exclusively owner of the drinks made by Coca Cola, but because Coca-Cola is willing to sell their drinks through Mal-Mart, it is more than a normal, that therefore Coca-Cola has to pay a commission. If not agree with the commission, Coca-Cola is free to go to other markt places.

Everyone willing to sell his own app through the iOS market is doing this volunteerly, after considering all the financial PROS and CONS of if doing this. Apple did not threaten him with a gun in order to push him into the AppStore.

He is entirely free to go to a different apps markets or to establish his own one, after first creating his own platform (very easy to do it and cost nothing, according some people). Why complaining then?

Case again closed.

You disproved your own point, iOS apps cannot reasonably be sold anywhere other than the iOS App Store.  If the Apple App Store is WalMart in your analogy, who is CostCo, or Target, or any other competition?  There is no "different app market" and no one can establish their own one.  No one else can sell iOS apps in any way that consumers can reasonably access, so there is no competition.  Even if you consider jailbreaking as an alternative (I do not, at least not a reasonable one), the market share there is so low that Apple would still qualify as a monopoly.

No, I disapprove nothing. 

For example:

I don’t want to sell my own production of potatoes in any other store.
I want to sell my potatoes ONLY  in my own store, which I built it by my self.

If you want me to sell your own production of potatoes, tomatoes or whatever in my store, you need of course to pay me a commission, but your products in my store are still your property and you can take them back anytime you want.
And because I am very aware of the reputation of my store, and because I want to sell only high quality products in it, I may refuse to accept your tomatoes in my store if the quality of them is lower then the criteria I use in order to keep the good name of my store.

So if you think my commission is to high, you are free to go to another store, beloning to someone else, or to built your own one.

There is no other store.  You cannot build another store.  That's the entire point.  It doesn't matter if you want to talk about Wal Mart or potatoes or any other nonsense, the subject is iOS apps, and Apple's store is the only store.  And that's why we're talking about monopoly.

crowley said:

qwerty52 said:

crowley said:

9secondkox2 said:

Beats said:

gc_uk said:

Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly. 

Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola  has the right to change their rules. 

That’s not a monopoly. 

A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market. 

Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market. 

Case closed. 

There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store.  Case reopened.

Not agree.

Wal-Mart in its own stores, it’s also not exclusively owner of the drinks made by Coca Cola, but because Coca-Cola is willing to sell their drinks through Mal-Mart, it is more than a normal, that therefore Coca-Cola has to pay a commission. If not agree with the commission, Coca-Cola is free to go to other markt places.

Everyone willing to sell his own app through the iOS market is doing this volunteerly, after considering all the financial PROS and CONS of if doing this. Apple did not threaten him with a gun in order to push him into the AppStore.

He is entirely free to go to a different apps markets or to establish his own one, after first creating his own platform (very easy to do it and cost nothing, according some people). Why complaining then?

Case again closed.

You disproved your own point, iOS apps cannot reasonably be sold anywhere other than the iOS App Store.  If the Apple App Store is WalMart in your analogy, who is CostCo, or Target, or any other competition?  There is no "different app market" and no one can establish their own one.  No one else can sell iOS apps in any way that consumers can reasonably access, so there is no competition.  Even if you consider jailbreaking as an alternative (I do not, at least not a reasonable one), the market share there is so low that Apple would still qualify as a monopoly.

crowley said:

9secondkox2 said:

Beats said:

gc_uk said:

Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly. 

Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola  has the right to change their rules. 

That’s not a monopoly. 

A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market. 

Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market. 

Case closed. 

There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store.  Case reopened.