macuserosu

melgross said:

macuserosu said:

“The new 140W charger is being sold as a separate purchase to the MacBook Pros, at $99. That price excludes the $49 USB-C to MagSafe cable. “

My pre-order for the MBP M1-Max comes with the 140W charger.  Not sure what AI is smoking as the high end MBP seem to get the better charger.

They’re just stating that it’s available separately. People lose them, break them, or they go bad. I also like to have chargers in different places so I don’t have to carry mine wherever I go, even if it’s on a different floor of my house.

applguy said:

So Apple is only going to sell 750M worth of Arm based laptops in 2021??? That sounds really, really wrong considering annual Mac sales are in the 30B range. At those estimates Apple Arm laptops are less than 3% of Mac sales. 

tehabe said:

macuserosu said:

tehabe said:

mark fearing said:

No, what you write is riddled with non-logic and inconsistencies.  Again - what you are saying is  I can't buy Target products at Trader Joes. And what about grocery stores charging SELF fees? Is THAT illegal? If so on what grounds? If a supplier doesn't pay shelf fees, guess what, they don't get into the store. None of what you say can be applied to any other situation in any way. It's really just anger that another company has had success and you want to make sure they don't.

If you don't know what the difference between the compitition between Trader Joe's and Target and the competition between Android and iOS is, that there is no way I can explain it to you.  Why is this so hard to understand what the differences are? Why simple grocery store around the corner and the app store on your phone are not the same? I mean, I could buy an HP printer from store A and get the ink from store B but I can't buy an app for my iPhone from store A today and store B tomorrow. And I would have to switch the entire platform, with all the consequences it entails. How is that the same of getting bread from store A today and store B tomorrow? Sorry, but you really don't understand what a monopoly is and what it isn't.

And if Apple has only success because they use their market power on iOS, I mean they just advertised their services in the settings, than they can go bankrupt for all I care.

I think you need to do some more research into your arguments before you type them.  

Apple offers two things here.  

First it offers a device that you elected to buy knowing it was a walled garden.  As part of that purchase you could use the device as Apple originally sold it to you with only Apples apps.  In that scenario clearly not a monopoly because that arm of Apple sold you a product.

Second part of Apple’s offerings is a market place of goods (software), for the product you bought as an bonus added service to the previous purchase.  You are not required to use this service.  They marketed this service at the purchase as what it is.  

For the general thought, I purchase a membership at Costco.  Costco provides me a card, a tangible object with terms and conditions.  That tangible object it mine to use and enjoy.  I could just put it in my wallet to say I have one or I could take selfies with it at the beach.  My $60 bought me a piece of plastic and the ability to access their walled garden.  Within that walled garden I can only access the products and services that Costco feels are appropriate and receives some revenue from.  My $60 plastic card does not allow we to ask them to carry anything, does not allow we to buy at Sam’s club, or allows me to take their product and pay for  it on the manufacturer’s website.  For my $60, I got the privilege of being able to walk into the walled garden.

While Apple is guilty of being a control freak, they are not a monopoly.  They are nothing more then a device seller and a service provider of a market place.

By the way this is the current legislative benchmark in the US:

“…to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty…” Sherman Act 1890

Thankfully case law has adjusted the scope to align with modern commerce or every grocery store chain, fast food chain, or market that spans multiple state could be considered a monopoly.

Here is thing, a phone is not a membership card. It device you use daily and it is something you only have one of. Sometimes you also have a work phone. But that it. I have a card in front of me, that gives me 25% off tickets with the Deutsche Bahn, I can't use it with Flixtrain or Flixbus or any other rail transport, but it doesn't prevent me from using those. Unlike a phone, if I wanted to use an app from the Play Store i have to switch to an Android device, and back, when want to use an app from the App Store. To believe that is realistic behaviour you don't know anything.

Also you migth be right, Walmart is probably the only (grocery) store for a lot of people within reasonable travelling distance even with a car.

But with one thing you are wrong, the App Store has become so succesful that it became an important market place for people's livelyhood. That means that private company has control over the livelyhood of other private companies and people to tell what they can and cannot do, without the possibilty of checks and balances. That is different with the state, and a reason why I prefer regulation by the state instead of a private company. Rule of law means that rules are decided in a parliament with the public present, rules can be challenged and decisions made because of those rules can be challenged too.

Essentially, because Apple created an exclusive and succesful App Store it created a platform which needs regulation. If it were an unsuccessful platform nobody would care. But Apple has power over people, and it is power without democratic legitimation. You could also say: the App Store is for developers taxation without representation.