tehabe

sdw2001 said:

All I can say is I disagree completely.  It is a feature unique to iOS and iPad OS.  It works only with Apple's products.  What you're pushing is literally tantamount to Wal-Mart being forced to sell Target brands.  After all, discount retail is a "marketplace" and everyone needs access.  Right?  

macuserosu said:

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.

You are correct a phone is a phone.  An iPhone is a phone without the App Store.  In fact the first iPhone didn’t even have an App Store.  So like that first iPhone your phone will work as a phone, as an internet device, as an iPod, as a navigation devices, as a measuring tape, as a camera, as a camcorder, as a voice recorder, as a note taker, as a document editor, and as an e-reader all without needing to ever use the App Store. You as the operator choose to use the App Store if you want to access the apps developers created.  

The App Store is regulated by the laws of supply and demand, the laws of each and every jurisdiction it elects to sell its products, and the laws of customer’s preferences.  

Developers are not “taxed without representation”.  They provide a fee or service charge to Apple to use a service.  Their representation was their agreement to Apple’s  terms and  to develop for the platform.  I have several “apps” I use that are web apps that I access through a browser because the developers decided not to create a native app.  That was their representation and I elect to still patronize them.  In fact there are several business that have native apps that I like to utilize the website version over the app.  

Because you feel they need more regulation or that they should be considered a monopoly is your personal belief.  In a free market, the market decides if Apple will be successful, the customers device if they fail, and the faithful will decide if the next thing will be a hit.  

thrang said:

tehabe said:

thrang said:

Everyone overcomplicates, including government interventionists

Who cares what Apple charges? If they charge too much, developers should stop supporting them and users should not buy an iPhone (or buy apps). The market strongly indicates pricing is not an issue. Apple is a premium price company across the board, and they deliver an experience that many desire and appreciate. 

The app store is a feature of the iPhone, like BMW's Connected Drive is a feature of their cars. Should you be able to demand a Mercedes Command system be made available to your BMW?

A company can seek and must seek to maximize its profits. The markets will decide if they have pushed too far. There are cheap Android phones anyone can buy around the world. Go at it.

Should Apple be forced to provide free services to third parties? Why? Should Peloton be allowed to set up a kiosk in Dick's Sporting Goods to sell its bikes and treadmills direct to customers who walk into Dick's, with no compensation to Dick's? 

How would security be managed with sideloaded apps if it were to come to that dopey idea? Access to and transmission of private data? Does Apple have to give Cockamamie Email Plus access to your Contacts? Photos? Calendar? What about access to the larger ecosystem of devices and data? Permitted? Not permitted? What about unvetted poor coding (leading to perhaps overheating, battery drain, lock ups, ie a poor user experience). Who is responsible for supporting the grey area of shitty sideloaded apps making your iPhone unstable or slow? Who pays for the extra work in iOS coding, testing, support, investigations if it were even remotely possible to manage such a thoughtless concept of sideloading into an otherwise secure environment?

How can Apple maintain responsibility for its reputation in such a paradigm (and that is among the many critical considerations that governments and yahoos don't give a hoot about)

Does a company have a right to manage and protect against such dangers to its profit, reputation, brand, and, most importantly, protect a users trust in them? 

Who is forced to support Apple? No one. But it is readily apparent that customers and developers find it far more worth it than not to join and stay part of the Apple ecosystem. People love the product as it is. If Apple is missing the boat by not offering something different, that's there choice, and maybe their mistake.

There is a desire to hate on the successful in the world, at business and personal levels. It's a sad state of affairs really. No one will build a better mousetrap with that type of thinkin; they just want to steal the cheese off of someone else's...

I guess you would happy if Apple would close down macOS as they close down iOS, no more installing third party applications from the web, no more direct access to the file system. Btw Apple actively ignored several security vulnerabilities reported to them this year w/o fixing them in time. Or how they denied the privacy for their employees by forcing them to use their personal Apple ID/devices for work. Apple doesn't care for its users or security, they only care for their profit and share prices.

The only reason why I'm currently considering an iPhone for my next smartphone is that Apple supports them for a longer period of time than other manufacturers with actual updates.

The App Store is not a feature it is a market place, and capitalists should be lobbying for free access to market places, right?

Of course its' a feature of iOS. Try to use the Apple App Store on a Playstation or Xbox.

If you think that poorly of Apple's overall efforts, a slightly longer OS support timeframe doesn't seem to warrant buying into them as a company for you.

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.

thrang said:

Everyone overcomplicates, including government interventionists

Who cares what Apple charges? If they charge too much, developers should stop supporting them and users should not buy an iPhone (or buy apps). The market strongly indicates pricing is not an issue. Apple is a premium price company across the board, and they deliver an experience that many desire and appreciate. 

The app store is a feature of the iPhone, like BMW's Connected Drive is a feature of their cars. Should you be able to demand a Mercedes Command system be made available to your BMW?

A company can seek and must seek to maximize its profits. The markets will decide if they have pushed too far. There are cheap Android phones anyone can buy around the world. Go at it.

Should Apple be forced to provide free services to third parties? Why? Should Peloton be allowed to set up a kiosk in Dick's Sporting Goods to sell its bikes and treadmills direct to customers who walk into Dick's, with no compensation to Dick's? 

How would security be managed with sideloaded apps if it were to come to that dopey idea? Access to and transmission of private data? Does Apple have to give Cockamamie Email Plus access to your Contacts? Photos? Calendar? What about access to the larger ecosystem of devices and data? Permitted? Not permitted? What about unvetted poor coding (leading to perhaps overheating, battery drain, lock ups, ie a poor user experience). Who is responsible for supporting the grey area of shitty sideloaded apps making your iPhone unstable or slow? Who pays for the extra work in iOS coding, testing, support, investigations if it were even remotely possible to manage such a thoughtless concept of sideloading into an otherwise secure environment?

How can Apple maintain responsibility for its reputation in such a paradigm (and that is among the many critical considerations that governments and yahoos don't give a hoot about)

Does a company have a right to manage and protect against such dangers to its profit, reputation, brand, and, most importantly, protect a users trust in them? 

Who is forced to support Apple? No one. But it is readily apparent that customers and developers find it far more worth it than not to join and stay part of the Apple ecosystem. People love the product as it is. If Apple is missing the boat by not offering something different, that's there choice, and maybe their mistake.

There is a desire to hate on the successful in the world, at business and personal levels. It's a sad state of affairs really. No one will build a better mousetrap with that type of thinkin; they just want to steal the cheese off of someone else's...