- Last Active
I have said this before, but I’ll say it again. The CCP has a reasonable dataset of Asian faces for their biometric tracking but not for any other race. So by enabling the collection of a massive dataset of these other nationalities means they will be able to more easily track foreign nationals within their borders. It also means that if they take over another country, they can quickly implement the same social tracking system to control the population.
gatorguy said:randominternetperson said:This would be an excellent way to dramatically slow down innovation and the deployment of integrated, seamless solutions that customers love.
Frankly, I hard a hard to guessing how you would "break up" Apple in any reasonable way. Is it just a matter of imposing on Apple the requirement that they support competing app stores? Is so, that's not a "break up."
Likewise, how do you break up Facebook when their main product is a single worldwide social network? Or do you just do the reasonable thing and not allow them to acquire additional social networks?
I fully expect that wiser heads will prevail and people will bring up all the other examples of feared monopolies that turned out to be temporary "winners" that were ultimately unable to prevent the rise of competitors and/or the radical evolution of their market. For example, how did that big, bad Microsoft monopoly on desktop PC OSes and core office software work out? Sure they are still the leading vendor in those spaces, but they face serious competition. How about AOL's dominant position in the ISP market?
Going by this rationale that would also mean the end of “Smart TV’s” as they have software loaded onto hardware by the same manufacturer.
mjtomlin said:greginprague said:
Why is that fundamentally different? Apple isn’t allowed to make money on the equipment and the App Store? That seems like a preference of Bornstein but nothing that would hold up in court. To me the App Store commission percentage between platforms is completely relevant and should stand on its own. If Epic is fine with Sony and Nintendo charging 30% then he must be fine with Apple doing the same. How was that not ruled on in summary judgement??
- Bornstein says that console markets taking 30% is fundamentally different than Apple, since consoles generally operate at a loss
People probably don't remember that we all had to pay for OS upgrades. Mac OS was $129, and if I remember, iOS was $19.99 (or 9.99?). The advent and success of the App Store has allowed Apple to remove the need for revenue from OS upgrade sales (to sustain platform development) and that's when they started offering free upgrades. This in turn has allowed Apple to achieve the unusually high upgrade numbers and move the platform forward at a pace the industry had never seen and no one else can match.
While agree Apple does need to do something, allowing 3rd party App Stores on the platform is not one of them. I'm all for side-loading (from "identified" developers and at user's own risk), and dropping their cut from 30/15% to 20/10%.
Actually, Apple providing “free” OS upgrades has absolutely nothing to do with the App Store. When Apple made that change, I think it was around the release of “Snow Leopard”, said they were using an accounting trick to integrate all future software upgrades into the purchase cost of the Apple device.