CloudTalkin

mjtomlin said:

CloudTalkin said:

bakerzdosen said:

I’m fine with Apple ceasing to do business in Arizona. Maybe Apple has done a number on me, but I happen to like things the way they are in the Apple walled-garden.

if I didn’t, I’d jump ship and move to Android (or whatever.)

The fact that I CAN do that (admittedly with some annoying aspects of switching) kinda shows it’s not a true monopoly.

Apple wouldn't cease doing business in Arizona or any other state for that matter.  Besides the bill would be a paper tiger without other states sponsoring similar legislation.  

The claim is Apple has monopoly control over the App Store, not smartphones in general so your argument doesn't hold.  The availability of Android does not change Apple's control of the App Store.

It's much deeper than that. Some people think Apple has monopoly control over their platform and devices - and that, in some way, is a bad thing. This only starts with the App Store and then moves on from there. The fact is, Apple only controls its own products and that is where monopoly laws fall short when used against Apple. Monopoly laws were made to protect the viability of a free and open market. The App Store is a private market, that developers and users pay to enter.

Giving the government the power to force a company to change the way its products work is only a good thing when those products control the market and give that company reach to control other markets as well.

The fact is, your opinion of what defines a monopoly is irrelevant.  Both to the discussion and as a matter of law.  I don't mean that disrespectfully and apologize if it comes off that way.  I just want to shortcut a discussion about what constitutes a monopoly.  My post was simply clarifying what the claim is in this case.  Whether or not they actually have a monopoly will be adjudicated in a court of law.

One thing is certain though.  The App Store isn't a private market.  It is part of the Services category of a publicly held company.  

GeorgeBMac said:

The speed graphs are very interesting.

But, it bothers me that they are graphs of individual phone models to a generic "5G".

But, "5G" can mean many things and delivers at many frequencies speed ranges. 

...  Will the results vary depending on what flavor of 5G the phone is receiving?

Short answer: Yes.  Longer answer: Yes, but variability is dependent on a number of factors including whether or not the 5G signal is Sub6 or mmWave.  Strength of signal, distance from tower, obstructions, weather, and other variables all play a part.  Heck you can even run 10 speed tests in a row right now from the same phone, in the same room, in the same position and get 10 different results.   Move to a different spot or different room and you'll get 10 different results again.

Sounds like when you hear 5G, you think mmWave and not Sub6.  At least in the US, most 5G deployment is currently Sub6.  It's going to be a while for a full mmWave deployment.  Even then, the mmWave signal is ultra-dependent on proximity.  Even turning your back on the tower can cause attenuation.

About damn time.  If this is the case, it's great news imo.  Smaller packages, quicker delivery, more frequent updates that don't require a complete OS update, and less customer reluctance.  Win for everybody.

22july2013 said:

thethirdshoe said:

There is a way to avoid supporting it for 40 years. Don't ever sell the car to anyone. Go with an Uber/lift like business model. 

How about leasing? Can a person who leases a car get it fixed with parts that are unapproved by the manufacturer?

Repairs on leased vehicles are typically covered under warranty and fixed by the lessor.  If excessive wear and tear occur during the leasing period, the lease agreement spells out who is responsible for the cost of repair.  The lease also usually spells out whether or not OEM parts are required.

What Mr. Toyoda is referencing applies primarily to the relationship between vehicle buyers and the car companies.  Lessees are a different category of customer.

StrangeDays said:

It's funny because when I had a 2005 Scion Xb (Toyota) and tried to book it for service w/ the dealer in 2016, the website warned me it was "too old" and the dealer may not work on it. Sooooo.....so much for this statement. (The dealer did accept the appointment and did work on it, tho).

As for 40 years...yeah no. If I had a car from 1981 I think all bets for readily available parts are off, and I'd be prepared to work w/ a specialist/collector's mechanic. Now w/ EVs who knows how that will work...but that certainly isn't unique to Apple.

Going to a Toyota dealership has nothing to do with Toyota the automobile manufacturer, or any car maker for that matter.  Dealerships aren't owned by car makers and trying to tie your experience with a dealer to Toyoda's statement is an error.  You obviously dealt with either 1) a lazy individual or 2) an inexperienced individual.  Possibly both.  Pretty much any dealership, not just a Toyota seller, but any dealership will work on cars far older than 11 years.  Most, would even work on cars not related to the brands they sell.  

As for 40 years... yeah but yeah.  Using your example, I went to Toyota Parts and put in 1981 Corolla.  https://parts.toyota.com/Toyota_1981_Corolla.html ; Toyota's are utilitarian every-man vehicles.  Rarely ever would one require a specialist.