mike_galloway

dewme said:

I have a hard time recalling any government mandated forced breakup or deregulation having a net positive benefit for me. The greatest benefits that I've experienced over my lifetime were all due to major advancements in technology, new discoveries, process improvements, integration, moonshot targeting, motivated entrepreneurs, and continuous improvements driven by individuals and organizations who were unfettered by artificial oversight, government manipulation, and misguided attempts to level the playing field so the losers still get a participation trophy. Market based incentives and the carrot of financial rewards are a prime mover of so many accomplishments that we benefit from today. The "sky is the limit" no longer applies once the cloud of government oversight and mandates settles overhead.

It's not just the IT technology that we're talking about here, it spans very broadly across every facet of human life. It's not like the government mandated the pharmaceutical companies and health care system equipment builders to explore new ways to improve medical treatments that improve longevity and reduce human suffering. Closer to home, we wouldn't be able to buy 55" 4K TVs for $300 if the major players in that market were required by the government to "be nice" or concede a part of their profits to benefit the smaller players. In any competition there will always be winners and losers. Success should not be punished. Losers can learn from their mistakes, rethink, regroup, and take another crack at it - or move on.

Maybe I'm only looking at the flaws that have resulted from government intervention. It just seems to me that things never get better once politicians and government overseers get involved. It's the polar opposite of the King Midas touch, gold is turned into crap. At best the benefits are superficial and overlook the stagnation and loss of quality that occurs when competitors are forced to race to the bottom on price to stay in a game they can no longer control. In my opinion the quality of service for telecommunication services and airline travel have degraded significantly post regulation. There are certainly many more competitors in the game, but the quality of service has gone to crap. Things that were once pleasurable and predictable, like airline travel, are now tortuous. Is the cloud of nostalgia blinding my view? Maybe, but I'm having difficulty putting together a list of "wins" that have taken place without a resultant loss or degradation in quality. I'm sure there are wins out there somewhere. Anywhere?

What I'm not saying is that all government oversight is bad. There are some areas like health, safety, environmental, social systems, law enforcement, defense, construction and maintenance of shared infrastructure, etc., where government oversight is absolutely crucial. But deciding who wins and who loses in competitive marketplaces for consumer goods, especially ones with abundant choices, seems to be a road too far and especially when it's done with very blunt instruments and by people who take away consumer's ability to make their own decisions. We're not stupid. Nobody forced me or coerced me into signing up for Apple Music. It was my choice, and like many things Apple, I wasn't aiming for the cheapest, I wanted what I believed to be the best for me. No regrets.

DAalseth said:

I have no problem with Apple taking 30% of sales through the AppStore. They run the place, maintain the servers, check the apps for malware, they earn that cut. 

I have thought from the very beginning that Apple demanding 30% of sales through apps just because they sold the app is wrong, greedy and corrupt. They have no business whatsoever demanding money from Patrion or any other vendor just because someone uses an app that at one time passed through their system. They have nothing to do with that sale and do not deserve a cent.

This is why Apple is getting hammered with antitrust charges. If they had been less greedy in the past they would not be getting in trouble now. 

I’ve probably misunderstood you, but would that mean if an app was free (or very cheap) and had in app purchases than Apple would get nothing (or very little) for their services.

If demand in your home country is weaker than expected, then this would be a good reason not to roll out to other countries.

Not sure why Apple makes any products or Appleinsider bothers to write any articles as everyone on these forums appears to be way more knowledgeable than anyone that actually does something.

manfred zorn said:

The sources further said that TikTok as a whole represents only a small part of ByteDance's operations. Shutting the platform down in the US would have limited impact on ByteDance, and would mean that it retains its algorithms.

A separate source told Reuters that US users represented around a quarter of TikTok's global revenues in 2023. Two of the sources speaking to Reuters said that ByteDance revenue for 2023 was almost $120 billion, meaning TikTok earned at most $30 billion in that year.

How do you get from small part of ByteDance to a quarter of ByteDance revenue? Someone's math is not adding up.