harry102

danox said:

harry102 said:

Judge Lee said, however, that Apple was not violating federal or state antitrust laws. Specifically, she said that users were not required to purchase iCloud storage, and that the case did not demonstrate that Apple is a monopoly.

"[If] anything, Apple's allegedly high prices would incentivize rivals to increase production to take share from Apple," said Judge Lee in her ruling.

The plaintiffs appear to have chiefly concentrated on how iCloud is used for storage, but the service has other key uses. It's behind the syncing of photos, videos, and other user data, for instance, and third-party rivals can't replace that.

It seems like the Judge doesn't fully understand how Apple limits rivals' opportunity to take a share from Apple, even though she mentioned it in this quote. Other cloud storage providers simply cannot offer the same integration as iCloud does. Say if Google offered a cheaper storage solution than apple with all the same functionality I am sure many would jump to it. And to be clear Google does offer cloud storage like google drive for instance, but does that integrate with Apple devices and let your store your imessages, device backups, icloud mail etc.

Alteratively does Apple provide an easy way to sync your ios device to a computer if I don't want to pay for iCloud. If I am in proximity to my Mac with my iPhone why can these two devices not sync between easy other automatically? 

Bottom line Apple does not force you to use iCloud. It is just a courtesy service that Apple provides, I will never understood why anyone would store their personal files pictures, video, and document files on someone else’s computer even with encryption, because outside agencies want access i.e. the British government….

The argument that Apple is a monopoly or has Monopoly in the marketplace anywhere is ridiculous in the world of technology Apple, can’t be a monopoly unless you (make up) define a monopoly as being a monopoly of your own product (basically of yourself), but having the most profitable best product? In the general marketplace doesn’t make you a monopoly i.e. making the best sports car Porsche? or the best traditional watch Rolex? does not mean you have a monopoly in the marketplace no matter how good that product may be over many other existing products in the marketplace.

I don't fully understand your argument. You are comparing Apple's walled garden to a car manufacturer. Lets instead compare Apple to another more relevant company like Microsoft. They both own operating platforms and have control over them, Windows and IOS for instance. Now if you imagine windows had a windows+ subscription that let you do everything that iCloud does, backup your computer, images, notes etc - and simultaneously blocked third-party alternatives for things like system backups from offering similar functionality regulators would cry foul. Thankfully you can of course install other options on Windows to have this functionality, without paying microsoft anything. However, on Apple devices, they don't let you charge on their apps through ios without letting Apple take a cut of it. Futhermore in these alternative apps you can't point to or link to payment options outside of the appstore. I don't see how this can't be viewed as anti-competitive. 

It seems like the Judge doesn't fully understand how Apple limits rivals' opportunity to take a share from Apple, even though she mentioned it in this quote. Other cloud storage providers simply cannot offer the same integration as iCloud does. Say if Google offered a cheaper storage solution than apple with all the same functionality I am sure many would jump to it. And to be clear Google does offer cloud storage like google drive for instance, but does that integrate with Apple devices and let your store your imessages, device backups, icloud mail etc.

Alteratively does Apple provide an easy way to sync your ios device to a computer if I don't want to pay for iCloud. If I am in proximity to my Mac with my iPhone why can these two devices not sync between easy other automatically? 

I've never understood this argument: Yeah lets stick with SMS, a service from 1992 because RCS isn't perfect and has issues. Encryption on RCS an issue? well SMS is already completely unencrypted. If i'm gonna use an unencrypted messaging service i'd at least want to use one which can send images at a resolution higher then 1mp.