Kierkegaarden

That’s a lot of power — I can’t help think that something else with be unveiled at WWDC to take advantage of this.  Maybe I’m completely off, 

gatorguy said:

Madbum said:

gatorguy said:

davgreg said:

This is Jonathan Kanter's work. Total Socialist.

Guess Biden should hire Hunter to apply his law degree as a consultant on Government Relations. Or maybe buy a few pictures to hang up at Tim's house.

Biden's mis-Administration is the most blatantly political since the Jackson administration. 

The facts are quite simple- consumers are free to buy Windows, Android, Roku and whatever hardware they wish.
Every significant cloud service is easily available to any consumer.
Every significant productivity app is interoperable.
Same for Maps, TV, Music, Books and all the rest.

Consumers are free to use any search engine they want to: Bing, DDG, Brave, Ecosia.... Yet that didn't stop the Trump administration, with wide support from a Republican legislative branch, from filing antitrust charges against Google. But that's OK because it's some other big homegrown American company being attacked and not Apple?

I don't think it matters what party holds office. They both have emboldened the FTC and DoJ. 

Google suit is different , that had to do with information censorship and Google was and is the dominant search engine.

iphones are at best 50/50 in  USA market share and 4 to 1 world wide 

Huh?? Google LOST an antitrust case involving the Play Store, and that's despite Google allowing third-party stores, sideloading, and having under a 40% share of the US smartphone market. Yet you believe Apple having a far larger share, approaching 65%, not allowing 3rd-party app stores in the US, and allowing sideloading only under very specific enterprise conditions, should make them immune? 

This is what I found on that lawsuit:

“Google reached the settlement with the state attorneys general in September, resolving litigation that the AGs brought in 2021, and the terms were disclosed in a filing Monday (available at this link). The states’ lawsuit alleged Google Play was an illegal monopoly that stifled competition from other app distributors on Android devices. Specifically, the states claimed that Google signed anticompetitive contracts to prevent other app stores from being preloaded on Android devices, paid off key app developers who might have launched rival app stores, created technological barriers to deter consumers from directly downloading apps to their devices and imposed monopoly prices on in-app purchases.”

Very different situation from the App Store.  Google has allowed consumer side loading from the beginning, but tried to stifle competitors from taking advantage of this (allegedly) — Apple has never allowed consumer side loading, and they have been consistent with this.  There are other platforms that only allow for one app marketplace — is this illegal? 

 Vestager sounds both arrogant and ignorant — not a good combination.  She doesn’t like warnings?  Why is that we have cookie warnings on websites?  Is it to scare users, or is it to inform them?  And how did this requirement come about exactly?

And she doesn’t like fees?  How exactly did all of the APIs and developer tools get built, and how are they maintained?  She doesn’t understand any of the technology that goes into the platform and the costs of building and maintaining it.

Does the EU have the power to dictate what a company charges for their products or services?  What system does that sound like?

According to the article, this was a $20m market last year and expected to be $200m by 2031.  That is tiny, relatively speaking.  I don’t see the point in them entering this market, or what the point of it would be. 

Mark is delusional, period.