nmemac

About

Username
nmemac
Joined
Visits
1
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
7
Badges
0
Posts
3
  • Australian court is the latest to attack Apple on behalf of rich corporations

    Absolutely agree with this article.

    I am supposedly being represented by all of these champions of freedom... only problem is, i completely disagree with their actions, so I feel like no-one is actually representing me, a consumer, and someone who happily chose to purchase the phone that I did. There was no-one with a gun to my head.

    It's even more galling when seeing these attacks on Apple that none of these people were around to prevent Microsoft 'acquiring' the whole Desktop' metaphor for Windows, or of Google copying IOS, or Samsung copying the physical design of iPhones. Maybe it's been claimed that with hindsight all of these things were obvious - but it doesn't change the fact that no-one had these things on their drawing board until after Apple came along and showed the way.

    It's largely accepted that Apple has changed entire industries, and particularly personal computing and mobile phones, but this article rightly highlights how Apple changed the whole software distribution model. As a consumer, I believe largely for the better. I wish all these people would please go back to trying to download software on their Nokia 3320s. Or hell, even their Palm and Blackberry mobiles.
    baconstangwilliamlondonwatto_cobraBart Y
  • Spain puts $209 million fine on hold while Apple and Amazon appeal

    avon b7 said:

    You seem to have skipped over this important detail:

    "This contract allegedly included anti-competitive clauses that the CNMC says prevented over 90% of existing retailers from selling Apple devices on Amazon".

    I didn't skip it, but I do regard it differently from you - my response was that I don't think it is applicable to dictate what stores allow to be sold in their space, and I don't think it is appropriate for governments to dictate what access device manufacturers have to allow (a wider point than the original article, but relevant to the growing wave of government interference).

    If a café or restaurant offers Pepsi but not Coke, should they be forced to sell both? If they have some sort of exclusivity contract to only sell Pepsi that gives them a competitive price for that product rather than if they sold both is that wrong? On the first point, no I do not believe they should have to sell both. The second point is, I agree, more of a grey area, but I am sure occurs in many more businesses and retail outlets that escape scrutiny.

    It is right that anti-competitive practices are monitored and investigated, but when it occurs it is selective, and sometimes the conclusions are misguided.

    I disagree that iPhones and iPads are less attractive without 3rd party app stores, but yes, obviously the experience would be poorer without 3rd party apps - but it is a big difference and a point you missed or sidestepped.

    Whether we like it or not, I believe Apple has the right to decide what can and cannot be used on its devices. If we don't like its choices, we are free to use other platforms. The point is they didn't have to allow ANY 3rd party apps on their device. Yes, it's beneficial to them and us that they do, but that does not automatically mean they should be enforced to allow any and all competitors free access.

    As to the other directives that you added to the mix - that's a much wider and more complex issue and I would prefer not to divert the topic of this thread further.
    williamlondon
  • Spain puts $209 million fine on hold while Apple and Amazon appeal

    There's a point where government interference in markets becomes over-reaching, and it is becoming more common across the globe.

    Will governments start telling Apple they must sell other brands of computers, software etc on their webstore? Will Microsoft have to start selling Apple Computer products and software? Amazon and Apple as retailers, like any retailer, should have the right to decide who can and cannot sell through their retail stores, whether it is a webstore, a phone app or any other channel.

    I don't see governments telling Thornton chocolates in my local high street that they must sell other brands of chocolate, and which brands they should sell.

    Apple chooses to let other providers sell software on Macs. They chose not to on phones and tablets. They created both devices. They were not obliged to sell any apps, by any channel, for use on the iphone. They chose to. They chose to make a store to enable it. For governments to dictate whether they allow other stores on a device they created is invasive. The same is true for Amazon. I may not be a fan of Amazon, I may not always like the way they behave towards customers, staff, or other retailers, but it is not for me or anyone else to dictate what they allow on their store, in the same way no government should tell any bricks and mortar store what they can and cannot sell, and what contracts they put in place to sell a manufacturers products.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra