Kuminga

sflagel said:

I do not have a VisionPro, but maybe someone who does, can comment: these "immersive experiences" are just gimmicks, no? Impressive gimmicks, but no more.

danox said:

badmonk said:

The fact that this antitrust lawsuit was four years in the making is an embarrassment.  It is more akin to something a comment troll concocted in 5 minutes.  The smartwatch argument is the stupidest, android watches are locked to android like the AW is locked to the iPhone and android users are generally happy with their watches.  And if one wants to buy a Garmin, it will work across devices.  iMessage is probably the strongest point but by the time it goes to trial it will be a non-issue.

People are concerned about privacy and safety on-line,  And for the price of a Taylor Swift ticket consumers have their choice of an iPhone or a capable android device.  Again DOJ what are you doing about TicketMaster?

I don’t see the harm from the consumer perspective.  And the DOJ should not be in the business of picking winners and losers as businesses battle-it-out as long as choice is maintained and there is no collusion. 

And a 15-30% cut for profit apps is the industry standard.   And remember Apple charges only a $100  developer fee for the vast majority of non-profit apps.

I hope Apple fights this tooth and nail.  As another commenter that I read started, any loss of market share to Apple (an. American company) will just open up that portion of the market to asian companies.  I suspect Garland would be happy to have us use Huawei Hero phones.

This is a complete waste of tax payer money.  And of course Trump will exploit this (if he is smart).

Trump can't even post a bond maybe he can get Truth Social to help losing..... 

Xed said:

On one hand I agree. On the other, Jim Cramer said to buy Apple.

9secondkox2 said:

tht said:

Yeah, after 5 to 6 years of investigating Apple for antitrust, this is what they come up with? This utter amateurish dreck? It was going to be a hard set of complaints to lay as it should not take 5 to 6 years to develop a set of cogent antritrust arguments, but this is what they come up with?

Just read pages 62 to 70 or so on the market construction, if you can call it that. That fact that I had to get to page 62 to read it was a bad sign. The market at which the Apple iPhone has a monopoly on and what they claim Apple is abusing is "performance smartphones". It's mentioned 43 times in the DOJ complaint. So the market is not the smartphone market in the USA as a whole, but one of expensive smartphones. They didn't even have the guts to say what dollar amount this "performance smartphones" market started at. Then, they seem to interchangeably use revenue share and market share. Never mind that they never actually stated what Apple's actual unit share in this "performance smartphones" market is. They may have, I just couldn't tell if some number was revenue share or unit share or what ever share.

The only good thing on the DOJ side is that judges are also human, and you never know what sort of craziness they have. 

It’s a hack job. Apple didn’t break the law, doesn’t have a monopoly, and hasn’t done anything unethical. 

The garland “points” are easily refutable (except the streaming gaming one, which has some merit. It’s more smoke and mirrors to appeal to uneducated idealists of the public who hear words like “closed vs open” etc and side with those against the supposed “closed” side - while the government abuses its power to force an issue they’re on the wrong side of.