tundraboy

Your Honor, the complainant asserts that we throttled the phone to impair its performance and thus get users to upgrade.  If we didn't throttle the phone, the battery would run down much quicker and quicker, thus requiring progressively more frequent recharging.  Wouldn't that kind of inconvenience also get users to upgrade?  We made the judgment that a slow phone that runs longer is better than a fast phone that runs shorter.  Especially for emergency situations, isn't it far better to have a slow phone that can still make a call rather than a fast phone that has run out of power?

This is the kind of lawsuit that makes you think lawyers are scum.  And the US courts tolerate them too much.  (Okay, some lawyers.)

This is a new thing.  Creatively defining what the relevant market is so that you can accuse a company of being a monopoly.  Spotify can't say that Apple is monopolizing the market for mobile apps so they have to complain that Apple is monopolizing the market for Apps sold through Apple mobile devices.  (Even though Apple doesn't enjoy a monopoly in mobile devices.)  Apple does enjoy the rewards of selling devices that a lot of buyers deem to be the superior product, but then if we are to keep the benefits of the free enterprise system, we cannot have a law that prohibits holding a "monopoly in high quality products".

No Mr. Durov, Apple is not a monopoly.  They aren't even have a majority share of the cell phone market.  People who demand that the regulators should step in because Apple charges 'too much' is exactly like car buyers asking the government to intervene because Mercedes Benz cars are 'too expensive'.

It is ridiculous to demand that a company that is not a monopoly be treated by the regulators as a monopoly just because they charge higher prices than their competitors.  As long as there is competition -and competition in the cell phone market is vicious- it is best to leave the market alone.  When there is competition, you are guaranteed to get what you paid for, no more, no less.  Apple is able to charge higher because they offer a better product than the competition.  To app developers, that better product is an installed customer base that is more lucrative than the other smartphones' customer bases. 

"I'm sure they believe at some level in the things that they're doing and think that they're good for their customers, but it can't just be a coincidence that it also aligns very well with their strategy."

It completely went over the head of the morally rudderless one, and this is a point that Tim Cook spoke off publicly, that Apple chooses not to be in a business that is predicated  on making immoral choices in order to succeed.  If FB respected people's privacy, it would not survive at all.  It isn't a coincidence that Apple's strategy is good for their customers, in fact Apple's strategy **naturally** aligns with their customers' interests.

Then again, Meta/FB's strategy also aligns with their customers' interests.  But their customers are the advertisers not their users.  Come to think of it, we should call them 'used ones' rather than 'users'.  And it's pretty obvious there is only one 'user' in this business model.  

sbdude said:

If the back my apple watch cracked, it would be staying in my house for whatever was going to happen next. Also, treatment for lead poisoning?!? That alone sounds scammy.

I wouldn't even keep it inside the house.  It'd be sitting outside until I can take it to a disposal center.  Did that with an old iPad that started to bulge up.