thrang

Currently, Apple has an agreement with Open AI, correct?

This can conversely mean something interesting may up between the two, not necessarily an "undefined" negative. I mean, Open AI is not a huge HW company, though they have aspirations.

And conversely (again), if Apple ends the agreement with Open AI in the future and goes in a different direction, you'll know I was pissin in the wind....

Meh, most of the general public isn’t doing anything with “AI”… there’s plenty of time… most still can’t define it.

Apple has a right to profit from business conducted on its literal and physical back, do not forget that. That is the most aggregious aspect of the ruling! Try going into Walmart to set up a pop-up table directing customers to your website (or the trunk of your car in the parking lot) to sell things without any renumeration to - or permission from -  Walmart. Freely leveraging the customers that you;dn't bet there if the incredibly costly infrastructure of Walmart did not exist. It is insane at a cellular level.

This judge is clueless, not just about technology, but of the very tenets of for-profit business endeavors, and capital investment, risk, competition, etc. Apple should and does have competition - other smartphone/device manufacturers. a FEATURE of their offering is not to be freely made available to direct or adjacent competitors just because they are wildly successful with their product. They do not have an illegal monopoly, and have never been charged with or proven to have, for example, thwarted developers from writing for Android - which would be clearly in the yard of coercion and an element of an illegal monopoly.

Apple has invested (how many)?? hundreds of billions or dollars (and perpetually invest)s in the entire ecosystem for decades, that supports and markets the App store,, the platforms, its developers, and more -  and there is no logical or ethical basis where third party companies/competitors should be permitted sell their wares without ongoing, profitable compensation to the creator of the opportunity - at whatever level they desire. No one is forcing anyone to develop or sell iOS/iPad apps.

Forcing "direction" to other payment platforms circumvents ongoing, profitable compensation to the creator of the opportunity, and ignores all considerations of investment, R&D, risk, iterating, supporting, securing, running, and improving intellectual property initiatives that this judge seems to care less about.

Too bad if it costs app developers and customers for Apple to make their profit. Choose differently if it is such a burden.

When you read the stipulations the judicial branch is stating Apple must follow for its own product/service ecosystem, with no illegal monopoly found, is utterly insane. There are thousands of examples one could rattle off in which no other company in the nation would be compelled to follow this way.

The lack of logic is astounding.

Can Apple now freely make Apple Music purchases or monthly streaming available on the Spotify platform? Does Apple get shelf space for Arcade freely on Epic's platform? Does Hugo Boss get to sell its clothing in Nordstroms and collection 100% of the sale and pay no rent or other costs for leveraging Nordstroms floor space, utilities, marketing, advertising, brand equity, security, retail magnetism? OR conversely, can Boss put up signs (freely or otherwise) in Nordstroms directing people to go out into the mall and visit their corporate retail location?

Why stop here? Why not force Apple to allow third party operating systems? Why have Apple at all?

spheric said:

mikethemartian said:

rob53 said:

Ok Germany, where's your computer devices that are used worldwide? Oh, can't actually make any that people want to use? Quit complaining about Apple's success and try and compete instead of trying to make money by fining an American company.

Your iPhone and Mac were designed on tools made by Siemens.

And their chips were produced on machines made by ASML. 

So the EU should sue/sanction ASML, as they are a clear monopoly in the market in which they participate.

Oh wait, they are headquartered in the Netherlands, so, hmmmm, perhaps the EU is not aware of them...