thrang

He's superficially correct - but he seems to be missing (purposely or not) the relatively meaningless cost to be an early-marquee app for their longer term benefit, and shorter term marketing attention.

Also probably not interested in "helping" a streaming competitor, but why give up eyeballs (literal, marketing, and news cycle) for no reason?

Disney was smarter here.

Sweeny, go wash your arse, you seem bothered by something....

Sometimes I wonder, deep down, if all these actions (coordinated?) against Apple around the world is a price Apple is paying for their unwillingness to create backdoors in their ever-hardening encryption technologies (that would benefit those very entities that are hammering on them)

Because in reality, the world-wide user base is not complaining a lick about Apple's walled-garden ecosystem, single App Store, etc, and in fact, are highly attracted to it - so the foundation of this actions against Apple and other companies seem more indirectly punitive than "real".

It's a handful of developers who don't want to pay fees for accessing the immense user base Apple has spent enormous resources developing (in a non-monopolistic model). There a countless analogies here, but broadly, imagine the owner of a shopping mall being forced to allow third-party merchants into their space to set up retail businesses without paying the mall owners anything? It is ludicrous on every level.

A non-utility or non-non-monopolisitc company can charge whatever they want, period. Their customers and their partners will regulate if those fees are reasonable or outrageous. If they are guilty of true anti-trust (for example, coercing suppliers/vendors to not deal with competitors to gain an unfair advantage), then investigate an go after that. But to dismantle a product/service in a market where you do NOT have to use that product is patently absurd.

Somewhere in-between, and including, 100% true to 100% false

Go nosh on it....

LenardH said:

If he says Apple's does not work then their patent technology does not work since they claim Apple took it. 

Exactly - this guy is a bit of an idiot for saying that - either Apple copies it sufficiently that it does was theirs does, or they didn't, and thus it differs significantly enough (not that there aren't other reasons to be argued that infringement isn't applicable, but simply addressing his statement at face value)