thrang

9secondkox2 said:

Netflix not jumping in both feet first on a hyped new platform means they’ve taken a gander and weren’t impressed. 

Kind of like everyone else not selling apps for it. 

The effort and engineering power going into the VP is astounding. Unfortunately, it’s just fundamentally flawed as a concept. 

Meh, who know the long game for this, but I'm sure its fairly trivial for a company the size of Netflix to do this regardless.

Their compression is often not the best so maybe not worth the full impact of a dedicated app!

lesterkrimbaugh said:

Why doesn't Apple just buy Masimo outright?
Their market capitalization is $6.25 billion, a fraction of the $61 billion Cash-on-Hand that Apple has in petty cash.
And Apple gets all Masimo's other medical tech which fits right in with Apple's business model.
Maybe Apple is trying to drive down Masimo's stock price before scooping them up.

As Apple was one vote away from a unanimous decision in their favor (6-1), and with, I believe, 15 of 17 Masimo patents already invalidated (and the remaining two under review), perhaps they are not as solid a company as one might think. Plus Masimo acquired a whole bunch of consumer audio products in 2022 (Denon, Marantz, Polk, B&W, and more) in their acquisition of Sound United. That's is a whole heap of legacy crap that I sincerely doubt Apple would be interested in paying for as part of the valuation... and makes me wonder exactly what their focus is.

mikethemartian said:

thrang said:

In so many of the attempts to take down successful companies, there seems to be an utter mess of equating the large success of a company with squelching small competitors. Or that designing the products and services they sell to maximize their own revenue is "wring" or "anti-completive."

The nature of free market participation is to bo better than your competitors, to "beat" them in fact. How you do that is of course important, but simply entering a market (AirTag for example) which puts competitive pressure on Tile, is well perfectly legal. And tough cookies for Tile unless they can innovate and compete differently.

Now if Apple clearly stole patented technology, coerced supply chain to restrict  components to a competitor, or put pressure on distribution or retail channels to NOT sell Tile, that would be clear example of offensive and unfair behavior. I've not heard of that in really any of these claims at least as publicized.

 Similar with Sonos. Apple has produced audio products for many years, including speakers (apple HiFi). Regardless, they have the right to enter that market without restriction. and leverage their technology. They further opened Airplay 2 technology for companies to license if they wish (Sonos did), but, for quite reasonable privacy reasons, not Siri. Is that an issue? I can't see how. Apple is not "compelled" to license any and all of its technologies just to appease competitors.

 It's for the for the marketplace to decide whether Apple's approach is too restrictive and buy into other ecosystems instead. And given the size of Apple's user based, there are effectively zero complaints - in fact custsat numbers are generally extremely high.

Apple's business is its ecosystem - their success is because of who they can add overlapping circles on their ever expanding Venn diagram generally with great success for them and great appreciation by its customers.

So yes, really a great model to go after. Governments do so little right it is deeply saddening.... 

IBM was forced to open its platform to competitors. AT&T was forced to provide all their patents after 1947, including for the invention of the first transistor,  royally free to all American companies.

Apple is not AT&T by any stretch of definition, and the issue for AT&T was vastly different than Apple's (more in fact to why I posited in my original post about what might constitute oppressive behavior). Not sure what you are talking about with IBM if you care to elaborate.
 
Apple devices are not exclusive to the overall market, and there are dozens or hundreds of other non-Apple manufacturers you can choose from. I've not yet seen Apple accused of being coercive or oppressive to individuals and competitors to dissuade, make difficult or costly, or otherwise impede anyone from choosing to buy elsewhere.

Any manufacturer should have exclusive control over its products! That's what enables them to differentiate themselves in the market. And when it comes to App Store conversations (third party stores/sideloading etc.) you are effectively saying to Nordstrom's or Macy's "you need to allow me to set up my little shop in your store and ring my own register, for products I bring in, because I want to access the customers that come in your doors..." Eff that. That's socialism, at the least...

What is not clear here: is Apple's software patch ti disable the sensor on new watches sold in the US sufficient to keep the product on sale while the appeals process plays out? I presume yes, and Apple was first looking to see if the stay would be enforced....

In so many of the attempts to take down successful companies, there seems to be an utter mess of equating the large success of a company with squelching small competitors. Or that designing the products and services they sell to maximize their own revenue is "wring" or "anti-completive."

The nature of free market participation is to bo better than your competitors, to "beat" them in fact. How you do that is of course important, but simply entering a market (AirTag for example) which puts competitive pressure on Tile, is well perfectly legal. And tough cookies for Tile unless they can innovate and compete differently.

Now if Apple clearly stole patented technology, coerced supply chain to restrict  components to a competitor, or put pressure on distribution or retail channels to NOT sell Tile, that would be clear example of offensive and unfair behavior. I've not heard of that in really any of these claims at least as publicized.

 Similar with Sonos. Apple has produced audio products for many years, including speakers (apple HiFi). Regardless, they have the right to enter that market without restriction. and leverage their technology. They further opened Airplay 2 technology for companies to license if they wish (Sonos did), but, for quite reasonable privacy reasons, not Siri. Is that an issue? I can't see how. Apple is not "compelled" to license any and all of its technologies just to appease competitors.

 It's for the for the marketplace to decide whether Apple's approach is too restrictive and buy into other ecosystems instead. And given the size of Apple's user based, there are effectively zero complaints - in fact custsat numbers are generally extremely high.

Apple's business is its ecosystem - their success is because of who they can add overlapping circles on their ever expanding Venn diagram generally with great success for them and great appreciation by its customers.

So yes, really a great model to go after. Governments do so little right it is deeply saddening....