thrang

MplsP said:

For those that have a hard time comprehending this - companies like Apple make hardware and also sell services. All this bill is doing is saying there has to be a modicum of separation between the two. It's not saying they can't offer their service, it's just saying they have to give other services an equal opportunity. Not sure what's so bad about that.

Why is "a modicum of separation " - which arbitrarily puts a cut line into a legal and successful business model - an objective delineation? If anything, Apple has shown a very high degree of HW/SW/SVCS integration, which creates the enhanced experience that has made so many people so pleased to invest in their ecosystem. And its an integration that creates their market differentiation.

And really, how many users are complaining about the current model? No one, relative to the size of their installed base.

Having said that, the Apple eco-system generates untold hundreds of billions in revenues for third-party companies across the globe as it now stands, so let's not make it seems like there isn't a lot of jam already being spread on a lot of slices of bread.

Again, should Nordstroms have to promote Macy's as an alternative retailer? Or, if they choose to promote their house brands in primary positions on their floors or online results (over third party brands), should they be restricted from doing so?

Any finally, looking at the app store, Apple often promotes third party brands in categories that they also offer applications (video editing, music for example)

The government needs to stop breaking things that work.

designr said:

lkrupp said:

No doubt the long knives will be out to carve Apple up. When you fuck with Zuckerberg’s money you’re fucking with the wrong asshole. /s

You're not wrong. Anti-trust laws have long been a tool of bitter competitors and there are reports of a possible antitrust lawsuit against Apple.

Whether it will succeed and, if so, cause Apple to be carved up are likely a low probability. Still though...yes the long knives are out.

Well there is no legal right to track people's behaviors, especially surreptitiously, so all Apple did here was add transparency to behaviors and give individuals a choice to be tracked or not. How else would you handle it?

GeorgeBMac said:

thrang said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Apple's current approach selling multiple tiers of the watch -- plus multiple bands -- is confusing and bit befuddling to an average consumer.   It's not something most people could shop online for, you almost have to see them side by side with an expert explaining each in order to understand how they differ and serve different needs.

But, it does reflect and fulfill the realization that Apple had from the very beginning that a watch is a very personal thing filled with personal biases and preferences.

I think introducing a "Pro" model would be unnecessarily divisive:  separating the common from the elite.

Divisive? Are you missing the /s?

There are people of all different needs, desires, incomes and priorities. Do you have issues with MacBook PRO's, iPad PRO's, Mac PRO's? Are you saying Apple should only sell to "common" people and not "elite"? The only thing divisive are your words it appears to me...

I wasn't addressing class struggles but I see the word "divisive" triggered you.  But, in truth, there simply is no Pro[fessional] application for an AppleWatch.  So it would simply indicate "High end" vs "Low end".

Perhaps divisive was a poor choice of words.   Or, perhaps you're just overly sensitive?

No, you need to use language more accurately.

And you, nor anyone else, knows the "truth" whether there is a pro application for a Watch. What if it added additional health sensors, perhaps a FaceTime camera, or active band technology? Who knows.. 

GeorgeBMac said:

Apple's current approach selling multiple tiers of the watch -- plus multiple bands -- is confusing and bit befuddling to an average consumer.   It's not something most people could shop online for, you almost have to see them side by side with an expert explaining each in order to understand how they differ and serve different needs.

But, it does reflect and fulfill the realization that Apple had from the very beginning that a watch is a very personal thing filled with personal biases and preferences.

I think introducing a "Pro" model would be unnecessarily divisive:  separating the common from the elite.

Divisive? Are you missing the /s?

There are people of all different needs, desires, incomes and priorities. Do you have issues with MacBook PRO's, iPad PRO's, Mac PRO's? Are you saying Apple should only sell to "common" people and not "elite"? The only thing divisive are your words it appears to me...