davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 187
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,761
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,195
Reactions
-
Newly-appointed Apple CFO denies 75% App Store profit claim in UK trial
nubus said:thrang said:
Protecting against intellectual capital theft, and enforcing that protection, has nothing to do with a company being able to set the margin for specific products or services without government scrutiny. The marketplace will determine if a company is "gouging", and not buy/look elsewhere.nubus said:You want a free market but at the same time you expect for governments to set laws regarding patents and enforce them. You can't have both.
Didn't work with AT&T or Standard Oil or keep competition in browsers (until Microsoft got stopped by regulation) or stop <any financial crisis>. The market is not perfect. We can't doing old mistakes on repeat. Or well... U.S. decided to. Most of the world is moving on. This includes UK. Nations are indeed not alike. Some prefer to learn and adapt.Neither ATT or Standard Oil was broken up because they were "price gouging" or for their high profit margins. In fact, for the average consumers, the cost of telephone service and gasoline (kerosene) were never lower, than when ATT and Standard Oil were monopolies. When they were broken up by the government, for the sake of "more competition", the cost of telephone service and gas, increased. It was the competition that were complaining about ATT and Standard Oil monopoly because they couldn't compete. Not because of the consumers complaining about the high cost of telephone service and gasoline due to ATT and Standard Oil "high profit margin".What government "regulation" ended Microsoft browser monopoly on Windows. The EU in 2009? LOL That was case of too little too late. Microsoft lost their browser monopoly because Apple introduced their iPhone with the full internet on iOS in 2007. Which Google answered with Android and their Chrome browser a year later. As more and more consumers switched to mobile for their internet, Chrome took over the desktop browser market.FYI- one could always change to a competitors browser on Windows. All the EU did was forced Microsoft to make the choice of browsers easier to install. It did nothing to offer more browsers to choose from. Chrome became the consumers choice on desk top because it was the browser being used on most consumers mobile devices.
-
Newly-appointed Apple CFO denies 75% App Store profit claim in UK trial
mikethemartian said:
Tell that to Ma Bell.thrang said:It should be no business of any government to know or consider what a company’s profit margin is for a specific component of their business.. It’s absurd. Companies already report their fiscal performance in whatever way they see fitPlease inform yourself about "government granted monopoly", before bringing "Ma Bell" (ATT) into any discussion concerning monopolies as a result of competition or the lack there of.ATT was granted a monopoly by the US government, where the US government suppressed competition. Therefore, in exchange, the US government regulated what ATT could charge the public. It is no different than your city government granting your garbage and recycle collector a "monopoly" in your municipality and can regulate what they charge. There's a reason why your electrical, gas and water companies must seek approval from the PUC (or some other government commission), in order to raise rates.The US government did not want dozens of telephone companies setting up poles throughout the country, with different companies telephones not compatible with each other. Your city do not want several companies setting up poles and digging up their streets to supply electricity, gas and water, to all its residents. You do not want to hear garbage being picked up in the early morning, every day of the week, because your neighbors are using different garbage pick up services.
-
Newly-appointed Apple CFO denies 75% App Store profit claim in UK trial
nubus said:
The fact that Apple is doing something doesn't make it lawful even under the current legislation. It is for the courts to decide.AppleInsider said:It's not clear why Kent believes that Apple has no right to charge what it wants. It very clearly does -- until the laws about platform accessibility get changed.
The fact that Apple is doing exactly what Microsoft is doing with their app store on their Xbox and what Sony is doing on their PlayStation and Nintendo is doing on their Switch and Google is doing in their Google Play Store with the UK government so far doing NOTHING to regulate them, means that what Apple is doing is not illegal under current legislation.
-
Ending Google search partnership would hamstring Apple, says Eddy Cue
dewme said:Isn’t Bing the default search engine in Edge? But just like Safari, Edge users can change it if they want to but most mainstream users probably don’t. Ignorance is bliss and they are none the wiser.
Yes, most AppleInsider commenters are outside of the normal range of browser users. We use ad blockers and some of us use more than one layer of them because they don’t all work the same or update their filters as often or as deeply. I use the ad blockers in my security gateway for all internet traffic plus 1Blocker (paid) on all of my devices. I still see a few ads on pages and pop-under ads but it’s tolerable and works quite well. I’ve heard that using a Pi-Hole on a Raspberry Pi or in a container works quite well also because the community support keeps whacking more and more moles all of the time. Of course you can reach a point where some pages will not load, but none of the sites I rely on are an issue. If they were I can set exceptions.
I agree with those who insist that Google Search is more comprehensive with its results. Of course this doesn’t keep me from using DuckDuckGo as the default search engine on most of my devices and computers. If I’m struggling to find what I’m looking for I’ll use Google Search. However, in the last year or so, instead of using Google Search as a fallback I’ve been using ChatGPT. I find that ChatGPT is very good at digging out harder-to-find details that get me pointed in the right direction for me to drill in more deeply.
I like having many tools at my disposal, so just like I have a tool chest and tool cabinets filled with all kinds of electrical, pneumatic, and mechanical tools I want my computing toolbox to have a diversity of tools for different challenges. No one tool serves all purposes.But Edge is the default browser on Windows 10 and Windows 11. And they are on over 90% of the Windows PC being used today. So why do Google Chromium browser have 67% of the desktop computer browser market? Windows PC still have over 75% of that market. If what you say is close to being true, that most users do not change the default setting, how come Edge have only 13% of the browser market on desktop computers? This means that most Windows users are aware of the default setting and know how to change it. And if they know how to change the default browser, they are probably not ignorant in knowing how to change the default search engine of the browser they chose.Even with Macs users, 1/3 of them change the default Safari browser to some other browser. Macs have about 15% of the desktop computer market and yet, Safari market share in the desktop computer market is 9%.But what you said is true, most of the 13% of users that stayed with Edge as their default, do not change the Bing default search engine. Even when one account for Bing being used on other browsers. But I wouldn't go as far as to say it's because .... ignorance is bliss.The vast majority of consumers using computers and mobile devices to surf the internet, knows about the default settings and know they can easily change it .... at any time. The fact that many do not change it, is in no way a sign of ignorance. Choosing to use the default setting, is no less of a choice than choosing to use another browser or another search engine. We don't need the government telling consumers that chooses to use the product of a company that has a "monopoly", that the company is abusing their "monopoly" ....... by some how taking advantage of their "ignorance", in that they don't know any better.
-
Norway gets world's first Apple Pay alternative for iPhone
spheric said:
I'm aware of this. My point was that the usual suspects here on these fora like to pretend that the thinking behind this is a "EU SOSHULIST MONEY GRAB" or an attempt at curbing competition from foreign tech companies (only when the U.S. is involved, of course).davidw said:spheric said:
I had no idea the United States is now part of the EU…charlesn said:"We have fought for years to be able to compete on equal footing with Apple," said Rune Garborg, CEO of Vipps MobilePay
Only in the EU is it considered "equal footing" when the government hands you another company's hardware and IP to use free of charge. Maybe Vipps should have spent those years developing its own phone and VippsPay system? Little wonder that European economies are and have been in the toilet. I honestly wish Apple would just pull the plug on selling to Europe and "Let them eat Android."
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets
Point 4:
„- Limiting Third Party Digital Wallets. Apple has prevented third-party apps from offering tap-to-pay functionality, inhibiting the creation of cross-platform third-party digital wallets.“
FYI- The Department of Justice is not the US Courts. The DoJ is part of the Executive Branch whose head is appointed by the POTUS. Until the Judiciary Branch of the US government rules in favor of the DoJ claims, Apple can not be held guilty for violating any of those claims.Except that antitrust is very much an AMERICAN thing, and virtually every investigation by the EU has also been mirrored by the U.S. authorities — though, in some cases, dropped (as have been some European efforts).
I was showing up the hypocrisy.But in the DoJ case against Apple, the DoJ is not going after Apple for ....... "Limiting Third Party Digital Wallets. Apple has prevented third-party apps from offering tap-to-pay functionality, inhibiting the creation of cross-platform third-party digital wallets.“. The DoJ is claiming that Apple is violating US anti-trust laws by using anti-competitive practices to maintain a "monopoly" in the smartphone market. The only reason why Apple digital wallet is mention is because of the EU ruling. The US government is not going after Apple for this. They are trying to use it as proof that Apple is abusing their "monopoly" in the "performance smartphone" market.The problem is that the DoJ have not provided any evidence that Apple is a monopoly or have monopoly power, under US anti-trust laws. Except by using a relevant market that is narrowed down to suit their need. A relevant market the will most likely not stand up under SCOTUS scrutiny.The DoJ right now aren't concern about forcing Apple to open up Apple Pay, for competitors to use for free. The fact that the EU found Apple Pay in violation of the DMA was enough for the DoJ to use it as an example of Apple anti-competitive behavior. It may be because here in the US, only about 30%-34% of the consumers use a mobile phone (both iPhone and Android phone) for non-contact in-store payment and only about half of those (16%) involves a bank CC. The about the other half uses a debit card. Which may be why here in the US, there are hardly any consumers complaining about how Apple Pay works and I don't recall any banks complaining about it. The main complaints about Apple Pay seems to be from AU banks and the EU.If the US is going to mirror anything from the EU, is that we will try to pass some BS "gatekeeper" law so the big 5 techs can be tried for "anti-competitive practices, without having to prove a monopoly as defined by the Sherman Act. The Progressive politicians (or "Socialist" party as referred to by some) have such a bill. Only if this bill ever pass, so call "gatekeepers" will be referred to as "covered platforms". But the majority of elected Democrats, Republicans and Independents are against it. Here in the US, we are much more concern about harm to the consumers, than harm to the competitors.Don't be fooled by the DoJ rhetoric. They aren't nearly as determined or efficient in going after the big 5 techs, as the EU is. The DoJ case against Apple began during Trump first Presidency and in 6 years, this is the best the DoJ can do to come up with a case against Apple? And it will be at least another 6 years before any ruling because of the appeal process. Unless the courts dismiss the case.
