davidw

flydog said:

heli0s said:

The duopoly of online advertising coordinating efforts to maintain their power over the marketplace kind of makes the government's case, doesn't it?

No.  Monopoplies and duopolies are not per se illegal.  What is illegal is using the lack of competition in ways prohibited under antritrust law, for example, conspiring to fix prices and tying the sale of products to other products.  The government also needs to prove that consumers were harmed by the illegal conduct.  Since no one pays for FaceBook, the government has to establish some other kind of harm, and that's where the case is a bit weak. 

But the "consumers" in this scenario are the advertisers. By fixing the price it cost to advertise with Facebook or Google, they were harmed by the lack of competition with online advertising. Ultimately, this affects the price the consumers has to pay for products and services that are advertised online. 

It can also go the other way. Google and FaceBook can combine to keep the price of online advertising so low, that no other competitors can get in and make a profit selling advertising online. The consumers are not really harmed by this but it's still a violation of anti-trust laws. Microsoft giving away IE for free using the monopoly they have with Windows and crushing Netscape ability to make a profit, for example. (Not to mention MS making it difficult for other browsers to be on or to work properly with Windows.) Ultimately, over 80% of computer users were using the free IE, that came pre-installed with Windows. 

Being "free" has nothing to do with determining whether the consumers were harmed. Limiting consumers choice does. And the "consumers" in anti-trust can either be users of a product or other businesses that wants to market a similar product. 

karmadave said:

Most employees will remain where they are or work from home. My own company, Dell, is based in Austin but has operations globally. This really doesn't change much. Companies will still pay state income taxes, on their local operations, and employees will still pay taxes in the state they reside. That said, I agree that California could take steps to make the state much more business friendly. 

Not in CA. In CA, you pay income taxes on all income made in CA, no matter where you legally reside. If you reside in NV, with no State income taxes, then all your CA income is taxed in CA. If you reside in a State with a State income tax, then you get to deduct what State income taxes you paid in another State, from your CA income tax. In CA, one don't even have to set foot in CA, to be subject to CA income taxes. 

In fact, if you are a resident of NV, worked in CA but also had income doing work in NV, CA will tax that NV income. Even if you are not a resident of CA based on where you live, CA consider you a tax resident based on where to make most of your income and thus all your income is subject to CA, tax as though you resided in CA. It is said that you have a better chance fighting the IRS than you do fighting CA Franchise Tax Board. 

CA once taxed all CA pension, no matter what State the State workers moved to. CA is also trying to pass an "exit tax", where a wealthy person must still pay a portion of his wealth to CA, for ten years after moving out of CA.

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/california-wealth-and-exit-tax-would-be-an-unconstitutional-disaster

CA do not consider you a resident of another State, for income tax purposes, until 18 months after moving out of CA. Even though you are a legal resident of another State after 6 months of living there.  

If you move out of CA for say 2 years and made a lot of money from selling stocks from a portfolio you had while residing in CA, if you move back to CA, CA will go after you for back taxes. CA will claim that you only moved out of CA for tax avoidance purposes and you have always intended to return to CA.  


Look up "jock tax', pertaining to profession athletes. If for e.g., Tim Harden was getting paid $500K per game, every time the Rockets plays a CA team in CA, he has to pay CA income tax on that income. It doesn't matter if he resides in TX. On the other hand, if Steph Curry was also getting paid $500K per game, then CA will tax him on every game he plays, no matter what State its played in. He gets to deduct any State taxes he pays in other States, but his entire income is subject to CA income taxes.

If The GSW plays the Rockets in TX, Tim Harden owes no TX State income taxes on the $500K he will make, but Steph Curry will have to pay CA State income taxes on all the $500K he made, because TX has no State income tax from which he had to pay. While with Tim Harden, only the games he played in CA are subject to CA taxes, with Steph Curry all the games he plays are subject to CA State income taxes. Unless he plays in NY, where the State and local taxes there might be the same or more than CA taxes.   


Now for businesses, it's about the same. If your business headquarter resides in CA, then all your profits are subject to CA corporate taxes. If your headquarter resides outside CA, then only the profits you made in CA are subject to CA corporate taxes. So with Oracle moving their headquarter to TX, Oracle will only have to pay CA taxes on profits made in CA. The profits they make in other States will no longer to taxed by CA, though can be taxed by the States where the profit was made. But CA has one of the highest State corporate tax at 8.84%. So essentially, with a headquarter in CA, all your profits is subject to CA 8.84% State corporate tax, no matter which State you made the profit. And this don't include the high cost of operating a business in CA.

Not only is CA not tax friendly toward business, they are not too tax friendly toward its residents. At least those residents with taxable income. There is no capital gains tax in CA. All capital gains (long and short term) are considered ordinary income and thus can move your other income up the tax brackets. On the other hand, Feds tax long term capital gains at 15% (at least for my income level) and what long term capital gains I have will not drive my other ordinary income up the tax brackets. In other words, If I had income of $1,050,000 and $1,000,000 was from long term capital gains, the other $50,000 will be tax at the marginal tax rate for $50,000 and not at the marginal tax rate of $1,000,000. Not so in CA. 

gatorguy said:

davidw said:

flippysch said:

mobird said:

hammeroftruth said:

Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal. 

I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon. 

It's called the Constitution - 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it state that you have to have a reason to purchase a gun.

Glad I live in a state that upholds the 2nd Amendment instead of trampling on it.

The 2nd Amendment:  “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

If it was not for the last comma, I would agree with you that the people can keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I read it as a well-regulated Militia, such as the National Guard, shall not be infringed.

The National Guard is not a "militia", by any definition. A militia is a group of private citizens that will offer their service to protect, what ever needs protecting, in a minute notice, during a time of an emergency. These private citizens are not paid for their service by the government and are not required to join any government military arm forces or attend any form of required government military training. At the time the Constitution was written, there was no such organization that might even resemble the National Guard. The "militia" in the Constitution was more in reference to the minutemen.  

@davidw You would have done well to do a bit more research before declaring "The National Guard is not a "militia", by any definition", because they absolutely are according to Constitutional law.

Militia Clause 16: The Congress shall have Power... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

If in doubt this paper will explain it for you: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/58-the-militia-clauses.html

Notice I put "militia" in quotes. That's to signify "militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment, though it was not clear. Not as used in the "Militia Clause" in Article One of the Constitution or anywhere else. 

Ask yourself this, if the "militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment includes government organizations like the US Army, Marines, Navy and later to include Air Force and National Guards, why would the framers of the Constitution need to state that the government shall not infringe upon the rights of the "people" that are members of such organizations to keep and bear arms, when the government issues them the arms? It wouldn't make sense to have the government issue arms to members of those "militia" and then not allow then to keep and bear them, thus we need a Constitutional amendment that state that the government can not infringe upon any rights those members to keep and bear arms. If there was an issue with these members keeping and bearing arms, then the government could just not issue them any arms. 

Or are we to construe that if it weren't for the 2nd Amendment, the government could force the members of its "militia" to use harsh languages to ward off any enemy because the government would not have to arm the people in their own militias. 

The most logical definition of 'militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment refers to people (like in we the people .....) rights to keep and bear arms, in order to have a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, when called upon. Like back in the days of the Revolutionary War, when the Continental Army (as it was known back then as there was no United States yet) fought along side militia consisting of private citizens, that in most cases had to supply their own arms in battle. This is the "militia" that the 2nd Amendment most likely reference. The framers saw the importance of the private citizens rights to keeping and bearing arms and thought best not for the government to infringe upon that right. 

Notice that the 10 amendments that form the Bill of Rights do not grant any rights to the "people". The Bill of Rights serve to limit the power of our government. The 2nd Amendment does not grant the "people" right to keep and bear arms, that right is already recognized. The 2nd Amendment states that the government shall not infringe upon the "people" right to keep and bear arms. Just like how the 1st Amendment limits the power of government to infringe upon the peoples recognized rights to freedom of religion and speech. 

Now one might argue that we no longer need private citizens militia to protect the security of a free State. We have government arm forces, both Federal and State to do that. So the 2nd is now obsolete. But remember back to the Revolutionary War, the militia  that fought along side the Continental Army were fighting against the tyranny of their own government, the British. The British did not recognize the U.S. of America until after we won the war. This did not escape the framers of the Constitution, in that the security of a free State might also mean that the "people" might have to protect their free State, when our own government is no longer ...... of the people, by the people and for the people. They saw that having well armed people was the check and balance needed to keep the government in check. They did not foresee that their newly form government under the Constitution of the United States of America was infallible. If they did, they would not had needed to write in the Bill of Rights.    

randominternetperson said:

AppleZulu said:

More broadly, this raises the issue of all these terms of service agreements millions of people routinely 'click to agree' without ever reading them. At some point there will need to be a significant reform of this practice. One might argue that end users know they should read the agreements all the way through before agreeing to them, and it's their own fault if they agree without reading.

One might also argue that the companies that write and make use of these agreements have common knowledge that very, very few people actually do read them. Many are probably even in possession of data that timestamps user interactions. If the user agreement is such that a trained lawyer would reasonably take 30 minutes or an hour to read through and fully understand, but the company's data shows an average click-through time is 12.7 seconds, it would be reasonable to expect that the company is aware that virtually none of their customers have knowingly agreed to their terms. It's not quite the same thing as invalidating an agreement signed under duress, but it's not far off. 

User agreements should be simplified, shortened and written in plain language. They could also include key "I am aware that..." statements that must be checked, with built-in time delays that force the process to take sufficient time for a normal person to at least read and understand those key statements.

And we'll all be thrilled to have this extra burden added to our daily lives?  Like those stupid "accept cookies" popups that appears on nearly every site since the EU mandated that?

I think there is a middle ground on this "Buy" button question.  It comes down to corporate intent and their actual behavior.  Apple makes it clear (if you read the terms of use) that "Content may not be available for Redownload if that Content is no longer offered on our Services."  Notice they aren't saying "we reserve the right to turn off your access to content at our discretion."  They are specifically carving out an exception that says if Apple loses the right to serve the content, you'll lose access.  I am very comfortable with that restriction.  I'm pretty sure Apple will still be selling The Matrix 10 years from now, so if I buy it today Apple will be there for me.

To make this point clear, Apple is not saying that they can pull your access to The Matrix, for example, if they are still selling that movie.  So, for Apple's case at least, the "buy" button is pretty accurate.  "Rent forever" would be more accurate, but that would confuse some people.

Apple goes a step further. With any movie purchased from your iTunes account, a file is actually downloaded to your account and can be backed up to an external HD or on to a recordable disc using a Mac or PC that is logged in to your account. The steps to do this is in the iTunes menu. It's almost like buying music, that can be burned on to a CD. Only with the movie download, the DRM is not stripped out when you do the back up. So the movie download file will only play on the iTunes account that was used to purchase it. It will not play if you transfer it to any other iTunes account. But, if the movie is no longer available in the Apple Store, you can still use your back up of the movie file to re-install it back into your iTunes account and it will play.

Apple will not stop you from playing any downloaded movie files that resides in the device tied to your iTunes account. Even if the studio no longer allow Apple to sell the movie in their iTunes Store. If you make a back up of the download, it's like buying the DVD. Only you can't loan out your back up of the download and have it play on any device not tied to your iTunes account. Even if your iTunes account is in the cloud, you can use a Mac or PC, log in to your iTunes account and make a back up of all your purchased movies that was downloaded to your account. Or just load the movies file into your Mac or PC iTunes so you can watch the your iTunes movies on it while off line. Now your movie file are backed up in in your Mac or PC. Just in case it disappears from your  cloud iTunes account. Apple can't erase it from your computer. If Apple were to stop the movie from playing in iTunes, there are software (though most likely borderline illegal) that will extract the DRM so you can play the movie using just QT. The DRM is there because of the movie industry, not Apple.  

This is not too much different that when you rent a movie from the iTunes Store and have the whole movie downloaded into your laptop or iPad for later viewing, like while offline on an airplane for example. People with slow internet connections also do this, to prevent buffering while streaming. Only with the rental, I think you have like 3 days to play it, otherwise it will expire. Or once to start the movie, you can only play it for 24 hours. But with a purchased download of the movie, you can play it for as long as the download exist in your device. Even while offline and it doesn't matter if the movie is no longer available in the iTunes Store for purchase or rental streaming.     

ctt_zh said:

StrangeDays said:

mjtomlin said:

sato30 said:

greginprague said:

• Bornstein says that console markets taking 30% is fundamentally different than Apple, since consoles generally operate at a loss

Why is that fundamentally different?  Apple isn’t allowed to make money on the equipment and the App Store?  That seems like a preference of Bornstein but nothing that would hold up in court.  To me the App Store commission percentage between platforms is completely relevant and should stand on its own.  If Epic is fine with Sony and Nintendo charging 30% then he must be fine with Apple doing the same.  How was that not ruled on in summary judgement??

Epic really isn't "fine" with Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony charging 30% on their console's stores. When Epic says they are "fine" it is like asking another person if they are okay and they go "yeah I'm fiinnee!" They say they are fine but clearly they are not fine.

....

Apple has made it known however they can make exceptions when the exceptions benefit Apple. They want to get more people on Apple TV so the exceptions given to streaming apps benefits Apple especially when competitors do no have a particular app. 

People want to compare iOS Devices to Windows, Android or even macOS, because of its reach.
They don't want to compare iOS Devices to the likes of PlayStation or xBox, or even LG TV's running webOS, because of, well, their lack of reach.

People want to make the case that iOS is the product, just as Android and Windows is, but THAT'S NOT THE CASE. Android and Windows are available on devices from many OEMs... Microsoft and Google have to be more open about how their platforms work, because the end product is not theirs, it is the OEMs device. And to attract OEMs to their platform, they need to be flexible enough to allow those EOMs to make changes so their products can stand apart from competitors. Microsoft got in trouble because they tried to dictate what those OEMs could and couldn't do, specifically prohibiting them from selling devices that used other competing platforms. And since Windows was the dominant platform (an actual monopoly), it made it extremely difficult to remain in business unless you also sold Windows based systems.

Apple telling developers what they can and cannot do on iOS devices is not monopolistic behavior. If Apple were to tell a developer that if they wanted to develop apps on iOS then they couldn't write the same app on Android or Windows, then that could in fact be considered monopolistic behavior. That's Apple using their platform's power to gain leverage over a competing platform, by controlling what that developer can do outside of Apple's platform. But that's not what Apple does... they say, "This is our device/platform and this is what you can do on it. We don't care what you do anywhere else, that's not our business."

The fact is, iOS is not a product... iPhones and iPads are the product, just as Playstations, or xBoxes are. Nobody dictates what Sony or Microsoft or LG does on their respective products because they are seen in a different light. Unless and until iOS devices are the dominant mobile devices leaving little alternatives for consumers to turn to, Apple should be free to do whatever they want with their devices and platform.

This is right. As Daringfireball's John Gruber puts it, iPhones are an "app console". A console is not limited to video games, tho those are the most popular use. iPhone is a hardware console built to run apps. He also points out that Xbox is a just a computer built with PC parts, yet you don't hear the software devs demanding to be able to release non-Xbox software on Xbox hardware. Illogical double-standard for demanding to do so on iPhone.

That's a very interesting point. So would you say both a Google Pixel 4 and a Samsung Galaxy Note 20 are also an "app console"?

Not the in way John Gruber use the term "console". Gruber was pointing out that with game "consoles", the maker of the "console" own the hardware AND the software it operates on. The maker of the hardware also owns the OS running on that hardware. Microsoft has full control of what gets to be in an X-Box because they also own the OS it runs on. Sony has full control of what get to be on a PlayStation because they also own the OS it runs on. Just like how Apple gets to have full control of what get to run on iDevices because they own iOS. In these cases, both the hardware and software that consist of the OS, are consider platforms. They are not two separate products that are sold separately. One can not buy the OS running on a game console and use it to build their own game console. Just as one can not buy iOS and use it on their own hardware. 

With the Google Pixel and Samsung note 20, neither Google or Samsung own the Android OS in those devices. Though Google maintains the source code for Android, they are open source and available for anyone to use for free. Only devices that include or are compatible with Google apps, can claim to be using "Android'. "Android" is actually a trademark own by Google and can only be use on devices if the OS derived from the Android source codes is compatible with all the Google apps.

Amazon uses the open "Android" source code for their Fire devices and don't include any Google apps nor claimed to be compatible with all the Google apps. Therefore, their OS is referred to as Fire OS. Which is a fork of "Android". Though one can side load the Google Play Store into an Amazon Fire device, Amazon do not support it and offer no support if any of the apps available in the Google Play Store do not work on with their Fire OS. Amazon rather you buy apps through their own app store. And they also take a 30% cut.  

So no, most devices running "Android" are not "consoles" in the same way John Gruber uses the term "console". The Android hardware makers do not have full control of the OS as anyone can get a hold of the Android open source codes and make their own device running on "Android" or a fork of Android.  The hardware and Android are separate products, thus only Android can be considered a platform. Devices running Android is not consider a platform. The Google Pixel 4 running Android is not the same as an iPhone running iOS. One of them is like a game "console" and can be consider a platform.

Just like a Dell laptop running Windows is not a platform. The platform in this case is just Windows. Windows is a separate product that can be bought and installed on any compatible hardware.