mark fearing

tylersdad said:

mark fearing said:

I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...

I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous. If I own an iPhone, I have one place and one place only to buy the apps for my phone: the App Store. Can I buy a phone from a different manufacturer? Sure. But that was the case years ago as well when Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows because their position in the market essentially gave them an unfair advantage in the browser wars. People had the opportunity to buy Linux and Apple machines. There were alternative operating systems for those who didn't want Internet Explorer, but EU regulators still made MS remove IE from Windows. 

If you shop at Walmart - do you not buy what Walmart stocks? If you shop at Target, do you have a choice to buy what Walmart stocks if Target doesn't stock it? If you buy an X-box, do you install Playstation games? If you buy an X-box, where do you download games from? If you have a Ford do you take it to a BMW dealer to repair? Do you buy Ford parts? I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be. And at the root of this is- buy a different device. Buy a windows PC or an Android or any of the knock-offs from Android. I buy the iPhone exactly for the reason you seem to be mad about. I think the Mac is a similar thing. If you want total control to add RGB lights to your desktop, don't buy a Mac. So I can't really agree with the 'Monopoly' stance, and the judge didn't either BTW. The digital world is different. Crypto currencies don't act like paper money either. People have the right to buy a different device and MOST DO. iPhones are far, far, far down the list of most used mobile devices and the platform has nowhere near the numbers of Android. Also, our phones are HUGE security risks now. It's not comparable to almost any digital device in history. Security has to drive a huge part of how we use it and how it functions. I have 80 year old parents who use iPhones, I don't want more avenues for the BS methods used to get info and gain access from their devices. Anyway, I get your instinct to say 'I buy it and I can't do exactly what I want. And that's not fair.' But I think it's not as binary as that. It's a weird mix of older consumer experiences and an entirely new type of platform with risks and particular issues.

I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...

tommikele said:

Lots of gloating about how this isn't a problem for Apple and how Android  manufacturers will suffer. The haha syndrome. Do you only care because your beloved Apple is unlikely to be affected?

The real issue is more government regulation and more distortion of free markets. What's the next thing they mandate?

There is no 'FREE' MARKET  - a market as defined - is a regulated market. Regulated by a third party, usually with the greater interest as part of the consideration. Private companies have the PROFIT interest. We very much need markets to be guided by more than PROFIT. I appreciate your concern with 'government' regulation, but who do you want regulating the market, which by definition needs rules/regulation? The largest private company? Sensible regulation is what makes markets work. We can argue about what is sensible ETC but that's part of the discussion, and in ones life we may come to different conclusions at different times. But the need to a regulated market is a given.

I think an actual explanation of how it can be used would be helpful. The specifics. It seems like if you use the cable between a Mac and a keyboard only? What does it do if you use it in charging?

BTW: Do we know this as fact? Or just someone saying it?