I think you're picking and choosing responses without reading the full context.
I'm responding to the phrase "but now at their current size.". Your post is very off topic.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sued by U.S. Department of Justice, Says Lawsuit is 'Wrong'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm responding to the phrase "but now at their current size.". Your post is very off topic.
If one has an opinion that "the Earth is flat", they are objectively wrong, regardless of their opinion.
Strawman argument. Earth being flat can be proven wrong by math/science.
DoJ's decision is nothing like that.
Another example from DOJ document
Smartphones have so revolutionized American life that it can be hard to imagine a world beyond the one that Apple, a self-interested monopolist, deems “good enough.” But under our system of antitrust laws, “good enough” is, quite simply, not enough. Consumers, competition, and the competitive process—not Apple alone—should decide what options consumers should have. And competition, not Apple’s self-interested business strategies, should be the catalyst for innovation essential to our daily lives, not only in the smartphone market but in closely related industries like personal entertainment, automotive infotainment, and even more innovations that have not yet been imagined. Competition is what will ensure that Apple’s conduct and business decisions do not thwart the next Apple.
======
Is being self-interested greedy? Is it immoral? While the term self-interest has negative connotations, it does not necessarily imply greedy or immoral behavior. Self-interest just means that you seek your goals. In fact, your self-interest might lead you to study hard for your math test, give money to your favorite charity or volunteer at a local school.
Smartphones have so revolutionized American life that it can be hard to imagine a world beyond the one that Apple, a self-interested monopolist, deems “good enough.” But under our system of antitrust laws, “good enough” is, quite simply, not enough. Consumers, competition, and the competitive process—not Apple alone—should decide what options consumers should have. And competition, not Apple’s self-interested business strategies, should be the catalyst for innovation essential to our daily lives, not only in the smartphone market but in closely related industries like personal entertainment, automotive infotainment, and even more innovations that have not yet been imagined. Competition is what will ensure that Apple’s conduct and business decisions do not thwart the next Apple.
======
Is being self-interested greedy? Is it immoral? While the term self-interest has negative connotations, it does not necessarily imply greedy or immoral behavior. Self-interest just means that you seek your goals. In fact, your self-interest might lead you to study hard for your math test, give money to your favorite charity or volunteer at a local school.
Last edited:
i think ive had more than enough discussion with you on this topic.
and thanks for apologising for the rude/snide response you gave... oh that's right, you didnt...
Last edited:
This makes zero sense. On a technical level, it would take an extreme amount of engineering resources for Apple to support Android apps on AW.
"...and even more innovations that have not yet been imagined."
how more general could they be? crystal ball gazing? checking the entrails of goats? tarot cards?
maybe Merlin works for them.
Someone once told me "never vote for a politician who isnt self-interested as they have no motivation to achieve anything".
Apple have long said they aim to make the best products they can, not the most, and they arent always first to market.
That's their appeal to many. Look at a problem and find an Apple solution.
Perhaps you need to read why MMS is carrier restricted in file size... Apple differentiates the OS the message came from. The actual terrible quality is the file delivered to them because carriers set limits on the file size.
Why text message videos are blurry, and how to fix the problem
Media sent between iPhones looks pristine, but Android phones don't get the same treatmentwww.androidpolice.com
As I have said many times the blame truly lies with the carriers because 1) Apple offered them iMessage a long time ago and they refused because they couldn't monetize it and 2) they had the GSMA RCS spec for years but sat on it until it died because, you guessed it, they couldn't monetize it. But as it stands today MMS is a fallback to iMessage and RCS, if iMessage had RCS support then video/pictures would not need to fallback to MMS. How Apple's RCS implementation will pan out has yet to be seen, if the antitrust suit is good for anything at least it might motivate them to put in an honest effort at implementing RCS.
No matter what, when Apple do implement RCS we can all cue comments about how Apple is stuffing things up (because the unwashed whinging masses don’t realise that RCS also has file size limits and carriers set them which was part of the sticking point when rolling it out).
If only people would pick a tool designed for what they want to do.
Sharing cat videos though really doesn’t need a 2 gig a minute quality file
more likely that are sharing something the shouldn’t be…
No matter what, when Apple do implement RCS we can all cue comments about how Apple is stuffing things up (because the unwashed whinging masses don’t realise that RCS also has file size limits and carriers set them which was part of the sticking point when rolling it out).
If only people would pick a tool designed for what they want to do.
Sharing cat videos though really doesn’t need a 2 gig a minute quality file
more likely that are sharing something the shouldn’t be…
RCS, at least Google's implementation, has a size limit of 10.24GB but obviously that's restricted by the carriers which have around the same 100mb limit for RCS as Apple has for iMessage. If Apple's GSMA spec RCS can do 100mb, and I don't believe there are any issues that would affect that, I think most people would be happy. Sure some will gripe about not getting Apple specific features which IMO they are entitled to keep, but as long as video/picture size and group chats are fixed most will be happy.
I'm not sure what you mean "sharing something the shouldn't be..." Sending videos of my kids playing sports result in huge file sizes. But a 100mb compressed video looks a hell of a LOT better than a 1.2mb video.
DoJ's allegations can be proven by the courts at trial. There is a reason it's called "finding of fact".
My argument as of why your advice is questionable is because it assumes facts that have not been determined yet and are at the very core of the "finding of fact" that would need to take place at trial.
The discussion is about the size of a company and how it should affect or not antitrust considerations. My points are exactly about that: in a per se violation size is irrelevant, in a violation to be evaluated under the rule of reason it is.
Until the truth of the allegations is proven in court or admitted by the accused, those allegations remain nothing more than unproven claims. Allegations are easy to make. Also stacking allegation upon allegation simply means you have multiple allegations. It doesn’t mean you have the facts necessary to prove something true. An allegation can’t transform into a fact unless there is evidence in support, that takes an investigation. After that in court you will see the challenging and testing of the prosecution’s evidence to verify its validity. A lot of what is written will indeed be questioned and challenged. In the end this is not a easy slam dunk at all, especially given how the DOJ trying to interpret how technology companies are suppose to work as self interested vs competition which seems to be a lot of the wording.
Last edited:
Until the truth of the allegations is proven in court or admitted by the accused, those allegations remain nothing more than unproven claims. Allegations are easy to make. Get enough people making the same allegations, and those allegations may be accepted as facts. Also stacking allegation upon allegation simply means you have multiple allegations. It doesn’t mean you have the facts necessary to prove something true. An allegation can’t transform into a fact unless there is evidence in support, that takes an investigation. After that in court you will see the challenging and testing of the prosecution’s evidence to verify its validity. A lot of what is written will indeed be questioned and challenged. In the end this is not a easy slam dunk at all, especially given how the DOJ trying to interpret how technology companies are suppose to work as self interested vs competition which seems to be a lot of the wording.
For sure they definitely can also be proven wrong and I agree their case is not going to be easy to prove.
Till now, I still find it impressive that Apple has been able to command more than half the US market with a premium-prized product despite the existence of way cheaper alternatives.
In addition, I still can’t wrap my head around this supposed “iMessage stranglehold” that goes on in the US. Maybe I will some day.
In addition, I still can’t wrap my head around this supposed “iMessage stranglehold” that goes on in the US. Maybe I will some day.
You're still not understanding my perspective. I think it's wrong for DoJ to even bring in the federal court in this because the ruling can potentially stifle innovation and discourage Apple from investing more into their App Store that could benefit me as a developer and as a user. Even on assuming DoJ's allegations are found to be true, I'd still have the same opinion because the judgement based on interpretations that anyone can disagree with and not on universal truth like math/science.
Last edited:
yes. and I'll just repeat EXACTLY what I wrote about how "size of a company" "should affect or not antitrust considerations"
"This law should be based on reason, regardless of size." as in, it should not affect at all on antitrust considerations. This is in response to "but now at their current size..." of OP. OP should have never qualified the rule based on size.
I quite literally gave my take on the discussion you've described exactly on point. So I have no idea what you're trying to argue against my point.
🤦♂️ I'm done repeating myself. Going to move on.
Last edited:
I don't think it would be acceptable for the DoJ to knowingly let Apple keep breaking the law if the DoJ believes Apple is doing so. If the consequences of finding Apple in violation of the law are problematic, the law would need to be changed but that's not the job of the DoJ.
Anyone can disagree with anything, but that's actually regardless of the methodology employed to establish facts. Science demonstrates that the Earth is not flat, but that doesn't stop some people from disagreeing.
Ultimately we as society need a way to establish "truth" in the legal context and that's what the legal system does.
from comments on here I'd be imagining full cinema movie sharing, couple of gig file size was discussed. it wasnt a family or cat video...
By the same logic you'd be fine with Apple being forced to enable indiscriminate sideloading on iOS, since people are already doing that, but removing arbitrary limits (such as 3 apps at most, 7-days at a time, etc...) makes it easier
from comments on here I'd be imagining full cinema movie sharing, couple of gig file size was discussed. it wasnt a family or cat video...
"couple of gig" is pretty darn easy to get on today's phone's high resolution recording, VERY easy. But I don't think anyone is asking for a full version of videos to be transmitted, videos get compressed to fit in that 100mb limit so it's a moot point.
I honestly don't understand what the disconnect is. Apple strangles messaging for non iOS users communicating with iOS users by keeping certain features only on its platform. I'm NOT opining on whether they are entitled to do that or not, whether ethically or legally, simply that they do exactly this.
I'd be fine with that, I don't ascribe to the completely marketing take that my iphone would suddenly become a huge security risk full of malware and viruses. After all my MacOS computer is completely open and hasn't blown up quite yet.
That wouldn't likely come under consideration until much later, depending on how things played out.
This was a reply to a poster that said that the Samsung S24 was objectively better than the iPhone. The earth is demonstrably not flat. Saying the S24 is objectively better because it for example has more RAM is not as easy to demonstrate.