Congressman Leading Tech Antitrust Investigation Says July Hearing Confirms 'Deeply Disturbing Behavior'

[4jasontv]

I feel like if the web browsers were walled gardens we’d be having the same issue with that. What’s the difference between the internet and the App Store and apps? Why should Apple have the say for what content can be run on our phones? That’s the root of the argument. Apple has monopoly control over apps on the iPhone and iPad. Same with Google. Both parties have sidelooading features (Googles is less restrictive)... But they aren’t the same as letting users choose what they want when they want it. Phones are peoples primary device and users should be able to control what software they want to run. It’s a pretty fundamental thing.

The argument seems to be that other people have a say over what is run on Apple's devices. The music industry already established that we don't own the music. We have a licence to use it. Apple owns the devices and gives us a licence to use it just like they give developers a licences to distribute content to their devices.

 

[Jyby]

The argument seems to be that other people have a say over what is run on Apple's devices. The music industry already established that we don't own the music. We have a licence to use it. Apple owns the devices and gives us a licence to use it just like they give developers a licences to distribute content to their devices.

No consumers own their devices. US Courts have shown that. Also US Courts have shown that users have the legal right to change their software (jail breaking) and hardware. Apple does not license the hardware for use by the consumer. Apple is licensing software

 

[amartinez1660]

If Apple is forced off their own App Store, they’ll probably just create a new “Apple Apps” app built into iOS/MacOS to list all their apps. Might actually help them get more people using their apps 😆

I hope so, because I don’t want to be forced to find the apps somewhere else. I’ll leave that to jailbreakers and Android users to tinker with... myself I don’t want to if the current way suits me better, as a costumer.

It’s like if the “Kirkland” brand was forced out of Costco, or if a Nike store happens to sell a few other accessories that work well together with Nike’s but then the Nike branded items are forced out it’s own store. That will just make the store themselves flush out every other brand and actually monopolize the store to a single brand.

I want to get XCode, FCPX, Keynote, Logic Pro, etc+ from the AppStore’s convenience... the front end is consistent and coherent for the user: the pay, get and install buttons are exactly the same for all apps, pay with a single venue for anything (Apple Pay convenience too), the security and compatibility check for app/payment/install/malware is the same; stars and reviews and changes history; easy to refer from the outside to it with a webpage link, discover section, cross platform auto installs, etc

Why we as users have to be forced out of using this system that has worked quite well in my opinion (and gets its own set of improvements over time) for some of the apps because they happen to be Apple’s. Thinking about this makes me mad.

 

[the8thark]

No I think if you look at the democrats view points, especially Chuck Schumers on the issue of Facebook and Russian interference- their proposed regulations make a lot of sense. I'm pretty informed on the issue. The democrats clearly have the right ideas for regulating these large social media platforms...

Now should they consult experts? Sure maybe. But they definitely don't need to consult global economists.. This isn't an economic issue. This is an issue where Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is letting internet companies get away with not being responsible for content on their site.

In Facebooks case you could argue they are being slow to deal with hate content and misinformation. I think it's definitely important to pressure these companies with new laws to act on this kind of content. And it's not a political thing... No content should be available on Facebook that broadcasts a message of hate and chaos... Also any content misleading what a person or politician says vs what they actually said, IMO should be banned.. Twitter is taking a softer approach by labeling things a misinformation or not factual.. But I think we should take a step further.

Many people are being misled on the internet. Not good.

You're free to beleve everything you just said above. It's not factual though.

Now moving away from what you just said and towards the facts.
No politician from either side has the answer here. Because their main agenda is to keep getting elected each term. You need independant experts who's only agenda is the best outcomes for the people.

Also facebook is just like google (ie youtube) in being quick to "fact check" information from right wing sources but they let the left say whatever the left wants to. I'm not being biased here. I want both sides to be equally held to account. Facebook and google have zero want to hold both sides equally to account and only government regulation will force them to do this.

One major flaw in US society in general is most people trust a piece of information based on who the messenger was, not based on the message itself. If you like the messenger then it's fact. If you hate the messenger, then it's lies and hate. The actual message is not independantly scrutinised. The US ia a strongly partisan society and it's doing the country a lot of harm.

Also as an aside when you say "Also any content misleading what a person or politician says vs what they actually said, IMO should be banned." I agree with you on this. However how do you determine what constitutes misleading? In many cases anything said by the side someone hates, is misleading, when in reality it's not. The public need to realise that factual information they do not like, the inconvenient truth, is the actual truth, regardless of who the messenger is.

Actually misleading content sould be banned, but there is not that many people in the US unbiased enough to make that determination. Ideally you'd choose a group entirely based outside the USA with zero skin in the game to make that determination. Because they pnly care for seeking out the truth, not perpetuating the US partisan society.
I can say I'm closer to this as I'm not a US citizen and I don't have any direct skin in the US game. An independant outside perspective is a good thing to have from time to time.

 

[Jyby]

You're free to beleve everything you just said above. It's not factual though.

Now moving away from what you just said and towards the facts.
No politician from either side has the answer here. Because their main agenda is to keep getting elected each term. You need independant experts who's only agenda is the best outcomes for the people.

Also facebook is just like google (ie youtube) in being quick to "fact check" information from right wing sources but they let the left say whatever the left wants to. I'm not being biased here. I want both sides to be equally held to account. Facebook and google have zero want to hold both sides equally to account and only government regulation will force them to do this.

One major flaw in US society in general is most people trust a piece of information based on who the messenger was, not based on the message itself. If you like the messenger then it's fact. If you hate the messenger, then it's lies and hate. The actual message is not independantly scrutinised. The US ia a strongly partisan society and it's doing the country a lot of harm.

Also as an aside when you say "Also any content misleading what a person or politician says vs what they actually said, IMO should be banned." I agree with you on this. However how do you determine what constitutes misleading? In many cases anything said by the side someone hates, is misleading, when in reality it's not. The public need to realise that factual information they do not like, the inconvenient truth, is the actual truth, regardless of who the messenger is.

Actually misleading content sould be banned, but there is not that many people in the US unbiased enough to make that determination. Ideally you'd choose a group entirely based outside the USA with zero skin in the game to make that determination. Because they pnly care for seeking out the truth, not perpetuating the US partisan society.
I can say I'm closer to this as I'm not a US citizen and I don't have any direct skin in the US game. An independant outside perspective is a good thing to have from time to time.

So to your first point- no not every politician is malign... Many and if not all democrats/ liberals actually do want to help people directly- unlike republicans who constantly want to cut taxes and give cooperations tax breaks. There is a big factual difference between the morals democrats have and the immorals republicans have.

You're free to beleve everything you just said above. It's not factual though.

Now moving away from what you just said and towards the facts.
No politician from either side has the answer here. Because their main agenda is to keep getting elected each term. You need independant experts who's only agenda is the best outcomes for the people.

Also facebook is just like google (ie youtube) in being quick to "fact check" information from right wing sources but they let the left say whatever the left wants to. I'm not being biased here. I want both sides to be equally held to account. Facebook and google have zero want to hold both sides equally to account and only government regulation will force them to do this.

One major flaw in US society in general is most people trust a piece of information based on who the messenger was, not based on the message itself. If you like the messenger then it's fact. If you hate the messenger, then it's lies and hate. The actual message is not independantly scrutinised. The US ia a strongly partisan society and it's doing the country a lot of harm.

Also as an aside when you say "Also any content misleading what a person or politician says vs what they actually said, IMO should be banned." I agree with you on this. However how do you determine what constitutes misleading? In many cases anything said by the side someone hates, is misleading, when in reality it's not. The public need to realise that factual information they do not like, the inconvenient truth, is the actual truth, regardless of who the messenger is.

Actually misleading content sould be banned, but there is not that many people in the US unbiased enough to make that determination. Ideally you'd choose a group entirely based outside the USA with zero skin in the game to make that determination. Because they pnly care for seeking out the truth, not perpetuating the US partisan society.
I can say I'm closer to this as I'm not a US citizen and I don't have any direct skin in the US game. An independant outside perspective is a good thing to have from time to time.

You can live and side with immoral people or you can side with moral people who actually care about the lives people live. The fact is the record of the democrats has been about the people. Now you might think it’s a game of I’m right and you’re wrong- but that really shows you don’t know enough about US political history and policy. Do some study on the democrats and the policies they fight for. Or just watch what democrats says about republicans and watch what republicans say about democrats. Trump and his administration sound like school yard bullies with the insults and words they use. Those are pretty clear factual differences. So go learn about it.

As for Facebook- they have been caught countless times sleeping on the job. Regulation is needed. And of course a board would be setup to review content- that’s how it works now. But beyond that- if a company is found with content that is banned then they should face penalties. Right now the computer decency act doesn’t hold internet companies liable. Changing this will incentivize them.

As far as you not being a citizen.. You are definitely an outsider. If you don’t live here or follow our politics daily then you don’t really have an idea of what it’s actually like. You aren’t independent you are just as biased based on what you are reading. I highly suggest you judge people on their character and moral values. Also a belief in science is important. So if you look at Trump he says he doesn’t think climate change is a real thing.. What do you think then? When nearly all scientists say it is real

 

[TiggrToo]

I can't believe I have to say this, but dear President Trump, Save us from the stupidity of these Congressman.

He's just as clueless

 

[TiggrToo]

No consumers own their devices. US Courts have shown that. Also US Courts have shown that users have the legal right to change their software (jail breaking) and hardware. Apple does not license the hardware for use by the consumer. Apple is licensing software

This is where it all breaks down.

For starters : US courts have ruled no such thing.
Secondly the US copyright office has granted a renewable 3 year exception to rooting under §201.40(6) "Exemptions to prohibition against circumvention"

Computer programs that enable smartphones and portable all-purpose mobile computing devices to execute lawfully obtained software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications with computer programs on the smartphone or device, or to permit removal of software from the smartphone or device.

Nowhere is there an exception in this for hardware, and this rule interestingly does not apply to tablets.

Finally, there is nothing from stopping vendors such as Apple making the process next to impossible either. Whilst the basic concept of rooting or jailbreaking phones may be somewhat legal, vendors are not required to enable this and they are well within their current legal rights to block the attempts in any technical way possible.

I know y'all like to play games, but let's keep this factually based.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Not even close. Not when apps claim they are free and charge after the fact. If Walmart was distributing stoves and refrigerators for free and once you got home couldn’t plug them in without a monthly subscription ... that would not be ok. And Walmart would not do that. Maybe all apps need to be $5... and then all other purchases are free. would that be what you want?

That’s what you’re talking about... obviously they aren’t perfect comparisons. But you can’t expect Apple not to get a cut when they provide the market.

These are reasonable proposals. The free market should be determining which model wins. There should be stores that compete with the iOS App Store.

If Apple knows what's good for them, they've had a lot of sleepless nights trying to find out how to permit these third party stores to exist. If they don't, they'll end up with orders handed down from the government saying they're not allowed to operate the iOS App Store at all and that they have to spin it off as a separate business.

 

[I7guy]

No consumers own their devices. US Courts have shown that. Also US Courts have shown that users have the legal right to change their software (jail breaking) and hardware. Apple does not license the hardware for use by the consumer. Apple is licensing software

That's correct, you own the hardware and can do with it as you please. But if you want to use their software, it's licensed.
[automerge]1598644314[/automerge]

...
If Apple knows what's good for them, they've had a lot of sleepless nights trying to find out how to permit these third party stores to exist. If they don't, they'll end up with orders handed down from the government saying they're not allowed to operate the iOS App Store at all and that they have to spin it off as a separate business.

Or nothing could happen and their app store is found to be legal.

 

[TiggrToo]

There should be stores that compete with the iOS App Store.

There are. I believe one is owned by Google and another by Amazon.

Both are app stores. Both offer the sale of applications that run on a mobile device.

 

[Jyby]

This is where it all breaks down.

For starters : US courts have ruled no such thing.
Secondly the US copyright office has granted a renewable 3 year exception to rooting under §201.40(6) "Exemptions to prohibition against circumvention"



Nowhere is there an exception in this for hardware, and this rule interestingly does not apply to tablets.

Finally, there is nothing from stopping vendors such as Apple making the process next to impossible either. Whilst the basic concept of rooting or jailbreaking phones may be somewhat legal, vendors are not required to enable this and they are well within their current legal rights to block the attempts in any technical way possible.

I know y'all like to play games, but let's keep this factually based.

Yeah US Courts have ruled that your purchase of a physical product makes that product yours

This is where it all breaks down.

For starters : US courts have ruled no such thing.
Secondly the US copyright office has granted a renewable 3 year exception to rooting under §201.40(6) "Exemptions to prohibition against circumvention"



Nowhere is there an exception in this for hardware, and this rule interestingly does not apply to tablets.

Finally, there is nothing from stopping vendors such as Apple making the process next to impossible either. Whilst the basic concept of rooting or jailbreaking phones may be somewhat legal, vendors are not required to enable this and they are well within their current legal rights to block the attempts in any technical way possible.

I know y'all like to play games, but let's keep this factually based.

How about you do some more googling and learn what the facts are. US Courts, particularly Supreme Court, have stated you own what you buy. Consumers own the hardware they buy and can do whatever they want with it.

You Bought It, You Own It: Supreme Court Victory for Common Sense and Owners' Rights

In a long-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court held today that the first sale doctrine applies to works made outside of the United States. In other words, if you bought it, you own it—no matter where it was manufactured. That's a major victory for consumers, and also libraries, used...

www.eff.org

 

[TiggrToo]

Yeah US Courts have ruled that your purchase of a physical product makes that product yours


How about you do some more googling and learn what the facts are. US Courts, particularly Supreme Court, have stated you own what you buy. Consumers own the hardware they buy and can do whatever they want with it.

You Bought It, You Own It: Supreme Court Victory for Common Sense and Owners' Rights

In a long-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court held today that the first sale doctrine applies to works made outside of the United States. In other words, if you bought it, you own it—no matter where it was manufactured. That's a major victory for consumers, and also libraries, used...

www.eff.org

Neither have anything to do with the issue at hand.

No one is denying ownership of the hardware.

Please do not treat me like an idiot: The issue being discussed was under what legal position rooting and jailbreaking were allowed. The claim was made that the US Courts were used.

So, keep to the discussion at hand. This has nothing to do with first sale doctrine.

 

[cosmichobo]

Now moving away from what you just said and towards the facts.
No politician from either side has the answer here. Because their main agenda is to keep getting elected each term. You need independant experts who's only agenda is the best outcomes for the people.

You'll never ever see that in democracy. Most every democracy comes down to 2 parties - those that support the business owners, and those that support the workers. And in terms of the "best outcomes for the people" - those 2 sides represent very different people, so there's never going to be a "best outcome" for all.

In theory, socialism/communism should be the answer, treating everyone equal, but those systems are run by humans, and humans are incredibly flawed, so they don't work either.

Maybe we do need AI to take over after all...

 

[Jyby]

Neither have anything to do with the issue at hand.

No one is denying ownership of the hardware.

Please do not treat me like an idiot: The issue being discussed was under what legal position rooting and jailbreaking were allowed. The claim was made that the US Courts were used.

So, keep to the discussion at hand. This has nothing to do with first sale doctrine.

You are the one who got off topic. Look at your reply to me. You said the Us Court didn’t say anything about ownership of hardware. I’m just correcting you sir. Cause you are spreading miss truths on the internet

Also US Courts have said you can jailbreak your devices. It’s why we have a few laws and exceptions to DMCA regarding it

 

[TiggrToo]

You are the one who got off topic. Look at your reply to me. You said the Us Court didn’t say anything about ownership of hardware. I’m just correcting you sir. Cause you are spreading miss truths on the internet

Also US Courts have said you can jailbreak your devices. It’s why we have a few laws and exceptions to DMCA regarding it

a) I replied to the statement made.

b) Please quote the cases you say were involved.

c) Not sir. Female.

 

[the8thark]

You'll never ever see that in democracy.

Democracy is still the best option. Considering that all options are bead. Democracy is probably the least bad option.
I agree with you but it's the best we have.

So to your first point- no not every politician is malign... Many and if not all democrats/ liberals actually do want to help people directly- unlike republicans who constantly want to cut taxes and give cooperations tax breaks. There is a big factual difference between the morals democrats have and the immorals republicans have.

That's just your bias showing through. As I said in my other comment which you read, that biases is ingrained in the US society. That partisan socitey and the refusal to accept the truth that both sides are just politicians. With the same core drive - to get elected each term.

You are definitely an outsider. If you don’t live here or follow our politics daily then you don’t really have an idea of what it’s actually like. You aren’t independent you are just as biased based on what you are reading. I highly suggest you judge people on their character and moral values. Also a belief in science is important. So if you look at Trump he says he doesn’t think climate change is a real thing.. What do you think then? When nearly all scientists say it is real

I do closely follow the US politics. On a daily basis. I just see both sides for what they really are. Neither side is perfect. I also make sure I stay informed from the 3 main sources, right wing, left wing and independant sources. I watch all three because I don't care who the messenger is. I only care for the news itself and make my own mind up based on that. To me it doesn't matter who shares the facts. As long as they are shared, and hopefully with as little spin as possible.

I don't judge people like that. I let people's actions speak for themselves. I like or hate people based on what they do and have done. If a Democrat does a good thing I'll applaud it. Just like I'll applaud a Republican if they do a good thing. I treat both sides equally. Both sides have the opportunity to do good. However as we all know both sides don't always to the right thing. Though often it's not the whole side that screws up. it's certain individuals that stop caring about the greater good. We shouldn't push the whole side under the bus because of the rotten actions of a few people.

The actions of everyone show what morals they have. That's what I look for.

*****

As an aside, your saying that the US President does not understand the climate science of our planet is not true.

Climate change has existed for the past 6 billions years. Since the day the Earth was formed. Long long before the skeptics started complainnig about it. Climate change is a good thing. It's what differentiates our planet from dead rocks like our Moon and Mars. The issue here is that our planet does a good job of dealing with that change except for when people came along. People's effect on the climate is relatively small but throws out the balances the planet has had for the past 6 billion years. It's important and it does need to be dealt with. It's a hugely important issue.
Saying climate change is bad is wrong. It needs to be properly balanced, a balance that people are affecting in a bad way.
I realise you didn't go into this, I just wanted to say it.

 

[vvswarup]

It's more about companies that grown so big they prevent smaller companies from prospering. They just keep buying other companies. Small companies are the backbone of our industry and larger companies prevent them ever being really successful and be able to compete.

The grandstanding of politicians is a reflection on us. Your post is exactly why politicians have an incentive to grandstand-because they know that people like you will buy their tripe hook, line, and sinker.

Let's talk about about "companies growing so big." You talk about "growing so big" as if it's bad thing. Show me illegal activities that Apple engaged in to get to where it is. Let's put the term "illegal" into perspective. A famous example is Rockefeller's Standard Oil. He sold his products at a loss because he had the money to eat those losses. When everyone else got priced out of the market, he jacked up the prices. There's big difference between getting to the top by outspending the competition into oblivion and getting to the top by making good products.

Second of all, let's talk about "buying other companies." Acquisitions are a perfectly acceptable form of growing the business. Point to one example of Apple buying a company solely for the purpose of eating up a competitor. Oftentimes, Apple makes acquisitions of small companies that have key technologies. Show me how that's illegal and why that should be illegal. And also, it takes two to make a sale happen-a willing buyer and willing seller. Apple and other so-called "bigger companies" don't have goon squads forcing smaller companies to sell. The owners of those small companies are happy to take their payouts.

It's fine to have a disdain for the winner in the form of healthy competitive rivalry. But what your post amounts to is saying that so-called "small companies" should be able to do what they want but Apple has to be blindfolded with one arm tied behind its back.