I’m following the conversation just fine. The problem is you’re making proper arguments while simultaneously making snarky, disingenuous comments. If you want to have a coherent discussion, pick a lane.
I’m not the only one, you’ve been throwing your share of snark and misrepresentation of my statements around:
Right, because everybody knows the smartphone market is completely worthless. Apple has been completely disincentivized from making billions of dollars trying to sell more phones than the Android handset makers. 🙄
Here’s a perfect example of what I said above. You first give a supposedly real answer of “yes the chips are capable of it” followed by: A snarky comment saying “actually the current chips aren’t capable of it.” So which chips are we even taking about now, the ones that presently exist in everyone’s wallets or theoretical ones? And yet you have the nerve to accuse me of being the one being at fault for such a confusing back and forth.
What I said was:
You asked if it was possible for the NFC chips in credit cards to be multi-purpose, and I said yes. I doubt that the current cards were designed that way, but that’s because they aren’t being good socialists and are only thinking of themselves. Pass a law mandating it and the chips can be designed.
It shouldn’t be that hard to sort out. The chips in the credit card talk the same way as the chips in the phone. They can do the same things if they are designed to. It is technically possible, but the cards in the field probably are unlikely to have been designed that way because most companies design products with only themselves in mind. If you pass a law requiring that credit card chips support multiple purposes it is possible to do so for the same reason your phone can.
Just like the NFC interface on iPhone could be multipurpose but isn’t so you want a law forcing it. It is completely analogous.
Right, because everybody knows the smartphone market is completely worthless. Apple has been completely disincentivized from making billions of dollars trying to sell more phones than the Android handset makers. 🙄
Yep, make the shiniest prettiest hardware brick you can, because that’s the only thing you can make money from.
The iPhone obviated the need for point and shoot cameras. Last I checked a smartphone isn’t going to be somehow replace bank accounts. But perhaps you could explain the physics on that one.
Why is it ok for a company to leverage their market power in smartphones to take over the market for cameras?
Like with the credit card example, it feels like you’re viewing hardware and software differently. If smartphones can‘t replace bank accounts, then banks have little to worry about.
Or if Apple was declared to be using their Mac market position to advange themselves in smartphones against Nokia.
Did Apple do something I’m unaware of?
Maybe you’re too young to remember… Apple used to pretty much only make computers. With the rise of the internet, they made a big thing about putting “i”s in front over everything to show how internet communications was going to be a big part of their business. Then they saw a way to expand their ecosystem into music with a “Rip. Mix. Burn” campaign. Having built up the technology to convert, play and share digital music they made a move into the portable music player market, leveraging their established computer and music software business. They made this thing called an iPod that pretty much killed the market for Walkman’s.
As digital music players got more popular alongside the internet, a market developed for digital music files. The established players, not just in the EU but also in the US, weren’t having any of it because they wanted everything to remain compatible with their little plastic spinny discs. A small startup called Napster came along and gave everyone a way to just pass those files around for free on the internet. It was glorious! All the music you could want as fast as your 56kbaud modem could pull it down.
Apple, though, had other ideas and in a decidedly anti-consumer move they leveraged their existing business of computers, music software and players into a new music marketplace that raised music prices infinite percent and didn’t provide APIs to Napster to integrate with the iTunes Music Store— only Apple sold content through that store. Napster was left to die.
As exciting as the iPod was, Japan was embarrassing us with their advances in cell phones. They could do email, read the internet, take pictures, watch TV…. It was becoming clear that PDAs were on their way out and people wanted one device to do more things, including music.
Apple did the Right Thing and decided to open their iTunes technology to Motorola. They made this awesome phone called the ROKR. If only that thing was protected by a government somewhere, the world would be entirely different today. But it wasn’t. No sooner did they share with Motorola than St. Steve got on stage to announce the ROKR with words that said “this is the beginning of a new era” but in a tone of voice that said “this is already history”.
Not long later, Apple did a bad thing and leveraged it’s existing businesses in internet communications and music players to gain power in another market. There were three things: An iPod, a phone and an internet communicator.
An iPod, a phone and an internet communicator.
If you’re not getting it, it was all the same device! They called it the iPhone and it was anti-competitive to the max. I mean it only supported AT&T, only ran one OS, and didn’t allow competitors applications to load…. It was a travesty that should have been instantly killed by some progressive legislature.
And that brings me back to my point— if the EU were quicker on their feet at stopping a dominant player in computers and music players from using their market position to gain power in the cell phone market we might still be able to buy a decent Nokia flip phone.
You don’t have to download other wallets. Use Apple’s.
What if my card issuer decides they don’t want to use Apple’s wallet, but only their own? That’s what you’re pushing for right? That makes the phone harder to setup and use.
We’ll see on this one I guess.
Does the law require all those services to interoperate or not? Because if it doesn’t, then there’s nothing to wait and see on— we know they don’t talk today, and the law won’t force them to, so things won’t consolidate to a single messaging platform and simply anyone’s life.
Are you telling me a cookie’s functionality can’t be categorized?
I’m telling you that they can be categorized however the site desires and they’ll find away any simple standardization you’re trying to come up with will fail. That’s the point. Laws based on utopian visions never turn out as hoped and all the people saying “companies are incentivized to provide a good user experience” aren’t accounting for that.
