Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Justice department really needs to investigate the removal of social network and communication apps catering to those Apple customers whose social and political views could differ significantly from those of Cook and others on Apple's board.

Can you elaborate on these views that are censored?
 
Can you elaborate on these views that are censored?

Probably not.

I had a friend that was 'right wing', and wasn't happy with the 'approved' apps. I think they have an Android now, and have probably been hacked relentlessly.

(I had a client that was into the whole 'alternative facts' thing on the net. His computer, and company email, were being hacked and pawned repeatedly. He had no idea 'what could be causing it'. I gave him, and management an old Wired article, and he stopped doing that stuff at work, plus his company got tired of paying to flush his system of the nastiness. I heard there was also 'a meeting' *shrug*)
 
The Justice department really needs to investigate the removal of social network and communication apps catering to those Apple customers whose social and political views could differ significantly from those of Cook and others on Apple's board.

This is the key issue. Apple needs to decide if they want the whole country as customers or only half.
 
  • Like
Reactions: firewood
This case smells...



I think you missed the point, Microsoft got fined over including internet Explorer, so why not Apple...

There's a whole story to it, not going into it here.
Apple has a much, much smaller marketshare. They can't be a monopoly.
 
Uh, you could install Netscape Navigator.

But Microsoft was found to block access to API's that increased the speed of IE, and hobbled Navigator. Microsoft also increased their spending on 'lobbying' to 'coerce' politicians to stop the lawsuit. They got their way, eventually. Sad how money wags so much in DeeCee...
 
The problem was that Microsoft bundled their internet browser with installs of Windows and exerted power they had from their dominance in the OS market to prevent or seriously dissuade OEMs from pre-loading another browser (browsers being a separate market). If an OEM didn't agree to allow IE to be the only browser pre-loaded on their PCs, they wouldn't get the sweet sweet OEM Windows license pricing. Additionally, they could add hooks between their OS and their browser that gave it a competitive advantage over others in performance and pervasiveness (making IE impossible to uninstall for the average PC user of the time).

Given this was an era where computer literacy isn't what it is now - a sizable chunk of the population might not have even thought to see if there were any other browsers. Additionally, the task of downloading and installing a new program over dial up was much slower and daunting to the average person.

It really just boiled down to their using dominance in the OS market to manipulate their standing in the web browser market instead of competing on merit.
 
users don't like = sue, rather than go off to Android.

Perhaps its this same "anti-competitiveness" that "keeps" users like Screen Time, because "no other app can do it better"

Apple's stuck between the fan and a ceiling.
 
Half? 😂🤣😂🤣

Trump LOST the election by over 3 million votes.

Yep half, 46% vs 48% of the popular vote is pretty close to half and half.

But more importantly, 56.5% vs 42.2% of the electoral vote is also close enough to half and half.

In either case can't imagine Apple wanting to piss off 62+ million potential customers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: firewood
Yep half, 46% vs 48% of the popular vote is pretty close to half and half.

But more importantly, 56.5% vs 42.2% of the electoral vote is also close enough to half and half.

In either case can't imagine Apple wanting to piss off 62+ million potential customers.

Whatever...
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.