Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The magic of pushing for more competition only works if consumers do their part. Our greatest power in any buy:sell transaction is the ability to say "NO" which is a few notches superior to the great power to "shop around."

If "punishment" through higher pricing conspiracy actually plays out, consumers can easily choose NOT to overpay the added costs that would be asked. "NO" is at least as easy to say as "YES." And if enough exercise that power, sellers always fold. Why? Because at the climax of the transaction, sellers want the revenue MORE than any consumer should want the "stuff."

Even the fan-iest Apple fan will have some price limit that is their straw. Else, bring on $2K iPhones and $3K iPhones and $10K iPhones if people will pay any price, whether to cover added costs or just because Apple wants to fatten the margin even more.
It also impacts Android. Apple raises their price $200 and guess what Samsung does. They raise their price by $200 because they can. Everyone loses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spazzcat
Read the DOJ suit and draw your own conclusions. I'm not copying and pasting it.

Apparently as long as a company is liked, they should be able to do as they wish without regard for laws.
Apparently we are going to bypass the long standing tradition of innocent until proven guilty and just go for guilty. Got it.
 
It also impacts Android. Apple raises their price $200 and guess what Samsung does. They raise their price by $200 because they can. Everyone loses.
That's not impacting Android. The above is an example of a specific manufacturer making a pricing adjustment. Nothing to do with the underlying operating system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wbeasley
That's within the scope of the law. The court of public opinion has never, and will never, operate under such conditions.
The court of public opinion means nothing here. The Doj just doesn't get to throw some stuff against the wall and call it a day.
The trial hasn't happened yet, but I can believe what I want. OJ Simpson was innocent, legally, but no one believes that.
The court of public opinion is irrelevant here. With OJ he screwed himself after he was found innocent. Apple has to be found in violation, not just have a complaint lodged against them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wbeasley
There are dozens of 3rd party app stores available that provide direct competition to Apple and Google. For example:
The Samsung Galaxy Store surely provides no "direct competition" to Apple's App Store. It isn't even available on the same operating system and can't be installed on iPhones.
Just as there is no competition inside of McDonalds
McDonald's doesn't operate in a duopoly for restaurants.
Apple raises their price $200 and guess what Samsung does. They raise their price by $200 because they can. Everyone loses.
Guess what... there are other, third parties offering smartphones.
Also, why shouldn't Samsung just keep their pricing and take over Apple's market share?
 
Europeans are already rumored to be losing the biggest selling point of the iPhone 16 on launch. congratulations! Victory!
Namely?

Someone is going to offer AI features in the EU. If not Apple, someone else will.

What's stopping third-party developer from offering a competing virtual assistant to Apple's Siri or AI functionality competing with Apple's?
 
That's not impacting Android. The above is an example of a specific manufacturer making a pricing adjustment. Nothing to do with the underlying operating system.
When your biggest competitor raises their prices, I promise you that Samsung will do so as well. They have to compete with Apple. If Apple goes up, they can increase their prices too without repercussions.
 
The Samsung Galaxy Store surely provides no "direct competition" to Apple's App Store. It isn't even available on the same operating system and can't be installed on iPhones.

McDonald's doesn't operate in a duopoly for restaurants.

Guess what... there are other, third parties offering smartphones.
Also, why shouldn't Samsung just keep their pricing and take over Apple's market share?
There is obvious some give and take. But you’re kidding yourself if that doesn’t enter the into the equation of the decision makers at Samsung. Samsung will maximize their profits. Period.
 
When your biggest competitor raises their prices, I promise you that Samsung will do so as well. They have to compete with Apple. If Apple goes up, they can increase their prices too without repercussions.
Of course this is apple against Samsung. Not android against iOS. As long as there isn’t collusion there is nothing illegal about price increases on consumer discretionary items.
 
The Samsung Galaxy Store surely provides no "direct competition" to Apple's App Store. It isn't even available on the same operating system and can't be installed on iPhones.

Samsung absolutely does provide competition to Apple in the mobile market. And the App market is a subset of the mobile market. The idea that Apple faces no competition is simply, obviously, untrue; this is a manufactured idea that is meant to create the illusion that Apple has 100% marketshare when in reality they only have about 18-20% in Spain. But you know this. You and the EU/Spain are inventing a new metric that doesn't apply anywhere else.

McDonald's doesn't operate in a duopoly for restaurants.

But that's not your argument. Apparently, according to you, Apple has a 100% marketshare of app stores inside of IOS. So, by that same argument, McDonalds has 100% marketshare inside of McDonalds. You keep changing your argument.
 
When your biggest competitor raises their prices, I promise you that Samsung will do so as well. They have to compete with Apple. If Apple goes up, they can increase their prices too without repercussions.
...which only supports that there's a lack of competition in the smartphone market - and/or their operating systems.

That is the very reason and justification for regulating this market.
 
Except we already see that’s not the case. Europeans are already rumored to be losing the biggest selling point of the iPhone 16 on launch. congratulations! Victory!

What's that, AI? I consider them lucky. The less AI I'm subject to, the better.

Either way, that's Apples choice to do that. They aren't being told, or forced, they are just being pouty babies. 👶
 
Namely?

Someone is going to offer AI features in the EU. If not Apple, someone else will.

What's stopping third-party developer from offering a competing virtual assistant to Apple's Siri or AI functionality competing with Apple's?
Nothing. It won’t be integrated into the core of the operating system.
 
...which only supports that there's a lack of competition in the smartphone market - and/or their operating systems).

That is the very reason the market is being regulated.
Just telling you how the real world works. Take it for what it’s worth. Apple gets fined 10 billion. iPhones prices in Europe go up to account for it. Samsung raises their prices to maximize their profit. That is the end outcome. Congrats. Real world 1. Idealism 0.
 
It's corruption (have you seen the money EU's raking in? we need to get in on this!) at its finest. You should all be on Apple's side.
 
...which only supports that there's a lack of competition in the smartphone market - and/or their operating systems.

There are at least a dozen smartphone manufacturers and at least a dozen variations of operating systems. And Apple only has about 18-20% marketshare in Spain.

If your concern is that Google has 80% of the market, according to the way you're defining it, then it makes zero sense to try to punish Apple who is the only viable competition to Google (again, according to the way you're defining markets. If anything, you'd want to empower Apple to chip away at the company that has 80% marketshare. But none of this makes any sense in the context of actual competition in the mobile market.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.