The accusation is that Apple is anti-competitive by over charging by being the only seller of Apps is it not? And the counter argument, as I understand from you, is that retail physical copies provide consumers an alternate “store” to buy their games from giving ‘choice’ and a means for consumers and producers to escape high prices. If not, please correct me.
Example, please? If you’re talking about something like Apple rescinding approvals for the parental monitoring / control programs using MDM profiles or functionality - I don’t see the problem. I mean, yes I get that it’s disruptive to the business. But Apple gets to protect it’s market and abuses in collecting data on users. They do get to say MDM can only be used in a business setting or environment and if it an app that will be used in a home setting or by children you can’t do that, or you have to use an alternate method or a new API we will create for you.
How is this different from Sony or Microsoft having the same rules. Don’t Microsoft even paywall subscription services behind their own Xbox live service?
Agreed but look how long it took them to reverse decision and go back to pretty much what they should have done in the first place... When there is a defect, you fix it, you don't continue with the same design that is faulty. (Mac Pro which At least they realized, and the butterfly keyboard which they haven't)
They do not have a monopoly on apps, just ones that run on their platform. Seems fine to me. The guy who sells shoes down the street is the only guy who can sell shoes in his store. You could say that's a monopoly, but that'd be silly, no? There are other places you can get apps (Android), just as there are other places you can get shoes.
I worked in the courts in child protective proceedings for 30 years, as an investigator, and it is not pedantic to point out that courts don't investigate -- it is fundamental to the way courts function. I was simply trying to add to informational content of the thread.
Boy, ain't that the truth! As long as Apple continues to please share holders, Cook et al will continue to run the company. If Apple starts to decline in revenue, the company will either correct itself, morph into something else, or die. By that time, Cook and the rest will retire with golden parachutes. Steve Jobs was an entrepreneur and visionary. I honestly don't think he would be accepted as a CEO of today's Apple by the almighty share holders. Somehow I am reminded of the Grand Inquisitor by Dostoevsky. But I digress ...
Right. Just as the "Joe's Shoes" salesman, is the only person who can sell "Joe's Shoes".
Yeah, I'm not sure what I was thinking when I typed that. Regardless, you can get the same apps on multiple platforms. There is no monopoly, because the developers can and do write their apps for multiple app markets.
