there is nothing wrong with making more profits and security. you are a company you want profits. if I make 100000x profits and the other people make 1x profits as competitors, that isnt my problem. they need to get good, or get out. adapt and overcome.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Another Antitrust Bill That Would Allow Sideloading on iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
disagree. if you want to get a piece of this pie you need to pay the admittance fee. nothing should be free. I completely disagree with forcing apple to open their walls to let people enjoy the feast without contributing their share.
10000x percent agree, but no. the 5 people on macrumors quotes me, and calls me a monster for wanting to keep it perfect as is, and says everyone wants it opened like android.
IF THEY WANT ANDROID WHY NOT BUY ANDROID? peasantry is not welcomed.
apple is king
android is... the stuff under apples shoes.
why are people like you even here? apple fanboys are happy with apple products, so its an enthusiast forum.
then you get people coming here and demanding changes/praising those who are trying to break it down.
you are my enemy. D: ruining perfection with wanting to make it inferior android like os.
The App available in more places (or still just one) is either more choice or the same amount.
It is not less
Not being available where and how “you want it” is ridiculous and selfish.
You are framing this in incredibly myopic terms.
Perhaps you view the world as purely black and white, however some of us realize that just because you generally like Apple products doesn’t mean you have to agree with everything they do. I also think it’s rather humorous when you say “then you get people coming here demanding changes” when your join date was mere months ago. Also calling folks here your “enemy?” You might to gain some more life experience and perspective lmao.
Another “free speech” rant? When are people going to understand that only the government owes you free speech. No one else does.
actually, I was here many yers ago but I lost access to the account. as a apple stock boy and devout follower and worshipper to everyone thou apple releases. I just cannot fathom anyone making them change their business practice. its literally the best thing on earth. anyone who wants to make them open their doors and lose profits for others to eat for free and cause a demise of their company, its really bad. id rather apple pull out and shut down, than give in and be told how to run their own company for the sake of 1% of population who wants to open it up.
Aren't FTFY posts against the forum rules? In any event, they’re petty and disingenuous. Your post quotes me as having said something I have not. I’d appreciate you updating your post to quote me correctly.
Nothing I said needs to be fixed. The court ruled that mobile operating systems wasn’t a market, and thus Apple couldn’t hold monopoly power in iOS. It ruled that the Apple could not hold a monopoly in iOS App Distribution. It ruled that IAP was not a product and that Apple could not hold a monopoly in IAP.
To quote:
Let me repeat one piece in particular:
Yet this whole discussion is around writing antitrust law to eliminate a type of ecosystem.
you wish bud. I am 100% against android, its literally a peasant device OS system and I want the apple race to stay in superior standing. not even joking. I would throw an android onto ground and stomp on it if someone handed it to me. let alone try and turn my beautiful OS into this garbage.
I pray it wont happen
Not a very good sign for your argument when you have to resign yourself to focusing on the methodology used in a rebuttal, rather than the actual argument. It’s basically the equivalent of pointing out flaws in someone’s grammar or spelling as opposed to the actual points put forth.
No they didn’t, they said it wasn’t the relevant market in this case. Epic also tried to describe iOS’s market as a basic market unto itself which is the foremarket the judge refers to.
“In terms of substance, the Court agrees with Dr. Schmalensee that plaintiff’s identification of a “foremarket” for Apple’s own operating system is “artificial.””
Again, no they did not.
“Having defined the relevant market as digital mobile gaming transactions, the Court next evaluated Apple’s conduct in that market. Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal. The final trial record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such as barriers to entry and conduct decreasing output or decreasing innovation in the relevant market. The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist.”
The judge’s oft-quoted and frequently taken-out-of-context statement regarding Apple’s monopoly status pertained to the market that she found relevant, which was digital mobile gaming transactions.
We have a system of checks and balances and so if the legislative and executives branches disagree with the judiciary, the can write and enact new laws, which may be where this is heading, regardless whether or not anything is overturned upon appeal.
Last edited:
Well first, virtually every other operating system vendor on the planet, including Apple, does this already. Not to mention the free apps which have no cut but must adhere to some ridiculous requirements. How does one contribute their share when it's free?
But really, what exactly is "their share"? Apple gets revenue from the consumers buying iphones, their hardware, regardless of apps. They get ecosystem exclusivity. They gain both directly and indirectly from free apps on the store and potentially NOT on the store, simply because they are available on an iPhone which consumers purchase.
On the flip side of that argument, virtually every app on Windows is "sideloaded" and we see how that absolutely destroyed the windows market. By way of comparison, an open environment actually brings MORE to the platform in the form of revenue, purchase power, longevity, developer attention, at the cost of security. The security issues are not the hardest thing to solve here. Even on a Mac already, this problem has a solution. Solutions do not need to be absolutely effective to still be meaningful and useful.
So in short, your argument is silly and a bit jaded. The admittance fee is the hardware itself.
So yes is the answer. Either that or you’re almost literally a caricature. Is this you, but unironically?
This has nothing to do with the end user's interests. Apple has pissed off too many wealthy power players.
Apple privacy changes wipe $278 billion market value from 4 companies
Monopolistic behavior occurs long before a monopoly is declared, and they are entirely separate things. Defining a monopoly is often a long and difficult argument and you are probably referring to Epic v Apple in LOWER courts, which is still in appeals. And no matter what, Apple has been accused and proven to be exhibiting monopolistic behavior especially in regards to the app store. Even all the people in these forums seeking higher walls on the gardens are conditioned to fight on Apple's behalf, when that is by defintion gaslighting. They enjoy the prison that they are in... because you are so protected.
But really, since you opened this door, lets talk monopolistic behavior and "the courts have already ruled."
Apple monopolizes the distribution of applications on their stores, hurting consumers. This is a supreme court decision, not just about this thread, but Apple does absolutely use its app store position to harm consumers.
This whole thread is an extension of that original ruling which like you say, have been "already ruled". This particular case in this thread is an extension of absolutely several that have stemmed since then.
So now that we've more than established that Apples app store harms consumers via US supreme court law, and is engaging in harmful monopolistic behavior, do you care to rethink your position?
And before you cite that this doesn't relate, let me paraphrase an explanation of the supreme court ruling:
Those behind the suit say that because [app store] payments go to Apple directly, and not the developers, consumers have a direct relationship with the company, and as such that makes this an antitrust case. They also claim that if consumers had other options for apps beyond the App Store, they'd pay less for them, while Apple would be under "considerable pressure" to lower its "pure profit" commission rate.
As I've stated elsewhere in threads on this issue, that's why Apple will fight this, because ultimately they are fighting to keep money. Developers and consumers aren't reaping the profits of the App store, they are hurt and damaged by it, and Apple knows that ~75% of its entire profits are app store related, so it will do everything to keep that going.
I really like Apple hardware. I really like Apple software. I really want it to be better. That's why I'm here.
Enthusiasts do not need to see eye to eye on every issue and just because I disagree with you on one thing doesn't make me the enemy because we'll agree on the other 99 things I do love about Apple. And as long as we're nice to each other, doesn't that matter more? In the end, I just want a better Apple. They can still make billions and protect us and Do Better, but they need to stop being so stubborn.
IMHO
A consumer wants a product to operate the way they want it to… what a novelty!
With respect - the bar is set extremely low. Perhaps the proponents of these measures would be happier with the wonderful "Freedom Phone"?
https://www.publish0x.com/late-to-the-pol/the-freedom-phone-is-a-complete-scam-xglpwok
You can get the App from wherever you want - you just need to move to a different platform. There's your freedom of choice, right there. Or did you not read the "Terms and Conditions" when you clicked that button?