421–430 of 513 posts
I also find out obscene that Epic tried to used its size to circumvent that when its smaller competitors wouldn't dream of doing so.
But I'm more annoyed by the first bit. It's such an obscene cut to take when it's clear you are only facilitating the transaction by choice instead of by necessity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well the unfair part is what is being discussed. So ignoring that would be ignoring the whole point of this.
My conversation with you was entirely about "the iPhone being a general purpose computer". It seems we have both settled that either an iPhone is not general purpose, or all consoles, TVs or IOT devices with downloadable content are general purpose devices. If you'd like we can now start discussing if the price Apple charges is fair. I've already stated, the market decides to buy iPhones understanding (even appreciat…
However the current focus is on Apple due to their size.
Discussion of Apple topics here on HN almost always gets reduced to the argument that Apple is not a monopoly, so what they are doing is OK. I want to present an alternative viewpoint. It's not a monopoly issue, it is an anti-competitive issue. In Canada, we have three major cell carriers. None of them has a monopoly, or anything close to it. None of them has even 50% market share. You can have a 10 GB smartphone pla…
I find those prices shocking. In the UK, I pay £10 for 6GB and unlimited calls and texts. For £20, I could have 80 GB of data on my current network.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In all the parts of the world I’ve been in, I’ve never seen a gas station without an electronic sign?
You might enjoy a trip to Aru, in eastern DR Congo. The gas pumps were run off of a gas generator!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> reduced to the argument that Apple is not a monopoly, so what they are doing is OK. Wait, how can what Apple does ever be okay even they legally don't have a monopoly. Apple provides a marketplace (which they name store, but it's a marked place not a store) which is the only way to install software (on their phone) for millions of persons which means it's a marked and not just a marked place and they do both run th…
The usual answer is that people who buy the phones must think it’s ok, otherwise they’d buy a competitor’s phone. And of course opinions differ on the good and bad aspects of their policies. It’s not like all the competitors who are complaining are ‘fair’ in any particular way. Also, your description fits a department store, or Amazon, or pretty much any other store for that matter. All store owners get to stock what…
I think plenty of people might think on reflection "That's not cool but I still want that phone".
That pretty much sums up my continuing commercial relationship with Google as well.
And my feelings about most modern meat production practices.
We don't always vote with our wallets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, that’s not correct about gas stations. Having worked at one, we would check the prices of the two others on the same road once every hour. These numbers were reported into HQ, and a price adjustment would be made to be lower. It’s very competitive and people are willing to drive or wait until a different time of day to get a lower price. EDIT: Maybe I should have said: that’s at least not the case everywher…
This isn't practical without an electronic sign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not a monopoly though. No one is being forced into using an iOS device. A monopoly would be if Apple was literally the only smartphone manufacturer in the entire world.
I'll defer to Epic's official court filings to make the argument for a monopoly for me. I'm not an expert on such topics, and it would be out of turn for me to speak more on it. "Apple monopolizes the iOS App Distribution Market". https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does it being a general computing device have to do with anything? Is it the only general computing device available? PC's and Androids exist, how is Apple in anyway a monopoly when they don't even have control of the market?
The are abusing a dominant position (as the only seller of iOS devices) to cross subsidise their software business and muscle out competitors in the services space (Apple Music vs other music services). That is a fairly clear breach of antitrust rules. The prohibition of third party transactions or third party App stores are less clear to breach, but there is a case to be made...
Discussion of Apple topics here on HN almost always gets reduced to the argument that Apple is not a monopoly, so what they are doing is OK. I want to present an alternative viewpoint. It's not a monopoly issue, it is an anti-competitive issue. In Canada, we have three major cell carriers. None of them has a monopoly, or anything close to it. None of them has even 50% market share. You can have a 10 GB smartphone pla…
I think I have a better analogy: Apple operates a market with a significant portion of economic activity in several industries / verticals, yet it sets its own rules and even is party to transactions. That's basically the definition of a black market. Black markets are useful in some circumstances, but when they grow too big they have to be regulated and taxed. A lot. Good for Epic.
This is a poor analogy.
I am still waiting for a real argument on HN as to what Apple is doing that is anti-competitive or illegal. Still have not found one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This should not matter, if it does then it would be hard to call the US a "constitutional state"/"state of law".
Motives matter, and taking the motives of foreign-owned businesses into account when dealing with one of the largest businesses in the US is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. What if the motive behind this is to just destabilize the price of Apple? What if it's part of a large campaign to destabilize a lot of US companies, not just this one?