601–610 of 614 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
iPhones market share is less than 20%.
20% of what? That number doesn't mean anything without context. Also, references?
For units sold: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At what point does "nip it in the bud" turn into "you're persecuting me for crimes I haven't committed yet"? I suspect that where the line is drawn depends on what benefit you feel you get from one side of the line versus the other.
You're right: Nipping it in the bud was wiped clean off the table the moment Trump won the Republican Party presidential nomination for a second term.. As far as I'm concerned, now, it's a complete free-for-all.
But this is the worst/dumbest/most off-topic reply to a comment I have ever read on this site, and maybe the entire internet. I regret having had to read it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like I should buy a phone without a restrictive app store installed by default that bans apps capriciously?
Exactly, if you don't like the way Apple does things don't buy an iPhone and don't develop software for iPhones. Very simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious, how many years have you, - used an iPhone as your primary device? - used an Android as your primary device? - played Fortnite, and on what device? For me it was 6 years of Android before switching to an iPhone for the last 4 years. I've been playing a lot of Fortnite (less during the waterworld season) on a PS4 over the last 11 months. Edit: Especially because you're arguing for sideloading and Android a…
So then you have no response then, on my comment regarding anti-trust law it seems. It is well established that a participant does not have to be a singular monopoly, in a market, in order for anti-trust law to apply. And in this case, Apple has ~50% of the smartphone market, in the USA, which is enough that anti-trust law can apply. > yet Epic is still suing Google Google also has large amounts of market power. Anti…
> So then you have no response then, on my comment regarding anti-trust law it seems.
Ok, sure. You win!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So then you have no response then, on my comment regarding anti-trust law it seems. It is well established that a participant does not have to be a singular monopoly, in a market, in order for anti-trust law to apply. And in this case, Apple has ~50% of the smartphone market, in the USA, which is enough that anti-trust law can apply. > yet Epic is still suing Google Google also has large amounts of market power. Anti…
I no longer find this discussion productive. I respect the process of learning for you and me, but the last few comments have had no new information. It doesn't seem like you have the right experience with these different companies/platforms/technologies for me to learn anything new. As such its no longer worth our time. > So then you have no response then, on my comment regarding anti-trust law it seems. Ok, sure. Y…
Well yeah, you just ignored the things that I said, multiple times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This answer feels disingenuous. I feel I’ve made my point fairly clearly. The type of trust building Apple does is a “value add” that a company like Epic doesn’t understand yet. Epic choosing to make this decision isn’t data about Apple’s ability and mindset to earn trust. Epic choosing to make this decision seems to be a short term play at rent seeking before Fortnite stops being popular. Also please read my other c…
The answer is not disingenuous at all, I think you just find it hard to accept because it is simple. You are actually trying to argue that a walled garden app store where users and developers have no other choice is always better for everyone, and that everyone should want it, because the single point of failure man-in-charge knows what's best for everybody. Do you even believe that? Or do you feel compelled to defen…
He copy pasted the exact same comment in a conversation with me, which is why I am bringing it up. Instead of actually saying anything related to what I said, he just posted that copy-paste comment.
Likely, because they had nothing to add, related to the actual comments and points that you or I brought up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vast majority of phones people had at the time were not smartphones. The original iPhone was more "super impressive dumbphone" than smartphone, because it only had what it came with. Unless you were using Symbian, Blackberry, or a Windows Phone (which most people weren't), you had some dumb phone that had a crappy browser that couldn't render well, and whatever shipped on the phone. Maybe some extra ringtones you…
I’m saying it was all of those things: a proper browser, a good industrial design, plus the potential for Blackberry levels of security, which was realized only a year after the initial release. If you want to be a stickler on the OP’s original wording, yes this was more about potential than what the original iPhone shipped. And anyone who administered BES really wanted to see a market switch to ActiveSync on Exchang…
But this isn't what you actually said. You made a very specific claim, and that specific claim is what I said was ridiculous. You can admit the original claim was a bit hyperbolic, and then we don't really have anything left to argue, or you can defend that safety and security where the "most important feature" and "biggest reason consumers selected it" from "day one", in which case I don't think there's much left for us to cover.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Excuse me - but you made a wild claim, and have offered no evidence to back it up. A shirty attitude when someone calls this out won't improve the strength of that claim. Belittling the origin of solid research to the contrary doesn't do any favours, either. Marketing materials are not evidence of consumer preference. If anything, they're potentially the opposite; if people cared so much, why is constant repetition o…
I thought was arguing with someone rational, but equating marketing with “corporate malfeasance” makes it clear I am not. Ok, you win. Apple doesn’t know it’s users, they put so much time, effort and marketing behind safety and security, while not understanding that customers don’t care about them. It’s just random luck that despite being outsold 6-1 that they make more profits off smartphones than all other smartpho…
The corporate malfeasance is using your market power to force third parties to mislead consumers. That's straight-up illegal in my country. I hope it is illegal in yours too.
Attributing Apple's 66% share of the global app store market to "consumers actually want a walled garden that lies to them" is wildly unfounded.
I don't have to prove anything, since I'm just calling out a unfounded claim being used to justify bad behaviour. If you want a forum where those will go unchallenged, and more apologists for the same, try an Apple website. Maybe there you can even get away with name-calling, and belittling major overseas markets as "small" (fun fact: wherever you are in the world, Korea has better broadband than you).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m saying it was all of those things: a proper browser, a good industrial design, plus the potential for Blackberry levels of security, which was realized only a year after the initial release. If you want to be a stickler on the OP’s original wording, yes this was more about potential than what the original iPhone shipped. And anyone who administered BES really wanted to see a market switch to ActiveSync on Exchang…
> I’m saying it was all of those things: a proper browser, a good industrial design, plus the potential for Blackberry levels of security, which was realized only a year after the initial release. But this isn't what you actually said. You made a very specific claim, and that specific claim is what I said was ridiculous. You can admit the original claim was a bit hyperbolic, and then we don't really have anything lef…
Ugh, my mistake. Those weren't your words. I got you and the other commenter mixed up here and elsewhere (as in I specifically tried to address you each as your respective roles, but got it backwards). Sorry for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I no longer find this discussion productive. I respect the process of learning for you and me, but the last few comments have had no new information. It doesn't seem like you have the right experience with these different companies/platforms/technologies for me to learn anything new. As such its no longer worth our time. > So then you have no response then, on my comment regarding anti-trust law it seems. Ok, sure. Y…
> but the last few comments have had no new information. Well yeah, you just ignored the things that I said, multiple times.
We cannot make productive arguments about anti-trust law!
I have done my best to respond to you respectfully and with my best ability.
I have previously responded to your specific questions with, “If then yes. But it seems unlikely” and “It’ll be more productive for us to wait for the results of the lawsuit.”, etc.
Are you willing to answer the questions I asked?