61–70 of 70 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes because in a country where 50% of the people own an iPhone and you can get one by working 5 hours on minimum wage per month, it’s really a “status symbol” to have the same thing everyone else has and it shows you are “rich” that you can afford to pay $30/month.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft has always had a love/hate obsession with monopolization. In the early days, they were famous for stating that strategically they wanted to be the platform people-who-were-not-MS made software money on, because that was how you became a dominant platform. But of course that buckled at various times (first with proto-Office vs 1-2-3 & WordPerfect, then with the 90s dominance / Encarta-era smorgasbord of rand…
> Apple has had a monopoly on two device platforms (iPods, then iOS) and has abused both of them to its own profit. iOS is not a monopoly with 50%. We had a real judge during the Epic vs Apple case say as much. Encarta was also available for the Mac.
The App Store is an absolute monopoly in the market of software sales on iOS devices.
That the court defined the relevant market otherwise isn't contradictory.
Antitrust law of 1890 just isn't well-suited for keeping modern globally networked platforms competitive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple has had a monopoly on two device platforms (iPods, then iOS) and has abused both of them to its own profit. iOS is not a monopoly with 50%. We had a real judge during the Epic vs Apple case say as much. Encarta was also available for the Mac.
>> Central to antitrust cases is the appropriate determination of the “relevant market.” Epic Games structured its lawsuit to argue that Apple does not compete with anyone; it is a monopoly of one. Apple, by contrast, argues that the effective area of competition is the market for all digital video games in which it and Epic Games compete heavily. [...] Ultimately, after evaluating the trial evidence, the Court finds…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Central to antitrust cases is the appropriate determination of the “relevant market.” Epic Games structured its lawsuit to argue that Apple does not compete with anyone; it is a monopoly of one. Apple, by contrast, argues that the effective area of competition is the market for all digital video games in which it and Epic Games compete heavily. [...] Ultimately, after evaluating the trial evidence, the Court finds…
The court very much said the App Store wasn’t a monopoly. To argue otherwise means that every console maker’s digital store is also a “monopoly” as is the Roku’s store and every TV makers App Store (Samsung, FireTVs, etc).
Not sure how that is overly complicated? Or you or others shorten that to 'the court said the App Store wasn’t a monopoly'?
The court said a very different thing.
And yes, it should be illegal to sell physical devices with a non-user-selectable digital store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The court very much said the App Store wasn’t a monopoly. To argue otherwise means that every console maker’s digital store is also a “monopoly” as is the Roku’s store and every TV makers App Store (Samsung, FireTVs, etc).
>> The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist [in the market of digital mobile gaming transactions]. Not sure how that is overly complicated? Or you or others shorten that to 'the court said the App Store wasn’t a monopoly'? The court said a very different thing. And yes, it should be illegal to sell physical devices with a no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist [in the market of digital mobile gaming transactions]. Not sure how that is overly complicated? Or you or others shorten that to 'the court said the App Store wasn’t a monopoly'? The court said a very different thing. And yes, it should be illegal to sell physical devices with a no…
Yes and “it’s possible” that if I jump off of a 30 story building and flap my arms I will fly. But if Epics high price lawyers couldn’t prove it and you have an argument that they missed that will stand up in court, I’m sure their lawyers would be glad to hear from you.
A legal case is decided on the arguments brought, weighed against current law. It's not some black/white definition of universal truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and “it’s possible” that if I jump off of a 30 story building and flap my arms I will fly. But if Epics high price lawyers couldn’t prove it and you have an argument that they missed that will stand up in court, I’m sure their lawyers would be glad to hear from you.
I think what you think the ruling said (Apple does not have a monopoly) and what the ruling actually said (that Apple's market share and profit margins aren't sufficient to demonstrate a monopoly in the digital mobile gaming transactions market, noting that there were unexplored arguments in even that case) are two very different things. A legal case is decided on the arguments brought, weighed against current law. I…
> “Even assuming that SIE had the ability and resources to develop a similarly successful franchise to Call of Duty, it would take many, many years and billions of dollars to create a challenger to Call of Duty – and the example of EA’s Battlefield shows that any such efforts would more than likely be unsuccessful." Ouch that has to burn
Interesting thing is that Battlefield is a 20 year old franchise with about a dozen mainline releases, has sold tens of millions of copies, and has likely generated billions in revenue for EA. It's a wildly successful franchise by any metric other than "compared to Call of Duty".
Even when we will reach the reasonable maximum of transistor shrinking, then GPUs can scale up based on electric power. If we allocate 1kW for a gaming system, GPUs will be able to scale up a lot more. That's for theory, then the limiting factor could become the vram unable to feed fast enough the GPU, then we could imagine GPUs with "less vram", but something ultra fast like "only cache memory". playstation 10?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what you think the ruling said (Apple does not have a monopoly) and what the ruling actually said (that Apple's market share and profit margins aren't sufficient to demonstrate a monopoly in the digital mobile gaming transactions market, noting that there were unexplored arguments in even that case) are two very different things. A legal case is decided on the arguments brought, weighed against current law. I…
I’m saying if the high priced lawyers couldn’t come up with a convincing argument after researching and with a team of lawyers, why do you think you have “the one true argument” that could stand up in court?