At least three proposed class actions have been filed since Friday in California and New Jersey federal courts by iPhone owners who claim Apple inflated the cost of its products through anticompetitive conduct.
The lawsuits, seeking to represent millions of consumers, mirror the
Justice Department's claims that Apple violated U.S. antitrust law by suppressing technology for messaging apps, digital wallets and other items that would have increased competition in the market for smartphones.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/consumers-sue-apple-taking-page-us-justice-department-lawsuit-2024-03-25/
On 2024-03-26 06:35:58 +0000, Enrico Papaloma said:
At least three proposed class actions have been filed since Friday in
California and New Jersey federal courts by iPhone owners who claim Apple
inflated the cost of its products through anticompetitive conduct.
The lawsuits, seeking to represent millions of consumers, mirror the
Justice Department's claims that Apple violated U.S. antitrust law by
suppressing technology for messaging apps, digital wallets and other items >> that would have increased competition in the market for smartphones.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/consumers-sue-apple-taking-page-us-justice-department-lawsuit-2024-03-25/
Oh dear, even more greedy brainless morons jumping on the bandwagon. :-(
At least three proposed class actions have been filed since Friday in California and New Jersey federal courts by iPhone owners who claim Apple inflated the cost of its products through anticompetitive conduct.
At least three proposed class actions have been filed since Friday in California and New Jersey federal courts by iPhone owners who claim Apple inflated the cost of its products through anticompetitive conduct.
The lawsuits, seeking to represent millions of consumers, mirror the
Justice Department's claims that Apple violated U.S. antitrust law by suppressing technology for messaging apps, digital wallets and other items that would have increased competition in the market for smartphones.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/consumers-sue-apple-taking-page-us-justice-department-lawsuit-2024-03-25/
If you don't like the Apple products, simply go and buy Microsoft
https://www.reuters.com/technology/consumers-sue-apple-taking-page-us-justice-department-lawsuit-2024-03-25/
Yes, to get this crap off the ground you have to have your stooges... classic.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:46:15 +1300, Your Name wrote:
If you don't like the Apple products, simply go and buy Microsoft
That's no different than you saying if you don't like the crime in NYC,
move to Mexico. It doesn't change that the laws are what matter.
Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 26.03.24 07:46, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-03-26 06:35:58 +0000, Enrico Papaloma said:
At least three proposed class actions have been filed since
Friday in California and New Jersey federal courts by iPhone
owners who claim Apple inflated the cost of its products through
anticompetitive conduct.
The lawsuits, seeking to represent millions of consumers, mirror
the Justice Department's claims that Apple violated U.S.
antitrust law by suppressing technology for messaging apps,
digital wallets and other items that would have increased
competition in the market for smartphones.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/consumers-sue-apple-taking-page-us-justice-department-lawsuit-2024-03-25/
Oh dear, even more greedy brainless morons jumping on the
bandwagon. :-(
This is Arlen. Injection-Info: vpngate.v4.open.ad.jp
How can you be so wrong all the time?
Your Name wrote:
On 2024-03-26 06:35:58 +0000, Enrico Papaloma said:
At least three proposed class actions have been filed since Friday
in California and New Jersey federal courts by iPhone owners who
claim Apple inflated the cost of its products through
anticompetitive conduct.
The lawsuits, seeking to represent millions of consumers, mirror the
Justice Department's claims that Apple violated U.S. antitrust law
by suppressing technology for messaging apps, digital wallets and
other items that would have increased competition in the market for
smartphones.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/consumers-sue-apple-taking-page-u
s-justice-department-lawsuit-2024-03-25/
Oh dear, even more greedy brainless morons jumping on the bandwagon.
:-(
If you don't like the Apple products, simply go and buy Microsoft,
Android, etc. products instead. There's a massive array of other
choices for the dumbasses to use.
Are there realistic alternatives to Apple Pay or iMessage Samsung Pay > or Google Pay are not accepted by most vendors that accept Apple Pay.
On 2024-03-26 08:06, Mickey D wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:46:15 +1300, Your Name wrote:
If you don't like the Apple products, simply go and buy Microsoft
That's no different than you saying if you don't like the crime in NYC,
move to Mexico. It doesn't change that the laws are what matter.
Making a product that most people like so much that they keep buying it
is not a crime.
Articulate how Apple is supposed to have committed a crime
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 10:52:37 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
https://www.reuters.com/technology/consumers-sue-apple-taking-page-us-justice-department-lawsuit-2024-03-25/
Yes, to get this crap off the ground you have to have your stooges...
classic.
Are there any lawyers on this newsgroup?
Many times Apple paid huge sums for their unethical behavior to settle
cases (without admitting guilt) where some of those settlements for Apple's unethical behavior are with the government, but others are with individual state's class action suits (like this new set seems to be for CA & NJ).
Does one loss take precedence over the other?
That is, if the DOJ successfully penalizes Apple's unethical behavior in
the federal lawsuit, does that loss leave open these class action lawsuits?
Alan wrote:
If you don't like the Apple products, simply go and buy Microsoft,
Android, etc. products instead. There's a massive array of other
choices for the dumbasses to use.
Are there realistic alternatives to Apple Pay or iMessage Samsung
Pay > or Google Pay are not accepted by most vendors that accept
Apple Pay.
How is that Apple's problem?
You said there were other choices.
Alan wrote:
If you don't like the Apple products, simply go and buy Microsoft,
Android, etc. products instead. There's a massive array of other
choices for the dumbasses to use.
Are there realistic alternatives to Apple Pay or iMessage Samsung
Pay > or Google Pay are not accepted by most vendors that accept
Apple Pay.
How is that Apple's problem?
You said there were other choices.
Your Name wrote:
On 2024-03-26 06:35:58 +0000, Enrico Papaloma said:
At least three proposed class actions have been filed since Friday
in California and New Jersey federal courts by iPhone owners who
claim Apple inflated the cost of its products through
anticompetitive conduct.
The lawsuits, seeking to represent millions of consumers, mirror the
Justice Department's claims that Apple violated U.S. antitrust law
by suppressing technology for messaging apps, digital wallets and
other items that would have increased competition in the market for
smartphones.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/consumers-sue-apple-taking-page-u
s-justice-department-lawsuit-2024-03-25/
Oh dear, even more greedy brainless morons jumping on the bandwagon.
:-(
If you don't like the Apple products, simply go and buy Microsoft,
Android, etc. products instead. There's a massive array of other
choices for the dumbasses to use.
Are there realistic alternatives to Apple Pay or iMessage? Samsung Pay
or Google Pay are not accepted by most vendors that accept Apple Pay.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:46:15 +1300, Your Name wrote:
If you don't like the Apple products, simply go and buy Microsoft
That's no different than you saying if you don't like the crime in NYC,
move to Mexico. It doesn't change that the laws are what matter.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 10:52:37 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
https://www.reuters.com/technology/consumers-sue-apple-taking-page-us-justice-department-lawsuit-2024-03-25/
Yes, to get this crap off the ground you have to have your stooges...
classic.
Are there any lawyers on this newsgroup?
Many times Apple paid huge sums for their unethical behavior to settle
cases (without admitting guilt) where some of those settlements for Apple's unethical behavior are with the government, but others are with individual state's class action suits (like this new set seems to be for CA & NJ).
Does one loss take precedence over the other?
That is, if the DOJ successfully penalizes Apple's unethical behavior in
the federal lawsuit, does that loss leave open these class action lawsuits?
Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 26.03.24 07:46, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-03-26 06:35:58 +0000, Enrico Papaloma said:
At least three proposed class actions have been filed since
Friday in California and New Jersey federal courts by iPhone
owners who claim Apple inflated the cost of its products through
anticompetitive conduct.
The lawsuits, seeking to represent millions of consumers, mirror
the Justice Department's claims that Apple violated U.S.
antitrust law by suppressing technology for messaging apps,
digital wallets and other items that would have increased
competition in the market for smartphones.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/consumers-sue-apple-taking-page-us-justice-department-lawsuit-2024-03-25/
Oh dear, even more greedy brainless morons jumping on the
bandwagon. :-(
This is Arlen. Injection-Info: vpngate.v4.open.ad.jp
How can you be so wrong all the time?
Does one loss take precedence over the other?
That is, if the DOJ successfully penalizes Apple's unethical behavior in
the federal lawsuit, does that loss leave open these class action lawsuits?
The class action, once certified, goes on its own. The class lawyers
will use every bit of ammo from any other case that they can, of course.
That is, if the DOJ successfully penalizes Apple's unethical behavior in
the federal lawsuit, does that loss leave open these class action lawsuits?
You do relaise that despite the usual misleading sensationalist
headlines, many of these latest idiotic lawsuits are aimed at *all* the
big tech companies: Google, Meta, Microsoft, etc. ... not just Apple.
Articulate how Apple is supposed to have committed a crime
Besides, nobody is forced to buy Apple products. There are plenty of alternatives.
Alan wrote:
If you don't like the Apple products, simply go and buy Microsoft, >>>>Android, etc. products instead. There's a massive array of other >>>>choices for the dumbasses to use.
Are there realistic alternatives to Apple Pay or iMessage Samsung Pay
or Google Pay are not accepted by most vendors that accept Apple
Pay.
How is that Apple's problem?
You said there were other choices.
How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!
Cameo wrote:
Articulate how Apple is supposed to have committed a crime
Besides, nobody is forced to buy Apple products. There are plenty of
alternatives.
Did not a single one of you dumb Apple nut cases read the DOJ brief?
On 27 Mar 2024 02:50:54 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!
You wacky nutters actually think an app store is unique only to Apple?
How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!
You wacky nutters actually think an app store is unique only to Apple?
No, but the morons at the US DOJ apparently do.
On 27 Mar 2024 02:50:54 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!
You wacky nutters actually think an app store is unique only to Apple?
Jolly Roger wrote:
You loser trolls actually think Apple Pay and iMessage are app
stores.
Who thinks that?
On 2024-03-27, badgolferman <[email protected]> wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-27, Oscar Mayer <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2024 02:50:54 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-26, badgolferman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Alan wrote:
If you don't like the Apple products, simply go and buy Microsoft, >>>>>>> Android, etc. products instead. There's a massive array of other >>>>>>> choices for the dumbasses to use.
Are there realistic alternatives to Apple Pay or iMessage Samsung Pay >>>>>> or Google Pay are not accepted by most vendors that accept Apple
Pay.
How is that Apple's problem?
You said there were other choices.
How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!
You wacky nutters actually think an app store is unique only to Apple?
You loser trolls actually think Apple Pay and iMessage are app
stores.
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 19:56:25 +1300, Your Name wrote:
How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!
You wacky nutters actually think an app store is unique only to Apple?
No, but the morons at the US DOJ apparently do.
The DOJ's case has nothing to do with Apple's trademarking practices (which is the only thing "unique" about any Apple iPhone product ever created).
None of you understand the DOJ's case, probably because you never read it. Admittedly, it's 62 pages, and most is dedicated to the evils of messages.
But the app store restrictions are in there also - if you'd only read it.
But you won't read it as you still think an app store is unique to Apple.
Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-27, badgolferman <[email protected]> wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
You loser trolls actually think Apple Pay and iMessage are app
stores.
Who thinks that?
Don't think for a second that those reading this thread won't see that
you and Arlen are snipping context to purposely try to hide the FACT
that you said this, which is what Arlen responded to.
Here's the context restored, just for you:
On 2024-03-27, badgolferman <[email protected]>
wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-27, Oscar Mayer <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2024 02:50:54 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-26, badgolferman
<[email protected]> wrote:
Alan wrote:
If you don't like the Apple products, simply go and
buy Microsoft, Android, etc. products instead. There's a
massive array of other choices for the dumbasses to use.
Are there realistic alternatives to Apple Pay or
iMessage Samsung Pay or Google Pay are not accepted by most
vendors that accept Apple Pay.
How is that Apple's problem?
You said there were other choices.
How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!
You wacky nutters actually think an app store is unique only to
Apple?
You loser trolls actually think Apple Pay and iMessage are app
stores.
Who thinks that?
If anyone needs evidence that badgolferman is every bit a shifty troll
as Arlen, here it is, in black and white.
Wow! You've really gone off the deep end. Now you're making shit up
to prove your delusions.
Jolly Roger <[email protected]> wrote:
The quoting that you and Arlen desperately trimmed is factual, as anyone
reads the thread can easily see, idiot. Maybe Arlen is impersonating you
again, maybe you're just low-level trolling as usual. But ether way, your
weak trolls suck.
I trimmed because I was referring directly to a statement you made.
It is Usenet etiquette to trim when the post gets too long.
I also didn’t call you names
You accused trolls of believing something silly and I asked who were
they.
You really need to chill out
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 19:56:25 +1300, Your Name wrote:
How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!
You wacky nutters actually think an app store is unique only to Apple?
No, but the morons at the US DOJ apparently do.
The DOJ's case has nothing to do with Apple's trademarking practices (which is the only thing "unique" about any Apple iPhone product ever created).
None of you understand the DOJ's case, probably because you never read it. Admittedly, it's 62 pages, and most is dedicated to the evils of messages.
But the app store restrictions are in there also - if you'd only read it.
But you won't read it as you still think an app store is unique to Apple.
There are lots of "app stores" for various devices and operating systems.
There is *one* legal Apple App Store for Apple devices, and for iOS,
iPad, Apple Watch, and Apple Vision devices, that's the only proper way
to install your apps.
There are other app stores you can use, but the
legality is questionable (as is their content) and often requires
stupidly 'jailbreaking' the device, which a pointless waste of time for
all bit a tiny niche minority of users.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:52:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
There are lots of "app stores" for various devices and operating systems.
I know that. You know that. More important, the DOJ knows that too.
It's just one of the wacky Apple nutters who said this, and I quote:
"How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!"
The quoting that you and Arlen desperately trimmed is factual, as anyoneI trimmed because I was referring directly to a statement you made. It is Usenet etiquette to trim when the post gets too long. I also didn’t call you names or make shit about you. It was a direct simple question. You accused trolls of believing something silly and I asked who were they.
reads the thread can easily see, idiot. Maybe Arlen is impersonating you
again, maybe you're just low-level trolling as usual. But ether way, your
weak trolls suck.
You really need to chill out and stop being so defensive and combative. Nothing anyone says or does in this newsgroup will damage Apple in any way.
Jolly Roger <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-03-27, badgolferman <[email protected]> wrote:
Jolly Roger <[email protected]> wrote:
The quoting that you and Arlen desperately trimmed is factual, as anyone >>>> reads the thread can easily see, idiot. Maybe Arlen is impersonating you >>>> again, maybe you're just low-level trolling as usual. But ether way, your >>>> weak trolls suck.
I trimmed because I was referring directly to a statement you made.
Nope. You trimmed to remove context. Here's the exchange you are
desperately trying to pretend didn't happen:
You: Are there realistic alternatives to Apple Pay or iMessage Samsung
Pay or Google Pay are not accepted by most vendors that accept Apple
Pay.
Someone else: How is that Apple's problem?
You: You said there were other choices.
Me: How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!
Arlen (trying to move the goal post and change the topic): You wacky
nutters actually think an app store is unique only to Apple?
It is Usenet etiquette to trim when the post gets too long.
It's troll behavior to dishonestly trim in order to remove context.
I also didn’t call you names
You need to grow a thicker skin if you're going to troll as a hobby.
You accused trolls of believing something silly and I asked who were
they.
You are low-key defending Arlen trying to move the goal post. And it's
obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.
You really need to chill out
I'm perfectly calm. You're the ones getting all worked up over colors
and similar nonsense due to your irrational hatred of all things Apple.
I see you trimmed my response and left out the most important part! You owe me another irony meter.
The US DOJ obviously has zero
understanding of how businesses or the tech industry works. Any judge
who gives this idiotic court case more than two seconds of their time
is a moron who shouldn't even be allowed to be a judge. 😕
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:52:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
There are lots of "app stores" for various devices and operating systems.
I know that. You know that. More important, the DOJ knows that too.
It's just one of the wacky Apple nutters who said this, and I quote:
"How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!"
That nutter has no idea that simply putting a trademark on something
doesn't make it unique - especially when everyone has an app store too.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:52:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
There are lots of "app stores" for various devices and operating systems.
I know that. You know that. More important, the DOJ knows that too.
It's just one of the wacky Apple nutters who said this, and I quote:
"How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!"
That nutter
"How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!"
That nutter
Turning someone's sarcasm into something else is ... desperate?
That nutter has no idea that simply putting a trademark on something
doesn't make it unique - especially when everyone has an app store too.
They were being sarcastic / joking. It also wasn't about the App Store
- hence the world "products" in there.
The US DOJ, thanks to greedy whiners like Epic Games, are basically
saying Apple, Google, Meta, etc. cannot have proprietary things
(devices and services) because that makes it a "monopoly" ... which is complete and utter nonsense.
The US DOJ obviously has zero
understanding of how businesses or the tech industry works.
Any judge
who gives this idiotic court case more than two seconds of their time
is a moron who shouldn't even be allowed to be a judge. :-\
On 2024-03-27 16:16, Oscar Mayer wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:52:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
There are lots of "app stores" for various devices and operating
systems.
I know that. You know that. More important, the DOJ knows that too.
It's just one of the wacky Apple nutters who said this, and I quote:
"How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!"
A statement made about things OTHER than their app store.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 08:54:03 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
"How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!"
That nutter
Turning someone's sarcasm into something else is ... desperate?
Maybe I misunderstood
Jolly Roger <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-03-27, badgolferman <[email protected]> wrote:
Jolly Roger <[email protected]> wrote:
The quoting that you and Arlen desperately trimmed is factual, as anyone >>>> reads the thread can easily see, idiot. Maybe Arlen is impersonating you >>>> again, maybe you're just low-level trolling as usual. But ether way, your >>>> weak trolls suck.
I trimmed because I was referring directly to a statement you made.
Nope. You trimmed to remove context. Here's the exchange you are
desperately trying to pretend didn't happen:
You: Are there realistic alternatives to Apple Pay or iMessage Samsung
Pay or Google Pay are not accepted by most vendors that accept Apple
Pay.
Someone else: How is that Apple's problem?
You: You said there were other choices.
Me: How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!
Arlen (trying to move the goal post and change the topic): You wacky
nutters actually think an app store is unique only to Apple?
It is Usenet etiquette to trim when the post gets too long.
It's troll behavior to dishonestly trim in order to remove context.
I also didn’t call you names
You need to grow a thicker skin if you're going to troll as a hobby.
You accused trolls of believing something silly and I asked who were
they.
You are low-key defending Arlen trying to move the goal post. And it's
obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.
You really need to chill out
I'm perfectly calm. You're the ones getting all worked up over colors
and similar nonsense due to your irrational hatred of all things Apple.
I see you trimmed my response and left out the most important part!
The comment was about
iMessage and Apple Pay, and you purposely trimmed the context and tried
to pretend it was about App Stores. It's all a matter of record.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:40:48 +1300, Your Name wrote:
That nutter has no idea that simply putting a trademark on something
doesn't make it unique - especially when everyone has an app store too.
They were being sarcastic / joking. It also wasn't about the App Store
- hence the world "products" in there.
Maybe I misunderstood the poster who made that sarcastic comment then.
I knew it was sarcasm, but if the sarcasm was aimed at claiming Apple made unique products - I can refute that by simply asking you two questions.
1. How is an app store unique? (It's not unique. It's a commodity.)
2. How is a messaging app unique? (It's not unique. It's a commodity.)
The US DOJ, thanks to greedy whiners like Epic Games, are basically
saying Apple, Google, Meta, etc. cannot have proprietary things
(devices and services) because that makes it a "monopoly" ... which is
complete and utter nonsense.
I agree with you that the DOJ's case is that Apple restricts innovation & competition because Apple severely controls every aspect of the iPhone.
Whether or not the DOJ will win its case is up to the courts to decide.
The US DOJ obviously has zero understanding of how businesses or the
tech industry works.
We will need to disagree on that because it's clear from reading the DOJ
case that the DOJ doesn't believe a word Apple says in why they control it.
In fact the DOJ says Apple is lying about the reason they restrict it,
which shows an underlying understanding (if the DOJ is right) about Apple.
Any judge who gives this idiotic court case more than two seconds of
their time is a moron who shouldn't even be allowed to be a judge. :-\
The DOJ is arguing that Apple is lying about the reason Apple severely controls the commodities on the iPhone and Apple in turn will argue that
they severely control those commodities to "protect" the consumer.
In the end, it will up to the judge to decide who is telling the truth.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 08:54:03 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
"How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!"
That nutter
Turning someone's sarcasm into something else is ... desperate?
Maybe I misunderstood the poster who was making that sarcastic comment?
It appeared to me that the poster was trying to claim Apple makes unique products, but if you say it was sarcasm, then I agree with him & with you.
An app store isn't unique - it's a commodity.
A messaging app isn't unique - it's a commodity.
If it was sarcasm, then the person who made that statement agrees with me that Apple does not make those products unique simply by preventing integration and competition as a messaging app and an app store are commodities, which the DOJ argues Apple lies about why they control it.
It's up to the judge to decide if the DOJ is correct that Apple is lying about why Apple severely controls these commodities versus if Apple is telling the truth that they prevent integration to "protect" the consumer.
Jolly Roger wrote:
You're a lying troll, and your trolls are weak.
Nice to see you don't appreciate childish insults either...
On 28 Mar 2024 15:08:29 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
The comment was about iMessage and Apple Pay, and you purposely
trimmed the context and tried to pretend it was about App Stores.
It's all a matter of record.
Despite your belief that it's a law that I must quote everything
everyone says, common netiquette is to quote only that which I had
responded to.
Your argument that the typical Apple consumer benefits from lack of innovation
On 28 Mar 2024 15:08:29 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
The comment was about
iMessage and Apple Pay, and you purposely trimmed the context and tried
to pretend it was about App Stores. It's all a matter of record.
Despite your belief that it's a law that I must quote everything everyone says, common netiquette is to quote only that which I had responded to.
The fact remains that the DOJ disputes Apple's anti consumer justification for locking out innovation and competition from integration with Apple's apps, which the DOJ believes is for Apple's benefit alone as it's a
detriment to consumers to stifle innovation, integration & competition.
In the end, it will up to the judge to decide who is telling the truth.
If a moronic judge decides this idiotic court case in the US DOJ's
favour, then pretty much every company on the planet is going to stop bothering to do anything because they won't be able to protect their
own ideas - why waste billions of dollars trying to develop something
when every other lazy fool will be able to simply cash-in?
It will be the brainless idiots in the US DOJ who end up "restricting innovation and competition". At the basic level they're trying to end copyright and trademark laws. As I said, they have zero understanding
of business and the tech industry. :-\
There are things that Apple develop for Apple product owners (the people
who pay for the devices) in order to make the product a standout in the marketplace.
Why should these standout features be made available to anyone for their profit when it is Apple's customers who paid Apple for these standout features.
These companies want to ride it at Apple's expense. Claims it is for customers is laughable. It is these companies clamoring for access to
what Apple paid to develop.
If actual buyers of iPhones aren't happy, they can always run to Android phones - a lot more vendors, models, etc. than Apple could ever provide.
An app store isn't unique - it's a commodity.
No. It's a support venue for a product.
A messaging app isn't unique - it's a commodity.
iOS messaging supports "commodity" messaging (SMS/MMS) - indeed it does
it so nicely I can send SMS/MMS from my Mac to someone (clever trick:
the Mac sends the message to my phone to send it over the phone system).
That doesn't mean the "higher" power of Apple's Message app (iMessage)
system should be freely available to all. Why?
It is paid for by Apple
product purchasers. Why should an Android user get the benefit of what
an Apple iPhone buyer paid for? Why should a vendor of a product or
service get free access to that market?
If it was sarcasm, then the person who made that statement agrees with me
that Apple does not make those products unique simply by preventing
integration and competition as a messaging app and an app store are
commodities, which the DOJ argues Apple lies about why they control it.
It isn't a commodity. You want to play in the country club pool, buy
the membership (buy the phone).
It's up to the judge to decide if the DOJ is correct that Apple is lying
about why Apple severely controls these commodities versus if Apple is
telling the truth that they prevent integration to "protect" the consumer.
Where did this commodity word come in? Apple's products and services
are for Apple clients who buy their products.
They are not for anyone else, and companies that want access must abide
by Apple's rules.
Otherwise they can go make their living off of Android...
Jolly Roger <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-03-28, badgolferman <[email protected]> wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
You're a lying troll, and your trolls are weak.
Nice to see you don't appreciate childish insults either...
Calling out troll behavior isn't childish.
Don't troll if you can't take being called out on it.
Snipping the pertinent part again…
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:46:30 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
There are things that Apple develop for Apple product owners (the
people who pay for the devices) in order to make the product a standout
in the marketplace.
Why should these standout features be made available to anyone for
their profit when it is Apple's customers who paid Apple for these
standout features.
These companies want to ride it at Apple's expense. Claims it is for
customers is laughable. It is these companies clamoring for access to
what Apple paid to develop.
If actual buyers of iPhones aren't happy, they can always run to
Android phones - a lot more vendors, models, etc. than Apple could ever
provide.
Here is the 88-page PDF that the DOJ wrote for us to understand the
case. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.544402/gov.uscourts.njd.544402.1.0_3.pdf
The Verge says the DOJ's case is that the American consumer is paying more for the iPhone than they should be paying. And they get less functionality
on the iPhone than they get on Android phones.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/21/24107659/apple-doj-lawsuit-antitrust-documents-suing
"the Justice Department alleges that Apple is using a variety of unfair tactics to entrench its market position and restrict innovation."
The DOJ's case is that the iPhone is less functionality at a higher cost.
We don't yet know what Apple has said about those two key allegations.
Certainly the iPhone has less functionality than Android phones,
but even with the limitations of the iPhone, many people seem to like
the iPhone so in a way it's like they bought a stripped-down Harbor
Freight tool at an expensive price but that alone isn't Apple's fault
that happened.
Apple's job is to charge as much money as they can for that HF tool.
Just like it's Harbor Freight's job to charge as much as they can for it.
I feel Apple should be allowed to charge whatever they want to charge.
If people are willing to pay it, that's up to those people to decide.
Most people who own an iPhone don't even know what Android phones can do.
Just like most people who buy HF tools never owned a high quality tool.
But it doesn't matter what you or I think is true. It will only matter
what a judge thinks is true.
But it does when a firm acquires or maintains monopoly power - not
because it has a superior product or superior business acumen - but
by engaging in exclusionary conduct.
If a moronic judge decides this idiotic court case in the US DOJ's
favour, then pretty much every company on the planet is going to stop bothering to do anything because they won't be able to protect their
own ideas - why waste billions of dollars trying to develop something
when every other lazy fool will be able to simply cash-in?
It will be the brainless idiots in the US DOJ who end up "restricting innovation and competition". At the basic level they're trying to end copyright and trademark laws. As I said, they have zero understanding
of business and the tech industry. :-\
Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-29, badgolferman <[email protected]> wrote:
Jolly Roger <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-03-28, badgolferman <[email protected]>
wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
You're a lying troll, and your trolls are weak.
Nice to see you don't appreciate childish insults either...
Calling out troll behavior isn't childish.
Don't troll if you can't take being called out on it.
Snipping the pertinent part again…
Cry harder.
Your hypocrisy is on full display. Nothing less was expected.
The Verge says the DOJ's case is that the American consumer is paying more >> for the iPhone than they should be paying. And they get less functionality >> on the iPhone than they get on Android phones.
If that was true, then Samsung and many other higher-end phone makers
should be in court as well since they charge about the same price for
their phones as Apple does.
Yes, you can but a cheaper Android smartphones from various makers, but
they are lower-end models that use older / slower CPUs and GPUs, lower quality components, less RAM, etc. to achieve that lower price ... you
get what you pay for.
You simply cannot post here without insults and lies, can you?
On 3/29/2024 1:29 AM, Your Name wrote:
The Verge says the DOJ's case is that the American consumer is paying more >>> for the iPhone than they should be paying. And they get less functionality >>> on the iPhone than they get on Android phones.
If that was true, then Samsung and many other higher-end phone makers
should be in court as well since they charge about the same price for
their phones as Apple does.
It's a good thing you're not one of Apple's high-priced lawyers given
you're not even aware that Samsung sells a range of phones, from dirt cheap to very expensive, as do almost all Android phone makers on the market.
Yes, you can but a cheaper Android smartphones from various makers, but
they are lower-end models that use older / slower CPUs and GPUs, lower
quality components, less RAM, etc. to achieve that lower price ... you
get what you pay for.
Again, it's good you're not an Apple lawyer as the quality of most Android components far exceeds that of Apple's (such as integrated 5G modems).
Not only do most Android phones have better hardware that doesn't even
exist in the iPhones (such as sd card slots) but many Android phones have screens that are built by Samsung who makes a lot of the iPhone screens.
And all Android phones can run software that can't be run on an iPhone,
so you need to do some research before you'll pass the Apple versus Android exam, as you don't know the first thing about how the platforms differ.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:38:37 |
| Calls: | 12,099 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,897 |