I have 3 app stores on my phone, the Google one, the Samsung one, and the Amazon one.
And can also install apps independently like scheherazade said

jdreyer wrote on Sep 18, 2020, 22:42:

Scheherazade wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 18:44:

jdreyer wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 15:45:

Scheherazade wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 11:55:

Jonjonz wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 06:32:
I think Apple has taken things too far with it's store and how locked down it's products are, and that one reason why I don't buy them, but other people are quite willing to buy a pig in a poke.

Imagine buying a car with a EULA that says it can only be fixed at the original dealers, which you cannot buy accessories for, replacement parts for, or even get a new paint job without having to give the original dealer a cut. Imagine buying a house, where any changes modifications, additions, etc. can only come via the builders company. No thanks.

The day smart phones and computers became a necessity (many government services now require or can only be accessed via a smart phone or computer via the internet) and not a luxury is that day Apple stepped on to thin ice with it's closed garden business model for them.

Welcome to Tesla.

Pretty much the reason I'm not driving one.

(Although I think I'm starting to get over it, since everyone else releasing electrics keeps disappointing with slow cars I have zero interest in.)

-scheherazade

Tesla isn't 60% of the US Market. Apple is. That's the main difference. Tesla does some shady stuff too, but the market will correct some of that behavior since there are essentially unlimited alternatives to getting a Tesla. There aren't many alternatives to Apple phone, and even fewer to the Apple App Store. So there's no correction unless the government steps in.

I suppose you can buy a Porsche taycan.

Or DIY electric conversion.

-scheherazade

I meant cars in general. If you can't get an electric, there are still plenty of other choices for automobile transportation. Not so with phones and apps. Two app stores control 99% of the market: Apple and Google. If you own an Apple device, there's only one.

To be fair, you can just sideload, or download apk's and install them locally. I don't mind going to the developer site and fetching the apk instead of getting it from the play store. The stores never meant much to me. But I realize I'm not the typical user.

-scheherazade

Scheherazade wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 18:44:

jdreyer wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 15:45:

Scheherazade wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 11:55:

Jonjonz wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 06:32:
I think Apple has taken things too far with it's store and how locked down it's products are, and that one reason why I don't buy them, but other people are quite willing to buy a pig in a poke.

Imagine buying a car with a EULA that says it can only be fixed at the original dealers, which you cannot buy accessories for, replacement parts for, or even get a new paint job without having to give the original dealer a cut. Imagine buying a house, where any changes modifications, additions, etc. can only come via the builders company. No thanks.

The day smart phones and computers became a necessity (many government services now require or can only be accessed via a smart phone or computer via the internet) and not a luxury is that day Apple stepped on to thin ice with it's closed garden business model for them.

Welcome to Tesla.

Pretty much the reason I'm not driving one.

(Although I think I'm starting to get over it, since everyone else releasing electrics keeps disappointing with slow cars I have zero interest in.)

-scheherazade

Tesla isn't 60% of the US Market. Apple is. That's the main difference. Tesla does some shady stuff too, but the market will correct some of that behavior since there are essentially unlimited alternatives to getting a Tesla. There aren't many alternatives to Apple phone, and even fewer to the Apple App Store. So there's no correction unless the government steps in.

I suppose you can buy a Porsche taycan.

Or DIY electric conversion.

-scheherazade

I meant cars in general. If you can't get an electric, there are still plenty of other choices for automobile transportation. Not so with phones and apps. Two app stores control 99% of the market: Apple and Google. If you own an Apple device, there's only one.

jdreyer wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 15:45:

Scheherazade wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 11:55:

Jonjonz wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 06:32:
I think Apple has taken things too far with it's store and how locked down it's products are, and that one reason why I don't buy them, but other people are quite willing to buy a pig in a poke.

Imagine buying a car with a EULA that says it can only be fixed at the original dealers, which you cannot buy accessories for, replacement parts for, or even get a new paint job without having to give the original dealer a cut. Imagine buying a house, where any changes modifications, additions, etc. can only come via the builders company. No thanks.

The day smart phones and computers became a necessity (many government services now require or can only be accessed via a smart phone or computer via the internet) and not a luxury is that day Apple stepped on to thin ice with it's closed garden business model for them.

Welcome to Tesla.

Pretty much the reason I'm not driving one.

(Although I think I'm starting to get over it, since everyone else releasing electrics keeps disappointing with slow cars I have zero interest in.)

-scheherazade

Tesla isn't 60% of the US Market. Apple is. That's the main difference. Tesla does some shady stuff too, but the market will correct some of that behavior since there are essentially unlimited alternatives to getting a Tesla. There aren't many alternatives to Apple phone, and even fewer to the Apple App Store. So there's no correction unless the government steps in.

I suppose you can buy a Porsche taycan.

Or DIY electric conversion.

-scheherazade

Renegades Hang wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 12:46:

jdreyer wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 01:38:
It's textbook anti-trust. It's why the studio system was dismantled in the 1950s. Just because the Trump JD doesn't prosecute doesn't mean it's not illegal.

Did Apple just start owning the OS and hardware under Trump? Or have they been like that for decades? Gee, you're not biased against Trump are you?

Vertical integration isn't a monopoly since other companies can also vertically integrate and compete on the exact same footing. The Paramount ruling was atypical.

Ronald Reagan explained why in his autobiography, "An American Life" (p. 116-118). He wrote:

"In those days Hollywood was run a lot like an old-fashioned candy store: You cooked it in the back and sold it in the front.

....But that all changed after the war. An anti-trust suit was brought by a private chain of theaters and as a result the Justice Department issued a series of decrees declaring that the studios could either make pictures or operate theaters - they couldn't do both.

This turned Hollywood inside out overnight. The studios chose to continue producing movies. But no longer could they afford stables of actors and other workers under contract because from now on, they had to make movies purely on the speculation theaters would want to show them.

....Nevertheless, I believe the government's decision to break up the studio system was wrong. It destroyed the stability of the industry under the justification that the studios monopolized the picture business. But they didn't have a monopoly; there was intense competition that worked well for everybody. You had seven companies who were always competing with each other to turn out a better movie than the guy down the street, and if people didn't like a picture, they'd show it by voting with their feet.

Owning the theaters provided a guarantee to the studios that if they guessed wrong on a movie and made it, at least they'd get some of their money back by playing it at their own theaters. This allowed them to take risks on people and stories."

The lack of risk taking is why we have so many reboots of the same damn movie. How many Spiderman reboots are we on now? I've lost track. Thankfully the ruling is being turned back...

Why movie theaters are in trouble after DOJ nixes 70-year-old case

On Friday, a federal judge agreed to the Department of Justice's petition to vacate the Paramount Consent Decrees, a landmark 1948 ruling that forbade vertical integration in the film sector and ended the Hollywood studio system.

...."Multiplexes, broadcast and cable television, DVDs, and the Internet did not exist" when Paramount was decided, Torres wrote.

The problem isn't the vertical integration per se. If there were a dozen Apples in the phone market, then they'd be competing against each other, driving costs down. That onerous 30% would be driven down to whatever percentage is viable with a few points of profit. (EGS seems to make it work at 12%, for example). The problem is that Apple is 60% of the market in the US and uses that position to do all sorts of shady behavior, as mentioned earlier by other posters.

The solution is to force Apple to divest itself of the App store and have Apple allow other app store vendors to sell apps for Apple phones. Nice try with the Trump comment, isn't really a left/right issue. It's a free market issue. This probably should have happened under the Obama administration, but Apple's behavior wasn't nearly as egregious back then.

Scheherazade wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 11:55:

Jonjonz wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 06:32:
I think Apple has taken things too far with it's store and how locked down it's products are, and that one reason why I don't buy them, but other people are quite willing to buy a pig in a poke.

Imagine buying a car with a EULA that says it can only be fixed at the original dealers, which you cannot buy accessories for, replacement parts for, or even get a new paint job without having to give the original dealer a cut. Imagine buying a house, where any changes modifications, additions, etc. can only come via the builders company. No thanks.

The day smart phones and computers became a necessity (many government services now require or can only be accessed via a smart phone or computer via the internet) and not a luxury is that day Apple stepped on to thin ice with it's closed garden business model for them.

Welcome to Tesla.

Pretty much the reason I'm not driving one.

(Although I think I'm starting to get over it, since everyone else releasing electrics keeps disappointing with slow cars I have zero interest in.)

-scheherazade

Tesla isn't 60% of the US Market. Apple is. That's the main difference. Tesla does some shady stuff too, but the market will correct some of that behavior since there are essentially unlimited alternatives to getting a Tesla. There aren't many alternatives to Apple phone, and even fewer to the Apple App Store. So there's no correction unless the government steps in.

This comment was edited on Sep 17, 2020, 16:09.

Renegades Hang wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 12:46:

jdreyer wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 01:38:
It's textbook anti-trust. It's why the studio system was dismantled in the 1950s. Just because the Trump JD doesn't prosecute doesn't mean it's not illegal.

Did Apple just start owning the OS and hardware under Trump? Or have they been like that for decades? Gee, you're not biased against Trump are you?

Vertical integration isn't a monopoly since other companies can also vertically integrate and compete on the exact same footing. The Paramount ruling was atypical.

Ronald Reagan explained why in his autobiography, "An American Life" (p. 116-118). He wrote:

"In those days Hollywood was run a lot like an old-fashioned candy store: You cooked it in the back and sold it in the front.

....But that all changed after the war. An anti-trust suit was brought by a private chain of theaters and as a result the Justice Department issued a series of decrees declaring that the studios could either make pictures or operate theaters - they couldn't do both.

This turned Hollywood inside out overnight. The studios chose to continue producing movies. But no longer could they afford stables of actors and other workers under contract because from now on, they had to make movies purely on the speculation theaters would want to show them.

....Nevertheless, I believe the government's decision to break up the studio system was wrong. It destroyed the stability of the industry under the justification that the studios monopolized the picture business. But they didn't have a monopoly; there was intense competition that worked well for everybody. You had seven companies who were always competing with each other to turn out a better movie than the guy down the street, and if people didn't like a picture, they'd show it by voting with their feet.

Owning the theaters provided a guarantee to the studios that if they guessed wrong on a movie and made it, at least they'd get some of their money back by playing it at their own theaters. This allowed them to take risks on people and stories."

The lack of risk taking is why we have so many reboots of the same damn movie. How many Spiderman reboots are we on now? I've lost track. Thankfully the ruling is being turned back...

Why movie theaters are in trouble after DOJ nixes 70-year-old case

On Friday, a federal judge agreed to the Department of Justice's petition to vacate the Paramount Consent Decrees, a landmark 1948 ruling that forbade vertical integration in the film sector and ended the Hollywood studio system.

...."Multiplexes, broadcast and cable television, DVDs, and the Internet did not exist" when Paramount was decided, Torres wrote.

Were the robber barons not broken up due to excessive vertical integration? IIRC they owned their product pipelines all the way down to mining minerals, making it impossible for any new player to compete.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Sep 17, 2020, 15:27.

Kxmode wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 02:19:

RedEye9 wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 02:01:

jdreyer wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 01:38:

Kxmode wrote on Sep 16, 2020, 22:35:

jdreyer wrote on Sep 16, 2020, 22:22:
Meanwhile, Apple continues to abuse it's monopoly position.

Just hours after the reveal of Apple’s new services bundles, the tech giant has already taken criticism for evidently favoring its own apps over those with which it directly competes in its App Store.
Spotify, which has been feuding with the tech giant for years now over its hefty App Store fees, quickly seized on the opportunity to raise Apple antitrust concerns.

But is it illegal? Meh. It's WRONG, no doubt. But Illegal, I don't think so. Apple owns the operating system and hardware. Like any platform, they create and govern the rules; rules companies agree to when they sign up for an account. So it is less a monopoly and more like a massive and unethical conflict of interest.

It's textbook anti-trust. It's why the studio system was dismantled in the 1950s. Just because the Trump JD doesn't prosecute doesn't mean it's not illegal.

As long as Billy Barr is at the helm don't expect nuthin to change. Shit, they might even get immunity from prosecution and a preemptive pardon.

This thread couldn't go more than 20 comments before it derailed into political things. I'm done.

It's almost like discussing what constitutes monopolies, trusts, and cartels is... somehow... a political topic!!!

jdreyer wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 01:38:
It's textbook anti-trust. It's why the studio system was dismantled in the 1950s. Just because the Trump JD doesn't prosecute doesn't mean it's not illegal.

Did Apple just start owning the OS and hardware under Trump? Or have they been like that for decades? Gee, you're not biased against Trump are you?

Vertical integration isn't a monopoly since other companies can also vertically integrate and compete on the exact same footing. The Paramount ruling was atypical.

Ronald Reagan explained why in his autobiography, "An American Life" (p. 116-118). He wrote:

"In those days Hollywood was run a lot like an old-fashioned candy store: You cooked it in the back and sold it in the front.

....But that all changed after the war. An anti-trust suit was brought by a private chain of theaters and as a result the Justice Department issued a series of decrees declaring that the studios could either make pictures or operate theaters - they couldn't do both.

This turned Hollywood inside out overnight. The studios chose to continue producing movies. But no longer could they afford stables of actors and other workers under contract because from now on, they had to make movies purely on the speculation theaters would want to show them.

....Nevertheless, I believe the government's decision to break up the studio system was wrong. It destroyed the stability of the industry under the justification that the studios monopolized the picture business. But they didn't have a monopoly; there was intense competition that worked well for everybody. You had seven companies who were always competing with each other to turn out a better movie than the guy down the street, and if people didn't like a picture, they'd show it by voting with their feet.

Owning the theaters provided a guarantee to the studios that if they guessed wrong on a movie and made it, at least they'd get some of their money back by playing it at their own theaters. This allowed them to take risks on people and stories."

The lack of risk taking is why we have so many reboots of the same damn movie. How many Spiderman reboots are we on now? I've lost track. Thankfully the ruling is being turned back...

Why movie theaters are in trouble after DOJ nixes 70-year-old case

On Friday, a federal judge agreed to the Department of Justice's petition to vacate the Paramount Consent Decrees, a landmark 1948 ruling that forbade vertical integration in the film sector and ended the Hollywood studio system.

...."Multiplexes, broadcast and cable television, DVDs, and the Internet did not exist" when Paramount was decided, Torres wrote.

Jonjonz wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 06:32:
I think Apple has taken things too far with it's store and how locked down it's products are, and that one reason why I don't buy them, but other people are quite willing to buy a pig in a poke.

Imagine buying a car with a EULA that says it can only be fixed at the original dealers, which you cannot buy accessories for, replacement parts for, or even get a new paint job without having to give the original dealer a cut. Imagine buying a house, where any changes modifications, additions, etc. can only come via the builders company. No thanks.

The day smart phones and computers became a necessity (many government services now require or can only be accessed via a smart phone or computer via the internet) and not a luxury is that day Apple stepped on to thin ice with it's closed garden business model for them.

Welcome to Tesla.

Pretty much the reason I'm not driving one.

(Although I think I'm starting to get over it, since everyone else releasing electrics keeps disappointing with slow cars I have zero interest in.)

-scheherazade

Darks wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 00:17:
Excuse me? Just how is it that Apple users are getting raped daily? I've been an apple iPhone user for over 10 years. and not once have I ever had any issues with my phone or felt like I was being raped.

So, you didn't mind them purposely causing poor battery performance, or purposely making their products not repairable by third parties, not to mention their outrageous pricing or any of the other unnecessarily obnoxious things they have done? Apple makes reasonably good products. They also have some pretty ridiculous habits in the way they make and support those products. I have yet to give them a penny of income, and I don't see myself doing so anytime soon.

Look folks, Apple is free to run their platform the way they want and it's totally LEGAL. Period. No matter how much folks want to throw the "anti-competitive / monopoly" buzzwords around.

Until there are anti-trust laws that ACTUALLY deal with duopolies and oligopolies... Apple's behavior will remain legal.

Laws for duopolies / oligopolies need to be passed FIRST.

Kxmode wrote on Sep 16, 2020, 22:17:

Pr()ZaC wrote on Sep 16, 2020, 22:10:

It needs more

I think Apple has taken things too far with it's store and how locked down it's products are, and that one reason why I don't buy them, but other people are quite willing to buy a pig in a poke.

Imagine buying a car with a EULA that says it can only be fixed at the original dealers, which you cannot buy accessories for, replacement parts for, or even get a new paint job without having to give the original dealer a cut. Imagine buying a house, where any changes modifications, additions, etc. can only come via the builders company. No thanks.

The day smart phones and computers became a necessity (many government services now require or can only be accessed via a smart phone or computer via the internet) and not a luxury is that day Apple stepped on to thin ice with it's closed garden business model for them.

Darks wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 00:17:

Excuse me? Just how is it that Apple users are getting raped daily? I've been an apple iPhone user for over 10 years. and not once have I ever had any issues with my phone or felt like I was being raped.

It's a bit paradoxical. You only figure it out when you switch from Apple to something else.

jdreyer wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 01:38:

Kxmode wrote on Sep 16, 2020, 22:35:

jdreyer wrote on Sep 16, 2020, 22:22:
Meanwhile, Apple continues to abuse it's monopoly position.

Just hours after the reveal of Apple’s new services bundles, the tech giant has already taken criticism for evidently favoring its own apps over those with which it directly competes in its App Store.
Spotify, which has been feuding with the tech giant for years now over its hefty App Store fees, quickly seized on the opportunity to raise Apple antitrust concerns.

But is it illegal? Meh. It's WRONG, no doubt. But Illegal, I don't think so. Apple owns the operating system and hardware. Like any platform, they create and govern the rules; rules companies agree to when they sign up for an account. So it is less a monopoly and more like a massive and unethical conflict of interest.

It's textbook anti-trust. It's why the studio system was dismantled in the 1950s. Just because the Trump JD doesn't prosecute doesn't mean it's not illegal.

This. Apple is behaving in an anti-competitive manner. Some apps, like Netflix, are able to allow people to make purchases outside of the system without Apple taking a cut yet others like Epic are not. Apple has even been found to be pressuring apps to add payment methods just so it can get a cut, refusing them if they don't accept.

Epic has taken a principled stand and risked the easy money it was making with Fornite in a move which, if successful, would benefit the entire industry. Whatever your opinion on the EGS this is a pro-consumer move and should be applauded.

K so can we have Epic shut down now finally or nah?

RedEye9 wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 02:01:

jdreyer wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 01:38:

Kxmode wrote on Sep 16, 2020, 22:35:

jdreyer wrote on Sep 16, 2020, 22:22:
Meanwhile, Apple continues to abuse it's monopoly position.

Just hours after the reveal of Apple’s new services bundles, the tech giant has already taken criticism for evidently favoring its own apps over those with which it directly competes in its App Store.
Spotify, which has been feuding with the tech giant for years now over its hefty App Store fees, quickly seized on the opportunity to raise Apple antitrust concerns.

But is it illegal? Meh. It's WRONG, no doubt. But Illegal, I don't think so. Apple owns the operating system and hardware. Like any platform, they create and govern the rules; rules companies agree to when they sign up for an account. So it is less a monopoly and more like a massive and unethical conflict of interest.

It's textbook anti-trust. It's why the studio system was dismantled in the 1950s. Just because the Trump JD doesn't prosecute doesn't mean it's not illegal.

As long as Billy Barr is at the helm don't expect nuthin to change. Shit, they might even get immunity from prosecution and a preemptive pardon.

This thread couldn't go more than 20 comments before it derailed into political things. I'm done.

jdreyer wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 01:38:

Kxmode wrote on Sep 16, 2020, 22:35:

jdreyer wrote on Sep 16, 2020, 22:22:
Meanwhile, Apple continues to abuse it's monopoly position.

Just hours after the reveal of Apple’s new services bundles, the tech giant has already taken criticism for evidently favoring its own apps over those with which it directly competes in its App Store.
Spotify, which has been feuding with the tech giant for years now over its hefty App Store fees, quickly seized on the opportunity to raise Apple antitrust concerns.

But is it illegal? Meh. It's WRONG, no doubt. But Illegal, I don't think so. Apple owns the operating system and hardware. Like any platform, they create and govern the rules; rules companies agree to when they sign up for an account. So it is less a monopoly and more like a massive and unethical conflict of interest.

It's textbook anti-trust. It's why the studio system was dismantled in the 1950s. Just because the Trump JD doesn't prosecute doesn't mean it's not illegal.

As long as Billy Barr is at the helm don't expect nuthin to change. Shit, they might even get immunity from prosecution and a preemptive pardon.

Wow.

This is abusive behavior shit 101

If apple continues like this I am getting out, after 13 years.