U.S sues Apple for monopolizing.

NeuM

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

You seem to be quoting an author with a libertarian political agenda, as "a history lesson", without disclosing that author's positions.

If the information is not factual, provide your own information and the source.

purpan2

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

You seem to be quoting an author with a libertarian political agenda, as "a history lesson", without disclosing that author's positions.

If the information is not factual, provide your own information and the source.

I don't have the book. If I want to read libertarian propaganda, I come to the Audiobus forum

NeuM

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

You seem to be quoting an author with a libertarian political agenda, as "a history lesson", without disclosing that author's positions.

If the information is not factual, provide your own information and the source.

I don't have the book. If I want to read libertarian propaganda, I come to the Audiobus forum

Historical facts are now propaganda? Interesting.

purpan2

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

You seem to be quoting an author with a libertarian political agenda, as "a history lesson", without disclosing that author's positions.

If the information is not factual, provide your own information and the source.

I don't have the book. If I want to read libertarian propaganda, I come to the Audiobus forum

Historical facts are now propaganda? Interesting.

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

You seem to be quoting an author with a libertarian political agenda, as "a history lesson", without disclosing that author's positions.

If the information is not factual, provide your own information and the source.

I don't have the book. If I want to read libertarian propaganda, I come to the Audiobus forum

Historical facts are now propaganda? Interesting.

It was a gag, as you know well. Obviously I'm not going to go out and buy a book just to refute a comment from a poster on a forum. I think many people would agree, though, that if you're citing an author with a track record in libertarian interpretations, it would be helpful to mention the fact. You chose not to.

NeuM

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

You seem to be quoting an author with a libertarian political agenda, as "a history lesson", without disclosing that author's positions.

If the information is not factual, provide your own information and the source.

I don't have the book. If I want to read libertarian propaganda, I come to the Audiobus forum

Historical facts are now propaganda? Interesting.

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

You seem to be quoting an author with a libertarian political agenda, as "a history lesson", without disclosing that author's positions.

If the information is not factual, provide your own information and the source.

I don't have the book. If I want to read libertarian propaganda, I come to the Audiobus forum

Historical facts are now propaganda? Interesting.

It was a gag, as you know well. Obviously I'm not going to go out and buy a book just to refute a comment from a poster on a forum. I think many people would agree, though, that if you're citing an author with a track record in libertarian interpretations, it would be helpful to mention the fact. You chose not to.

Are you in the habit of providing the political or personal ideologies of everyone you cite? And again, how is it relevant to a discussion about historically factual information?

Perhaps a better question might be, what are the political affiliations of the people in government who are bringing this lawsuit against Apple and why are they doing it now, versus (I'm choosing a number at random here) 5 years ago?

purpan2

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

You seem to be quoting an author with a libertarian political agenda, as "a history lesson", without disclosing that author's positions.

If the information is not factual, provide your own information and the source.

I don't have the book. If I want to read libertarian propaganda, I come to the Audiobus forum

Historical facts are now propaganda? Interesting.

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

You seem to be quoting an author with a libertarian political agenda, as "a history lesson", without disclosing that author's positions.

If the information is not factual, provide your own information and the source.

I don't have the book. If I want to read libertarian propaganda, I come to the Audiobus forum

Historical facts are now propaganda? Interesting.

It was a gag, as you know well. Obviously I'm not going to go out and buy a book just to refute a comment from a poster on a forum. I think many people would agree, though, that if you're citing an author with a track record in libertarian interpretations, it would be helpful to mention the fact. You chose not to.

Are you in the habit of providing the political or personal ideologies of everyone you cite? And again, how is it relevant to a discussion about historically factual information? What are the political affiliations of the people in government who are bringing this lawsuit against Apple and why are they doing it now, versus (I'm choosing a number at random here) 5 years ago?

When you're making a point in a discussion that has the possibility of libertarian interpretations, that information is indeed relevant.

Deskscape

There seems to be some kite flying here. Apple made constructive moves in designing a hardware/operating system that was successful based on its merits in a competitive market. No argument. But that's different from the restrictive practices applied to app store participation by developers firstly, and ultimately by users. The notion that Apple is some sort of super hero protector of its userbase from malware, government surveillance and just plain bad apps is nonsense. Apple has been quite co-operative in accomodating the Chinese government in order to continue access to the Chinese market. And Apple has sub-contracted its manufacturing to factories with toxic labour conditions. So the company responds to what's best for its shareholders and the best way to continue to ride the stock charts is precisely the kinds of market control structures that are in force.

Apple's a rather interesting case because it owes its massive growth, not to its computer innovations, or even its iPod products (which greatly expanded its scope from small market share computer firm to electronics major player vs. Sony). The iPhone (and related iPad) is what put Apple over the rainbow, and intimately connected with these two was the App Store, an app and business practice rolled into one. Convenient but the very antithesis of an open market in apps. You can argue that the restrictions Apple applies are protective and that's Apple's sole motive in guarding your shiny phone or tablet. The first might have some validity; the second is demonstrably not so by the mouths of Apple's own executives.

A better question to ask is: what are the trust busters going to do if they win their case? Break up Apple? Not too likely. Big fine? Apple can pay that without putting a voucher in petty cash. Force Apple to open up the app store to some newly designated standard of app design? Possible but tricky. Would it work? Or would Apple find some other way to work around it? One possibility is Apple decides to make some changes to forestall a case. And the trust busters accept it.

Samu

Harshly looking at things this entire forum would not even exist if it wasn't for ehmm certain Apple products

Slam_Cut

No one doubts Apple’s first priority is to make a profit and satisfy shareholders. So far that has been accomplished with a closed platform, which does provide more security than other platforms. More importantly perhaps, the closed platform provides the appearance of greater security. I believe that there are many dangerous apps on iOS (TikTok is the most infamous) and I personally would like to see those removed or sold. If the CCP were completely fair and open to US apps like Facebook & Instagram operating in China, then there moght be a case for being fair to allow TikTok in the West. That’s not the case.

If the sole rationale is that Apple is being unfair by excluding super apps, wether CCP controlled or run by Nigerian princes, then I’m not swayed. Then again, I also think that if I give a high value for my property on a loan application it is up to the bank to either have their own evaluation or accept mine and let me pay the loan back with interest. Ooops! Wrong forum…

BiancaNeve

Once upon a time there was a mobile phone company called Nokia and a social media company called MySpace and the biggest search engine was Yahoo. Then other companies built better products…

NeuM

@Deskscape said:
There seems to be some kite flying here. Apple made constructive moves in designing a hardware/operating system that was successful based on its merits in a competitive market. No argument. But that's different from the restrictive practices applied to app store participation by developers firstly, and ultimately by users. The notion that Apple is some sort of super hero protector of its userbase from malware, government surveillance and just plain bad apps is nonsense. Apple has been quite co-operative in accomodating the Chinese government in order to continue access to the Chinese market. And Apple has sub-contracted its manufacturing to factories with toxic labour conditions. So the company responds to what's best for its shareholders and the best way to continue to ride the stock charts is precisely the kinds of market control structures that are in force.

Apple's a rather interesting case because it owes its massive growth, not to its computer innovations, or even its iPod products (which greatly expanded its scope from small market share computer firm to electronics major player vs. Sony). The iPhone (and related iPad) is what put Apple over the rainbow, and intimately connected with these two was the App Store, an app and business practice rolled into one. Convenient but the very antithesis of an open market in apps. You can argue that the restrictions Apple applies are protective and that's Apple's sole motive in guarding your shiny phone or tablet. The first might have some validity; the second is demonstrably not so by the mouths of Apple's own executives.

A better question to ask is: what are the trust busters going to do if they win their case? Break up Apple? Not too likely. Big fine? Apple can pay that without putting a voucher in petty cash. Force Apple to open up the app store to some newly designated standard of app design? Possible but tricky. Would it work? Or would Apple find some other way to work around it? One possibility is Apple decides to make some changes to forestall a case. And the trust busters accept it.

Apple (and all other companies participating) in the Chinese market are required to follow Chinese government regulations. Even with that in mind, Apple has not provided a "backdoor" to any government, Chinese, Russian or American. So anything which is encrypted on-device and not held on servers in the US or anywhere else remains encrypted.

In China, all foreign companies are required to have their data servers located in China so their government can monitor all activity.

And that brings up a point regarding TikTok doing business in the US... why are they not currently required to have their data servers located in the US and not reporting back to their government? If TikTok was an American company selling their service in China the Chinese government would mandate it.

NeuM

@Samu said:
Harshly looking at things this entire forum would not even exist if it wasn't for ehmm certain Apple products

Unenlightened self-interest tends to ignore history.

NeuM

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

You seem to be quoting an author with a libertarian political agenda, as "a history lesson", without disclosing that author's positions.

If the information is not factual, provide your own information and the source.

I don't have the book. If I want to read libertarian propaganda, I come to the Audiobus forum

Historical facts are now propaganda? Interesting.

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

You seem to be quoting an author with a libertarian political agenda, as "a history lesson", without disclosing that author's positions.

If the information is not factual, provide your own information and the source.

I don't have the book. If I want to read libertarian propaganda, I come to the Audiobus forum

Historical facts are now propaganda? Interesting.

It was a gag, as you know well. Obviously I'm not going to go out and buy a book just to refute a comment from a poster on a forum. I think many people would agree, though, that if you're citing an author with a track record in libertarian interpretations, it would be helpful to mention the fact. You chose not to.

Are you in the habit of providing the political or personal ideologies of everyone you cite? And again, how is it relevant to a discussion about historically factual information? What are the political affiliations of the people in government who are bringing this lawsuit against Apple and why are they doing it now, versus (I'm choosing a number at random here) 5 years ago?

When you're making a point in a discussion that has the possibility of libertarian interpretations, that information is indeed relevant.

Replace any other philosophy in that statement and see how it applies to the counterarguments.

Gavinski

@NeuM said:

@Deskscape said:
Thanks to @Gavinski and others for replies to my post and link. I enjoyed the bot analysis as well.

An "A.I." is only as good as the quality of information it is fed and the quality of question you ask of it.

I fed it this thread, all the pages, copied and pasted verbatim and asked it to evaluate commenters in terms of how informed they seemed and how convincing their arguments were.

NeuM

@Gavinski said:

@NeuM said:

@Deskscape said:
Thanks to @Gavinski and others for replies to my post and link. I enjoyed the bot analysis as well.

An "A.I." is only as good as the quality of information it is fed and the quality of question you ask of it.

I fed it this thread, all the pages, copied and pasted verbatim and asked it to evaluate commenters in terms of how informed they seemed and how convincing their arguments were.

And where did the 'bot' acquire the completely dispassionate, clear-eyed information it used to form its assessment? Here's a hint: There is no such thing. All information has a bias. Remember Google's Gemini creating images of the Founding Fathers which were historically completely inaccurate? That didn't happen accidentally. The system's bias reflects the bias of the people who created it.

Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr

@kirmesteggno said:

@Gavinski said:

@kirmesteggno said:

@Gavinski said:
No. That's not how they have been defined by the poster, that's how you have decided to define them, and it is wrongly conflating two separate things. In this case, the term super app simply refers to apps with a large scope which combine the functions of many disparate apps into one app. This is not to say that there are not pros and cons to any app being that powerful. But in terms of govt access to info, there is nothing inherent in the definition of super app that says they need to be related to a social credit system etc.

Super apps are those you use for your daily communication and ordinary things, thus making them a lot more attractive for (government) spying due to the amount and depth of the data they collect.

True, but NeuM really should not be saying that Super App = Social Credit Score system. That's too much of a jump. Sure though, we always need to keep alert to govt monitoring - and to corporate monitoring and their use of our data.

The social credit system in the West is your organic reach, assuming that everybody will depend on this in one way or another in the future have at least a side gig going on in some way.

Social credit in my western world is more informal than China’s, but often far more restrictive. In my profession I basically cannot express a single verboten opinion without risking my employability for the rest of my career. My profession is worse in this regard than most, but many people in many jobs are in the same boat. This is why I only use pseudonyms online.

This to me is the primary danger of superapps. Why make it easy for people who want to hurt you? It’s bad enough that Apple and Microsoft know who I am!

Gavinski

@NeuM said:

@Gavinski said:

@NeuM said:

@Deskscape said:
Thanks to @Gavinski and others for replies to my post and link. I enjoyed the bot analysis as well.

An "A.I." is only as good as the quality of information it is fed and the quality of question you ask of it.

I fed it this thread, all the pages, copied and pasted verbatim and asked it to evaluate commenters in terms of how informed they seemed and how convincing their arguments were.

And where did the 'bot' acquire the completely dispassionate, clear-eyed information it used to form its assessment? Here's a hint: There is no such thing. All information has a bias.

100% true, I only meant 'dispassioned' in the sense that it doesn't have ego or take things personally in the way that we can. All cognition is conditioned, definitely.

SevenSystems

@kirmesteggno said:

@SevenSystems said:

@kirmesteggno said:

@SevenSystems said:

@kirmesteggno said:

@SevenSystems said:

@kirmesteggno said:

@SevenSystems said:
Sorry, I think I've derailed the thread and have inadvertently switched into a terrible "Linux Fanboy" mode. I'll be good now! 🥴

You're Lennart Poettering (systemD)! 😅

I don't know that man but I do know there was a lot of controversy around it... ☺️

Systemd made Linux less modular in a way, Poettering basically tried to mimic Apple system services and polarized the community by doing so. For desktop Linux distros and cohesion of the entire system it wasn't that bad.

Systemd came to mind after you made the comparison with OSX.

OK. Yeah I think I vaguely remember that SysV Init was used previously in most distros? I think SuSE 6.1 had it in 1997 it was script-based I think, so certainly more true to the UNIX philosophy...

Yup, the core UNIX stuff is very old and still works basically the same way. When Linux started they took a lot of inspiration from it. These days purists use OpenBSD which is closest to the oldschool UNIX and goto for many C ultras.

When I started out with UNIX back in the late 90s, I also dabbled with pretty much all derivatives, but most of the time was spent in Linux (desktop and servers), IRIX (Blender open-source development), and FreeBSD. But totally settled on Linux now because well, it has just taken over 😄 and I'm grown up now 😜 (there were a few years when I was a bit TOO grown up and went back to Windows... however Windows 8 "cured" me from that disease...)

When I got into Linux around 2010/11, systemd was already taking shape, and many audio people were mad about Poettering because he was also behind the Pure Audio stuff which wasn't suitable for music making, basically the equivalent of non Asio Windows audio for normal users.

I really like that Apple doesn't differentiate between pro and regular users with core audio and is multi purpose. In Windows and especially Linux you have to optimize the system towards a specific focus, and this can clash with other usecases.

Yes I think Apple managed to nail it with CoreAudio being the exceptional GOOD "jack of all trades", that is a very big achievement actually. Huge part of their success in the market too. They're slowly ruining it in recent years, like most of their software, but maybe there's still hope

Where are they ruining it for you? I'm using OSX only since Mavericks and apart from making it harder to install third party software due to permissions I mostly see improvements. But I'm not a programmer and don't do much in the terminal these days.

Oh I don't use the terminal much either, I was just mostly referring to the increasing about of strange cruft and inconsistencies that are creeping into Apple's software, APIs and documentation thereof! But don't listen to me, ever!

Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

If Tim Apple did even a fraction of the stuff those guys did he’d be serving multiple life sentences.

wingwizard

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

You seem to be quoting an author with a libertarian political agenda, as "a history lesson", without disclosing that author's positions.

If the information is not factual, provide your own information and the source.

I don't have the book. If I want to read libertarian propaganda, I come to the Audiobus forum

Historical facts are now propaganda? Interesting.

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

You seem to be quoting an author with a libertarian political agenda, as "a history lesson", without disclosing that author's positions.

If the information is not factual, provide your own information and the source.

I don't have the book. If I want to read libertarian propaganda, I come to the Audiobus forum

Historical facts are now propaganda? Interesting.

It was a gag, as you know well. Obviously I'm not going to go out and buy a book just to refute a comment from a poster on a forum. I think many people would agree, though, that if you're citing an author with a track record in libertarian interpretations, it would be helpful to mention the fact. You chose not to.

Are you in the habit of providing the political or personal ideologies of everyone you cite? And again, how is it relevant to a discussion about historically factual information? What are the political affiliations of the people in government who are bringing this lawsuit against Apple and why are they doing it now, versus (I'm choosing a number at random here) 5 years ago?

When you're making a point in a discussion that has the possibility of libertarian interpretations, that information is indeed relevant.

I don’t see his posts, he’s on ignore. I only have one other person on ignore. It happens when people are hubristic or have an attitude. My own is always a reflection of that. Ah perhaps always is an over statement lol. And that’s what happened. But I’ll bite…

The reason to provide a quick, not terribly difficult to ascertain precis of someone’s political ideology is that this particular ideology continually presents itself in the form of skewed and polemic arguments that are disconnected from reality nd is as such the only explanation for the. It helps render sensible what would otherwise be completely meaningless discourse, or an exercise in confirmation bias: I don’t like government intervention; this is government intervention; this is bad, rather than any kind of discussion of what is specifically happening.

I love my iPad. I love iPad music. Apple makes me feel physical nauseous the same way a topknot does. It’s really not hard to carry two bags of shopping.

NeuM

@Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

If Tim Apple did even a fraction of the stuff those guys did he’d be serving multiple life sentences.

In the current political climate, I have no doubt you are correct.

wingwizard

The idea that government policies create loopholes that companies exploit, with or without the government’s direct involvement is perfectly fine. But again, it has nothing to do with the current situation. That’s a really reductive take. In fact, the logic is all over the place. This precedent for monopolies that has been given is exactly what this current action is against. There exists a government policy, like liquor licensing etc, that can be, in league with the government or not, exploited to create a monopoly. This is when governmental policy restricts the access companies have. In this case, what’s happening is the restrictions ti access are being removed. So the argument about what - not constitutes, because we all know what constitutes a monopoly - creates a monopoly practically lends itself to supporting the current action against Apple.

and the case cited just serves to obfuscate a very simple discussion about an actual real life situation. Rather than all kinds of historical precedents - of which there are a great variety. It’s also not even remotely established that market dominance etc doesn’t create monopolies. It’s a debate between various boring people in various tedious fields, none of who, can play synths.

The other major take from this is that if this idea is being put forward as some kind of means to blame government for monopolies rather than companies, it’s completely idiotic seeing as the main actor is still the company, alongside the government. It’s like excusing a guy who just shot his wife on the basis that his mate egged him on

It’s just cherry picking, narrative building, reinforcement etc

NeuM

@wingwizard said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

You seem to be quoting an author with a libertarian political agenda, as "a history lesson", without disclosing that author's positions.

If the information is not factual, provide your own information and the source.

I don't have the book. If I want to read libertarian propaganda, I come to the Audiobus forum

Historical facts are now propaganda? Interesting.

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@purpan2 said:

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

You seem to be quoting an author with a libertarian political agenda, as "a history lesson", without disclosing that author's positions.

If the information is not factual, provide your own information and the source.

I don't have the book. If I want to read libertarian propaganda, I come to the Audiobus forum

Historical facts are now propaganda? Interesting.

It was a gag, as you know well. Obviously I'm not going to go out and buy a book just to refute a comment from a poster on a forum. I think many people would agree, though, that if you're citing an author with a track record in libertarian interpretations, it would be helpful to mention the fact. You chose not to.

Are you in the habit of providing the political or personal ideologies of everyone you cite? And again, how is it relevant to a discussion about historically factual information? What are the political affiliations of the people in government who are bringing this lawsuit against Apple and why are they doing it now, versus (I'm choosing a number at random here) 5 years ago?

When you're making a point in a discussion that has the possibility of libertarian interpretations, that information is indeed relevant.

I don’t see his posts, he’s on ignore. I only have one other person on ignore. It happens when people are hubristic or have an attitude. My own is always a reflection of that. Ah perhaps always is an over statement lol. And that’s what happened. But I’ll bite…

The reason to provide a quick, not terribly difficult to ascertain precis of someone’s political ideology is that this particular ideology continually presents itself in the form of skewed and polemic arguments that are disconnected from reality nd is as such the only explanation for the. It helps render sensible what would otherwise be completely meaningless discourse, or an exercise in confirmation bias: I don’t like government intervention; this is government intervention; this is bad, rather than any kind of discussion of what is specifically happening.

Also unrelated. That we wouldn’t be on here if weren’t for Apple has absolutely zero to do with whether Apple hould be allowed to break laws that are in place to ensure fir competition and protect smaller businesses and consumers, and which also apply to every other business of earth, much more so in terms of getting away with it due to bullying and size.

I love my iPad. I love iPad music. Apple makes me feel physical nauseous the same way a topknot does. It’s really not hard to carry two bags of shopping.

I'm aware this person has blocked my account, so I'll simply respond to these assertions here.

Apple is innocent until proven guilty. That's how the laws in the US work. Those self-serving political entities charging Apple with crimes (real or imagined) must prove this in court.

Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr

@NeuM said:

@Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

If Tim Apple did even a fraction of the stuff those guys did he’d be serving multiple life sentences.

In the current political climate, I have no doubt you are correct.

Removing the headphone jack should be grounds enough!

NeuM

@Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

@NeuM said:

@Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

@NeuM said:

@wingwizard said:
Some more absolute rubbish I saw before signing in,

A monopoly doesn’t form because a government creates one. And the notion that ‘all historical monopolies’ prove this is.. lol laughable. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Love to see your double blind paper on every single historical monopoly, the one you must have been working on over the last decade as one of the preeminent scholars in this field… why say such silly things that so obviously have no basis in reality… it just undermines anything valid you might say.

A monopoly can be formed by a government, it’s perfectly possible. Or, as is almost always the case, and as is the general usage of the terms, refers to a corporate monopoly, created and enforced by a company to restrict free trade and force consumers into buying only from them. It’s the entire reason laws were created regarding monopolies.

And in the cases where government is involved, it’s due to them acting in the interests of a company. And not acting on laws like the one you are arguing against.

Who here is old enough to remember how costly software applications ("apps") were before Apple created the App Store? "Market dominance" due to providing immense value to consumers is still not a monopoly. If a company tries to force competitors out of business by selling something at a loss, as soon as they stop selling at a loss, other companies jump back in and start competing again.

A quick history lesson*:

Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton nearly a quarter century later. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of refined petroleum down from 30¢ per gallon to 5.9¢ per gallon in 1897.

*Source of information: "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by author Burton Folsom

The entire idea that a "market dominant" company can only succeed by entrapping consumers is ludicrous.

If Tim Apple did even a fraction of the stuff those guys did he’d be serving multiple life sentences.

In the current political climate, I have no doubt you are correct.

Removing the headphone jack should be grounds enough!

It's the chair for all of them until they come to their senses!

NoncompliantBryant

@Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

@kirmesteggno said:

@Gavinski said:

@kirmesteggno said:

@Gavinski said:
No. That's not how they have been defined by the poster, that's how you have decided to define them, and it is wrongly conflating two separate things. In this case, the term super app simply refers to apps with a large scope which combine the functions of many disparate apps into one app. This is not to say that there are not pros and cons to any app being that powerful. But in terms of govt access to info, there is nothing inherent in the definition of super app that says they need to be related to a social credit system etc.

Super apps are those you use for your daily communication and ordinary things, thus making them a lot more attractive for (government) spying due to the amount and depth of the data they collect.

True, but NeuM really should not be saying that Super App = Social Credit Score system. That's too much of a jump. Sure though, we always need to keep alert to govt monitoring - and to corporate monitoring and their use of our data.

The social credit system in the West is your organic reach, assuming that everybody will depend on this in one way or another in the future have at least a side gig going on in some way.

Social credit in my western world is more informal than China’s, but often far more restrictive. In my profession I basically cannot express a single verboten opinion without risking my employability for the rest of my career. My profession is worse in this regard than most, but many people in many jobs are in the same boat. This is why I only use pseudonyms online.

This to me is the primary danger of superapps. Why make it easy for people who want to hurt you? It’s bad enough that Apple and Microsoft know who I am!

💯. We have a "social credit" system here, and it's coded and formalized differently than what we in the west think is happening in other parts of the world. Try advocating for more collective bargaining rights without a pseudonym and see how quickly things will change for your life at work once the relevant posts are discovered. Also, there's actually no evidence that such a formal system exists in China, and if anyone is interested in sources, just dm. Thank you for the reality check.

NeuM

@NoncompliantBryant said:

@Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

@kirmesteggno said:

@Gavinski said:

@kirmesteggno said:

@Gavinski said:
No. That's not how they have been defined by the poster, that's how you have decided to define them, and it is wrongly conflating two separate things. In this case, the term super app simply refers to apps with a large scope which combine the functions of many disparate apps into one app. This is not to say that there are not pros and cons to any app being that powerful. But in terms of govt access to info, there is nothing inherent in the definition of super app that says they need to be related to a social credit system etc.

Super apps are those you use for your daily communication and ordinary things, thus making them a lot more attractive for (government) spying due to the amount and depth of the data they collect.

True, but NeuM really should not be saying that Super App = Social Credit Score system. That's too much of a jump. Sure though, we always need to keep alert to govt monitoring - and to corporate monitoring and their use of our data.

The social credit system in the West is your organic reach, assuming that everybody will depend on this in one way or another in the future have at least a side gig going on in some way.

Social credit in my western world is more informal than China’s, but often far more restrictive. In my profession I basically cannot express a single verboten opinion without risking my employability for the rest of my career. My profession is worse in this regard than most, but many people in many jobs are in the same boat. This is why I only use pseudonyms online.

This to me is the primary danger of superapps. Why make it easy for people who want to hurt you? It’s bad enough that Apple and Microsoft know who I am!

💯. We have a "social credit" system here, and it's coded and formalized differently than what we in the west think is happening in other parts of the world. Try advocating for more collective bargaining rights without a pseudonym and see how quickly things will change for your life at work once the relevant posts are discovered. Also, there's actually no evidence that such a formal system exists in China, and if anyone is interested in sources, just dm. Thank you for the reality check.

I’m assuming you are referring to the US? What “collective bargaining rights” are missing? The Federal government regularly takes the side of union members in negotiations. That should be illegal. It’s the job of government in the US to remain neutral in these matters.

Regarding the second comment (China’s social credit system): https://www.newsweek.com/china-social-credit-system-works-explained-1768726

A_Fox

@Gavinski
Well, I take back everything I have said about A.I. in the past 🤣 That did make me chuckle.

Aside that though, people have mentioned what may happen? Fines etc.

Could we be entitled to compensation and get an appstore voucher for more apps? 😉
(But seriously… some of us have spent a good bit of money.. some in the thousands).

If I’m entitled to 10% back, Its certainly enough for a pocket sized roland synthesizer.
If a monetary value is placed on the fact my devices are locked down… it could a pile of cash again.

(Playstation is facing a legal case for uncompetitive practices).
I bought my Iphone from O2, and my Mac and Ipad from Argos. I certainly was not informed of appstore practices at time of purchase, nor of its locked down nature.

An American judgement (or no judgement) has no legal effect upon other countries, but may encourage other governments to take action. The EU has done and won. I’m surprised governments can lose because the courts aren’t entirely independent from them 🤣
There is currently an ongoing UK Monopolies Commission investigation into the AppStore practices.

Personally, I think the days of some of Apple current practices are numbered. I do think they will still be number 1 without such practices.
It would benefit us all if Apple has to compete even more, further improving its game to ensure staying on top, rather than taking a few (arguably) dodgy shortcuts here and there.

A_Fox

@Samu said:
Harshly looking at things this entire forum would not even exist if it wasn't for ehmm certain Apple products

I’m hoping we get some some appstore vouchers as compensation. 😉

Deskscape

@A_Fox said:

Personally, I think the days of some of Apple current practices are numbered. I do think they will still be number 1 without such practices.

It would benefit us all if Apple has to compete even more, further improving its game to ensure staying on top, rather than taking a few (arguably) dodgy shortcuts here and there.

I agree.