Abuse of power problem for Apple?

Status
You're currently viewing only Echohead2's posts. Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.
Where the FUCK did I outline my own position as "protectionism is bad"?

STOP DOING THAT.

My position was that your argumentation is bad.
That is because he started out with the conclusion that "Apple is good and had done nothing wrong". And worked backwards from there.
 
Still waiting for these entities that Apple killed in the crib.

Lot of accusations of coercive anticompetitive behavior but nobody is able to cite specific victims?
Still waiting for these entities that Microsoft killed in the crib.
Lot of accusations of coercive anticompetitive behavior but nobody is able to cite specific victims?
 
I think your ask is for something so narrow that it will be impossible to provide. The items that could count as "killed in the crib" fall into a couple broad categories. First would be something that did get some amount of uptake before Apple moved into the market and then either stopped it's growth or reduced it's market size overall.
Here is a list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_built-in_iOS_apps
 
Sure, but I asked you and others to name any company, big or small, which was driven out of business or prevented from going into business because of Apple's practices.
You are joking right? Ok...here's one...EchoheadAppStore. I was going to open a competing app store on iPhones/iPads but I decided to not go into business because apple didn't allow competing app stores? Don't believe me? Prove it.
 
OK then, we have a fundamentally different opinion of what kind of choices consumers can make.

You yourself noted that the CarPlay 2.0 licensees are all upscale brands. Well they're not, Honda and Ford are there among others.

But it's not the whole market so car buyers have options whether to get involved with CarPlay when they make their purchasing decision and after purchase, whether they actually use CarPlay.

If you want to die on this particular hill as proof of Apple coercing car makers to certain decisions or car drivers to look or not look at CarPlay screens, go right ahead.

I just don't see some big outrage one way or another.

If for some reason you don't like the CarPlay display of the instrument cluster, I would presume you can choose not to use CarPlay. If for some inexplicable reason that isn't allowed, word will spread and people will decide whether to avoid cars with such systems.

And I've seen some awful instrument panel displays with all kinds of wacky themes. But usually you could choose to switch them. I just find it unlikely that any car maker will force some rigid UI on their customers.

In any event, these are all theoretical right, there are no actual CarPlay 2.0 systems where the driver can't change the instrument display colors or designs?
and now go back and apply this logic to MS. If you don't like WMP or IE, you can use something else. If you don't like Windows, you don't have to use it. You could use OS2, BeOS, Linus, or Mac. You could get high end or low end computer.
 
I have no interest whatsoever in arguing against the breakup of Standard Oil,
I saw a video or TV show about Standard oil, and while there are plenty of things to dislike about it, one of the things that I really liked about them was how they initially gained so much market share and profits was through efficiency. Other companies made the one product and basically dumped the rest. Standard Oil worked hard to find other uses. Wikipedia said that others dumped their gasoline while SO used it to run the equipment. Others had huge waste piles and SO found uses like petroleum jelly (they bought the company), and the show I watched said they turned some of the waste into grease for lubrication. By using all the waste (and making money from it, it helped their profitability and allowed them to sell the main product cheaper than their competitors, gaining sales and marketshare.

I guess I like this because that has always been a focus of mine in my career...finding outlets for waste...both to reduce waste, but also, more profits. It can be a tricky situation (what if demand for the waste outstrips your production?), but very rewarding, imo.

No real point to this post...feel free to ignore...just an old man's ramblings.
 
Apple filed a motion last week to dismiss the antitrust suit that the DOJ filed back in March:


MacBreak Weekly said that the filing also included language that the DOJ was trying to tie this case to the MS antitrust case and Apple denied they have a market position like MS had or that they engaged in anticompetitive practices with this overwhelming market dominance, like MS did over 20 years ago.
We'll see. Filing a motion and getting it approved are 2 different things. It all depends on how you present your case.
 
Status
You're currently viewing only Echohead2's posts. Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.