mr moose

The same arguments were made about Windows 7 and also Windows 10. People simply don't move OS until they have to, then it happens as fast as someone with food poisoning that needs to get to the bathroom.
 

Dotted line being Windows 11 and not meaningfully different to Windows 7 or Windows 10. Smaller uptake spike at the start but really not enough to matter overall. It's already vastly better uptake than Vista and Windows 8/8.1.

Windows is a monopoly, but not in the same way as apple is. 
Windows does NOT go around intentionally, and explicitly blocking interoperability with other operating systems (iMessage) or forces people into large costs to develop applications for it. You can make whatever you want on windows and have it interact with any OS you want. 

I don't disagree with apple's walled garden necessarily, but Apple not supporting rich communication service or allow others to use iMesssage is monopolistic behavior and to argue its not is blind to the consequences of this action. (oh no green texts)
Apple could have done either/or, but REFUSE (until they announced RCS 5 months ago because china forced it, but even then are not supporting the full standard)

Any single company that has a larger control or influence over a market is a legal monopoly, there is no defined % market share for that. What matters is not how they got there, a monopoly is actually legal if it occurred without breaking any anti-trust laws.
 
There are two things that actually matter regarding monopoly laws:
How it happened Market conduct You can legally become a monopoly and so long as your market conduct is "not a problem" then everything is in the clear, no issues.
 
Android and iOS are monopolies for the smartphone market. Both have to make sure they are not violating anti-trust laws due to that.

Consumer protection is also about making sure the market itself has the freedom to offer you a compelling consumer choice. If the Apple ecosystem is unhealthy for many businesses then it is also unhealthy for consumers. You certainly cannot argue only Apple can or should be offering Apps and services on iPhones, or if that is to be allowed then laws should be passed baring all iPhones from being able to be used for banking, government websites, any and all commerce i.e. no buying stuff on Amazon with them.
 
If iPhones are going to continue to not be consumer and market safe then they should simply be excluded from "the market". That actually is how problems are dealt with. It can be as extreme as forcibly breaking up companies so different operating lines are no longer all within one company i.e. Apple Software and Apple Hardware being broken up. This is what happened to many ISP's/Telco's the world over when the full realization of how dangerous it is to allow one company to control the vast majority of the infrastructure and also the retail of services on top of it.
 
And you don't actually always get a choice, that's a fallacy of argument and reasoning. Lets just pick an example of corporate phone plans and deals with telco/ISP providers that may result in an iPhone being your only provided option. Or the same on the residential side, your best option to you is a phone plan that only comes with an iPhone otherwise you pay more for a plan without a phone or some other such choice that isn't as good. You still end up paying for that actual iPhone (it's not free, they never are) btw. You shouldn't have to pick the finically worse option because an included product results in consumer restrictions related to that product.
 
It's also entirely not about necessity, that is irrelevant to the issue. It doesn't matter how much something is a luxury choice, that has no baring over or within monopoly laws. Just because some products are expensive doesn't exclude those consumers/customers from equal and fair protection.

When they block developers from half the market unless those developers curtail to excessive demands,  then they have too much control.  When I can buy a mobile app direct from the developer and install it on an iPhone without apple taking a 30% cut or forcing me to use their app store, then I will start to consider that they have relinquished said control.

No sh!t sherlock, get a 1k$ android phone and watch your argument fall apart. (Id wager even a 500$ android phone would suffice for ~90% of ppl.)

GPUs and CPUs are *components*, not full systems, nor ecosystems. As for Pepsico, yes, it does have a monopoly, but it's not an unfair one as it doesn't prevent consumers from consuming other brands of chips

Sinofsky is a massive twat. I am not surprised that he is strongly against the DMA, a piece of legislation trying to keep giant tech companies from abusing their positions of power to lock users into their ecosystems. That is exactly what Sinofsky was trying to push (and in some regards succeeded) when he was at Microsoft.
 
I also think he is being a bit silly or maybe disingenuous when he says the legislation is "clearly aimed at specific US companies" and then goes ahead and lists companies like Samsung, ByteDance, Alibaba, AliExpress, Booking.com, and Zalando as also being affected. Is he aware that those companies aren't American? I mean, it is Sinofsky we're talking about so I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't know Samsung isn't from the US...
 
Maybe the issue isn't that "the legislation is aimed at US companies because the EU is evil and want to harm America!" but rather "a lot of the big companies that are abusing their power are from the US"?
 
 
There is so much bullshit in this article it's not even funny.
Things like claiming Apple has never abused their position of power and that no consumer has been harmed by the way Apple acts. I would argue that the 30% cut Apple takes is an abuse of their position. Especially since they forbid developers from telling users about for example cheaper rates on their website. Telling developers "no, you are not allowed to tell your users that they can subscribe to the service without also paying us, Apple, is not allowed and we will take away everything from you if you do" is not exactly a friendly and non-abusive way of handling your users or developers. Sinofsky might think that's not abusive because he looks up to Apple a lot and wanted Microsoft to be like Apple, but if he is going to claim that's perfectly fine, good and not an abuse of power then he is in my eyes a dumbass.

Except that Apple DID issue a developers license to Epic.  To bad for Apple.  It's funny how they essentially talk about rug pulling and yet that is effectively what they are doing here.
 
Overall Apple also won the case in the US because it wasn't classified as a monopoly in the eyes of the law; had they been though it would have meant Epic would have won and those contracts provisions would have been void.
 
As much as I dont necessarily like Epic, they do have a point against Apple and Apple shouldn't be allowed to essentially bar them from competing on the Apple platform.

They give a purely conjectural "reasoning" ending up assimilating criticism of their DCMA "implementation"  with "safety concern" as an excuse for their ban
I see nothing in their text pointing to a factual breach of any ToS, it's very vague

I also love the Apple utter bad faith reasoning masquerading as "law"
In substance "oh you criticize us so (blah blah) eventually put the world in danger and should thus be terminated" 
 
They should be renamed Arasapple 😄
 
 

Hilarious
They p*ss off any competitor then go crying they're mean and ban them
Apple needs another 2 billion fine 😛 

I feel like apples lawyers have been scrambling since the day they gave access back to find any reason kick them again hoping to find any reason that might stick.
 
Pretty children

The problem with every argument and example Apple has made or will ever make is that literally everything also applies to free Apps on the App Store. There can, and are, Apps available with millions to billions of downloads and installed utilizing all the Apple developer tools, frameworks and iOS APIs and Apple has never and will never get any more money than the Apple Developer fee, the App is free.
 
 They can whine and moan all they like about Spotify, Netflix etc etc but so long as they allow free Apps on the App Store with zero extra fees a widely being used by millions they have irrelevant and dead points to make.
 
There is and forever will be zero basis for a monthly subscription fee for a services not hosted in any way by Apple to be application and even related at all in any way to their App Store associated costs. If I buy an iPhone, install Spotify once and have it only update as normal like every other App past/present/future it's going to cost Apple a small amount, no a tiny amount, individually for me so they have no grounds to be calming 30% of a subscription fee for a service that have no involvement with the ongoing operation of. The Spotify App is not the service, it's the mechanism of access to the service developed by Spotify and distributed by Apple for iOS.
 
If Apple wants and thinks they deserve more money from Spotify than the basic Apple Developer fee then change the damn fee model for the App Store and Developers.

Honestly 1.8 Billion Euro's isn't enough, and doesn't work too much as a deterrent.
 
They had $85 billion in net sales for services (so this should include the 30% fee, although there is a chance they rolled it into products) in 2023.  They had $24 billion on the cost of services in 2023
If one were to assume that Apple services from apps only accounted for 10% of the services (which is unlikely and very low), then it still means they made $6.1 billion in 2023.
 
But based on what Apple has stated in 2022 numbers, they claim $104 billion in digital sales (not including their advertising which they forced on people which amounts to an additional $100 billion).  Which if you assume 15% would make it still over $6 billion of profits.
 
After all, the $400 million USD fine for price fixing by Apple (on ebooks) showed how little Apple really cares about these larger fines.  It's the cost of doing business.
 
Overall though, the biggest issue I had with Apple in this whole ordeal is that they willingly used their monopoly to profit by draconian rules.  While I haven't seen it mentioned, it's important to also remember that Apple once upon a time also tried enforcing that pricing could not be different from the Apple price vs other stores.
 
I do agree that Apple created it and should be able to reap a certain amount of profits from it, but it's not like they are losing money on iPhones and I feel when a company gets to this large of dominance in a market they should have to charge reasonable rates (or allow the companies to essentially cover the costs).
 
One way to actually look at it is look at Twitch.  They are losing money on their current model, and yet many streamers are taking sponsorships etc which effectively is ad revenue that could be going to Twitch.

But not nearly as many. I visited a Mercedes factory a few years ago and most of the processes were completely automated. And Mercedes is still one of the more "individual" car manufacturers. Other brands that offer less customisation of their cars are probably automating even more of the production line.

Look at the difference between now and just a year ago. It's amazing how fast these things evolve. Do you still remember the "Will Smith eating pasta" video from about a year ago?
 
I've been an avid Google user before, and Bing, with its copilot feature, has completely replaced "googling" for me. It can search through dozens of pages and filter out the most relevant information in an instant. Doing the same research myself would probably take hours. It's not perfect, of course, and there are errors from time to time, but generally Copilot has got it right far more often than it has got it wrong. These horror threads about LLMs hallucinating are often after quite a lot of prompts or long conversations and jumping to different topics mid-conversation. If you just ask a normal question and then 2 or 3 follow up questions (and create a new thread whenever you want to switch to another topic) then there are almost no problems.
 
Personally, I'm all for the advances in AI, ML or whatever umbrella term you want to use. It makes the work of developers both more accessible and more efficient. And of course, increased efficiency means that some jobs will be cut. That's how it works. Where was the outcry when assembly lines were taken over by robot arms? I guess it's just that the average assembly line worker isn't a Twitter user, so that's the main reason why no one cared about their lost jobs.

I don't think he is wrong, I mean look how far it has come in the last 5 years alone then follow the trajectory. 
 
Also people can't have it both ways, you can't argue it will take too many jobs and at the same time argue it will never be good enough to replace humans for the one thing it likely will be best at (language interpretation).
 
This won't be the first time people have to eat their hats.  

I don't think he is wrong, I mean look how far it has come in the last 5 years alone then follow the trajectory. 
 
Also people can't have it both ways, you can't argue it will take too many jobs and at the same time argue it will never be good enough to replace humans for the one thing it likely will be best at (language interpretation).
 
This won't be the first time people have to eat their hats.  

Apple is a bitter loser, like a toddler having a tantrum lol........ 🤣

I've seen it too, I've built those factories as well.  Most of the time it's because the companies expending the capital are not big enough to weather all the issues that inevitably occur on the way and they stumble or they are so big that they can afford to change plans mid exercise and just sit on the project.  I seem to recall Intel did that with fab42,  they started building and planning then shelved it,  then started again.  And to be honest I don't even know if they finally moved in any equipment in the end.
 
 
BHP has done it twice at Olympic damn as well.   but don't get me started on that (single largest Uranium deposit in the world and nuclear is not viable/feasible in Australia???? WTF to that) 
 

I never said TSMC can't invest.  I said it would be a shame if a new company invested the GDP of a large country only to have that investment obsoleted long before it paid for itself.

ya, until someone comes along and makes something better and they become obsolete overnight?  wouldn't be the first time (*scrambles to find historical examples*)
 
like, i dunno,  kodak, nokia... 
 
ps: Boeing seems on their way out too! i never thought that'd be possible...  
 
 

We had a little trade war with them not long ago,  they tried to stop buying our coal,  they went back to it after they realized they had no choice.   I feel a little more comfortable about our economy after that.