pas008

crypto seems to pay off more than gaming
and how is it waste if you are getting value from it risk or not
how is it cancer seriously if companies are getting their sales
I hate the fact i cant get new gpu also but its their right also to do what they want with their purchased products
 
 

What a bad attitude to have. The whole point of a direct ballot means that it bypasses nearly all of the lobbying from big tech that would occur. The PEOPLE vote, like how it should be. 

That's not really true anymore. Newer cars are having features that you cannot fix unless you have special proprietary tools/software that only dealers/manufacturers have access too. Teslas are notoriously hard to repair and things like heated seats are becoming software packages you pay monthly for. The right to repair is needed across every industry badly 

One issue. Federal vs State rights. States have the right to regulate business within their boarders. Second this is a ballot initiative. Meaning the people vote on it directly. The legislature can’t do jack shit to block it. The only reason Marijuana is legal in Michigan is due to a ballot initiative. 

wasnt it 400 for the controllers
then 800 ddr2
then 1600 ddr3
now 3200 ddr4
so maybe 6400 for ddr5?
everything else higher was/is considered overclock
maybe that was my personal preferences of sweet spot along with timings 
hard to remember lol
 

I agree to an extent.
 
Using
Then yes everything should be taken off him since it was stolen, but still it immediately brings into question; what kind of colossal idiot steals a credit card and uses it to buy $24k of stuff on the app store, and then sue Apple when he gets banned? He would then be charged with theft instead of just a banned account. It just makes zero logical sense.
 
and
Sure, ban him from future use of their service, but you should then be allowed to download everything that you bought or effectively freeze the account so you can still access your purchases. This being the main point, why are we at a point with technology where the (effectively) "Store" can chose to retro-actively take all your purchases away from you without compensation?
If someone gets banned from Ikea because maybe they had too many Swedish meatballs and started throwing them at other customers, they dont sent people to your house to take back all the furniture you bought from them. It's not ok physcially, so why is it accepted digitally?

Well I guess it depends on how you view it.
Since Apple made over 64 billion dollars in gross profits from the App store alone I think it's hard to say they "need" to charge 30%. Whether they deserve that money, at the expensive of the developers, is a quite politically and morally charge topic that I don't think is even worth debating since it won't lead anywhere. Some people will believe one thing and another will believe another, and nobody will change their minds.
 
  
But isn't that an argument for why Apple could allow third party stores? If Android has it and barely anyone uses it, then I don't see why Apple are so religiously not allowing it on iOS.
 
I think most companies that are asking for third party stores do understand it. Companies like Steam, Epic, Spotify, Amazon etc.
I don't think Tile are wanting to rush out and build an entire store platform, but allowing choice and giving them more freedom on who to pick would certainly bring some needed competition to the market. 
Even if you're okay with Apple taking 30%, there are a lot of other things Apple could improve on. Allowing developers to charge more for users who sign up on iOS for example. If Apple wants to take a cut then I don't see why developers shouldn't be allowed to raise prices so that they still make the same amount as on other platforms.
 
I think "it was worse before" is a poor argument. I have also not seen any indication of this actually being true.

imagine if microsoft or google did force update for their operating systems to make only option to get apps is through their store? how fast would they be in shit
if their arguement is well its apples devices, then why are you even so called buying any of those devices if they are apples? once a consumer buys it, its theirs isnt it not apples? now if you were given them for free because you want to pay for apples service is another story
and could argue ps and xbox is their platforms etc etc, but they also let you buy physical discs and even keys from other places
 

imagine if microsoft or google did force update for their operating systems to make only option to get apps is through their store? how fast would they be in shit
if their arguement is well its apples devices, then why are you even so called buying any of those devices if they are apples? once a consumer buys it, its theirs isnt it not apples? now if you were given them for free because you want to pay for apples service is another story
and could argue ps and xbox is their platforms etc etc, but they also let you buy physical discs and even keys from other places
 

To the topic, I feel as though Tile does have a valid point.  Apple introducing new products that directly competes with others (while benefiting from the fact that they can keep their margins lower because they don't have to compete with 30% hits).
 
To everyone saying that it's Apples product, you are missing the point.  It's like saying if Microsoft issued a patch where Windows Store was the only option...or akin to how Microsoft tried to strong-arm in IE (and IE's type of web standard).
 
I'm not against Apple creating this product, I do think it's a decent idea, but it is important to recognize that Apple is effectively using their power of the mobile market to squeeze out competitor of another product.  Specifically they are introducing technology in their phone to create a "better" product, without giving access to potential competitors in a timely matter.  If Apple wants to release a product then they should be playing by the same rules that they set for everyone else.  (Again, it's like how Microsoft tightly integrated IE into their code which clearly was anti-trust)
 
Well with most Android phones there is a secondary store, and like it not the option to side-load is a real thing.
 
Dictating pricing is required to remain the same, while still taking a larger % cut gives Apple an unfair advantage
Also, look at all the issues Floatplane had with issuing updates (and the fact that they had to strip out so many features to accommodate the fact that you can't advertise your subscription there).
 
 
 

I'm sorry but what? Anti trust law and monopoly law are VERY clear. Apple are obligated to allow competition on their platform, they're selling products and services to consumers and consumers have the right to choice, protected by law.
 
Comparing Apple to Steam is dumb since Steam is an application that runs on an open platform. Also its not like Steam mandate that games sold on their store have to be exclusive to their store.
 
On the Microsoft comparision, guess what? Anybody can sell apps for Windows without needing to go anywhere near MS so you disproved your own argument.
 
No, but you can apply for permission to set up a stall at a farmers market and be given the ability to sell your products in direct competition with the other vendors. With Apple its their store with their rules and their cut or nothing.
 
Its more akin to Amazon having 100% control of shopping with all other stores and supermarkets not existing and charging food producers a cut for using Amazon while selling their own alternative for cheaper. Preventing this situation is, quite literally, the reason anti trust & monopoly laws exist.

Some of y'all really need to understand the difference between a healthy competitive market and a monopoly...
 
Its Apples eco system and they are allowed to do whatever they want, nobody is saying otherwise. The problem is Apple are not offering third parties the ability to be competitive on the Apple eco system.
 
All Apple has to do is allow full & proper sideloading (yes I know they do allow some stuff but only if it has a valid Apple dev certificate which they can revoke and stop the app from functioning even after its installed) and allow a competing store.
 
The example from above is perfect, imagine if MS patched Windows so you could only use the MS Store to install things and then added a 30% cut to all transactions, smaller companies would be instantly priced out, indie software would disappear and users would be stuck with mainstream software and a higher cost than before.
 
Competition = good. Capitalism = better than the alternatives. Monopoly = bad.
 
Also FTR its not just Tile who testified, both Spotify and Match also did and the allegations are aimed at both Apple & Google.

I love how Apple is the only manufacturer that gets defended by people for being monopolistic (or any other critique really) with the argument "their platform, their rules". And yet Google/Android, Windows, Nintendo, Steam, Play station, Xbox all get absolutely shafted on this forum for doing similar or less. 

Yeah. The issue Tile is taking is that they pay the rent, yet the owners of the mall opened up a store right next to the doors and are selling the same thing. They obvs don't pay rent to themselves, and they control the building, the signs outside, the map inside, and who can rent where, so it's an unfair advantage. 
 
It makes sense to me that they'd be pissed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

apple once again taking someone elses app/feature/etc and implementing their own to lock it into their ecosystem
30% isnt enough for them its the whole thing they want
 
is any of apples ideas even theirs? like to hear one actually
 
find if funny microsoft, google, intel and nvidia are considered evil greedy bastards and cant get away with this type of shit
but its ok for apple
 
 

I don't understand. Softbank acquired Arm in 2016; which BTW is a Japanese conglomerate. Why didn't the UK object then? Secondly, how can they now if it belongs to Softbank?

Where are you getting this from? You absolutely can and it happens all the time in the retail world. Prices are always subject to change, both for the better (lower prices) or for the worse (higher prices). MSRP is a suggestion, the name implies as such, and they are free to price beyond that as they see fit. MSI also isn't obligated to produce cards to fulfil a preorder promised by a third party retailer. When orders such as these are placed, they commit to a specific amount of cards and that is all they are obligated to produce. If a retailer cannot fulfil pre-orders under that commitment, they over-promised customers under the assumption they were going to be able to order more, or too much of their stock went into exchange/RMA and they fell short.
 
Now pre-ordering is a bit different, that constitutes an agreement. If you pre-order something at a given price, it can't be raised on you after the fact. If they cannot fulfil the obligation, they may cancel the pre-order and offer a full refund, but that is the extent of it. Whether that constitutes false advertisement depends on the terms of the agreement and whether it was disclosed that the item under pre-order may not be procured and orders are subject to cancellation in such an event.
 
You are aware that MSI does most of their manufacturing in their Shenzhen plant, right? That's located in China, my friend. If companies could circumvent the tariffs simply by shipping their exported goods from a dummy location in Taiwan, this "trade war" would have been pretty easy to ignore. The location of your headquarters doesn't dictate where your goods are produced and what tariffs you may be subject to as a result. Plenty of companies headquartered here in the US with plants in China that are subject to these tariffs. 
 
I am not defending MSI's practices overall as a company, they won't be getting a dime of mine anytime soon, but your being unusually unreasonable in this thread. Don't let your feelings and opinions blind you of objectivity, the facts are pretty straight forward here.

Supply and demand. Not much you can really do when the market conditions make pricing higher the logical thing to do from a business perspective.

How are they wrong to change a price of their product? I don't understand
Retailers promises consumers a price and took their money, MSI didn't
Consumers should be angry at retailers for promising something they can't deliver, I can't see why manufacturers have to be dragged into this mess
MSI have all the right to launch and discontinue a product, unless they promised retailers a certain delivery they haven't fulfilled yet
 
So are companies not allowed to maximize profits now?
 
Why are people suddenly against companies making profits now? I don't understand it, if you don't like it, get your own sand and make your own GPU

The ATH-M50x is easy to drive and doesn't need anything special. A Behringer UMC202HD would be a decent choice.

They're probably banking on buying up used GPUs for cents and selling them at or above MSRP.
 
It could probably work.

His hardware, his choices
He may think that gaming more than offsets the value of his GPU and having downtime from a system that's potentially broken by mining isn't worth it.
 
Side note:
I hate people force/shame people into doing mining
If they don't wanna do it, that's their choice, don't force your lifestyle/standards onto them.
Educate them and let them make their own decisions

I approve of this standpoint. The problem for me wasn't miners using graphics cards to mine, it is miners having special access to the supply chain that allows them to buy a pallet of matching GPU for mining. If someone obtains a GPU through retailers as a normal customer I don't care how they use the product.

It will sell to target audiences, I am not that target.
 
Unless it can do all the things a laptop can...then I might consider it.

yet alone care about updates
i dont think I know anyone in the real world that even has talked about os updates/etc
only thing I know is they hate it automatically doing it