Supreme Court Allows Anti-Trust Lawsuit Against the App Store

[SenKa]

3 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

This might be okay in some countries, but in many places in the US, for example, there is effectively one choice of ISP.

Can confirm. In my county you have the choice of Verizon/Frontier or shitty and slow service.

[SenKa]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

That's not an assumption, that's an absolute right.  

This has not been successfully upheld in a US court. That falls under the very controversial right to repair laws.

[mr moose]

Just now, SenpaiKaplan said:

This has not been successfully upheld in a US court. That falls under the very controversial right to repair laws.

That has a slightly different context.    Right to repair is additionally contentious because it involves physical warranty issues and copyright issues. 

 

This is no different than any other computing device.  Would you argue you have no right to install Linux on your brand new laptop because of right to repair contentions?

 

 

[SenKa]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

That has a slightly different context.    Right to repair is additionally contentious because it involves physical warranty issues and copyright issues. 

 

This is no different than any other computing device.  Would you argue you have no right to install Linux on your brand new laptop because of right to repair contentions?

 

 

I would argue companies have the right to make it difficult to do so. But Apple and Lenovo who knowingly and out-right block it? No.

 

I personally believe Apple is 100% in the wrong on this case, and I hope they get slapped with the harshest punishment they can receive. This will set the precedent for these cases for all of time going forward, and I hope it's a good one.

[XenosTech]

49 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

This might be okay in some countries, but in many places in the US, for example, there is effectively one choice of ISP.

 

Canada has a bit better rules when it comes to forcing the incumbents to allow third parties to resell access, but even then there are limitations, such as the third party companies not having access to the same speeds, etc.

 

In the last 10 years we went from 1 isp here to 5 and now we're back down to 2 ISPs and it was only so for decades because government allowed them to make the rules about who can and can't operate here.

[ARikozuM]

36 minutes ago, SenpaiKaplan said:

Can confirm. In my county you have the choice of Verizon/Frontier or shitty and slow service.

I've got Frontier, Spectrum, and HughesNet.

 

Coincidentally, "competition" means setting the same price for the same speed and the same packages. I thought free markets would take care of this, but I guess they're drowning in debt and can't lower the price any further. 

[SenKa]

3 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

I've got Frontier, Spectrum, and HughesNet.

 

Coincidentally, "competition" means setting the same price for the same speed and the same packages. I thought free markets would take care of this, but I guess they're drowning in debt and can't lower the price any further. 

Both Floridians too! What is HughesNet? Never heard of them.

[ARikozuM]

7 minutes ago, SenpaiKaplan said:

Both Floridians too! What is HughesNet? Never heard of them.

I haven't either until I started shopping. I only have three choices, and they all do 100/100 for about $100/mo (internet only). There's a point where the free market needs gov't pressure applied. 

[SenKa]

3 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

I haven't either until I started shopping. I only have three choices, and they all do 100/100 for about $100/mo (internet only). There's a point where the free market needs gov't pressure applied. 

I only have Frontier... Spectrum has iffy at best service, and non-existent at worst. Absolute best anybody can get here is 200/200, and its outlandishly expensive and for businesses only. It tops at 100/100 for me.

[Drak3]

24 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

There's a point where the free market needs gov't pressure applied.

Gov't pressure is what caused the issue.

[ARikozuM]

10 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Gov't pressure is what caused the issue.

Gov't protection and subsidies is what caused the issue. 

[mr moose]

26 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Gov't pressure is what caused the issue.

Gov't intervention in Australia has resulted in all NBN users having the choice of more than 150 different ISP's.  (I know they are RSP's but I don't want to confuse the discussion).

[Drak3]

Just now, mr moose said:

Gov't intervention in Australia has resulted in all NBN users having the choice of more than 150 different ISP's. 

Gov't intervention in the US has resulted in these psuedo monopolies.

 

Australia and the US are not directly comparable without taking into consideration populous and the differing traits between them.

[ARikozuM]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Gov't intervention in the US has resulted in these psuedo monopolies.

 

Australia and the US are not directly comparable without taking into consideration populous and the differing traits between them.

What traits? Australia and America have varied populations, large stretches of land with a few packed spots and large metro areas, and have more than enough money to be a free market. 

 

Edit: Also, why does race and gender ever matter when it comes to internet service discussion? It doesn't. 

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Australia and America have varied populations

The US far, far more so.

 

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

large stretches of land with a few packed spots and large metro areas,

The US has large stretches of land between metro and suburban areas. Australia has a few metro hotspots in a single dense area.

 

4 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

have more than enough money to be a free market. 

Free market is not dictated by the amount of money a country has. The US does not have a free market in the internet service realm.

[Crossbred]

Only 4 justices needed to vote yea to let it be heard but go off about kavanough I guess...

[DrMacintosh]

3 minutes ago, Crossbred said:

Only 4 justices needed to vote yea to let it be heard but go off about kavanough I guess...

All justices cast a vote on the case. I already explained why I singled him out. 

[mr moose]

34 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The US far, far more so.

 

The US has large stretches of land between metro and suburban areas. Australia has a few metro hotspots in a single dense area.

 

Free market is not dictated by the amount of money a country has. The US does not have a free market in the internet service realm.

You have 24 Million in Areas far smaller than the most densely populated city in Australia.  You literally have the significant upper hand in population density to have more than 2 options.   Even if we squeezed the entire Australian population into an area the size of California, we still would have 13Million less people in there.

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You have 24 Million in Areas far smaller than the most densely populated city in Australia.

And?

 

We also have areas on the opposite end of the spectrum.

 

 

In contrast:

 

[mr moose]

Just now, Drak3 said:

And?

 

We also have areas on the opposite end of the spectrum.

 

 

In contrast:

 

Your maps prove my point.  The US can't provide people with more than 2 options in places that are significantly more densely populated than any area of Australia.   If competition isn't doing the job when you have more customers per sqr K than we do then there is something wrong with your system.  

[Drak3]

Just now, mr moose said:

then there is something wrong with your system.  

Yes, excessive government regulation.

 

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Your maps prove my point.

Not really. Your point, taken at face value, is the US' population is denser, end of story.

 

When that's only true of a handful of places that are shotgunned across the country.

 

 

And going off of your history, reading into your arguments at anything beyond face value is a waste of my time.

[SenKa]

3 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

All justices cast a vote on the case. I already explained why I singled him out. 

You didn't even need to explain. When referencing a legal case it is common practice to reference the judge who delivers the majority and minority rules rather than every judge on each side. If I were writing a paper on Engel vs Vitale would I then have to mention specifically that Honorable Judges Black, Warren, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, and Brennan held the opinion that reciting a government written prayer in a public school was an unconstitutional violation of the 1st amendments guarantees to freedom of religious practice? No. Thats stupid. I would explain that Honorable Judge Black's majority stated that blah blah blah.

 

I personally think the quotes around honorable do little to add to the conversation other than to stir up the salt you have already felt the brunt of, but people are just being triggered because you're a Californian and they are assuming you're some easily triggered millennial Starbucks liberal hippie to poke fun at like everybody does outside of the liberal west when they see a Californian .

[thorhammerz]

21 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Yes, excessive government regulation.

You should move north of the border if you want to see what "excessive government regulation" looks like .

[Drak3]

Just now, thorhammerz said:

You should move north of the border if you want to see what "excessive government regulation" looks like .

I could move to the burning shit storm that is Commiefornia.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Yes, excessive government regulation.

 

Not really. Your point, taken at face value, is the US' population is denser, end of story.

Pretty much that is all there is to it,  higher density means more customers means faster ROI.

 

Quote

When that's only true of a handful of places that are shotgunned across the country.

Even if it is only true in one place, it still proves it's true.  Just because arid deserts don't have enough people to pay for more ISP's doesn't change the fact that your heavily populated areas do.   If you live in a truly capitalist democratic country then why are there only two options?

 

Quote

 

And going off of your history, reading into your arguments at anything beyond face value is a waste of my time.

why's that?

 

5 hours ago, SenpaiKaplan said:

You didn't even need to explain. When referencing a legal case it is common practice to reference the judge who delivers the majority and minority rules rather than every judge on each side. If I were writing a paper on Engel vs Vitale would I then have to mention specifically that Honorable Judges Black, Warren, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, and Brennan held the opinion that reciting a government written prayer in a public school was an unconstitutional violation of the 1st amendments guarantees to freedom of religious practice? No. Thats stupid. I would explain that Honorable Judge Black's majority stated that blah blah blah.

 

I personally think the quotes around honorable do little to add to the conversation other than to stir up the salt you have already felt the brunt of, but people are just being triggered because you're a Californian and they are assuming you're some easily triggered millennial Starbucks liberal hippie to poke fun at like everybody does outside of the liberal west when they see a Californian .

 

I'm Australian, I don't care about California or any other specific part of the US,  When someone says that judge A had the deciding vote and the reality is they were always going  to vote for, then no, that judge did not have the deciding vote.  The deciding vote has to have been the last voter to tip the result.   

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and unless you have some sort of objective high ground then calling others opinions as salty is somewhat a salty post.