Facebook follows Fortnite and blames Apple for hurting small businesses

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Re: ISPs 

Ah. So conflation then.  Some small thing sometimes is suddenly everywhere always.

 

 Telecoms are regularly threatened with Utility status during DFL administrations (I don’t know what their current ancronym is) generally procedures are started to have them broken up.  The problem is GOP administrations generally ignore such behavior so what the companies generally do is cause delays in the process hoping a GOP administration will come to power and collapse the suit against it.   It’s a problem.  One it seems Elon Musk is going to fix with starlink.  One of the reasons I like the man. That and it seems he makes good cars.  Pity I can’t afford one at the moment. I fear for my Volkswagen.  It is reaching toward EOL at less than 70k miles.  
 

So your statement that “the US government” supports monopolies is only ever occasionally and partially correct for very specific types of business.  We do have one such administration at the moment.  It may be why the Epic Lawsuit is happening.   They might be hoping the administration pulls a stupid they can use against them.  

It's not conflation, it's an example of a government ordained monopoly.  Having apples IP court loss overturned by the POTUS can also be construed as a government ordained advantage to one company.   Saying they exist and is a likely outcome because they have happened in the past is not the same as saying it is wide spread or always happens.

 

My argument is Apple have a history of both having the Government fix their loses and strong wins in the US courts.  Even when the average opinion is that they shouldn't have. Therefore it is likely they will win this one, whether it is just and fair to the industry or not.

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Not at all. Look at Australia. Australia requires you to list the price with VAT included. This has a lot of fun repercussions with auction sites when the seller is outside the country. The winning price has to be the final price exclusive of shipping.

 

Businesses move their HQ to lower tax states/cities/countries entirely to avoid paying high taxes or laws that target them unfairly. Quite honestly take a look at how many businesses are HQ'd in Delaware,  https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/delaware-corporation.asp even though they have little or no presence.

Take note of that third point.

 

This is from LAST YEAR:

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/344071/Apple_is_being_sued_by_iOS_devs_over_profitkilling_App_Store_fees.php

Go read the complaint.

https://www.hbsslaw.com/uploads/case_downloads/apple-dev/2019-06-04-complaint-apple-developers.pdf

 

 

So the entire complaint here is "Apple charges too much" Boo hoo. Ever ask a retailer how much it costs to lease the property? Each of these apps are essentially leasing space on the iOS app store that is 30% of gross earnings, plus a $99 annual fee to hold their space. 

 

IMO an argument can be made that the price is too damn high, but that has to be swung at not just Apple, but Google, Valve, Epic, GoG, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo as well, otherwise it's just targeting Apple for being the biggest kid in the sandbox.

 

You are not reading that right.  The complaint is not that they are charging too much, it is that they are forcing that charge with no alternative.

 

Only a few people are complaining about the 30% sales fee,  everyone else is complaining that there are no alternatives if you have in-app purchases,  apple are forcing all app developers to hand over 30% of their ongoing in-app revenue. That is a fair complaint. 

 

 

 

You guys know that no one is forcing or even asking for apple to stop their store or stop charging the 30%, they are just asking for them to allow alternatives to the app store or drop the restriction on using external payment systems for in-app purchases. 

 

You can have your cake and eat it too.  Those who want to be dry raped by apple can continue to do so, while those who would rather keep a much larger portion of THEIR revenue can setup a paypal account. 

[Roswell]

31 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Righto.  pick and choose.  At this point you are suffering cognitive bias.

 

Good day.

No, I suggest you read what you posted, it made little sense and didn’t prove whatever convoluted point you were trying to make.

 

Businesses are allowed to create their products in a closed or open matter. That’s life, that’s business. It’s their product. The fact that you think that Apple or anyone else has an obligation to open up their platform is laughable and shows how little you understand the matter at hand.

 

Maybe you should write to your local representatives about how you think it’s not fair that your smart refrigerator isn’t an open platform or how Sony won’t let you write your own App Store for your smart TV, lol. 

[Bombastinator]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's not conflation, it's an example of a government ordained monopoly.  Having apples IP court loss overturned by the POTUS can also be construed as a government ordained advantage to one company.   Saying they exist and is a likely outcome because they have happened in the past is not the same as saying it is wide spread or always happens.

 

My argument is Apple have a history of both having the Government fix their loses and strong wins in the US courts.  Even when the average opinion is that they shouldn't have. Therefore it is likely they will win this one, whether it is just and fair to the industry or not.

 

 

 

 

Is conflation. It is specifically against American law and policy.  That some administrations ignore that law and participate in corrupt practices does not make it “government ordained” does make the administrations that refuse to follow their own rules by definition lawbreakers but that’s a different thing. 
 

Is this another argument based on misinterpretation of the way a government works?  I do think that if the current administration dares to pull the kind of thing they are known for in this case they will cause even more massive international reputation damage than they have already.   Doesn’t mean they won’t.  

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Is conflation. It is specifically against American law and policy.  That some administrations ignore that law and participate in corrupt practices does not make it “government ordained” does make the administrations that refuse to follow their own rules by definition lawbreakers but that’s a different thing. 

An example of something that actually happened is not conflation.

 

EDIT: When a government intentionally passes laws that promote a monopoly then that monopoly is government ordained:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190422/09111942060/why-hell-are-states-still-passing-isp-written-laws-banning-community-broadband.shtml

 

and

 

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/2/18/21126347/antitrust-monopolies-internet-telecommunications-cheerleading

Quote

Instead, multiple states (though not New York) have put up roadblocks to municipal broadband to keep cities from providing alternatives to and competing with local entities. It’s an example of lobbying at its finest, so that powerful corporations can keep competitors out and charge whatever they want.

 

[HenrySalayne]

18 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Not at all. Look at Australia. Australia requires you to list the price with VAT included. This has a lot of fun repercussions with auction sites when the seller is outside the country. The winning price has to be the final price exclusive of shipping.

Not at all my point. I know in the USA the sales tax isn't included on the price tag, in most other countries it is. So 9.99 with 30% sales tax included or 9.99 with 5% sales tax included is the same price for the consumer, but entirely different for businesses. That's the point.

 

I will edit my previous comment to clear this up.

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

An example of something that actually happened is not conflation.

 

EDIT: When a government intentionally passes laws that promote a monopoly then that monopoly is government ordained:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190422/09111942060/why-hell-are-states-still-passing-isp-written-laws-banning-community-broadband.shtml

 

and

 

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/2/18/21126347/antitrust-monopolies-internet-telecommunications-cheerleading

 

Re: conflation 

how nice.  And what was that word earlier bandied? Ah yes.  Moot.

 

your statement: “...monopolies are government granted over there”

 

Let’s ignore the first part where you pretended to agree with my statement by choosing a completely different reason than the one I voiced implying it was mine. The pertinent part is  Already existing monopolies in a particular economic niche, while illegal and repetitively attacked BY said government, are stopped periodically from doing so by changes in that government.  This isn’t even a vague support for your statement.  

 

 

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Re: conflation 

how nice.  And what was that word earlier bandied? Ah yes.  Moot.

 

your statement: “...monopolies are government granted over there”

 

Let’s ignore the first part where you pretended to agree with my statement by choosing a completely different reason than the one I voiced implying it was mine. The pertinent part is  Already existing monopolies in a particular economic niche, while illegal and repetitively attacked BY said government, are stopped periodically from doing so by changes in that government.  This isn’t even a vague support for your statement.  

 

 

Are you saying they didn't happen?    I posted proof they happened, ergo claiming it is a monopoly that is government ordained is not made up, and as I said if they can do it for ISP's they can do it for apple.  If the POTUS can ignore the law in favor of apple over IP then the courts can also ignore the law in favor of apple over anti trust.

 

Not sure what your problem is with that concept.

 

 

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Are you saying they didn't happen?    I posted proof they happened, ergo claiming it is a monopoly that is government ordained is not made up, and as I said if they can do it for ISP's they can do it for apple.  If the POTUS can ignore the law in favor of apple over IP then the courts can also ignore the law in favor of apple over anti trust.

 

Not sure what your problem is with that concept.

 

 

Ah.  answer the question you wished they asked rather than the one they actually did.  Seen that tactic before.   It’s called “beating around the bush” 

 

You are referring to the edit posted after I made my statement where you flip to state level stuff after going federal, and ignore the uproar it caused in the rest of the country, pretending it was generally considered OK. So a whole other new conflation.  Federal level vs state level because “government” can be a vague term.  Was the law you are talking about which I believe was pushed through in North Carolina by a gop group thought of as OK by the rest of the country?  No.  The people who did it mostly resigned in dis race and the state is looking to likely swap majority parties as well.  You don’t mention the state in that one though.  You use the example and then name different things in different bluer states hoping to confuse the issue. 
 

[mr moose]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

Ah.  answer the question you wished they asked rather than the one they actually did.  Seen that tactic before.   It’s called “beating around the bush” 

 

You are referring to the edit posted after I made my statement where you flip to state level stuff after going federal, and ignore the uproar it caused in the rest of the country, pretending it was generally considered OK. So a whole other new conflation.  Federal level vs state level because “government” can be a vague term.  Was the law you are talking about which I believe was pushed through in North Carolina by a gop group thought of as OK by the rest of the country?  No.  The people who did it mostly resigned in dis race and the state is looking to likely swap majority parties as well.  You don’t mention the state in that one though.  You use the example and then name different things in different bluer states hoping to confuse the issue. 
 

What the fuck are you talking about? I've been saying the same thing the whole way along.

 

The US has demonstrated government ordained monopolies before, it will be of no surprise to me if they do it again, either through the courts or the POTUS. 

 

Not exactly an earth shattering conclusion to draw.

[Bombastinator]

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What the fuck are you talking about? I've been saying the same thing the whole way along.

 

The US has demonstrated government ordained monopolies before, it will be of no surprise to me if they do it again, either through the courts or the POTUS. 

 

Not exactly an earth shattering conclusion to draw.

Re: what the fuck are you talking about? 
 

Sounds like a quote from a famous American radio personality. I believe his catch phrase is “what on earth are you babbling about” but its effectively the same.  I personally take it as a sign of a battle lost.   When one has to pretend that the other argument didn’t make sense it generally means it’s unavoidable and the only defense is straight up delusion. 

more: saying the same thing the whole way along.
You have.  Sort of.  The first stance was shown to be false, and you squirmed to a new stance through an edit, which was also shown to be beset with very similar and equally fatal if slightly different problems.  So now you claim that the squirming shows that the first statement and the second statement are what? Both now true?  That you never took the first stance to begin with and even though the problems with the first apply to the second in equally damaging but different way that it was what you meant all along and it must be true?  Nope. 
 

re: ordained monopolies 

I think you may mean condoned.  A very different word than ordained which is to bring into existence, rather than condone, which is to allow to continue to exist.  In this particular case it would be inconsistently condone. 
 

re: your surprise

I think that while you might not be surprised your reasoning is misplaced. 
 

re: conclusion

a false one though. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Re: what the fuck are you talking about? 
 

Sounds like a quote from a famous American radio personality. I believe his catch phrase is “what on earth are you babbling about” but its effectively the same.  I personally take it as a sign of a battle lost.   When one has to pretend that the other argument didn’t make sense it generally means it’s unavoidable and the only defense is straight up delusion. 

 

In my head I had "woch you talking 'bout WIllis!"  different strokes reference.

 

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

more: saying the same thing the whole way along.
You have.  Sort of.  The first stance was shown to be false, and you squirmed to a new stance through an edit, which was also shown to be beset with very similar and equally fatal if slightly different problems.  So now you claim that the squirming shows that the first statement and the second statement are what? Both now true?  That you never took the first stance to begin with and even though the problems with the first apply to the second in equally damaging but different way that it was what you meant all along and it must be true?  Nope. 
 

re: ordained monopolies 

I think you may mean condoned.  A very different word than ordained which is to bring into existence, rather than condone, which is to allow to continue to exist.  In this particular case it would be inconsistently condone. 
 

I don't understand what was wrong with my initial claims and statements. They mean the same thing I said in the end too. The government (state governments) brought into law a condition that barred municipalities from competing with big ISP's. I think the use of the word ordained is very appropriate.

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

re: your surprise

I think that while you might not be surprised your reasoning is misplaced. 
 

again, I don't see why.  Clearly you have a different take on what these things mean, for me it just means anything is possible and apple get way more breaks from the government and the legal system than many smaller or foreign businesses.

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

re: conclusion

a false one though. 

It's only wrong if A it doesn't happen or B. you think something different (in which case it is just different not wrong).

 

 

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

In my head I had "woch you talking 'bout WIllis!"  different strokes reference.

 

I don't understand what was wrong with my initial claims and statements. They mean the same thing I said in the end too. The government (state governments) brought into law a condition that barred municipalities from competing with big ISP's. I think the use of the word ordained is very appropriate.

again, I don't see why.  Clearly you have a different take on what these things mean, for me it just means anything is possible and apple get way more breaks from the government and the legal system than many smaller or foreign businesses.

It's only wrong if A it doesn't happen or B. you think something different (in which case it is just different not wrong).

 

 

Re: different strokes 

I recall the chart yet said that when it turned out something was not the way the character thought it was. 
 

re: Initial claims

I personally am not even aware what those are specifically. There were two parts to this.  Lately I was concentrating on the second one which was a statement made about the behavior of the United States. which I quoted at one point I think. Your initial arguments were a separate set.

 

re: ordained 

and I think I showed it to be false.  Condoned is  at least arguably accurate.  Ordained is not. Ordination is an act of creation. Condonement is an act of continuation.  Condoned is pretty bad.  Inconsistently condoned means at least some part of the country was fighting against it, though unsuccessfully.  The ISPs you speak of were originally cable TV companies which were mostly the leftovers of the broken ma bell, along with other losers in the phone wars of the 80’s. You want ordained you’re going to have to go back 30 years.  long before there even was an Internet.  Might such things have been stopped then? Possibly.  20/20 hindsight can be a handy thing.  I personally did not approve back then, and that the fingerlings grew to serpents that gnaw at the foundations of the very nation is horrifying, but they were not ordained.  They were attacked repetitively but condoned often enough to grow to become dangerous. 
 

re: apple

well there’s a switch. A fairly welcome one.  Apple is not an isp.  It is a large company that is good at playing the game.  It was never involved in the telephone isp crap.  The only really iffy thing I recall about apple was when it stole its GUI from xerox who created it.  That was back in the 80’s though.  Between the appleiii and Lisa.  Is this about acorn or Sinclair or psion?  Apple didn’t have very much to do with the demise of any of them.  Psion I remember died mostly because of a design issue with their screen cable and their refusal against all reason to continue to making their machines with their at the time industry leading keyboard.  They just stopped.  I don’t know why.  Acorns aways just always sucked and Sinclairs  had severe power and keyboard issues.  Those were not favoritism they were crap engineering choices.   
 

there were some legal battles, many of which Apple lost.  The GUI war with microsoft it lost so bad it nearly stopped existing.  There were some copywrite battles it did win.  Is this the “favorable treatment” you are alluding to? Trying to make already failed arguments about Apple records live again?  Pear computing was long before Apple records.  They attempted to steal just about everything Apple had.  It’s entire IP set, while forcing them to continue to develop it for the gain of the other company.  They did win that one. I don’t remember whether pear was foreign or domestic. Apple legal was more or less a powerhouse ever since pear.  That was a long ugly battle they fought. 
 

re: it’s only wrong

thats not how logic works.  That’s even a very specific logical fallacy.  I had those all memorized long ago.  They’re eluding me.  I can’t remember the name. I should brush up again. Doesn’t help that it’s 3am.  I’ll have to leave that last bit for a proper burial. I’m going to bed.
 

 

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Re: different strokes 

I recall the chart yet said that when it turned out something was not the way the character thought it was. 
 

re: Initial claims

I personally am not even aware what those are specifically. There were two parts to this.  Lately I was concentrating on the second one which was a statement made about the behavior of the United States. which I quoted at one point I think. Your initial arguments were a separate set.

 

re: ordained 

and I think I showed it to be false.  Condoned is  at least arguably accurate.  Ordained is not. Ordination is an act of creation. Condonement is an act of continuation.  Condoned is pretty bad.  Inconsistently condoned means at least some part of the country was fighting against it, though unsuccessfully.  The ISPs you speak of were originally cable TV companies which were mostly the leftovers of the broken ma bell, along with other losers in the phone wars of the 80’s. You want ordained you’re going to have to go back 30 years.  long before there even was an Internet.  Might such things have been stopped then? Possibly.  20/20 hindsight can be a handy thing.  I personally did not approve back then, and that the fingerlings grew to serpents that gnaw at the foundations of the very nation is horrifying, but they were not ordained.  They were attacked repetitively but condoned often enough to grow to become dangerous. 
 

re: apple

well there’s a switch. A fairly welcome one.  Apple is not an isp.  It is a large company that is good at playing the game.  It was never involved in the telephone isp crap.  The only really iffy thing I recall about apple was when it stole its GUI from xerox who created it.  That was back in the 80’s though.  Between the appleiii and Lisa.  Is this about acorn or Sinclair or psion?  Apple didn’t have very much to do with the demise of any of them.  Psion I remember died mostly because of a design issue with their screen cable and their refusal against all reason to continue to making their machines with their at the time industry leading keyboard.  They just stopped.  I don’t know why.  Acorns aways just always sucked and Sinclairs  had severe power and keyboard issues.  Those were not favoritism they were crap engineering choices.   
 

there were some legal battles, many of which Apple lost.  The GUI war with microsoft it lost so bad it nearly stopped existing.  There were some copywrite battles it did win.  Is this the “favorable treatment” you are alluding to? Trying to make already failed arguments about Apple records live again?  Pear computing was long before Apple records.  They attempted to steal just about everything Apple had.  It’s entire IP set, while forcing them to continue to develop it for the gain of the other company.  They did win that one. I don’t remember whether pear was foreign or domestic. Apple legal was more or less a powerhouse ever since pear.  That was a long ugly battle they fought. 
 

re: it’s only wrong

thats not how logic works.  That’s even a very specific logical fallacy.  I had those all memorized long ago.  They’re eluding me.  I can’t remember the name. I should brush up again. Doesn’t help that it’s 3am.  I’ll have to leave that last bit for a proper burial. I’m going to bed.
 

 

two things,

1.  ordained means to make something official, the governments in the US made it officially illegal for municipalities to build isp's. 

It is not inaccurate to say the government ordained a monopoly. I'm not discussing this part anymore. its not even worth debating.

2. If presented with data that leads me to a conclusion, then I am presented with data that leads me to a conclusion, you cannot tell me I didn't draw that conclusion when I did.  It's my conclusion to draw from the information I have.

 

What happens moving forward is anyone's guess. however I have concluded that in my mind the most likely outcome is apple will win for the reasons I have already presented.

 

 

[NeuesTestament]

This is probably getting a lot more interesting than I thought initially. Form an anti trust perspective Apple might get in some trouble with how they handle the AppStore.

[Video Beagle]

FTR: the term is "licensed monopolies", which exist because it's in the "public's interest."   For example, a cable company has a licensed monopoly to supply service to a city, because it is in the public's interest to not have multiple companies tearing up the streets to lay their own cable.

 

As with all things in the law, the validity of this supposition can be debated... and as with all things in the law, can be used against it's intended purpose (which I imagine is the case in the community broadband issues mentioned above).

[Bombastinator]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

two things,

1.  ordained means to make something official, the governments in the US made it officially illegal for municipalities to build isp's. 

It is not inaccurate to say the government ordained a monopoly. I'm not discussing this part anymore. its not even worth debating.

2. If presented with data that leads me to a conclusion, then I am presented with data that leads me to a conclusion, you cannot tell me I didn't draw that conclusion when I did.  It's my conclusion to draw from the information I have.

 

What happens moving forward is anyone's guess. however I have concluded that in my mind the most likely outcome is apple will win for the reasons I have already presented.

 

 

Ordain:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ordained#
So in  at least one state that I know of (You claim a few more as well, but are not specific).a law was ordained preventing state owned enterprise from being created.  This as a side effect condoned an existing monopoly by preventing a city from creating a municipal network.  It did not specifically create that monopoly, it was already in place. It did not prevent groups other than state or city level municipalities from creating isp networks.  It was An act that so angered the populace of that state that many of the politician of that state that participated are losing or have lost their jobs.  That municipal networks already do exist in other cities in other states you choose to ignore.   This you take as evidence of federal rather than state level action, and apply it to a totally different section of government.  
 

Is it evidence of massive corruption of the government of that state? Oh yes.  Does the current US federal government also have similar corruption problems? I would say that is likely till nov3, possibly longer depending.  Do US citizens have an unusual amount of trouble controlling their government currently? Yep.  Might such an action be taken to by the federal government to control such a thing? It is not impossible. It would be political suicide but it isn’t any more impossible than it would be for any other federal government of any other nation. 

Does this show evidence of a history of favoritism to a particular specific company as you claim?  Nope. 
 

if such a thing did come to pass would it be because of the reasons that you claim?  Nope, because the reasons you claimed were never true in the first place. 

[Bombastinator]

14 minutes ago, Dean0919 said:

It's because it's Apple. I'm pretty sure all the people who are defending this monopolistic action from Apple, own Apple products.

Thereby also saying that all the people who are making the monopoly argument don’t and that the whole thing is fanboy oriented one way or the other.  Not impossible I suppose.  Makes you one of the fanboys though thereby reducing the value of your own statement to near zero.   It becomes a question of whether or not US courts are still capable of determining the actual state of the situation and delivering justice.  Huge attempts have been made by political groups in the US to arrange this.  The statement that any finding by such a court that does not agree with your view is evidence that they were successful in destroying the court system does not follow though.  Partially because of your statement of your own fanboyhood.