5 ms·

Another thread where people will fly to defend Apple and explain how it's circumstances are similar to PS and Xbox and no one is coming after Sony, yet everyone

Another thread where people will fly to defend Apple and explain how it's circumstances are similar to PS and Xbox and no one is coming after Sony, yet everyone conveniently decides not to compare Apple to early 2000s Microsoft which is basically a mirror situation. I guess people "expect" stuff like this from Apple which is the reason we are not allowed to criticize them, yet if Microsoft came out and said Steam breaks their "arbitrary rules" (well they are Microsoft rules, you need to respect them duuh) and kicked Steam off the whole Windows platform, all hell would break loose, people would be screaming for heads to fall..

d1zzy 6y ago
I don't need XBOX or PS5 to defend Apple. I will defend the rights of any non-monopoly (Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the phone market) that created their own hardware, software platform and digital market from scratch, to define their own rules governing said digital market whatsoever. However, do not confuse defending Apple's right to impose their rules with "liking" or "approving" what they do. Just because I believe Apple is in full rights to do all of this I do not like it so as I consumer I vote with my wallet, which is my right to do so just as is their right to impose rules on their platform. A lot of the people riling up against Apple seem to want to have the cake and eat it too. They want partake in the value of the Apple digital platform (both as consumers and developers) but then they want to force Apple to play by their own rules, not Apple's rules. That doesn't seem right to me plus it's just contradictory as it's very likely that Apple being able to enforce their own rules is what created the value of their platform anyway.
- newbie578 6y ago
  I respect your opinion and you have the right to defend any non-monopoly or even a monopoly, that is your basic human right, just know that Apple is not a non-monopoly, we are not looking and talking about worldwide market share, since Apple is based in the U.S. and answers to the U.S. courts, so you have to look at the U.S. market share, which quite in fact to no one's surprise is monopolistic (over 50%) . See Hayden Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Cox Broad. Corp., 730 F.2d 64, 69 n.7 (2d Cir. 1984) ("[A] party may have monopoly power in a particular market, even though its market share is less than 50%."); Broadway Delivery Corp. v. UPS, 651 F.2d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 1981) ("[W]hen the evidence presents a fair jury issue of monopoly power, the jury should not be told that it must find monopoly power lacking below a specified share."); Yoder Bros., Inc. v. Cal.-Fla. Plant Corp., 537 F.2d, 1347, 1367 n.19 (5th Cir. 1976) (rejecting "a rigid rule requiring 50% of the market for a monopolization offense without regard to any other factors"). And even IF Apple has not the dominant market share (which it does), it can still be engaged in anti-competitive practices, which it is currently being trialed for. And last but not least, we (be it me as a consumer, Epic as a company, or Spotify) are not asking Apple to play by our own rules, but by the rules of LAW. I feel like a lot of people are missing this point, this is the reason Epic is taking Apple to court, not because it won't play to Epic's rules but because of free market rules on which this country has been built.
viktorcode 6y ago
When Apple kicks Steam from macOS no one will be defending them. That is as close as your comparison can get.
skc 6y ago
The big difference is Apple products are quite literally beloved. It must feel quite strange to be asked to adjudicate over such complaints when you yourself actually love the products of the company you're supposed to make a ruling on.
- newbie578 6y ago
  I bet there were people who loved using Bell System and people who enjoyed using IE over Netscape, yet we are not judging them based on how loved they are, but are they playing fair, and Apple since it's rise has been anything but.
  - setpatchaddress 6y ago
    Phone service in the US prior to 1983 certainly wasn't adored by users in the way that Apple products are. It wasn't universally reviled, but consumers didn't love it. This SNL skit was not unpopular: https://vimeo.com/355556831 https://vimeo.com/355556831 If you want your arguments to be effective, it may be best to stick to analogies that you have personal experience with unless you've read deeply enough to understand the cultural context.
    - newbie578 6y ago
      I didn't say all people loved Bell Systems, I said there were people (some people doesn't mean 100%) who loved Bell Systems, just like there are people today who hate using Verizon and love using it. And Apple is not universally loved also, no matter how much you adore them, there are people who don't. This youtube parody was also not unpopular: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyTA33HQZLA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyTA33HQZLA And there are plenty of videos similar like this. We can both cherry-pick like this, and my point still stands, I am not arguing which monopoly is loved more, I am arguing what is FAIR before the court of law, not how much developers enjoy WWDC and their Macs.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

d1zzy 6y ago

I don't need XBOX or PS5 to defend Apple. I will defend the rights of any non-monopoly (Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the phone market) that created their own hardware, software platform and digital market from scratch, to define their own rules governing said digital market whatsoever. However, do not confuse defending Apple's right to impose their rules with "liking" or "approving" what they do. Just because I believe Apple is in full rights to do all of this I do not like it so as I consumer I vote with my wallet, which is my right to do so just as is their right to impose rules on their platform. A lot of the people riling up against Apple seem to want to have the cake and eat it too. They want partake in the value of the Apple digital platform (both as consumers and developers) but then they want to force Apple to play by their own rules, not Apple's rules. That doesn't seem right to me plus it's just contradictory as it's very likely that Apple being able to enforce their own rules is what created the value of their platform anyway.

newbie578 6y ago
I respect your opinion and you have the right to defend any non-monopoly or even a monopoly, that is your basic human right, just know that Apple is not a non-monopoly, we are not looking and talking about worldwide market share, since Apple is based in the U.S. and answers to the U.S. courts, so you have to look at the U.S. market share, which quite in fact to no one's surprise is monopolistic (over 50%) . See Hayden Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Cox Broad. Corp., 730 F.2d 64, 69 n.7 (2d Cir. 1984) ("[A] party may have monopoly power in a particular market, even though its market share is less than 50%."); Broadway Delivery Corp. v. UPS, 651 F.2d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 1981) ("[W]hen the evidence presents a fair jury issue of monopoly power, the jury should not be told that it must find monopoly power lacking below a specified share."); Yoder Bros., Inc. v. Cal.-Fla. Plant Corp., 537 F.2d, 1347, 1367 n.19 (5th Cir. 1976) (rejecting "a rigid rule requiring 50% of the market for a monopolization offense without regard to any other factors"). And even IF Apple has not the dominant market share (which it does), it can still be engaged in anti-competitive practices, which it is currently being trialed for. And last but not least, we (be it me as a consumer, Epic as a company, or Spotify) are not asking Apple to play by our own rules, but by the rules of LAW. I feel like a lot of people are missing this point, this is the reason Epic is taking Apple to court, not because it won't play to Epic's rules but because of free market rules on which this country has been built.

viktorcode 6y ago

When Apple kicks Steam from macOS no one will be defending them. That is as close as your comparison can get.

skc 6y ago

The big difference is Apple products are quite literally beloved. It must feel quite strange to be asked to adjudicate over such complaints when you yourself actually love the products of the company you're supposed to make a ruling on.

newbie578 6y ago
I bet there were people who loved using Bell System and people who enjoyed using IE over Netscape, yet we are not judging them based on how loved they are, but are they playing fair, and Apple since it's rise has been anything but.
- setpatchaddress 6y ago
  Phone service in the US prior to 1983 certainly wasn't adored by users in the way that Apple products are. It wasn't universally reviled, but consumers didn't love it. This SNL skit was not unpopular: https://vimeo.com/355556831 https://vimeo.com/355556831 If you want your arguments to be effective, it may be best to stick to analogies that you have personal experience with unless you've read deeply enough to understand the cultural context.
  - newbie578 6y ago
    I didn't say all people loved Bell Systems, I said there were people (some people doesn't mean 100%) who loved Bell Systems, just like there are people today who hate using Verizon and love using it. And Apple is not universally loved also, no matter how much you adore them, there are people who don't. This youtube parody was also not unpopular: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyTA33HQZLA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyTA33HQZLA And there are plenty of videos similar like this. We can both cherry-pick like this, and my point still stands, I am not arguing which monopoly is loved more, I am arguing what is FAIR before the court of law, not how much developers enjoy WWDC and their Macs.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]