All these coalition people believe in is trying to get their way through lawsuits and whining to congress. They are just as bad as patent trolls.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Senator Calls AirTags Release 'Timely' as App Store Antitrust Hearing Kicks Off
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are not forced to use the Apple Store. You can easily go somewhere else. Are you partitioning to open up the software on your car or your tv? How about your Alexa device so third parties can have unlimited access to your home devices.
If that is your desire please go and take tile with you. Real Apple customers by our devices because of the way the systems are designed and protected. It makes us more comfortable buying more and more gear.
What you are partitioning for is the exact thing we do not want and why we avoid Android like The plague it is.
So the Apple option will be better and cheaper?
How is that even slightly related to anti-competition laws? Maybe sometimes it is better to get something of liberal education rather than to allowing winy engineers to trade in politics and consumer information.
Who is ”we”. Speak for yourself. You don’t speak for everyone.
We are inching closer and closer to communism where government controls everything.
Or buy the competition like Apple, Google, Facebook, etc all do.
Or buy up all the lobbyists to get new laws shut down like Apple did recently.
How many politicians does Apple have in its pocket?
Last edited:
Took the words right out of my mouth (fingers).
In previous years, one learned that a successful business comes from innovation, clever and unique marketing, competitive pricing and availability, and, most importantly, customer satisfaction. Now, however, things have drastically changed.
These days, innovation has been replaced by replication, as most companies seem to “piggy-back” on others’ successes.
Their ideas (that are not limited to one company, by the way) of innovation are simply painting over and old logo, tweaking the internals just enough to differentiate from the original, or in this case, replicate a successful App Store.
Of course healthy competition is better for everyone because it fuels innovation, pricing, availability and, finally, customer satisfaction that I’ve mentioned before. But when another company cannot compete, the end result shouldn’t be defaulted to lawsuits, accusations, or, at worst, government “investigation”.
Whether or not you agree with Apple or Google’s cut from their stores is up to you, but I think we all would be better off proving our loyalty to our respective companies of choice by voting with OUR wallets, instead of greedy lawyers and lobbyists with tax payers’ money to burn.
TLDR: If you can’t compete, get better at it until you can, and leave the courtrooms for more important things.
Last edited:
Whatever happens, I just hope it's applied evenly to all companies and that it's an option, not set by default, to disable the security of the system. For instance, I can't install whatever I want on my Switch, Xbox Series X or PS5. It's going to be fun to watch the prices of all this stuff skyrocket if this happens, lol. Hope people get what they want!
How can I compete with Microsoft if I want to make my own operating systems? We still can’t punish businesses because they are successful.
My thoughts as well... I used to think she was a smart senator – judging by her performance and points of view in some Trump-related hearings. Now I think she just likes power, no matter what the cause.
Apple does not have any kind of monopoly, just superior products and a (mostly) proprietary ecosystem for their own products. It benefits their customers with unmatched safety and user experience. The competition is free to outdo them, if they have what it takes to do better.
I just live watched the US senate hearing, it was nice. They are totally aware of side loading and taking this possibility into account, great, I’m optimistic that Apple and Google will face plant hard.
Apple's thinking is this:
* We want to protect our valued consumers within our ecosystem from bad software.
* Even with their protections in place, nefarious wares have crept in.
* Anyone can sell or offer free software through their app store, which is the security mechanism.
* In exchange for sparing providers the overhead of hosting and marketing software, Apple charges a rather standard commission rate that their consumers are willing to pay.
* If consumers choose to get apps outside of the app store, they can.
* Again, let me say that again: You can get apps outside of the Apple app store ecosystem.
* To do so may involve risk - it's up to you.
* What Apple asks its providers is not unreasonable.
* Instead, that Apple's critics accuse Apple of is pure greed for collecting commissions - with little to no regard for what Apple does with its profits to create jobs, invest in green technologies, improve conditions where they can, and contribute to a better world.
They say things like...
> Anyone should be able to offer their software to Apple users however they want - without Apple taking a cut.
> Apple shouldn't enforce such draconian policies for providers to get to those consumers.
> Apple shouldn't demand such staunch security - and now, privacy - measures of their providers.
> Apple's practices are effectively incriminating providers who don't mean any harm and just want access to those customers more directly.
Hmmmm.
Really, I'm not going for a political bent here but a psychological one (maybe?).
Why are there these parallels between Apple's critics and those who are hyper-critical of legal immigration and regulated borders? Again, not to be political at all.
But rather, could it be that there's a growing sentiment of entitlement that says having standards - even those designed for quality, security, and even privacy - are an affront to the larger community?
I really don't know, but I'm deeply concerned at some - not all - of the criticisms Apple faces. They're increasingly familiar and not all seem to come from a simply, genuine motive.
* We want to protect our valued consumers within our ecosystem from bad software.
* Even with their protections in place, nefarious wares have crept in.
* Anyone can sell or offer free software through their app store, which is the security mechanism.
* In exchange for sparing providers the overhead of hosting and marketing software, Apple charges a rather standard commission rate that their consumers are willing to pay.
* If consumers choose to get apps outside of the app store, they can.
* Again, let me say that again: You can get apps outside of the Apple app store ecosystem.
* To do so may involve risk - it's up to you.
* What Apple asks its providers is not unreasonable.
* Instead, that Apple's critics accuse Apple of is pure greed for collecting commissions - with little to no regard for what Apple does with its profits to create jobs, invest in green technologies, improve conditions where they can, and contribute to a better world.
They say things like...
> Anyone should be able to offer their software to Apple users however they want - without Apple taking a cut.
> Apple shouldn't enforce such draconian policies for providers to get to those consumers.
> Apple shouldn't demand such staunch security - and now, privacy - measures of their providers.
> Apple's practices are effectively incriminating providers who don't mean any harm and just want access to those customers more directly.
Hmmmm.
Really, I'm not going for a political bent here but a psychological one (maybe?).
Why are there these parallels between Apple's critics and those who are hyper-critical of legal immigration and regulated borders? Again, not to be political at all.
But rather, could it be that there's a growing sentiment of entitlement that says having standards - even those designed for quality, security, and even privacy - are an affront to the larger community?
I really don't know, but I'm deeply concerned at some - not all - of the criticisms Apple faces. They're increasingly familiar and not all seem to come from a simply, genuine motive.
Macrumors is slow at writing today, no updated news with content of the hearing.
I liked how she lead the hearing and focused to the important things. Apple had nothing to put against the facts that was put on the table, except their blah blah the usual marketing rhetorical shizzle.
I liked how she lead the hearing and focused to the important things. Apple had nothing to put against the facts that was put on the table, except their blah blah the usual marketing rhetorical shizzle.
I'm just concerned that people who want apple and google to take a beating are okay when it doesn't happen. And any law that is put into effect can face legal challenges. So word to the wise...don't count your chickens, we don't want to see a lot of ? around here.
They will, at the one or the other way.
Apple won’t escape this, it’s just a question of how many blue eyes they’ll get, one or two with a broken nose on top. And when this all ends, they’ll keep watching them. And todays hearing didn’t sound very pro Apple. Wait until the EU antitrust also starts, Apple will get a huge hit. I already see some sort of side loading coming.
She even used the word “side loading”, they are fully aware.
Likes, +1
We’ll we could certainly trade banter until the cows come home. But as I said don’t take a bet at your local bookie just yet:
Totally okay as long it’s a decision made under a fully competitive healthy market. What’s crap for you, is not crap for others, and vise versa.
Isn’t the actual complaint from Tile that Apple disabled their ability to use Bluetooth in the background which renders their “network” functionality obsolete, so they now have to pick between their now hobbled app or the find my network which they can’t monetize?
Haha. #ImWithAmy - why does my Tile tracker only work with the Tile app? I want my Tile to work on all apps and my other trackers to work on Tile. Stop being anti-competitive, Tile!
/s
Wow! she used a term. You or I have no idea if she, or any other senators actually understand what it means.