No offence was intended, and I hope none taken 
2 Likes
Correct. Businesses have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders.
Long story short. If the investors aren’t happy with a stock’s performance they sell it. If this happens enough the board may change the leadership of the corporation, etc.
If Apple restricts which apps can run on the device, seems to circumvent the intent of the law…
Yup. Practically speaking, that typically translates to “maximizing shareholder value.” Toss “sustainably” in front of those three words, and if management doesn’t do it, they’re likely to be in trouble with shareholders…at least in the average business.
Just out of interest, Apple does that on Safari a lot with me, ‘this website isn’t safe’ and then ‘do you want to proceed’. I have to say some of the sites I am accessing are just boring old academics who don’t really know much IT but I usually turn back. I know sites can be hijacked and the last time I did this, for a very in the weeds, question about biology, I got a flashing McAfee nonsense, I was able to close it before clicking anything more. Should I always turn back at those warnings?
There are numerous concepts relevant to this discussion that often get overlooked. This includes the necessity and intention behind anti-trust laws. Trustbusting is not a novel practice; however, the current debate surrounding the implementation of antitrust laws primarily concerns the actual harm inflicted on the public. Simplistic statements like ‘don’t buy the product; they are a business’ overlook the intricate nature of these issues and many crucial underlying concepts, such as:
The problem of marketplace owners competing against market sellers is significant. Companies like Apple, Amazon, and Google control their respective marketplaces (like the App Store) while also competing with sellers in those markets. A prime example is Apple with Apple Music versus Spotify. Apple has intricate insights into users’ search, listening, and purchasing habits on the App Store, which it doesn’t share with competitors like Spotify, using this information to enhance its own products. Simultaneously, it handicaps competitors like Spotify by taking a 30% cut of their revenue. This issue would be less significant if Apple solely operated the marketplace without competing within it.
The ‘too big to fail’ dilemma also warrants attention. Apple and Google are virtually the only viable options for mobile operating systems, with Apple being the preferred choice for those prioritizing privacy. When companies reach such magnitude, individual consumers and the public cannot effectively challenge them. This is when government intervention becomes crucial to protect smaller entities and the public from these corporate giants.
Additionally, governments’ role in allowing large companies like Apple to continue acquiring smaller rivals and potential challengers must be scrutinized.
Lastly, opting for the lesser of two evils does not equate to endorsing the selected company. I am thrilled by the FTC’s current direction and hopeful that they can halt and reverse the consolidation trend prevalent not just in tech, but in nearly every industry sector.
4 Likes
Well like concentration there now! I agree with you. Apple is interesting actually and very unusual during the Jobs years, however now I think it is ‘just a company’ and as you say a duopoly. As usual we pay for a lot beyond the actual cost of the product via Government. Some of the world’s biggest chip buyers, including Apple Inc, Microsoft Corp and Alphabet Inc’s Google, are joining top chip-makers such as Intel Corp to create a new lobbying group to press for government chip manufacturing subsidies.The newly formed Semiconductors in America Coalition. That was from a year or so ago. I could go on. I see a place for markets. I guess you and I meet in the middle I come from it at the other end of the spectrum. Planned Economy; also disillusioned.
I am, let’s be clear, an Apple fan boi, mostly for the apps on Mac now though. I am a big podcast user too and that is really what I use the iPhone for really. The watch I underuse and find no use for most of its features.
1 Like
Looks like the rumors about 27% outside the App Store were not true.
Also game streaming will be allowed worldwide.
I think this will be the only time where EU users experience a novelty on iOS before the English speaking world 
. I am curious how much of a difference a different mobile browser engine will make.
2 Likes
For battery life you mean? 
1 Like
Hopefully a lot. Whether we like it or not, most of the world uses Chrome. Some sites don’t work correctly in Safari
1 Like
From My hardware hubby “I wish Chrome would do what Firefox Did”
1 Like
+1
I use Safari and Firefox exclusively. I started to resent Chrome when the corporate web apps where I worked began to require it. And resentment morphed into hate as Google tried to break the web in various ways to the benefit of their own web browser. The smell of Chrome began to suggest the stench of Microsoft Internet Explorer. 
5 Likes
What would you consider to be a fair fee to Apple for these services?
I agree Apple should allow developers to offer that choice, so long as said developer is required to offer the customer the choice to use IAP.
It wasn’t that long ago the favorite pairing in the press was “beleaguered Apple”.
So when a company doesn’t find success they’re the whipping boy and if they pull themselves out of the ashes and do well suddenly their the anti-competitive grinch of a company.
1 Like