Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: Justice Department files antitrust suit against Apple
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 11:08:01 +1300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <utnjs1$3svru$1@dont-email.me>
References: <xn0ojl66a1q9nyc005@reader443.eternal-september.org> <utmgfo$3kegg$1@dont-email.me> <-bCcnWvtgscvkWL4nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@supernews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5a984f0d5d85315821ad0dbe233910a6";
	logging-data="4095870"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18f/j2ol0oySY3nAvxZOJ4ZBZ93zwjo+Bk="
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mvqjS2HgrJiTVNK6YA+2eB+MnD0=
Bytes: 3793

On 2024-03-23 17:09:06 +0000, Tyrone said:

> On Mar 23, 2024 at 8:04:08 AM EDT, "Oliver" <ollie@invalid.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:23:05 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote
>> 
>>>> And even if they WERE "anti-consumer" (whatever you imagine that means), what
>>>> law does that break?
>>> 
>>> Yep. And for those who don't like Apple's devices or rules, there are
>>> plenty of other companies out there selling similar products - just
>>> shut your big mouths and go and buy one of those instead.
>> 
>> Apple makes far more money by being anti-consumer than by abiding by laws.
> 
> You keep saying that, but it makes no sense. And AGAIN, what laws is Apple not
> abiding? Because YOU don't like Apple does not mean they are breaking any
> laws.
> 
> Apple is a consumer products company.  They are selling directly to consumers.
>  How do you sell consumer products to consumers (who line up to buy your
> products, BTW) AND be "anti-consumer" at the same time?
> 
> If Apple truly WAS "anti-consumer", then NO ONE WOULD BUY THE PRODUCTS. Do you
> understand simple logic?
> 
> This DOJ case is all based on competitors whining that it is too difficult for
> them to make money selling software/whatever to Apple's customers. Well boo
> hoo. Apple is like 25% of the global market for phones and PCs. Try selling
> your stuff to the 75% of the market.
> 
> Or feel free to create your own phones/tablets/desktops/ecosystem and make
> your money from your own products. Not just leeching from other company's
> products.
> 
> U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers.  Not competitors. So this
> case actually has no merit at all. Apple is NOT a "monopoly" in any market it
> competes in. There are PLENTY of choices besides Apple. Competitors whining
> that "Apple is not playing fair" is going to go nowhere. Remember, the U.S.
> Supreme Court declined to even hear the appeal in the Epic/Apple trial.
> Because it amounted to 1 company (Epic) whining about the contract THAT THEY
> SIGNED with Apple.
> 
> If you don't like the terms and conditions of the contract, THEN DON'T SIGN
> IT. If you don't like Apple THEN DON'T BUY AN IPHONE. Neither is grounds for a
> lawyers to get involved.

Epic wants to sell to Apple users on Apple's App Store, but don't want 
to pay for doing so.

Epic has now opened it's own App Store, and guess what ... they charge 
people to sell apps on it and basically the same price Apple does. 
Purely two-faced greedy stupidity.  :-\

Plus, if you look on Epic's game store, there is very little there for 
Apple Mac computers (whether that is because they simply don't have 
many Apple compatible games or whether they pulled the Apple versions 
out of spite is an unknown).