https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5S
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.
On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 6:12:01 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-07-19 15:00, Thomas E. wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5S
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.I don't know...
...but on the merits they should lose:
'According to the complaint, which you can read in full below, Apple
makes over $1 billion a year charging credit card companies up to 0.15 percent per transaction in Apple Pay fees, and yet those same card
issuers don’t have to pay anything when their customers use “functionally identical Android wallets.” The suit alleges that Apple violates antitrust law by making it so Apple Pay is the only service
able to carry out NFC payments on its iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches. It also says that Apple prevents card issuers from passing on those fees to customers, which makes it so iPhone owners don’t have any incentive to go find a cheaper payment method.'
Read that again, Liarboy:
'and yet those same card issuers don’t have to pay anything when their customers use “functionally identical Android wallets.”'Zero fees for Android?
Gosh, it sounds more like Google (via Android) is the one who's engaging
in dodgy business practices here: remind me again what it is called when
you deliberately sell a product at less than your own cost because you're trying to use your market power to marginalize/harm a competitor?
-hh
On 2022-07-19 15:00, Thomas E. wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5S
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.I don't know...
...but on the merits they should lose:
'According to the complaint, which you can read in full below, Apple
makes over $1 billion a year charging credit card companies up to 0.15 percent per transaction in Apple Pay fees, and yet those same card
issuers don’t have to pay anything when their customers use “functionally identical Android wallets.” The suit alleges that Apple violates antitrust law by making it so Apple Pay is the only service
able to carry out NFC payments on its iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches.
It also says that Apple prevents card issuers from passing on those fees
to customers, which makes it so iPhone owners don’t have any incentive
to go find a cheaper payment method.'
Read that again, Liarboy:
'and yet those same card issuers don’t have to pay anything when their customers use “functionally identical Android wallets.”'
On 2022-07-19 15:00, Thomas E. wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5S
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.I don't know...
...but on the merits they should lose:
'According to the complaint, which you can read in full below, Apple
makes over $1 billion a year charging credit card companies up to 0.15 percent per transaction in Apple Pay fees, and yet those same card
issuers don’t have to pay anything when their customers use “functionally identical Android wallets.” The suit alleges that Apple violates antitrust law by making it so Apple Pay is the only service
able to carry out NFC payments on its iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches.
It also says that Apple prevents card issuers from passing on those fees
to customers, which makes it so iPhone owners don’t have any incentive
to go find a cheaper payment method.'
Read that again, Liarboy:
'and yet those same card issuers don’t have to pay anything when their customers use “functionally identical Android wallets.”'
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 7:49:00 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 6:12:01 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-07-19 15:00, Thomas E. wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5S
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.I don't know...
...but on the merits they should lose:
'According to the complaint, which you can read in full below, Apple makes over $1 billion a year charging credit card companies up to 0.15 percent per transaction in Apple Pay fees, and yet those same card issuers don’t have to pay anything when their customers use “functionally identical Android wallets.” The suit alleges that Apple
violates antitrust law by making it so Apple Pay is the only service able to carry out NFC payments on its iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches. It also says that Apple prevents card issuers from passing on those fees to customers, which makes it so iPhone owners don’t have any incentive to go find a cheaper payment method.'
Read that again, Liarboy:
'and yet those same card issuers don’t have to pay anything when their customers use “functionally identical Android wallets.”'Zero fees for Android?
Gosh, it sounds more like Google (via Android) is the one who's engaging in dodgy business practices here: remind me again what it is called when you deliberately sell a product at less than your own cost because you're trying to use your market power to marginalize/harm a competitor?
What's it called when you exclude competitors from a market?
Strange that Apple permits apps like browsers, mapping and office productivity where the company does not charge for the app's use.
OTOH competing payment systems are prohibited.
Apple makes money off that one.
Then too there is that whole prohibition on in-app payments that bypass the Apple fees.
Despite Google Pay being free there are alternatives in the Play Store.
On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 6:12:01 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-07-19 15:00, Thomas E. wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5SI don't know...
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.
...but on the merits they should lose:
'According to the complaint, which you can read in full below, Apple
makes over $1 billion a year charging credit card companies up to 0.15
percent per transaction in Apple Pay fees, and yet those same card
issuers don’t have to pay anything when their customers use
“functionally identical Android wallets.” The suit alleges that Apple
violates antitrust law by making it so Apple Pay is the only service
able to carry out NFC payments on its iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches.
It also says that Apple prevents card issuers from passing on those fees
to customers, which makes it so iPhone owners don’t have any incentive
to go find a cheaper payment method.'
Read that again, Liarboy:
'and yet those same card issuers don’t have to pay anything when their
customers use “functionally identical Android wallets.”'
You read it again. It's the companies paying the fees that are filing the complaint.
On 2022-07-20 05:09, Thomas E. wrote:
On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 6:12:01 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-07-19 15:00, Thomas E. wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5S
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too. >> I don't know...
...but on the merits they should lose:
'According to the complaint, which you can read in full below, Apple
makes over $1 billion a year charging credit card companies up to 0.15
percent per transaction in Apple Pay fees, and yet those same card
issuers don’t have to pay anything when their customers use
“functionally identical Android wallets.” The suit alleges that Apple >> violates antitrust law by making it so Apple Pay is the only service
able to carry out NFC payments on its iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches. >> It also says that Apple prevents card issuers from passing on those fees >> to customers, which makes it so iPhone owners don’t have any incentive >> to go find a cheaper payment method.'
Read that again, Liarboy:
'and yet those same card issuers don’t have to pay anything when their >> customers use “functionally identical Android wallets.”'
You read it again. It's the companies paying the fees that are filing the complaint.Why?
Will it change the fact that companies have an option if they don't like Apple's ecosystem?
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 8:08:49 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 7:49:00 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 6:12:01 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-07-19 15:00, Thomas E. wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5S
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.I don't know...
...but on the merits they should lose:
'According to the complaint, which you can read in full below, Apple makes over $1 billion a year charging credit card companies up to 0.15 percent per transaction in Apple Pay fees, and yet those same card issuers don’t have to pay anything when their customers use “functionally identical Android wallets.” The suit alleges that Apple
violates antitrust law by making it so Apple Pay is the only service able to carry out NFC payments on its iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches.
It also says that Apple prevents card issuers from passing on those fees
to customers, which makes it so iPhone owners don’t have any incentive
to go find a cheaper payment method.'
Read that again, Liarboy:
'and yet those same card issuers don’t have to pay anything when theirZero fees for Android?
customers use “functionally identical Android wallets.”'
Gosh, it sounds more like Google (via Android) is the one who's engaging in dodgy business practices here: remind me again what it is called when you deliberately sell a product at less than your own cost because you're
trying to use your market power to marginalize/harm a competitor?
What's it called when you exclude competitors from a market?Since there's Android as a viable (and larger) competitor, there's just not the degree of monopolistic exclusion that you're trying to insinuate.
Likewise, you're deliberately trying to avoid the forest for the trees in recognizing that a secure payment system must have an expense to
secure, yet the biggest vendor is choosing to not pass that expense along, even though their primary competitor does.
Strange that Apple permits apps like browsers, mapping and office productivity where the company does not charge for the app's use.One can notionalize that their expenses are wrapped up in the hardware product price, along with the OS.
OTOH competing payment systems are prohibited.Because of stricter security requirements which incur costs, but more probably because of how the financial credit industry has traditionally structured their revenue payment streams to pay for this infrastructure
on a fee-based business model.
Apple makes money off that one.Apple clearly makes *revenue*, but that alone does not prove that it
nets out to be profitable for them to any significant degree. Got cites
on financials for how much income they actually net off of their payment system?
Then too there is that whole prohibition on in-app payments that bypass the Apple fees.Which again comes back to how the business revenue stream was decided
upon, and put in place in the contract agreements to use their platform.
If one doesn't like the contract terms, one isn't forced to do business with them,
as they're not the sole source of smartphone platform based apps - they can go shop the Android contracts.
Despite Google Pay being free there are alternatives in the Play Store.So what does that prove? The question was never if it was technologically possible or not to have multiple developers, but fundamentally if the downside business risks were a good trade-off vs the increases in
security risks.
To use an analogy, you're trying to claim that because Irving leaves
their doors unlocked, that's proof that no one needs door locks.
-hh
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 9:09:51 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 8:08:49 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 7:49:00 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 6:12:01 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-07-19 15:00, Thomas E. wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5S
Since there's Android as a viable (and larger) competitor, there'sI don't know...Zero fees for Android?
...but on the merits they should lose:
'According to the complaint, which you can read in full
below, Apple makes over $1 billion a year charging credit
card companies up to 0.15 percent per transaction in Apple
Pay fees, and yet those same card issuers don’t have to pay
anything when their customers use “functionally identical
Android wallets.” The suit alleges that Apple violates
antitrust law by making it so Apple Pay is the only service
able to carry out NFC payments on its iPhones, iPads, and
Apple Watches. It also says that Apple prevents card issuers
from passing on those fees to customers, which makes it so
iPhone owners don’t have any incentive to go find a cheaper
payment method.'
Read that again, Liarboy:
'and yet those same card issuers don’t have to pay anything
when their customers use “functionally identical Android
wallets.”'
Gosh, it sounds more like Google (via Android) is the one who's
engaging in dodgy business practices here: remind me again what
it is called when you deliberately sell a product at less than
your own cost because you're trying to use your market power to
marginalize/harm a competitor?
What's it called when you exclude competitors from a market?
just not the degree of monopolistic exclusion that you're trying to
insinuate.
Likewise, you're deliberately trying to avoid the forest for the
trees in recognizing that a secure payment system must have an
expense to secure, yet the biggest vendor is choosing to not pass
that expense along, even though their primary competitor does.
Strange that Apple permits apps like browsers, mapping andOne can notionalize that their expenses are wrapped up in the
office productivity where the company does not charge for the
app's use.
hardware product price, along with the OS.
OTOH competing payment systems are prohibited.Because of stricter security requirements which incur costs, but
more probably because of how the financial credit industry has
traditionally structured their revenue payment streams to pay for
this infrastructure on a fee-based business model.
Apple makes money off that one.Apple clearly makes *revenue*, but that alone does not prove that
it nets out to be profitable for them to any significant degree.
Got cites on financials for how much income they actually net off
of their payment system?
Then too there is that whole prohibition on in-app payments thatWhich again comes back to how the business revenue stream was
bypass the Apple fees.
decided upon, and put in place in the contract agreements to use
their platform. If one doesn't like the contract terms, one isn't
forced to do business with them, as they're not the sole source of
smartphone platform based apps - they can go shop the Android
contracts.
Despite Google Pay being free there are alternatives in the PlaySo what does that prove? The question was never if it was
Store.
technologically possible or not to have multiple developers, but
fundamentally if the downside business risks were a good trade-off
vs the increases in security risks.
To use an analogy, you're trying to claim that because Irving
leaves their doors unlocked, that's proof that no one needs door
locks.
-hh
Rationalizations. I costs Apple to make and maintain Maps, Safari and
other parts of the iOS package. Safari in particular has substantial
security concerns. Yet Apple permits Edge, Chrome, Google Maps, MS
Office and other competing apps. Why not payments?
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 11:50:42 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-07-20 05:09, Thomas E. wrote:
On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 6:12:01 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:Why?
On 2022-07-19 15:00, Thomas E. wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5S
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too. >>>> I don't know...
...but on the merits they should lose:
'According to the complaint, which you can read in full below, Apple
makes over $1 billion a year charging credit card companies up to 0.15 >>>> percent per transaction in Apple Pay fees, and yet those same card
issuers don’t have to pay anything when their customers use
“functionally identical Android wallets.” The suit alleges that Apple >>>> violates antitrust law by making it so Apple Pay is the only service
able to carry out NFC payments on its iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches. >>>> It also says that Apple prevents card issuers from passing on those fees >>>> to customers, which makes it so iPhone owners don’t have any incentive >>>> to go find a cheaper payment method.'
Read that again, Liarboy:
'and yet those same card issuers don’t have to pay anything when their >>>> customers use “functionally identical Android wallets.”'
You read it again. It's the companies paying the fees that are filing the complaint.
Will it change the fact that companies have an option if they don't like
Apple's ecosystem?
Not the point. But let's see if the courts get to decide if it's undue exercise of monopoly power, or not.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5S
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 9:09:51 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 8:08:49 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 7:49:00 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 6:12:01 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-07-19 15:00, Thomas E. wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5S
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.I don't know...
...but on the merits they should lose:
'According to the complaint, which you can read in full below, Apple makes over $1 billion a year charging credit card companies up to 0.15
percent per transaction in Apple Pay fees, and yet those same card issuers don’t have to pay anything when their customers use “functionally identical Android wallets.” The suit alleges that Apple
violates antitrust law by making it so Apple Pay is the only service able to carry out NFC payments on its iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches.
It also says that Apple prevents card issuers from passing on those fees
to customers, which makes it so iPhone owners don’t have any incentive
to go find a cheaper payment method.'
Read that again, Liarboy:
'and yet those same card issuers don’t have to pay anything when theirZero fees for Android?
customers use “functionally identical Android wallets.”'
Gosh, it sounds more like Google (via Android) is the one who's engaging
in dodgy business practices here: remind me again what it is called when
you deliberately sell a product at less than your own cost because you're
trying to use your market power to marginalize/harm a competitor?
What's it called when you exclude competitors from a market?Since there's Android as a viable (and larger) competitor, there's just not
the degree of monopolistic exclusion that you're trying to insinuate.
Likewise, you're deliberately trying to avoid the forest for the trees in recognizing that a secure payment system must have an expense to
secure, yet the biggest vendor is choosing to not pass that expense along, even though their primary competitor does.
Strange that Apple permits apps like browsers, mapping and office productivity where the company does not charge for the app's use.One can notionalize that their expenses are wrapped up in the hardware product price, along with the OS.
OTOH competing payment systems are prohibited.Because of stricter security requirements which incur costs, but more probably because of how the financial credit industry has traditionally structured their revenue payment streams to pay for this infrastructure
on a fee-based business model.
Apple makes money off that one.Apple clearly makes *revenue*, but that alone does not prove that it
nets out to be profitable for them to any significant degree. Got cites
on financials for how much income they actually net off of their payment system?
Then too there is that whole prohibition on in-app payments that bypass the Apple fees.Which again comes back to how the business revenue stream was decided upon, and put in place in the contract agreements to use their platform. If one doesn't like the contract terms, one isn't forced to do business with them,
as they're not the sole source of smartphone platform based apps - they can
go shop the Android contracts.
Despite Google Pay being free there are alternatives in the Play Store.So what does that prove? The question was never if it was technologically possible or not to have multiple developers, but fundamentally if the downside business risks were a good trade-off vs the increases in
security risks.
To use an analogy, you're trying to claim that because Irving leaves
their doors unlocked, that's proof that no one needs door locks.
Rationalizations. I costs Apple to make and maintain Maps, Safari and other parts
of the iOS package. Safari in particular has substantial security concerns. Yet Apple
permits Edge, Chrome, Google Maps, MS Office and other competing apps. Why not payments?
Thomas E. <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5S
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.
You can’t have a “monopoly” on your own product.
Period.
Apple is NOT a “monopoly”. There are plenty of alternatives.
Whoever wrote this absurd headline needs to read up on legal definition of “monopoly”.
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 8:09:26 PM UTC-4, Bob Campbell wrote:
Thomas E. <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5SYou can’t have a “monopoly” on your own product.
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too. >>>
Period.
Apple is NOT a “monopoly”. There are plenty of alternatives.
Whoever wrote this absurd headline needs to read up on legal definition of >> “monopoly”.
The courts will decide that. Or, Apple will bail and offer a one time settlement.
On 2022-07-21 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 8:09:26 PM UTC-4, Bob Campbell wrote:
Thomas E. <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5SYou can’t have a “monopoly” on your own product.
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too. >>>
Period.
Apple is NOT a “monopoly”. There are plenty of alternatives.
Whoever wrote this absurd headline needs to read up on legal definition of
“monopoly”.
The courts will decide that. Or, Apple will bail and offer a one time settlement.And courts never get it wrong or rule for political expediency...
...do they?
:-)
On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:16:07 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-07-21 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 8:09:26 PM UTC-4, Bob Campbell wrote:And courts never get it wrong or rule for political expediency...
Thomas E. <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5SYou can’t have a “monopoly” on your own product.
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too. >>>>>
Period.
Apple is NOT a “monopoly”. There are plenty of alternatives.
Whoever wrote this absurd headline needs to read up on legal definition of >>>> “monopoly”.
The courts will decide that. Or, Apple will bail and offer a one time settlement.
...do they?
:-)
It does not matter. If the court rules for the plaintiff it becomes case law.
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 6:09:17 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 9:09:51 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 8:08:49 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 7:49:00 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 6:12:01 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-07-19 15:00, Thomas E. wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5S
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.I don't know...
...but on the merits they should lose:
'According to the complaint, which you can read in full below, Apple
makes over $1 billion a year charging credit card companies up to 0.15
percent per transaction in Apple Pay fees, and yet those same card issuers don’t have to pay anything when their customers use “functionally identical Android wallets.” The suit alleges that Apple
violates antitrust law by making it so Apple Pay is the only service
able to carry out NFC payments on its iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches.
It also says that Apple prevents card issuers from passing on those fees
to customers, which makes it so iPhone owners don’t have any incentive
to go find a cheaper payment method.'
Read that again, Liarboy:
'and yet those same card issuers don’t have to pay anything when theirZero fees for Android?
customers use “functionally identical Android wallets.”'
Gosh, it sounds more like Google (via Android) is the one who's engaging
in dodgy business practices here: remind me again what it is called when
you deliberately sell a product at less than your own cost because you're
trying to use your market power to marginalize/harm a competitor?
What's it called when you exclude competitors from a market?Since there's Android as a viable (and larger) competitor, there's just not
the degree of monopolistic exclusion that you're trying to insinuate.
Likewise, you're deliberately trying to avoid the forest for the trees in
recognizing that a secure payment system must have an expense to
secure, yet the biggest vendor is choosing to not pass that expense along,
even though their primary competitor does.
Strange that Apple permits apps like browsers, mapping and office productivity where the company does not charge for the app's use.One can notionalize that their expenses are wrapped up in the hardware product price, along with the OS.
OTOH competing payment systems are prohibited.Because of stricter security requirements which incur costs, but more probably because of how the financial credit industry has traditionally structured their revenue payment streams to pay for this infrastructure on a fee-based business model.
Apple makes money off that one.Apple clearly makes *revenue*, but that alone does not prove that it nets out to be profitable for them to any significant degree. Got cites on financials for how much income they actually net off of their payment system?
Then too there is that whole prohibition on in-app payments that bypass the Apple fees.Which again comes back to how the business revenue stream was decided upon, and put in place in the contract agreements to use their platform. If one doesn't like the contract terms, one isn't forced to do business with them,
as they're not the sole source of smartphone platform based apps - they can
go shop the Android contracts.
Despite Google Pay being free there are alternatives in the Play Store.So what does that prove? The question was never if it was technologically
possible or not to have multiple developers, but fundamentally if the downside business risks were a good trade-off vs the increases in security risks.
To use an analogy, you're trying to claim that because Irving leaves their doors unlocked, that's proof that no one needs door locks.
Rationalizations. I costs Apple to make and maintain Maps, Safari and other partsWhat part of what I wrote do you not comprehend?
of the iOS package. Safari in particular has substantial security concerns. Yet Apple
permits Edge, Chrome, Google Maps, MS Office and other competing apps. Why not payments?
-hh
On 2022-07-21 13:18, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:16:07 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-07-21 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 8:09:26 PM UTC-4, Bob Campbell wrote: >>>> Thomas E. <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:And courts never get it wrong or rule for political expediency...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5SYou can’t have a “monopoly” on your own product.
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.
Period.
Apple is NOT a “monopoly”. There are plenty of alternatives.
Whoever wrote this absurd headline needs to read up on legal definition of
“monopoly”.
The courts will decide that. Or, Apple will bail and offer a one time settlement.
...do they?
:-)
It does not matter. If the court rules for the plaintiff it becomes case law.It matters very much.
On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:27:22 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-07-21 13:18, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:16:07 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:It matters very much.
On 2022-07-21 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 8:09:26 PM UTC-4, Bob Campbell wrote: >>>>>> Thomas E. <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:And courts never get it wrong or rule for political expediency...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5SYou can’t have a “monopoly” on your own product.
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.
Period.
Apple is NOT a “monopoly”. There are plenty of alternatives.
Whoever wrote this absurd headline needs to read up on legal definition of
“monopoly”.
The courts will decide that. Or, Apple will bail and offer a one time settlement.
...do they?
:-)
It does not matter. If the court rules for the plaintiff it becomes case law.
How?
On 2022-07-22 04:45, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:27:22 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-07-21 13:18, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:16:07 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:It matters very much.
On 2022-07-21 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 8:09:26 PM UTC-4, Bob Campbell wrote: >>>>>> Thomas E. <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:And courts never get it wrong or rule for political expediency...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5SYou can’t have a “monopoly” on your own product.
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.
Period.
Apple is NOT a “monopoly”. There are plenty of alternatives. >>>>>>
Whoever wrote this absurd headline needs to read up on legal definition of
“monopoly”.
The courts will decide that. Or, Apple will bail and offer a one time settlement.
...do they?
:-)
It does not matter. If the court rules for the plaintiff it becomes case law.
How?For reasons you wouldn't understand.
Things like "honesty" and "integrity".
On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 10:44:04 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-07-22 04:45, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:27:22 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:For reasons you wouldn't understand.
On 2022-07-21 13:18, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:16:07 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:It matters very much.
On 2022-07-21 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 8:09:26 PM UTC-4, Bob Campbell wrote: >>>>>>>> Thomas E. <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:And courts never get it wrong or rule for political expediency...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5SYou can’t have a “monopoly” on your own product.
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.
Period.
Apple is NOT a “monopoly”. There are plenty of alternatives. >>>>>>>>
Whoever wrote this absurd headline needs to read up on legal definition of
“monopoly”.
The courts will decide that. Or, Apple will bail and offer a one time settlement.
...do they?
:-)
It does not matter. If the court rules for the plaintiff it becomes case law.
How?
Things like "honesty" and "integrity".
Lol. Anything that does not agree with you or your view is automatically dishonest.
On 2022-07-28 05:26, Thomas E. wrote:
On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 10:44:04 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-07-22 04:45, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:27:22 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:For reasons you wouldn't understand.
On 2022-07-21 13:18, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:16:07 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:It matters very much.
On 2022-07-21 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 8:09:26 PM UTC-4, Bob Campbell wrote: >>>>>>>> Thomas E. <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:And courts never get it wrong or rule for political expediency... >>>>>>
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5SYou can’t have a “monopoly” on your own product.
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.
Period.
Apple is NOT a “monopoly”. There are plenty of alternatives. >>>>>>>>
Whoever wrote this absurd headline needs to read up on legal definition of
“monopoly”.
The courts will decide that. Or, Apple will bail and offer a one time settlement.
...do they?
:-)
It does not matter. If the court rules for the plaintiff it becomes case law.
How?
Things like "honesty" and "integrity".
Lol. Anything that does not agree with you or your view is automatically dishonest.Anything which is dishonest is automatically dishonest.
On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 10:43:42 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-07-28 05:26, Thomas E. wrote:
On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 10:44:04 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:Anything which is dishonest is automatically dishonest.
On 2022-07-22 04:45, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:27:22 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:For reasons you wouldn't understand.
On 2022-07-21 13:18, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:16:07 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:It matters very much.
On 2022-07-21 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 8:09:26 PM UTC-4, Bob Campbell wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Thomas E. <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:And courts never get it wrong or rule for political expediency... >>>>>>>>
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5SYou can’t have a “monopoly” on your own product.
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.
Period.
Apple is NOT a “monopoly”. There are plenty of alternatives. >>>>>>>>>>
Whoever wrote this absurd headline needs to read up on legal definition of
“monopoly”.
The courts will decide that. Or, Apple will bail and offer a one time settlement.
...do they?
:-)
It does not matter. If the court rules for the plaintiff it becomes case law.
How?
Things like "honesty" and "integrity".
Lol. Anything that does not agree with you or your view is automatically dishonest.
But by your definition. Trump was fond of defining "facts" too. Do you realize just how much you are like him?
On 2022-07-29 07:05, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 10:43:42 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-07-28 05:26, Thomas E. wrote:
On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 10:44:04 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:Anything which is dishonest is automatically dishonest.
On 2022-07-22 04:45, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:27:22 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:For reasons you wouldn't understand.
On 2022-07-21 13:18, Thomas E. wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:16:07 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:It matters very much.
On 2022-07-21 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 8:09:26 PM UTC-4, Bob Campbell wrote:And courts never get it wrong or rule for political expediency... >>>>>>>>
Thomas E. <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/apple-e2-80-99s-getting-sued-for-having-a-monopoly-on-the-iphone-e2-80-99s-tap-to-pay/ar-AAZIV5SYou can’t have a “monopoly” on your own product.
The stakes are pretty big. Hope it goes to trial here and in the EU too.
Period.
Apple is NOT a “monopoly”. There are plenty of alternatives. >>>>>>>>>>
Whoever wrote this absurd headline needs to read up on legal definition of
“monopoly”.
The courts will decide that. Or, Apple will bail and offer a one time settlement.
...do they?
:-)
It does not matter. If the court rules for the plaintiff it becomes case law.
How?
Things like "honesty" and "integrity".
Lol. Anything that does not agree with you or your view is automatically dishonest.
(LIE)But by your definition. Trump was fond of defining "facts" too. Do you realize just how much you are like him?Quite the reverse.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 79:43:33 |
| Calls: | 6,716 |
| Files: | 12,247 |
| Messages: | 5,357,923 |