On 2024-03-28, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2024-03-27 16:16, Oscar Mayer wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:52:03 +1300, Your Name wrote:
>>
>>> There are lots of "app stores" for various devices and operating
>>> systems.
>>
>> I know that. You know that. More important, the DOJ knows that too.
>> It's just one of the wacky Apple nutters who said this, and I quote:
>>
>> "How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!"
>
> A statement made about things OTHER than their app store.

Yes. And yet, ironically, before Apple create the first App Store, none
of the other "me too" app stores even existed.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2024-03-28, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-03-27, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The quoting that you and Arlen desperately trimmed is factual, as anyone
>>>> reads the thread can easily see, idiot. Maybe Arlen is impersonating you
>>>> again, maybe you're just low-level trolling as usual. But ether way, your
>>>> weak trolls suck.
>>>
>>> I trimmed because I was referring directly to a statement you made.
>>
>> Nope. You trimmed to remove context. Here's the exchange you are
>> desperately trying to pretend didn't happen:
>>
>> You: Are there realistic alternatives to Apple Pay or iMessage Samsung
>> Pay or Google Pay are not accepted by most vendors that accept Apple
>> Pay.
>>
>> Someone else: How is that Apple's problem?
>>
>> You: You said there were other choices.
>>
>> Me: How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!
>>
>> Arlen (trying to move the goal post and change the topic): You wacky
>> nutters actually think an app store is unique only to Apple?
>>
>>> It is Usenet etiquette to trim when the post gets too long.
>>
>> It's troll behavior to dishonestly trim in order to remove context.
>>
>>> I also didn’t call you names
>>
>> You need to grow a thicker skin if you're going to troll as a hobby.
>>
>>> You accused trolls of believing something silly and I asked who were
>>> they.
>>
>> You are low-key defending Arlen trying to move the goal post. And it's
>> obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.
>>
>>> You really need to chill out
>>
>> I'm perfectly calm. You're the ones getting all worked up over colors
>> and similar nonsense due to your irrational hatred of all things Apple.
>
> I see you trimmed my response and left out the most important part!

This is the only thing left out:

"and make shit about you"

And that bogus claim was left out because it's a lie. It's also hardly
"the most important part!".

You're a lying troll, and your trolls are weak.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2024-03-28, Oscar Mayer <nobody@oscarmayer.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 08:54:03 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> "How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!"
>>>
>>> That nutter
>>
>> Turning someone's sarcasm into something else is ... desperate?
>
> Maybe I misunderstood

Nah, you purposely tried to move the goal post. The comment was about
iMessage and Apple Pay, and you purposely trimmed the context and tried
to pretend it was about App Stores. It's all a matter of record.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Jolly Roger wrote:

>You're a lying troll, and your trolls are weak.

Nice to see you don't appreciate childish insults either...

From: "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: unpatchable security flaw
Date: 23 Mar 2024 22:20:46 GMT

and where Arlen (under his many, many nyms) quickly steps in to sling
childish insults at Apple users.

--
"Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men
have mediocrity thrust upon them." ~ Joseph Heller

On 28 Mar 2024 15:08:29 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> The comment was about
> iMessage and Apple Pay, and you purposely trimmed the context and tried
> to pretend it was about App Stores. It's all a matter of record.

Despite your belief that it's a law that I must quote everything everyone
says, common netiquette is to quote only that which I had responded to.

The fact remains that the DOJ disputes Apple's anti consumer justification
for locking out innovation and competition from integration with Apple's
apps, which the DOJ believes is for Apple's benefit alone as it's a
detriment to consumers to stifle innovation, integration & competition.

Your argument that the typical Apple consumer benefits from lack of
innovation via competition and integration notwithstanding, it's going to
be up to the court to decide if stifling innovation, competition and
integration is to the benefit of the Apple consumer, or not.

On 2024-03-28 14:01:44 +0000, Oscar Mayer said:

> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:40:48 +1300, Your Name wrote:
>
>>> That nutter has no idea that simply putting a trademark on something
>>> doesn't make it unique - especially when everyone has an app store too.
>>
>> They were being sarcastic / joking. It also wasn't about the App Store
>> - hence the world "products" in there.
>
> Maybe I misunderstood the poster who made that sarcastic comment then.
>
> I knew it was sarcasm, but if the sarcasm was aimed at claiming Apple made
> unique products - I can refute that by simply asking you two questions.
>
> 1. How is an app store unique? (It's not unique. It's a commodity.)
> 2. How is a messaging app unique? (It's not unique. It's a commodity.)
>
>> The US DOJ, thanks to greedy whiners like Epic Games, are basically
>> saying Apple, Google, Meta, etc. cannot have proprietary things
>> (devices and services) because that makes it a "monopoly" ... which is
>> complete and utter nonsense.
>
> I agree with you that the DOJ's case is that Apple restricts innovation &
> competition because Apple severely controls every aspect of the iPhone.
>
> Whether or not the DOJ will win its case is up to the courts to decide.
>
>> The US DOJ obviously has zero understanding of how businesses or the
>> tech industry works.
>
> We will need to disagree on that because it's clear from reading the DOJ
> case that the DOJ doesn't believe a word Apple says in why they control it.
>
> In fact the DOJ says Apple is lying about the reason they restrict it,
> which shows an underlying understanding (if the DOJ is right) about Apple.
>
>> Any judge who gives this idiotic court case more than two seconds of
>> their time is a moron who shouldn't even be allowed to be a judge. :-\
>
> The DOJ is arguing that Apple is lying about the reason Apple severely
> controls the commodities on the iPhone and Apple in turn will argue that
> they severely control those commodities to "protect" the consumer.
>
> In the end, it will up to the judge to decide who is telling the truth.

If a moronic judge decides this idiotic court case in the US DOJ's
favour, then pretty much every company on the planet is going to stop
bothering to do anything because they won't be able to protect their
own ideas - why waste billions of dollars trying to develop something
when every other lazy fool will be able to simply cash-in?

It will be the brainless idiots in the US DOJ who end up "restricting
innovation and competition". At the basic level they're trying to end
copyright and trademark laws. As I said, they have zero understanding
of business and the tech industry. :-\

On 2024-03-28 10:00, Oscar Mayer wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 08:54:03 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> "How dare a company make unique products and services! HANG THEM!!!"
>>>
>>> That nutter
>>
>> Turning someone's sarcasm into something else is ... desperate?
>
> Maybe I misunderstood the poster who was making that sarcastic comment?
>
> It appeared to me that the poster was trying to claim Apple makes unique
> products, but if you say it was sarcasm, then I agree with him & with you.
>
> An app store isn't unique - it's a commodity.

No. It's a support venue for a product.

> A messaging app isn't unique - it's a commodity.

iOS messaging supports "commodity" messaging (SMS/MMS) - indeed it does
it so nicely I can send SMS/MMS from my Mac to someone (clever trick:
the Mac sends the message to my phone to send it over the phone system).

That doesn't mean the "higher" power of Apple's Message app (iMessage)
system should be freely available to all. Why? It is paid for by Apple
product purchasers. Why should an Android user get the benefit of what
an Apple iPhone buyer paid for? Why should a vendor of a product or
service get free access to that market?

> If it was sarcasm, then the person who made that statement agrees with me
> that Apple does not make those products unique simply by preventing
> integration and competition as a messaging app and an app store are
> commodities, which the DOJ argues Apple lies about why they control it.

It isn't a commodity. You want to play in the country club pool, buy
the membership (buy the phone).

> It's up to the judge to decide if the DOJ is correct that Apple is lying
> about why Apple severely controls these commodities versus if Apple is
> telling the truth that they prevent integration to "protect" the consumer.

Where did this commodity word come in? Apple's products and services
are for Apple clients who buy their products.

They are not for anyone else, and companies that want access must abide
by Apple's rules.

Otherwise they can go make their living off of Android...

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

On 2024-03-28, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> You're a lying troll, and your trolls are weak.
>
> Nice to see you don't appreciate childish insults either...

Calling out troll behavior isn't childish.
Don't troll if you can't take being called out on it.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2024-03-28 15:59, Oscar Mayer wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2024 15:08:29 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> The comment was about
>> iMessage and Apple Pay, and you purposely trimmed the context and tried
>> to pretend it was about App Stores. It's all a matter of record.
>
> Despite your belief that it's a law that I must quote everything everyone
> says, common netiquette is to quote only that which I had responded to.
>
> The fact remains that the DOJ disputes Apple's anti consumer justification
> for locking out innovation and competition from integration with Apple's
> apps, which the DOJ believes is for Apple's benefit alone as it's a
> detriment to consumers to stifle innovation, integration & competition.

There are things that Apple develop for Apple product owners (the people
who pay for the devices) in order to make the product a standout in the
marketplace.

Why should these standout features be made available to anyone for their
profit when it is Apple's customers who paid Apple for these standout
features.

These companies want to ride it at Apple's expense. Claims it is for
customers is laughable. It is these companies clamoring for access to
what Apple paid to develop.

If actual buyers of iPhones aren't happy, they can always run to Android
phones - a lot more vendors, models, etc. than Apple could ever provide.

--
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first;
nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
- Charles de Gaulle.

On 2024-03-28, Oscar Mayer <nobody@oscarmayer.com> wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2024 15:08:29 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> The comment was about iMessage and Apple Pay, and you purposely
>> trimmed the context and tried to pretend it was about App Stores.
>> It's all a matter of record.
>
> Despite your belief that it's a law that I must quote everything
> everyone says, common netiquette is to quote only that which I had
> responded to.

You responded to a statement about iMessage and Apple Pay. You tried to
change the topic to app stores. It's a matter of record, and your lie is
plain to see for anyone reading.

> Your argument that the typical Apple consumer benefits from lack of
> innovation

Another lie - I never wrote that.

You simply cannot post here without insults and lies, can you?

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2024-03-28, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>>> You're a lying troll, and your trolls are weak.
>>
>> Nice to see you don't appreciate childish insults either...
>
> Calling out troll behavior isn't childish.
> Don't troll if you can't take being called out on it.
>

Snipping the pertinent part again…

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:30:10 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

>> An app store isn't unique - it's a commodity.
>
> No. It's a support venue for a product.

That's fine. I'm not going to decide the case. All I was saying was that
the argument everything on an iPhone is unique because Apple gives it a
unique name doesn't make it unique just because Apple trademarked it.

This is the DOJ's description of their case against Apple.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets

"Apple's Broad-Based, Exclusionary Conduct Makes It Harder for Americans
to Switch Smartphones, Undermines Innovation for Apps, Products, and
Services, and Imposes Extraordinary Costs on Developers, Businesses,
and Consumers."

>> A messaging app isn't unique - it's a commodity.
>
> iOS messaging supports "commodity" messaging (SMS/MMS) - indeed it does
> it so nicely I can send SMS/MMS from my Mac to someone (clever trick:
> the Mac sends the message to my phone to send it over the phone system).

That's fine. Android has the same thing, and the DOJ isn't going after
Android so I don't think that's what this particular DOJ case is all about
(although there was a Google App Store case in the past that Google lost).

But I don't remember what the reason was Google lost their App Store case.

Here are some explanations by the DOJ on their new case against Apple.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-delivers-remarks-lawsuit-against-apple-monopolizing

"Apple has maintained monopoly power in the smartphone market not simply
by staying ahead of the competition on the merits, but by violating
federal antitrust law.

Consumers should not have to pay higher prices because companies break
the law.

We allege that Apple has employed a strategy that relies on exclusionary,
anticompetitive conduct that hurts both consumers and developers.

For consumers, that has meant fewer choices; higher prices and fees;
lower quality smartphones, apps, and accessories; and less innovation
from Apple and its competitors.

For developers, that has meant being forced to play by rules that
insulate Apple from competition.

And as outlined in our complaint, we allege that Apple has consolidated
its monopoly power not by making its own products better - but by
making other products worse."

> That doesn't mean the "higher" power of Apple's Message app (iMessage)
> system should be freely available to all. Why?

Since any messaging app that wants to set up an account can send messages
from your Mac or Linux or PC to someone, that's not what the DOJ case is
all about (although the DOJ did write most of their case on messaging).

The DOJ's explanation of their lawsuit continues from what is quoted above
"Apple carries out its exclusionary, anticompetitive conduct in
two principal ways:

First, Apple imposes contractual restrictions and fees that limit
the features and functionality that developers can offer iPhone users.

Second, Apple selectively restricts access to the points of connection
between third-party apps and the iPhone's operating system, degrading
the functionality of non-Apple apps and accessories."

> It is paid for by Apple
> product purchasers. Why should an Android user get the benefit of what
> an Apple iPhone buyer paid for? Why should a vendor of a product or
> service get free access to that market?

So are the many Android messaging apps "paid for by product purchasers"
but that's not what the DOJ case is alleging.

The DOJ case alleges that Apple isn't telling the truth about why they do
what they do - where it's not up to me or you to decide - but to the judge.

The DOJ's explanation of their lawsuit goes on further to state the harm.
"It does this by diminishing the functionality of its own messaging app
and by diminishing the functionality of third-party messaging apps.

By doing so, Apple knowingly and deliberately degrades quality, privacy,
and security for its users."

>> If it was sarcasm, then the person who made that statement agrees with me
>> that Apple does not make those products unique simply by preventing
>> integration and competition as a messaging app and an app store are
>> commodities, which the DOJ argues Apple lies about why they control it.
>
> It isn't a commodity. You want to play in the country club pool, buy
> the membership (buy the phone).

Tim Cook famously said the same thing when someone in the audience asked
him why there isn't any interoperability between an iPhone and Android.

The DOJ even brought that up when they wrote about their case above

"Apple is the one responsible for breaking cross-platform messaging.
And it does so intentionally.

For example, in 2013, a senior executive at Apple explained that supporting
cross-platform messaging in Apple Messages, 'would simply serve to remove
[an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones.'

In 2022, Apple's CEO was asked whether Apple would fix iPhone-to-Android
messaging. The questioner added: 'not to make it personal but I can't send
my mom certain videos.'

Apple's CEO responded, 'Buy your mom an iPhone.'"

>> It's up to the judge to decide if the DOJ is correct that Apple is lying
>> about why Apple severely controls these commodities versus if Apple is
>> telling the truth that they prevent integration to "protect" the consumer.
>
> Where did this commodity word come in? Apple's products and services
> are for Apple clients who buy their products.
>
> They are not for anyone else, and companies that want access must abide
> by Apple's rules.
>
> Otherwise they can go make their living off of Android...

The DOJ's suit alleges Apple is lying about why Apple restricts integration
into the iPhone, where Apple says that the lack of innovation is a good
thing while the DOJ says Apple's restrictions are to stifle competition.

"In addition to selectively controlling app distribution and creation, we
allege that Apple is violating the law by conditionally restricting
developers' access to the interface needed to make an app functional on the
Apple operating system."

There's nothing in the DOJ suit that says Apple doesn't make good products.
I suspect Apple will win this case because the DOJ has to prove Apple lied.

Your Name wrote:

>> In the end, it will up to the judge to decide who is telling the truth.
>
> If a moronic judge decides this idiotic court case in the US DOJ's
> favour, then pretty much every company on the planet is going to stop
> bothering to do anything because they won't be able to protect their
> own ideas - why waste billions of dollars trying to develop something
> when every other lazy fool will be able to simply cash-in?

The DOJ is clearly alleging that Apple lied about their restrictions.
Apple will just as clearly allege they didn't lie about them.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-delivers-remarks-lawsuit-against-apple-monopolizing

"Having monopoly power does not itself violate the antitrust laws.

But it does when a firm acquires or maintains monopoly power - not
because it has a superior product or superior business acumen - but
by engaging in exclusionary conduct.

As set out in our complaint, Apple has maintained its power not because
of its superiority, but because of its unlawful exclusionary behavior.

Monopolies like Apple's threaten the free and fair markets upon which
our economy is based. They stifle innovation; they hurt producers
and workers; and they increase costs for consumers.

If left unchallenged, Apple will only continue to strengthen its
smartphone monopoly.

But there's a law for that.

The Justice Department will vigorously enforce antitrust law.

Enforcing the law protects consumers from higher prices & fewer choices."

As always, it will be up to the judge to decide, where I think the judge
will decide in favor of Apple unless a "smoking gun" is found that proves
Apple lied (as it happened in the original Epic case with Apple emails).
> It will be the brainless idiots in the US DOJ who end up "restricting
> innovation and competition". At the basic level they're trying to end
> copyright and trademark laws. As I said, they have zero understanding
> of business and the tech industry. :-\

It will be up to either side, the DOJ or Apple, to prove to the judge that
either the DOJ is correct or that Apple is correct on why there's no
integration with competitive products in Apple's App Store today.

Below is what the DOJ said about their recent Sherman Act legal case.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets

"'For years, Apple responded to competitive threats by imposing a series of
'Whac-A-Mole' contractual rules and restrictions that have allowed Apple to
extract higher prices from consumers, impose higher fees on developers and
creators, and to throttle competitive alternatives from rival
technologies,' said Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter of the
Justice Department's Antitrust Division. 'Today's lawsuit seeks to hold
Apple accountable and ensure it cannot deploy the same, unlawful playbook
in other vital markets.'"

I suspect Apple will win this one unless a "smoking gun" is found when they
depose the Apple executives (such as the one found during the Epic case).

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:46:30 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> There are things that Apple develop for Apple product owners (the people
> who pay for the devices) in order to make the product a standout in the
> marketplace.
>
> Why should these standout features be made available to anyone for their
> profit when it is Apple's customers who paid Apple for these standout
> features.
>
> These companies want to ride it at Apple's expense. Claims it is for
> customers is laughable. It is these companies clamoring for access to
> what Apple paid to develop.
>
> If actual buyers of iPhones aren't happy, they can always run to Android
> phones - a lot more vendors, models, etc. than Apple could ever provide.

Here is the 88-page PDF that the DOJ wrote for us to understand the case.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.544402/gov.uscourts.njd.544402.1.0_3.pdf

The Verge says the DOJ's case is that the American consumer is paying more
for the iPhone than they should be paying. And they get less functionality
on the iPhone than they get on Android phones.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/21/24107659/apple-doj-lawsuit-antitrust-documents-suing
"the Justice Department alleges that Apple is using a variety of unfair
tactics to entrench its market position and restrict innovation."

The DOJ's case is that the iPhone is less functionality at a higher cost.
We don't yet know what Apple has said about those two key allegations.

Certainly the iPhone has less functionality than Android phones, but even
with the limitations of the iPhone, many people seem to like the iPhone so
in a way it's like they bought a stripped-down Harbor Freight tool at an
expensive price but that alone isn't Apple's fault that happened.

Apple's job is to charge as much money as they can for that HF tool.
Just like it's Harbor Freight's job to charge as much as they can for it.

I feel Apple should be allowed to charge whatever they want to charge.
If people are willing to pay it, that's up to those people to decide.

Most people who own an iPhone don't even know what Android phones can do.
Just like most people who buy HF tools never owned a high quality tool.

But it doesn't matter what you or I think is true.
It will only matter what a judge thinks is true.

On 2024-03-29, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-03-28, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're a lying troll, and your trolls are weak.
>>>
>>> Nice to see you don't appreciate childish insults either...
>>
>> Calling out troll behavior isn't childish.
>> Don't troll if you can't take being called out on it.
>
> Snipping the pertinent part again…

Cry harder.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2024-03-29 01:51:37 +0000, Oscar Mayer said:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:46:30 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>> There are things that Apple develop for Apple product owners (the
>> people who pay for the devices) in order to make the product a standout
>> in the marketplace.
>>
>> Why should these standout features be made available to anyone for
>> their profit when it is Apple's customers who paid Apple for these
>> standout features.
>>
>> These companies want to ride it at Apple's expense. Claims it is for
>> customers is laughable. It is these companies clamoring for access to
>> what Apple paid to develop.
>>
>> If actual buyers of iPhones aren't happy, they can always run to
>> Android phones - a lot more vendors, models, etc. than Apple could ever
>> provide.
>
> Here is the 88-page PDF that the DOJ wrote for us to understand the
> case.
> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.544402/gov.uscourts.njd.544402.1.0_3.pdf
>
>
> The Verge says the DOJ's case is that the American consumer is paying more
> for the iPhone than they should be paying. And they get less functionality
> on the iPhone than they get on Android phones.

If that was true, then Samsung and many other higher-end phone makers
should be in court as well since they charge about the same price for
their phones as Apple does.

Yes, you can but a cheaper Android smartphones from various makers, but
they are lower-end models that use older / slower CPUs and GPUs, lower
quality components, less RAM, etc. to achieve that lower price ... you
get what you pay for.

> https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/21/24107659/apple-doj-lawsuit-antitrust-documents-suing
>
> "the Justice Department alleges that Apple is using a variety of unfair
> tactics to entrench its market position and restrict innovation."

Apple is the one doing most ot he innovation! Most of the Android
makers have even simply been copying the iPhone since it was released.
:-\

One of most obvious recent examples: Apple removes charger from box,
Samsung makes fun of that decision, then a few months later Samsung
removes charger from the box as well. (Of course, removing the charger
isn't really an "innovation" so much as an idiotic idea.)

> The DOJ's case is that the iPhone is less functionality at a higher cost.
> We don't yet know what Apple has said about those two key allegations.
>
> Certainly the iPhone has less functionality than Android phones,

Complete bollocks.

> but even with the limitations of the iPhone, many people seem to like
> the iPhone so in a way it's like they bought a stripped-down Harbor
> Freight tool at an expensive price but that alone isn't Apple's fault
> that happened.
>
> Apple's job is to charge as much money as they can for that HF tool.
> Just like it's Harbor Freight's job to charge as much as they can for it.
>
> I feel Apple should be allowed to charge whatever they want to charge.
> If people are willing to pay it, that's up to those people to decide.
>
> Most people who own an iPhone don't even know what Android phones can do.

Android phones can do exactly the same as what Apple phones can do.

> Just like most people who buy HF tools never owned a high quality tool.
>
> But it doesn't matter what you or I think is true. It will only matter
> what a judge thinks is true.

"The law is an ass".

But there is at least one US judge who has a braincell, so there may be others:

Judge Tosses Out Cryptocurrency Apple Antitrust Lawsuit
Filed by Venmo Customers
(Thursday, March 28, 2024)

<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/28/judge-tosses-cryptocurrency-lawsuit/>

On 28.03.24 21:19, Your Name wrote:
> If a moronic judge decides this idiotic court case in the US DOJ's
> favour, then pretty much every company on the planet is going to stop
> bothering to do anything because they won't be able to protect their
> own ideas - why waste billions of dollars trying to develop something
> when every other lazy fool will be able to simply cash-in?
>
> It will be the brainless idiots in the US DOJ who end up "restricting
> innovation and competition". At the basic level they're trying to end
> copyright and trademark laws. As I said, they have zero understanding
> of business and the tech industry. :-\

But you do? Not at all because you do fundamentally not understand what
constitutes a monopoly or anticompetitive behaviour in this case.

This case is already decided by the European authorities. American tech
companies in general invest a lot of resources in circumventing the laws
instead of improving their products to the advantage of the users.

--
"Ave Caesar! Morituri te salutant!"

On 29.03.24 02:34, Oscar Mayer wrote:
> But it does when a firm acquires or maintains monopoly power - not
> because it has a superior product or superior business acumen - but
> by engaging in exclusionary conduct.

That is the key and Apple will lose this battle with a high degree of
probability after recent events.

--
"Ave Caesar! Morituri te salutant!"

Jolly Roger wrote:

>On 2024-03-29, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-28, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You're a lying troll, and your trolls are weak.
>>>>
>>>> Nice to see you don't appreciate childish insults either...
>>>
>>> Calling out troll behavior isn't childish.
>>> Don't troll if you can't take being called out on it.
>>
>> Snipping the pertinent part again…
>
>Cry harder.

Your hypocrisy is on full display. Nothing less was expected.

--
"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad
judgment." ~ Will Rogers

On 2024-03-29, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>On 2024-03-29, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-28, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're a lying troll, and your trolls are weak.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice to see you don't appreciate childish insults either...
>>>>
>>>> Calling out troll behavior isn't childish.
>>>> Don't troll if you can't take being called out on it.
>>>
>>> Snipping the pertinent part again…
>>
>> Cry harder.
>
> Your hypocrisy is on full display. Nothing less was expected.

Yes, yes. *You* are the real victim here. As is always the way with
trolls, you can't take what you dish out. 🤣 You and your best-bud Arlen
are clowns.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 3/29/2024 1:29 AM, Your Name wrote:

>> The Verge says the DOJ's case is that the American consumer is paying more
>> for the iPhone than they should be paying. And they get less functionality
>> on the iPhone than they get on Android phones.
>
> If that was true, then Samsung and many other higher-end phone makers
> should be in court as well since they charge about the same price for
> their phones as Apple does.

It's a good thing you're not one of Apple's high-priced lawyers given
you're not even aware that Samsung sells a range of phones, from dirt cheap
to very expensive, as do almost all Android phone makers on the market.

> Yes, you can but a cheaper Android smartphones from various makers, but
> they are lower-end models that use older / slower CPUs and GPUs, lower
> quality components, less RAM, etc. to achieve that lower price ... you
> get what you pay for.

Again, it's good you're not an Apple lawyer as the quality of most Android
components far exceeds that of Apple's (such as integrated 5G modems).

Not only do most Android phones have better hardware that doesn't even
exist in the iPhones (such as sd card slots) but many Android phones have
screens that are built by Samsung who makes a lot of the iPhone screens.

And all Android phones can run software that can't be run on an iPhone,
so you need to do some research before you'll pass the Apple versus Android
exam, as you don't know the first thing about how the platforms differ.

On 28 Mar 2024 22:47:18 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> You simply cannot post here without insults and lies, can you?

My irony meter just exploded.

On 2024-03-29 09:21, Larry Wolff wrote:
> On 3/29/2024 1:29 AM, Your Name wrote:
>
>>> The Verge says the DOJ's case is that the American consumer is paying more
>>> for the iPhone than they should be paying. And they get less functionality
>>> on the iPhone than they get on Android phones.
>>
>> If that was true, then Samsung and many other higher-end phone makers
>> should be in court as well since they charge about the same price for
>> their phones as Apple does.
>
> It's a good thing you're not one of Apple's high-priced lawyers given
> you're not even aware that Samsung sells a range of phones, from dirt cheap
> to very expensive, as do almost all Android phone makers on the market.

What does a Samsung phone that matches the specs of an Apple iPhone
cost, doofus?

>
>> Yes, you can but a cheaper Android smartphones from various makers, but
>> they are lower-end models that use older / slower CPUs and GPUs, lower
>> quality components, less RAM, etc. to achieve that lower price ... you
>> get what you pay for.
>
> Again, it's good you're not an Apple lawyer as the quality of most Android
> components far exceeds that of Apple's (such as integrated 5G modems).

LOL!

They literally use the SAME modems "Larry".

>
> Not only do most Android phones have better hardware that doesn't even
> exist in the iPhones (such as sd card slots) but many Android phones have
> screens that are built by Samsung who makes a lot of the iPhone screens.

So then, not better screens and I'll bet only 3 people in 100 use the SD
card slot in their phone.

>
> And all Android phones can run software that can't be run on an iPhone,

And vice versa.

> so you need to do some research before you'll pass the Apple versus Android
> exam, as you don't know the first thing about how the platforms differ.