- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/13/19 at 1:28 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
KAVABAW WITH THE STONE COLD CONCURRENCE
Posted on 5/13/19 at 1:55 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
What will this mean?
It’ll settle and iPhone users will each get 27 cents while the plaintiff lawyers will get $38 million.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 2:02 pm to efrad
quote:
You sound just a like a liberal who says that forcing people to pay high taxes to subsidize welfare is pro-freedom because then poor people have the freedom to buy more stuff. You're not a conservative, and neither is Brett "Patriot Act" Kavanaugh. Next you'll be forcing cake shop owners to bake gay cakes to ensure there's a "free gay cake market"
That’s nowhere near the same thing. And I’m not a liberal. Apple is running a monopoly. There is a large industry for creating apps, with a lot of money in it. And Apple controls which can be downloaded on its platform, which is a heavy market leader. Apple is operating a trust. They control most of that market
And the gay cake thing doesn’t fit in this. The baker was protected by freedom of religion
Posted on 5/13/19 at 2:16 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
I’m not a liberal.
yeah ok
quote:
Apple is running a monopoly. There is a large industry for creating apps, with a lot of money in it. And Apple controls which can be downloaded on its platform, which is a heavy market leader.
iOS has a 22.94% market share. That's not a market leader much less a monopoly.
quote:
And the gay cake thing doesn’t fit in this. The baker was protected by freedom of religion
Exactly, you admit making the baker do something he didn't want to do violated his freedom. In that case it's a religious freedom.
In this case, it's a business freedom.
but apparently your feelings trump Apple's freedom. Just like liberals say gays are more "free" because they can now buy coercively baked cakes, you can be "free" and install whatever apps on your coercively made phone
Posted on 5/13/19 at 2:25 pm to efrad
Go check my post history dumbass
No such thing. Especially for a large corporation like Apple. Apple isn’t allowed to discriminate. Yet that’s what they do with apps being developed
I’m not forcing Apple to do anything. Apple is restricting freedom. All they have to do is open up the marketplace. They aren’t being forced to make something against their beliefs (gay baker case), only to offer access to everyone that fits their basic requirements
BTW, one of the apps being removed from the App Store is the Infowars App. But I’m apparently a liberal, so I shouldn’t support them right?
quote:
In this case, it's a business freedom.
No such thing. Especially for a large corporation like Apple. Apple isn’t allowed to discriminate. Yet that’s what they do with apps being developed
quote:
but apparently your feelings trump Apple's freedom. Just like liberals say gays are more "free" because they can now buy coercively baked cakes, you can be "free" and install whatever apps on your coercively made phone
I’m not forcing Apple to do anything. Apple is restricting freedom. All they have to do is open up the marketplace. They aren’t being forced to make something against their beliefs (gay baker case), only to offer access to everyone that fits their basic requirements
BTW, one of the apps being removed from the App Store is the Infowars App. But I’m apparently a liberal, so I shouldn’t support them right?
Posted on 5/13/19 at 2:31 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
Apple controls the contents of its store. They can approve or deny any app. And many apps are denied on the basis of competition against Apple’s apps or bc they represent things Apple doesn’t like. The Infowars App is one example, they have a different political affiliation than Apple, so Apple took them off Apple products. Apple controls the market, therefore it is not a free market. The App Store is basically it’s own economy since it is the exclusive provider of apps on Apple products
Still not a monopoly for overall market. People can buy an Android which is the market leader, jailbreak in some cases if it’s worth the risk, or just use web browser. Apple is offering an alternative choice to how things are done Android by google. Some use Apple specifically because of this. If they are wrong they will go the way of Mac in late 80s and 90s. I had hoped their would be more choices overall, but I am not sure weakening the 2nd place choice in market is going to do this.
Anyway after my post i had time to read article and ruling didn’t actually rule that Apple was in violation of anti-trust laws just that it could not claim to only have indirect a relationship with consumers and avoid these types of lawsuits dealing with apps. Outside of a store’s ability to sale a product below cost like as a loss leader while paying manufacturer full cost I am not sure if agreeing to sale product in App Store for a % of sales at pricing set by the 3rd party versus agreeing to sale in store & keeping $ above cost negotiated with 3rd party links Apple with price fixing schemes or effects overall prices as much as people think, but in conjunction with being only way to install an app I can see how they just can’t claim to have indirect relationship with consumers based on existing standard established a long time ago. Not sure tangible product rules and definitions perfectly fit digital products and markets.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 2:39 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
Go check my post history dumbass
I don't need to look at your post history when I can read your liberal position here
quote:quote:No such thing. Especially for a large corporation like Apple. Apple isn’t allowed to discriminate. Yet that’s what they do with apps being developed
In this case, it's a business freedom.
You don't believe in the freedom of businesses to run as they like and you're ranting about some imaginary discrimination and you don't think you're a liberal? Cute
quote:
I’m not forcing Apple to do anything.
If you weren't forcing Apple to do anything you'd be for the status quo
quote:
Apple is restricting freedom. All they have to do is open up the marketplace. They aren’t being forced to make something against their beliefs (gay baker case), only to offer access to everyone that fits their basic requirements
Apple can restrict freedom on their OWN PLATFORM all they want. It's THEIR PLATFORM. The public "marketplace" is open and free since anyone can make an app on competing platforms, which, as we know, constitute a large majority of the marketplace when compared with Apple's ~23% market share. I know you liberals think you have the right to control other people's stuff and call it your own tho
Next you'll say Apple should open it up because "you didn't build that" quote:
BTW, one of the apps being removed from the App Store is the Infowars App. But I’m apparently a liberal, so I shouldn’t support them right?
Yeah and the ACLU defends nazis parades in court too. Big whoop. Your principles say much more about who you are
Posted on 5/13/19 at 2:49 pm to efrad
quote:
You don't believe in the freedom of businesses to run as they like and you're ranting about some imaginary discrimination and you don't think you're a liberal? Cute
The entire poli board is in favor of this decision. Please go call the entire poli board liberal
LINK
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 5/13/19 at 3:00 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
The entire poli board is in favor of this decision. Please go call the entire poli board liberal
There's that liberal groupthink
Can't defend it yourself, call on the hivemind.
The poliboard just hates it because they are upset about infowars et al are being taken down. They're still using big government against business, that's not conservative
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 5/13/19 at 3:15 pm to efrad
quote:
There's that liberal groupthink Can't defend it yourself, call on the hivemind. The poliboard just hates it because they are upset about infowars et al are being taken down. They're still using big government against business, that's not conservative
You’re insane. You can’t see past “govt is bad, business is good”. There’s a lot more going on here than that. This whole thing is the SC saying that Apple is not protected by the government. But sounds like you want the government to protect your big business? That’s not conservative either. Most conservatives hate government bc it reduces freedoms. But Apple is allowed to reduce freedoms? No, frick that. Nobody is reducing freedoms of individuals or small businesses
Posted on 5/13/19 at 3:23 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
This whole thing is the SC saying that Apple is not protected by the government. But sounds like you want the government to protect your big business?
How on Earth is the government "protecting Apple" just by not intervening in Apple's business affairs? You really think someone trying to use the force of the state to bring suit against Apple and Kavanaugh saying "yeah go right ahead" is somehow equivalent to declining to "protect" Apple?
quote:
Most conservatives hate government bc it reduces freedoms. But Apple is allowed to reduce freedoms? No, frick that. Nobody is reducing freedoms of individuals or small businesses
Apple isn't reducing freedom. Again, it's THEIR PLATFORM. You are asking government to control THEIR PLATFORM because you aren't getting what you want out of their platform. They built the platform, they can do whatever they want with it. Why the hell do you think you deserve to tell them what they can and can't do? Go build your own platform or use someone else's, you know, like the market-leading Android that controls three quarters of the market and lets you do whatever you want.
No one's freedom is being restricted just because your feelings are hurt you can't get what you want sold in the App Store you fricking snowflake
"Oh no my favorite app is no longer in the App Store. Muh freeeeeeeeedom"
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 3:25 pm
Posted on 5/13/19 at 3:39 pm to efrad
The SC ruled that Apple was not protected from lawsuits. Read the damn article. The entire ruling is that Apple can be sued. Had they ruled the other way, nobody would be able to sue Apple about the App Store. That’s legal protection
Posted on 5/13/19 at 3:40 pm to Upperdecker
quote:Yep.
The SC ruled that Apple was not protected from lawsuits. Read the damn article. The entire ruling is that Apple can be sued. Had they ruled the other way, nobody would be able to sue Apple about the App Store. That’s legal protection
All they said was that Apple could be sued, not that they are in the wrong.
They just aren’t afforded legal protection.
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 5/13/19 at 3:47 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
he SC ruled that Apple was not protected from lawsuits. Read the damn article.
Can you not comprehend what that means?
A lawsuit is petitioning the state to use force against someone to penalize or punish them for a perceived grievance.
It's literally asking the state to use its force on your behalf.
Being "protected from a lawsuit" means the state is refusing to use its force. That's neutral.
Not being "protected from a lawsuit" means the state is going forward with considering using its force against Apple.
Thinking that Apple was being protected just because the government wasn't coming after them makes you guys some big government stockholm syndromers
Posted on 5/13/19 at 3:58 pm to efrad
quote:
Being "protected from a lawsuit" means the state is refusing to use its force. That's neutral. Not being "protected from a lawsuit" means the state is going forward with considering using its force against Apple. Thinking that Apple was being protected just because the government wasn't coming after them makes you guys some big government stockholm syndromers
You’re actually retarded. The government had to make a ruling that Apple could be sued. And you are arguing in favor of protecting Apple from lawsuits. You love the government protecting big business at the expense of small businesses
Posted on 5/13/19 at 4:07 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
You’re insane.
There it is.
You know what I think, regardless of the matter at hand? I think you're riding the coattails and grievances of the folks who are truly insane in order to try and win a debate. You're being selfish, offensive and inconsiderate of the people born that way. All of those people and the hell that they have to go through, and you're using it as a sick & twisted tool to make yourself better off- your privileged self better off. You should be ashamed.
You lose when you lob personals. It's weak.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 4:10 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
You’re actually retarded. The government had to make a ruling that Apple could be sued. And you are arguing in favor of protecting Apple from lawsuits. You love the government protecting big business at the expense of small businesses
Only the mental gymnastics of a liberal like yourself could believe that almighty government declining to attack Apple would be "protecting" them.
quote:
You love the government protecting big business at the expense of small businesses
Whining about the big rich man having more than yourself
instead of being fair you'd rather judgments be made against businesses simply based on their bigger success. But sure. You're not a liberal at all buddy 
Posted on 5/13/19 at 4:10 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
You’re actually retarded.
You're actually being really offensive right now. You stand on the graves and the oppression of the retarded- both past and present. You're a bigot and a sexist racist.
You ought to be g'damned ashamed of yourself.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 4:19 pm to efrad
quote:
Only the mental gymnastics of a liberal like yourself could believe that almighty government declining to attack Apple would be "protecting" them.
If they rule in favor of Apple, they rule that Apple can’t be sued. That’s literally the government deciding to protect Apple from lawsuits. I can’t put it any simpler for you
quote:
Whining about the big rich man having more than yourself instead of being fair you'd rather judgments be made against businesses simply based on their bigger success. But sure. You're not a liberal at all buddy
You want big business to be immune to lawsuits. That sounds really fair buddy
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News