- 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
re: Kavanaugh sides with the class action trial lawyer protectors on SCOTUS
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:13 am to I B Freeman
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:13 am to I B Freeman
quote:
They are not the sole marketplace for GAB. You can buy a droid and run it.
I have a Windows machine simply to run Access. Is that monopolistic? Of course not.
You know they don't have to have any independent develop apps on their phones.
Based upon what I have read, it seems to me that the odds are in favor of Apple NOT being held liable.
But there seems to be some questions of fact here, and I don't the Supremes should block this from proceeding.
IF Apple is found liable and IF Apple ends back up at the Supreme Court asking for it to be overturned, then maybe we can discuss your points along with others. But we aren't there yet.
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 11:13 am
0
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:14 am to ShortyRob
quote:
which is just fricking laughable on its face.
How so??? How is that laughable?
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:15 am to I B Freeman
quote:
I understand completely what Kavanaugh is saying but it does not change in the least that he is saying it is ok to pursue the store for the actions of the developer under anti trust laws.
That is just wrong.
bullshite, nobody should be exempted from being sued. However, I think apple wins this easily, they should still be able to be sued though.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:15 am to I B Freeman
quote:
That is like saying back in the day that the independent gas station owner could be sued under anti trust laws because he was reselling gas from Standard Oil.
The difference being, there are plenty of independent gas stations, yet, only one store which to purchase Apple apps...
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:15 am to GumboPot
quote:
The solution seems to me for apple to revise their operating system to accommodate unapproved apps but make the user agree to new terms using the unapproved apps.
Are they not approved bc Apple cares about what the app is about, so then dicatating what consumers see OR they aren't approved bc the app developer doesn't meet the standards they have set?
quote:
I'm a little aggravated that Apple doesn't carry the GAB app. There is no reason for them to exclude GAB. They just do it to cock block Twitter competition.
I don't know what the GAB app is, but to me it sounds you should be upset with the company that owns that app. They don't want to invest in what it takes to get the app apple OS approved. Obviously others are able to, so this is not on apple but GAB. I get qualified apple app devolpers are more expensive too.
You are wanting the courts to force Apple to fundamentally change it's business model bc you can't get an app that doesn't want to invest in doing what has been required by Apple since day one.
If anything they have eased up on it over the years to meet market demands. Let that naturally happen instead of filling pockets of lawyers, lazy app developers, security risk app developers, and whiny customers that don't understand the way OS tech devolpment works.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:17 am to I B Freeman
quote:
Litigation is out of control.
No it isn't. This is a propaganda message big business put out there to shame people into not pursuing litigation. Hey look it even worked on you.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:19 am to LSUFanHouston
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:21 am to I B Freeman
quote:
This is not entirely true
Right, you can jailbreak a phone.
It's an interesting argument for Apple to make - that they don't have a monopoly on apps, but, if you use anyone but them, you are violating their terms of service and their warranty.
Again, that's an argument to make at trial, not a reason to prevent a lawsuit.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:22 am to I B Freeman
At the end of the day this is about some money grabbers wanting to get at Apple's deep pockets.
There are over 1 million apps on the app store---many are free.
Where is a monopoly? Where is the harm?
It is a shame the SCOTUS decided to expand the traditional uses of the Sherman Anti Trust Act to accommodate the money grabbers.
There are over 1 million apps on the app store---many are free.
Where is a monopoly? Where is the harm?
It is a shame the SCOTUS decided to expand the traditional uses of the Sherman Anti Trust Act to accommodate the money grabbers.
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 11:23 am
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:22 am to TBoy
quote:
He doesn't have the intellectual horsepower to sit on the Supreme Court.
quote:
TBoy
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:25 am to I B Freeman
quote:
They are not the sole marketplace for GAB. You can buy a droid and run it.
I have a Windows machine simply to run Access. Is that monopolistic? Of course not.
You know they don't have to have any independent develop apps on their phones.
And so your argument is that if I want access to something Apple refuses to allow users should just switch to an android phone because that is a different marketplace and therefore they can get the app they want?
So you want to argue that by having a system in place that necessitates a massive switching cost(switch from one platform to the other involves a substantial direct and indirect cost), which in fact throttle demand, you can therefore solve the issue of a monopolistic marketplace throttling demand?
The farce of stating that the google marketplace is an equitable solution is a fools equality that has no practical bearing in the real world because of the saturation on the iPhone in the market.
And yes, they don't have to allow the development or running of independent apps, but the app store was too much of a goldmine to not allow it. In many ways once again they are on the path to killing the golden goose.
Oh and FYI you can get Access on Mac and Windows never limited certification of applications on their products.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:26 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
but, if you use anyone but them, you are violating their terms of service and their warranty.
not unlike the warranty on automobiles. You can't modify an engine and expect the company to honor the warranty.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:29 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Again, that's an argument to make at trial, not a reason to prevent a lawsuit.
This is about standing to bring a lawsuit.
Apple doesn't set the prices of apps on the app store (the exception being the ones they act as a developer of). How can they drive up the cost to the consumer? They let people give away apps on their store.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:30 am to I B Freeman
quote:
not unlike the warranty on automobiles. You can't modify an engine and expect the company to honor the warranty.
Is downloading an app, changing the phone, the way an engine modification changes the engine?
I don't know. A very qood question. All the more reason to allow this lawsuit to proceed, so we can get some legal opinion on these issues.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:33 am to laxtonto
quote:
And so your argument is that if I want access to something Apple refuses to allow users should just switch to an android phone because that is a different marketplace and therefore they can get the app they want?
So you want to argue that by having a system in place that necessitates a massive switching cost(switch from one platform to the other involves a substantial direct and indirect cost), which in fact throttle demand, you can therefore solve the issue of a monopolistic marketplace throttling demand?
Yes.
You buy the phones based on how you want to use them just like you buy operating systems. You want to be Windows, OSX or Linux? You know what you want to do with the machine and make your decisions.
quote:
Oh and FYI you can get Access on Mac and Windows never limited certification of applications on their products.
BS. You cannot buy a version of Access that will run on any other operating system besides Windows.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:33 am to I B Freeman
quote:
This is about standing to bring a lawsuit.
I thought "standing" was a measure of the plaintiff, not the defendant?
A judge can let a defendant off a lawsuit, but only if there is clear and convincing evidence that they should not be a part of it. Nothing you or Apple has said, rises to that level.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:35 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
All the more reason to allow this lawsuit to proceed, so we can get some legal opinion on these issues.
You are missing the expansion of standing this ruling allows.
If you develop an app that is so popular and so essential it becomes a monopoly this ruling allows consumers to sue Apple because they sold it on their store. You did the nasty deed but they will pay.
There is nothing right about that.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:40 am to I B Freeman
quote:
How so??? Apple does not set the prices the developers charge for apps.
They merely offer a store for developers to market their goods not unlike WalMart stocking merchandise.
The trial lawyers wanted the deep pockets of Apple and not the rinky dinky pockets of some kid that invented a new IOS app.
What monopoly is there?? None I see.
The simple solution for Apple is just to close the store and only offer free apps they develop.
Don't take my upvote on this, as me liking you on the social side of things....
I agree with you though. I understand how it can look like a monopoly, but it was established from day one like it is. Slowly easing it up to meet market demands, but it's easier said then done by a company like Apple, as it is the way they have operated from the start. I don't get how it can be a monopoly when they are just regulating their own product only. Self-monopolization is illegal? I personally see it as Apple defending it's company, and having "nationalist-isqe" corporate protections.
Their App Store gives people the ability to do what is wanted...if/when an app developer WANTS to invest in it. If they see the value in all the Apple products in the market, they can do it. Apple isn't stopping them. They are just setting quality control. Also, making sure the developers are doing things properly on behalf of Apple customers. Essentially Apple is putting their stamp of approval on the 3PAD to make sure their customers know its safe, and well done. Instead of crappy 3PAD apps screwing them over.
Apple should win this, as long as, they get judge/jury that understands tech. FB/Twitter/Google/etc on the other hand should be worried as if Apple doesn't succeed then they have no hope, though I don't think App companies like them are in the same group as Apple, like they are trying too be. Google can maybe hide under Android.
We are either going to see if mobile security matters or not in this country. Apple can shut it down, like you said, and just tell their customers we are a hardware company that have these approved options...like it or not...but you, Customer, know.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:43 am to I B Freeman
quote:
If you develop an app that is so popular and so essential it becomes a monopoly this ruling allows consumers to sue Apple because they sold it on their store. You did the nasty deed but they will pay.
They will only pay if they are found liable...
Why are you digging such a hole on this?
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News