- 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: Apple Or Android? May The Battle Continue.
Posted on 3/29/24 at 12:06 pm to Fat Batman
Posted on 3/29/24 at 12:06 pm to Fat Batman
quote:
you are creating imaginary narratives. no one is saying that. why do you keep trying to push this imaginary narrative that iphones are more expensive and/or harder for "demographics" to obtain than androids? you want so hard to make this a classist and pandering argument. its like you believe everyone wants an iphone and those that dont have one only dont because they cant afford it. if android users wanted iphones, they could easily get them.
Maybe you should try reading the link I provided cause you obviously haven't. This is precisely the argument the DOJ is making.
ETA: RIght out the horse's mouth.:
quote:THis is the suit the DOJ filed..
This signals to users that rival smartphones are lower quality because the
experience of messaging friends and family who do not own iPhones is worse—even though
Apple, not the rival smartphone, is the cause of that degraded user experience. Many non-iPhone
users also experience social stigma, exclusion, and blame for “breaking” chats where other
participants own iPhones. This effect is particularly powerful for certain demographics, like
teenagers—where the iPhone’s share is 85 percent, according to one survey. This social pressure
reinforces switching costs and drives users to continue buying iPhones—solidifying Apple’s
smartphone dominance not because Apple has made its smartphone better, but because it has
made communicating with other smartphones worse.
This post was edited on 3/29/24 at 12:23 pm
2
Posted on 3/29/24 at 12:22 pm to TigerGman
read it and see nothing about this being about poor people not being able to afford more desirable iphones. all i see is the argument that:
quote:
Attorney General Merrick Garland said Apple undermines rivals by having texts from Androids to iPhones suffer from “limited functionality.”
Android users can’t see typing indicators, experience poor video quality and have non-encrypted messages when texting with iPhone users.
Additionally, Apple has stifled rival apps that could have fixed the problem, the DOJ alleged.
quote:
The lawsuit highlighted one notable exchange from Vox Media’s Code Conference in 2022, when an attendee asked Tim Cook to fix Android-to-iPhone texting because they couldn’t “send my mom certain videos.”
“Buy your mom an iPhone,” Cook replied.
quote:
“This social pressure reinforces switching costs and drives users to continue buying iPhones—solidifying Apple’s smartphone dominance not because Apple has made its smartphone better, but because it has made communicating with other smartphones worse,” the suit added.
Posted on 3/29/24 at 12:24 pm to TigerGman
quote:
Maybe you should try reading the link I provided cause you obviously haven't. T
The link (which is NYPost, lol) doesn't reference affordability.
quote:
RIght out the horse's mouth.:
Where does that cite affordability?
YOUR Quote (so you can't edit):
quote:
then we can come in and say certain "demographics" can't afford it, so we are going to take action against you
Bold added by me.
This post was edited on 3/29/24 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 3/29/24 at 12:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Where does that cite affordability?
YOUR Quote (so you can't edit):
quote:
then we can come in and say certain "demographics" can't afford it, so we are going to take action against you
quote:
Many non-iPhone
users also experience social stigma, exclusion, and blame for “breaking” chats where other
participants own iPhones. This effect is particularly powerful for certain demographics, like
teenagers—where the iPhone’s share is 85 percent, according to one survey. This social pressure
reinforces switching costs
What else do they mean by "switching costs" and social stigma? What does social stigma have to do with monopolistic practices? Posted on 3/29/24 at 12:56 pm to TigerGman
I don't have a dog in this fight, but you stopped the quote at "switching costs" when there is a whole lot more context to that paragraph
As someone not involved in this conversation, I don't really read that as an affordability argument. But it is weirdly worded for sure.
The very next part of the sentence you left out even says it's driving up sales. If it was an affordability issue I wouldn't think that would drive sales up
As someone not involved in this conversation, I don't really read that as an affordability argument. But it is weirdly worded for sure.
The very next part of the sentence you left out even says it's driving up sales. If it was an affordability issue I wouldn't think that would drive sales up
Posted on 3/29/24 at 1:04 pm to TigerGman
quote:
What else do they mean by "switching costs" and social stigma?
their reference to "switching cost" is about keeping existing iphone users on iphone. not about poors not being able to afford iphones.
quote:
This social pressure reinforces switching costs and drives users to continue buying iPhones
quote:
What does social stigma have to do with monopolistic practices?
that driving people to purchase your product via engineered social stigma and not through creating a better widget is anti-competitive.
Posted on 3/29/24 at 1:37 pm to Fat Batman
also probably important to point out to you that the "switching cost" they are referring to isn't money. its that if you leave iphone you will have limited access to text messaging iphone users and endure the social stigma previously mentioned.
Posted on 3/29/24 at 4:19 pm to Fat Batman
quote:
that driving people to purchase your product via engineered social stigma and not through creating a better widget is anti-competitive.
Exactly.
So you think the Biden administration should be using antitrust laws as a tool to strong-arm private businesses about what social practices it deems unacceptable, and you're ok with that.
Posted on 3/29/24 at 4:39 pm to TigerGman
No.
I think the DOJ is within its right to investigate whether or not it is anticompetitive for Apple to use its market share to influence consumers to purchase its iphone by breaking text messaging when its users are texting non-apple users.
I agree with this specific case under whoever's administration because it is objectively good for the consumer.
I think the DOJ is within its right to investigate whether or not it is anticompetitive for Apple to use its market share to influence consumers to purchase its iphone by breaking text messaging when its users are texting non-apple users.
I agree with this specific case under whoever's administration because it is objectively good for the consumer.
Posted on 3/29/24 at 6:47 pm to TigerGman
quote:
What else do they mean by "switching costs"
That is the cost to switch formats, which isn't an affordability issue.
quote:
and social stigma?
That has nothing to do with affordability and everything to do with the intentional malfunctionality Apple creates intersystem
You are bringing up intrasystem functionality, which isn't the issue.
Apple downgrading the experience for its own users when they deal with other systems is the issue.
Posted on 3/29/24 at 6:48 pm to TigerGman
quote:
using antitrust laws as a tool to strong-arm private businesses
This is what antitrust laws are, for good or bad.
quote:
about what social practices it deems unacceptable
This is what antitrust laws do, for good or bad.
Posted on 3/29/24 at 9:38 pm to Fat Batman
Ironic part is while Google whines about Apples texting issues, it's doing the same thing to all texting app developers. Won't release the API for RCS to them.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 12:02 am to prplhze2000
quote:
Ironic part is while Google whines about Apples texting issues, it's doing the same thing to all texting app developers. Won't release the API for RCS to them.
It’s kinda fricked we are talking about using the DOJ to force Apple to integrate what is for all purposes a Google product into their messaging app. RCS is pretty much Google in this country. It’s not SMS or MMS functionality you are using, it’s Google Jibe.
When Apple does come out with their own adaptation of RCS, are we still going to be complaining about how the two don’t play together well (because it’s still going to have some issues with compatibility I bet) and Apple should just be forced by the government to use Jibe too?
This post was edited on 3/30/24 at 12:05 am
Posted on 3/30/24 at 8:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
about what social practices it deems unacceptable
This is what antitrust laws do, for good or bad.
Dude, WTF?
Show me in the anti trust statutes where is says Jackshit about Social Stigma...
Posted on 3/30/24 at 9:30 am to Dam Guide
I use Android and the texting crap doesn't bother me.
Yeah texting videos are a pain but i just have them emailed or use messenger.
Yeah texting videos are a pain but i just have them emailed or use messenger.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 10:36 am to Dam Guide
quote:
It’s kinda fricked we are talking about using the DOJ to force Apple to integrate what is for all purposes a Google product into their messaging app. RCS is pretty much Google in this country. It’s not SMS or MMS functionality you are using, it’s Google Jibe.
The device OS market is essentially binary so of course Google essentially owns the other half. This isn't a novel case. Google, Facebook, Microsoft and others have all face similar network gaming anticompetitive cases in the past seeking similar portability outcomes. Thats usually going to mean Company A has to at some level integrate with Company B and/or C, D, E, etc. I think we can all agree that SMS/MMS is dead as far as todays uses and expectations go, but native messaging has been replaced with iMessage and RCS. If we want to preserve native messaging and an open messaging platform then Apple has to budge.
IMO a level of interoperability is the best path forward for the consumer as it reduces the switching cost for existing users of either platform and promotes a more competitive and innovative playing field where consumers are picking the device that best suits their needs instead of picking devices based on market share and messaging compatibility. Portability is always going to be in the best interest of the consumer and the worst interest of the Company seeking to retain and fleece customers through high switching cost for existing users.
The other option is to do nothing. But, if we are content to let native messaging die and "let the market decide" which messaging platform wins, we are basically putting network effects on steroids. Then whoever holds the most market share will continue to be able to exploit consumers with high switching cost for existing users and low switching cost for new users. In the end the consumer suffers and a company ends up with a monopoly on messaging or even worse devices. Its not far fetched to imagine as we move further and further away from being able to use SMS/MMS as a fallback for native messaging that at some point native messaging will no longer work between Apple and Android. And having or relying on another messaging platform rise to the top to fill that void doesn't solve the underlying issue of using network effects to hold consumers hostage.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 10:48 am to TigerGman
quote:
Show me in the anti trust statutes where is says Jackshit about Social Stigma...
the social stigma is a mechanism of high switching cost highlighting Apples exploitation of network effects to hold customers hostage.
^ thats actually straight from the article YOU posted as some kind of victory lap, but actually destroyed every one of your points. You sure you read it and understood it?
This post was edited on 3/30/24 at 10:52 am
Posted on 3/30/24 at 10:57 am to Fat Batman
quote:
thats actually straight from the article YOU posted as some kind of victory lap, but actually destroyed every one of your points. You sure you read it and understood it?
NO. That's what the Biden appointed Attorney General is saying is a basis for filing anti trust litigation against a private business.
You aren't even understanding the basics of what's going here.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 11:01 am to TigerGman
quote:
against a private business
quote:
You aren't even understanding the basics of what's going here.
please enlighten me on the DOJs case is then?
This post was edited on 3/30/24 at 11:02 am
Posted on 3/30/24 at 12:09 pm to TigerGman
quote:
You aren't even understanding the basics of what's going here.
form your previous posts ive gathered you think the "basic issues" are
1. That this is a political issue and pandering to poors.
This is not the case because similar cases have been brought against most, if not all, of the major tech giants under various regimes over the years for abusing network effects. Also, obtaining an iPhone has never been easier. In fact, low switching cost for new users is part of the anticompetitive ploy the DOJ is accusing Apple of abusing.
2. This is hurts Apple
Well no shite. If they are using abusing network effects to boost their bottom line and market share, of course removing that practice will hurt both of those for them. If you really believed that Apple was solely thriving on their platform/device superiority, then the outcome of the case should have little effect on Apple.
Points you are refusing to address directly:
1. How this is bad for the consumer.
2. Why the grounds for the case is valid or not.
3. Whether you believe the DOJ should be able to try to prevent anticompetitive behavior in markets, and why.
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News