- 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 3/30/24 at 2:11 pm to Fat Batman
Posted on 3/30/24 at 2:11 pm to Fat Batman
quote:
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.
The market may still decide to go elsewhere as they did in Europe. These actions though could lead to a much bigger and much worse monopoly than the one the government is fighting against if they force Apple to use Jibe. Google in complete control of native messaging is a disastrous move from a monopoly standpoint.
I suspect they will go more in the opposite direction and make their own proprietary version as Google has done and make it compatible with Universal Profile and only the functionality of Universal Profile will be compatible between the two.
Reading up on it, Apple's push to RCS is not being driven by the EU, China is the reason for this one. China's carriers are pushing their own version of RCS and to stay in that market, Apple will have to offer it. That definitely means not Jibe.
This post was edited on 3/30/24 at 2:14 pm
2
Posted on 3/30/24 at 3:37 pm to Dam Guide
China's phones are so much better than ours. Oppo and Xaiomi make great phones. In some ways are ahead of Samsung and Pixels. The Nothing is a great budget phone.
However, can't do anything here because of the carriers.
However, can't do anything here because of the carriers.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 9:07 pm to Dam Guide
I imagine Apple would create their own integration with RCS. I would also imagine either way they aren't scrapping iMessage. Otherwise you're right, one company in control is bad.
Posted on 3/31/24 at 2:48 am to Fat Batman
quote:
form your previous posts ive gathered you think the "basic issues" are
Dude, first you misquote me and until you can show me where in the anti trust laws "social stigma" on certain demographics can be a basis for anti trust litigation this argument with you has become pointless.
Again this is word for word from the DOJ:
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.
Hate Apple all you want, you'd have to be blind to not see how this is embarrassing leftist policy driven dribble from the Biden Administration.
They are saying if a company makes a product that is so successful that "social stigma" "exclusion"and "blame" attach to certain "demographics" who basically can't afford it but are being compelled by social stigma to buy it, then, the government can step in and put a stop to it.
That's not what anti trust laws were enacted for.
This is an absurd overreach and obvious pandering by the liberal left.
It smacks of DEI bullshite and is one hell of a slippery slope to defend cause cause certain demographics LIKE teenage android users are looked down upon due to their text messages being Green.
And ask yourself what other demographics are they referring to when they say "like" teenagers?
This post was edited on 3/31/24 at 3:20 am
Posted on 3/31/24 at 3:12 am to TigerGman
I have to agree. This isn't as much about functionality as it's "peer pressure."
It's a very strange thing for a government to go after a company because, "What will the other kids think"?
What's next? Going after name brands like, Nike, because their sneakers are too expensive and kids with Wal-Mart shoes get made fun of?
For Pete's sake, it's such a trifling thing to attack a company over.
It's a very strange thing for a government to go after a company because, "What will the other kids think"?
What's next? Going after name brands like, Nike, because their sneakers are too expensive and kids with Wal-Mart shoes get made fun of?
For Pete's sake, it's such a trifling thing to attack a company over.
Posted on 3/31/24 at 3:50 am to Ricardo
quote:
It's a very strange thing for a government to go after a company because, "What will the other kids think"?
Right. This is exactly what's coming down the road if this type of legal prattle wins.
The Antitrust laws protect against using monopolistic leverage in a market that you dominate or using market dominance to leverage higher costs to the consumer. They aren;t mean too be used to make social life more acceptable in a highly competitive markets.
Apple hardly has a monopoly on the it's mobile cellphones much less text messaging. Apple is in a hotly contested market with Google/Android. Samsung and Google etc. Where's the fricking monopoly? There isn't one. Consumers have a readily available similarly priced and arguably market dominated choice--Android.
Apple just has a type of operating system with its own version of text messaging that millions of consumers prefer or they'd switch to Android phones. So they can't say Apple has a monopoly on text messaging, so their basis for attacking it is social stigma on poorer demographics?
This post was edited on 3/31/24 at 3:52 am
Posted on 3/31/24 at 7:37 am to Ricardo
quote:
It's a very strange thing for a government to go after a company because, "What will the other kids think"?
If we are talking about economics/markets, no, it's not.
Again, you can disagree with the fact that anti-trust law exists, but we're discussing a reality where it does.
Markets aren't always rational. Apple's intentional use of psychology with "green bubbles" is a perfect example of an irrational market.
Posted on 3/31/24 at 7:38 am to TigerGman
quote:
Apple just has a type of operating system with its own version of text messaging that millions of consumers prefer or they'd switch to Android phones.
Again, showcasing that irrationality in real time
Posted on 3/31/24 at 8:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Again, you can disagree with the fact that anti-trust law exists, but we're discussing a reality where it does.
I don't disagree with anti-trust laws in general, nor have I ever said so; you're making things up. They certainly can serve a good purpose where an outright monopoly exists.
What I disagree with is using anti-trust laws as a basis for what is essentially social engineering by the Government, in this case liberal democrats.
And I'm still waiting for you to tell me where in the antitrust laws it says that "social stigma, exclusion, and blame" are grounds for bringing an antitrust suit.
tick tock...
Posted on 3/31/24 at 8:32 am to TigerGman
quote:
What I disagree with is using anti-trust laws as a basis for what is essentially social engineering by the Government,
Then you don't like anti-trust laws.
quote:
And I'm still waiting for you to tell me where in the antitrust laws it says that "social stigma, exclusion, and blame" are grounds for bringing an antitrust suit.
I already described why in the post you quoted. Not my fault you don't understand economics or are intentionally arguing in bad faith.
Posted on 3/31/24 at 11:21 am to TigerGman
quote:
until you can show me where in the anti trust laws "social stigma" on certain demographics can be a basis for anti trust litigation this argument with you has become pointless.
I've answered this multiple times ITT. its honestly not worth talking about with you at this point. you are obviously way out of your depth discussing economics if you don't understand that social dynamics are a gigantic part of economics. it is a social science after all.
quote:
to certain "demographics" who basically can't afford it but are being compelled by social stigma to buy it
You are injecting this part because you want so badly for this to be about poors. That is not what that quote "basically" said, its what you wanted it to say so that it fits your argument.
iPhones have never been easier to obtain. Carrier subsidies, the existence of low priced and budget iPhones and a strong secondary market ensure that anyone can have iPhones. If what you were saying was true the market would not support flagship offerings from Samsung et al, the poors would be priced out and all the people with money would have iphones. You just cant believe people willfully and happily pick android over iphone. the only way you can make it make sense in your head is if they can't afford it. wait til you find out how much android phones actually cost.
quote:
And ask yourself what other demographics are they referring to when they say "like" teenagers?
what i think might be similar to teenagers? other groups of people that are not decision makers in whatever hierarchical structure they exist in and that have little choice but to accept the cell plan and device that is given to them. i think employees with company phones could be a second item in that list.
This post was edited on 3/31/24 at 11:27 am
Posted on 3/31/24 at 11:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I already described why in the post you quoted. Not my fault you don't understand economics or are intentionally arguing in bad faith.
I asked where not why. You know it's not there so you try to evade. Same thing with Fat Batman.
Anyway, I'm done with this thread.
You're either a lame troll or some kinda leftist that believes the Government should sue to coerce capitalist businesses to follow a liberal, DEI based agenda. I'm thinking the later since that goes hand in hand with a Stanford indoctrination.
Big bad Apple sells a popular product but it is hurting teenagers' and other "similar demographics" feelings so much they buy their products to not feel left out; so let's sue it into submission.
No pointing arguing with idiots like you.
Posted on 3/31/24 at 9:15 pm to TigerGman
It's not feel left out, it's literally left out of BOTH Apple and non Apple users being able to send secure native messages cross platform and enjoying a modern standard of native messaging. This would not be an issue if Apple didn't have a controlling share of the market. You yourself constantly bitch about the messaging experience, yet you are adamantly against the fix. You keep bitching about DEI but you cant refute entry to obtaining an iPhone is cheap by modern phone standards. I can easily get multiple iPhones for less than what I paid for my android. Its actually hilarious to watch your cognitive dissonance unfold in this thread.
Posted on 4/1/24 at 8:07 am to Fat Batman
quote:Quit embarrassing yourself, man. You still can't even keep straight who is saying what. It's not that hard. Let me make it as simple for you as I can:The DOJ itself, not me, is the one saying people's feelings are being hurt by being socially stigmatized. I'm saying this is an absurd basis for an anti-trust suit and not legally sustainable.
It's not feel left out, it's literally left out of BOTH Apple and non Apple users being able to send secure native messages cross platform and enjoying a modern standard of native messaging.
quote:WTF? Where have I ever said that? Again it's the DOJ bitching about it.
You yourself constantly bitch about the messaging experience
quote:
I can easily get multiple iPhones for less than what I paid for my android.
Exactly, thanks for making my point. That makes the DOJ's lawsuit look dumber than ever. If teens and other similar demographics can afford an iPhone, then where is the monopoly? Because they feel socially stigmatized into buying one? lol.
Making life easier or more convenient for all consumers in a highly competitive market is NOT the basis for an antitrust lawsuit. That's not what free markets are about. The Government can't tell you what, when, where, and how much to sell your goods and services for in the absence of an actual monopoly. That leads to the Government deciding how companies should operate and what products it should give away for less or even for free.
People preferring one product over another is NOT monopolistic control by the preferred company. Lack of competition or inability of a competitor to break into a market can be.
If Apple owns all the aluminum mines in the industry, it can do all sorts of crazy pricing and illegal tie-ins with aluminum foil. So it needs to be regulated. But if Amazon and Walmart are battling it out for the goods-to-home delivery market. If you feel socially stigmatized by a Walmart truck showing up at your house, so you stick with Amazon, is that a basis for filing some sort of anti-trust lawsuit against Amazon?
Because the DOJ can't show a true monopoly over text messaging, it is resorting to social stigma to force Apple to change its products. That's just crazy.
Oh and I'm still waiting for you to show me where in the antitrust laws it's said social stigma is a basis for a lawsuit.
Tick Tock, tick tock.
This post was edited on 4/1/24 at 8:08 am
Posted on 4/1/24 at 10:23 am to TigerGman
Not making another trip around this circle with you. Enjoy RCS and lower switching cost fall 2024.
This post was edited on 4/1/24 at 10:24 am
Posted on 4/1/24 at 2:48 pm to Fat Batman
Posted on 4/2/24 at 5:42 pm to TigerGman
This post was edited on 4/5/24 at 3:35 pm
Posted on 4/2/24 at 5:51 pm to Grigio
It's all about the watts delivered and the battery's capacity.
You'll have to check your specific ipad model to know the max wattage it can charge at, and then check your power brick to see if it can deliver at least that many watts. If those check out then it just won't charge any faster. The device itself will limit the power it will take in if the charger and cable can provide more than that.
You'll have to check your specific ipad model to know the max wattage it can charge at, and then check your power brick to see if it can deliver at least that many watts. If those check out then it just won't charge any faster. The device itself will limit the power it will take in if the charger and cable can provide more than that.
Posted on 4/4/24 at 10:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Android has much better messaging than iMessage.
I'm fine with either. However, in messaging, I would not say Android is superior to Apple.
Posted on 4/4/24 at 2:12 pm to Grigio
quote:IMO, charging has always been a disaster for Apple products - especially with all the stupid proprietary chargers. People love to talk about the internal compatibility of the ecosystem, but back in the day, I fully enjoyed my non-Apple ecosystem that used one charger for everything - phone, Kindle, tablet, etc.
Why is the iPad so god damn slow to charge?
I use the brick and cord that came with it and it will take 2+ hours to charge.
To make this on topic, my android phone will charge in less than an hour and my Pixelbook will charge in about an hour.
The iPad probably has 3% of the usage as the phone and laptop so it isn't a worn out battery.
Are all Apple products slow as frick to charge? If I buy a USB-C to Apple cord and use my Google bricks should it charge faster?
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News