Wow, right around the five minute mark, Joe finally asked a very intelligent and thoughtful question I never thought I would see this day Way to go Joel
Apple is "anti-competitive" but it has globally a minority market share, and has 90+% customer satisfaction but "customers feel trapped and are left with staying with costlier iPhones with poorer features that its competitors". Sure, consumers are dumb...? The capitalist market shows Apple users like their experience, and thus continues to return for more, Kanter.
consumers not dumb, just pay more, much more than with competition... what is your problem exactly? is it not better for you if Apple has a normal profit margin?
@@waltraudsiller7793 so are you a communist that want to dictate the profit margins of a private enterprise? Or are you a believer of capitalism that the free market will allow great companies to earn substantial profits because their customers love the products and keep coming back for more? Hermes and Ferrari aren't compared to Ford's or Gucci's margins, because they're vastly different leagues and deserves the margins they've earned. Tell me you don't understand the free market without telling me so. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head to be in the Apple ecosystem, as 80% of the smartphone users using non-iOS phones will tell you so.
Kanter's argument is dumb. Yes, I want to pay less for my iphones. But i also want to pay less for coca cola, chipotle, my car, and rent. Do something about them, won't ya. You can't. Because this is how a free market works. This issue is so simple. Like your brain.
@@waltraudsiller7793 i don't see you refuting the argument :) And... while I'm not as familiar with the laws as the AG (at least I hope so), the AGs may not be as tech literate as you make them look. Many of their complaints have actually been worked on (texting standards, for example) and may not be relevant by the time of the suit. The last time I checked, having a walled garden is not a crime. So the accusations (at least in the 88 pages) do not have as much merits as a DOJ case should really have. I'm a developer. And while I agree sometimes Apple's practice is "unfair", their resistance to letting 3rd party developers use many of their APIs is understandable as a consumer. For example, the Apple Vision Pro does not allow me to use their cameras (at least for now) for clear and obvious reasons. Could they make it safe and open it up to me? Sure. Are they obligated to? There's no law that says so. And the 30% fee that is deemed unfair. Well, newsflash. Microsoft does that. Google does that. So sue everyone then. Many people forget that the 30% is not just free money for Apple. They have to develop a whole new language (Swift - best in class) and the IDE (XCode) for developers to use for free. It is a fee to gain access to the 1.3B users in the marketplace. A 10-20% finder's fee is NOT crazy. Finding you 1.3B users, lest you forget. The rest of the fee is for using their technology within Swift and XCode. Their technology is best in class, and keeps getting better. Does the DOJ talk about this? No. They dont even understand it. Anyone who wants to pay less is just entitled. When Meta, Spotify, Epic, complain, they are not complaning on your behalf. They just want more money for themselves. If you don't like it, go develop for Android.
@@DannyTan-dm5ouapple has a monopoly on their appstore. You cant download anything which is prevented by apple. An app which would compete with apps from apple cant entry the market. Free market would be if they would compete. This leads to less innovation for apple products because they dont have competetion which would increase innovation. Secondly for in-app purchases apple get 30% of the money without doing anything for it. Why should they get money for that. If a company doesnt comply they lose access to the app store. How is that free market? It is clearly abusing their monopoly power
When other countries threatened US companies with fines for ant-competitive behaviour in the past, the US government always threatened those countries with retaliation. The US saw fines like that as hostile act in order to damage US companies. I am glad that slowly he US realize that those just wanted to protect the consumers. In the past a few companies amassed huge debt in order to grow as big as possible and then use that market dominance to pay back the debt and make a huge fortune. Trying to create an oligopoly or even monopoly should never become a successful business model.
America was built on proprietary technology. Federal law doesn’t require companies to make products that seamlessly inter-operate with rivals. Supreme Court ruled in Pacific Bell v. linkLine [2009] that businesses are “free to connect, chose partnership and/or deal" with other companies as they choose to. Nobody demands Tesla batteries fit Hyundai EV's because Tesla has an "unfair exclusionary competitive advantage".
This will hurt user privacy and security in the end. Sure, we pay a premium for it, maybe that premium could be less, but I’d rather have Apple keeping me secure than the federal government.
There might be some security issues when the App Store is opened up to 3rd party app stores. However, this only extends to other app stores should the user decide to get them. If the user continues to use the Apple App Store despite other options available, the security concerns remain the same.
Thank you for doing that mr Kanter. That old man has no clues, maybe he is worried about the Apple shares going down? 😮
Wow, right around the five minute mark, Joe finally asked a very intelligent and thoughtful question
I never thought I would see this day
Way to go Joel
Apple is "anti-competitive" but it has globally a minority market share, and has 90+% customer satisfaction but "customers feel trapped and are left with staying with costlier iPhones with poorer features that its competitors". Sure, consumers are dumb...? The capitalist market shows Apple users like their experience, and thus continues to return for more, Kanter.
consumers not dumb, just pay more, much more than with competition... what is your problem exactly? is it not better for you if Apple has a normal profit margin?
@@waltraudsiller7793 so are you a communist that want to dictate the profit margins of a private enterprise? Or are you a believer of capitalism that the free market will allow great companies to earn substantial profits because their customers love the products and keep coming back for more?
Hermes and Ferrari aren't compared to Ford's or Gucci's margins, because they're vastly different leagues and deserves the margins they've earned. Tell me you don't understand the free market without telling me so. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head to be in the Apple ecosystem, as 80% of the smartphone users using non-iOS phones will tell you so.
So because Trump supporters overwhelmingly like Trump, Trump should be free to break any law he wants. That’s your argument
@@waltraudsiller7793most consumers are extremely dumb
Kanter's argument is dumb. Yes, I want to pay less for my iphones. But i also want to pay less for coca cola, chipotle, my car, and rent. Do something about them, won't ya. You can't. Because this is how a free market works.
This issue is so simple. Like your brain.
yes you know better than 16 DAs :) sell your apple stock
A monopoly prevents a free market is the point of the law. D’oh!
@@waltraudsiller7793 i don't see you refuting the argument :)
And... while I'm not as familiar with the laws as the AG (at least I hope so), the AGs may not be as tech literate as you make them look. Many of their complaints have actually been worked on (texting standards, for example) and may not be relevant by the time of the suit.
The last time I checked, having a walled garden is not a crime. So the accusations (at least in the 88 pages) do not have as much merits as a DOJ case should really have.
I'm a developer. And while I agree sometimes Apple's practice is "unfair", their resistance to letting 3rd party developers use many of their APIs is understandable as a consumer. For example, the Apple Vision Pro does not allow me to use their cameras (at least for now) for clear and obvious reasons. Could they make it safe and open it up to me? Sure. Are they obligated to? There's no law that says so.
And the 30% fee that is deemed unfair. Well, newsflash. Microsoft does that. Google does that. So sue everyone then. Many people forget that the 30% is not just free money for Apple. They have to develop a whole new language (Swift - best in class) and the IDE (XCode) for developers to use for free. It is a fee to gain access to the 1.3B users in the marketplace. A 10-20% finder's fee is NOT crazy. Finding you 1.3B users, lest you forget. The rest of the fee is for using their technology within Swift and XCode. Their technology is best in class, and keeps getting better. Does the DOJ talk about this? No. They dont even understand it. Anyone who wants to pay less is just entitled. When Meta, Spotify, Epic, complain, they are not complaning on your behalf. They just want more money for themselves. If you don't like it, go develop for Android.
@@teddmented first you have to show there is a monopoly. Second, government intervention also prevents a free market. Sorry, government OVERREACH.
@@DannyTan-dm5ouapple has a monopoly on their appstore. You cant download anything which is prevented by apple. An app which would compete with apps from apple cant entry the market. Free market would be if they would compete. This leads to less innovation for apple products because they dont have competetion which would increase innovation. Secondly for in-app purchases apple get 30% of the money without doing anything for it. Why should they get money for that. If a company doesnt comply they lose access to the app store. How is that free market? It is clearly abusing their monopoly power
is mr. Kanter trying to tell apple what to do or what not to do ?
Watching from a iPhone 14 Pro Max
Watching from a Galaxy S24U and as an ex iphone owner, and I'm enjoying these news very much
Exactly and the image quality picture in picture is splendid.
@@RagingBad I’m surprised you were able to open up RUclips
When other countries threatened US companies with fines for ant-competitive behaviour in the past, the US government always threatened those countries with retaliation. The US saw fines like that as hostile act in order to damage US companies. I am glad that slowly he US realize that those just wanted to protect the consumers.
In the past a few companies amassed huge debt in order to grow as big as possible and then use that market dominance to pay back the debt and make a huge fortune. Trying to create an oligopoly or even monopoly should never become a successful business model.
Wait, didn’t Biden administration tell social media companies what they can or can’t show on their platform ??? 😜
America Circling the drain
America was built on proprietary technology. Federal law doesn’t require companies to make products that seamlessly inter-operate with rivals. Supreme Court ruled in Pacific Bell v. linkLine [2009] that businesses are “free to connect, chose partnership and/or deal" with other companies as they choose to. Nobody demands Tesla batteries fit Hyundai EV's because Tesla has an "unfair exclusionary competitive advantage".
Kanter had me at "chickenshit club".
doj ...
Whoever that geriatric host is just get him to retire
This will hurt user privacy and security in the end. Sure, we pay a premium for it, maybe that premium could be less, but I’d rather have Apple keeping me secure than the federal government.
There might be some security issues when the App Store is opened up to 3rd party app stores. However, this only extends to other app stores should the user decide to get them. If the user continues to use the Apple App Store despite other options available, the security concerns remain the same.
They will ruin apple AI moment like the did to Microsoft with phone