Fun fact: according to androidrank, currently there are 157 apps that have 500 000 000 or more downloads. Which is a lot, given that apparently it's not available in "rich" countries.
It's clear that the issue was not that the product isn't used, but that it is eating away the profits from their main YT app.
They are using their operating system to sell hardware.
An operation system is only as valuable as the ecosystem of applications that support it. Without apps it has no value. Just ask Nokia and Microsoft. People aren't buying iPhones for the operating system. They're buying them for access to Apple's walled garden. And it's that walled garden that sets it apart from all the Android competition. Apple has a reputation for being very strict about what it allows on it's app store, and for putting a heavy focus on user experience. Whereas the Android app store is rife with garbage apps. And Windows Phone app store never took off, which is what killed that platform. Apple's iron fisted approach to the combination of hardware and software (both OS and apps) is it's selling feature. Not the OS, not the hardware.
The question you should be asking is why the United States government hasn't taken action against Apple. Not doing so is, itself, arguably a form of protectionism.
But the US is not the exception here. Only occasionally do we hear about these kinds of lawsuits happening in Canada, or Australia, or South Korea, or Japan, or Taiwan. The EU in contrast is making headlines every month with some new case targeted at large tech companies. If we saw the same thing happening in other industries like automotive or ship building then we could pass it off as the EU just being lawsuit happy. But we don't see that happening. It quite clear that the EU has targeted the tech sector specifically. And the fact that this is a sector the EU has tried bitterly to compete in without success is not an accident.
What's happening is that the EU is treating this as two seperate markets. The first market is the hardware for phones, the second market is the software that goes on them. The argument is that Apple are using their clout in the hardware market to give them an unfair edge in the software market.
Which is wrong. The appeal of Apple products is their walled garden, and the tight integration of software and hardware that comes from that. If the iPhone was running Android and had to compete solely on the quality of it's hardware, it would not be nearly so successful. The same would be true if Apple laptops were running Windows, they'd sell but nearly as well. Hardware wise there isn't really anything special about iPhones, iPads, or MacBooks.
The EU has it backwards. Apple isn't using it's hardware to sell software. It's using it's software to sell hardware. That's a big part of the reason Apple doesn't sell or license macOS or iOS separate from it's hardware.
But ultimately this antitrust case isn't really about any of that. What's really about is protectionism. The EU has struggled to compete in the tech sector and has made a concerted effort these last few year to go after a mostly foreign industry for the benefit of their domestic businesses. This case is just one piece of that larger effort.
I'm genuinely surprised they didn't get all this underway before they built starbase texas.
In order to properly file their application with the FAA they needed be close to finishing the design of their vehicle. But to do that they had to build and test several prototypes. To build and test those prototypes they first had to build starbase.
If they had filed before building starbase the FAA would have come back questions about the vehicle that couldn't be answered. And the application would have been rejected.
Of course you can only assume that because you have an axe to grind.
I assume because you weren't clear on what you were referring to. The fact that you are pouting suggests my assumption was correct.
Also reality isn't really the thing these days for the right.
The battle between left and right was decided 30 years ago. The USSR went bankrupt and imploded. China and Eastern Europe abandoned socialism for capitalism, enabling their people to climb out of poverty. The Democrats had to move to the centre with Clinton's "third way'. The Labour party reinvented itself saying "we're all Thatcherites now". We know right doesn't have a problem with reality, because they've been right all along.
It's not about the customers, it's about the market and competition.
It's about protectionism. The EU has struggled to compete in the tech sector and in recent years has made a concerted effort to regulate that market to the benefit of European businesses.
Many people on the right appear to want the government to force companies to use their private property to carry said right winger's speech and for free too. It's also steeped in hypocrisy: the government is evil and all regulation is bad unless it's something which affects me personally in which case the government should step in and make private property for the public good.
I can only assume that you are referring to calls to repeal S230. In which case I would point out that the key word there is repeal. Repealing a law mean less government not more. It would be the government stepping out rather than stepping in. Which is the opposite of what you are claiming.
And yet you all seem to want private property to enter the public domain to benefit you. Smells like communism to me.
What private property are you talking about? No one is asking that twitter be turned over to the government.
Parentage has nothing to do with "gender identity". Unless maybe there is some new transoffspring quackery that I've not yet heard about?
What's really funny is how the new commies all seem to identify as right wing.
Communists most certainly do not identify as right wing. That's just you being delusional.
Republican-run cities have a significantly higher crime rate than the states they are in as well. This is not a surprise, nor a differentiator. A lot of crime occurs in cities because there are more potential victims. It's a target-rich environment.
That doesn't change the fact most of the crime happens in the cities, and cities are far far more likely to be run by democrats. Which was the original point.
Let's also not forget that these crime statistics are frequently misleading. Since you didn't provide any citations, we can't find out if you're making useful comparisons. For example, in this country wage theft exceeds all other theft combined. But is it accounted for in your statistics, or are you looking at a subset of crimes? We don't know, because you didn't provide cites.
The person I replied to specified murder rate, those stats are not misleading. And the person I was replying to didn't provide citations either, so it's interesting that you objected to my post instead of his. But in any case the murder rate stats were not cited by either of us because they are easy to find and those numbers are not in dispute. After all you yourself several claims without citation:
"Republican-run cities have a significantly higher crime rate than the states they are in as well." statistics and citations?
Or how about "A lot of crime occurs in cities because there are more potential victims." statistics and citations?
"For example, in this country wage theft exceeds all other theft combined." Source?
But please don't bother looking those citations. Lets not be pedantic and just admit that your objection has nothing to do with the lack of citations.
And finally, I have no idea why you would bring up wage theft estimates in a discussion about murder rates. Especially if you're objecting to the quality of the data.
Also, btw, Republican run states are the worst for crime.
He said Democrat cities not states:
Only if you combine the high rates in the Democrat-controlled cities with the low crime rates in the Republican-controlled areas.
And he is right. Most of the major population centres of the states you listed are run by Democrats. And those Democrat run cities have usually have a significantly higher crime rate than the Republican run state as a whole:
Louisiana (12.4 per 100k) - Republican run, New Orleans (39.50) - LaToya Cantrell (D)
Missouri (9.8 per 100k) - Republican run, Kansas City (30.93) - Quinton Lucas (D)
Nevada (9.1 per 100k), Las Vegas (12.60) - Carolyn Goodman (I)
Maryland (9 per 100k), Baltimore (55.77) - Brandon Scott (D)
Arkansas (8.6 per 100k) - Republican run, Little Rock(24.8) - Frank Scott Jr. (D)
Alaska (8.4 per 100k) - Republican run, Anchorage (9.12) - Dave Bronson (R)
Alabama (8.3 per 100k) - Republican run, Huntsville (3.3) - Tommy Battle (R)
Mississippi (8.2 per 100k) - Republican run, Jackson (71.6) - Chokwe Antar Lumumba (D)
Illinois (7.8 per 100k), Chicago (24.13) - Lori Lightfoot (D)
South Carolina (7.8 per 100k) - Republican run, Charleston (11.3) - John Tecklenburg (D)
Schools are public service, provided by the government, and funded by the taxpayer. The public is perfectly justified in demanding that the schools they are funding be apolitical and refrain from sexualizing their children. Far left indoctrination doesn't belong in the classroom anymore than bible study does.
Free speech is an ideal born from the Enlightenment. It's key element of modern western democracies. That's why it's protected by the First Amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. People are completely justified in wanting this ideal up held on social media.
"Freeze peach" on the other hand is a pejorative invented by the regressive left that seeks to mock and undermine one of our essential freedoms. Spouted by people who want to censor public debate and suppress voices other than their own. They may claim they only want to silence hate and extremism, the problem is they think everyone they disagree with falls into that category.
interlard - vt., to intersperse; diversify -- Webster's New World Dictionary Of The American Language
