Huh?
The apples are delicious.
The beer tastes good.
The pedants needlessly argue grammatical minutiae.
None of the above sentences require (not are improved by) the article ātheseā.
That was my favorite part of Mein Kampf.
Does anybody else think the timing of this is interesting. Mainly in regards to the jubilant Hillary support clapfest she just gave. Could Warren have wanted to send Clinton a perfectly placed salvo that resonates with if I do this you do this bitch. Or was that discussed at the meeting with Clinton prior to the clapfest. I donāt know.
-
So because I make up an anticompetitive rule, therefore I am granted amnesty from the law?
-
Itās more like Nike having a monopoly on shoelaces, and if I tried to use a different brand of laces or make my own, I open myself up to illogical and gross legal repercussions. Or like if you were prevented from using third party oil in your carās engine.
iOS has a market share of 23.10% in the US. Under no circumstances is that a monopoly.
Nike owns 48% of the US footwear market. Thatās still a far cry from a monopoly, despite being the largest majority.
So why is iOSā not part of the greater smartphone market but Nike is a part of the greater footwear market in your eyes?
Remember, sneakers share the same ABI and API for shoelaces.
Operating systems do not share the same ABI or API for executable binaries.
I didnāt say Apple was a monopoly. I said their rules are anticompetitive and possibly illegal.
And that makes it better how? Theyāre swaddling themselves in copyright to make sure other players canāt enter the market on their platform. Picking winners (really just themselves) and losers (anyone who even slightly can compete). Thatās definitionally anticompetitive.
You say that Iām crazy, but I know that youāve got a Woody for me.
Swaddling themselves in copyright?
Lest you forget that Spotify was on the App Store, following Appleās rules, years before Apple Music existed.
Not to mention Iām not sure if Spotify has ever been profitable on any platform. Most of their money comes from VC funding. Thatās not a business model.
Apple Music is just the latest excuse Spotify is using for why they canāt turn a profit.
Yeah? Then Apple decided to make some changes, and now we have a possible test-case, that has potential to set precedence for competition within a platform. So, a good thing. If you like markets that work a little better.
Well done! 
āPedantsā is a collective, so it should be āThe pedants is needlessly argue grammatical minutiae.ā
Itās made Daniel Ek worth ~$400m, so itās been a pretty effective non business model.
in the right light I could see how Facebook has promoted their platform to the detriment of other platforms. Facebook could be a protocol and and not centralized service. Although that would have had to push against the technical and business forces.
Google search exists as a natural soft monopoly, for the same reason there were few competing yellow pages.
Or itās a shot over the bow at various companies, letting them know they need to get out their check books.
Apple has not made any changes to the rule since 2011. All they changed (as it affects Spotify) was to lower their cut from 30% to 15% on subscriptions that had been maintained for 12 months, effective June 13th, 2016 (so all apps that had users with subscriptions that had existed for a year on that day immediately saw their cut increase to 85% for those users).
Also a possibility. Because Elizabeth wants to be the next one in line, no questions asked.
