Re: Why iCloud has 70% market share

On 7 Mar 2024 16:58:17 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

Apple loses most (if not almost all) of the lawsuits

 That's a butt hurt lie.

If Apple had not recently paid over a billion dollars in legal fees and
lawsuit penalties and "settlements" then it would be a "butt hurt lie".

Apple settling these lawsuits is nothing more
than a quick and relatively painless end to a bullshit farce.

Apple loses all these lawsuits because of Apple's anti-consumer stance.

And I'm
sure that's how Apple views it as well - if you think a few hundred
million dollars is anything but a virtual shrug from Apple, a
three-trillion-dollar company, you're extremely naive.

I won't disagree with you that Apple makes ungodly sums of money being anti
consumer to the core, but part of Apple's anti-consumer strategy, as you
just intimated, must be that billions of dollars will go to the lawsuits
which Apple pushes out for as long as Apple can push them away. And then
Apple settles. Apple can afford losing billions of dollars in lawsuits.

It's less costly
to Apple to pay these ridiculous people off than to bother going to
court, so they settled instead, and in doing so admitted no wrongdoing.
And rightly so.

Being anti-consumer is how Apple makes those ungodly sums of money in the
first place. The inevitable lawsuits which Apple spectacularly loses, are
simply a part of Apple's strategic plans. As you said, Apple can afford
being anti-consumer to the core. What's a few billion dollars in penalties.

you always say every lawsuit against Apple is bad.

 Repeating that lie doesn't magically make it become true, doofus.

Yet you always claim that every single lawsuit that Apple settles because
of Apple's anti-consumer stance - are bad lawsuits - because you don't
understand a single thing about how Apple's anti-consumer strategy fits
them in as the inevitable cost of illegally screwing the customer.

But none of you showed you actually understand what that lawsuit is
about.

>
Apple provides full-device backups for its products using its own
infrastructure. That's not "anticompetitive behavior". And Apple
isn't obligated to provide that service for other cloud providers
just because some users want Apple's services without paying for the
required infrastructure. This case is ridiculous on its face, and the
only people it appeals to are ridiculous people and trolls.

>
Like I said, you clearly didn't understand what the lawsuit was about.

 Projection. It is you who clearly doesn't understand what the lawsuit
was about.

You say all lawsuits against Apple are bad.
It's what you do.

And yet you always instantly say all lawsuits against Apple are bad.

 Repeating that lie doesn't magically make it become true, doofus.

You don't even need to understand the lawsuits.
All you need to know is that Apple was sued - and you say that's bad.

It's obvious you didn't understand

 Projection.

And yet, you don't even understand what this specific lawsuit is all about.
Nor do you understand what any of the lawsuits against Apple are about.
To you, any lawsuit against Apple (even ones Apple settles for billions of
dollars in total costs) you say are bad - because you don't like Apple's
strategy of being anti-consumer to the core (which is the reason for Apple
losing almost all of these lawsuits - to the tune of billions of dollars).