Will Apple's Congressional Testimony Affect our Boating Apps?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Mark P

Mark P

Senior Member
Joined
May 14, 2018
Messages
291
Location
United States
Last year I posted on TF about the nature of our antitrust laws - used to protect competition, not competitors; and that over the years many industrial companies like Xerox ran afoul of these laws. Now, it looks like the Tech companies like Apple (Amazon, FB, and Google) are getting called up by Congress to testify. Tim Cook, Apple'z CEO testifies Monday July 27th and it could affect our boating apps like Navionics and Active Captain.

Here is the antitrust issue in a nutshell: Should Apple be able to: (1) force you (because you bought an iPhone from ATT, Verizon etc), to use only Apple software for your phone? (2) force App Developers like Navionics/Active Captain to pay 30% of purchases made in the App, or (3) force developers to accept only digital Apple Pay for purchases. This activity by Apple sure sounds a lot like what Xerox did to end up in hot water some 50 years ago - using a superior copier product and proprietary maintenance agreements to force customers to buy paper from Xerox - (e.g., no paper from us, no maintenance or parts for you!)

The outcome may matter for boaters - all of these tech titans are doing real well financially, but may well be running afoul of antitrust laws. We could benefit by integration of charts and other navigation software that may occur if Apple's conduct or the conduct of others, is found to be illegal. We'll see.
 
Glad I'm not hooked on Apple.

Ted
 
Apple is evil. No worries about Navionics or Aquamap. Just buy a Samsung Tab S6 and ditch over-priced Apple tablets. I-phones, too. Over-priced bricks.
 
@MarkP, are you thinking more along the lines of the following example?
Boater buys Garmin chartplotter. Boater wants to use Navionics chart chip that Boater already owns but cannot because Garmin only allows Garmin chips in Garmin plotter. Boater is forced to purchase new chip that is compatible with plotter.

Or are you thinking more about the app technologies?
 
cruiserChick: Yes, you got it. It can happen with app technologies, as well. So to use your example and take it farther (all just fictitious of course!), let's assume that Garmin is so much better than any other product, that no boater can navigate safely without it. Garmin requires use solely of their software charts. Then Garmin tells Marinas, if you want to show up on my charts when boaters are looking for a marina, then Garmin gets $2.00 for each time your boat shows up in the marina, whether you dock there or not, or buy fuel or not. Pretty soon, they make it hard for marinas to do business without giving them a cut. Sounds like some of the big tech companies?? Good news for boating is that very few products or services are so good that the business owner can tie common place services or product to it.
 
I have mixed feelings here.

I have no love for the big tech companies who are taking advantage of their market dominance. The whole privacy thing irritates me, maybe even scares me.

But this push to go after every big company with frivolous anti-trust allegations seems over the top, and largely political. People love to hate big companies, making them easy targets for politicians and prosecutors with political aspirations.

Back in the day, Microsoft did a lot of truly nasty things, but bundling a browser with their operating system wasn't one of them. That made perfect sense. But they were attacked for that anyway.

Apple is truly evil in more ways than I care to discuss, but you're free to buy Android devices if you don't like living in Apple's ecosystem (and paying Apple's prices.) Just as nobody is making you stand in line to shell out $1K or more for the latest shiny gadget just because it's new and shiny.

I have very little sympathy for anyone who chooses to do that. Apple isn't the problem, they're the symptom. People want to throw money away just to make a fashion statement. Apple is only too happy to collect it.
 
CaptTom: None of these large companies, whether the old industrials (US Steel, Koppers, Xerox,) or the modern day techies (Microsoft, FB, Amazon, Apple) in my mind are evil in their operations - they are just trying to maximize shareholder value (and I like that since I am retired with their stock!).

The DOJ goes after big companies because they are running afoul of antitrust laws in some cases, not because they are big. Many of the cases brought against big companies resulted in huge successes for all of us. So, think of the 1982 break up of Ma Bell. That started an entire telecom innovation surge that is still with us today for which we all benefit. The DOJ case against Microsoft and Netscape allowed room for funny named company called "Google" to start up - otherwise, would never have happened. Imagine what apps and other inventions for our boat may happen if Apple's systems were open?
 
I guess I don't understand what's "closed" about Apple's stuff. Anyone can write an app for OSx or iOS, and thousands have. Same for windows, android, linux, Solaris, etc, etc. There is a verification and distribution system, but the same is true for Windows with certified or signed apps and drivers, and google play or whatever their app publishing equivalent is to the apple app store. If you don't like one, for whatever reason, use the other. I don't think anyone is being held captive. Just enforcing some level of quality checking, which I personally am thankful for.


I think the only one that's at risk of being monopolistic is google search. For all intents and purposes, it's the only search engine out there. And your hit ranking is directly related to what you are willing to pay.


Regarding charting, people should just vote with their dollars. Garmin, for example, has never even made it past the initial cut for me, for one huge reason. They are the sole source of charts for their products. Consideration ends right there.
 
Apple is doing two things that may restrict competition - and this may be what DOJ is looking at. With respect to software, take a company like Epic Games which publishes the hugely popular game among teenagers "Fortnite" - I've not played so don't know much about it except that I pay for my Son's playing! Fortnite developed the game, my son bought it for his iphone. Every time my son wants more credits from Fortnite, Apple gets a 30% cut from the in-app purchase (same reason that you cannot use the Navionics App on Google or Apple to buy charts, or ActiveCaptain charts, you need to go online to the company websites, otherwise Apple or Google get 30%). I can see Apple getting 30% if they did something other than just sell me a phone plus collect cash from the developer of the App.

On Apple iphones, users are required to use Apple Pay digital currency - (No PayPal or credit card for you). What is the rationale for this? Makes sense from a business standpoint as it maximizes profit for Apple, but may be no different that the Microsoft and Netscape issue - two distinct products tied together that created antitrust issues because these actions tend to lessen competition. Who knows where this will end up, but if the DOJ is successful, we may see a boom in technology the likes we've not seen since the last turn of the century. That can only help boaters like us, IMHO.
 
First, a personal note... I was working for Ma Bell back when the breakup happened. I thought then, and I still do, that it was the right thing for the public. Didn't like the risk it put my job at, but it was the right thing.

Why does it seem that anti-trust prosecutions are always also anti-big-business? Well, that's pretty simple. You have to have a lot of control of the marketplace to come afoul of the anti-trust laws. Small companies simply do not have that kind of control. So anti-trust may SEEM anti-big-business, but that is just a coincidence of the nature of anti-trust laws.

Having become pretty familiar with the anti-trust laws back when I worked for Ma Bell, I do believe that Apple is in violation. We'll see how this plays out.
 
Greetings,
Me three. Put myself and first mate through college/university courtesy of Ma Bell. Gonzo once graduated...
 
Interesting. Like an old-home reunion.

I started working for Northwestern Bell in 1978. Moved to AT&T in Orlando in early 1982. Eventually left to go to work for Northern Telecom in North Carolina. Then, eventually, into the finance industry, and now working in health care. It's nice to have skills that let you move around when you want to.

I would say that it is obvious that the break-up of the Ma Bell monopoly was a good thing for the consumer. We have far more telecom options today than we would otherwise have, at far less cost. Just as Japanese competition back in the early 70s was a good thing for the American auto industry -- better, safer, more efficient cars all around.
 
Mark P said:
CaptTom: None of these large companies, whether the old industrials (US Steel, Koppers, Xerox,) or the modern day techies (Microsoft, FB, Amazon, Apple) in my mind are evil in their operations - they are just trying to maximize shareholder value (and I like that since I am retired with their stock!).
Click to expand...

That's what is wrong with corporations nowadays, their goal is on maximizing shareholder value. In a short period.

In the not so distant past, the goal of a corporation was to create the best product or service possible. And if they did that, sales would increase and value rise.

I don't own Apple computers, phones or tablets. I enjoy the ability to obtain apps and programs from a wider array of sources. Many programs I use are not available on Apple platforms because they refused to pay the exorbitante fees. Forcing consumers to buy hardware and software from the same source seems ripe for abuse.

Apple was doing so so until the introduction of the iPod. The iPod was the greatest portable music storage device ever invented and Apple flourished due to it's rapid acceptance. I have several 160 GB iPod Classics, a Nano and two Shuffles. Apple stupidly stopped selling the iPods, trying to get consumers to put all their music on the iPhone or cloud. Which worked for them since the iPhone has a wide acceptance.

The price of used iPods have risen, businesses that repair and upgrade iPods are springing up all over and other manufacturers are selling inferior MP3 players in large numbers. The market is still viable for the iPod but Apple doesn't want to take away from iPhone sales.

Apple is a sneaky company. They got us to spend huge amounts of time converting our music to Apple's MPEG-4 or AAC using iTunes so we could load them into the iPod. Then when the iPhone was gaining market share, they discontinued the iPods assuming most music lovers were not going to go through the ripping process again for an Android phone.
 
Last edited:
You don't become the most valuable company in world history unless you repeatedly
create new and innovative products that people will pay premium prices for.

I wouldn't know what to do with an iPod now and wouldn't enjoy the compressed sound.
Streaming is effortless and offers greater variety with greatly enhanced sound quality.

Apple has changed the way humans spend their time, forever, since the Macintosh.
They will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

And yes, I own stock in Apple and have since it was $20 a share about 4 splits ago.
 
Last edited:
KnotYet said:
You don't become the most valuable company in world history unless you repeatedly
create new and innovative products that people will pay premium prices for.
I wouldn't know what to do with an Ipod now and wouldn't enjoy the compressed sound.

Apple has changed the way humans spend their time, forever, since the Macintosh.
They will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

And yes, I own stock in Apple and have since it was $20 a share about 4 splits ago.
Click to expand...

Microsoft and Google has also significantly changed how we spend time.

Apple has not been innovative since Job's death: "Since his death, the company has turned to a new leader in the form of current CEO Tim Cook. ... Apple, in turn, has suffered from a creative stagnancy that has led to fewer new product categories in comparison to the Jobs era of the company's history."

Most people would not be able to tell the difference between compressed AAC at 320 kbps and a CD with the type of audio equipment typically owned by the average person. Or a noisy automobile environment, listening through inexpensive earbuds or wireless speakers. Most don't compress at the higher rate so of course the sound is lousy.

And most people don't know how to critically listen to music. Hardly anybody sits in front of audiophile quality speakers and just listen to music anymore. I used to in my younger days but not now with age and abuse related hearing loss. It's no fun having to listen to music at lower volume in order to prevent further damage to my ears.

I use Apple Lossless to rip CD's to iTunes and play that back through the music server at home but for earbuds, boomboxes, auto, boat and boathouse, AAC at 320 kbps on the iPod Classic is the bomb. Being able to carry your entire large music collection in a wallet size package, anywhere, anytime, out of radio and internet range is a dream come true for music lovers.

I stream to hear new music but I prefer listening to playlists created by me from my library or shuffle my entire library. And older, obscure blues, world and other forms of music is unavailable with most streaming services.

Before I retired my Mobile DJ business, I played Apple Lossless and FLAC from a laptop connected via MIDI to the system. On a 3600 watt pro audio system with subs in a large crowded venue, I could tell the difference between 320 kbps and Apple Lossless. But the difference between lossless and CD was indistinguishable.

Being able to hear differences in a variety of sources and equipment has been researched with double blind testing for years. Most people who claim they can hear the difference are simply easy to fool. Expensive speaker cables, gold plated audio connectors, coatings to enhance CD sound and other products have been foisted on gullible consumers over the years. Psycoaustics is an interesting study.
 
Last edited:
syjos said:
That's what is wrong with corporations nowadays, their goal is on maximizing shareholder value. In a short period.

In the not so distant past, the goal of a corporation was to create the best product or service possible. And if they did that, sales would increase and value rise.
Click to expand...

This is the problem today. I think we've been conned into confusing ends vs. means.

The goal of a company is to produce a product. If you're good at it, you sell more of that product, and your business will grow.

If you need more capital to grow, you can sell stock and grow faster.

You sell stock to make more and better products. Not simply to enrich the stockholders (although if you're good, that will come in the long run, also.)
 
CaptTom said:
This is the problem today. I think we've been conned into confusing ends vs. means.

The goal of a company is to produce a product. If you're good at it, you sell more of that product, and your business will grow.

If you need more capital to grow, you can sell stock and grow faster.

You sell stock to make more and better products. Not simply to enrich the stockholders (although if you're good, that will come in the long run, also.)
Click to expand...

That's the way company's should operate but not all subscribe to that.
 
syjos said:
That's the way company's should operate but not all subscribe to that.
Click to expand...


I think the root of the problem is shareholder expectations/demands. Public companies operate with a 1 quarter horizon because that's what public markets respond to, and is what they reward or punish. I think many would love to be able to take a longer view, but public markets want gratification now. And I think that's because for every person who is an "investor" looking for long term value, there are 10-100 who are traders looking to cash in on today's news. It's why you see a lot of companies going private in order to carry out some longer term goals, investments, or shift in strategy.
 
I thought it was interesting that Apple, Microsoft and many big PC / phone manufacturers fought the right to repair movement, which is still there. If you buy a device from a vendor, you should own that device and be able to fix that device if necessary. Instead, they require their service techs to have custom software rigs to download and maintain the system, and can brick it at a moment's notice for any violation of these terms and conditions.


In apple's environment, they simply end of life a product meaning that although you purchased software for the device from their approved vendors (who paid annual developer fees, and commissions on every product sale) can no longer support the EOL device. If you attempt to upgrade an app, it erases the app, downloads the new one, and then says you can't run that new code on this old device. Your working previous software is long gone.

We are between a rock and a hard place, since engine companies build in computers and sensor systems to meet Tier III emissions standards, and then weaponize these systems to protect their service and supply chain. The lawmakers who pass these laws are on the payroll of company lobbyists and not likely to vote in our favor anytime soon.
 
Greetings,
Mr. 99. Ain't capitalism great?


iu
 
A job in my past was with a military contractor. We were forced to take ethics training twice a year... when they themselves were the most corrupt company I've ever known.
 
Well, I think where the Tech companies are now is where US big industrials were in about 1900 or so. At that time, wild capitalism ruled. For example, during a labor dispute at the Homestead Steel Works in the Pittsburgh, PA area between the Ironworkers and the Carnegie Steel Company (who had hired Pinkerton Guards for security), Carnegie and his group quelled the dispute by sending in Pinkerton guards that killed some 10-12 ironworkers who were trying to unionize. While we don't have that kind of activity today, we still have some strong-arm tactics in terms of business operations by some Tech companies. I think Congress is on the right track, and we as boaters should benefit to the extent these Apps and devices are opened up - a lot of innovation will follow.
 
Apple

I have been using Apple/McIntosh since it rolled out of Steve’s garage. What Apple is doing is controlling/protecting it’s operating software by having all app creators build their apps to Apple specs and then paying for the use of Apples systems. By doing this they are able to offer all users the security that others like Microsoft can’t. A lot programmers are not happy by being shut out by Apples’s total control of its product and Apple Apps is a part of its total product.
 
And the above is what I like about Mac stuff, and why I continue to use it. It maintains a certain 'purity' about its hardware and software, that can't just be copied by any Jo Blow. However, I am the first to admit some of the apps are a bit annoying in the way they work, compared say to Microsoft, which I had to use at work so am familiar with.

I guess the old saying is true here. Nothing is perfect.
 
Peter B said:
And the above is what I like about Mac stuff, and why I continue to use it. It maintains a certain 'purity' about its hardware and software, that can't just be copied by any Jo Blow. However, I am the first to admit some of the apps are a bit annoying in the way they work, compared say to Microsoft, which I had to use at work so am familiar with.

I guess the old saying is true here. Nothing is perfect.
Click to expand...


It works 99% of the time, and I'm happy to pay extra for that. Other products work maybe 60-70% of the time, and waste enormous mounts of your time trying to get it to work the rest of the time. I have no interest in having my time wasted, let along paying for it.
 
Peter B said:
And the above is what I like about Mac stuff, and why I continue to use it. It maintains a certain 'purity' about its hardware and software, that can't just be copied by any Jo Blow. However, I am the first to admit some of the apps are a bit annoying in the way they work, compared say to Microsoft, which I had to use at work so am familiar with.

I guess the old saying is true here. Nothing is perfect.
Click to expand...
Purity about hardware and software? 80 years ago we called that eugenics when applied to humans, what is the name for that now? Softenics?

Joke appart what hardware purity are you talking about? For almost the last 20 years their hardware is the same as anybody else.
And I do not talk about software where their purity is only a way to lock you down with their products so to increase earning.

Don't mind me though, just a comment :)

L
 
Last edited:
I use Windows and Android and they also works 99% of the time.

Different strokes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Parts of this future are already here.
2 3
Replies
76
Views
3K
FF
FF
G
Inland Electronic Chart Data, Hardware & Software
Replies
2
Views
533
Gdavid
G
Portage_Bay
An interesting read on the security of GPS
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
AMG
A
FF
Some folks vision
2 3
Replies
72
Views
6K
Bud
Bud
F
Cruising - lessons learned pros and cons
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
GFC
G

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom