https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4505480-proposed-lawsuit-alleges-apple-monopolizing-cloud-storage-for-its-devices/

iCloud is the only service that can host certain data from the company's phones, tablets and computers, including application data and device
settings. Plaintiffs allege the practice has "unlawfully 'tied'" the
devices and iCloud together.

"Apple's arbitrary prohibition on hosting Restricted Files fundamentally distorts the competitive landscape to privilege iCloud over all rivals,"
the suit reads. "As a result of this restraint, would-be cloud competitors
are unable to offer Apple's device holders a full-service cloud-storage solution, or even a pale comparison."

iCloud enjoys about 70 percent market share in cloud storage for Apple
users, according to the suit. Plaintiffs also noted that the high market
share has allowed prices to skyrocket, marking it "undisciplined by competition."

"Apple has marked up its iCloud prices to the point where the service is generating almost pure profit. Apple's ability to sustain these prices is a testament to its monopoly power," the suit said.

The plaintiffs propose a class action suit with tens of millions of
members, all iCloud platform users.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-03-04 07:40:04 +0000, Bill Powell said:

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4505480-proposed-lawsuit-alleges-apple-monopolizing-cloud-storage-for-its-devices/

<snip>

The plaintiffs propose a class action suit with tens of millions of
members, all iCloud platform users.

Translation: A few greedy loud-mouthed idiots are throwing a temper
tantrum in the hopes of getting lots of money from a big company.

When are morons like this going to grow a braincell? :-\

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 4, 2024 at 2:40:04 AM EST, "Bill Powell" <bill@anarchists.org> wrote:

"Apple has marked up its iCloud prices to the point where the service is generating almost pure profit. Apple's ability to sustain these prices is a testament to its monopoly power," the suit said.

You CAN'T have a "monopoly" on your own product. That's not how monopolies are defined.

"iCloud enjoys about 70 percent market share in cloud storage for Apple
users". Which proves it is NOT a "monopoly". Obviously, other cloud storage works just fine.

"Plaintiffs also noted that the high market share has allowed prices to skyrocket, marking it “undisciplined by competition.” Prices have not changed
for iCloud storage. Nothing has "skyrocketed".

Anti-trust laws are in place to protect consumers. NOT competitors. Apple
users LIKE that Apple controls everything. If Apple users wanted the anything-goes, wild wild west world of Android and Windows, then they would have CHOSEN Android and Windows.

This alleged "lawsuit" will go nowhere. While you are at, why not file a suit against McDonald's for having 100% market share of Big Macs?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-03-04 02:40, Bill Powell wrote:

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4505480-proposed-lawsuit-alleges-apple-monopolizing-cloud-storage-for-its-devices/

iCloud is the only service that can host certain data from the company's phones, tablets and computers, including application data and device settings. Plaintiffs allege the practice has "unlawfully 'tied'" the
devices and iCloud together.

"Apple's arbitrary prohibition on hosting Restricted Files fundamentally distorts the competitive landscape to privilege iCloud over all rivals,"
the suit reads. "As a result of this restraint, would-be cloud competitors are unable to offer Apple's device holders a full-service cloud-storage solution, or even a pale comparison."

iCloud enjoys about 70 percent market share in cloud storage for Apple
users, according to the suit. Plaintiffs also noted that the high market share has allowed prices to skyrocket, marking it "undisciplined by competition."

"Apple has marked up its iCloud prices to the point where the service is generating almost pure profit. Apple's ability to sustain these prices is a testament to its monopoly power," the suit said.

The plaintiffs propose a class action suit with tens of millions of
members, all iCloud platform users.

Another BS pile attack.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-03-04, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:

On Mar 4, 2024 at 2:40:04 AM EST, "Bill Powell" <bill@anarchists.org> wrote:

"Apple has marked up its iCloud prices to the point where the service is
generating almost pure profit. Apple's ability to sustain these prices is a >> testament to its monopoly power," the suit said.

You CAN'T have a "monopoly" on your own product. That's not how monopolies are
defined.

"iCloud enjoys about 70 percent market share in cloud storage for Apple users". Which proves it is NOT a "monopoly". Obviously, other cloud storage works just fine.

"Plaintiffs also noted that the high market share has allowed prices to skyrocket, marking it “undisciplined by competition.” Prices have not changed
for iCloud storage. Nothing has "skyrocketed".

Anti-trust laws are in place to protect consumers. NOT competitors. Apple users LIKE that Apple controls everything. If Apple users wanted the anything-goes, wild wild west world of Android and Windows, then they would have CHOSEN Android and Windows.

This alleged "lawsuit" will go nowhere. While you are at, why not file a suit against McDonald's for having 100% market share of Big Macs?

+1

Ridiculous lawsuit.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5 Mar 2024 17:31:39 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

Ridiculous lawsuit.

The lawsuit may be ridiculous, and certainly I'd never think of filing something like that, but I don't see any evidence that any of those who responded actually understood what the lawsuit is all about.

All anyone who responded said was "lawsuits against Apple are bad".
Which, I'm sure you all feel strongly that Apple should never be sued.

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-03-05 19:52, Sten deJoode wrote:

On 5 Mar 2024 17:31:39 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

Ridiculous lawsuit.

The lawsuit may be ridiculous, and certainly I'd never think of filing something like that, but I don't see any evidence that any of those who responded actually understood what the lawsuit is all about.

All anyone who responded said was "lawsuits against Apple are bad".
Which, I'm sure you all feel strongly that Apple should never be sued.

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

I love the way you carefully navigate denigrating others...

...while not actually showing in any way that YOU know anything...

...Arlen.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-03-06, Sten deJoode <StendeJood@nospam.net> wrote:

On 5 Mar 2024 17:31:39 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

Ridiculous lawsuit.

The lawsuit may be ridiculous, and certainly I'd never think of filing something like that, but I don't see any evidence that any of those
who responded actually understood what the lawsuit is all about.

All anyone who responded said was "lawsuits against Apple are bad".

That's your troll take, but that's not what was actually said.

I'm sure you all feel strongly that Apple should never be sued.

Nonsense.

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

You're projecting your own lack of understanding. It is you who hasn't
shown you actually understand what the lawsuit is about. See how that
works? Anyone can baselessly claim other people "don't actual
understanding" without any evidence of it. 😉

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.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6 Mar 2024 16:45:26 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

I'm sure you all feel strongly that Apple should never be sued.

Nonsense.

Apple loses most (if not almost all) of the lawsuits we discuss on this newsgroup, and yet you always say every lawsuit against Apple is bad.

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

It's obvious you didn't understand because the suit does NOT ask Apple to "provide that service" (which means you don't understand what it's about).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-03-06 20:51, Sten deJoode wrote:

On 6 Mar 2024 16:45:26 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

I'm sure you all feel strongly that Apple should never be sued.

Nonsense.

Apple loses most (if not almost all) of the lawsuits we discuss on this newsgroup, and yet you always say every lawsuit against Apple is bad.

LOL

Apple settles a lot of those suits, Arlen.

Settling is not losing.

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

It's obvious you didn't understand because the suit does NOT ask Apple to "provide that service" (which means you don't understand what it's about).

And yet you won't explain what the lawsuit is supposed to be about in
your opinion (such as it is)...

...Arlen

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-03-07, Sten deJoode <StendeJood@nospam.net> wrote:

On 6 Mar 2024 16:45:26 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

I'm sure you all feel strongly that Apple should never be sued.

Nonsense.

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

That's a butt hurt lie. Apple settling these lawsuits is nothing more
than a quick and relatively painless end to a bullshit farce. 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. 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.

you always say every lawsuit against Apple is bad.

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

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.

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

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

It's obvious you didn't understand

Projection.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-03-08, Sten deJoode <StendeJood@nospam.net> wrote:

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

Settling and admitting no fault isn't "losing".

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.

Settling and admitting no fault isn't "losing".

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

Good.

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.

Apple makes those ungodly sums of money

By making products people love. Losers like you HATE that.

you always say every lawsuit against Apple is bad.

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

you always claim that every single lawsuit

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

Projection.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)