May 3, 2024 • 49 mins
This week we delve into the major (Isn't there always one?) lawsuit against Apple for monopolizing the smartphone market. We explore the implications of Apple’s business practices on innovation, consumer choice, and market competition. The discussion also covers the ethical concerns around Apple's ecosystem exclusivity and how it affects users' perceptions of non-Apple products.
Discussion Highlights:
- Overview of the Justice Department's lawsuit against Apple for monopolizing smartphone markets, focusing on exclusionary practices that hinder competition.
- Examination of how Apple's ecosystem locks in users, making it difficult to switch to competitor products like Android.
- Discussion on the ethical considerations of business practices that degrade competitor's product functionality.
- Reflections on personal and societal impacts of technology choices, including the social implications of being labeled by the type of device one uses.
Relevant Links:
- Justice Department Sues Apple: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets
- C-NET Article on Apple Lawsuit: https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/the-us-lawsuit-against-apple-raises-questions-about-iphone-and-androids-future/
- YouTube - Merrick B. Garland Press Conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQk-EhuQdLg&t=278s&ab_channel=C-SPAN
Community Questions:
- How do Apple’s business practices affect your choice of technology and perception of non-Apple products?
- Do you think Apple’s ecosystem exclusivity is just good business, or does it cross ethical boundaries?
- Have you experienced or noticed any social implications based on the type of mobile device you or others use?
MacroFab:
This show is brought to you by MacroFab, which provides a platform for electronics manufacturing services (EMS), hardware development, designing and prototyping for individuals, startups, and businesses. Key MacroFab services include PCB (Printed Circuit Board) fabrication, assembly, and testing. Customers can use MacroFab's platform to upload their PCB designs, select components, and specify manufacturing requirements.
We Want to Hear From You!
Subscribe to Circuit Break wherever you get your podcasts! And join our online Discourse discussion hub at forum.macrofab.com to keep the conversation going with electrical engineering experts and experimenters! You can also email us at podcast@macrofab.com.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Parker Dillmann (00:10):
Welcome to circuit break from macrofab. A
weekly show about old you knowwhat? It's a weekly podcast not
a show. A weekly podcast. Or isa show podcast?
Yeah. Let's go with that. Aweekly podcast about all things
engineering. Yeah. But youclicked on this knowing it was a
podcast, and you would know it'sweekly.
(00:32):
If this is your Stephen Kraigand I talked for, like, Steven
and I'd, like, talk for an hour.We're all ready to go.
Stephen Kraig (00:37):
Warmed up here.
Parker Dillmann (00:38):
What is the topic? Yeah. We're all warmed
up. All things engineering. Thewe all warmed up about all
things engineering.
Just finish the intro parts.Manufacturing, industry news,
and market monopolizations.We're your hosts, electrical
engineers, and go. Greg. This isepisode 429, and we just
finished that.
(00:58):
Finally. That's how that's howyou can tell it's not
prerecorded.
Stephen Kraig (01:01):
We've been we have been warming up for a mo
we've been talking about hottopics before this.
Parker Dillmann (01:07):
Yeah. Hot topics. This is the next hot
topic of the day. So from lastweek's episode, we didn't get to
this topic, and we're just gonnacover this whole thing maybe
probably an hour or
Stephen Kraig (01:19):
so. Yeah. We'll we'll see how it goes. So this
is a topic that that well, okay.So I'll I'll just introduce with
back on March 21, 2024, thejustice department sued Apple
for monopolizing the smartphonemarket.
And this is a topic that when itfirst came out, I saw articles
hit on this, and it was like,woah. Okay. That's really
(01:41):
interesting. I'm I'm curious whythis is even going forward. And
I and and the first article Isaw of this was like, oh, we
gotta talk about this on thepodcast.
And now we are over a monthafter this started, and we're
finally getting around totalking about it. And I was
kinda Well, not Not not really.I mean, we've had guests, and
we've had other stuff go on. Andthis isn't necessarily a super
(02:02):
normal topic for us to do. Andfor those who have been
listening for a while, you know,Parker and I have talked about
Apple many times in the past,both positive and negative
things.
But I'm really curious aboutthis topic because it brings up
a bunch of almost ethical issuesand ideas or concepts with how
(02:23):
you handle your product and howyou handle your competitors
product. And that's reallywhat's got me riled up on this
one is how Apple handles theircompetitors product and the
perception about it. And that'sthe one big word that I really
wanna press this whole episode.Because to me, this whole
lawsuit comes down to, I guess,penalizing Apple for the way
(02:49):
they have changed people'sperception about anything that
is not Apple. So so from theoffice of public affairs press
release, there's a little bit ofa statement I wanna read here on
there's an article from theoffice of public affairs that
says Apple's broad basedexclusionary conduct makes it
(03:10):
harder for Americans to switchsmartphones and undermines
innovation for apps, products,and services and imposes
extraordinary cost ondevelopers, businesses, and
consumers.
Apple exercises its monopoly ormonopoly power to extract more
money from from consumers,developers, content creators,
(03:31):
artists, publishers, smallbusinesses, and merchants among
others. So this is somethingthat I have had an issue with
Apple for a long time. They'revery exclusionary platform that
they've created. Now in general,you know, for people who've
listened for a while, it'sfairly obvious. I I tend to fit
(03:54):
more in, let's say, a bit moreof a conservative political
mindset.
And I'm a bit of a capitalistmyself. And so for the most
part, I land in the category of,you know, Apple made a product,
Apple made a platform, Apple hastheir ecosystem, you know,
thumbs up. Good for you. Go forit. And you know what?
They're uber successful. So alot of people really like the
(04:18):
product that they make, and youknow what? They give them a ton
of money for it. So, you know,thumbs up. Good good to go,
Apple.
But at a point, does it start tobecome a monopoly, and do they
start to control the market inunfair practices or by using
unfair practices? And a bit ofthis lawsuit is addressing those
(04:40):
kinds of things. Are theycharging too much for developers
to put stuff on their on theirplatforms? Are they creating a
false narrative for theircompetitors product? Are they
adjusting people's mindsetsaround what the industry has
within it?
(05:01):
And and this lawsuit is reallykind of approaching that. So I
don't know. I'm I'm reallycurious about this one, and I
was surprised when I first sawit come out because Apple seems
to be like a darling baby.Everyone seems to like them.
They just have that magic touchthat, you know, everything that
they do is magical and it justworks beautifully.
(05:21):
Right?
Parker Dillmann (05:23):
The magic touches money.
Stephen Kraig (05:25):
Yeah. A lot of money. Right? So so so I found
another another quote I wanna Iwanna say real quick from a CNET
article that came out not longafter the, the lawsuit came out.
So it says, the 88 page lawsuitargues that Apple's tight grip
on its software, hardware, andapp marketplace makes third
party apps and smartwatchessignificantly less appealing to
(05:48):
iPhone users, therefore,stifling innovation and
resulting in fewer choices forconsumers.
Above all else, the complaintalleges these policies entrench
iPhone users by imposingbarriers when switching to
Android, which, okay, that's aninteresting statement because
when it comes to businesses I'veworked for in the past, we've
(06:11):
had these exact kind ofconversations where it's, hey.
We want our customers to buy ourstuff, and we want them to be
happy with our stuff, but wewant them to stick with our
stuff, and we want them to buymore of our stuff. And that's
not necessarily specificallygreed based thing. That is, hey.
(06:32):
How do we get the customers coolstuff and they give us money for
it?
Right? And in in some ways,creating a platform or no. I
shouldn't say a platform.Creating an ecosystem that they
can work within, you know, in away, I'm not gonna say locks
them into your thing, but theycommit. Let's put it that way.
(06:53):
They commit to using yourproduct and you create services
that work for you, but notnecessarily they don't
necessarily support yourcompetitors. And I'm typically
way thumbs up with that. But itfeels like in some ways, Apple
has gone so far to the extremethat they put lots of effort
(07:13):
into preventing you from usingyour customers stuff. It's not
that they just make such a goodproduct that you want to use it.
It's that they actively work tomake you not use 3rd party
anything whatsoever.
Parker Dillmann (07:27):
Yeah. That's, like, that's actually a really
good point because let's takefor example Bluetooth devices to
for a normal Bluetooth speakercan connect to any iPhone or
Android or whatever. Any otherBluetooth device. Right? They
can connect with PlayStat.
That's the point. But if youwant to trans yeah. That's the
point. But if you want totransfer data between 2
(07:49):
Bluetooth devices and one ofthem is an iPhone, you need to
have a a basically, an Appleauthentication co processor in
that other device to do theneedful basically between the
two devices so you can sharedata, which is mind boggling.
That's a thing.
Stephen Kraig (08:08):
Yeah. Exactly. It it's mind boggling because if it
feels to me like if anyone elsedid that, they would be skewered
immediately. They would bechastised, and they would they
would be considered that this isterrible business practice.
You're being evil.
You're being disgusting. Butwhen Apple does it, everyone
just kinda turns a blind eye toit and says, oh, but it's Apple,
(08:31):
and everything's awesome inApple world.
Parker Dillmann (08:33):
Yeah. Think about if Samsung you had to buy
a a Samsung approved cable totalk to your computer because it
has the Samsung chip in it. Nowthey the the Apple gets around
that by selling that chip to the3rd parties. That's how they get
around that. So they that's howthey make the FCC happy with
(08:57):
that is they go, well, we atleast supply that component so
you can use it.
Right.
Stephen Kraig (09:02):
And, you you know, we talked about it. I was
gonna say a handful of monthsago. It's probably more like a
year or 2 ago now. But the EUrequiring all smartphones to be
able to be charged over USB c,which for the longest time going
back
Parker Dillmann (09:20):
Oh, that's Yeah. Yeah.
Stephen Kraig (09:21):
That was great. But going back all the way, I
gosh, even probably to the firstiPhone. I never owned one, but I
I've certainly seen enough ofthem. They they've always had
proprietary connectors. Right?
They had lightning or they hadthat big long tongue looking
one. There there's always beenApple proprietary connectors
that are not necessarily, atleast this is the perception
(09:44):
from not being an Apple fanboy,but the the connectors or or
these proprietary cables orwhatnot are not necessarily
there to provide innovation tothe world. They're there to lock
you into their ecosystem.They're there to make sure that
you use their thing. And Iunderstand that it's it's
(10:04):
painted on with this perceptionof if if Apple controls
everything all the way fromeverything in the hardware all
the way to everything in thesoftware, then they can hyper
tune the experience that youhave such that you get that
elite product.
And I think that's one of thethings that they do actually
(10:25):
very well, like to a extremedegree is they make you they
make this feeling that you havethis elite item, like you are
part of the select. You are partof the top 1% of the 1% of the
1% even though the 3 quarters ofpeople have that. It they their
(10:45):
marketing is so beyond anythingelse that there's this
perception, like, the that wordthat I keep coming back to that
it's the top line thing, butit's available to you, and it's
available to everyone. But thatis done through a ton of
exclusionary business practicesthat I'm not sure I really
Parker Dillmann (11:12):
enjoy. Yeah. Yeah. You might remember because
you you could make the argumentthat the lightning connector,
which is what they were usingbefore the type c, is comparable
to type c. So it's it doesn'toffer any more or less than type
c.
It's just a different connectorthat's high speed, allows fast
charging, etcetera. Now beforethen, though, was probably,
(11:38):
like, the worst connector I'veever had to deal with, which is
the Apple 30 pin dock connector,which had, like, little, like,
tabs on the side that you had topunch to unconnected, which is
great for positive retention,but that thing, like, it
probably only worked for 6months before it stopped
working. If you had a dock thatyou would actually put your iPod
in, porn would work for 6 monthsbefore it would crap out. That
(12:02):
was, like, that literally was tolock you into the Apple
ecosystem, because it was aclearly inferior cable Mhmm.
Design.
Stephen Kraig (12:12):
And on top of that, because they are these
proprietary things and becausethey're manufactured by Apple,
they can set the price to bewhatever they want. And the idea
is the price is typically on thehigher end of things, but with
that idea and that mentality ofit being elite, it seems like
(12:33):
everyone just accepts that isfine. That is okay. And, you
know, with the lightningconnector, I wouldn't mind if
lightning connectors became thestandard. If USB c didn't exist
and everything use lightningconnectors, wouldn't bother me
one bit.
But the thing is Apple wasn'tpursuing that. Apple wasn't
pursuing the enhancement of allelectronics. They only pursue
(12:57):
the enhancement of theirelectronics and their bottom
line. And and I'm not trying tosay, like, Android or any other
smartphone manufacturers orwhatever are trying to do that,
but I just don't feel likethere's the same level of
exclusionary practices thathappened with other
manufacturers, and it just seemssurprising that everyone seems
(13:18):
to be just okay with it whenApple does it. And I think that
comes back to that point whereyou get that that elite feeling.
I'm using this really awesomepiece of gear, and I don't want
it to change. And I want to be Iwant to continue to be within
that ecosystem.
Parker Dillmann (13:37):
I think my dad had to buy, like, 8 of those
cables, like, any cables over 2years he had an iPhone. They
just wore out like crazy. But Idid find the podcast article
that we or podcast episode whenwe talked about the EU, and that
was September 15th Okay. Last
Stephen Kraig (13:55):
year 2023. So that that long ago. Yeah.
Parker Dillmann (14:00):
I think we first started bringing that up
in June 10, 2022 with theepisode, this podcast attention
left blank, episode 332, thatwas when the EU was just
starting to talk about it.
Stephen Kraig (14:17):
Which which I think it's funny because on on
the newest or maybe I don't keepup with it, but I know it's on
the newest iPhone. They usedtype c as a selling point, like,
it's a marketing point. It's,like, Apple has finally gone
type c as as a selling point.I'm, like, guys, you were forced
to by the European government.This is not a selling point.
(14:41):
You were liter like, if youweren't forced to, you would not
be going to type c. So, like,behind the scenes, like But
Parker Dillmann (14:47):
it's titanium now.
Stephen Kraig (14:50):
But it's titanium now. Yeah. That's true. They did
push that really hard. In fact,it's funny.
Every time an iPhone commercialwould come on and I'm sitting on
the couch watching the show withmy wife, I'd be like, hey. Did
you know it's made of titanium?And She finally got annoyed. She
was like, just shut up becauseevery commercial was, oh,
titanium.
Parker Dillmann (15:10):
So this is a good segue into the next topic
because we were talking aboutcommercials. Remember the
commercials of hello, I'm a Mac,and I'm a PC. This is a very
this might be the first instanceof I remember of them
(15:31):
downplaying straight up thecompetitors' products in an
advertisement. And sure therewere great commercials. I think
they're, like, I think thosecommercials are legendary.
Everyone remembers thosecommercials and how good of it
they did to turn basically turnApple's band around. But is it
(15:51):
okay to even if you have asuperior product, is it okay to
bash or talk down of yourcompetitors' products in
marketing?
Stephen Kraig (16:04):
You know? Okay. I so I think, yes. I think the
answer is is yes. You can saywhy your competitor's product is
inferior.
I think it is better to say whyyour product is superior. I
think that is a better marketingploy, and and and I personally
respond more to that. But Idon't see an issue with saying,
(16:27):
our our competitors productworks 30% worse than ours. You
can do that. I don't think thatthere's an necessarily an
ethical issue with that.
One of the biggest problems,however, that this lawsuit that
that the justice department cameout with is is that Apple
actively adjusts data that flowsthrough their product if it is
(16:53):
coming from a non Apple product.So that includes downgrading,
images and videos, but, also,this is really petty and stupid
in my opinion. But text bubbles,whenever you're texting with
people, are different colors ifthey're coming from a non Apple
(17:13):
product, indicating that personthat you're talking to is
inferior in some way. And I'mgonna make that statement. I
know I know that, like I said,it it seems really petty.
But they want you to know thatperson you're talking to does
not have the elite product thatis in your hand by indicating
that with a different color fromthem. And there's there's
(17:34):
reduced functionality as well,like
Parker Dillmann (17:37):
Could you imagine being a a a kid and
everyone's got the latest iPhoneand you have and your family
can't afford the latest iPhone,and now everyone knows that
you're not as well off. Mentalhealth is a huge issue,
especially for kids in Americaright now. That's a terrible
implementation.
Stephen Kraig (17:58):
I totally agree. And like I said, I the word that
keeps coming to my head withwith that one is petty. It's
just petty. I don't think itenhances anything. I don't think
it brings anything to the table.
It except for the intent thatthey want you to know that who
the person you're talking to, ifthey have a I think it's a green
bubble if they're Android. Theywant you to know that person is
(18:21):
not on your level. Let's justput it that way.
Parker Dillmann (18:25):
They're not in your social economic sphere.
Stephen Kraig (18:28):
But they they which is funny because the
competitor's product is the sameprice. It's the same price.
Parker Dillmann (18:33):
It's not like Yeah.
Stephen Kraig (18:34):
Same price. Like
Parker Dillmann (18:35):
well well, it's not you can buy a $40 Android
powered phone. Yeah. Actually, Iuse a I use a $40 phone for the
garage.
Stephen Kraig (18:46):
Sure. Sure. But but but but if you wanna get if
you wanna get the iPhoneequivalent from Samsung, let's
say, you're paying effectivelythe same the same price. Okay.
So so I actually have some somefunny quotes that I've I've
found over the past few weeks.
I heard a political commentatortalking about this. Now this
commentator explicitly said thatthey use Apple product, And they
(19:09):
pulled up actually, they showeda a video of the US attorney
general Merrick Garland. Theyshowed a portion of a press
conference that Merrick Garlandgave about this particular
lawsuit, and they were talkingabout the green bubble, blue
bubble kind of thing along withthe downgrading of videos. And
immediately after showing thatclip, this political commentator
(19:30):
said, if Android wants to betaken seriously, then they need
to step their game up. Andthat's a paraphrase.
That's not the exact words theysaid, but effectively, that's
what they're going. If Androidwants to be taken seriously,
then they need to step theirgame up, which is funny because
they said that immediately afterMerrick Garland in the press
conference was saying they arespecifically downgrading it such
(19:53):
that you would have thatperception. Android doesn't need
to step their game up. Thisparticular commentator totally
bit into it and truly thoughtthat Android was an inferior
product because of these thingseven though like even though it
is actively degrading yourcompetitors data effectively,
(20:16):
which is entirely unfortunate.Now another quote completely
tangent on this.
I saw a clip from a comedianthat was doing crowd work. And
as part of one of the jokes thatwas going on crowd work, I think
somebody's phone went off in thein the crowd, And the the
comedian was like, hey, can Ihave your phone? I wanna see
(20:37):
who's calling or whatnot. Sothey so the crowd passed the
phone up to the stage. The thecomedian grabs the phone and
immediately holds it between 2fingers like it's a disgusting
animal or whatnot, and he goes,ew, it's an Android.
Ew. This perception that there'ssomething gross about it because
it was not an Apple product.Like, gosh. The brilliance that
(20:59):
Apple has, that their marketingteam has, that they have
implanted this. They've embeddedthis into everyone's psyche that
if it's not Apple, it's justbad.
And not only that, like,disgusting in a way. You gotta
give it to them. They've donesuch a damn good job on that.
So, yeah, I think, like I said,it a lot of it comes down to it
(21:20):
being extremely petty, and it'sall about perception here. I am
I'm frankly surprised that thereis a lawsuit about this.
I mean, I I I personally thinkthat there's probably something
to be had with this lawsuit eventhough, like I said previously,
I in general, I I think in in acapitalistic business society,
(21:45):
these things are not necessarilyout of the question of of of
things you can do. But has Appletaken it too far? Has this
gotten to be so much of aproblem that the US government
needs to step in and dosomething
Parker Dillmann (22:02):
about it. I don't think they I I don't see a
point to this lawsuit. The ifApple wants to downgrade and
have that kind of experience ofputting together an elitism
attitude for their ecosystem,that's sure. They can do that. I
don't have a problem with that.
I just view it as I just view itas you're overpaying for the
(22:23):
hardware and the softwareexperience. So I already have my
own view if you're buying anApple product for it being like
there's some valid reasons tobuy an Apple product. There's
some software that only runs inthat ecosystem, etcetera.
Totally valid. Mhmm.
Go for it. But it's when youstart buying it because it's a
status symbol. That's when I'mlike I can't even say the word I
(22:47):
wanna say for that kind of yeah.It's it's you're not good with
money. It's I'm gonna put it'slike marketing people buying
MacBooks.
A 100% of your tools are areeither gonna work in Linux or
they're also gonna work inWindows or they're browser
(23:08):
based. Like, I think the onlytool that maybe a marketing
person uses that's not browserbased is gonna be like Adobe
Photoshop. And if you're usingAdobe Photoshop, you might want
to use, like, the nicer Applemonitors that are actually,
like, color calibrated and stufflike that. Totally cool. The
funny thing about that is mostmarketing is view like, ads are
(23:32):
viewed on many different kind ofdisplays that don't have
calibration, so you need to makesure it works on those displays.
So it's not it doesn't matter ifyou're on a color. Like, you
should also so there's no point.If you're an artist doing
digital work, 100% makes sense.Having a really good
representation of what the printis gonna look like, that's
(23:53):
awesome. That's actually gooduse of that technology that
Apple's made, but an ad that'sgonna scroll on Twitter, it
doesn't need that.
I'm sorry. So it's honestly awaste of money to buy Mac
devices for that those kind ofdepartments. So but Michelle,
who's our director of marketing,is gonna listen to this, and
(24:15):
he's gonna probably pull me inhis office the the week after
this comes out. Yes, Michelle.It's a waste of money to buy Mac
Looks.
Stephen Kraig (24:23):
Okay. And I know it sounds like Parker and I are
absolutely shitting on Apple.
Parker Dillmann (24:28):
No. I just gave completely valid
Stephen Kraig (24:30):
And I wanna come out and just be clear about it.
I exclusively used Appleproducts for about 10 years of
my life, and that was, like,pick it. It doesn't matter what
it is. It was an Apple product.My whole family used nothing but
Apple products.
And that was I remember myfather having a discussion with
(24:51):
me about it. He's completely bitinto the idea that they just
make a superior product. And Iremember parroting that for a
long time. But I also rememberat that time being like, well,
okay. Yeah.
Sure. Apple makes up a superiorproduct, but there's a lot of
things that I want to do thatthis product won't let me do.
(25:12):
I'm literally, they just don'tmake the thing for this product.
And so I had to I had to go inand take a bite and buy a non
Apple product. And what's funnyis the second I bought a non
Apple product, my family startedusing that more than the Apple
product.
And and and be there was a lotof reasons behind that, but it
(25:34):
was just there was a little bitof irony behind it. And I'm and
I don't want it to I don't wantit to come off as I hate Apple
products. That's not evenslightly true. It's just a lot
of these business practices thatI see seem very dishonest and
they seem very in they seem veryintent on controlling the way
(25:56):
you think about electronics as awhole. And to that, I kinda take
a little bit of issue.
Like, I I I I make amplifiers.Right? What if I made an
amplifier that if I detectedthat one of the inputs was from
an Apple iPhone, I purposefullydegraded the quality of the
(26:18):
audio just because it was Apple.There's not a chance on earth
anyone would buy anything fromme ever. Why can Apple get away
with that kind of stuff?
Why is everyone okay with thatkind of business practice? I
don't know. Like, that that thatthat it irks me a little bit.
And, actually, I I have somethought experiments that that I
(26:41):
wrote up that I'd love to justkinda play around with and see
may maybe they're analogous,maybe some people won't think
they are, but the first one hereis, let's say your car has an
issue and you take it to amechanic, and the mechanic
purposefully puts inferior partsin your car based on the brand
(27:02):
of car that you brought inthere. Is that is that a
business practice that we wouldbe okay with?
Would would would that mechanicbe in business? I don't think
so. I think that's kind ofslimy. Right?
Parker Dillmann (27:18):
It depends on the car. If it's a Chrysler,
putting OEM parts is actuallystill a good unit. I like that.
As someone who owns Chryslervehicles.
Stephen Kraig (27:28):
So Right. Yeah. It's
Parker Dillmann (27:32):
yeah. I I yeah. It purposely putting inferior
parts. One is just bad businesspractice because then you have
to do double labor when thatpart fails and yet that person
runs back. I don't think that'sa completely analog situation.
So I guess it's kinda hard, but,yeah, I actually, there are some
mechanics that technically dothat, but they let you know that
(27:53):
you're doing that they're doingthat. And actually, if you go to
a good mechanic is gonna be,like, hey, You need widget z for
your car. And widget z OEM costthis much, but widget z from
Billy's AutoZone down the streetcost this much because it's it's
a aftermarket part. But then hegoes, well, I can also can we
(28:17):
have one of the we have a awidget z in the the car behind
the shop that we're parting out,and that one costs this much, so
it's used. I that's actuallywhat a good mechanic would
Stephen Kraig (28:29):
be for you. Yeah. But if the mechanic said, I'm
gonna fix your you bring it in,they say, we know what the
problem is. I'm gonna fix it.And they don't tell you what
they're putting in in, but theyjust arbitrarily pick inferior
parts.
Parker Dillmann (28:44):
I I could see this it'd be more close to what
you're going with is if you tookyour car to your dealer. So you
took your car brand c car todealer c, but it's like an older
model. And then they putinferior parts that makes your
car not perform as well as you.That's a little closer
Stephen Kraig (29:07):
to what real Apple does with their products.
Parker Dillmann (29:10):
Yeah. But that's that's closer to what
Apple does. They push youupdates that make your phones
slower
Stephen Kraig (29:16):
and and, have less battery. Yeah. We didn't
even mention that.
Parker Dillmann (29:19):
Because remember that? Yeah. That that
was a whole thing couple yearsago that they got dinged for.
Stephen Kraig (29:24):
Right.
Parker Dillmann (29:25):
What was the result to that?
Stephen Kraig (29:27):
People went out and bought the newer model. I
don't remember. Wouldn'tsurprise me if that was Yeah.
Parker Dillmann (29:33):
I'm looking it up real quick. Apple agreed in
2020 to that's a long time ago.2020 to pay between a 100
$310,500,000,000 as part of thesettlement and response to a
class auction lawsuit werestemmed from earlier legal
complaints about this company'ssoftware updates were
deliberately throttling theperformance of specific older
iPhone models. So, yes, Applewas pushing updates that were
(29:57):
slowing down your phone onpurpose to push you to newer
models. How is that not if youhow why would you wanna buy a
new
Stephen Kraig (30:09):
iPhone device? Know that they're that that is a
practice that they're willing todo, why would you feed that
monster? I don't know. That'sscary. But I mean, I guess I
guess, you know, they had therethere's a lawsuit, and they had
to fess up to it and pay out forit.
So quite
Parker Dillmann (30:27):
Yeah. Because before, there was just, like,
perception, and there was nodata behind it. But then there's
your proof right there that itwas actually Yeah.
Stephen Kraig (30:36):
And but, I mean, they're still I think I looked
it up the other day. It's 2 2thirds or 3 quarters of all
people in the United States thatown a smartphone own an iPhone.
Even with them doing those kindsof things, like being willing to
pay into that.
Parker Dillmann (30:51):
Right. What's the next type of vehicle?
Stephen Kraig (30:53):
So say if you have a a smart TV that detected
you are watching ads, say onYouTube, for a competitor's
product, would it be acceptablefor that TV to prevent the ads?
And as in just you can't watchthis? Or what if it just
actively made the videos lookbad? Or even further? What if it
(31:15):
use some kind of technology tomake the product look bad, but
not just but the ad look good,but the product looked bad
inside the ad.
So one company actively makinganother product, their
competitors product look bad.
Parker Dillmann (31:30):
I'm more worried about the fact that the
TV knows
Stephen Kraig (31:32):
you're not watching. That's what that's
more what I'm worried about.Yeah.
Parker Dillmann (31:37):
But smart TVs do that. I mean, that's why
smart TVs are so cheap isbecause they're harvesting data
and set and selling it to do weeven know what they sell it to?
Where's what's that pipelinelike?
Stephen Kraig (31:51):
How do you get involved in that? How do you
purchase data from a data miner?It's easy because I'm
Parker Dillmann (31:56):
in marketing now. Yeah. Well, I'm saying is
the TV side is what kind of datais that used I guess there was
that what's that you can get amy neighbor was on this where
they got paid to have a littlebox on their Nelson. So there's
but they Yeah. Something likethat.
My neighbor was on that program,and but they you have to sign a
(32:19):
contract, and they pay you, andyou install a little box, and my
Android phone is listening to meright now because it now it's it
said it, like, broke down, like,the past 5 minutes on the Oh.
Jeez. But that's like you'reentering a two way agreement
from the get go. Like, that's upfront. Right?
But these smart TVs, theagreement is in that ginormous
(32:44):
user agreement that you'vesigned by basically buying the
TV. It's so you never actuallyread it. But where does that
data, like, I don't know wherethat goes.
Stephen Kraig (32:52):
I have no idea.
Parker Dillmann (32:53):
I I Probably goes to some, like, AWS server.
Actually, no. AWS is probablytoo expensive for that. It's
probably because some Chinesedata farm somewhere.
Stephen Kraig (33:03):
So so if you are falsely representing your
customers, sorry, competitors,think at some point in time, at
there's some threshold at whichyou are lying and causing
issues. But what where what'sthat threshold? You can't just
make a commercial. Okay. If GMcame out and made a commercial
(33:25):
and where a guy just walks outonto a stage and says, all
Toyota cars explode the momentyou buy them.
You can't just do that. Right?Like, there there there is
actually a
Parker Dillmann (33:36):
great moment in car history. There's an ad
that's similar to that way back.I gotta find that ad. I don't
have it off hand, but it'ssomething like this is back when
the imports were crushing. Thisis like the the early eighties.
It were, like, the new compactsand stuff were, like, Toyota and
Honda were, like, crushingdomestics here in the States.
(34:00):
And there was, like, an ad thatwas very similar to what you
just said, where, like, theyblame the consumers for not
buying American. They're like,don't you see all these cars?
Like, this show 10 years ago,like, all these American cars.
All these cars fund Americanworkers, but look at it now.
(34:23):
All these cheap foreign cars.Yeah. Just blaming the consumers
for basically buying a betterproduct.
Stephen Kraig (34:33):
Okay. I I feel like that's a little bit
different because they're notnecessarily slandering the
competitor's product. Well, theyare. They are because it's
Parker Dillmann (34:41):
you're buying these products that are not
giving your neighbors jobs, andthey're cheap, and they're cheap
because maybe they're inferior.
Stephen Kraig (34:49):
Well, but okay. I now we're getting into legalese.
I don't think that there'sactually an issue with saying
that, Okay. If the perception isthat they're cheap, I don't
know. I don't know.
The the the there's a fine linewith walking that. Because if
you're blaming your owncustomers, you can do that.
That's really stupid. But youcould do that. Right?
Parker Dillmann (35:11):
I mean, there was automotive and domestic
automotive in, like, the earlyeighties. Yeah.
Stephen Kraig (35:15):
It's it's really stupid, but but there's nothing
saying you can't do that. Thatsounds more like shooting your
own foot as opposed to trying toshoot your, your competitor's
foot. But but but completelylying about your competitor's
product through your product.Now okay. Here's another fun
hypothetical.
I actually remember this becauseI heard that it actually
(35:36):
happened. I don't have any dataon it. Maybe I can find
something. But if you arecurrently signed up for Internet
service through your ISP, dothey have the ability to prevent
you from looking up other ISPs,for shopping for other ISPs, or
can they just arbitrarily slowthe, the another ISP's website,
(35:59):
which it might change yourperception about that I, the the
ISP. If you go to their websiteand be like, oh, man, it's
running really slow, but nobodyelse runs really slow, so maybe
they just have a bad product.
That's changing your perception.
Parker Dillmann (36:12):
No. You're a 100 percent you're a 100% right.
That's called packet shaping,and ISPs do it all the time. And
there are, were lawsuits outthere where they would allow
speed your you would go to aspeed test site, and it would,
like, open up the knobs and letall the data go through. And so
your speed would be really fast,but when you would do some
(36:34):
things like this is back when,like, it really the package
shaping really took off in,like, when Netflix streaming
became a thing because a lot ofthese ISPs also had cable
packages, and so they would theywould literally degrade YouTube
and Netflix data.
This is the whole thing with netneutrality back then, which now
(36:58):
all these companies that were,like, were for it or now are
against it, man. Net neutralityis, like, a battle
Stephen Kraig (37:04):
Oh, it was crazy. I remember
Parker Dillmann (37:06):
the history of all the companies flip flopping
on whether they supported or oragainst it and what it actually
means for the customer. Yeah.That that was a great time
trying to not, like, make adecision if you were for against
that thing. But that's not whatthis podcast is about. This is
we're talking about degrading.
So they were literally your ISPwas or your media provider
(37:31):
because they also do cable, TV,was degrading the performance of
basically other services onpurpose. I don't know if they
got in trouble for that oranything. A great way to
basically figure out if it washappening to you was did you
just turn on a VPN, and thenthey can't packet shape it
because it gets encrypted andthey don't know what the data
(37:53):
is? And yeah. So you'd connectto once yeah.
And your beautiful 480p YouTubewould come through because that
was the resolution of YouTubeback then when this was starting
to become a big thing. So, yeah,I think it's a 100% wrong,
especially for ISPs, becausethey're not they're they're not
supposed to be they're supposedto be agnostic to the data,
(38:16):
because you're paying for thepipeline to get the data. You're
not paying for anything else. Soin theory, that's how it should
be. That's not the case.
Because we actually last week onthe podcast, you were trying to
open up the article for the GM.Right. Vic, the Visual
Information Center.
Stephen Kraig (38:36):
Yeah. The the CRT, Oldsmobile.
Parker Dillmann (38:40):
Yeah. The Oldsmobile Toronado, and you
could you got a 403. And youtried it on your phone that was
connected to the Wi Fi, and yougot a 43, but then when you
turned off the Wi Fi and wentthrough the tower, it loaded up
just fine. So that ISP does notlike that website for
Stephen Kraig (38:57):
sure. No idea why. It's just the automotive
whatever.
Parker Dillmann (39:01):
That's just an automotive website that's linked
through Hackaday, so it's todayis fine. Right. It's not some
weird dartru account or TLD.Man, if I'm googling for like
weird data sheets be don't clickon the ones that say dotru. Oh.
Because it's t l Yeah.
Stephen Kraig (39:21):
For sure. That that's an easy one to just be
like, nope.
Parker Dillmann (39:26):
Yeah. Not clicking on that one. I see that
pop up a lot when you startsearching for really weird,
like, text strings and stuffbecause they're, like, trying to
find, like, error codes andstuff. Those pop up a lot. It's
kinda interesting.
That's I guess if you're only,like, a technical person, you
might and so they're trying toinfect, like, a I'm I'm assuming
here they're trying to infect,like, technical workstations and
(39:48):
stuff. So that's kind of aninteresting ploy to get higher
up in search results becausethere was a whole oh, man. There
was a whole thing wherecompanies were paying Google Ads
for very specific phrases, andso you would and so you would
get a notification on something.And so you would you'd be
curious as you would Google it,and it would send and that would
(40:11):
be, like, the only result inGoogle, so you would click on
it. Very interesting tactics.
So so Talk about degradingperformance. And we just
degraded the performances
Stephen Kraig (40:22):
Well, okay. I actually I I remember a a story.
I wanna I wanna reel it back fora second just because I think
that this is both sad and funny.So so so okay. Back back on the
topic of Apple changing people'sperceptions.
The the the whole texting thingwhere they identify if you don't
have an Apple product. I don'thave any problem whatsoever with
(40:46):
prioritizing people within yournetwork. I think that's a I
think that's a totally finething and totally acceptable.
But making sure that people arewell aware that someone is not
using your product is perhaps Idon't know. It's perhaps there's
problems with it.
And it's funny because so so anold friend of mine, old roommate
(41:09):
of mine, we still keep in touchto this day. He's actually on a
handful of dating websites, and,you know, we talk about random
stuff every and one day, he hehit me up with an image. So he
matched with a girl on one ofthese dating sites, and he sent
her the first message, like theintroduction. Hi. I'm blah blah
(41:30):
blah blah person blah blah.
Whatever. I don't even rememberwhat he said. The very first
response from this woman to himwas, oh, thank god. This is not
a green blob bubble. So she wasjudging romance and a potential
relationship based on thetechnology that was in that
(41:51):
person's hand.
Oh, thank God you're not one ofthose Android weirdos. Thank God
it's a blue bubble that came up.That kind of mentality. And my
buddy sent me that because heknew that would just get me
riled up, and of course it did.I was like, you gotta be
freaking kidding me.
Right? This kind of idea that,like, I can't I couldn't even
(42:13):
pretend to go on a date withsomebody who had a green bubble
in my text, you know, stream.First of all, I'm, like, petty
to the max, right, to theextreme in that sense. But,
like, how did we get to thepoint where we have a company
that has created this? And howdid they want that to be the
(42:34):
case?
Like, I just it just feels kindof gross and disgusting to me
that that we we've we've builtthis wall in between people that
is based on the technologythat's in your hand. I don't
know. I thought that was a funnya funny thing because the guy
who sent it to me is a totalApple fanboy. His house is
(42:55):
appled out. And so he and I chatabout this topic quite a bit,
actually.
Parker Dillmann (43:01):
Well, it it it comes down to Apple's a
corporation and channelingmister Krabs from SpongeBob. I
like money.
Stephen Kraig (43:09):
True. They really do like money, and people really
like giving it to them.
Parker Dillmann (43:14):
Yeah. So if they and, again, if if they
wanna create that kind ofecosystem Yeah. So be it. I am
glad that my Android devicedoesn't tell me what kind of
device they use because I don'tcare.
Stephen Kraig (43:26):
I'm in the same boat as you, Parker.
Parker Dillmann (43:30):
Yep. That's a very interesting, like, social
economic decision by that lady.
Stephen Kraig (43:38):
Yeah. Yeah.
Parker Dillmann (43:41):
I think you I think you know what? I think if
I well, if when I get back todating, it's been a couple years
now. Yeah. People are crazybeing in your mid thirties.
Stephen Kraig (43:52):
Yeah.
Parker Dillmann (43:53):
I think it might be a good thing to avoid
those kind of people.
Stephen Kraig (43:56):
Well, I mean, you can yeah. Just like they used do
you have an Android as a a weedout tool for potential
relationships? You can usepeople who act like that as a
potential weed out tool forrelationships.
Parker Dillmann (44:14):
Yeah. May I put that in my profile? No Apple
devices allowed in thishousehold. No.
Stephen Kraig (44:21):
No. No. Like, my wife for a while used Apple tool
products. I don't like, Icertainly let her know my
thoughts on some of the businesspractices.
Parker Dillmann (44:33):
I got an idea. I got k. Is it immoral because
my mom my mother uses Appleproducts is it immoral if I went
onto the router and I purposelythrottled that MAC address for
her device to get her to switchto Apple?
Stephen Kraig (44:51):
I mean, if you're Apple, then maybe that would be
moral. That's the thing. I don'tthink Apple actually throttles
your data. They just degrade it.
Parker Dillmann (45:02):
I mean, it's insane.
Stephen Kraig (45:03):
Maybe. Speed versus quality, though.
Parker Dillmann (45:06):
You know you know what she would do? She
would just buy the next asset.
Stephen Kraig (45:09):
Hoping that it would fix the problem?
Parker Dillmann (45:12):
Yeah. Because it wouldn't be the same
Stephen Kraig (45:14):
market address anymore. You just have to stay
one step ahead. Oh, man. Yeah. Idon't know.
I feel like we've complainedquite a bit here. I'm I'm
actually curious what otherpeople's thoughts are on this
lawsuit. Is this do you thinkthat this is warranted? Do you
think that this is somethingthat the federal government
should get involved with? Or isthis just business as usual and,
(45:38):
you know, totally acceptablebehavior by by a company of that
magnitude?
I'm not sure where I land.There's certainly aspects of it
that just from a emotionalstandpoint, I don't really like,
but I'm not really into tellingcompanies you can't do it. I
just I think my overall feelingsis I just wish they wouldn't do
(46:02):
that, but I don't know if Ireally agree with telling you
can't do it.
Parker Dillmann (46:07):
Yeah. That that's where the stickler is
because I I'm I'm in that camp.I'm more of the why are why is
our government wasting
Stephen Kraig (46:15):
its time on this? That's a good point.
Parker Dillmann (46:16):
That's a
Stephen Kraig (46:17):
good point.
Parker Dillmann (46:18):
There's a lot of other things that we can have
them be doing and should bedoing than caring if a messaging
app has a green or blue bubble.Yes. That's petty. Is it immoral
also on the engineering side?Probably as well.
Is it something that the USgovernment had needs to get a
hold of? No. It's not.
Stephen Kraig (46:40):
That's a really good point, Parker. Just like
people on dating apps probablyshouldn't care if the bubble is
green or blue, maybe ourgovernment shouldn't care if the
bubble is green or blue. Andmaybe Apple shouldn't care if
the bubble is green or
Parker Dillmann (46:54):
blue. Yep. There's that too. But clearly,
some people like it being green.Somebody does.
Stephen Kraig (47:01):
Yeah.
Parker Dillmann (47:04):
Yeah. Let us know in the comments. You know
what? I'm gonna put it righthere. I wanna pull on Android
versus app well, actually, howabout just Apple versus other
devices?
Stephen Kraig (47:19):
Mhmm. And
Parker Dillmann (47:19):
then we can have a mix. So if you have,
like, mix Also,
Stephen Kraig (47:22):
seriously, I'm I'm being dead serious here.
Please, if you think I'm wrong,tell me how I'm wrong. I want to
hear that. Come to our come toour our discourse,
form.macrofab.com. And I'mtotally open to being educated
on what I have wrong here.
And I'm sure there's plenty ofour listeners who have opinions
(47:44):
on why I'm wrong here, and I'dlove to hear it. I really do,
and I'm willing to I'm willingto listen here. Or if if you
believe that these stances areworth defending, please come and
and defend them, and maybe it'smaybe I'll jump on board and be
like, hey. Yeah. No.
I don't think may maybe all ofthis is acceptable business
behavior. So
Parker Dillmann (48:05):
Yeah. But, again, I'm on you know, they can
do what they want. I'm notgiving them money, so it doesn't
no skin off my back. So Yeah.Yeah.
Let us know. Forum.macrofab.com.Thank you for listening to
circuit break from MacroFab. Weare your hosts And
Stephen Kraig (48:21):
Steve and
Parker Dillmann (48:22):
Craig. Later, everyone. Q. Yes. You breaker
for downloading our podcast ifyou have jeez.
I've just reprote
Stephen Kraig (48:33):
this, so
Parker Dillmann (48:35):
Thank you. Yes, you breaker for downloading our
podcast. Tell your friends andcoworkers about circuit break
podcasts. That's really I evenwrote that wrong. Circuit Break
Podcasts for Mac that soundsterrible.
If you have a cool idea,project, or topic you want us to
discuss, let Steven and I andthe community of Breakers know.
Our community where you can findpersonal projects, discussions
(48:55):
about the podcast, andengineering topics and news is
located at forum.macrev fab.com.I'm gonna put a note here for me
to change that
Stephen Kraig (49:03):
Will you miss the word the? Tell your friends and
coworkers about the circuitbreak podcast from Macrofab.
Parker Dillmann (49:11):
Oh, you're right.
Stephen Kraig (49:12):
It's written well. Okay. Or it's written
okay. Yeah.
Parker Dillmann (49:17):
It's okay enough for for the engineers I
go good enough for the engineersI go out with. Stopping. We had
some connectivity here.
Stephen Kraig (49:25):
I saw that. I noticed one time that that you
just went kaput, so I just keptgoing.
Parker Dillmann (49:33):
And it it caught up or something. It says
it stopped. Is it stopped onyour side? No. Please reload and
try
Stephen Kraig (49:39):
It says it's recording. Oh. It still says
recording on my side, but italso says that I'm uploading.
Welcome to circuit break from macrofab. A
weekly show about old you knowwhat? It's a weekly podcast not
a show. A weekly podcast. Or isa show podcast?
Yeah. Let's go with that. Aweekly podcast about all things
engineering. Yeah. But youclicked on this knowing it was a
podcast, and you would know it'sweekly.
(00:32):
If this is your Stephen Kraigand I talked for, like, Steven
and I'd, like, talk for an hour.We're all ready to go.
Stephen Kraig (00:37):
Warmed up here.
Parker Dillmann (00:38):
What is the topic? Yeah. We're all warmed
up. All things engineering. Thewe all warmed up about all
things engineering.
Just finish the intro parts.Manufacturing, industry news,
and market monopolizations.We're your hosts, electrical
engineers, and go. Greg. This isepisode 429, and we just
finished that.
(00:58):
Finally. That's how that's howyou can tell it's not
prerecorded.
Stephen Kraig (01:01):
We've been we have been warming up for a mo
we've been talking about hottopics before this.
Parker Dillmann (01:07):
Yeah. Hot topics. This is the next hot
topic of the day. So from lastweek's episode, we didn't get to
this topic, and we're just gonnacover this whole thing maybe
probably an hour or
Stephen Kraig (01:19):
so. Yeah. We'll we'll see how it goes. So this
is a topic that that well, okay.So I'll I'll just introduce with
back on March 21, 2024, thejustice department sued Apple
for monopolizing the smartphonemarket.
And this is a topic that when itfirst came out, I saw articles
hit on this, and it was like,woah. Okay. That's really
(01:41):
interesting. I'm I'm curious whythis is even going forward. And
I and and the first article Isaw of this was like, oh, we
gotta talk about this on thepodcast.
And now we are over a monthafter this started, and we're
finally getting around totalking about it. And I was
kinda Well, not Not not really.I mean, we've had guests, and
we've had other stuff go on. Andthis isn't necessarily a super
(02:02):
normal topic for us to do. Andfor those who have been
listening for a while, you know,Parker and I have talked about
Apple many times in the past,both positive and negative
things.
But I'm really curious aboutthis topic because it brings up
a bunch of almost ethical issuesand ideas or concepts with how
(02:23):
you handle your product and howyou handle your competitors
product. And that's reallywhat's got me riled up on this
one is how Apple handles theircompetitors product and the
perception about it. And that'sthe one big word that I really
wanna press this whole episode.Because to me, this whole
lawsuit comes down to, I guess,penalizing Apple for the way
(02:49):
they have changed people'sperception about anything that
is not Apple. So so from theoffice of public affairs press
release, there's a little bit ofa statement I wanna read here on
there's an article from theoffice of public affairs that
says Apple's broad basedexclusionary conduct makes it
(03:10):
harder for Americans to switchsmartphones and undermines
innovation for apps, products,and services and imposes
extraordinary cost ondevelopers, businesses, and
consumers.
Apple exercises its monopoly ormonopoly power to extract more
money from from consumers,developers, content creators,
(03:31):
artists, publishers, smallbusinesses, and merchants among
others. So this is somethingthat I have had an issue with
Apple for a long time. They'revery exclusionary platform that
they've created. Now in general,you know, for people who've
listened for a while, it'sfairly obvious. I I tend to fit
(03:54):
more in, let's say, a bit moreof a conservative political
mindset.
And I'm a bit of a capitalistmyself. And so for the most
part, I land in the category of,you know, Apple made a product,
Apple made a platform, Apple hastheir ecosystem, you know,
thumbs up. Good for you. Go forit. And you know what?
They're uber successful. So alot of people really like the
(04:18):
product that they make, and youknow what? They give them a ton
of money for it. So, you know,thumbs up. Good good to go,
Apple.
But at a point, does it start tobecome a monopoly, and do they
start to control the market inunfair practices or by using
unfair practices? And a bit ofthis lawsuit is addressing those
(04:40):
kinds of things. Are theycharging too much for developers
to put stuff on their on theirplatforms? Are they creating a
false narrative for theircompetitors product? Are they
adjusting people's mindsetsaround what the industry has
within it?
(05:01):
And and this lawsuit is reallykind of approaching that. So I
don't know. I'm I'm reallycurious about this one, and I
was surprised when I first sawit come out because Apple seems
to be like a darling baby.Everyone seems to like them.
They just have that magic touchthat, you know, everything that
they do is magical and it justworks beautifully.
(05:21):
Right?
Parker Dillmann (05:23):
The magic touches money.
Stephen Kraig (05:25):
Yeah. A lot of money. Right? So so so I found
another another quote I wanna Iwanna say real quick from a CNET
article that came out not longafter the, the lawsuit came out.
So it says, the 88 page lawsuitargues that Apple's tight grip
on its software, hardware, andapp marketplace makes third
party apps and smartwatchessignificantly less appealing to
(05:48):
iPhone users, therefore,stifling innovation and
resulting in fewer choices forconsumers.
Above all else, the complaintalleges these policies entrench
iPhone users by imposingbarriers when switching to
Android, which, okay, that's aninteresting statement because
when it comes to businesses I'veworked for in the past, we've
(06:11):
had these exact kind ofconversations where it's, hey.
We want our customers to buy ourstuff, and we want them to be
happy with our stuff, but wewant them to stick with our
stuff, and we want them to buymore of our stuff. And that's
not necessarily specificallygreed based thing. That is, hey.
(06:32):
How do we get the customers coolstuff and they give us money for
it?
Right? And in in some ways,creating a platform or no. I
shouldn't say a platform.Creating an ecosystem that they
can work within, you know, in away, I'm not gonna say locks
them into your thing, but theycommit. Let's put it that way.
(06:53):
They commit to using yourproduct and you create services
that work for you, but notnecessarily they don't
necessarily support yourcompetitors. And I'm typically
way thumbs up with that. But itfeels like in some ways, Apple
has gone so far to the extremethat they put lots of effort
(07:13):
into preventing you from usingyour customers stuff. It's not
that they just make such a goodproduct that you want to use it.
It's that they actively work tomake you not use 3rd party
anything whatsoever.
Parker Dillmann (07:27):
Yeah. That's, like, that's actually a really
good point because let's takefor example Bluetooth devices to
for a normal Bluetooth speakercan connect to any iPhone or
Android or whatever. Any otherBluetooth device. Right? They
can connect with PlayStat.
That's the point. But if youwant to trans yeah. That's the
point. But if you want totransfer data between 2
(07:49):
Bluetooth devices and one ofthem is an iPhone, you need to
have a a basically, an Appleauthentication co processor in
that other device to do theneedful basically between the
two devices so you can sharedata, which is mind boggling.
That's a thing.
Stephen Kraig (08:08):
Yeah. Exactly. It it's mind boggling because if it
feels to me like if anyone elsedid that, they would be skewered
immediately. They would bechastised, and they would they
would be considered that this isterrible business practice.
You're being evil.
You're being disgusting. Butwhen Apple does it, everyone
just kinda turns a blind eye toit and says, oh, but it's Apple,
(08:31):
and everything's awesome inApple world.
Parker Dillmann (08:33):
Yeah. Think about if Samsung you had to buy
a a Samsung approved cable totalk to your computer because it
has the Samsung chip in it. Nowthey the the Apple gets around
that by selling that chip to the3rd parties. That's how they get
around that. So they that's howthey make the FCC happy with
(08:57):
that is they go, well, we atleast supply that component so
you can use it.
Right.
Stephen Kraig (09:02):
And, you you know, we talked about it. I was
gonna say a handful of monthsago. It's probably more like a
year or 2 ago now. But the EUrequiring all smartphones to be
able to be charged over USB c,which for the longest time going
back
Parker Dillmann (09:20):
Oh, that's Yeah. Yeah.
Stephen Kraig (09:21):
That was great. But going back all the way, I
gosh, even probably to the firstiPhone. I never owned one, but I
I've certainly seen enough ofthem. They they've always had
proprietary connectors. Right?
They had lightning or they hadthat big long tongue looking
one. There there's always beenApple proprietary connectors
that are not necessarily, atleast this is the perception
(09:44):
from not being an Apple fanboy,but the the connectors or or
these proprietary cables orwhatnot are not necessarily
there to provide innovation tothe world. They're there to lock
you into their ecosystem.They're there to make sure that
you use their thing. And Iunderstand that it's it's
(10:04):
painted on with this perceptionof if if Apple controls
everything all the way fromeverything in the hardware all
the way to everything in thesoftware, then they can hyper
tune the experience that youhave such that you get that
elite product.
And I think that's one of thethings that they do actually
(10:25):
very well, like to a extremedegree is they make you they
make this feeling that you havethis elite item, like you are
part of the select. You are partof the top 1% of the 1% of the
1% even though the 3 quarters ofpeople have that. It they their
(10:45):
marketing is so beyond anythingelse that there's this
perception, like, the that wordthat I keep coming back to that
it's the top line thing, butit's available to you, and it's
available to everyone. But thatis done through a ton of
exclusionary business practicesthat I'm not sure I really
Parker Dillmann (11:12):
enjoy. Yeah. Yeah. You might remember because
you you could make the argumentthat the lightning connector,
which is what they were usingbefore the type c, is comparable
to type c. So it's it doesn'toffer any more or less than type
c.
It's just a different connectorthat's high speed, allows fast
charging, etcetera. Now beforethen, though, was probably,
(11:38):
like, the worst connector I'veever had to deal with, which is
the Apple 30 pin dock connector,which had, like, little, like,
tabs on the side that you had topunch to unconnected, which is
great for positive retention,but that thing, like, it
probably only worked for 6months before it stopped
working. If you had a dock thatyou would actually put your iPod
in, porn would work for 6 monthsbefore it would crap out. That
(12:02):
was, like, that literally was tolock you into the Apple
ecosystem, because it was aclearly inferior cable Mhmm.
Design.
Stephen Kraig (12:12):
And on top of that, because they are these
proprietary things and becausethey're manufactured by Apple,
they can set the price to bewhatever they want. And the idea
is the price is typically on thehigher end of things, but with
that idea and that mentality ofit being elite, it seems like
(12:33):
everyone just accepts that isfine. That is okay. And, you
know, with the lightningconnector, I wouldn't mind if
lightning connectors became thestandard. If USB c didn't exist
and everything use lightningconnectors, wouldn't bother me
one bit.
But the thing is Apple wasn'tpursuing that. Apple wasn't
pursuing the enhancement of allelectronics. They only pursue
(12:57):
the enhancement of theirelectronics and their bottom
line. And and I'm not trying tosay, like, Android or any other
smartphone manufacturers orwhatever are trying to do that,
but I just don't feel likethere's the same level of
exclusionary practices thathappened with other
manufacturers, and it just seemssurprising that everyone seems
(13:18):
to be just okay with it whenApple does it. And I think that
comes back to that point whereyou get that that elite feeling.
I'm using this really awesomepiece of gear, and I don't want
it to change. And I want to be Iwant to continue to be within
that ecosystem.
Parker Dillmann (13:37):
I think my dad had to buy, like, 8 of those
cables, like, any cables over 2years he had an iPhone. They
just wore out like crazy. But Idid find the podcast article
that we or podcast episode whenwe talked about the EU, and that
was September 15th Okay. Last
Stephen Kraig (13:55):
year 2023. So that that long ago. Yeah.
Parker Dillmann (14:00):
I think we first started bringing that up
in June 10, 2022 with theepisode, this podcast attention
left blank, episode 332, thatwas when the EU was just
starting to talk about it.
Stephen Kraig (14:17):
Which which I think it's funny because on on
the newest or maybe I don't keepup with it, but I know it's on
the newest iPhone. They usedtype c as a selling point, like,
it's a marketing point. It's,like, Apple has finally gone
type c as as a selling point.I'm, like, guys, you were forced
to by the European government.This is not a selling point.
(14:41):
You were liter like, if youweren't forced to, you would not
be going to type c. So, like,behind the scenes, like But
Parker Dillmann (14:47):
it's titanium now.
Stephen Kraig (14:50):
But it's titanium now. Yeah. That's true. They did
push that really hard. In fact,it's funny.
Every time an iPhone commercialwould come on and I'm sitting on
the couch watching the show withmy wife, I'd be like, hey. Did
you know it's made of titanium?And She finally got annoyed. She
was like, just shut up becauseevery commercial was, oh,
titanium.
Parker Dillmann (15:10):
So this is a good segue into the next topic
because we were talking aboutcommercials. Remember the
commercials of hello, I'm a Mac,and I'm a PC. This is a very
this might be the first instanceof I remember of them
(15:31):
downplaying straight up thecompetitors' products in an
advertisement. And sure therewere great commercials. I think
they're, like, I think thosecommercials are legendary.
Everyone remembers thosecommercials and how good of it
they did to turn basically turnApple's band around. But is it
(15:51):
okay to even if you have asuperior product, is it okay to
bash or talk down of yourcompetitors' products in
marketing?
Stephen Kraig (16:04):
You know? Okay. I so I think, yes. I think the
answer is is yes. You can saywhy your competitor's product is
inferior.
I think it is better to say whyyour product is superior. I
think that is a better marketingploy, and and and I personally
respond more to that. But Idon't see an issue with saying,
(16:27):
our our competitors productworks 30% worse than ours. You
can do that. I don't think thatthere's an necessarily an
ethical issue with that.
One of the biggest problems,however, that this lawsuit that
that the justice department cameout with is is that Apple
actively adjusts data that flowsthrough their product if it is
(16:53):
coming from a non Apple product.So that includes downgrading,
images and videos, but, also,this is really petty and stupid
in my opinion. But text bubbles,whenever you're texting with
people, are different colors ifthey're coming from a non Apple
(17:13):
product, indicating that personthat you're talking to is
inferior in some way. And I'mgonna make that statement. I
know I know that, like I said,it it seems really petty.
But they want you to know thatperson you're talking to does
not have the elite product thatis in your hand by indicating
that with a different color fromthem. And there's there's
(17:34):
reduced functionality as well,like
Parker Dillmann (17:37):
Could you imagine being a a a kid and
everyone's got the latest iPhoneand you have and your family
can't afford the latest iPhone,and now everyone knows that
you're not as well off. Mentalhealth is a huge issue,
especially for kids in Americaright now. That's a terrible
implementation.
Stephen Kraig (17:58):
I totally agree. And like I said, I the word that
keeps coming to my head withwith that one is petty. It's
just petty. I don't think itenhances anything. I don't think
it brings anything to the table.
It except for the intent thatthey want you to know that who
the person you're talking to, ifthey have a I think it's a green
bubble if they're Android. Theywant you to know that person is
(18:21):
not on your level. Let's justput it that way.
Parker Dillmann (18:25):
They're not in your social economic sphere.
Stephen Kraig (18:28):
But they they which is funny because the
competitor's product is the sameprice. It's the same price.
Parker Dillmann (18:33):
It's not like Yeah.
Stephen Kraig (18:34):
Same price. Like
Parker Dillmann (18:35):
well well, it's not you can buy a $40 Android
powered phone. Yeah. Actually, Iuse a I use a $40 phone for the
garage.
Stephen Kraig (18:46):
Sure. Sure. But but but but if you wanna get if
you wanna get the iPhoneequivalent from Samsung, let's
say, you're paying effectivelythe same the same price. Okay.
So so I actually have some somefunny quotes that I've I've
found over the past few weeks.
I heard a political commentatortalking about this. Now this
commentator explicitly said thatthey use Apple product, And they
(19:09):
pulled up actually, they showeda a video of the US attorney
general Merrick Garland. Theyshowed a portion of a press
conference that Merrick Garlandgave about this particular
lawsuit, and they were talkingabout the green bubble, blue
bubble kind of thing along withthe downgrading of videos. And
immediately after showing thatclip, this political commentator
(19:30):
said, if Android wants to betaken seriously, then they need
to step their game up. Andthat's a paraphrase.
That's not the exact words theysaid, but effectively, that's
what they're going. If Androidwants to be taken seriously,
then they need to step theirgame up, which is funny because
they said that immediately afterMerrick Garland in the press
conference was saying they arespecifically downgrading it such
(19:53):
that you would have thatperception. Android doesn't need
to step their game up. Thisparticular commentator totally
bit into it and truly thoughtthat Android was an inferior
product because of these thingseven though like even though it
is actively degrading yourcompetitors data effectively,
(20:16):
which is entirely unfortunate.Now another quote completely
tangent on this.
I saw a clip from a comedianthat was doing crowd work. And
as part of one of the jokes thatwas going on crowd work, I think
somebody's phone went off in thein the crowd, And the the
comedian was like, hey, can Ihave your phone? I wanna see
(20:37):
who's calling or whatnot. Sothey so the crowd passed the
phone up to the stage. The thecomedian grabs the phone and
immediately holds it between 2fingers like it's a disgusting
animal or whatnot, and he goes,ew, it's an Android.
Ew. This perception that there'ssomething gross about it because
it was not an Apple product.Like, gosh. The brilliance that
(20:59):
Apple has, that their marketingteam has, that they have
implanted this. They've embeddedthis into everyone's psyche that
if it's not Apple, it's justbad.
And not only that, like,disgusting in a way. You gotta
give it to them. They've donesuch a damn good job on that.
So, yeah, I think, like I said,it a lot of it comes down to it
(21:20):
being extremely petty, and it'sall about perception here. I am
I'm frankly surprised that thereis a lawsuit about this.
I mean, I I I personally thinkthat there's probably something
to be had with this lawsuit eventhough, like I said previously,
I in general, I I think in in acapitalistic business society,
(21:45):
these things are not necessarilyout of the question of of of
things you can do. But has Appletaken it too far? Has this
gotten to be so much of aproblem that the US government
needs to step in and dosomething
Parker Dillmann (22:02):
about it. I don't think they I I don't see a
point to this lawsuit. The ifApple wants to downgrade and
have that kind of experience ofputting together an elitism
attitude for their ecosystem,that's sure. They can do that. I
don't have a problem with that.
I just view it as I just view itas you're overpaying for the
(22:23):
hardware and the softwareexperience. So I already have my
own view if you're buying anApple product for it being like
there's some valid reasons tobuy an Apple product. There's
some software that only runs inthat ecosystem, etcetera.
Totally valid. Mhmm.
Go for it. But it's when youstart buying it because it's a
status symbol. That's when I'mlike I can't even say the word I
(22:47):
wanna say for that kind of yeah.It's it's you're not good with
money. It's I'm gonna put it'slike marketing people buying
MacBooks.
A 100% of your tools are areeither gonna work in Linux or
they're also gonna work inWindows or they're browser
(23:08):
based. Like, I think the onlytool that maybe a marketing
person uses that's not browserbased is gonna be like Adobe
Photoshop. And if you're usingAdobe Photoshop, you might want
to use, like, the nicer Applemonitors that are actually,
like, color calibrated and stufflike that. Totally cool. The
funny thing about that is mostmarketing is view like, ads are
(23:32):
viewed on many different kind ofdisplays that don't have
calibration, so you need to makesure it works on those displays.
So it's not it doesn't matter ifyou're on a color. Like, you
should also so there's no point.If you're an artist doing
digital work, 100% makes sense.Having a really good
representation of what the printis gonna look like, that's
(23:53):
awesome. That's actually gooduse of that technology that
Apple's made, but an ad that'sgonna scroll on Twitter, it
doesn't need that.
I'm sorry. So it's honestly awaste of money to buy Mac
devices for that those kind ofdepartments. So but Michelle,
who's our director of marketing,is gonna listen to this, and
(24:15):
he's gonna probably pull me inhis office the the week after
this comes out. Yes, Michelle.It's a waste of money to buy Mac
Looks.
Stephen Kraig (24:23):
Okay. And I know it sounds like Parker and I are
absolutely shitting on Apple.
Parker Dillmann (24:28):
No. I just gave completely valid
Stephen Kraig (24:30):
And I wanna come out and just be clear about it.
I exclusively used Appleproducts for about 10 years of
my life, and that was, like,pick it. It doesn't matter what
it is. It was an Apple product.My whole family used nothing but
Apple products.
And that was I remember myfather having a discussion with
(24:51):
me about it. He's completely bitinto the idea that they just
make a superior product. And Iremember parroting that for a
long time. But I also rememberat that time being like, well,
okay. Yeah.
Sure. Apple makes up a superiorproduct, but there's a lot of
things that I want to do thatthis product won't let me do.
(25:12):
I'm literally, they just don'tmake the thing for this product.
And so I had to I had to go inand take a bite and buy a non
Apple product. And what's funnyis the second I bought a non
Apple product, my family startedusing that more than the Apple
product.
And and and be there was a lotof reasons behind that, but it
(25:34):
was just there was a little bitof irony behind it. And I'm and
I don't want it to I don't wantit to come off as I hate Apple
products. That's not evenslightly true. It's just a lot
of these business practices thatI see seem very dishonest and
they seem very in they seem veryintent on controlling the way
(25:56):
you think about electronics as awhole. And to that, I kinda take
a little bit of issue.
Like, I I I I make amplifiers.Right? What if I made an
amplifier that if I detectedthat one of the inputs was from
an Apple iPhone, I purposefullydegraded the quality of the
(26:18):
audio just because it was Apple.There's not a chance on earth
anyone would buy anything fromme ever. Why can Apple get away
with that kind of stuff?
Why is everyone okay with thatkind of business practice? I
don't know. Like, that that thatthat it irks me a little bit.
And, actually, I I have somethought experiments that that I
(26:41):
wrote up that I'd love to justkinda play around with and see
may maybe they're analogous,maybe some people won't think
they are, but the first one hereis, let's say your car has an
issue and you take it to amechanic, and the mechanic
purposefully puts inferior partsin your car based on the brand
(27:02):
of car that you brought inthere. Is that is that a
business practice that we wouldbe okay with?
Would would would that mechanicbe in business? I don't think
so. I think that's kind ofslimy. Right?
Parker Dillmann (27:18):
It depends on the car. If it's a Chrysler,
putting OEM parts is actuallystill a good unit. I like that.
As someone who owns Chryslervehicles.
Stephen Kraig (27:28):
So Right. Yeah. It's
Parker Dillmann (27:32):
yeah. I I yeah. It purposely putting inferior
parts. One is just bad businesspractice because then you have
to do double labor when thatpart fails and yet that person
runs back. I don't think that'sa completely analog situation.
So I guess it's kinda hard, but,yeah, I actually, there are some
mechanics that technically dothat, but they let you know that
(27:53):
you're doing that they're doingthat. And actually, if you go to
a good mechanic is gonna be,like, hey, You need widget z for
your car. And widget z OEM costthis much, but widget z from
Billy's AutoZone down the streetcost this much because it's it's
a aftermarket part. But then hegoes, well, I can also can we
(28:17):
have one of the we have a awidget z in the the car behind
the shop that we're parting out,and that one costs this much, so
it's used. I that's actuallywhat a good mechanic would
Stephen Kraig (28:29):
be for you. Yeah. But if the mechanic said, I'm
gonna fix your you bring it in,they say, we know what the
problem is. I'm gonna fix it.And they don't tell you what
they're putting in in, but theyjust arbitrarily pick inferior
parts.
Parker Dillmann (28:44):
I I could see this it'd be more close to what
you're going with is if you tookyour car to your dealer. So you
took your car brand c car todealer c, but it's like an older
model. And then they putinferior parts that makes your
car not perform as well as you.That's a little closer
Stephen Kraig (29:07):
to what real Apple does with their products.
Parker Dillmann (29:10):
Yeah. But that's that's closer to what
Apple does. They push youupdates that make your phones
slower
Stephen Kraig (29:16):
and and, have less battery. Yeah. We didn't
even mention that.
Parker Dillmann (29:19):
Because remember that? Yeah. That that
was a whole thing couple yearsago that they got dinged for.
Stephen Kraig (29:24):
Right.
Parker Dillmann (29:25):
What was the result to that?
Stephen Kraig (29:27):
People went out and bought the newer model. I
don't remember. Wouldn'tsurprise me if that was Yeah.
Parker Dillmann (29:33):
I'm looking it up real quick. Apple agreed in
2020 to that's a long time ago.2020 to pay between a 100
$310,500,000,000 as part of thesettlement and response to a
class auction lawsuit werestemmed from earlier legal
complaints about this company'ssoftware updates were
deliberately throttling theperformance of specific older
iPhone models. So, yes, Applewas pushing updates that were
(29:57):
slowing down your phone onpurpose to push you to newer
models. How is that not if youhow why would you wanna buy a
new
Stephen Kraig (30:09):
iPhone device? Know that they're that that is a
practice that they're willing todo, why would you feed that
monster? I don't know. That'sscary. But I mean, I guess I
guess, you know, they had therethere's a lawsuit, and they had
to fess up to it and pay out forit.
So quite
Parker Dillmann (30:27):
Yeah. Because before, there was just, like,
perception, and there was nodata behind it. But then there's
your proof right there that itwas actually Yeah.
Stephen Kraig (30:36):
And but, I mean, they're still I think I looked
it up the other day. It's 2 2thirds or 3 quarters of all
people in the United States thatown a smartphone own an iPhone.
Even with them doing those kindsof things, like being willing to
pay into that.
Parker Dillmann (30:51):
Right. What's the next type of vehicle?
Stephen Kraig (30:53):
So say if you have a a smart TV that detected
you are watching ads, say onYouTube, for a competitor's
product, would it be acceptablefor that TV to prevent the ads?
And as in just you can't watchthis? Or what if it just
actively made the videos lookbad? Or even further? What if it
(31:15):
use some kind of technology tomake the product look bad, but
not just but the ad look good,but the product looked bad
inside the ad.
So one company actively makinganother product, their
competitors product look bad.
Parker Dillmann (31:30):
I'm more worried about the fact that the
TV knows
Stephen Kraig (31:32):
you're not watching. That's what that's
more what I'm worried about.Yeah.
Parker Dillmann (31:37):
But smart TVs do that. I mean, that's why
smart TVs are so cheap isbecause they're harvesting data
and set and selling it to do weeven know what they sell it to?
Where's what's that pipelinelike?
Stephen Kraig (31:51):
How do you get involved in that? How do you
purchase data from a data miner?It's easy because I'm
Parker Dillmann (31:56):
in marketing now. Yeah. Well, I'm saying is
the TV side is what kind of datais that used I guess there was
that what's that you can get amy neighbor was on this where
they got paid to have a littlebox on their Nelson. So there's
but they Yeah. Something likethat.
My neighbor was on that program,and but they you have to sign a
(32:19):
contract, and they pay you, andyou install a little box, and my
Android phone is listening to meright now because it now it's it
said it, like, broke down, like,the past 5 minutes on the Oh.
Jeez. But that's like you'reentering a two way agreement
from the get go. Like, that's upfront. Right?
But these smart TVs, theagreement is in that ginormous
(32:44):
user agreement that you'vesigned by basically buying the
TV. It's so you never actuallyread it. But where does that
data, like, I don't know wherethat goes.
Stephen Kraig (32:52):
I have no idea.
Parker Dillmann (32:53):
I I Probably goes to some, like, AWS server.
Actually, no. AWS is probablytoo expensive for that. It's
probably because some Chinesedata farm somewhere.
Stephen Kraig (33:03):
So so if you are falsely representing your
customers, sorry, competitors,think at some point in time, at
there's some threshold at whichyou are lying and causing
issues. But what where what'sthat threshold? You can't just
make a commercial. Okay. If GMcame out and made a commercial
(33:25):
and where a guy just walks outonto a stage and says, all
Toyota cars explode the momentyou buy them.
You can't just do that. Right?Like, there there there is
actually a
Parker Dillmann (33:36):
great moment in car history. There's an ad
that's similar to that way back.I gotta find that ad. I don't
have it off hand, but it'ssomething like this is back when
the imports were crushing. Thisis like the the early eighties.
It were, like, the new compactsand stuff were, like, Toyota and
Honda were, like, crushingdomestics here in the States.
(34:00):
And there was, like, an ad thatwas very similar to what you
just said, where, like, theyblame the consumers for not
buying American. They're like,don't you see all these cars?
Like, this show 10 years ago,like, all these American cars.
All these cars fund Americanworkers, but look at it now.
(34:23):
All these cheap foreign cars.Yeah. Just blaming the consumers
for basically buying a betterproduct.
Stephen Kraig (34:33):
Okay. I I feel like that's a little bit
different because they're notnecessarily slandering the
competitor's product. Well, theyare. They are because it's
Parker Dillmann (34:41):
you're buying these products that are not
giving your neighbors jobs, andthey're cheap, and they're cheap
because maybe they're inferior.
Stephen Kraig (34:49):
Well, but okay. I now we're getting into legalese.
I don't think that there'sactually an issue with saying
that, Okay. If the perception isthat they're cheap, I don't
know. I don't know.
The the the there's a fine linewith walking that. Because if
you're blaming your owncustomers, you can do that.
That's really stupid. But youcould do that. Right?
Parker Dillmann (35:11):
I mean, there was automotive and domestic
automotive in, like, the earlyeighties. Yeah.
Stephen Kraig (35:15):
It's it's really stupid, but but there's nothing
saying you can't do that. Thatsounds more like shooting your
own foot as opposed to trying toshoot your, your competitor's
foot. But but but completelylying about your competitor's
product through your product.Now okay. Here's another fun
hypothetical.
I actually remember this becauseI heard that it actually
(35:36):
happened. I don't have any dataon it. Maybe I can find
something. But if you arecurrently signed up for Internet
service through your ISP, dothey have the ability to prevent
you from looking up other ISPs,for shopping for other ISPs, or
can they just arbitrarily slowthe, the another ISP's website,
(35:59):
which it might change yourperception about that I, the the
ISP. If you go to their websiteand be like, oh, man, it's
running really slow, but nobodyelse runs really slow, so maybe
they just have a bad product.
That's changing your perception.
Parker Dillmann (36:12):
No. You're a 100 percent you're a 100% right.
That's called packet shaping,and ISPs do it all the time. And
there are, were lawsuits outthere where they would allow
speed your you would go to aspeed test site, and it would,
like, open up the knobs and letall the data go through. And so
your speed would be really fast,but when you would do some
(36:34):
things like this is back when,like, it really the package
shaping really took off in,like, when Netflix streaming
became a thing because a lot ofthese ISPs also had cable
packages, and so they would theywould literally degrade YouTube
and Netflix data.
This is the whole thing with netneutrality back then, which now
(36:58):
all these companies that were,like, were for it or now are
against it, man. Net neutralityis, like, a battle
Stephen Kraig (37:04):
Oh, it was crazy. I remember
Parker Dillmann (37:06):
the history of all the companies flip flopping
on whether they supported or oragainst it and what it actually
means for the customer. Yeah.That that was a great time
trying to not, like, make adecision if you were for against
that thing. But that's not whatthis podcast is about. This is
we're talking about degrading.
So they were literally your ISPwas or your media provider
(37:31):
because they also do cable, TV,was degrading the performance of
basically other services onpurpose. I don't know if they
got in trouble for that oranything. A great way to
basically figure out if it washappening to you was did you
just turn on a VPN, and thenthey can't packet shape it
because it gets encrypted andthey don't know what the data
(37:53):
is? And yeah. So you'd connectto once yeah.
And your beautiful 480p YouTubewould come through because that
was the resolution of YouTubeback then when this was starting
to become a big thing. So, yeah,I think it's a 100% wrong,
especially for ISPs, becausethey're not they're they're not
supposed to be they're supposedto be agnostic to the data,
(38:16):
because you're paying for thepipeline to get the data. You're
not paying for anything else. Soin theory, that's how it should
be. That's not the case.
Because we actually last week onthe podcast, you were trying to
open up the article for the GM.Right. Vic, the Visual
Information Center.
Stephen Kraig (38:36):
Yeah. The the CRT, Oldsmobile.
Parker Dillmann (38:40):
Yeah. The Oldsmobile Toronado, and you
could you got a 403. And youtried it on your phone that was
connected to the Wi Fi, and yougot a 43, but then when you
turned off the Wi Fi and wentthrough the tower, it loaded up
just fine. So that ISP does notlike that website for
Stephen Kraig (38:57):
sure. No idea why. It's just the automotive
whatever.
Parker Dillmann (39:01):
That's just an automotive website that's linked
through Hackaday, so it's todayis fine. Right. It's not some
weird dartru account or TLD.Man, if I'm googling for like
weird data sheets be don't clickon the ones that say dotru. Oh.
Because it's t l Yeah.
Stephen Kraig (39:21):
For sure. That that's an easy one to just be
like, nope.
Parker Dillmann (39:26):
Yeah. Not clicking on that one. I see that
pop up a lot when you startsearching for really weird,
like, text strings and stuffbecause they're, like, trying to
find, like, error codes andstuff. Those pop up a lot. It's
kinda interesting.
That's I guess if you're only,like, a technical person, you
might and so they're trying toinfect, like, a I'm I'm assuming
here they're trying to infect,like, technical workstations and
(39:48):
stuff. So that's kind of aninteresting ploy to get higher
up in search results becausethere was a whole oh, man. There
was a whole thing wherecompanies were paying Google Ads
for very specific phrases, andso you would and so you would
get a notification on something.And so you would you'd be
curious as you would Google it,and it would send and that would
(40:11):
be, like, the only result inGoogle, so you would click on
it. Very interesting tactics.
So so Talk about degradingperformance. And we just
degraded the performances
Stephen Kraig (40:22):
Well, okay. I actually I I remember a a story.
I wanna I wanna reel it back fora second just because I think
that this is both sad and funny.So so so okay. Back back on the
topic of Apple changing people'sperceptions.
The the the whole texting thingwhere they identify if you don't
have an Apple product. I don'thave any problem whatsoever with
(40:46):
prioritizing people within yournetwork. I think that's a I
think that's a totally finething and totally acceptable.
But making sure that people arewell aware that someone is not
using your product is perhaps Idon't know. It's perhaps there's
problems with it.
And it's funny because so so anold friend of mine, old roommate
(41:09):
of mine, we still keep in touchto this day. He's actually on a
handful of dating websites, and,you know, we talk about random
stuff every and one day, he hehit me up with an image. So he
matched with a girl on one ofthese dating sites, and he sent
her the first message, like theintroduction. Hi. I'm blah blah
(41:30):
blah blah person blah blah.
Whatever. I don't even rememberwhat he said. The very first
response from this woman to himwas, oh, thank god. This is not
a green blob bubble. So she wasjudging romance and a potential
relationship based on thetechnology that was in that
(41:51):
person's hand.
Oh, thank God you're not one ofthose Android weirdos. Thank God
it's a blue bubble that came up.That kind of mentality. And my
buddy sent me that because heknew that would just get me
riled up, and of course it did.I was like, you gotta be
freaking kidding me.
Right? This kind of idea that,like, I can't I couldn't even
(42:13):
pretend to go on a date withsomebody who had a green bubble
in my text, you know, stream.First of all, I'm, like, petty
to the max, right, to theextreme in that sense. But,
like, how did we get to thepoint where we have a company
that has created this? And howdid they want that to be the
(42:34):
case?
Like, I just it just feels kindof gross and disgusting to me
that that we we've we've builtthis wall in between people that
is based on the technologythat's in your hand. I don't
know. I thought that was a funnya funny thing because the guy
who sent it to me is a totalApple fanboy. His house is
(42:55):
appled out. And so he and I chatabout this topic quite a bit,
actually.
Parker Dillmann (43:01):
Well, it it it comes down to Apple's a
corporation and channelingmister Krabs from SpongeBob. I
like money.
Stephen Kraig (43:09):
True. They really do like money, and people really
like giving it to them.
Parker Dillmann (43:14):
Yeah. So if they and, again, if if they
wanna create that kind ofecosystem Yeah. So be it. I am
glad that my Android devicedoesn't tell me what kind of
device they use because I don'tcare.
Stephen Kraig (43:26):
I'm in the same boat as you, Parker.
Parker Dillmann (43:30):
Yep. That's a very interesting, like, social
economic decision by that lady.
Stephen Kraig (43:38):
Yeah. Yeah.
Parker Dillmann (43:41):
I think you I think you know what? I think if
I well, if when I get back todating, it's been a couple years
now. Yeah. People are crazybeing in your mid thirties.
Stephen Kraig (43:52):
Yeah.
Parker Dillmann (43:53):
I think it might be a good thing to avoid
those kind of people.
Stephen Kraig (43:56):
Well, I mean, you can yeah. Just like they used do
you have an Android as a a weedout tool for potential
relationships? You can usepeople who act like that as a
potential weed out tool forrelationships.
Parker Dillmann (44:14):
Yeah. May I put that in my profile? No Apple
devices allowed in thishousehold. No.
Stephen Kraig (44:21):
No. No. Like, my wife for a while used Apple tool
products. I don't like, Icertainly let her know my
thoughts on some of the businesspractices.
Parker Dillmann (44:33):
I got an idea. I got k. Is it immoral because
my mom my mother uses Appleproducts is it immoral if I went
onto the router and I purposelythrottled that MAC address for
her device to get her to switchto Apple?
Stephen Kraig (44:51):
I mean, if you're Apple, then maybe that would be
moral. That's the thing. I don'tthink Apple actually throttles
your data. They just degrade it.
Parker Dillmann (45:02):
I mean, it's insane.
Stephen Kraig (45:03):
Maybe. Speed versus quality, though.
Parker Dillmann (45:06):
You know you know what she would do? She
would just buy the next asset.
Stephen Kraig (45:09):
Hoping that it would fix the problem?
Parker Dillmann (45:12):
Yeah. Because it wouldn't be the same
Stephen Kraig (45:14):
market address anymore. You just have to stay
one step ahead. Oh, man. Yeah. Idon't know.
I feel like we've complainedquite a bit here. I'm I'm
actually curious what otherpeople's thoughts are on this
lawsuit. Is this do you thinkthat this is warranted? Do you
think that this is somethingthat the federal government
should get involved with? Or isthis just business as usual and,
(45:38):
you know, totally acceptablebehavior by by a company of that
magnitude?
I'm not sure where I land.There's certainly aspects of it
that just from a emotionalstandpoint, I don't really like,
but I'm not really into tellingcompanies you can't do it. I
just I think my overall feelingsis I just wish they wouldn't do
(46:02):
that, but I don't know if Ireally agree with telling you
can't do it.
Parker Dillmann (46:07):
Yeah. That that's where the stickler is
because I I'm I'm in that camp.I'm more of the why are why is
our government wasting
Stephen Kraig (46:15):
its time on this? That's a good point.
Parker Dillmann (46:16):
That's a
Stephen Kraig (46:17):
good point.
Parker Dillmann (46:18):
There's a lot of other things that we can have
them be doing and should bedoing than caring if a messaging
app has a green or blue bubble.Yes. That's petty. Is it immoral
also on the engineering side?Probably as well.
Is it something that the USgovernment had needs to get a
hold of? No. It's not.
Stephen Kraig (46:40):
That's a really good point, Parker. Just like
people on dating apps probablyshouldn't care if the bubble is
green or blue, maybe ourgovernment shouldn't care if the
bubble is green or blue. Andmaybe Apple shouldn't care if
the bubble is green or
Parker Dillmann (46:54):
blue. Yep. There's that too. But clearly,
some people like it being green.Somebody does.
Stephen Kraig (47:01):
Yeah.
Parker Dillmann (47:04):
Yeah. Let us know in the comments. You know
what? I'm gonna put it righthere. I wanna pull on Android
versus app well, actually, howabout just Apple versus other
devices?
Stephen Kraig (47:19):
Mhmm. And
Parker Dillmann (47:19):
then we can have a mix. So if you have,
like, mix Also,
Stephen Kraig (47:22):
seriously, I'm I'm being dead serious here.
Please, if you think I'm wrong,tell me how I'm wrong. I want to
hear that. Come to our come toour our discourse,
form.macrofab.com. And I'mtotally open to being educated
on what I have wrong here.
And I'm sure there's plenty ofour listeners who have opinions
(47:44):
on why I'm wrong here, and I'dlove to hear it. I really do,
and I'm willing to I'm willingto listen here. Or if if you
believe that these stances areworth defending, please come and
and defend them, and maybe it'smaybe I'll jump on board and be
like, hey. Yeah. No.
I don't think may maybe all ofthis is acceptable business
behavior. So
Parker Dillmann (48:05):
Yeah. But, again, I'm on you know, they can
do what they want. I'm notgiving them money, so it doesn't
no skin off my back. So Yeah.Yeah.
Let us know. Forum.macrofab.com.Thank you for listening to
circuit break from MacroFab. Weare your hosts And
Stephen Kraig (48:21):
Steve and
Parker Dillmann (48:22):
Craig. Later, everyone. Q. Yes. You breaker
for downloading our podcast ifyou have jeez.
I've just reprote
Stephen Kraig (48:33):
this, so
Parker Dillmann (48:35):
Thank you. Yes, you breaker for downloading our
podcast. Tell your friends andcoworkers about circuit break
podcasts. That's really I evenwrote that wrong. Circuit Break
Podcasts for Mac that soundsterrible.
If you have a cool idea,project, or topic you want us to
discuss, let Steven and I andthe community of Breakers know.
Our community where you can findpersonal projects, discussions
(48:55):
about the podcast, andengineering topics and news is
located at forum.macrev fab.com.I'm gonna put a note here for me
to change that
Stephen Kraig (49:03):
Will you miss the word the? Tell your friends and
coworkers about the circuitbreak podcast from Macrofab.
Parker Dillmann (49:11):
Oh, you're right.
Stephen Kraig (49:12):
It's written well. Okay. Or it's written
okay. Yeah.
Parker Dillmann (49:17):
It's okay enough for for the engineers I
go good enough for the engineersI go out with. Stopping. We had
some connectivity here.
Stephen Kraig (49:25):
I saw that. I noticed one time that that you
just went kaput, so I just keptgoing.
Parker Dillmann (49:33):
And it it caught up or something. It says
it stopped. Is it stopped onyour side? No. Please reload and
try
Stephen Kraig (49:39):
It says it's recording. Oh. It still says
recording on my side, but italso says that I'm uploading.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com