GrubMarket's mission is to provide organic food for the 99%

GrubMarket

grubmarket

United States v. Apple INC Court Filing, retrieved on March 21, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 16 of 25. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here D. Relevant Markets 164. All smartphones compete against each other in a broad relevant market. But industry participants, including Apple, assess competition among smartphones in narrower markets that are best understood as submarkets of the larger all-smartphone market. Because Apple chooses not to compete to sell new smartphones in the entry-level tier, the most relevant market to assess its conduct is a narrower submarket that excludes this tier. Regardless of how the market is drawn, however, Apple’s conduct is unlawful. iv. Performance smartphones are a relevant product market 165. Performance smartphones are a narrower relevant product market within the broader smartphone market. This narrower market includes those smartphones that compete with most iPhones and excludes the lowest-end smartphones, which industry participants sometimes refer to as “entry-level” smartphones. 166. Industry participants recognize performance smartphones as distinct and frequently group smartphones into tiers that include entry-level smartphones and higher tiers such as “premium” or “flagship.” 167. Apple has also long recognized a distinction between these higher-end smartphones and lower-end, entry-level smartphones. Apple’s own documents indicate it does not view entry-level smartphones as competing with the iPhone and other performance smartphones. 168. Performance smartphones have distinct characteristics and uses as compared to other smartphones. For example, entry-level smartphones are generally made with lower-quality materials and are less durable (e.g., plastic instead of metal and glass). They have lower-performance components such as slower processors and lower-capacity storage, which prevent users from running more intensive applications or storing large volumes of pictures and data on the device. Entry-level smartphones often lack features such as an NFC antenna that allows consumers to use their phone to make payments or access passes for public transit. 169. Consumers typically purchase performance smartphones under different terms than entry-level smartphones. Consumers generally use entry-level smartphones along with prepaid service plans. By contrast, consumers usually purchase performance smartphones for use with post-paid service plans that include promotional discounts to consumers who purchase performance smartphones. 170. Because of these differences, among others, between entry-level smartphones and performance smartphones, entry-level smartphones are not reasonable substitutes for performance smartphones. 171. Moreover, competition from non-performance smartphones is not sufficient today to prevent Apple from exercising monopoly power in the performance smartphone market. v. Smartphones are a broader relevant product market 172. Smartphones are a relevant product market. Smartphones are distinct from phones that offer less capable hardware and software options than smartphones. These other phones, sometimes called “feature phones,” may offer basic web browsing in addition to calling and messaging options, but do not offer the breadth of access to the internet or third-party apps as smartphones. Similarly, these phones often have lower-quality hardware, such as poorer displays, less capable cameras, and rely on physical keyboards instead of smartphone touch screens. Thus, these phones are not reasonable substitutes for smartphones. 173. Smartphones are also distinct from other portable devices, such as tablets, smartwatches, and laptop computers. These devices lack the combination of function, size, and portability that consumers rely on in a smartphone, even if they offer some similar capabilities. Thus, none of these other products are reasonable substitutes for smartphones. 174. Apple, other participants in the market, and the public recognize that smartphones are distinct from feature phones and other portable devices. 175. Competition from feature phones, or other alternatives, is not sufficient to prevent Apple from exercising monopoly power in the smartphone market. vi. The United States is a relevant geographic market for performance smartphones and smartphones 176. The United States is a relevant geographic market for the sale of performance smartphones and smartphones. Users in the United States demand services offered by U.S. retailers when they purchase a smartphone. For example, consumers who purchase a smartphone from their mobile carrier can get assistance with activating their new device, setting it up, and transferring important content like apps, messages, photos, and video to their new smartphone. A smartphone purchased abroad for use in the United States might be incompatible with the consumer’s domestic carrier, may not have the necessary radio technology to take advantage of the carrier’s highest speed connections, the carrier might not be able to offer support during setup or subsequently, or the phone’s warranty may be invalid. 177. Consumers must also purchase smartphones through a U.S. retailer if they want to take advantage of valuable promotions offered by their mobile carrier. These same promotions and free financing are unavailable to U.S. consumers who purchase their phones in other countries. 178. Finally, potential new smartphone entrants to the U.S. market must also comply with telecommunications regulations and satisfy other legal requirements. No extensive regulatory framework governs how Apple operates its platform with respect to developers, but there are a number of regulatory requirements that must be met in order to enter the smartphone market. For example, some smartphone makers are effectively barred from offering their smartphones to U.S. consumers. 179. Consumers in the United States could not avoid or defeat an increase in the price of performance smartphones or smartphones by purchasing and importing smartphones from abroad. This allows Apple to set prices for the same smartphone in the United States separately from those in other countries. For example, Apple lowered the price of the iPhone 11 in China relative to the United States because Apple faced greater competition in China. This additional competition arises in part because a popular super app put competitive pressure on Apple and made it easier for users to switch from an iPhone to a rival smartphone. As a result, Apple is unable to command the same prices for the iPhone in China than they do in the United States due to less competition. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 21, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. justice.gov

Defining Relevant Markets in the Smartphone Industry

Epic sues Apple over monopoly of iOS distribution, Apple says feel free to distribute game elsewhere

A Deep Dive into Crypto

Una inmersión profunda en Crypto

Une plongée profonde dans la crypto

क्रिप्टो में एक गहरा गोता

暗号へのディープダイブ

Um mergulho profundo na criptografia

Tìm hiểu sâu về tiền điện tử

深入研究加密货币

A job with 50 flights a year, and a life in back to back audio and video call meetings, and the same question over and over again in my mind: Why are all these conferencing platforms so shit, we’ve got AI making deep fakes from dead people in 4K with Dolby surround, and my colleague is still an unintelligible single delayed pixel falling off the edge of the screen out of sync, and no one seems to ever be able to share the right screen. No I’m still seeing the Presenter View. I quit a dream job with a multinational technology company last year to try and fix this. This is not my first rodeo but I quickly found out the problem was a lot deeper and fundamental then I expected. Then Covid happened and now everyone’s asking the same question I was asking: Why are all these conferencing platforms so shit. Let me take you down the rabbit hole I find myself that’s all about choosing where you attack on the value stacks, market dynamics of an oddly sized fragmented market, and what I think could be one of the greatest business opportunities I’ve seen in ages. Analysis Paralysis There’s been numerous surveys done on the problems with video conferencing, you’ll know the list: , the list goes on, long and familiar. Audio issues, sync issues between video and voice, poor picture quality, latency, echo problems and hearing yourself, people not hearing you and not being able to interrupt them And then there’s been many physiological studies on why we have such a negative experience, from the effect of lack of eye contact suggesting dishonesty, to the overloading of the brain the division of people into little boxes on the screen causes, and the decremental effects of hearing yourself. So the Google’s and the Microsoft’s of this world, or the younger focused companies like Zoom, why haven’t the titans of technology, fixed these already? The Heart of the Problem The reason these tools are not great is actually really obvious if you’ve used a specialised commercial software or service, like your own homemade HR or holiday booking system in your company, or one of those websites for a small local government service for example, they’re all terrible to use, full of bugs, and don’t work well or as expected. The reason is there’s just not that big a user-base to justify the invest to build something better. Building robust reliable services with well thought out UX takes a lot of investment. Before Covid hit, the whole of the video conferencing market in the US was only worth about $3.85B (USD). It was split about 50/50 between HW and SW/Service. Also, corporate conferencing, the bit you first think of, is only about a quarter of the market again, with other submarkets like Education, Healthcare, Government and Defence making the other pieces. If you think the corporate platforms are not great, you should see the other specialised ones, they’re shockingly bad. So we’ve started with not that great a number, and divided it by 2, and then divided by 4, you’re now in the Which isn’t that big a number if you think about it. 100s of millions of dollars range. Then of course the market is fragmented, and each company has a smaller piece of this. When you get to those levels of revenue, quite frankly the return on investment on building say a new advance echo cancellation system isn’t great. If you looks at the teams behind many of these products, a large part of the operational cost is around the sales organisation, winning and keeping those customers, and the engineering teams are grossly under resourced and overloaded. Which brings me to the other characteristic of this market: Imagine you were using one of those virtual background capabilities that are very fashionable at the moment, that cut people out of their background and make them look like they’re on the beach (for some reason) and it didn’t recognise the face of your colleague that has darker skin properly, and they disappeared. You can imagine that happening, and that’s the exact reason you wouldn’t use that feature in a serious meeting. The need for extremely high reliability. For a capability to reach that enterprise level quality it needs to be truly well qualified for all edge scenarios, and all biases to be removed, and again that adds significant cost, and reduces the ROI further. And that’s the main reason these tools aren’t great. Making them better isn’t outside the roam of human capability, it’s just that they’re not worth it for the companies to do, all the best engineers in the world are off pushing the envelope on deep fakes, they don’t have time for this stuff. How to Fix it To find the solution we need to go back to those budget local government websites, and free service apps again. In the last 5 years some of them have got a lot better, Why? In big part this is due to the availability of various intermediate technology stacks that you can build your service on top of. Everyone knows you’re not gonna go out there now and buy your own servers, you’ll use AWS/GCP/Azure for the compute and serving capability, but a lot of the underlaying SW you need to deal with capabilities like accounts, billing, data management, security, and frameworks for UIs are either available for free, or there’s great paid for services, and they are so much better than anything you could ever make yourself, because they have the economy of scale. You’ll left to make the application SW only so your investment goes a lot further. The world of video and audio conferencing doesn’t have this, you can’t buy in all those well-developed underlying capabilities you need, well not yet anyway. You’d have to build a lot of it yourself. If you set out to build your own video conferencing platform tomorrow, say with a flow that was more usable, or say you wanted to focus and build something with certain features suitable for , you’d likely get the HW on AWS, you’ll use open source for the OS and server infrastructure, you’ll even be able to find a great white-label video conferencing SW platform, free or paid to take and tailor, but if you use these pieces and build your application on top of it, better screen sharing remote exercise classes you’d likely have poor audio quality, and echo problems, and disappointing video performance. If you wanted better quality there, even on par with the Zooms and Microsofts of this world, you’ll have to sink millions into making your own audio/video signal processing, since there isn’t anything out there free or paid for that’s any good and properly qualified, and yes big guys like Microsoft, Google and Zoom have their own, but they’re not gonna sell just that capability to you to build a competing platform to them, and there’s isn’t even that good, because they couldn’t justify the investment needed in the first place (as explained above). Go a bit more application specific, that background swap feature, you’d have to build your own and it to make sure it works for all kinds of webcams, and rooms shapes, and backgrounds, and skin tones, etc. That’s a reasonable investment, and that’s only to get you on par with the incumbents. fully qualify So unfortunately despite your best intentions your platform will be just as bad, if not worse, and even though you have better screen sharing flow, or suitable market features, people will not want to use your product. The way to break this situation is that we need independent technology companies that want to invest and do the audio and video signal processing well, and their business model is setup to sell these capabilities to the conferencing platform providers, new and old. At this point, the solution should be obvious: The benefit of this approach is that . If you develop a great real time noise cancelling capability, AI powered, highly qualified, you can sell this to all the major conferencing providers, and not just corporate, but also education, healthcare, and even other markets outside of conferencing. Now the market size is big enough to justify the investment, and you’re not then trying to build, market and sell a whole conferencing platform to end users, but just this capability. the ROIs start making sense If you look at the conferencing market, and want to make it better, It won’t be better, you just won’t have pockets deep enough, and even if you did, you’ll never get a reasonable return on it. Try not to be the hero and household name, instead identify the underlying technologies that would make the existing platforms better or enable better new platforms, develop them, and find a business model that allows you to sell them to many. I believe the worst thing you could do is to try and make another conferencing platform. , there would be major independent technology companies at various levels of value stack. There would be 2 or 3 companies offering great noise suppression capabilities, some would also have echo cancelling, there would a number of technology companies offering great real-time video processing capabilities, and there would be startup’s breaking through with new advance capabilities for this market, some quite high up the value stack with very application specific features. If I were to describe a world where video conferencing isn’t rubbish As an end user of conferencing you wouldn’t be buying these capabilities from these companies, in fact , but the conferencing platform providers you use and know, would buy these capabilities from the companies mentioned above, and this would free the platform companies to use those sales organisations to listen to the end customers, figure out what they need at the application level, and tailor products to work the way the customers want, with access to rich powerful underlying technologies from various suppliers. you would likely never hear the name of these companies at all To fix this market we need an ecosystem of players, that is the solution to the problem, not one vertical behemoth owning the whole stack. We’ve seen that doesn’t work. The Change is Coming With the explosion in video conferencing due to Covid-19, the market size has obviously grown, but it’s too early to know how much of this change and size increase is here to stay, but beside the market size growing and allowing the big players to justify their investments on technology, finally, independently we’re started to see more companies trying to build the underlaying technologies with a sell to all business model, rather than making their own platform. On noise suppression a great example is a startup called , building an AI power noise suppressor. Other recent examples are a tool in beta called from All Turtles, which is a set of features mostly around video and image processing to make the experience of video calls more productive. Krisp mmhmm Today these companies are offering their capabilities as plugins that the end user can use with any conferencing platform. I think it feels inevitable that for these startups to succeed they will have to evolve out of offering plugins to end users and become technology suppliers to the platform providers, but that in itself is a journey they will have to go through. This is more than just Video Conferencing You might be thinking some of this real time audio signal processing capabilities must have existed for years, my phone does it, surely not every phone manufacturer is going trying to build their own capabilities from scratch? If you go back 5 years, the majority of the audio signal processing was happening on the communication devices themselves, like your phone, or your physical conference phone sitting in the conference room, and even on your laptop, and traditional integrated circuit and signal processing companies like Analog Devices, Texas Instruments, STMicroelectornics, have been providing real time signal processing capabilities for decades. But two things have happened recently, that changes things up: - While the initial signal processing in the devices remain, we’re seeing a emergence of the more advance signal processing capabilities away from the devices themselves to the cloud, where there’s more information, or information from multiple devices, enabling much better processing opportunities for certain problems - Advances in AI for both audio and video processing, combined with the vast increase in centralised processing capability has increased the possibilities but has also pushed the signal processing further up from the embedded devices in many cases and away from the offerings of the traditional incumbents in the real-time signal processing space. I believe and hopeful that we’ll witness : Either the traditional power houses of signal processing, predominately the IC manufactures, will grow their AI driven capability and transition further up the signal processing chain, and offer more application specific audio and video processing capability, or There’s a real need for this. one of 2 things over the next decade in this space of real-time signal processing we’ll see a new breed of major company emerge, filling that gap in the ecosystem, providing application specific real-time signal processing capabilities. So What Am I Doing About All This? I have a new startup, but we’re still in stealth, so we’re not talking much about what we’re doing at the moment, but we have a couple of cool bits technology and our goal is to build state-of-the-art, fully qualified audio and video signal processing capabilities, with a focus in the voice and video communication and conferencing market, no surprises there. We want to make video conferencing better, a lot better. We’re experimenting with a sort of business model, where you pay for the real time processing of audio and video feeds in the cloud in a by minute model, this way regardless of your size and application you can get hold of the best signal processing needed for your application, and you also don’t need to worry about the infrastructure or latency, it’s all taken care of. Digital Signal Processing as a Service (DSPaaS) We’re hoping to flip this market on its head, and if we do our job right, you’ll never hear our name, but your video conference platform, whichever one you use, and whatever you use it for, should suddenly get a whole lot better. References If you want to learn and read more on the space, here’s some links to the studies, market analysis and companies I talked about in the article above: A nice survey by OWLLabs on the the state of video conferencing in 2018, and some commentary on what some of the biggest challenges in using video conferencing is OWLLabs — State of Video Conferencing 2018 https://www.owllabs.com/state-of-video-conferencing Some commentary in the article on study of the effect of lack of eye contact in video conferencing, and how it causes lack of trust Ksenia Klykova — The impact of videoconferencing on business travel: an historical point of view https://medium.com/sam/the-impact-of-videoconferencing-on-business-travel-an-historical-point-of-view-3b5fa85e0a9d New feature from Microsoft Teams, but interestingly their study in seeing that having people in different boxes on the screen seems to make you more tired Tom Warren — Microsoft Teams’ new Together Mode is designed for pandemic-era meetings https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/8/21317526/microsoft-teams-together-mode-dynamic-view-new-features If you want to find out more information about the video conferencing market sizes and segmentations Grand View Research — Video Conferencing market Size, Share 7 Trends Analysis Report https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/video-conferencing-market Another look at the video conferencing market, with sub market breakdown — Corporate, Education, Healthcare, etc Fortune Business Insights — Video Conferencing Market Size, Share & Industry Analysis, By Type, By Application, By Enterprise Size and Regional Forecast https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/video-conferencing-market-100293 There’s a few, but OpenVidu is an free or paid for white label video conferencing platform, based on Kurento, that you can take and build your own video conferencing platform on top of pretty quickly for example OpenVidu and Kurento https://openvidu.io https://www.kurento.org Krisp, is that noise suppression startup I was talking about above. They have a free plugin you can try Krisp https://krisp.ai mmhmm is that beta tool that help with screen sharing and processes the video on calls, on their website at the moment at least you can find a video explaining what they’re doing. I’ve added the link for the video as well. mmhmm https://www.mmhmm.app https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8KhKBLoSMk This is our new startup company working in this space, there’s almost no information on the website at the moment, sorry. Pommelhorse https://pommelhorse.com

Why is Video Conferencing so SH*T - Surely we can do better than this

Stories, News & Mentions about GRUBMARKET

Grubmarket’s Stories on HackerNoon