Comments by "Maxwell Benz" (@Tential1) on "Apple u0026 Amazon fined 225 million over exclusivity agreement in Italy." video.

  1. The fines are purposely chosen to be a large number to every day average Joe's. To me? As a person in the finance industry? If you aren't talking billions, I'm not interested. 225M isn't real money. In this case of Apple and Amazon? You need to throw at least 10B around before I care. Any news story under 500M is ignored beyond annoyance at regulators for wasting time.
    26
  2. Q3, apple made 20B of profit. Just in one quarter. 225M fine? Lol..... K.
    22
  3. Also you're thinking about it from your standpoint Louis. As a regular Amazon user, when I see refurbished I assume it means refurbished authorized by the manufacturer or Amazon. When anyone is allowed to use refurbished then it's a little confusing. I'm sure this is what Amazon was trying to clamp down on. I understand where you are coming from, however I also understand how Amazon is trying to clean up its platform to avoid fake items being sold. It's not a perfect system clearly and needs work but the fine and "anti compete" is a little misleading. Amazon is clearly trying to combat the gray market sales on the platform, something politicians also complain about. There should maybe be a "user refurbished" tag just like how Amazon has Amazon renewed as a tag. Until then, I think this is just regulators trying to score political points and not actually understanding the problem.
    4
  4. It was clearly meant to stop fake sales. My sister just used apple to buy her airpods rather than Amazon. Why? Fear or a fake. For anything I'm uncertain of how to evaluate a fake, I buy direct from the manufacturer. Was this program perfect? Probably not. But Amazon has a huge fake issue. And these same regulators cry about Amazon having fake products. So do they want Amazon to combat fakes or not? And how? Using magic? Regulators are attacking big tech purely to score political brownie points.
    1