That's what Apple (and its ardent defenders) tells developers. Don't like the rules, don't develop for iPhone.
Don't like the market rules, don't sell in it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Asks Indian Court to Block Antitrust Law Allowing $38 Billion Fine
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's what Apple (and its ardent defenders) tells developers. Don't like the rules, don't develop for iPhone.
Don't like the market rules, don't sell in it.
You nor anyone else has stated "who" should be making this all work. Do you expect that Apple is going to create something, and then ensure it works perfectly with anyone else that makes something similar? Is that their burden to bare for being a company that makes things? Does everyone else have to also do the same? Make sure their products also works with Apple? Please explain what would separate these companies from each other? What makes one special over the next. If each of them has to make what they make AND make it work exactly the same for other product makers stuff. What exactly would differentiate them from each other?
Does it only include features (aka how it works). Does it extend to colors, and materials?
If its ones choice to get into a market. Its also ones choice to get out of one if it doesn't work for you anymore. Make product A one day. Not the next. Operate in countries C,D,E today. Then X,Y,Z tomorrow. Pull out of D and Y the following week.
So you want open platforms, and open standards for everything? Sounds like a good time.. 🫤
Precisely. As THAT would be an abuse of power. Having the position "first", and then turning it into means to extort or otherwise gain additional profits because you already have the control and position to do so. Apple didn't have any position or control or power when the AppStore was introduced. Zero. Developers asked them repeatedly to make an SDK so they can have better access to the hardware to create better apps. WebApp's wasn't "enough" to make them happy. So they did so. And made it insanely easy to get those apps out world wide to every iPhone customer.
And since everyone (a lot of companies and people) thought this was going to fail (flop whatever). The fact that it succeeded against all that. And only got better (cheaper, and became more prevalent across the globe) over time.
I'll stick with my argument that they never abused it. They made adjustments, but never really altered the original plan. We need 30% to run the store. We expect most apps to be free, and we are not going to charge them anything for it being free.
Isn't this the exact same argument that people use about the EU? You guys need some new material.
First Mac I used was at the public library and played till I beat it. Where in the world is Carmen San Diego. Loved that game. I was maybe 6-7 (Six SEVEN). So we are in the mid 80's here. No GUI, had to load it up on a floppy.
My next consistent use of a Mac wasn't until College. And from there, I didn't stop. This was System 7, then 8, and 9 on up.
This is how they built it. Again, they offered WebApps to create something on the device. They never offered a means to just download what you want when you want on the device. It wasn't created to be like a normal computer. You didn't have incredibly fast CPU/GPU/Battery/Screen size/etc. It was built with the limitations we had in the early 2000's. Except, it had a cellular connection. Pretty much always online. Building in anti malware (even if you let others do it) would be a drain on the limited resources. But there needs to be a way to protect the end user. Well, just limit the way you can install anything. WebApps don't run in the background. So that solves that. But, because devs didn't want it. We needed another way. OK, how about one way into the device? We don't need firewalls/AV software. But we still prevent random things from running. It's simple, and every app gets to be managed centrally with updates, and payments, and refunds etc. It's literally Apple to the (PUN) core.
The video explains that. Steve Jobs didn't want it on the device. It's not going to be on the device. You can get your fix by other means.
It actually does. My device is inherently more secure out of the box without any patches. Than any PC you can find today. Let alone 10-15 years ago.
Every company is greedy. Every company has to make a profit. And those profits have to be greater and greater than the last reported profit.
But, Apple started with an iPhone with zero marketshare in a market that had plenty of competition. People like you and me and others made them profitable. What they charge for a device is their business. Your's and my business is if we feel it's worth the purchase price IF we want the device. And enough people do. That's how it is supposed to work.
Name one company that isn’t greedy, greedy, greedy. That’s the incentive to produce great products. Under communism, there was no profit incentive. Guess what? They had horrendous economies, shortages, and the shoddiest products anywhere on earth. If you don’t make a profit, you don’t have innovation of any kind.
Even non-profit companies are greedy. Too many people think non-profits earn no profit. That’s not true at all. Non-profits are often very profitable companies. The only legal difference between a normal corporation and a non-profit corporation is that the former can issue dividends while the latter can’t. In exchange for not being able to issue dividends, they don’t have to pay income taxes. That’s all. Otherwise, most non-profits make profits hand over fist and are as greedy as any for-profit company.
There's greed ... and there's Apple-greed! Companies that supply daily items (power, water, food, housing) do not make 40%+ margins and pay their Executives obscene amounts.
They set their target at 38% gross margin, which often translates to about 20% net profits give or take, depending on taxes, which isn’t all that much. Apple is no greedier than any other company. What tech company doesn’t pay their executives obscene amounts of money? Apple does what every other company in their industry does. Are you saying Satya Nadella, Sundar Pichai, Mark Zuckerberg, or other executives don’t make similar amounts? If one company is spending obscene amounts of money compared to their competition, they are usually brought down to earth by that competition. In 2024, Apple earned a 22% net profit. Google in comparison earned a 32% net profit in the same year. Microsoft earned a 35.4% net profit in 2024. Which company is the greedy one again?
You're right, I should have said "tech-greed". All of these companies are in the same boat and it's a quite different one than companies who supply the basic daily needs of mankind, and of course all those workers who perform vital social functions. This inequality is not sustainable.
Yes, I believe for profit companies manufacturing consumer discretionary products should be greedy. No one needs an iPhone, Ferrari, Gucci bag etc
Proprietary doesn’t work for consumers. It takes advantage of consumers. Apple would have never succeeded without Qualcomm technologies and patents. When something becomes a standard model that is how everything works it becomes something that should have a FRAND patent usage by any company. Tech patents suck. Have hurt Apple but also helped Apple tremendously. When the Asian way works consumers have choices.
What many ardent detractors of Apple don’t get is for Apple the rules have gotten worse. For developers the rules stayed the same or gotten better.
The ones that supply the basic needs, such as power companies, water companies, and such are so heavily regulated they are incapable of price gouging because they are usually local monopolies. They have to submit requests to the state governments to increase their prices. Sorry, but there is no free market with those companies that supply basic services. If they could raise prices at will, they would. But they are legally not allowed to do that. Whether that’s for good or ill, I’ll let others decide that, but those markets are completely different from a tech market.
Grocery stores operate on thin 1-2% margins because of market forces, not because they wouldn’t love to charge more. There is so much competition that any grocer who tried to price gouge would quickly find their competition prospering with them going out of business. When a company produce luxury goods, which consumer electronics are, you are able to charge significantly more because those are optional goods bought by significantly fewer people. They HAVE to charge more to make a profit. Everyone needs power, food, and water. Not everyone needs an iPhone.
This “inequality” does not exist because they are vastly different markets with different characteristics. The basics providers are mostly massively regulated and price controlled and often government-subsidized while the tech companies are not. There is no comparison. Tech companies need larger margins because they spend billions on R&D that may never see a cent of profit. Without decent, healthy margins, ROI drops and innovation drops accordingly. We criticize Apple and other companies all the time for canceling projects like the Apple Car. $10 billion down the drain, subsidized by the iPhone profits. Tech companies couldn’t afford their R&D budgets unless they had more than minimal profits. If tech companies operated on the government-regulated profits of a power company, they wouldn’t dare take many of the risks they do now.
You are comparing Apple to oranges.
Last edited:
People who complain about App Store policies are too young to remember what it was like before the iPhone. I still remember when my Windows CE/Windows Mobile phone App Store charged 70% for hosting apps. 30% back then was considered revolutionary. Basically, memories have faded and developers are getting greedier. Apple hasn’t since they’ve charged the same or less from the very beginning of the App Store. They are being fined and pilloried for things that they were cheered for back in 2008. Who’s to say 15% or 30% is too much? Instead of leaving it as a supply and demand issue where developers can choose whether to develop for iPhones, developers go to the courts to demand cheaper prices. How are the developers the victims here? Or even the consumers, who would be paying a lot more than they are now had Apple adopted the tradition of 70% back in 2008?
People also forget that the 15/30% fees subsidize the millions of free apps that never have to pay a cent.
So you want everything Open source, and FRAND based. No matter what it is.
For which they paid Qualcomm for, and that lead to Qualcomm eventually making the Snapdragon chip to directly compete with Apple.
Figured you would eventually say that (hence above). IF that became the case. Everyone would wait for the next company to create something new. Then expect it to be FRAND, and not innovate themselves. Innovation would stall, since it would just be practically given away in a short amount of time.
Patents protect the inventor who(m) came up with the it. Lots of effort, time, and money goes into getting something patented. Yes, it has been abused (cough, "TROLLS!"). Still its better than the alternative which is all ones lifes work could be just stolen or basically given away.
You seemly seem to leave out all of the devices/computers that Apple failed in their original plans. All that loss, with some wonderful successes. It's exactly why they are able to fail. Because the successes can be WAY more worth it in the end. However, no one knows which will succeed and which will fail.
(This reply is not for the commenter)
To everyone reading… this person says, 9% equals 100%.
Pay no attention, it has to be a troll move.
Well said.
What I’m also finding insane is that each separate country is going for worldwide revenues… I found it blatantly unjust with the EU’s shenanigans, but more countries seem to be piling up on that.
Line up 20 of said countries and they would be fining 200% all together, this doesn’t make sense and people are cheering for this.
Plus, where does that money go anyways? “You have been found guilty of violating x rule (that we just made today) retroactively for the last 10 years, so that’s 100% of your revenue in fines. Pay at the counter”.
Ok, then what? does it go to the “affected” costumers? Developers? The population? $380B divided between potentially 380M people having an iPhone (entertain the gross exaggeration of iPhone users) means $1M for EACH person… yeah right, I bet citizens will see a total of never cents.
What’s the next move? will they be taxing said companies on worldwide business too? Because, why not? And of course people will still cheer this up.
Some sort of serious reset is in order, in my opinion this has gotten out of hand.
@amartinez1660, when Tim Cook is also a shareholder, it's called greed and not shareholders forcing him to sell in India, and it is fair to fine worldwide revenue when multinational corporations can shop around to determine their tax rate.
I’m in firm support of a companies global income being taken into account for fines, just like I would support personal fines being based on a persons annual income.
Do you live in the US? Because you can also “shop around” regarding income tax and their rates: some states have income tax, others do not, some have low sales taxes, other higher sales taxes.
By your logic, since you can also “shop around tax rate”, you should be taxed and fined worldwide (or at least contrywide) where every state takes a piece of your salary, and also charged for a total of 10% of everything you own when, don’t know, each time you get a fine for eating a red light or speeding or jaywalking.
As the above poster said, I’m a firm supporter of you paying income taxes in every state within the US.
It’s actually worse than that. Not only should he pay income taxes in every state of the Union but in the smallest state, he also has to pay the cumulative total of income taxes in all 50 states as a fine, so he’s actually paying the entire tax burden of all 50 states twice.
It’s ridiculous that India is trying to fine Apple with more money than they’d make in India for the next hundred years. Why would any company pay that fine? It’s far cheaper for them to just close down business and declare bankruptcy and dare them to try collecting. It’s the equivalent of Apple moving out of California because they got tired of paying the onerous taxes of that state. Plus it’s not as if they were being fined for violating a law after a law went into effect, They are being retroactively fined for something they did 18 years ago that had been welcomed and celebrated by every developer.
Last edited: