Apple Began Preparing for AirTag Regulatory Approval Nearly Two Years Ago

[Nuno Lopes]

They do what the environment allows them todo. If regulators consider that the above behavior does not constitute abuse it’s not their fault really.

It’s impressive how blind people are. HomePod failed precisely because there were no third party digital services. Meaning the later are a fundamental part of Apple ability to market their products. More so than the other way around. Yet in iOS everyone else is forced to share their revenue to have an App there. Why? They can condition access to their customers, one in two Americans. They use that ability to condition to pump up the price of their app downloads and update service, just 30% of the revenue please, while forcing themselves as the only payment system, assuring of course their ability to collect and manage the influx of money over third parties. Hehehehe. Given their market share they power its incredible, they can crack competitors through policies only, way more organized that a Cartel type of conglomerate ... people call it competition :.. go figure. People forget that the App Store policies put them as a competitor to any digital service, even services they don’t yet provide, by conditioning them at the ground set through technological artifice and policy.

No one wants this the app download and update service to be dismantled. The question is one of policy. Regulators regulate policies.

I believe that in analog world of goods and services, this would already be ...

 

[medee88]

Here comes the Tile lawsuit: Apple is unfair! They have a whole ecosystem! We can’t compete! We don't wanna use FindMy! Make them stop!

Have you gotten a chance to use Tile? I seriously enjoy it, but it’d be hard to say it hasn’t gotten increasingly worse over the last few years of iOS updates as they have lost access to the ability to have a faster Bluetooth connection to the devices that they used to have.

I think the airtags are cool, and I even preordered a few to check them out, but I think companies like Apple have to be pretty careful about things like this. Tile has been asking for years for a better method to connect devices.

Now the find my network exists, and the airtags are first to market with it, and it looks like they had been working on these trackers before the network existed (and had that advantage) and it seems like the other trackers (like chipolo) will be releasing theirs after the airtags will be released. The default behavior is for every iOS device to auto opt in to the find my network (similar to the system settings and Apple Maps).

I’m just putting all this out here to say I could understand Tile being frustrated. It’s hard when a large player adds a product to your space and has a bit of an unfair advantage of adding extra features to their os to make their products better and being first to market with those technologies. Apple also controls the MiFi program for approvals to the find my network as well.

 

[I7guy]

Have you gotten a chance to use Tile? I seriously enjoy it, but it’d be hard to say it hasn’t gotten increasingly worse over the last few years of iOS updates as they have lost access to the ability to have a faster Bluetooth connection to the devices that they used to have.

I think the airtags are cool, and I even preordered a few to check them out, but I think companies like Apple have to be pretty careful about things like this. Tile has been asking for years for a better method to connect devices.

Now the find my network exists, and the airtags are first to market with it, and it looks like they had been working on these trackers before the network existed (and had that advantage) and it seems like the other trackers (like chipolo) will be releasing theirs after the airtags will be released. The default behavior is for every iOS device to auto opt in to the find my network (similar to the system settings and Apple Maps).

I’m just putting all this out here to say I could understand Tile being frustrated. It’s hard when a large player adds a product to your space and has a bit of an unfair advantage of adding extra features to their os to make their products better and being first to market with those technologies. Apple also controls the MiFi program for approvals to the find my network as well.

I wonder how Tile would create this functionality on windows? There wouldn't be any "anti-trust" but no real technical framework either. They (Tile) would have to create their technical framework. The next company that wanted to tracker functionality on Windows would have to create their different technical framework.

Apple has provided a technical framework, but all comers to the "tracking" apps should use the exact technical framework.

 

[medee88]

I wonder how Tile would create this functionality on windows? There wouldn't be any "anti-trust" but no real technical framework either. They (Tile) would have to create their technical framework. The next company that wanted to tracker functionality on Windows would have to create their different technical framework.

Apple has provided a technical framework, but all comers to the "tracking" apps should use the exact technical framework.

If iOS were like Windows where you have complete access to every system library, I’d agree with you. (That comes with sooo many issues so not really advocating for that) There would be no limitation to the technical network they could create, and they could have made some awesome tracker network years ago. Tile does have a network they’ve made on both iOS and Android, but it’s not possible for it to be like Apples, since Apple would have to approve it and there’s many limitations for non Apple made apps.

Apple has provided the network, but it’s obvious now they knew about their network and were making a device for it before any other manufacturer could even join it. But hey, guess that’s how it goes when you own the OS.

 

[I7guy]

If iOS were like Windows where you have complete access to every system library, I’d agree with you. (That comes with sooo many issues so not really advocating for that) There would be no limitation to the technical network they could create, and they could have made some awesome tracker network years ago. Tile does have a network they’ve made on both iOS and Android, but it’s not possible for it to be like Apples, since Apple would have to approve it and there’s many limitations for non Apple made apps.

Apple has provided the network, but it’s obvious now they knew about their network and were making a device for it before any other manufacturer could even join it. But hey, guess that’s how it goes when you own the OS.

That's really the point on windows, there could be multiple technical frameworks for the different trackers. No central authority trying to standardize.

On ios, Apple is the central authority with a standard technical framework.

Maybe the real issue is that Apple owns ios and the iphone and those two should be decoupled even more than the app store from ios.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I wonder how Tile would create this functionality on windows? There wouldn't be any "anti-trust" but no real technical framework either. They (Tile) would have to create their technical framework.

Why do you say that? With what basis?

They did create the technical framework for their service on top of existing hardware and OS owned and licensed by people (device owners). Much like any software / device company does since the coming of computers.

This is all standard practice. The issue here is that the technical framework Tile built has been further technically conditioned by Apple as years passed, reducing their abilities. This, while giving more abilities to Apple only services.

Effectively, Tile was the company that brought these abilities to iOS devices, bring more value to iOS through their service. A lot of people came to know this possibility through Tiles ... only to be sidetracked by the modership.

I believe that this sends a signal to innovative businesses thinking about adding their ideas and value to the platform. It may in effect be devaluing it in the middle run. Apple is so self centered in their record breaking numbers in iOS devices that consideres it self entitled to part of the revenue of everyone else, if not “complete” crack of third party efforts to their own benefit. There is no policing to this predatory practice.

More and more the App Store apps are looks-a-likes. Heck even Apples own digital services and software are becoming look-a-likes. The latest iteration is the AirTag, a Tile look-a-like powered by Apple marketing, exclusive hardware access and formidable market share. Long behind are the the days of SJ iPad One and the iPhone 3G, these weren’t evident look-a-likes. That indeed pushed the industry forword, changed the world in uncountable ways, paving the way for Apple’s record breaking devices sales ... Apple incredible growth. No need to step on devs to do that.

Its all well Tim Cooked.

 

[I7guy]

Why do you say that? With what basis?

Because there is not a technical framework for Windows for a find my type of device. The point is that Apple created a framework.

They did create the technical framework for their service on top of existing hardware and OS owned and licensed by people (device owners). Much like any software / device company does since the coming of computers.

They (Apple) did. Windows find my works for only windows devices and any company wanting to implement this on a windows device would have to invent their own framework.

This is all standard practice. The issue here is that the technical framework Tile built has been further technically conditioned by Apple as years passed, reducing their abilities. This, while giving more abilities to Apple only services.

Yes, it's Apples' platform and they have decided uncoditional access to sensitive information by third party apps is not allowed. If that is something that is turned in a court of law, so be it.

Effectively, Tile was the company that brought these abilities to iOS devices, bring more value to iOS through their service. A lot of people came to know this possibility through Tiles ... only to be sidetracked by the modership.

Seems like people believe Tile fell flat on their face, even though they were the first to have trackers, they weren't first in the find my department.

I believe that this sends a signal to innovative businesses thinking about adding their ideas and value to the platform. It may in effect be devaluing it in the middle run. Apple is so self centered in their record breaking numbers in iOS devices that consideres it self entitled to part of the revenue of everyone else, if not “complete” crack of third party efforts to their own benefit. There is no policing to this predatory practice.

Not really much to say about this opinion.

More and more the App Store apps are looks-a-likes.

And the problem is going to get worse if the app store is split apart. IOS apps will be lowly regarded as copycat and scam/malware apps start to make their appearance.

Heck even Apples own digital services and software are becoming look-a-likes. The latest iteration is the AirTag, a Tile look-a-like powered by Apple marketing, exclusive hardware access and formidable market share. Long behind are the the days of SJ iPad One and the iPhone 3G, these weren’t evident look-a-likes. That indeed pushed the industry forword, changed the world in uncountable ways, paving the way for Apple’s record breaking devices sales ... Apple incredible growth. No need to step on devs to do that.

Somehow I believe there is some revisionism here.

Its all well Tim Cooked.

Yes it is.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Because there is not a technical framework for Windows for a find my type of device.

There was no technical framework to locate Tiles or any other trackers embedded in iOS a months ago. Tile built their technical infrastructure, invented their own tracking hardware, technology on top of standard BT APIs. They could do the same with Windows Laptops equipes with BT tech but it does not make sense on a laptop or desktop. Can you imagine people going around with they desktop or laptop to locate their lost keys or wallet? They aren’t stupid.

Know some startups that do that for other purposes

 

[I7guy]

There was no technical framework to locate Tiles or any other trackers embedded in iOS a months ago. Tile built their technical infrastructure, invented their own tracking hardware, technology on top of standard BT APIs. They could do the same with Windows Laptops equipes with BT tech but it does not make sense on a laptop or desktop. Can you imagine people going around with they desktop or laptop to locate their lost keys or wallet? They aren’t stupid.

Know some startups that do that for other purposes

There has been a find my framework in IOS for years. Tiles and trackers are just an extension. That was my point about windows, there is no framework, yet finding a tracker would be useful. Has nothing to do with being stupid or not.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

There has been a find my framework in IOS for years.

Extension? Really? How much are you being paid to spread this lie? Or you do you believe your own imagination just like that? Obviously you are not technical person to pass on that kind of judgment because you would see that what you said does not make any sense.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Find My did not support the kind of tracking Tiles supports. No Find My APIs where being used by Tiles or any other tracker of that kind, it just did not had that capability. Only BT connections APIs and GPS are being used. That is why Apple needed to “re-implement” the Find My Network to support AirTags ... taking them three years to do that.

You are talking in this context about things you have no clue.

PS: Tiles are an extension of Find My as much as Spotify is an extension of Apple Music. That is how ridiculous your theory is.

 

[I7guy]

Extension? Really? How much are you being paid to spread this lie? Or you do you believe your own imagination just like that? Obviously you are not technical person to pass on that kind of judgment because you would see that what you said does not make any sense.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Find My did not support the kind of tracking Tiles supports. No Find My APIs where being used by Tiles or any other tracker of that kind, it just did not had that capability. Only BT connections APIs and GPS are being used. That is why Apple needed to “re-implement” the Find My Network to support AirTags ... taking them three years to do that.

You are talking in this context about things you have no clue.

PS: Tiles are an extension of Find My as much as Spotify is an extension of Apple Music. That is how ridiculous your theory is.

An opinion it is, a bad one, but still an opinion. Apple built on the find my framework already in place. If you can post something authoritative to the contrary then please do.

 

[Kabeyun]

Have you gotten a chance to use Tile? I seriously enjoy it, but it’d be hard to say it hasn’t gotten increasingly worse over the last few years of iOS updates as they have lost access to the ability to have a faster Bluetooth connection to the devices that they used to have.

I think the airtags are cool, and I even preordered a few to check them out, but I think companies like Apple have to be pretty careful about things like this. Tile has been asking for years for a better method to connect devices.

Now the find my network exists, and the airtags are first to market with it, and it looks like they had been working on these trackers before the network existed (and had that advantage) and it seems like the other trackers (like chipolo) will be releasing theirs after the airtags will be released. The default behavior is for every iOS device to auto opt in to the find my network (similar to the system settings and Apple Maps).

I’m just putting all this out here to say I could understand Tile being frustrated. It’s hard when a large player adds a product to your space and has a bit of an unfair advantage of adding extra features to their os to make their products better and being first to market with those technologies. Apple also controls the MiFi program for approvals to the find my network as well.

I have. I’ve owned two for a few years, actually. I didn’t care for them from the beginning. Having to have the app always running didn’t please my battery very much, and the “Tile network” never helped me once. Might be because I don’t live in the city, so the likelihood of someone else having a Tile and running the app is much lower than, say, someone else around here having an iPhone or iPad. Unfortunately for Tile its system just got beat, but Ive never known a company to just quietly fold up shop and go home. Fitbit is making a good try, for example, even though theyre not as integrated as an Apple Watch is. Tile could whine and sue, or wise up and use the FindMy API and try to compete on hardware, which I’d welcome; I dont need my findy dongle to have an Apple logo.

 

[grantew1]

An AirTags launch in 2020? At the start of the pandemic?

It should be pretty obvious why Apple didn't launch it last year and took the time to continue development. Not many people worried about losing their keys or backpack in 2020.

People still went outside.....

 

[matrix07]

but I think companies like Apple have to be pretty careful about things like this. Tile has been asking for years for a better method to connect devices.

The thing is Apple has no control over Tile and that put Apple users at risk. We already saw the difference between AirTag and Tile. Anyone can put Tile into your bag and you would have no way to know. Will Apple want that? And that doesn't even begin to talk about all the iOS user's location data that Tile accumulated.

This should be the beginning that Apple shut this door. Anyone wants to play in this tracker field needs to be through Apple gatekeeping. The purpose of Find My is two fold: To find lost items and prevent anyone to track you through trackers. Think about in the future where iPhone will know there is an unwanted tracker following you, not just compatible tracker.. any trackers. That will be extremely beneficial to Apple users. I don't trust regulators, who by definition be political, to understand this thing though.

 

[pacalis]

Given their market share they power its incredible, they can crack competitors through policies only, way more organized that a Cartel type of conglomerate ... people call it competition :.. go figure.

s.
Even though by definition Apple businesses aren’t a Cartel the company is managing it has one ... people use a fancy name for it “vertical integration”. The funny thing, is that to compete with such business practice probably a Cartel would be need, yet they are illegal.

A cartel is a set of colluding rivals - it has nothing to do with vertical integration.

The conditioning for the technological artifact you mention isn't really what is going on here. All sorts of companies are bundling their products with services that create network effects, so that they achieve rapid scale and growth.

The problem is one companies paid for service is another companies free network effect and so their business models are overlapping in bizarre ways not covered by traditional competition law. Nearly none of this stuff with Tile or Epic or anything reasonably comes close to anti-competitive behavior. It is just a natural market, led by a a few dominant firms, of which Apple is but one.

However, it is crazy to think this will resolve without Apple simply outlasting the competition. Tile and Epic are digging their own graves by not focusing on innovation and building their businesses. If the courts took what 8 years or so to sort through a simple patent lawsuit between Samsung and Apple, this should be at least a hundred years! Though I forgot, we will soon have the brilliant Amy Klobuchar and her salad combed minions to solve this gordion knot of nothingness and reasonable competition.

 

[Nicolas Som]

The thing is Apple has no control over Tile and that put Apple users at risk. We already saw the difference between AirTag and Tile. Anyone can put Tile into your bag and you would have no way to know. Will Apple want that? And that doesn't even begin to talk about all the iOS user's location data that Tile accumulated.

This should be the beginning that Apple shut this door. Anyone wants to play in this tracker field needs to be through Apple gatekeeping. The purpose of Find My is two fold: To find lost items and prevent anyone to track you through trackers. Think about in the future where iPhone will know there is an unwanted tracker following you, not just compatible tracker.. any trackers. That will be extremely beneficial to Apple users. I don't trust regulators, who by definition be political, to understand this thing though.

To be fair with Tile, if someone put a tile on your bag and you don't know it, it would still be perfectly fine. the guy who put it won't have any way to find it once it's unpair from the phone anyway.

They have a find my - like - network, but it's way under the one from apple. I can't believe one second it's someway efficient.

(I do have a tile device, but I didn't want to pay for they overpriced subscription. Ordered the Airtag, I'm glad Apple will offer these same features for free, and probably way better)

 

[Nuno Lopes]

A cartel is a set of colluding rivals - it has nothing to do with vertical integration.

In other words, competitors that decide to associate to overthrow other competitors while increasing profit.

Colluding: cooperate in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over others.

There is no doubt that Apple device business cooperates in secret their multiple businesses: the software business, the digital services business and the App Store business, the device business, to get advantage over others in a bottom up way. From the source of all things, the device technology and sales, up to the digital service sales, and their App Store. The difference is, that these businesses are not competitors as they are owned by the same entity.

Tile was not overpriced until Apple got in with free subscriptions powered by their App Store and Device business. To compete they would need a Smartphone/OS device business and an App Store to condition the market to their favor.

The bizarre thing here is that the digital matter is so malleable that it can be programmed in anyway “in a split” with minimal cost when compared with the analog materials. A thing like the App Store in analog terms would be impossible. Imagine Best Buy demanding 30% of the Xbox digital sales (equating Best Buy to an App Store), just for the consoles it sells. This would be impossible to operate, some people would even think it would be ridiculous from a value stand point such demands, the Xbox is not theirs (Best Buy). Yet neither are the Apps that the App Store sells, its not Apple tech, yet Apple has total control over them through digital programming and Policy.

This one course can be done with digital matter, Apple did it. Apple did not allow xCloud / Xbox to reach their customers on their devices with a native app. They were conditioned to use a web browser to that effect if not to share 30% of their sales in their App They did something worst in terms of conditioning, which was demand each game stream to be posted and billed individually with their payment system, clearly conditioning third party business models accessing their customers using iOS devices (50% of Americans). These games aren’t being served in anyway by the App Store infrastructure, it just a download / update services of the app / console, just like Spotify streams, Netflix, or email services ... any kind of digital service. Technically the App Store is just the only means users have to download and update apps, eventually pay.

What is at stake in courts is not so much if what Apple does is legal, but if what it does constitutes abuse of power.

I believe it does due to their market share. If they had 10% market share in the US, it would be dead land already, very few would care, leading to dead failed products like the HomePod. But being in 50% of American pockets, that is power that can be abused.

If I was Apple I would be doing just the same. It’s about ability.

But let’s not pretend that this is not conditioning sustained on market share and business cooperation between businesses that traditionally operate independently ok? Nothing todo with privacy, security and innovation, but market conditioning and control by Policy as the digital can be programmed to do anything we want it to do.

There are Apple emails in courts as far as I’ve read showing intent. Meaning this is just not an emergent situation or an uncounted side effect.

I think this is clear by now. One just needs to connect the dots.

@I7guy,

Ok. It was an uninformed one than.

This theme is fascinating. Roger out ... weekend over

EDIT: As far as the App Store goes it would be simple to solve. Regulators could consider the App Store in app sales policies an abuse and simply block in app sales policies such as the ones in App Store requiring it to be lifted giving back control to the app, digital service owners. They (the independent business owners, the owners of the digital services and app) than could decide to proceed with App Store payment system or any other system that would fit their business model. It’s a very simple regulation.

Apple could than license their technology for millions a license for APIs, app download and update services (cloud like), marketing or whatever services they actually offer to justify its cost. Let’s see how that would pan out in a competitive market rather than a speculative one.

 

[pacalis]

There is no doubt that Apple device business cooperates in secret their multiple businesses: the software business, the digital services business and the App Store business, the device business, to get advantage over others in a bottom up way. From the source of all things, the device technology and sales, up to the digital service sales, and their App Store. The difference is, that these businesses are not competitors as they are owned by the same entity.

You're confusing the business with the product. Any multi-product firm sees advantages over multiple product lines. You can buy packs of ketchup, mustard and relish all together, does that mean doing so is anticompetitive to relish companies? Can I not have a mix pack of lindt chocolate? Do I need to buy separate phones to have a wifi-antenna and a LTE antenna? Just because you can hypothetically deconstruct products to make your case does not make the case reasonable.

And let's not confuse legal competitive behavior with anti-competitive behavior.

Apple competes. They make products consumers like more than other products and that is a very good thing. I have not seen any evidence of consumer harm or anticompetitive intent in all these discussions.

The bizarre thing here is that the digital matter is so malleable that it can be programmed in anyway “in a split” with minimal cost when compared with the analog materials. A thing like the App Store in analog terms would be impossible. Imagine Best Buy demanding 30% of the Xbox digital sales (equating Best Buy to an App Store), just for the consoles it sells. This would be impossible to operate, some people would even think it would be ridiculous from a value stand point such demands, the Xbox is not theirs (Best Buy). Yet neither are the Apps that the App Store sells, its not Apple tech, yet Apple has total control over them through digital programming and Policy.

The problem with your analogy is that Best Buy already takes their margin on selling Xbox's. Apple does not take a margin on it's app store in the same way.

Apple could set itself up like best buy. They could set a minimum price for all it's apps, say $10 and then take 30% of whatever the app sells for. This is more or less how they set up early itunes. However, I can't imagine any app developer preferring a sales model where they did not have control of prices or their business model vs. adopting what seems a fairly flexible, industry standard model (i.e. Xbox and Xbox gold).

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I’m not confusing anything. No is saying that is uncommon to bundle products.

Still, regulations exists depending on the kind of product and service. For instance, medical devices, energy, telecommunications, houses, so on and so forth. The idea that all kinds of products are treated equally is not a fact, the contrary is.

If Apple wants to give Apps for free that is their business, I guess. What you are implying is that if Best Buy gave the console for free than doing what Apple does would be more logical.

In the end of the day the App Store provides infrastructure to download and update apps ... and pay for them. It provides no infrastructure to broadcast games stream, videos, digital classrooms, nothing of that sort, its not their technology. Yet it collects a share of the revenue generated by third party technology.

This does not happens the other way around, for instance Intel parts on Apple computers (its by unit based on volume). With exception of Qualcomm, that Apple made a case of abuse of power in the courts. It complained inclusively about the fact that Qualcomm imposed a shared revenue business models, collect X% of the end price of the product.

The problem with your analogy is that Best Buy already takes their margin on selling Xbox's. Apple does not take a margin on it's app store in the same way.

Apple could set itself up like best buy. They could set a minimum price for all it's apps, say $10 and then take 30% of whatever the app sells for. This is more or less how they set up early itunes. However, I can't imagine any app developer preferring a sales model where they did not have control of prices or their business model vs. adopting what seems a fairly flexible, industry standard model (i.e. Xbox and Xbox gold).

Apple could very well provide that as an option. A fixed price for their service, volume discount ... or revenue share. I’m sure a lot of people wouldn’t mind paying $10 say for an xCloud app and having than paying the subscription directly to say Microsoft at reduced prices, rather than paying through the App Store. Imagine, a $10 a month subscription, reduced to $7. In 3 months the App would payed ... of course Apple does not want to do that at all. They could, but they don’t want To.

Here is the thing. If people did not buy the Apps at the $10 base, digital businesses would leave, and Apple would be forced base price closer to the value that the App download and update services actually provides. Do you know that a simple navigation on this site, the amount of data transferred is close to the amount of data transferred to download or update an App? Netflix, transfers and serves several an order of several just in a 10 minutes video. Heck, Apple knows this as it also has Apple TV. Believe me, the infrastrculture required to serve videos is far more complex and costly than to serve Apps. And still Apple has a business with Apple TV+, heck its investing in it like ....

Yes, a change in the in-app purchase policy like I mentioned, mixed with your options for App Store, would not lead it defunct. Far far far from it. It just mean that Apple would not be able to collect revenue generated by third party technology has it does at the moment!!!!!!

 

[pacalis]

If Apple wants to give Apps for free that is their business, I guess. What you are implying is that if Best Buy gave the console for free than doing what Apple does would be more logical.

Certainly it would not be logical for Best Buy to give away the console for free. Nor should Apple to build an app store to give everything away for free.

In the end of the day the App Store provides infrastructure to download and update apps ... and pay for them. It provides no infrastructure to broadcast games stream, videos, digital classrooms, nothing of that sort, its not their technology. Yet it collects a share of the revenue generated by third party technology.

You seem very anchored in thinking about physical tech, but Apple has created an extremely valuable sales and distribution channel. Companies offering these services in many industries regularly take at 30-60% margin. The other thing that they have done is allowed their partners to set the pricing and the business models, the same deal across all partners. It is the FAIREST and most FLEXIBLE approach any company could do.

It is that companies like Epic or Tile have particular business models that they are affected by Apple. Epic made their bed on freemium and then after it was wildly successful, complained that they didn't like the bed they made after the growth slowed. In my view this was a massive error on their part as they could have made a lot more money being on the apple platform. It seems they are trying to build their own channel, but I don't think they are going to be that successful. Tile is just not that competitive (and they have loads of other generic competitors) and is probably just trying to be bought out and take an exit, like Nest or some other fast growth, venture fueled company.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

You seem very anchored in thinking about physical tech, but Apple has created an extremely valuable sales and distribution channel.

I’m not anchored in anything but prior art as you are. I’m believe that the digital material should be regulated, much like gas, energy, oil, ... so on and so forth.I think we can agree that the digital is now understood to the point that can define it and see it as a material in legal terms. It’s no longer a blur.

Material: the matter from which a thing is or can be made.

This material can be molded to take many forms, many ingredients. It can take a form of an App. Or for instance, when it comes to personal data, a form of digital material, at least in EU is already regulated. These materials are being sold, transferred, transacted ... now we even have coins.

As for the value of the App Store sales and distribution ... it does not really surprise me. They managed cook the digital materials in such that the act of charging for digital materials that they haven’t sold, distributed .... produced ... becomes a blur in a web of technical jargon and unilateral policy making. They call it “in-app purchase”. All directly infused on someone else’s property (the third party app). With that they control digital services access to their customers on their apps. I already explained how this is happening.

If you don’t see anything wrong with this its ok. I do. I believe its an unfair business practice. And with their market share in the US I believe the conditioning that it’s happening may constitute abuse.

Cheers.

PS: I don’t care for Epic or Microsoft ... I care for future Apple’s and Microsofts. In a world that if a company is large or innovative enough in some point in time it can charge for things it does not sell (how is Apple selling in an in-app purchase have no idea, its just policy nothing more), I doubt there will be many others ... I don‘t believe at all that this practice will stay with Smartphones and Tablets ... eventually it will be moved to desktop, laptops, smartcars, heck even smart houses. Imagine, electrical companies coming up with this idea, energy is critical, they have built the infrastructure and innovation, therefore would be only fair game for them to charge 30% over peoples incomes or businesses revenues of all entities built on top of their technology. If this was allowed, everyone could do this, take telcos, heck, there would be no money on earth to sustain these businesses models. As it is only a few can compete with this companies, imagine then. As I’ve said, this only passes because its packed in mist of technical jargon and relative wonder ... aka technical marketing and people fascination over their devices.

I’m also fascinated by them by their devices. My computing tools of choice ... on par of many apps and digital services I use. Without the second, the first would be mostly useless. So its not that one technology is really more important than the other.

 

[I7guy]

I’m not anchored in anything but prior art as you are. I’m believe that the digital material should be regulated, much like gas, energy, oil, ... so on and so forth.I think we can agree that the digital is now understood to the point that can define it at treat It as a material in legal terms. It’s no longer a blur.

Material: the matter from which a thing is or can be made.

This material can be molded to take many forms, many ingredients. It can take a form of an App. Or for instance, when it comes to personal data, a form of digital material, at least in EU is already regulated. These materials are being sold, transferred, transacted ... now we even have coins.

As for the value of its sales and distribution ... it does not really surprise me. They managed cook the digital materials in such that the act of charging for digital materials that they haven’t sold, distributed .... produced ... becomes a blur in a web of technical jargon. They call it “in-app purchase”. All directly infused on someone else’s property (the third party app). I already explained how this is happening.

If you don’t see anything wrong with this its ok. I do. I believe its an unfair business practice. And with their market share in the US I believe the conditioning that it’s happening may constitute abuse.

Cheers.

PS: I don’t care for Epic or Microsoft ... I care for future Apple’s and Microsofts. In a world that if a company is large or innovative enough in some point in time it can charge for goods and services not delivered, I doubt there will be ... I don‘t believe at all that this practice will stay with Smartphones and Tablets ... eventually it will be moved to desktop, laptops, smartcars, heck even smart houses. Imagine, electrical companies coming up with this idea, energy is critical, they have built the infrastructure and innovation, therefore would be fait doe them to charge 30% income or revenue of all entities they serve ... just like that. If this was allowed, everyone could do this, heck, there would be no money on earth to pay for anything.

I agree some regulation is in order so things aren't the wild west. I'm not for over-regulation. I think digital tech should be as regulated as a grocery store, best buy, costco etc. I do not believe on over-regulation, and I think the existing laws cover the basic business practices.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I agree some regulation is in order so things aren't the wild west. I'm not for over-regulation. I think digital tech should be as regulated as a grocery store, best buy, costco etc. I do not believe on over-regulation, and I think the existing laws cover the basic business practices.

I’m with you.

If Best Buy stores constituted 50% of American Grocery, I doubt they would be allowed for in-device purchase policies.
Collecting 30% of sale of goods sold through the devices they have sold (say an iPhone), even if they technically could. We would been having the same argument. People could say, just buy the iPhone on the other stores. Well not if you lived on an Best Buy powered Home. Better change homes than ... right? They would call it Best OS, the platform. The crazy thing of digital materials ... sky is no limit