Apple CEO Tim Cook Will Testify in U.S. Tech Antitrust Probe in July

[boss.king]

Narrator: the subcommittee had no idea what it was doing.

That's my fear, although I did listen to an interview that Cicilline did with the Verge a while back and he sounded surprisingly informed compared to what we've seen from the US govt in the past. But we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[ocnitsa]

While I completely feel that all the companies in question have too much power, I sincerely hope that the subcommittee has a solid plan in place and knows what they're doing. These corporations are full of incredibly smart people who know how to skirt questions and double-speak their way out of accountability.

At the end of the day, if this results in more competition, I don't think anyone could argue that that would be a bad thing.



You realise that money actually goes back into the things you use, right? Roads, schools, hospitals, welfare, public safety and service, etc (at least in theory, America has made some questionable choices in how they actually uses tax money). You also have a say in how that money is used by voting (again, in theory).

I have a hard time believing they'll have a solid plan and know what they're doing. Everyone one of these hearings that deal with tech seem to show how little Congress knows about teh interwebz and related stuffs.

 

[Flight Plan]

any idea how to get a pass to the after-event party?

Just wear your mask. That's your ticket for the event, and they have to let anybody in with a mask.

Dude, you give people too much credit. Vast majority has no idea.

"Majority" is 51%. Vast Majority would be, um, "vastly" more than that. I think the a simple majority (51 to 60%) actually KNOW what they're getting into. So mathematically, a "minority" would be unawares. Of course, I'd have to be right, minimally at 51%.

Separately from my day job, I also have an app in the store that I wrote just for fun, that I also use myself, with a price of $0.99 because I can't see why people should use it without paying when I invested many hours of work. It's also completely ad free because I hate ads, and has no access to any personal data of the users because I'm not interested.

Using the App Store, I can sell this app in over 100 countries with zero effort. Local taxes are automatically deducted for me. For 30% of the remainder, Apple does all the work for me, displaying the app in the store, handling downloads, restores etc., paying for the servers, handling the sales with laws of 100 different countries. Just setting prices with 100 different exchange rates that change all the time would keep me busy forever. As a result, I've made significant sales to locations mostly in Asia and Africa that I would have never been able to sell to myself.

No, I don't see this as "highway robbery" and "exorbitant" at all.

There are also gazillions of apps created by big companies that are free because they serve some company's purpose. For example banking apps, booking NHS appointments, booking flights or hotels and so on. Apple handles them all for free. And Apple distributes the app that I make my living with for free.

An interesting and entrepreneurial perspective. Well stated!

It costs me about £25 if I drive my car into London. Now that is literally highway robbery

You're right in both senses of the words, "highway" and "robbery"!

Dude you get a LOT of services for that 48%. If every single one of those services were privatised, you would pay a hell of a lot more than 48%. Just walking out your door onto the sidewalk would cost you, as the sidewalk provider would want his heavily marked up, highly profitable, cut on you stepping on his nice concrete sidewalk instead of stepping out on a mud patch like in 3rd world countries. Don't even ask what it costs to build roads and street lighting my friend. And that's just you walking out the door. Imagine what you would get charged to have a police force protect you from armed gangs. Or to have an army protect you from having China decide to invade your house and enslave you. Do you have any idea what it costs to keep an aircraft carrier afloat?

Don't like paying taxes? Move to a 3rd world country were taxes are minimal, and you will soon change your mind. Most people are all twisted up about taxes, but don't realise that taxes are a good thing, and in a lot of countries, should actually be raised higher, but aren't because it is unpopular.

Whereas, the 30% Apple charges the app devs, gives them a highly inflated extortion rate, just so that they can have the pleasure of doing business with you. If the cut were more reasonable and realistic, like 1 or 2%, or even a big fat 5%, then Apple wouldn't be under the microscope, but they got too greedy.

Um, are you taking his post as to be anti-sidewalks and anti-taxes? He didn't say anything like that, so I don't get where you're going with that line of thinking.

Besides, he has a day job, as he said. He's probably paying anywhere from 24 to 36%+ in Federal taxes, 12%+ in State and local taxes, contributing to SocSec, and assuming that he lives in a building that doesn't melt in the rain, he's probably paying property taxes too, whether paid explicitly to a county or other locality, or rolled up into his monthly rent. So he's even paying for the poorly-run government schools where he lives, whether or not he has kids. He might even be a volunteer for the annual church pumpkin patch sale and takes the scouts on field trips. That's the hallmark of a GREAT citizen. If he's not, he should be revered in his town!

But we talk "anti sidewalk?" That right there is funny stuff!

For the record, I don't mind paying for aircraft carriers. I want more of them! I do mind paying for graft and corruption at any and all levels of government, however, so let's have a bit less of that please.

 

[arvinsim]

You'd think the world has a enough REAL problems people could be spending time on...

Tech companies gaining too much power is a REAL problem TBH...

 

[johnsc3]

How come no one from Microsoft?

I meant they were the embodiment of installing their own software and locking out others for decades?
So they have changed significantly since Bulmer left.
They needed to.

But you still have to wonder.

I don't entirely get this court case.
It's not like you buy an iPhone WITHOUT knowing Apple control the store, hardware and software.
If you don't like that, don't buy it. Simple. Your choice.

And if enough people didn't buy the products, they would change or go under.

That says most people are happy with the way Apple run it.

Same for Facebook, Google and Amazon.

You'd think the world has a enough REAL problems people could be spending time on...

I agree. People are complaining about 30%— there are other professions that charge around about 30%. Are those folks next?
[automerge]1593648177[/automerge]

Tech companies gaining too much power is a REAL problem TBH...

You have a point. Go at them for restrictive speech, privacy, or the other industries some feel they are encroaching upon.

 

[himanshumodi]

How come no one from Microsoft?

I meant they were the embodiment of installing their own software and locking out others for decades?
So they have changed significantly since Bulmer left.
They needed to.

But you still have to wonder.

I don't entirely get this court case.
It's not like you buy an iPhone WITHOUT knowing Apple control the store, hardware and software.
If you don't like that, don't buy it. Simple. Your choice.

And if enough people didn't buy the products, they would change or go under.

That says most people are happy with the way Apple run it.

Same for Facebook, Google and Amazon.

You'd think the world has a enough REAL problems people could be spending time on...

most users don’t care about App Store policies. So, really, devs would first have to boycott Apple which would lead to a empty App Store which could then mean Apple going under or opening up the App Store. Doesn’t start with users.

I get why Apple deserves some revenue for providing developers with an access to millions of customers for whom it’s just easier to download an app from App Store.

still, Apple could very well lose this unless they lobby really, really hard. It’s just very easy to point out that if people can download stuff from anywhere on a laptop, why can’t they have that same freedom on a phone if technology is not a limiting factor. Apple can spin stories about security and reliability and all of that... but they are valid points for a laptop too. So why does Apple get to be the gatekeeper here?

 

[Cosmosent]

Regarding possible "New App Store Legislation":

1.) If AAPL "ever" recommended a particular app, then AAPL is entitled to it's Agreed-Upon Cut.

2.) If AAPL "never" recommended a particular app, then AAPL is NOT entitled to ANY cut (i.e., the Developer gets 100%).

3.) If a particular app had been in the App Store for more than one year BEFORE AAPL recommended it, then AAPL is NOT entitled to ANY cut for one full year, from the time it was first recommended.

4.) AAPL MUST release per-Qtr, per-Category "Revenue Numbers" for its TOP TEN App Stores around the world (@ its Quarterly & Annual Earnings Releases).

5.) AAPL MUST add "Today" (tab) filters (i.e., ON/OFF switches) to the iOS App Store App section of the Settings app, that enables Users to filter-off stuff they have NO interest in, for example:

* Apple Arcade

* Game Apps

* Little Kid Apps

---

Five changes that would, IMO, greatly clean-up & improve the iOS App Store !

 

[cmaier]

most users don’t care about App Store policies. So, really, devs would first have to boycott Apple which would lead to a empty App Store which could then mean Apple going under or opening up the App Store. Doesn’t start with users.

I get why Apple deserves some revenue for providing developers with an access to millions of customers for whom it’s just easier to download an app from App Store.

still, Apple could very well lose this unless they lobby really, really hard. It’s just very easy to point out that if people can download stuff from anywhere on a laptop, why can’t they have that same freedom on a phone if technology is not a limiting factor. Apple can spin stories about security and reliability and all of that... but they are valid points for a laptop too. So why does Apple get to be the gatekeeper here?

The easy answer is customers willingly pay more to have the apple ecosystem specifically so they don’t have to worry about garbage apps, privacy invasions, viruses, etc.

And allowing side loading would mean the death of the eventual end of all that, because, in the race to the bottom, it will end up like the MAS.

 

[Cow For Cow]

While I completely feel that all the companies in question have too much power, I sincerely hope that the subcommittee has a solid plan in place and knows what they're doing. These corporations are full of incredibly smart people who know how to skirt questions and double-speak their way out of accountability.

At the end of the day, if this results in more competition, I don't think anyone could argue that that would be a bad thing.



You realise that money actually goes back into the things you use, right? Roads, schools, hospitals, welfare, public safety and service, etc (at least in theory, America has made some questionable choices in how they actually uses tax money). You also have a say in how that money is used by voting (again, in theory).

Notice how you used the words (in theory) a bunch? Since we don’t really know what the money is going to and the bad political party (you know the one, the one you hate and is also the one your not in) gets to spend that money on things you don’t approve of so wouldn’t it be better to just spend less taxes?

 

[konqerror]

Just walking out your door onto the sidewalk would cost you, as the sidewalk provider would want his heavily marked up, highly profitable, cut on you stepping on his nice concrete sidewalk instead of stepping out on a mud patch like in 3rd world countries.

Nitpick: only sidewalks in cities are paid for by taxes. Most sidewalks are private property that is accessible to the public via an easement. Go ask homeowners in places that snow about shoveling sidewalks.

Don't even ask what it costs to build roads and street lighting my friend.

Roads largely don't come from income taxes, they're largely from fuel excise taxes and vehicle registration fees. So logically, people who drive more miles or drive heavy trucks pay more. It's more equitable than income taxes, which would equate to rich people paying more for roads.

 

[Flight Plan]

I almost forgot to say...when I first read the title of this article, I could SWEAR it said,


"Apple CEO Tim Cook Will Terrorize U.S. in July"

Now it didn't really say that, of course. But for a moment, just a split second, I thought, "That's a pretty dark turn for him." After all, there were no reports in the news of him forcing Microsoft Internet Explorer or Edge on an unsuspecting populace.

I am, of course, very happy to be wrong!

 

[gnasher729]

Your situation isn't everyone's situation though. Yes, 30% seems more reasonable if you're starting from scratch and don't want to set up all of that stuff yourself, but what about the businesses that already do business outside of the app store, that have their own marketing and payment processing, run their own servers, operate in different markets, etc? They may not have 30% in their margins to spare for a services bundle that they largely don't need.

If all you want is to be listed in the app store (because there's no other way onto people's phones) and some form of payment processing (because Apple doesn't let you use your own) for, say, a $5/month service that's runs on your own servers, then it absolutely is highway robbery.

It's not everyone's situation, but it's my situation. And Apple offers the exact same terms and conditions to everyone. I'm happy with it. Lots of small developers and lots of big companies are happy with it. My previous company sold subscriptions through their website _and_ through the app store; they were happy with it because app store sales cost 30%; we made more from website sales, but app store sales brought in money that we wouldn't have had otherwise.

There is one tiny class of companies that have a problem, and that is resellers trying to resell through Apple. Like Spotify, who take someone else's product, sell it, have to pay fees, and live off the difference. Netflix found the solution for their problem.

 

[jhtrico1850]

I just want Apple to let me set Spotify as my default music player, so I don’t have to say “Hey Siri, play X on Spotify”, and let me pick Google Maps as my default maps app. Neither are addressed in iOS 14.

Also, it’s not fair that Apple lets big companies avoid the 30% cut, further tilting the playing field against small developers

Apple now lets some video streaming apps bypass the App Store cut

Amazon’s Prime Video app joined the program today

www.theverge.com

To those that say you don’t have to use the App Store, sure, but that is where the market is. So by inherent nature, they are a monopoly and can’t abuse it.

 

[Flight Plan]

Nitpick: only sidewalks in cities are paid for by taxes. Most sidewalks are private property that is accessible to the public via an easement. Go ask homeowners in places that snow about shoveling sidewalks.



Roads largely don't come from income taxes, they're largely from fuel excise taxes and vehicle registration fees. So logically, people who drive more miles or drive heavy trucks pay more. It's more equitable than income taxes, which would equate to rich people paying more for roads.

Correct, where I live, I do know that fuel pays for federal and state roads. But not so sure about local roads, like in my neighborhood. I think those come out of property taxes to my county.

And while I don't live in a snow zone, I can say that cleaning, clearing, and maintaining a passageway for pedestrian traffic is my responsibility.

And if I don't do that, my county will come through and do it for me, and maybe even charge me for the privilege. They'll use a massive saw and cut the trees straight up from the ground along the plane between the ground and sidewalk, and sometimes even deeper than that into the tree. Basically, they have no regard for the health of a tree or the safety of the people walking next to it on the sidewalk, but if you have one twig extending over the sidewalk, they seem to think that gives them permission and authority to saw your tree in half vertically. Lots of dead trees after the county trucks come through.
[automerge]1593651221[/automerge]

I just want Apple to let me set Spotify as my default music player, so I don’t have to say “Hey Siri, play X on Spotify”, and let me pick Google Maps as my default maps app. Neither are addressed in iOS 14.

Also, it’s not fair that Apple lets big companies avoid the 30% cut, further tilting the playing field against small developers

Apple now lets some video streaming apps bypass the App Store cut

Amazon’s Prime Video app joined the program today

www.theverge.com

To those that say you don’t have to use the App Store, sure, but that is where the market is. So by inherent nature, they are a monopoly and can’t abuse it.

Try asking Siri to "resume x". It may work. Works for me sometimes on iHeartRadio and always on Podcasts. Example: "Hey Siri, resume iheartradio on iphone"

 

[boss.king]

Netflix found the solution for their problem.

Netflix "found the solution" by being a big enough companies to begin with, so much so that they could pressure Apple to alter their terms of service so that Netflix was exempt from the rule of having to offer in-app sign-up. They had so much power that Apple had to accept an estimated $285 million dollar loss in annual revenue so as not to lose the Netflix app from the store.

How does sound reasonable to you?

 

[boss.king]

Notice how you used the words (in theory) a bunch? Since we don’t really know what the money is going to and the bad political party (you know the one, the one you hate and is also the one your not in) gets to spend that money on things you don’t approve of so wouldn’t it be better to just spend less taxes?

I'm not going to get into a political debate over how broken America is, it's neither my country nor my problem. I was simply explaining how taxes are different from corporate revenue.

 

[Flight Plan]

I'm not going to get into a political debate over how broken America is, it's neither my country nor my problem. I was simply explaining how taxes are different from corporate revenue.

So what part of the world do you live in?

 

[boss.king]

So what part of the world do you live in?

A pretty good part.

 

[Exxhara]

While I completely feel that all the companies in question have too much power, I sincerely hope that the subcommittee has a solid plan in place and knows what they're doing. These corporations are full of incredibly smart people who know how to skirt questions and double-speak their way out of accountability.

At the end of the day, if this results in more competition, I don't think anyone could argue that that would be a bad thing.



You realise that money actually goes back into the things you use, right? Roads, schools, hospitals, welfare, public safety and service, etc (at least in theory, America has made some questionable choices in how they actually uses tax money). You also have a say in how that money is used by voting (again, in theory).

I guess with that logic you can say that the 30% fee charged by Apple goes back into managing the App store in order for you "the business" to be able to process your payments on the App store. (again, in theory)

 

[boss.king]

I guess with that logic you can say that the 30% fee charged by Apple goes back into managing the App store in order for you "the business" to be able to process your payments on the App store. (again, in theory)

Some of it, yes, but there's no way they're running it to break even. Tim doesn't do things that don't make a healthy profit.

 

[Tech198]

We all knew this was coming, it was only a matter of time..

If a company refuses to cooperate with handing over of anything with private, and do 'its own thing', the big guys wanna know more. And while we're at it, we may as well grab Amazon etc as well (...since we're on a roll)

 

[SharksFan22]

Looking at this from a slightly unpopular viewpoint, but I'll take my chances here.

Anyone remember the days of those java-based phones where the phone companies would charge a few bucks for some app that was downloaded to your phone? Or the days when we had to actually go buy software on physical media, connect our computers and phone via a cable and synch? Palm pilot days?

Apple built an ecosystem that makes is simple for me to get apps/content and with a single pipe provides developers and content creators access to billions of customers. I can get software on my phone almost instantly and a developer can reach billions of people with no overhead. For that, Apple take a big chunk of the revenue. So what. They built the ecosystem, did the marketing to get us to buy iPhones and continue to get us to think this is the best thing ever invented.

(here come the unpopular part)

I think Apple should be held up as an example of success rather than criticized or penalized for making more than some arbitrary percentage. How many developers would make money marketing and selling on their own than they do with 30%?? I'm not a developer but while some may grumble, getting access to a billion customers and selling them a $1 app, and getting 30% sounds good to me. Even if only .1% of those users buys my app, I just made $700k. Why is that a bad thing? A customer gets a desired app for almost nothing, developer/content provider makes a boatload of money and Apple shareholders make a bunch too. Who cares if Apple's getting 70%?? Before the opportunity to make 30%, most developers were making 100% of almost nothing selling smartphone apps.

What's the problem here?

 

[konqerror]

What's the problem here?

The complainers aren't the $1 apps being sold by 1-person companies. The ones that have issues are people like Microsoft, Netflix, Spotify, Steam, Amazon, etc. which have the volume and infrastructure so they can do it under 30%. They're asking for either the opportunity to sell outside of Apple (like Android), or otherwise a drastic reduction in price.

The bigger you are, the less value Apple provides, but still charges the same 30%. Their argument is that this would not happen in a open, competitive marketplace.

 

[Rogifan]

Regarding possible "New App Store Legislation":

1.) If AAPL "ever" recommended a particular app, then AAPL is entitled to it's Agreed-Upon Cut.

2.) If AAPL "never" recommended a particular app, then AAPL is NOT entitled to ANY cut (i.e., the Developer gets 100%).

3.) If a particular app had been in the App Store for more than one year BEFORE AAPL recommended it, then AAPL is NOT entitled to ANY cut for one full year, from the time it was first recommended.

4.) AAPL MUST release per-Qtr, per-Category "Revenue Numbers" for its TOP TEN App Stores around the world (@ its Quarterly & Annual Earnings Releases).

5.) AAPL MUST add "Today" (tab) filters (i.e., ON/OFF switches) to the iOS App Store App section of the Settings app, that enables Users to filter-off stuff they have NO interest in, for example:

* Apple Arcade

* Game Apps

* Little Kid Apps

---

Five changes that would, IMO, greatly clean-up & improve the iOS App Store !

Regarding #1, how are you defining recommended? How exactly would that work and would it be fair to all developers? I guarantee you Apple is currently recommending some apps not based on the quality of the app but because the developer is well known or has some relationship with Apple.

 

[SharksFan22]

The complainers aren't the $1 apps being sold by 1-person companies. The ones that have issues are people like Microsoft, Netflix, Spotify, Steam, Amazon, etc. which have the volume and infrastructure so they can do it under 30%. They're asking for either the opportunity to sell outside of Apple (like Android), or otherwise a drastic reduction in price.

The bigger you are, the less value Apple provides, but still charges the same 30%.

Ok - good point and think you for the clarification.

Given that, I see your point but still not sure Apple should be shaken down to lower their price. They were the smart ones that build the ecosystem and while I understand the frustration of MSFT, Netflix, Spotify and the others you list what would be an acceptable solution? Forcing Apple to open up the ecosystem or perhaps create a different pricing tier? I don't have a fair and equitable solution that addresses the issue but also rewards Apple for Innovation.

Disclaimer - I work in corporate sales and have a heavy bias when it comes to forcing companies to change their model in this kind of manner. I admit that bias.