And they also benefit in that they compete with Apple. Same with Spotify. Apple’s reader category is a gerrymandered policy created to benefit companies Apple competes with. But if you don’t compete with Apple you’re basically SOL.
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 CEO Tim Cook Will Testify in U.S. Tech Antitrust Probe in July
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And just imagine if you sold .2% of those buyers, you gross over one million. Pretty sweet if you ask me! Hell, if you come up with a killer app and sell it for $4.99, you will have a hefty profit!
Curious, how did magazine subscriptions do it back in the day or Columbia House? Sincere question.
not surprised. Apple is also the only service I ever used (TV+) that actually cancels their service immediately DURING a trial instead of letting you use it until the end of the trial. I still can’t believe that is even legal.
You dont understand what the problem is here. People have nothing to do with it this. Apple has a big market share with its phones and its App Store. And if you, as a developer, want access to this big market, you have to pay a hefty 30% tax on each of your sales in the app store. If Apple one day decided to rise those 30% to lets say, 70% - there would be nothing that you could do. You either accept it or lose access to the big market that is App Store. This has been long time coming and i hope Apple is forced to either cancel this policy, or lower the fee it gets.
[automerge]1593680525[/automerge]
Apple and Google have a duopoly over app stores. You either accept their extortionist terms, or youre out. And that is also why there are Anti-Trust laws around the world.
Well, the main issue is, with Apple there is only one way for an App to get on the users phone, and that’s their App Store. With Android you can also install a APK from elsewhere. That’s clearly a monopoly on the Apple side.
Im confused. I thought we are a western capitalist society. Isnt the Best comes out on top, literally the definition of capitalism. If you are behind, step up your game...
Somehow this is already been figured out. This is not 2007. Netflix, Amazon, Uber to name a few. How much in IAP do they pay Apple? $0 maybe?
[automerge]1593699527[/automerge]
So market share only matters when it comes to android vs ios and which operating system dominates? When it comes to breaking Apple up, which is not going to be done imo, market share is thrown completely out of the window. Not to mention the false conclusion of stifling the competition and keeping innovation down.
[automerge]1593699685[/automerge]
Nobody is stopping anybody else from designing a smartphone, getting it built and creating an alternate path for development and distribution to apps. Your definition of a monopoly hasn't been legally applied to either apple or google at this point, no matter who is asking questions. And I'm with Apple and google on this one. (not to say in the future things might change)
[automerge]1593699756[/automerge]
Why shouldn't this be legal and what is stopping one from cancelling their service on the last day?
Last edited:
If you had just read one more page you'd have seen that I already covered this.
"Be Netflix or Amazon" isn't a solution. A company shouldn't have to be makert-dominating force to get reasonable terms.
Last edited:
You didn't "cover it" in the post I quoted.
And imo, this is flat out incorrect. $29 battery replacements you think Apple made a healthy profit, instead of the "planned obsolescence profits before customers" meme...forcing customers to upgrade their phones?
That's why I said "If you have just read one more page" and not "If you had just re-read the post you quoted".
That wasn't exactly a regular product or service, it was as a response to a monumental ****up (similar to their extended repair programs for the various MBP issues), and it was definitely cheaper than losing a lot of pissed off customers. But I take your point.
Last edited:
What a silly reply. You don't provide your own roads, police and other public services do you?
Yep, just like any CEO of a for-profit company worth their salt.
[automerge]1593708053[/automerge]
And even if Apple allowed apps to be downloaded to iPhones/iPads outside of the App Store, what average developer would be able to on their own provide the level of exposure and services that the App Store provides them...and for less money? So probably not so silly an analogy after all.
lol most likely we’ll hear about FB’s reason for being, membership across the globe, engagement, how many employees they employ, and an ad to use FB. Just like we did over a year ago in Congress hearings
I agree that a 30% fee is quite a lot. 20% would be enough. But do not forget that if payments will go through the developers of the game then their payment services may be hacked and your card details will be on the Internet. Also, an unscrupulous developer may not specifically cancel your auto debit for subscription and will pull your money.
Right and that's why I said, you're original post should have been edited.
That's the problem with general statements, that they can almost always be proved incorrect. (I learned the hard way, not to post general statements)
Except you didn't say anything about editing. You said "You didn't "cover it" in the post I quoted."
Meh, as a general statement it still holds true. If you look hard enough you can find exceptions for anything.
Congressman, pointing to electronic device: "Mr Cook, do you think it's ok that I have to plug this in to charge every 20 minutes or it goes dead? Can't Apple make a battr'y that lasts a month but you choose not to in order to gouge your customers on battr'y fees??"
Tim Cook: "Congressman, that's a refrigerator. We don't manufacture those."
That’s slimy... ugh.
[automerge]1593720744[/automerge]
It doesn’t matter how someone else did it, rejecting an app because the company doesn’t want to auto charge once a subscription is up sleazy AF.
Seems the developer knew the rules and decided to go head to head with Apple when they broke the rules. And then air their dirty laundry in a public forum. Yep, seems like sleazy behavior to me. But that doesn't mean Apple will have the corporate heads handed to them.
I have no idea if sidewalk construction and maintenance costs are paid for by home owners in your country, but here in Australia, they are all paid for by taxes, and the land they are on is government owned. I don't think your shovelling snow argument necessarily equates to ownership.
Similarly, I don't know the fuel excises and rego costs in your country (I'm guessing USA), but here in Australia the fuel tax is much higher than in the US, and probably the rego too, and yet they only contribute a fraction of the costs of roads. I would be amazed if they entirely pay for roads anywhere else in the world either, but merely contribute towards the cost. Road construction and maintenance costs are HUGE, I don't think you have your figures even remotely close to correct.