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

[konqerror]

I don't think your shovelling snow argument necessarily equates to ownership.

Snow shoveling means ownership. You own the sidewalk and the easement requires you maintain clear and safe public access, therefore you are responsible for clearing and de-icing the sidewalk in front of your home within a certain number of hours after snow falls. If you don't, the city or county will issue you a fine and/or clear it themselves and send you a hefty bill. Similar regulations apply to uneven surfaces and landscaping on the far side.

The point with snow is that the concept of the sidewalk easement is well known to those in snowy areas due to the manual labor involved.

but here in Australia the fuel tax is much higher than in the US

In the US, federal, and often state, fuel taxes can only be used for transport projects. The money goes into the Federal Highway Trust Fund, "trust fund" being the key concept. In many other countries, particularly Europe, fuel taxes go into the general fund and can be spent anywhere. That's why your fuel taxes are so high.

Also, new roads are often funded by new construction. When somebody builds a house on unimproved land, they pay a "frontage fee" or a "development fee" to the city or county to compensate for the roads and utilities that are built. In other cases, a developer will build the roads in agreement with the city and then hand over ownership, of course recovering these costs in the price of the new real estate.

My overall point remains: sidewalks and roads are two cases of things your income taxes don't pay for and they show models in making public-use facilities without general taxation.

 

[LonestarOne]

So, the average IQ in that room will temporarily double.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

My overall point remains: sidewalks and roads are two cases of things your income taxes don't pay for and they show models in making public-use facilities without general taxation.

My rebuttal remains, I think your maths is massively incorrect. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

Regardless, MY main point was that taxes pay for stuff we all need, the examples I gave were merely examples, regardless of the exact details of how correct of not those specific examples were. Get rid of taxes and you have yourself a 3rd world country that you wouldn't want to live in. There are plenty of countries like that that you could check out and see for yourself, and I'm pretty sure at the end of your research you'd decide that you'd rather pay taxes.

Now sure, there is plenty of wasteful and corrupt spending, and we'd all like to see that reduced. However, that isn't the fault of taxes per se, but a fault with the level of inefficiency and corruption in one's government. The typical alternative is paying a private provider, and that, unfortunately, results in the end user paying even more than via taxes due to the massive profit gouging that always occurs with such things. E.g. the horrendous cost to the end user of USA's healthcare and university education system compared with the rest of the western world. The upside to USA's is more choice of greater quality if you're stonkingly rich; the downside is a massively more expensive cost than a public system for average to poor quality if you're not stonkingly rich (quality and price comparisons to the rest of the western world).

 

[Kabeyun]

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.

This real world example is laudable, totally valid, and, because lawmakers are armed with regulatory authority over tech, a healthy helping of fear over looking weak to the masses, and topic-specific idiocy, won’t matter a whit as they bring the hammer down.

 

[konqerror]

Regardless, MY main point was that taxes pay for stuff we all need, the examples I gave were merely examples, regardless of the exact details of how correct of not those specific examples were.

I still say the same thing: you're taking an overly simple view by saying we need taxes linked to income or purchases or worth of something, and likely it's because you haven't seen the breadth of how the government funds itself.

Over the many layers of government in the US, we have developed multiple ways of allocating costs, particularly where something does not provide an equal benefit to all.

Specific excise taxes, like fuel taxes paying for roads, airline tickets paying for air traffic control, are one.

Easements and development requirements (developers installing water mains and giving them to the government) are another.

User fees, like patent fees paying for patent examinations, drug approval fees paying for doctors studying drugs, is yet another.

Auctioning resources, like radio spectrum, oil and lumber, is yet another example.

Certainly some things are better as a uniform tax, but many many things aren't done that way. To think you need to tax for everything is wrong, and isn't how things are actually done today.

Going back to your original argument, you claimed that without taxes, you would have to pay to step on a sidewalk. But you were shown to be wrong in that taxes don't pay for sidewalks today: property owners do.

 

[hummerchine]

Jeez

What is wrong with everyone?

30% sounds completely reasonable to me. But hey...you disagree, don’t sell through the Apple Store!

 

[CordovaLark]

A pretty good part.

Greenwich Village?

 

[boss.king]

Jeez

What is wrong with everyone?

30% sounds completely reasonable to me. But hey...you disagree, don’t sell through the Apple Store!

I know, right? It’s almost like they think being charged extortionate fees to be able to operate like a modern business is unfair or anticompetitive or something. What weirdos.

 

[J InTech82]

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.

So Apple should have different settings/rules/policies for every developer? Do you know how many hundreds of thousands of developers there are? I would hardly call Apple being lazy.

 

[PC_tech]

So Apple should have different settings/rules/policies for every developer? Do you know how many hundreds of thousands of developers there are? I would hardly call Apple being lazy.

I don’t care how many they have, the simple fact they denied an app because the company who makes the app doesn’t want to autobill at the end of the subscription is ridiculous.

 

[31 Flavas]

Judge: How do you plead Timo?

Timo: Innocent. Although next phone will ship without chargers.

Judge: Granted. Too courageous to imprison.

You'll need to wait and see if true courage emerges from the likes of Samsung, Google, Motorola, Huawei, etc - they're the ones that could stand firm and unequivocally state they'll refuse to drop their own. To positively proclaim the charger and earphones are essential, only cost them pennies on the dollar to include - and so they'll never throw you under the bus and always include them. Or at the very least, always a charger. Not just a charging cable by itself.

Problem is they've all instead shown themselves to be cowards when it comes to keeping the headphone jack. Samsung even sold you *flagship* Galaxy without an SD card slot. Regarding the headphone jack again, in particular, Samsung also decided it was best to hide their decision to remove it on the Note 10. Even weaponizing it, after the fact. "Hey, if you want a headphone jack it's only $150 more for the Note 10+ which you'll enjoy so much more."

 

[Smartass]

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.

Well that makes it even worse for Apple then

 

[31 Flavas]

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.

Do you know why this is? It goes all the way back to the late 70's - early 80's. Atari had their VCS - which did good business. It's a very interesting story. But here is the cliff's notes version, instead.

Activision (former Atari game developers who quit to make their own video game company) decided cut in on Atari's business. Push came to shove. Atari tried to sue Activision out of existence. Instead Atari killed the goose who laid the golden egg. And then the home video game market crashed and disappeared in 1983.

The court decided against Atari. Said that since the Atari hardware will literally run any code handed to and run it without exception - it's open season for developers. So sucks to be you, Atari. Next time develop a way to lockout code so only you can develop for your hardware.

Or shall we say the court said, you can literally monopolize your hardware. You can allow no-one to use it. Or you can selectively allow access to it. But, only if you develop a way to control access. This is why when video games returned in 1985-1986 the consoles (Nintendo and Sega) had lockout methods and hence licensing agreements.

So ... why does Apple get to completely monopolize their own hardware, disallow 3rd party App Stores, enforce content restrictions, force developers to pay 30% of revenue, and gets to ban any Apps, software, or games that don't follow their rules? Well, Atari v Activision is the reason.

That said, they can't be anti-competitive with this privilege granted to them. But, just monopolizing their hardware, disallowing 3rd party app stores, or requiring a 30% on App Store revenue or in-app purchases / subs - isn't 'anticompetitive' on its own.

For example, Nintendo was slapped hard (fined and forced to change), at least once - if not twice for being anti-completive with their licensing terms. That I know of, it was because they had mandated developers that made games for Nintendo were prohibited from writing games for anyone else or porting any games they make.

Bottom line, Apple, Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, can absolutely 100% legally monopolize their hardware and systems. Google could too - but google make their money elsewhere from surveillance and then selling ads - so by their prerogative they allow 3rd party app stores and allow you to sideload apps.

Just don't mistake video games on literal brick and mortar store shelves as a sort of "3rd party App Store" of sorts. Games for those non-Apple hardware systems don't appear on store shelves unless the developers of said games fork over licensing fees, agree to game development restrictions and guidelines, and have the game approved and then distributed though Nintendo's, Sega's, Sony's, or Microsoft physical retail channels. 3rd party or independent developers for said systems can't skirt fees, restrictions on content or functionality, or the approval process.

So all, told from my own personal perspective here - no court (supreme or not) will listen to you if all you're going to say is "Monopoly bad," "forcing 30% cut BAD!" -

 

[Wildkraut]

Do you know why this is? It goes all the way back to the late 70's - early 80's. Atari had their VCS - which did good business. It's a very interesting story. But here is the cliff's notes version, instead.

Activision (former Atari game developers who quit to make their own video game company) decided cut in on Atari's business. Push came to shove. Atari tried to sue Activision out of existence. Instead Atari killed the goose who laid the golden egg. And then the home video game market crashed and disappeared in 1983.

The court decided against Atari. Said that since the Atari hardware will literally run any code handed to and run it without exception - it's open season for developers. So sucks to be you, Atari. Next time develop a way to lockout code so only you can develop for your hardware.

Or shall we say the court said, you can literally monopolize your hardware. You can allow no-one to use it. Or you can selectively allow access to it. But, only if you develop a way to control access. This is why when video games returned in 1985-1986 the consoles (Nintendo and Sega) had lockout methods and hence licensing agreements.

So ... why does Apple get to completely monopolize their own hardware, disallow 3rd party App Stores, enforce content restrictions, force developers to pay 30% of revenue, and gets to ban any Apps, software, or games that don't follow their rules? Well, Atari v Activision is the reason.

That said, they can't be anti-competitive with this privilege granted to them. But, just monopolizing their hardware, disallowing 3rd party app stores, or requiring a 30% on App Store revenue or in-app purchases / subs - isn't 'anticompetitive' on its own.

For example, Nintendo was slapped hard (fined and forced to change), at least once - if not twice for being anti-completive with their licensing terms. That I know of, it was because they had mandated developers that made games for Nintendo were prohibited from writing games for anyone else or porting any games they make.

Bottom line, Apple, Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, can absolutely 100% legally monopolize their hardware and systems. Google could too - but google make their money elsewhere from surveillance and then selling ads - so by their prerogative they allow 3rd party app stores and allow you to sideload apps.

Just don't mistake video games on literal brick and mortar store shelves as a sort of "3rd party App Store" of sorts. Games for those non-Apple hardware systems don't appear on store shelves unless the developers of said games fork over licensing fees, agree to game development restrictions and guidelines, and have the game approved and then distributed though Nintendo's, Sega's, Sony's, or Microsoft physical retail channels. 3rd party or independent developers for said systems can't skirt fees, restrictions on content or functionality, or the approval process.

So all, told from my own personal perspective here - no court (supreme or not) will listen to you if all you're going to say is "Monopoly bad," "forcing 30% cut BAD!" -

Well, thats a very old story and not very relevant anymore, nobody at court will care or even refer to it, but we‘ll see. I hope Apple lose the fight in the US and EU, and iOS is forced to become like macOS. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against their App Store, it adds comfort, and helps the marketing of apps and games, and they shall be free to charge what ever they want for it, as long there is a second acceptable, free way for the user to install third party apps, simply like macOS.

 

[31 Flavas]

Well, thats a very old story and not very relevant anymore, nobody at court will care or even refer to it, but we‘ll see. I hope Apple lose the fight in the US and EU, and iOS is forced to become like macOS. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against their App Store, it adds comfort, and helps the marketing of apps and games, and they shall be free to charge what ever they want for it, as long there is a second acceptable, free way for the user to install third party apps, simply like macOS.

Don't get me wrong either - I'm not dismissing your viewpoint. Review is a part of law. Time moves on and old decisions can be rendered outdated based on technological or other developments from different law cases and can lead to old case law or precedence being overturned.

But, if you could just toss prior case law and precedence based on age then you could just say Roe v Wade is "a very old story and not very relevant anymore". But, love it or hate it, courts actually do care about "the old story". And just like Roe v Wade - Atari v Activision has seen multiple challenges and reviews. Quite literally it is in the process of being reviewed again, right now. That's what this thread and article is about. Problem is that prior reviews, just like with Roe v Wade, have sustained the prior core of the decision. Monopolizing your own hardware that you've developed is legal.

So I don't know what to tell you. It absolutely is still relevant and courts absolutely will still care about the story and litigants will still refer to it and any and all cases that support their arguments. *shrug* 🤷‍♂️ This is all just in the US, at least - I can't speak to EU law.

This "second acceptable, free way for the user to install third party apps, simply like macOS" that you speak of in MacOS ... where developers can just freely write software for Mac OS outside of the "Mac App Store", such that developers don't have to pay Apple a single penny and users are free to install it --- like it or not, or know it or not - is again the prerogative of Apple. It makes sense for them. Just like how Microsoft allows open development for Windows. But, Microsoft very much so can lockout developers of even Windows development. You may have heard of it. "Windows S-mode" You want to know where that privilege comes from? I'll give you a hint... It's not just because Microsoft is saying so.

 

[J InTech82]

I don’t care how many they have, the simple fact they denied an app because the company who makes the app doesn’t want to autobill at the end of the subscription is ridiculous.

So you are saying Apple should make the exception for this one developer out of the hundreds of thousands of developers that are the App Store? Yeah buddy it doesn't work like that. Play by Apple's rules, or not. I have signed up for many trials and as soon as I do, I cancel them so I do not get charged the subscription. It's not difficult at all to do and I get the full trial and no charge at the end of it. I don't see the problem here. I have done this with subscription services from the App Store as well so I am not sure why this company are having this problem. There are two sides and I am sure there is more to it.

 

[PC_tech]

So you are saying Apple should make the exception for this one developer out of the hundreds of thousands of developers that are the App Store? Yeah buddy it doesn't work like that. Play by Apple's rules, or not. I have signed up for many trials and as soon as I do, I cancel them so I do not get charged the subscription. It's not difficult at all to do and I get the full trial and no charge at the end of it. I don't see the problem here. I have done this with subscription services from the App Store as well so I am not sure why this company are having this problem. There are two sides and I am sure there is more to it.

It shouldn’t be a requirement to begin with. Not going to respond to the rest of the defense of Apple.

 

[mabhatter]

Highway robbery? At 30%? Well the government takes up to 48% of my income in tax plus charges me additional 10% tax of goods and services and doesn’t provide me with any alternative by default.....

The Government hates competition.
[automerge]1593820478[/automerge]

As much as you have consumer choice you also do not.
When a company gets a monopoly and becomes a ‘standard’ it becomes a bit unfair for them to enforce their arbitrary rules.

These 4 companies have become close to essential services in modern society for communication, work and information. Saying ‘just don’t use them’ doesn’t work. That’s like saying just don’t use a telephone in the 70s/80s.

I agree with the opinion but disagree about the outcome. I mean why is Apple picked on, but not Nintendo or Microsoft for their locked down consoles? There’s no LEGAL precedent here like with AT&T because Apple is its own giant system, Amazon its its own system, Facebook has its own, but one can leave one system for another relatively easily. The big companies all compete against each other fiercely, even if that’s not always apparent at the user-developer Level.

without drastically changing fundamentals of business competition laws or writing narrow laws targeting just these companies Congress can’t just “tell them to”. Congress can’t allow lawsuits demanding the companies limit marketing to children, “loot boxes”, predatory sales practices from app developers and still turn around and say these companies are abusing their positions.

So unless Congress is going to develop a whole new structure of laws for digital companies that effects EVERYONE equally, it won’t work.

 

[J InTech82]

It shouldn’t be a requirement to begin with. Not going to respond to the rest of the defense of Apple.

According to you.

You know, the other thing, most people fail to remember (except the people here who agree with the 30% - myself included), in addition to Apple covering the cost to actually run the App Store, ever think that Apple is trying to make a tiny profit in this? You know, they aren't a non-profit here, and actually are in business to make money. Imagine if Apple sole's existence was to the App Store and no other hardware, software or services, do you really think they would be able to exist with only taking 30%?

 

[PC_tech]

According to you.

You know, the other thing, most people fail to remember (except the people here who agree with the 30% - myself included), in addition to Apple covering the cost to actually run the App Store, ever think that Apple is trying to make a tiny profit in this? You know, they aren't a non-profit here, and actually are in business to make money. Imagine if Apple sole's existence was to the App Store and no other hardware, software or services, do you really think they would be able to exist with only taking 30%?

Apple making a profit has literally nothing to do with refusing an app because the company who makes the app doesn’t want to autobill after the trial is up. Keep defending a company who cares nothing about you.

 

[SystemHasFailed]

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

Who knew that in the 21st century highwaymen would in actually be the government... 😂

 

[I7guy]

Apple making a profit has literally nothing to do with refusing an app because the company who makes the app doesn’t want to autobill after the trial is up. Keep defending a company who cares nothing about you.

I believe Apple does care about it's customer base. With hundreds of millions customers split across multiple products, apple customers have very different opinions. Especially in a melting pot such as MacRumors. However, there is enough evidence by posters here on MacRumors such that, Apple does attempt to do the right thing. Maybe doesn't hit the mark all the time however.

 

[J InTech82]

I believe Apple does care about it's customer base. With hundreds of millions customers split across multiple products, apple customers have very different opinions. Especially in a melting pot such as MacRumors. However, there is enough evidence by posters here on MacRumors such that, Apple does attempt to do the right thing. Maybe doesn't hit the mark all the time however.

I tend to agree, I do think Apple sincerely care about their customer base. While they have done some things wrong, and done some things that have annoyed me, no company is perfect.