They should have a monopoly on their own platform.
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 Faces Daily Fines in Brazil Over App Store Payment Restrictions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's more than Tim pays his gardener for a spring cleaning. You won't get apple to change anything for less than $250,000 per day. 43k is a minor inconvenience and it probably costs Apple more than that per day to fix the problem.
Why should they? Apple doesn't have a monopoly on macOS. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on Windows. VW doesn't have a monopoly on my vehicle. Nintendo doesn't have a monopoly on my kid's Switch. The list goes on, and on, and on.
What makes iOS and iPadOS so special? (hint, they aren't)
yeah? How in the world can more competition and cheaper prices be a loss for consumers?
no such thing as free, someone is paying something for it, through having to watch advertisements.
I disagree mostly, their government is corrupt, but this one they are correct on, it is a monopoly by every definition of the word and until there is pushback, nothing will change.
Or they can rethink their pricing model / service level etc. and beat the competition by being more favorable to stay with than jump ship and go to one of their competitors, the end result is consumers and developers win.
It is, but it is non-competitive to sell a product then be the only source of accessing content for it and charging a fee (most of the time) to provide that content. It is no different than one of the shaving razor companies buying up all the other manufacturers and being the only option out there for supplies. Their prices would go way up as they have no one that can compete with them and it is a product many people need/want. Apple just started at the end of my example, instead of the beginning where they app store is concerned. Yes people can buy other phones/devices but if they want Apple they get stuck with only one option and that is anti-competitive to a T.
I doubt consumers will see lower prices, because:
- When Apple cut the fee to 15% from 30% for small developers, prices did not drop as a result, the developers pocketed the windfall.
- I doubt most 3rd party stores will be able to match Apple's 15% cut and stay in business; IIRC even Cydia charged 30%.
I am not convinced competitors will be able to offer better terms than Apple's for small developers; and the large ones that can go it alone will lower prices.
Small developers are the ones with the most to lose, I doubt most 3rd party stores will offer the services or have the customer base of Apple for a 15% cut; and I doubt most can break even at 15%. As a result, as long as Apple offers teh current plan, even with alternatives, most will stick with Apple because it will be the most profitable for them.
Your not being convinced and it actually happening may likely be two different things.
1. That may have happened, but that does not mean that adding in competition won't change it this time.
2. They may not, but it does not hurt to try it. Competition is always good for the consumer, and in this case the developers as well. I personally would love to see competing marketplaces on Apple's products, gives me choice where there is none now, with some exceptions such as their MAC lineup where I can install anything I want from anywhere I want to, this needs to be extended to the rest of their product line.
I also disagree about the small developers, they may get a better deal from a competitor than they get from Apple, we will never know as long as there is no option to try.
1. Consumers aren’t going to see lower prices
2. Consumers will have to give out cc information to purchase
3. Refunds probably won’t be as efficient as apple
4 unscrupulous actors can steal
It’s opening up pandoras box
Fair enough. We can disagree cordially.
Perhaps, but once someone shows you who they are believe tehm.
It doesn't hurt to try it, I just don't see it being the panacea many seem to think it will be.
Maybe, but if you look at the numbers and the experience of a store that did compete, they just don't work out to a better deal being likely.
For example, it is estimated 90% + apps on the App Store are free or freemium; how many competitors can afford that level of expense, hoping the rest generate enough revenue to cover it and make a profit? Charging 15% (or less if the app uses a 3rd party payment system)
The only way to find out is to try; but I think in the end it will have little impact on Apple and they will adapt their fee structure to make up for any lost revenue.
If Apple paid this fine daily it would account for ~4 seconds of daily revenue. I’m not sure it’s worth it. Brazil is one of the most expensive countries on the planet to purchase an iPhone due to import fees. About twice what you’d pay in the US. Brazil makes more off of Apple than Apple does, but they want even more… Apple will figure out what’s best for their shareholders, and we have a front row seat here at MacRumors. 😉
This makes no sense. What is the gov of Brazil getting from this (other than insignificant fines, especially if Apple complies)?
Gotta love a bunch of foreigners who don't understand Brazil and its long history with consumer protection voicing their disdain.
I would really love to see a real approach so that the crowd of “I want to do what I want with my shone. My phone my choice” and these governments would put it to rest.
Upon booting the phone the first time, allow choices for the user to:
- Install iOS, everything integrated the Apple convenient way like many costumers enjoy, or;
- choose anything else: even Android or vanilla Linux OSes or any OS that any vendor might come up with.
For example, Microsoft sells their Microsoft Surface laptops with Windows and everything works (should) as advertised.
However, by deciding to install Linux, it’s on the developers and users to provide and find all required drivers for their computer. One example: Linux vendors have to even provide Vulkan and OpenGL drivers for graphics cards, and sometimes do a better job at it like Asahi Linux having the latest OpenGL support on Macs.
——
I have suggested that before and for some reason it is met with dislikes, when this suggestion is giving customers total and ultimate choice for what to install in their phone down to the drivers level.
And iOS can be left alone and untouched as is, that’s not the one those should be choosing anyways.
Which brings me to conclude that people do not really want freedom of choice, they want to control a specific thing, piece of hardware and/or piece of software made by others.
As compared to companies such as Nintendo and Sony whose online platforms also lock developers and customers in and prevent them from using third party payment options?
If a practice is unfair, then the government should target all companies equally, regardless of size, not just Apple. Else, it's a witch hunt, nothing more.
(most) Everyone needs and uses a phone, not everyone plays video games. I don't.
While I agree that 100% all hardware platforms should be more open, start with the big fish, and Apple is the biggest of them all.
As a consumer I absolutely don’t want all platforms to be as open as Android or windows. I demand having a choice of closed and open platforms. I don’t see why consumers shouldn’t have that choice.
I don't consider the iPhone (or iPad) as special and deserving of such a god-tier status that is immune from competition on it's own turf, or platform.
You get to make that choice by deciding where you download or install apps from.