Yes, this. If the doj brings a suit, it’s not a slam dunk the doj will win. They do not have a 100% win rate.
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 Met With DOJ Antitrust Chief in Bid to Head Off Antitrust Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Who says Apple doesn’t have to pay? Do you have some inside knowledge that a portion of Apple Music revenue doesn’t also fund the App Store? That part of the costs of operating Apple’s own apps and services is directly tied to the costs to maintain the listing on the App Store? That advertisements they place aren’t also part of the budget for the services and are calculated in their profit margins? Who would Apple being paying that revenue split to for their services? It’s all allocated to individual accounts on their books, and each service is siloed SPECIFICALLY to avoid the lawsuits you’re suggesting would come up because they’re misappropriating funds.
Private APIs are entirely allowed to be private. Every OS has proprietary protocols that developers aren’t allowed to use. This is a joke right?
This does not exist, please stop saying it.
You are free to buy a competitors device at any time and it will work today. Like any other investment into an "ecosystem" there will be nuances that need a little research and work but you are not "trapped".
Last edited:
Apple should just buy the DOJ. /s
More evidence of our government wanting to maintain control over everything!
Just because it’s ridiculous, doesn’t mean that millions of people won’t support it. Intelligent business people, who understand how business works won’t.
Most stores sell products they make and competitive versions of other products. At different prices. Store brand usually is cheaper too.
Ah a tired old trope comparing retail stores to digital markets. Has anybody mentioned games consoles yet?
Maybe just like Nintendo eShop or PlayStation Store, etc… many of these problems would go away if they changed the name from “AppStore” to “Apple eStore” or something along those lines.
It would stop the confusion that it’s not a public venue for everybody to freely take from but a company’s property and invention that decided (in its best interest, granted) to open the doors for third parties and share some of it since conception.
I’m not saying whatever they do is fair or not, but it’s troublesome that politics can force them to decide what and how to sell and how to conduct their business.
It would stop the confusion that it’s not a public venue for everybody to freely take from but a company’s property and invention that decided (in its best interest, granted) to open the doors for third parties and share some of it since conception.
I’m not saying whatever they do is fair or not, but it’s troublesome that politics can force them to decide what and how to sell and how to conduct their business.
Doesn’t quite work like that. They’re rich, they’re not sovereign nation rich. And they won’t be rich for long if no one trades with them because they won’t follow rules.
Everyone that makes a product self preferences. GM over Ford. Tesla over Rivian and vice versa.
Visit any grocery store and see store branded bread at a lower cost than the competitive name brand.
My company is moving a way from a product that does NOT use a Microsoft API for Active Directory access. They "can't" use it, so they have another way around it. However, it doesn't work for us so we are moving to another product.
You're 100% correct here.
My boss recently switched from an iPhone and iWatch to a Samsung flip 4 and Samsung watch.
He wasn't trapped either.
You are 100% correct.
The issue is largely related to Apple's dominance in the mobile and tablet OS markets. Apple (iOS) and Google (Android) control most of those markets. According to Statcounter, for example, iOS has around 61% share and Android has around 38% share of the mobile OS market in the U.S. They're the only two major players. Companies with notable dominance, power, control, etc. of a market can face antitrust scrutiny.
You don't see that kind of dominance with GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, etc. in the auto market.
Last edited:
The concept is based off a physical store. It had to be based off something, since it didn't exist prior. We had physical before we had digital. Apple even gave better terms than physical stores with the 70/30 split. 70 for the developer and 30 for Apple to host and maintain a digital store. Physical stores tend to charge even more than that.
No developers fee has gone up on the store since inception.
The iPhone is a drop in the bucket compared to the remainder of the phone manufacturers. That’s a more apt comparison to the auto industry. The fact that manufacturers of smartphones want to pay google one buck instead of building their own is not an apple issue. Maybe google should be banned from selling operating systems.
Grab your popcorn and we will see what changes, if any these will bring.
Stores do not charge a cut at all. Walmart negotiates and purchase a product for sale in their store. Then they set the price they want to sell the item for. There is no comparison in terms of split.
The way to look at it is a developer can determine they want to earn $9 per sale. To do this you set the price to $13. You get your $9 and Apple gets their $4 (30%). The 30% is just a business expense that factors into how a developer should price their app. It is no different from factoring in rent, local taxes, employee costs, insurance, etc which are all business expenses.
As someone who has literally spent about $25,000 on iTunes content, how the hell am I trapped? I can move to Android any day of the week. I’m more trapped by my ISP where I need to sell my HOUSE and move to get an alternative to Spectrum.
There’s a reason you have to buy an Apple Watch to work with an iPhone for any features beyond notifications, and that reason is anticompetitive behavior.