Apple to Collect 27% Commission on Third-Party App Payment Systems in the Netherlands

[I7guy]

Please answer my question. You said that the App Store operates like Costco so I assume that the products that the App Store sells are at least in the catalogue. That is how Costco operates.

You're focusing on the discovery part of it, not the distribution part of it.

I’m still waiting for clarification of this one. Please provide evidence that it operates the like it.

If Costco sells a bag of M&M, both Mars and Costco have to agree to an arrangement. This arrangement could include slotting fees and wholesale price and may or may not include first page advertising rights.

Don’t know, are they? Where are suppliers uploading the things I mentioned to the App Store? Because I can provide you evidence the App Store requiring charges in app for these things. Please provide evidence of developers uploading the things the App Store charges for.

The ios app store provides a marketplace, while the end user elects to download an app from the marketplace and the iphone is the way the app gets executed and end service delivered to the iphone user.

Doing a search on the App Store catalogues all I see are software programs serving multiple purposes. Where is the App Store supplying a distribution platform for services such as eBooks, Videos, TV, Digital Newspaper, Dating Arrangements, Emails, Music Lessons … but software programs, binary files .. please.

You are searching for the services offered by independent developers to iphone users.

I would like some evidence of your so called distribution platform for digital services.

Clicking on an icon runs the app that delivers the service the app provides to the iphone user.

Your definition of free looks funny. Can you please explain how something you said it is free becomes a demand of revenue share?

Free as in beer is not the same as the dev charging a price for a particular service in the middle of running an app.

I’m just trying to clarify what you said with so much certainty and assurance. Please explain or provide clear evidence of your claims.

I think you are making it harder than it needs to be. The evidence is the app that is on the iphone. How did it get there? What service is it offering? How is it offering those services and are the services free?

 

[Maximara]

Apple is loosing its way as its constantly shifting from providing great products to maximize profit margins. You could call it boiling the frog or death by a thousand cuts.

Apple product have with every iteration become more and more consumer hostile.
Special screws to prevent access. Gluing the battery down.
Soldering the RAM to be permanent in 2013
Soldering the SSD to prevent upgradability in 2015.
Apple removed the data recovery port in MacBook Pro 2018

None of these are unique to Apple. There are PCs that have some of the same issues.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The price is the price. If one doesn't like the service, product or price vote with your $$$. Ferrari and iphone have something in common. Nobody *needs* either. I can't image someone going into a Ferrari store and telling the sales person, I'm not going to buy a Ferrari, but your markup is too high.

Well I’m not a Ferrari customer so I don’t care what they do. When I use a product and service I can voice my complaints to encourage change as a customer. Voting with my $$ doesn’t communicate what I don’t like.
I am an Apple customer, I’m a Microsoft customer, valve customer, epic costumer, Sony customer and google customer. And I voice my grievances

As an apple stock owner, I agree with what Apple is/has been doing. Sideloading and the rest of the conversation that goes along with it, will not make for a healthier ecosystem. IMO, it will be a race to the bottom, should that happen.

Well we will see. I believe consumers, developers and apple can benefit if apple have lower greed and concentrate on hardware instead of services.

Okay, so as a shareholder your are espousing that Apple should give away their ecosystem for $0. I disagree.

Not at all. We just disagree where the line is drawn

I don't care. I want an app to perform a service at the best price for the best quality. Nobody said alternative payments will give me the best price.

Is it not logical you will get a better app for a better price and superior services if the developers who provide it can keep more of the revenue? More revenue they keep equals more money spent on R&D

 

[I7guy]

Well I’m not a Ferrari customer so I don’t care what they do. When I use a product and service I can voice my complaints to encourage change as a customer. Voting with my $$ doesn’t communicate what I don’t like.
I am an Apple customer, I’m a Microsoft customer, valve customer, epic costumer, Sony customer and google customer. And I voice my grievances

Ferrari was an example. I'm sure you have other vendor products other than Apple. Like food, durable goods etc.

Well we will see. I believe consumers, developers and apple can benefit if apple have lower greed and concentrate on hardware instead of services.

Yep, we will see. We can't predict the future but we don't agree on what can happen if potentially future events come true.

Not at all. We just disagree where the line is drawn

Agreed.

Is it not logical you will get a better app for a better price and superior services if the developers who provide it can keep more of the revenue? More revenue they keep equals more money spent on R&D

No. Because a bad app is not going to get twice as good if the commission were halved and conversly a great app is not going to be much greater. This is based on my anecdotal evidence, but is along the lines of:
- Apple could get twice as many iphone customers if the price of the iphone were halved
- The economy indicators would double if taxes were halved
- Two doctors can deliver a baby in half the time

Basically your entire argument at a higher level are companies should take less profit because of the trickle down effect. I really haven't seen that trickle down effect being the case.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

You're focusing on the discovery part of it, not the distribution part of it.

I know, discovery can sometimes be hard. But that is not what I’m asking. I asked where the App Store has these items for sale. For sure they are somewhere in the App Store … like Costco.

If Costco sells a bag of M&M, both Mars and Costco have to agree to an arrangement. This arrangement could include slotting fees and wholesale price and may or may not include first page advertising rights.

Yes. When two businesses or more are involved in a sale there must be a business arrangement between entities. This is the same for any business, from Costco to Travel agencies.

Now. Back to my question. You said that the App Store behaves like Costco, so for sure they must have the items mentioned somewhere in the Store or in a Catalogue for the public to be able to buy.

Please show us some evidence that is the case.

The ios app store provides a marketplace, while the end user elects to download an app from the marketplace and the iphone is the way the app gets executed and end service delivered to the iphone user.

Costco is a retailer not a Marketplace. So I guess the first claim is indeed incorrect. No wonder you where having such extreme difficulties in providing evidence for the claim.

Moving on to the second version of the narrative.

In this version the App Store is than a Marketplace. Its a marketplace of what? Its not clear what such place markets.

You are searching for the services offered by independent developers to iphone users.

I tried. But when I search for digital services all I see is Apps owned by digital services, not the digital service. Which is to be expected I guess, the digital services … I know where they are. Not in the App Store.

Let me make it easier. Say a digital service trading eBooks, that supplies its customer an App do do so. In this business what service the App Store provides to the digital service and the customer buying their eBooks?

Clicking on an icon runs the app that delivers the service the app provides to the iphone user.

I understand. Show me evidence that the App Store is selling the things mentioned, because its definitely is charging for them. I go to marketplaces all the time, the standard practice is that I get billed by whoever sells the things I buy.

But interesting info. The iPhone runs the apps that the App Store, the App marketplace, provides. Isn’t this ability already licensed by end users?

Free as in beer is not the same as the dev charging a price for a particular service in the middle of running an app.

I have no clue what you are talking about. Free is free. You used the term so I’m looking for clarification. How is it free when businesses are required to share revenue to have their apps distributed?

I think you are making it harder than it needs to be.

Humm. In my experience I get the impression that narratives are stuck in their own inconsistencies when the narrator starts patronising who asks the questions.

You seam to be arguing in the lines of someone defending that a snow flake and a snow storm are the same kind of objects. But I may be wrong.

Again please answer the questions as directly as possible. Where are the mentioned goods being traded and or distributed by the App Store in the App Store. Because I do get charged for them by the App Store as per their policies.

EDIT: Please understand these are genuine questions. I’m trying to be as unbiased as possible (you know my position).

Why are this questions important?

Take for instance Iron Man movie. This object has a particular market value that transcends all Store. Puzzles me how a Store that does not even sell it or distribute it (no uploads), is than granted 30% of its market value. That is one thing.

The way I see it, to cope with these two things either of these two things happen. Or the price goes up to cope with the 30% in such a context, customers pay more. Or someone gets 30% less, meaning looses competitiveness, than would do otherwise by not selling through App on the App Store … the producer maybe?

 

[robco74]

Apple splits their digital stores over different storefronts. Apple distributes books and audiobooks through the Books Store. They used the same model as the App Store. The publisher sets the final price, Apple takes a 30% commission. Not sure why this is confusing.

You can even self publish your book, basically going through the same process as joining the developer program.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Apple splits their digital stores over different storefronts. Apple distributes books and audiobooks through the Books Store. They used the same model as the App Store. The publisher sets the final price, Apple takes a 30% commission. Not sure why this is confusing.

We are talking about the App Store. Don‘t understand why the scope of the conversation confuses you either.

… but wait …

What you seam to be saying is that the supplier and the buyer of the book I mentioned would be better of fee wise using Apple Books Store to buy, than through a third party App supplied by the App Store market place. Why? Does the Apple Book Store also pays a 30% commission on the sale of eBooks to the App Store has others are required to? What would be a 60% commission, ouch … there must be something I’m missing.

Please explain.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Independent Repair ProgramYes. Looking at right to repair options, SBS, recycling, green, environmentally friendly etc.

Right to repair? Their options are non existent, designed to be hard to repair and banning legal availability of spare parts, forcing “illegal” actions or using broken apple devices to scavenge for parts to independent repair shops. Prevent “Apple Independent Repair Program” from doing anything more “advanced” repairs than screen and battery replacement
Apple Authorized Service Providers are equally worthless and mostly send away the device to a centralized repair center.

And if apple cares about recycling and being green then their devices would be repairable and independent repair shops would have had access official to spare parts to encourage reuse of older devices. And they wouldn’t ever had lobbied against right to repair.

They are allowed to be a legal monopoly.

And relevant how?

Macbooks, imo, are infinitely better engineered computers.

Perhaps, but one will not cost close to a new one if something needs to be repaired out of warranty.

They are a two faced company that engaged in a purposeful deceit.

Apparently only against Apple and google, and it seems to have helped consumers as they contributed to anti competitive investigations and regulatory scrutiny

Sure and google and android phones offers all of the things some want on these forums.

Perhaps, but apple customers seems to disagree

Developers should raise the prices and let consumers vote with their dollars. There is always android to develop on. Apple is providing a nearly free platform for distribution of services and still it is not enough.

Why should they raise the prices when they get to keep even more revenue?
Windows also provide a nearly free platform for distribution of services and everyone love it.

Good for windows store. I have a strong feeling the developers won't be incentivized. If Microsoft wants to give up their profits bully for them, they aren't in the phone business and they couldn't make it in the phone business.

Well it’s more attractive than the Mac store. So why won’t they be incentivizees with less regulation of what apps can be in a centralized place for close to nothing?

Maybe steam will become the predominant game platform. But I believe you are over-aggrandizing this.

Steam already is the predominant game platform for Mac, windows and Linux and covers close to 90% of everything

 

[Sophisticatednut]

None of these are unique to Apple. There are PCs that have some of the same issues.

That’s literally: “what aboutism”
Because other are doing bad things isn’t an excuse to do bad things

 

[robco74]

Apple operates the App Store and Books stores more like consignment shops than retail stores. Instead of paying a wholesale price and then setting a retail price, the publisher sets the retail price and Apple takes a percentage. One model gives more control to the publisher to set value of their work, the other gives that power to the retailer.

Amazon does not sell books through the Kindle app, you have to purchase them on Amazon's site. The Kindle app, like Netflix, Spotify, etc. are reader apps. You can't purchase or subscribe in app, but you can view content you have purchased or have subscribed to through their respective websites.

If you want to sell in-app digital content, then that is also subject to Apple's commission. I can't speak for the EU, but this was deemed acceptable in US court with the recent Epic ruling. Collecting a commission to access an established customer base is not an unusual practice. Most of it happens behind the scenes and consumers are mostly unaware.

This was working well for over a decade before apps started becoming more successful and generating more revenue.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Show me where "general purpose computing platform" is a legal term.

In the Epic Games vs. Apple trial

"[Xbox, Playstation and Switch] devices are generally considered “single purpose” or “special purpose” devices—as compared to mobile and PC devices, which are more general-purpose devices. In other words, these gaming consoles are generally made for the narrower purposes of gaming or entertainment (e.g., video or music streaming)."

(Note that although in this particular trial the definition was only tangentially touched upon in the process of determining the relevant market to conclude it was mobile gaming, it is still a viable and relevant distinction. And yes, it's only a legally relevant term, not a legal term per se)

 

[I7guy]

Right to repair? Their options are non existent, designed to be hard to repair and banning legal availability of spare parts, forcing “illegal” actions or using broken apple devices to scavenge for parts to independent repair shops. Prevent “Apple Independent Repair Program” from doing anything more “advanced” repairs than screen and battery replacement
Apple Authorized Service Providers are equally worthless and mostly send away the device to a centralized repair center.

And what are the right to repair for Microsoft hardware? Today.

And if apple cares about recycling and being green then their devices would be repairable and independent repair shops would have had access official to spare parts to encourage reuse of older devices. And they wouldn’t ever had lobbied against right to repair.

Logical fallacy. Apple does care about recycling and being green and carbon neutral and is working toward that.

And relevant how?

The ios app store is a legal monopoly as of today.

Perhaps, but one will not cost close to a new one if something needs to be repaired out of warranty.

I'm not sure Microsoft hardware would fare any better.

Apparently only against Apple and google, and it seems to have helped consumers as they contributed to anti competitive investigations and regulatory scrutiny

But it could cost them big in the US, in spite of the hubris. Remember it ain't over till it's over.

Perhaps, but apple customers seems to disagree

No MacRumors posters seem to disagree...a very small proportion of the Apple customer base.

Why should they raise the prices when they get to keep even more revenue?
Windows also provide a nearly free platform for distribution of services and everyone love it.

There ya' go. Competition is great. If devs can earn more on Android and Windows then let them develop for those platforms.

Well it’s more attractive than the Mac store. So why won’t they be incentivizees with less regulation of what apps can be in a centralized place for close to nothing?

Windows store is great. With windows a dominant platform let dev sell their wares on Windows.

Steam already is the predominant game platform for Mac, windows and Linux and covers close to 90% of everything

Ok.

 

[robco74]

In the Epic Games vs. Apple trial

"[Xbox, Playstation and Switch] devices are generally considered “single purpose” or “special purpose” devices—as compared to mobile and PC devices, which are more general-purpose devices. In other words, these gaming consoles are generally made for the narrower purposes of gaming or entertainment (e.g., video or music streaming)."

(Note that although in this particular trial the definition was only tangentially touched upon in the process of determining the relevant market to conclude it was mobile gaming, it is still a viable and relevant distinction. And yes, it's only a legally relevant term, not a legal term per se)

The larger point is that it doesn't seem fair to allow MS to claim the Xbox is specialized, but Apple can't do the same for iOS. The Xbox runs the NT kernel, DirectX - essentially a stripped down version of Windows. It runs on a modified AMD APU, but consumer versions of those exist. The Xbox is essentially a compact PC. The only thing making it "special purpose" is the software. You can even connect a keyboard and mouse if you don't want to use the controller.

Given that, I don't see how it is fair to give MS a special carve out. If Apple is required to lower commissions or allow competing stores, the same should be required of MS.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The fact that Stripe hasn’t yet “scaled” their pricing to account for small app purchases doesn’t necessarily mean they couldn’t (though maybe they’d have to operate on some sort of wallet/account scheme, rather than charging each purchase to a payment card individually)

True that they could but haven’t yet as no demand exist? But they do have the ability to request custom billing

I think they argued that in the court trials - so at least retroactively adopted the argument?

I have Never seen them argue it
O

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Apple operates the App Store and Books stores more like consignment shops than retail stores. Instead of paying a wholesale price and then setting a retail price, the publisher sets the retail price and Apple takes a percentage. One model gives more control to the publisher to set value of their work, the other gives that power to the retailer.

Where are the consigned products in the App Store? I cannot locate them anywhere. They must be hidden somewhere because I’m billed by the App Store and actually receive them.

I would like to know where are those products in the App Store and if it distributes them at any point. So I can fully understand these comparisons justifying its fee. Comparisons that are articulated by many including Apple since inception.

Failing to do so … the only similarities that one can find with consignment shops is that indeed the App Store only pays “suppliers” for the service or product after the App Store bills the customer. I put ”suppliers” in quotes because these don’t actually supply the products or services being billed to the shop, its just that the billing and payment step is hand over to the App Store. As far as I understand it they are supplied and sold (except for billing) in their properties, using their resources, in their App. This goes nowhere near consignment businesses practices.

PS: I feel is that people go around in circles in comparisons with other business models and practices, as well as erroneously extrapolating an App as being some kind of business service per si, usually failing miserably. Instead of actually facing the Elephant in the Room.

The Elephant is that the App Store at is core only distributes software programs, nothing else. The only place 50% of US American using smartphones can download and update apps from. Being able to run Apps is one of the core reasons why they bought the smartphone in the first place.

Now these software programs can take many shapes. they can take the shape of a game, a word processor, a photo editor, … classic software programs whose value is exhausted by the technology of the App. To shapes like a book store, a dating club, a music tutoring system, a video conferencing system, to a grocery shop … whatever businesses invent … whose value is not exhausted by the technology within the App … meaning what makes it valuable is nowhere distributed or sold by the App Store … just mandatorily billed.

In effect, Apple only allows users to install a software device they want or need on their smartphone, if and only if its “creator” agrees to hand over all in app commercial rights of such device, of anything and everything in it and all that goes through it to Apple … retuning to the “creator” 70% of the commercial value of any of these things only after sale. Whatever value that might be.

So indeed digital services are paying for the users ability to install their software devices, technically a bunch of dead binary files, on their smartphones. Given such constraint, whatever the shape the device might take, whatever services Apple might provide on top, its value its exhausted by such conditioning! Clarification of the components justifying the 30/15% markup is irrelevant. They could distribute the percentage whatever they would feel it looks best in the picture.

It is indeed the most expensive Store feature on the Planet, the process of installing and updating an iOS software program. Something that traditionally cost nothing in tech, is suddenly is rendering billions in revenue. It’s all about the packaging.

The question than becomes. How the cost of such feature compares with similar systems and how important is for digital business and users. That is all. Simple. Its not really that complicated.

Cheers.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

And what are the right to repair for Microsoft hardware? Today.

You can order any spare part from ether Microsoft or the manufacturer. Schematics are available so you know what chip does what during a repair

Logical fallacy. Apple does care about recycling and being green and carbon neutral and is working toward that.

They care less about it when it benefits the consumer and can’t be used as a PR stunt. Most their pollution is still manufacturing of new devices.

The ios app store is a legal monopoly as of today.

Perhaps , but it’s practicing illegal anti competitive behaviors.

I'm not sure Microsoft hardware would fare any better.

It does. If the motherboard fails then you can swap the SSD. If the same thing happens in the MacBook it will be forever lost as the access port is removed.

But it could cost them big in the US, in spite of the hubris. Remember it ain't over till it's over.

Cost them what? At the time barely 8% of the fortnight revenue. And they have essentially won in EU

No MacRumors posters seem to disagree...a very small proportion of the Apple customer base.

Well I would bet majority don’t know or care ether way

There ya' go. Competition is great. If devs can earn more on Android and Windows then let them develop for those platforms.

Probably because they see the end of the tunnel and wants to win the PR battle apple seems to lose

Windows store is great. With windows a dominant platform let dev sell their wares on Windows.

Well it is great and shows nothing stops apple from doing the same but greed really

 

[robco74]

The product is the license to use the software contained in the app bundle you download from the store, just as the product you get from the Xbox Marketplace is the game file for the game you purchased, and from which MS extracted a cut. Or when you subscribe to Creative Cloud from Adobe, or purchase an Office365 subscription, or...

Apple doesn't have to justify the fee. Steam and the EGS "only" distribute software programs too, what's your point? Epic is charging lower commissions and giving away content to try and gain a toehold in the market. That is their right. Whether that will be sustainable in the long term remains to be seen.

Being the single place to download apps was the entire point of the store. The idea was to make it as convenient as possible for consumers, and to allay security concerns. You obviously never downloaded or distributed phone apps before App Store. The stores were run by carriers, there were massive fees, not only for the initial app, but also for updates, and took a much higher commission than 30%. Consoles weren't immune, even your pals at MS charged thousands - and that was just for an update. Dev kits were also incredibly expensive. Apple gave away Xcode for free, asked for a relatively low $99 annual fee, and only charged commission for paid apps. Developers at the time were incredibly happy wit the arrangement. It worked out so well, Google had more or less the same terms for the Play Store.

In the beginning, apps could be purchased and loaded via iTunes. Same with books, audiobooks, movies, tv shows, and music. As time went on, iTunes became somewhat bloated and complex, so Apple split the storefronts out into separate apps. But I'm not sure why that makes any difference. All of the digital storefronts: App Store, Books, Music, Podcasts, News, TV+ are all under the same group at Apple. The distinction is purely branding. Apple takes a cut of all digital media they sell.

Is it your contention that because Apple didn't code the app, they deserve nothing? You may find Apple's commissions or subscription fees excessive, but that doesn't mean they are or should necessarily be illegal. If you don't find value in publishing through Apple, then don't. Create a web app instead. Sure, you can publish an APK for Android and let users sideload, or you could publish via Amazon or Samsung. Epic tried this and so few customers took advantage of the option, they went crawling back to the Play Store. The Play Store is trusted by many Android users. Google created that value and they deserve some consideration for that.

Just because something is digital rather than physical does not mean the distribution costs are zero.

 

[Abazigal]

Well we will see. I believe consumers, developers and apple can benefit if apple have lower greed and concentrate on hardware instead of services.

The same can be said for literally any product sold at a profit, in that lower margins means lower prices for the consumer.

Apple is a company centered around selling experiences made possible by their control over hardware, software and services. In this context, it makes sense for Apple to be directly in control of, as well as have full ownership over key aspects of their ecosystem. For example, Apple Music is fully integrated with Siri, and optimised for listening with AirPods, which is what makes for a better user experience for consumers.

And if anything, services are what helps subsidise hardware (Apple's hardware margins had been falling for a few years, mainly due to lower iPhone profitability).

Above Avalon: The "Apple Tax" Died Years Ago

Two weeks ago, Business Insider caused a stir with a video titled, “Why Apple Products Are So Expensive.” The video was part of Business Insider’s “So Expensive” series, which takes a look at why certain items are priced the way they are. The video was troubling for the number of inaccuracies, fal

www.aboveavalon.com

I would also like to bring this article to everyone's attention, including the following excerpts that dispel the notion of an "Apple Tax".

Apple’s pricing strategy is not based on the idea of forcing users to pay an “Apple Tax.” Instead, Apple follows a revenue and gross profit optimization strategy.

While Apple’s products gross margin percentage has declined by 10% over the past two years, products gross margin dollars declined by only 2%. This tells us that Apple is willing to let products gross margin percentage decline (less profit found with each device) if it means stronger customer demand results in more units being sold. This is the epitome of Apple’s revenue and gross margin optimization strategy.

1. Apple’s product portfolio has become increasingly competitive from a pricing perspective. In the case of Apple Watch and AirPods, pricing is downright aggressive compared to the competition. A $159 pair of AirPods sent shockwaves around the industry as competing products were priced in the $200 to $300 range. Even today, it’s difficult for genuine competitors to come close to AirPods pricing. A similar dynamic is found with wrist wearables as Apple Watch pricing remains highly competitive.

and this part right here.

• The App Store is run at just a 10% gross margin (my estimate). This goes against the idea that Apple is being unfair to developers when charging 15% or 30% revenue share. While some developers want Apple to charge them more like 5% to 10% of revenue, or nothing at all, such revenue share arrangements would likely lead to the App Store being operated at a loss considering that a majority of apps do not share any revenue with Apple.

And the zinger:

It’s easy to look at Apple pricing and take a cynical view that management is trying to squeeze as much profit as possible from its users. However, Apple’s incentive isn’t to milk users for all they can but rather to expand the Apple user base and provide users great experiences. Apple’s ability to grab monopoly-like share of industry profits isn’t a result of there being an Apple Tax but rather a byproduct of Apple following a design-led product strategy that ultimately marginalizes industries.

I believe that Apple is headed in the right direction by continuing to invest in all the crucial parts of their ecosystem, rather than rely on third parties. And if it just so happens to replicate an existing service that already exists, then so be it (especially if it's a crappy alternative like Tile or current public enemy no.1 - Spotify).

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The larger point is that it doesn't seem fair to allow MS to claim the Xbox is specialized, but Apple can't do the same for iOS. The Xbox runs the NT kernel, DirectX - essentially a stripped down version of Windows. It runs on a modified AMD APU, but consumer versions of those exist. The Xbox is essentially a compact PC. The only thing making it "special purpose" is the software. You can even connect a keyboard and mouse if you don't want to use the controller.

Well can you even argue the iPhone is specialized? It can effectively do everything a computer can, sometimes even better.

An Xbox is kind of only good for playing games. Such as a tv is good for only looking at content, calculators are for well calculating and termostats are for well temperature control . Even if you can run doom the thermostat or the calculator I think it’s fare to say these things are specialized hardware such as the console or MP3 player.

Given that, I don't see how it is fair to give MS a special carve out. If Apple is required to lower commissions or allow competing stores, the same should be required of MS.

well they have already done it on the windows store in orctober. Let’s see if they do it on the Xbox one as well

 

[AppliedMicro]

The Xbox runs the NT kernel, DirectX - essentially a stripped down version of Windows. It runs on a modified AMD APU, but consumer versions of those exist. The Xbox is essentially a compact PC. The only thing making it "special purpose" is the software

Courts and legislators aren't preoccupied with technical specifications. They'll look at its place and positioning in the market.

 

[robco74]

Courts and legislators aren't preoccupied with technical specifications. They'll look at its place and positioning in the market.

Until now, Apple has spent relatively little in lobbying (US EU).

I have a feeling that is about to change...

 

[I7guy]

You can order any spare part from ether Microsoft or the manufacturer. Schematics are available so you know what chip does what during a repair

Yep, Microsoft is ahead in promising to do something about this: https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/7/22715241/microsoft-as-you-sow-right-to-repair-study-agreement

They care less about it when it benefits the consumer and can’t be used as a PR stunt. Most their pollution is still manufacturing of new devices.

Apple doesn't manufacture anything. And it's your opinion, about a PR stunt.

Perhaps , but it’s practicing illegal anti competitive behaviors.

According to what US court case?

It does. If the motherboard fails then you can swap the SSD. If the same thing happens in the MacBook it will be forever lost as the access port is removed.

Lou Rossman would say he can fix a Macbook.

Cost them what? At the time barely 8% of the fortnight revenue. And they have essentially won in EU

They haven't won anything, yet. Tell me when it's over and then I'll be happy to agree with you. (They haven't won anything in the US either)

Well I would bet majority don’t know or care ether way

But you don't really know.

Probably because they see the end of the tunnel and wants to win the PR battle apple seems to lose

Then it will cost Apple. Capitalism not regulation should be the hue and cry.

Well it is great and shows nothing stops apple from doing the same but greed really

Apple is behaving like an entitled company. Let the $$$ speak for themselves. Profits before customers win the day. That's why Apple is only $2.5T and not $3T. /s

 

[Maximara]

With court filing epic is making a profit with a 12% cut with healthy margins

No Epic is NOT making a profit with a 12% cut with healthy margins: "By charging 12% commission, the Epic Games Store will not be profitable for at least several years. Current estimates indicate negative overall earnings in the hundreds of millions of dollars through at least 2027" - Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21

 

[Maximara]

Actually the reason why is that the hardware isn’t compatible with windows.

If you mean regular Windows yes but the Xbox runs its own specialized version of Windows.

 

[Maximara]

That’s literally: “what aboutism”
Because other are doing bad things isn’t an excuse to do bad things

No it isn't “what aboutism” but the reality. Heck even PC you can work on have little tricks like exclusive designed RAM or BIOSes that won't work with certain hardware. Heck, the PC market has issues with fake CPUs and RAM - I Ordered a FAKE Ryzen 5 3600 from Best Buy and The Dirty Way Manufacturers are Downgrading Your PC. As II pointed out before soldered components is a cost saving process in manufacturing:

"The issue isn't that manufacturers just don't care, though; believe it or not, there are actual reasons behind this sometimes frustrating design decision. First and possibly foremost is manufacturing efficiency, which includes both quality control and cost reduction. Every additional removable piece, especially including a SODIMM slot, introduces more cost and another potential fail point. Plus, an actual RAM socket requires an actual human being be there to plug a RAM chip into every laptop that goes down the assembly line, further adding to cost.

More pertinent, though, is the fact soldered RAM can be placed just about wherever engineers decide. With proper research and development, this can lead to streamlined mainboard design as well as increased thermal efficiency. It also means there's no need to include a bulky connector or an access door, and all told, these benefits combine to let laptop designers shave millimeters off case thickness. As increasingly slim iterations of MacBooks and Ultrabooks have proven, the average consumer often appreciates having the most compact device they can get." - The scourge of fully soldered and non-upgradeable laptops

Never mind Apple has a return your old device but with what do you think happens to that "replaceable" stuff in PC goes? Into the freaking landfill; so replaceable is more harmful to the environment.