Stop trying to change the direction the discussion. We are specifically talking about Apple here and not coporations in general, so stop trying to inject things into a discussion that suit your narative. That is probably why you can't even respond to my post properly and it was Epic's lawyers who are the ones who made that comment.
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 Would Rather Pay Up to €50 Million in Fines Than Address 'Gatekeeper' App Store Behavior, Says EU Chief
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I didn't change the direction. I was specifically talking about Apple by comparing them to other corporations. I simply disagree with the argument that you attributed to Epic's counsel.
True. But this is not America where consumers voted for small government with close to zero consumer protections.
In EU we voted for bigger government, and consumer protection to prevent such practices.
If anything what Nintendo did with shutting down the Nintendo Wii U and 3DS eShops shows the potential consumer harm does with complete vertical integration.
Are you sure? Are they dominating the market? And abusing it? Unless EU can prove that on every individual platform nothing will change. And EU don’t hate powerful and popular platform.
They hate powerful platforms abusing their position to harm the market and consumers.
Sounds awful that the US government is recognizing the overwhelming influence big companies possess . Perhaps vote for a smaller government or move somewhere more fitting.
Yes
No, imo. But horses for courses.
No, imo. But horses for courses.
Seems to me it does.
Where is it "proved" there is harm to consumers, except through some opinion it is.
The government can't legally prove, in this instance, Apple is an illegal monopoly. But there is nothing (except SCOTUS) that is stopping congress from drafting any law.
I've asked this question multiple times without a specific answer. How does the ACM ruling benefit consumers? It certainly gives the developers a choice to collect additional consumer information, but I consider that a consumer harm.
It was an off topic comment. US government regularly throws people from other nations in jail by arresting them internationally. And Companies breaking the law, their board and leadership should face jail time for crimes if normal citizen would face get it.
Of course you did and you knew it. In you post you specifically, and let me make this very very clear, you specifically wrote
The part in bold is where you knew what you was doing because in my opinion you wanted the discussion to move towards a different direction if anyone challenge your post because you would be able to come back with something like 'Amazon has a monopoly on it's own store', or 'Walmart has a monopoly on it's own store' which is totally irrelevant to the original topic of discussion but is allowed to move away from that topic all because of the wording you used in your post. But if you had included the word 'app' in that line as you should have done, you knew you would not be able to come back with such comments if someone was to challenge your post.
I have no idea what you are going on about. I am indeed comparing Apple having a monopoly on its App Store to Amazon having a monopoly on its own store or Walmart having a monopoly on its own store. It's called an analogy.
Apple’s vertical integration helps them deliver better products to consumers.
I agree, this seems to be creating more harm for consumers. However, I guess the ACM position is that consumers should be free to do what they want, even if the net, net is worse overall.
No it's not, it's called 'changing the direction of a discussion', which you've just proved the point I was making in my post. I have no intenion of feeling the wrath of the mod's so here I will stop. You've achieved your goal.
Here's the direction of the conversation from my POV
laptech: Epic's lawyers said Apple has a monopoly on the App Store.
baldimac: Epics's claim is meaningless because every company has a monopoly on their own store.
laptech: You're changing direction!
baldimac: ????
Yeah, 15%.
If my app were to hit $1m/year, yes it would still be worth it.
What does Apple have to do with me hosting backend services? Nothing, but they do have something to do with hosting and letting people download the app. They're also pretty heavily involved in developing and maintaining the App Store, Xcode, iOS, iPadOS etc. They have to pay their staff to develop these things. They pay their legal team to ensure the developer contracts and tax contracts are correct for every country my app is available in. So yeah, still worth it.
Okay, I'm Spotify. I have $10bn in revenue. The app is free for people to download (Apple pays for all that). If someone wants to subscribe they can do so in the app, and I'll pay Apple the 30% commission (covering payment processing, hosting, developing and maintaining Xcode and the App Store etc.). If you want Premium, then you can go outside of the app and subscribe and we'll pay the payment processing fees, the maintenance of our website, employing staff to help customers etc. If everyone subscribed to Spotify outside of the app (as in, no one was ever able to subscribe in the app, ever, right from our launch), then Apple has paid all the outlay for developing the infrastructure and I've paid nothing to Apple for all that, and I'll never pay Apple a penny for anything they do in future to help me develop and improve my app. Does that seem fair?
If Apple charged developers based on how much it actually cost to download an app, no one would ever download free apps because they'd no longer be free. All apps would have to charge a price, however small. Would it be different for each app based on its file size? Would a 1MB app be charged less than a 200MB app? If so, would Apple have to charge based on the actual bandwidth used or could they introduce tiers? Say, anything less than 10MB is $0.25, 10MB-20MB is $0.30...? Wouldn't that mean some apps were being charged more than they should (an 11MB app vs. a 19MB app), and that Apple would be making a profit by using these tiers? Okay, so exact bandwidth use only then. Now, how much does Apple actually get charged for their bandwidth? I don't know, but it likely fluctuates, which means app prices would change all the time. Is it worth it to the customer to switch to this model?
If you want this, then you should also be expecting Apple to charge prices for their hardware based on the exact market rate for the currency you're buying in, right? Or isn't Apple allowed to make variable amounts of profit on a product? So I could buy an M1 MacBook Air today for £1,000, but tomorrow it's £992. Apple lost £8 because they left their profit margin at 40% instead of 41%. Silly Apple for not employing people to recalculate prices on an hourly basis worldwide!
Oh, and what happens when Apple introduce their new rOS for their AR/VR headset? They'd have to tot up everything they've ever spent on developing the new OS, staffing costs, hardware design, prototypes, flights abroad to get the hardware built... Then, when they release the headset and developers start writing apps, does Apple try to recoup the $10bn they've spent on R&D by charging developers or should they just give that away as a freebie because they're not in this game to make any money? /s I mean, that's the cost of actually having those apps in the App Store (ah, the new bit in the App Store so they'll have to add in those costs, too). Right, so I create an rOS app that I'd like to sell for $10 and I'll get $9 back because the costs are $1 to distribute the app (covering bandwidth, staffing, Xcode updates etc.), but Apple tell me that they need to recoup that $10bn because they're not a charity, I'm gonna be charged $5m in the first year, or I can spread it over five years as long as I keep my app online, but hey, I get my $9 for each copy sold and there are no other charges to pay.
It's an extreme but it's there to point out that charging actual delivery costs isn't actually that easy.
Fascinating reading ....
Couple of things that stand out:
1. People are continually mixing US and EU definitions and actions. They are very different.
2. This isn't about the iPhone or any Android device. This is about the App Store.
Interesting reads:
9to5mac.com
9to5mac.com
Couple of things that stand out:
1. People are continually mixing US and EU definitions and actions. They are very different.
2. This isn't about the iPhone or any Android device. This is about the App Store.
Interesting reads:
Apple will allow dating apps in the Netherlands to use alternative payment systems, developers must maintain a separate app binary - 9to5Mac
In order to comply with a ruling from The Netherlands authorities, late on Friday Apple announced that it would allow...
9to5mac.com
App Store problem in the Netherlands keeps getting worse - 9to5Mac
Another Dutch group has joined the fight against the App Store as it claims that Apple has high commissions.
9to5mac.com
It's certainly about the App Store, but the App Store is just a feature of an iOS device. I don't think that you can say it's not about devices. The ACMs ruling is basically that Apple is leveraging the iPhone's market dominance across vertical markets.Fascinating reading ....
Couple of things that stand out:
1. People are continually mixing US and EU definitions and actions. They are very different.
2. This isn't about the iPhone or any Android device. This is about the App Store.
Interesting reads:
Apple will allow dating apps in the Netherlands to use alternative payment systems, developers must maintain a separate app binary - 9to5Mac
In order to comply with a ruling from The Netherlands authorities, late on Friday Apple announced that it would allow...App Store problem in the Netherlands keeps getting worse - 9to5Mac
Another Dutch group has joined the fight against the App Store as it claims that Apple has high commissions.
On a side note, it's kinda weird that of all the vertical markets that Apple is participating in, the one we are discussing is payment processors for dating apps.
If a market definition includes a company’s trademarked product name, then, while it’s a market, it’s an absurd definition of a market for practical purposes.
Smartphone App Stores is a non-absurd definition of a market.
Tencent Apps is an absurd definition of a market.
Smartphone App Stores is a non-absurd definition of a market.
Tencent Apps is an absurd definition of a market.
Of course it's about the App Store. Gaming consoles are allowed to approve every app that runs on their platform, and collect a commission. For physical copies, they still collect a licensing fee. If Apple is forced to open up their ecosystem, then Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo should be forced to open up theirs.
If Apple is not allowed to have a closed platform and act as a gatekeeper, then no other company should be allowed to either, otherwise you aren't regulating based on principle, but punishing Apple for their success (and the ineptitude of their competition).
If Apple is not allowed to have a closed platform and act as a gatekeeper, then no other company should be allowed to either, otherwise you aren't regulating based on principle, but punishing Apple for their success (and the ineptitude of their competition).
It's certainly about the App Store, but the App Store is just a feature of an iOS device. I don't think that you can say it's not about devices. The ACMs ruling is basically that Apple is leveraging the iPhone's market dominance across vertical markets.
On a side note, it's kinda weird that of all the vertical markets that Apple is participating in, the one we are discussing is payment processors for dating apps.
I am not saying anything. The issue in question with the EU/NL is about the App Store. Only.
Why Dating Apps, based on what I have been reading, other items are being looked under the EU umbrella, not the NL one.
My company does not need Apple. We offer an iOS app, but also Android (kindle compatible) and web apps. We spend $$$ on marketing campaigns for our product on billboards, buses, print media, and I think even TV ads. We support iOS because our customers want it, not because we need to. If we could make an iOS app without dealing with Apple, we would.
What you suggest is nice, and makes sense when you're in a competitive market, but we aren't. We are in a de-facto duopoly - monopoly when you consider that there are sometimes factors that prevent someone from using the "other" platform - when it comes to mobile phone apps, and it's not a good place to be.
Again, I disagree for the reasons I described. Apple dominance in the mobile phone market is the primary reason for the ACMs ruling. The market that this ruling addresses is payment processing for dating apps. The App Store is just a feature of the iPhone.
In my opinion, this is why this is dragging out slowly everywhere it’s introduced. After the initial knee-jerk “APPLE’S BEING NON-COMPETITIVE!” these other services/systems are brought up as valid business practices that no one’s interested in changes. In many cases, it gets dropped soon due to the complexity of trying to carve out legislation where it ONLY affects Apple. Those that are still ongoing are because they’re just trying to find an angle that’s oblique enough to allow this to go forward while, at the same time, preventing anyone with a grievance against, say, Microsoft, to force the same action on the Xbox Store.
Thing is, if all it takes is defining a market in a quite creative way, you can bet that if any of these efforts go into effect, Epic’s likely to be the first out the gate using this as a precedent in going after Microsoft and others
If you don’t need to, then what would be the downside of not supporting iOS? If the answer is “we’d lose customers”, then yes, you DO need to, right?