It really didn't demonstrate any legitimate point worth discussing. What about "this fictitious made up never happening scenario" isn't a good way to win a debate.
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's Proposal to Allow Third-Party Payment Methods in App Store 'Lacks Detail,' Says South Korean Regulatory Commission
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It doesn't illustrate the point at all lol. It's an entirely different circumstance. Nobody is suggesting that Google take a cut of a consumer's app purchase on an iPhone rather than Apple, which is more like the situation you're describing.
Whataboutism? Glad you are unsurprised. After hundreds of posts the last very many beating the dead horse and regurgitating things in different verbiage...it's my contention that many would want Apple to be regulated until they choke, even if there were many multiple o/s by multiple vendors.
No one here wants Apple to be “regulated until they choke” (I’d like to see Apple make proactive changes to avoid regulation).
Is there an echo in here? You also might need to look up what that word means. How is pointing out your view on anti-trust measures unrelated to the topic of Apple and governmental anti-trust measures? You clearly wanted a 'gotcha' so bad, but unfortunately you whiffed.
Ensuring sure part of a duopoly isn't acting anticompetitively in the market isn't "arbitrary regulations".
Exactly.
The people who run Apple love high margins. This has been true for decades. It’s just how Apple is run. I’m not going to comment on that business approach. If the commission is gone, the pound of flesh will come out of somewhere else.
Apple still needs a cut. The developers are using Apple's SDK and tooling to create the apps.
They have over 30 million registered developers.
To release Apps, you have to pay an annual developer fee
Apple is well compensated for the tools
Sure take a look, and then move on. It’s all opinion anyway. If the bill passes it’s because enough legistlators opinions were swayed for. Bill dies, it’s because enough legistlators were not swayed for.
That’s not true…I can probably dig up some discourse to illustrate it. But what some want is to have the government force change instead of voting with your $$$.
Ok, but what's the point of "taking a look" and then not doing anything if you saw some funny business going on??
If one digs deep enough there is always something. The question is how to deal with the something and if the something should necessarily be dealt with.
Apple is choosing to go this route. Even though governments all over the world are calling foul on some of Apple's business practices, they're choosing to maintain the status quo until they're forced to change. You'd think they'd get a clue and start implementing changes now, so that they can relieve some of the pressure and at least try to remain in control of any changes. Instead they'd rather be obstinate which will end up hurting them more than if they'd just made some reasonable changes themselves. Phil's email that was posted in one of these threads was very prescient. Even a decade ago he knew what would one day be coming if Apple didn't make some changes to their business model.
Thank you!!
This is not about Apple being punished, this is about an untenable economic situation that must change.
There are a lot of us who are very concerned about the contents of these bills and wish that Apple would compromise so it (and it’s users by extension) doesn’t get hurt!
Unfortunately, at its core its about as making much money as they can for as long as possible. Everything else is secondary.
We have to remember that Schiller email about reducing their App Store commission at some point... which they never did.
This whole situation happened because the 30% cut revenue grew out of control -- a lot of it from really scammy and addictive gaming revenue -- to the point where it would have taken enormous leadership to change course.
Money has corrupted Apple values on this topic.
It has corrupted them to the point that they are unwilling to make ANY changes at all unless forced.
They are totally drug addicted to this unjustified 30% cut.
This whole situation happened because the 30% cut revenue grew out of control -- a lot of it from really scammy and addictive gaming revenue -- to the point where it would have taken enormous leadership to change course.
Money has corrupted Apple values on this topic.
It has corrupted them to the point that they are unwilling to make ANY changes at all unless forced.
They are totally drug addicted to this unjustified 30% cut.
It’s is incredibly sad to see Apple putting the entire iOS ecosystem at risk over crappy mobile game micro-transactions.
Really, Apple? For this?
This is the problem with publicly traded companies. They will throw away everything that's good to make the magic line go up.
They do charge you, its just not directly, why else would they push so hard to get you to make Edge the default browser?
Apple pays their external lawyers over a billion dollars a year. I would hope they are getting some bang for buck.
Too bad they aren't investing some of that into something actually useful for consumers. And if their lawyers are advising them that they should let various governments mandate the changes rather than carefully and thoughtfully making changes themselves, then perhaps they should retain new counsel. ?♂️
I also don't get their strategy here
This doesn't feel like a situation they'll ever fully "win" in the way they are hoping.
I hope they are secretly pondering some very proactive changes -- for their own sake if nothing else.
It's much better to make some measured and considered changes that regulators find acceptable, as opposed to being "forced" into something else.