…because, without the facts uncovered from an investigation, you can’t possibly have an opinion. So being opposed to an ACCC investigation is like saying “it’s my opinion that nobody should have an opinion”
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.
Australia Opens Antitrust Inquiry Into Apple's App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
…because, without the facts uncovered from an investigation, you can’t possibly have an opinion. So being opposed to an ACCC investigation is like saying “it’s my opinion that nobody should have an opinion”
They can have their closed system, but the investigations indicate there is a question of whether using the closed system to strong-arm developers into paying high fees is anti-competitive and hurts consumers. Why does the walled garden require such high prices? The rules weren't as onerous and vague before Apple started making big money through gaming, and still aren't for other app categories where Apple isn't making huge $$$, e.g. video streaming services.
Nice prediction, what else does your crystal ball tell you? Or do you use cards? Tea Leaves?
Well I was specifically referring to the person I quoted with my reply, but as you’re here:
Because it’s not a high price, particularly. Across many many markets out in the real world too. There is no strong arming devs. There is no law to insist ios app development. They know what they’re getting into, and it’s still a way better deal than doing it all yourself, like in the old days.
The rules are not onerous, or vague or levelled unfairly. They are obvious, and they apply to everyone equally. So mush so that they actually enable people to dev from their bedroom with just a mac and $99 dollars.
You are right, and I’ve been coming to that realisation for a few years now.
Their closed system is becoming increasingly incompatible with my standards. I’ve noticed it significantly more since I got the iPad and have been frustrated with the software. That, in combination with Android closing the gap w/ regards to look and feel and also things like Kotlin, does make iOS much less attractive than it used to be.
I sincerely doubt they can keep nerfing their own platform for much longer. They will have to make concessions eventually, esp with this pivot to services.
What’s it to me? Passionate Apple Computer fan that finds the competition more exciting nowadays.
Haha you’re trolling.
Opinion doesnt have to be based on fact...
And ironically “it’s my opinion that nobody should have an opinion” is exactly what you have just done in that comment. you just stated I can’t have an opinion haha
Enjoy keyboard warrioring yourself, im out😂
That is correct. You get to make your choices in a free market.
Actually, I do. One of the key parts of your quote is:
The problem is the abilty to eliminate competition while raising the barriers to reentry. Firms can reenter markets once prices rise to a point where there are sufficient returns; which forces the monopolist to keep prices low to prevent reentry; to the benefit of the consumer.
Predatory pricing most hurts the dominate player because they sell the most and those lose the most; so it's a question of how long one can last before one side gives up; and even then companies can reenter when the prices rises.
The classic case for predatory pricing is Standard Oil; even though SO did not drive all competitors out nor raise prices in markets without significant competitors. In some cases, companies buy the dominant players product and resell it at a profit if it is cheaper than making it itself; Dow did that when the Germans tried to drive them out of the market by dumping chemicals at low prices.
IMHO, predatory pricing is not the big evil it is made out nor is it as successful as some believe.
There are network effects; but even then there is scant evidence it has resulted in higher pricing or eliminat
Where is the consumer harm from lower prices over the long term? As a consumer, I'd argue that forcing prices up hurts more.
Last edited:
Right, the case where the government handed 90% of the eBook market to Amazon. Got it. That case went to the SCOTUS and since the court was split 4-4 (having been one Justice down), the appellate court ruling stood.
No one can buy iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/WatchOS. One can purchase a license to use it with restrictions. This is disclosed upfront. If one does not like that business model, one can pick another product (as you say you have done).
That is great. You seem to be arguing two things:
- There is no competition (except that you yourself have shown one can pick other products).
- The model I prefer should be the only model anyone is allowed to have.
Breaking news: Microsoft forced to offer users a choice of web browsers.
I think part of the discussion needs to be whether the fees are actually unreasonable. Before digital distribution, developers were lucky to get 30% after everyone had taken their cut; Apple not only upped the developer's percentage but significantly reduced upfront costs and thus the risks associated with taking a product to market.
Apple offers developers access to a large and lucrative market at relatively low cost and risk. They run the infrastructure, sales, etc. leaving the developer just to work on the product, provide support and collect a check.
I suspect if Apple is forced to lower the percentage they will recoup it by charging for services now included in the 30% and developer account fee; making things worse for small developers that might not be able to upfront those costs.
I doubt Apple wil simply roll over and forgo the revenue.
When this is written: " Their litigation just lit the fuse, as intended. " Absolutely 100% correct statement. Who knows where this will end up. Lots of churn does not mean anything substantial will change.
If - and it's a big if - authorities eventually require that the iPhone must be opened up to third party App Stores, Apple would probably have no choice but to update iOS with a condition that any third party App Store installation is entirely at the owner's risk and would invalidate the warranty on their phone. Such installations would be identifiable on the phone. Meaning no taking your phone into an Apple Store for software support. I could see someone sending in a faulty phone and Apple declining to provide support without a software erase. Apple would also be under no obligation to provide iCloud backups for third party App Store apps.
The whole thing could be a complete rat's nest.
Sure. How about government requiring that all smart phones allow for alternative app stores? Then everyone might agree that Apple can set whatever fees they want. 90% fee? Great! We'll use a different app store.
As long as Apple is allowed to charge fair market value for the certificates. Government can't come in and tell a company what to charge for the intellectual property, at least in most areas of the world, where the industry isn't regulated.
Honestly a bit sick of my country sometimes. We have better more important things to do. I guess governments want someone else to pay the countries way out of recession. There is no monopoly. All the other tech stores charge 30% and I like the App Store just the way it is.
ironic the Australian government want to investigate the app stores but refuse to update the COVIDSafe tracing app to use Apple and Google OS level software that would work better than the app they rushed out that has proved almost useless.
Odd too they have yet to approve the ECG functions for Apple Watch.
What a waste of time and money.
There are two stores, build what you want and put it where you and your customers want. Simple.
Odd too they have yet to approve the ECG functions for Apple Watch.
What a waste of time and money.
There are two stores, build what you want and put it where you and your customers want. Simple.
By that same logic i can say that my iphone is my phone not apples and they should not be able to tell me what i can and cannot do with it after i have purchased it. But they do. They place restrictions for the purpose of creating monopolies for the sale of software and also parts and repairs under the guise of user experience and security. I say guise because if that was the reason and not to profit massively they would not charge as much as they do.
I personally don't have a huge problem with the closed eco system because there are benefits, they do actually stop malicious apps. But i don't beleive all services should be paying apple a cut of their service for merely having a portal to a web based service like Netflix or Prime. A lodgement fee for review would be more fitting. And i don't beleive they should be able to be the moral police and decide what is and isn't innapropriate content. If an apps sole purpose is to enable you to break the law, sure. But porn isn't illegal, files are legally shared by torrent clients.
Noooo... not us too..
One country investigates, and we all must.... its sick when no one can think for themselves. Apple has been this way for a while, but it takes one to pressure others all and the same time frame too.
One thing is more important ? (backwards too)
One country investigates, and we all must.... its sick when no one can think for themselves. Apple has been this way for a while, but it takes one to pressure others all and the same time frame too.
One thing is more important ? (backwards too)
Breaking news: No they don't. Every company only has a right to operate in any country if they follow that country's laws. To operate a company in most countries, you can't spew toxic waste into the waters/land/air, you can't pay people below minimum wage, you can't run a kitchen full of dirt and rats, you can't run a monopoly, etc etc etc.
The ACCC is not "know-it-all politicians". They are an independent body. Sometimes effective, sometimes not so much, but nothing is perfect.
ACCC role and structure
The ACCC promotes competition and fair trade in markets to benefit consumers, businesses, and the community. We also regulate national infrastructure services.
Ex BlueScope GM Jason Ellis pleads guilty to obstructing cartel investigation
Jason Ellis, a former general manager of sales and marketing at BlueScope Steel Limited (BlueScope), has today entered a guilty plea in Sydney’s Downing Centre Local Court to one charge of inciting the obstruction of Commonwealth public officials in the performance of their functions.
Absolutely! As a business owner, I should be able to do whatever I want in order to make a profit. I am furious that I can't follow through with my plan to save costs and increase profits by: enforcing children to work 16hrs a day, 7 days a week at $1/day, and dispensing with waste disposal costs by pumping all my waste into the river. Why should I even bother to create new products when the state regulates everything and robs me from achieving success. I may as well do nothing and get food stamps.
Of course if that is the opinion of the courts...or not.