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.
Congressman Leading Tech Antitrust Investigation Says July Hearing Confirms 'Deeply Disturbing Behavior'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I mean, Facebook and YouTube are actually destroying our society right now through using their algorithms to boost insane content to other insane people and radicalize everyone with a bunch of made up conspiracy theories. The others, not so much. How about they take a look at the companies destroying our planet as well? Oh wait, that's all fake news...but the stuff the crazy man is spouting from his basement takes precedent over actual scientific consensus. The world is turned on its head. Not to mention working on legislation for the people suffering from COVID-19 recession right now, or the actual virus itself. Instead they all went on a vacation.
Everyone is treated fairly. If you make money from our efforts you pay. If you don’t then you don’t. It’s that simple. There are hundreds of millions of free apps that are supported by those that make money. Those will likely disappeared completely if bums are allowed to get a free ride. Apple will change to a pay upfront model to cover services that will kill everything. If Apple’s cut was unreasonable there wouldn’t be so many success stories like Epic and Spotify. Now they want to get greedy. I promise it will get ugly
Congressional investigations can take years... the timing of this seems off some how.
Visit Youtube and look up "Steve Jobs introduces the App Store". He says it numerous time, YOU decide the price, we take 30% and do all the heavy lifting. So it Fortnight wants to make $99 on kids around the world, charge $130 and shut the **** up.
These people fail to understand the business model that has allowed Apple the thrive since they almost went under 20 years ago. If a product or service can’t make at least 30% profit, they say no to it. There are lots of markets they refuse to play in until it meets that metric. If the government makes the App store unprofitable, it will get canceled. Tim will shift focus and development will die on the vine because Apple will stop investing in the platform.
Not with republicans in power, it won’t.
If Apple doesn't come up with a solution soon, the Courts or Congress will eventually have their cake and cut it open with a chainsaw rather than a fork.
That's Steve's way of selling it. That doesn't make it right. You do understand that, right?
Of course not. If it weren’t for it being an election year they wouldn’t have said anything.
"Glass-Steagall law for technology platforms, which would prevent tech companies from both running a platform and competing on it at the same time."
This is interesting, although in the past i had subscribed to Apple Music, i do see an issue in that Apple Music is 9.99 and So is say Spotify, Yet you can be sure, Apple Music does not put %30 into the app store fees, even if they did its still "Apple" Money vs Spotify charging 9.99 but only receiving 7.99 to them. That feels anti competitive to me.
This is interesting, although in the past i had subscribed to Apple Music, i do see an issue in that Apple Music is 9.99 and So is say Spotify, Yet you can be sure, Apple Music does not put %30 into the app store fees, even if they did its still "Apple" Money vs Spotify charging 9.99 but only receiving 7.99 to them. That feels anti competitive to me.
$130 - 30% = $91 (not $99)
The inverse operation of -30% is +42.86%, not +30%.
$99 + 42.86% = $141.43
$141.43 - 30% = $99
Apple's fee makes prices increase +42.86%, not +30%.
They invented the App Store. They can do as they please. It’s their platform.
The simplest solution is to tax monopolies. If the government feels the system makes too much money in too fewer hands then force them to pay more tax.
Do people actually look up the Microsoft case in the 90s? This isn't the same thing.
Microsoft approached Netscape to try to convince them to not develop Navigator for Windows 95. They also tried to prevent navigator from being distributed. This isn't the same at all what Apple is doing. Apple is not doing anything even close to the Microsoft case in the 90s.
79. Microsoft's first response to the threat posed by Navigator was an effort to persuade Netscape to structure its business such that the company would not distribute platform- level browsing software for Windows. Netscape's assent would have ensured that, for the foreseeable future, Microsoft would produce the only platform-level browsing software distributed to run on Windows. This would have eliminated the prospect that non-Microsoft browsing software could weaken the applications barrier to entry.
Excluding Navigator from Important Distribution Channels
143. Decision-makers at Microsoft worried that simply developing its own attractive browser product, pricing it at zero, and promoting it vigorously would not divert enough browser usage from Navigator to neutralize it as a platform. They believed that a comparable browser product offered at no charge would still not be compelling enough to consumers to detract substantially from Navigator's existing share of browser usage. This belief was due, at least in part, to the fact that Navigator already enjoyed a very large installed base and had become nearly synonymous with the Web in the public's consciousness. If Microsoft was going to raise Internet Explorer's share of browser usage and lower Navigator's share, executives at Microsoft believed they needed to constrict Netscape's access to the distribution channels that led most efficiently to browser usage.
What is Apple doing that matches what Microsoft did in the 90s?
Don't forget, the case in the 90s also was related to Sun Java - not just Netscape.
386. For Microsoft, a key to maintaining and reinforcing the applications barrier to entry has been preserving the difficulty of porting applications from Windows to other platforms, and vice versa. In 1996, senior executives at Microsoft became aware that the number of developers writing network-centric applications in the Java programming language had become significant, and that Java was likely to increase in popularity among developers. Microsoft therefore became interested in maximizing the difficulty with which applications written in Java could be ported from Windows to other platforms, and vice versa.
This is why Microsoft got in trouble. Not because they were large, or had massive marketshare.
Like IBM in their lifetime they have acquired 1000s of small businesses.
I think *nix kicked it's nuts in the server market as well.It didn't help either.
Probably actually hurt. What actually solved the problem was competition from Apple in the 2000s.
United States v. Microsoft Corp. - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Since you are so well researched. Give me examples where Apple has hurts companies like MS did to Lotus 123, WordPerfect and the forcing OEMs to bundle Windows. That last one is so bad Dell still quakes when someone orders a laptop with Redhat.
That will essentially break the only advantage iOS has over Android. I love my Apple products. I have had all iPhones, Apple Watches, iMacs, Mac Pro, iPads, Apple TVs. But come on, the iPhones and flagship Android phones are just as good. Sometimes the scales dip in favor of Android. The only reason I went with iPhone is because its locked down to one store. That locked down ecosystem is why everyone I know chose iPhones. Especially lately, Apple has been doing nothing but playing catchup with Android features.
I really haven't been excited about the iPhone since the 6. Every year its all about camera this, pictures that. I just roll my eyes. I do have an iPhone X right now.
Last edited:
What exactly are they doing that is anti-competitive? A good example of anti-competitive behavior is what Microsoft did in the 90s with Netscape.
79. Microsoft's first response to the threat posed by Navigator was an effort to persuade Netscape to structure its business such that the company would not distribute platform- level browsing software for Windows. Netscape's assent would have ensured that, for the foreseeable future, Microsoft would produce the only platform-level browsing software distributed to run on Windows. This would have eliminated the prospect that non-Microsoft browsing software could weaken the applications barrier to entry.
Excluding Navigator from Important Distribution Channels
143. Decision-makers at Microsoft worried that simply developing its own attractive browser product, pricing it at zero, and promoting it vigorously would not divert enough browser usage from Navigator to neutralize it as a platform. They believed that a comparable browser product offered at no charge would still not be compelling enough to consumers to detract substantially from Navigator's existing share of browser usage. This belief was due, at least in part, to the fact that Navigator already enjoyed a very large installed base and had become nearly synonymous with the Web in the public's consciousness. If Microsoft was going to raise Internet Explorer's share of browser usage and lower Navigator's share, executives at Microsoft believed they needed to constrict Netscape's access to the distribution channels that led most efficiently to browser usage.
This is a very dangerous idea. You are essentially saying a company can be successful but not too successful. This can also have downstream effects on the number of people Apple employees so save money. So yay more unemployment.
Any subscription you get at a walmart store they get an initial fee plus a reoccuring fee. If you sign up for a Walmart credit card same thing. They don't operate a bank and manage the card, they get money for each sign up.
So how would that work? Say I bought an iPhone, set it up, and I’m ready to download apps. I have to go to EA.com, download their App Store, and then I can download EA games? Will there be something like Movies Anywhere?
If something like that does happen, I foresee people not trusting those apps. For Mac, for a while I was only downloading apps from the MAS. Now I’ve downloaded a few from Steam but I don’t trust them as much as I do Apple, in regards to handling my private information, my payment, and keeping the app secure.