What makes people think they can tell private consumers who have supposedly paid in full for a product what they can and cannot do with products they have supposedly paid for?
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
What makes people think they can tell private consumers who have supposedly paid in full for a product what they can and cannot do with products they have supposedly paid for?
I can't believe I have to say this, but dear President Trump, Save us from the stupidity of these Congressman.
You can go to any supermarket and find products that "compete" with the store brand. No one is saying the store brand should not be in the store. If you want Boars head ham, you can buy it and it will cost you more than the store brand of ham. Usually, sometimes there are sales. However, Boars head has their products marked up by the store they have to compete against too.
IT'S NORMAL! You want wholesale go to BJ's or Costco. Want convenience, go to 7-11 or Quick Check. Live on Android. You use GooglePlay. Like iOS, you use the Apple AppStore. Want to play a game, get a console or a handheld (Nintendo Switch). People have choices, lots of them. To cover all their needs. If one isn't working out for you, you can pick another.
IT'S NORMAL! You want wholesale go to BJ's or Costco. Want convenience, go to 7-11 or Quick Check. Live on Android. You use GooglePlay. Like iOS, you use the Apple AppStore. Want to play a game, get a console or a handheld (Nintendo Switch). People have choices, lots of them. To cover all their needs. If one isn't working out for you, you can pick another.
Walmart takes a cut out of the iPhone sale. They don't take a cut out of when you buy Flappy Birds on that iPhone afterwards. They don't take a cut out of when you buy skins in Fortnight on that iPhone afterwards.
Walmart is just as justified to take a cut out of app sales as Apple is to take a cut out of all in-app sales.
Apple makes the product as they want, and you buy it if you want. You don't pay to tell Apple how exactly the product should work. You want freedom, get an Android phone. Plenty of choices out there.
[automerge]1598553454[/automerge]
IDK what you mean. Does this imply Epic didn't work for their success? The Chinese government brainwashed all the kids in the US to play their game?
Nobody is telling you what to do with the hardware. You can throw it away, break it, load android and have the “benefits” of android (if you’re inventive enough).
But if you want to use IOS on your hardware it is licensed.
I would like to use the iOS App Store in my Samsung tv. No can do...is that a lawsuit waiting to happen?
When I saw this headline the first thing that came to mind was Capt. Renault's line from Casablanca: "I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here", just before he is given his winnings from that evening.
That sounds like the death of vertically integrated ecosystems.
The reason most people like the Apple ecosystem is because the hardware and software are integrated so closely at the development level.
If that law were to be come reality that would be a huge step backwards for the tech industry.
Are you aware that Tim Cook views are staunchly on the extreme left wing of US politics?
The arguement here is in the payment, not in the ownership.
With the ownership, the best analogy is, you own the atoms but you don't own the bits. You own the hardware but just a license for every app you buy.
Yep, the ultimate result of untethered capitalism without heavy regulation is a feudal/slavery system. We've seen that over and over again in history. For all those anti-regulation, you've gotta ask yourself, will you end up being the 99% slaves, or the 1% master? Almost 100% of everyone thinks they will be the master and 99% of them will be wrong.
No I think if you look at the democrats view points, especially Chuck Schumers on the issue of Facebook and Russian interference- their proposed regulations make a lot of sense. I'm pretty informed on the issue. The democrats clearly have the right ideas for regulating these large social media platforms...
Now should they consult experts? Sure maybe. But they definitely don't need to consult global economists.. This isn't an economic issue. This is an issue where Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is letting internet companies get away with not being responsible for content on their site.
In Facebooks case you could argue they are being slow to deal with hate content and misinformation. I think it's definitely important to pressure these companies with new laws to act on this kind of content. And it's not a political thing... No content should be available on Facebook that broadcasts a message of hate and chaos... Also any content misleading what a person or politician says vs what they actually said, IMO should be banned.. Twitter is taking a softer approach by labeling things a misinformation or not factual.. But I think we should take a step further.
Many people are being misled on the internet. Not good.
The primary issue I think is these mobile companies are having single markets for applications and software. They have rules for what software can and cannot do. This is not only anticompetitive in terms of having alternative markets for software w/ different pricing models. It's also anti consumer because it says the consumer can't do what they want with their device. Why does this make them a monopoly more then ever before? Because Mobile devices (phones and tablets) are increasingly becoming peoples primary and only computing device. If that is the case then you would expect some level of openness in terms of how they can use the device.. If you own a device you have the right to modify the device and change it's software.. This is the position of US Courts and is the law / exception to DMCA when it comes to jailbreaking and modifying your hardware you buy. WRT computer markets- they are more open including free and open source alternatives. I think mobile devices can be classified as primary personal computer devices and so its the right of people to modify and install software if they decide... This classification is much different from other media devices like televisions and consoles IMO, because they are not yet primary computing devices.
I know many people who do not own computers and who own mobile devices only. I think US Courts will soon recognize that and that will be a strong argument for forcing these companies to open their platforms to allow for competition of distribution and more consumer flexibility to use their primary computing devices as they see fit.
Here is a simple example of Apples overstepping on developers and consumers. Take a simple flashlight app or night shift app... Apple will reject you app if you have these features because iOS has them... But what if someone wants or has a better idea for a flashlight app? Well too bad Apple thinks your idea is stupid. So do you think Apple is right in this case?
It's anti competitive and anti consumer. That example is clear.
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
I'm not sure if it really helped or hurt. It can be argued both ways. But it certainly kept microsoft on its toes going forward and forced them to tread lightly when making future decisions, or else raise eyebrows again.
For whatever reason Apple seems to fall under this "can do no harm" umbrella and has largely remained untouched despite their behavior.
I miss the days of Apple Computer rather than Apple Inc. 😢
Not even close. Not when apps claim they are free and charge after the fact. If Walmart was distributing stoves and refrigerators for free and once you got home couldn’t plug them in without a monthly subscription ... that would not be ok. And Walmart would not do that. Maybe all apps need to be $5... and then all other purchases are free. would that be what you want?
That’s what you’re talking about... obviously they aren’t perfect comparisons. But you can’t expect Apple not to get a cut when they provide the market.
I just don't see any monopoly here, everything Apple sells has a competitor and they are not the majority holder in any market. Same goes to Facebook, Google, and Amazon...(well, Google has about the only site on the net).
I would say Windows is a more of a concern since there is no real competition as all apps only work on it, there are similar or lesser alternatives but not competitors
I would say Windows is a more of a concern since there is no real competition as all apps only work on it, there are similar or lesser alternatives but not competitors
and Rockefeller Standard Oil
There is a difference though. Once you leave Walmart, it no longer costs them anything for you to use the iphone, but the App Store is Apples property. It costs them a lot of money to run and they offer a lot of services to make it user friendly.
Apple collects and remits all the taxes and does all the paperwork worldwide for free. Google does absolutely nothing unless forced by law but they still take the same 30%. I develop apps for both Android and iOS and it was costing me thousands of dollars a year in accounting and legal fees to process Android transactions. I even considered the Xiaomi independent app store but the $5,000 publishing fee was too much. I finally had to abandon Android as a platform because it was simply too much to deal with.
Maybe 3rd party app stores should be allowed but this will be the reality for them:
- Uncurated, because no one will do all that work for free.
- Unknown hosting servers. They certainly won't be free, unless you're ok with deep data mining and ads everywhere.
- Mostly big name apps because indies can't afford the hassle of administering sales. Most small publishers on Android don't file taxes and just hope they don't get caught.
- If you pay for an app and get scammed, who's responsible? Who did you give your credit card number to and can you get a refund? Who will take the app down?
- There is a huge problem with copycats on the App Store, even with Apple actively chasing down the biggest offenders. On a 3rd party app store, anyone could take my app or game and republish it under their own name with no consequences. This was the norm on Android until Google used massive machine learning algorithms on the problem.
Even Epic is aware of how fraught with problems an open platform like Android can be, and they said so right here:
"So far, Epic has instigated action on 47 unauthorized “Fortnite for Android” websites, many of which appear to be run by the same bad actors. We continue to police the situation with a goal of taking them offline, or restricting access by leveraging Epic’s connection to a network of anti-fraud partners."
Epic made some popular games once, yes, but that money faded and the company was failing. The only reason they didn't get sued into oblivion is because they are owned by a Chinese company that pumped money into the game they stole from. So yes their money and their success came from interests in China. Just like Ubisoft, Frontier, and Activision-Blizzard.
Yes. Of course they are. Who else would be right? The developers? They don't have rights. They have privileges. Customers? Their choices end at checkout.
I don’t think Apple has rights to say what developers can make when the mobile devices are opened up like PCs. I think that judgement will happen in the near future though
Great. Now we need some class action suits to set a precedent that developers can be individually held accountable for buggy software. That will make them thankful for not being in charge.
I feel like if the web browsers were walled gardens we’d be having the same issue with that. What’s the difference between the internet and the App Store and apps? Why should Apple have the say for what content can be run on our phones? That’s the root of the argument. Apple has monopoly control over apps on the iPhone and iPad. Same with Google. Both parties have sidelooading features (Googles is less restrictive)... But they aren’t the same as letting users choose what they want when they want it. Phones are peoples primary device and users should be able to control what software they want to run. It’s a pretty fundamental thing.