Ahhh, the naive "tax the billionaires" approach. As if the gov't gets to collect more millions and more billions, it will manage those funds in a proper way and it WILL NOT WASTE them. Yeah, right. Moreover, if a nation and its wealthy individuals have strong principles and selfless values, they will donate their millions to help those in need. I much prefer that instead of trusting that the bureaucrats will make the right choices.
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.
Elon Musk Says Apple's 30% App Store Fee is 'Literally 10 Times Higher Than It Should Be'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, it seams that digital services do not and should not have such a privilege over their own Apps (product) as per your preference of App Store policies.
So your assessment seams to be false in principle. In other words, your view over such matter seams to be discretionary along with a fair amount of duplicity. Unless a digital business is not a company of course, one can always redefine that aspect - "entities that build Apps aren't companies but devs"
.
Last edited:
It does seem to be true in a general sense, which is why legislation is needed give it to the people, in those locations where this may be an eventuality.
It is quite doubtful that a 3% app store fee would maximize App Store revenue, which is one of the (many) responsibilities of the board of directors. Lots of old retired people live off of the dividends from various for-profit companies, including AAPL, held by their hard-saved retirement funds.
If rich people had to sell their stock holdings to pay taxes, then all the people buying that stock would have a lot less money to donate to your favored charity. Instead the government would get to find a way to waste it.
If rich people had to sell their stock holdings to pay taxes, then all the people buying that stock would have a lot less money to donate to your favored charity. Instead the government would get to find a way to waste it.
What does that even mean? Since Apple doesn't create Apps outside of their own software, how are they coasting? How would "open it up" make anything a different ballgame? The store is a mess with dead abandoned apps and poor quality junk. It's like a large warehouse full of crap that you can only look into on a small screen. Good luck finding the little known good stuff. It needs a good enema to clean out the crap first. Then create some sales performance standards that would delete apps automatically much faster than how Apple does it now. Just dropping the percentage wouldn't change much for the consumer experience.
Explain in the specific sense how a third party digital service has a monopoly over their product, case in case their App for iPhone users, considering that they aren't even allowed to process payments and bill their client within it? They aren't allowed to reference information outside the one offered in App ... so on and so forth?
Cheers.
PS: I agree with you that in principle companies and people should have all rights reserved over the properties they legally own and that any private licensing schemes or state regulation in the stack that void this principle should be null. That includes of course the current App Store policies.
Last edited:
I think his Space X's prices to travel in space are astronomical! I believe a trip around the globe should only cost $50 with a monthly space pass for $200.
Why is everyone acting like anything Musk says is Gospel? It's absolutely insane how everyone is just yes men to this brat.
Monopolies are not about a company controlling their own products bur rather controlling a market segment.
Capability and actual existence of are two different things. Otherwise, no company could really be considered to have a monopoly.
Also, having a monopoly is not itself illegal. The legal issues come in if a company uses their monopoly power inappropriately which is ultimately up to courts to decide.
Yep. There is no legal barrier to additional operating systems or app stores. Nor is apple operating illegally. Which is why governments are attempting to craft new legislation.
You don’t need a Mac to develop an app for iPhone, Visual Studio/ Xamarin both support features that allow app development on a Windows PC.
He’s not exactly saying anything original. He isn’t wrong but it’s pretty obvious. But the govts are zeroing in on apple.
Barriers to entry can come in different ways. The barrier to entry in this case is not allowing competing app stores to be added to a dominant mobile operating system. Microsoft got dinged in the 1990s for requiring their browser (only) to be included with Windows even though competing browsers, like Netscape, could still be added by end user later. Apple is including their App Store in iOS but is not allowing other app stores to be added later.
The above is not illegal. It is not illegal for a smartphone o/s to prohibit any App Store other than its own. Which as I point out some locations want to make illegal. And ios isn’t a dominant operating system by market share. It is dominant by revenue and popularity.
The above was a different scenario as Microsoft played dirty in a number of ways by prohibiting computer manufacturers to add another browser. That is not what apple is doing.
It is dominant by share. In the U.S., for example, iOS has around 58% share of the mobile OS market followed by Android with around 42%. This share is relevant as it drives usage of app stores.
Microsoft was saying to computer makers that in order to sell their computer with Windows, they had to include IE.
Apple is saying to app makers that in order to sell their app on iOS, they have to use Apple's App Store.
Because Windows and iOS were/are dominant in their respective markets, there are definite similarities.
World wide market share it is not dominant.
Yes, the strong-arming of computer manufacturers for various things got them in trouble. Paying (bribing) manufacturers is what fit Microsoft in trouble. Apple is not strong arming.
Yes, because it’s apples software and the iOS App Store is not portrayed as an open App Store.
There are similarities and dissimilarities. I’m guessing nuances matter..
The regulation encompassing Microsoft Windows integration of specific features had nothing to do with bribing cases. But claims of anti competitive practice that came foreword amongst third party apps developers such as web browser developers, media players … as well as competing digital services.
For me it’s quite clear that Apple was allowed by regulators to integrate vertically to an extent that competing OSs and platform builders were not allowed by law makers. Even Google.
Smartphones are today fundamentally pocket computers.
Apple is already talking marketing the same path for macOS as it did form iOS.
The way I see it there is a fare amount of duplicity in the regulators mindset, both in the US, EU Australia … and so on.
Cheers
Last edited:
Without the cell phone functionality, todays smartphones would be less popular. So they are fundamentally cel phones that do computer things.
Worldwide share doesn't necessarily matter as "monopoly" rules/regulations and suits are typically tied to smaller jurisdictions (e.g., country or continent), although can certainly have broader impact.
The so-called "strong arming" or bribing was not the crux of the Microsoft case. However, one could potentially argue that Apple is strong arming app developers to pay "exorbitant" (if 30% is determined to be so) commissions if they want to be able to sell their products on dominant iOS. Yes, app developers can say no but so could computer makers to Microsoft.
Yes, and it was Microsoft's software.
If world wide didn’t matter why is the EU trying to fine apple for its global revenues? Seems like they are cherry picking scenarios to regulate apple to their advantage.
One could try to argue apple is strong arming but a completely opt-in agreement would t go very far. In fact, it hasn’t. Apple with a ping world wide market share is different than Microsoft with a 96% world wide market share.
Yeah, people spend more time on it making and receiving calls over cellular network than computer things like browsing the web, editing photos, internet search, m-mail, facebook …. No, it’s not a pocket computer it’s a cell phone … dodging much?
I’m glad that at least you admit that the bribe lingo was an opinionated diversion to the actual point it was being made by the poster.
Last edited:
How come? You can read 10% of global revenue or a little less than 50% of its EU revenue.
I wonder if such heavy fine has nothing to do with Apple approach to fines in Holland … hummm ...
The stupid thing of all this is that in my view Apple could have avoided all this … including sideloading. By offering pay per use plans. Some devs only need to distribute their Apps … others might need to be listed in the App Store as well … other might need marketing on top … other might need payment processing … finally other might need universal billing. With the current model for instance no one knows exactly how much it costs the distribute an App. Recently we understood that payment processing and universal billing is around 3% considering their approach in Holland ...
On top the, arbitrary ad-hoc demands such as the one imposed to game streaming services to expose its entire catalogue to the App Store if eventually they want to offer their customer a native App … crazy monopolistic stuff. What’s next, all Netflix programming in the App Store ... individual series and all?
This would avoid the all thing of external links, or third party payment support and so on. The narrative would be drastically different. I think it was that easy.
Last edited:
Actually apple should have done a proper risk assessment before committing to sell in the EU. Maybe they did and knew the outcome 12 years ago and has profited immensely from it.
Yes. Maybe. Its very risky to do business in the EU I guess.
More so than in mainland China. Maybe the Chinese wall garden mentality is closer to Apple principles and yours than the liberal nature of the EU.
Censorship, Surveillance and Profits: A Hard Bargain for Apple in China (Published 2021)
Apple built the world’s most valuable business on top of China. Now it has to answer to the Chinese government.
Last edited: