strawmanning an argument is pointless. but it's interesting you're trying to degrade Apple's decision by using Epic's predatory actions against children as an example
Last edited:
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.
Epic Games and Spotify Say Apple's Latest DMA Changes Are 'Illegal' and 'Deliberately Confusing'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Gotcha!
Again.
Yet another attempt at obfuscating Apple‘s gatekeeping market power.
There‘s a reason I‘ve had the signature line below my posts for a while.
👉 Wristwatches aren’t dedicated devices and they are no „platform“ product. Rolex aren’t an intermediary and there aren’t thousands of businesses that sell accessory products or value added services through Rolex that depend on the watch.
Also, Rolex and its biggest competitor do not command 90% of the entire watch market, let alone the entire market for all mechanical and quartz clock mechanisms that are used by third-Party businesses.
Besides, if we‘re talking about the „luxury“ subsegment of the smartphone market, what market share does Apple have? 50, 60, 70%?
Not true.
The App Store launched in July 2008. That was just one year after the iPhone launched.
And they announced their SDK only a few weeks after the iPhone launched - narrowly preempting Google and their announcement of Android. Cause Apple knew they wouldn’t stand a chance without native third-Party apps against Android that would have them from the get-go.
They‘re open source operating systems with proprietary components on top of them.
For which Apple Pay nothing or next to nothing on the open source core software.
Economy and society have great interest in software platforms that can be freely developed and distributed for.
And efficient and competitive intermediary markets for the distribution of digital goods/services.
When the free market doesn’t provide that, government step in with regulation - as they should.
Last edited:
There are many businesses and business models at many scales, a lot even successful for longer then Apple, that don’t have an issue with these or any other regulations.
Regulators don’t seam to have an issue with that at all. So it’s hard to understand how your statement reflects reality.
The world does not circle around Apple.
Last edited:
Hehehe. I suppose that could be also said to Apple regarding any other business connected to the Internet.
Last edited:
Just exactly what libraries are developers using if they want to move away from Apple's app store that is different to if they stayed in Apples app store? There is nothing and if there is it's because Apple recently introduced them to catch developers out in having to use them. Like creating an API if developers want to use links in their app that steers users away from the app to an external site, an API that was never there because the app store T&C's prevented such behaviour until the EU with it's DMA got involved and low and behold what does Apple do, create and API for external links.
So, please tell me what API's are Epic and Spotify using or going to use that constitute a 'license to make money' as you call it? and you cannot use the recently introduced API's Apple created because they are designed to prevent developers from moving away from the app store.
This narrative is bogus.
Nobody is saying that they can't monetize their IP, they just cannot do it in a way that is harmful to competition.
Apple has refused to let developers use alternative payment systems and has even pressured companies who aren't using IAP to implement it.
If Apples IP is appealing they should open it up to competition, if their payment system offers enough value people will choose to use it, if their App Store is offering people what they need they shouldn't need to force people to use it.
Last edited:
Here is @jakey rolling replying to my question if Apple should be allowed to ask developers for compensation to license iOS:
Yeah ok, not sure i 100% agree with that but I would say that I don't think Apple are by default entitled to 15-30% of somebody elses business in perpetuity because they have an iOS app.
Doubt Apple would've been cool with paying 15% of every iTunes purchase to Microsoft when they launched iTunes on Windows.
No need - I was a Windows Phone enjoyer. Ask me about my live tiles
Harmful is completely subjective and is the meme that keeps giving. I’m harmed because Spotify raised its prices. It’s a monopoly I say.
Why should they?
It’s their ip.
Disagree.
Name a way for Apple to monetise their IP while not harming the competition then.
It feels like everyone parroting this line would rather Apple not collect a cent from apps sold via third party app stores and via side loading, but given that the DMA does not expressly prohibit Apple from doing precisely that, I have been challenging the members here to create a proposal that they find acceptable, and so far, nobody has put forth anything.
If you ask me, the fairest way is to charge developers the same cut regardless of where the app is sold.
That would be quite literally the unfairest way imaginable.
"Look, we know your apps and your store won't be using any of our infrastructure and processes, but we still want to charge you the same exact amount of money"
The audacity of this thinking is utterly bewildering.
Look we know the EU has deregulated apple so that devs can now get a free ride on apples dime.
The audacity of agreeing with this line of thinking is bewildering.
If you want to play "pay whatever Apple is asking if you want to do any sort of business adjustent to theirs" card, you get a "sure, here's the fee if Apple wants to do any sort of business in the EU" right back at you.
If this was just about Apple’s IP or the cost of running the App Store they’d find another way to charge developers. And big name apps that are free to download and use would have to pay Apple something because it wouldn’t be tied to in-app purchases. It would be tied to app downloads or how much support Apple provides the developer.
Apple thinks if you buy an Apple product you’re their customer; they own the relationship with you and if someone else wants a relationship with you they need to pay Apple for access. But what if other companies did this too? What if AT&T said they deserved a cut of every iPhone, every iPad or Apple Watch with cellular sale because without their services these products would be pretty worthless? Would people here think that is legit?
For everyone who thinks Spotify wouldn’t exist without Apple and should be paying Apple something…do you disagree with Apple creating the reader app category that allows Spotify to have an app in the store that doesn’t have IAP and thus allows them to bypass paying Apple anything?
Apple thinks if you buy an Apple product you’re their customer; they own the relationship with you and if someone else wants a relationship with you they need to pay Apple for access. But what if other companies did this too? What if AT&T said they deserved a cut of every iPhone, every iPad or Apple Watch with cellular sale because without their services these products would be pretty worthless? Would people here think that is legit?
For everyone who thinks Spotify wouldn’t exist without Apple and should be paying Apple something…do you disagree with Apple creating the reader app category that allows Spotify to have an app in the store that doesn’t have IAP and thus allows them to bypass paying Apple anything?
Sure. But that doesn’t mean these regulations are good, or in the best interests of consumers or will even result in a “free market”. It’s a free market in apples dime only.
There is a general consensus among most economists that completely unlimited capitalism results in most markets being eventually cornered by very few gigantic players, which in turn do their absolute best to entrench themselves and prevent any new competition from ever reaching the top.
This leads to little to non-existant competition and stagnation. The idea that a "completely free market" eventually ends up killing itself is not really up for debate, it's quite settled. What IS up for debate is how much or how little regulation results in best long-term societal outcomes.
People in the EU are commonly of the opinion that inflicting strict limitations on how companies at the very top of the foodchain can behave which, yes, obviously does hurt them, makes completely sense when looking at the big picture.
It's a sad state of affairs over there in the US as this sort of thinking used to be common over there too (See forced break-ups of Standard Oil and the telecoms), but the US seems to have mostly abandoned pro-market thinking and adopted pro-megacorp thinking instead.
Last edited:
Ok but you’ve got absolutely no legislative power at all.
There is a whole host of other businesses that have complained to lawmakers about Apple’s business practices and in some areas the lawmakers have upheld the complaints.
Completely subjective maybe but if the courts and those that make the laws think your business is harming competition then theirs is the only opinion that matters.
They are monetizing their IP when they sell their extremely expensive hardware at near 40% margins
They are monetizing their IP when they charge the annual developer fee (there is nothing stopping them charging more for this that they currently do by the way)
They are monetising their IP when they charge for a purchase from one of their services.
None of these things are inherently anticompetitive.
They should not however ban third parties from actions that they use to promote their own services (linking to their own site, push notifications etc), force third parties to use their payment processing and the associated fees or give up in app payments/sign ups all together.
It's crazy to think a business like Netflix owes Apple 15% of the revenue on an ongoing basis if they want to allow their users to sign up in their iOS app.
Simple yes or no question for you. If Microsoft expected a 15-30% cut of every iTunes store purchase on Windows would you think that was fair?
Other than voting rights.
Citation.
Sure. And OJ was innocent.
No, it is the device sold not aligned with new
EU regulations
But we don't have to be worried: as EU imposed USB-C, let's give EU some months to reorganize new commissions,... then a$$le will be pushed again on the good road...
No, EU rebalances the power between monipolies and consumer...
Yeah you have voting rights in the country where you live but given that Apple are on the radar of regulators in half of the developed world not sure what good that is going to do you, but sure.
Have you been living under a rock?
Home - Coalition for App Fairness
App developers deserve a level playing field The Coalition for App Fairness is an independent nonprofit organization founded by industry-leading companies to advocate for freedom of choice and fair competition across the app ecosystem. Contact Us our vision Lear
appfairness.org
There are 15 different companies involved with the coalition for app fairness, several of which testified against Apple and Google to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Very much the precursor to the current US v Apple suit
That has since been expanded to tens of thousands of others that are in favor of regulating mobile app stores.
Thousands of European Small Businesses and App Developers Join CAF in Growing Movement
Thousands of European Small Businesses and App Developers Join CAF in Growing Movement By CAF Admin / January 23, 2024 BRUSSELS – Today, the Coalition for App Fairness …
www.egdf.eu