The way that I interpret "IAP" in this order is not the act of purchasing in the app, but rather Apple's specific system for enabling these transactions. There's quite a bit of discussion on Apple's specific system, and they even call out this this distinction on page 3.
That might be a good solution if it simplifies the process. Some states employ this system to calculate corporate tax — a gross receipts tax, or as they describe it — “the cost or privilege of doing business in the state”. Obviously there is an advantage to doing business in certain states — talent pool, cost of living, status — the state created the positive environment so they want to be compensated for it. This is a tax based on total receipts with no deductions for operating expenses. This is essentially the 30% cut, but maybe the cut could be lower but apply to everything, including ad revenue for free apps?
I don’t think so — I believe pricing will have to be the same. Why would a store be forced to advertise lower prices elsewhere — have you seen this in any other situation, in any other market?
What "monopoly"? Claiming Apple is a monopoly belongs in the same delusional world that Ford is a monopoly in selling new Ford vehicles (and certified used ones). I am really tired of people misusing the term "monopoly". Microsoft and Intel are more a monopoly than Apple could ever be in the PC world and no one is complaining about Microsoft's and Intel's continued effective strangle hold the PCs market.
You keep repeating this, but every quote you are using is out of context. The actual injunction is the text that matters and it is a very straight forward one page document with all of the relevant language in one paragraph:
Why wouldn't you want google (which is the more robust of the search engines) the default one? Yahoo has been a joke for a long time and the others even more so.
Well, keep waiting. There has to be some default, and this can be changed if the user wants. I’ve used other engines — I just prefer Google.
They know better, because money talks, bullsh*t walks. The stock price of all big companies moves almost instantaneously on news that effects future earnings. This was not a win for Apple.
Well, they could try as nothing is stopping them from doing it. Don’t forget that they collect subscription from the users of their network every month to help pay for their investment on infrastructure and making a profit at the same time.
No, it was all those Robinhooders with weak hands.
Your example is Safari??? An Apple app. Can other company load app not through the app store? No. Holy smokes. Name me an app that can be loaded on the iphone where a company doesn't have to give apple a cut? Can Netflix? Can Spotify?
He just did. You can load any web app you want, using safari or any other available web browser. You can save them as icons on your home screen. Netflix could. Spotify could. In the early days of iphone, that’s all ANYBODY did.
Not saying I don’t want Google, but there’s an argument that having it as the default is anti-competitive, it’s only default because Google give Apple money for it.
Wasn’t it big news that Apple was going to kill all games that used the Unreal Engine?
So when someone purchases a $1000 iPhone where does that go? Does none of that support the App Store?
You miss the part where Apple is given permission to permanently ban not only Epic Games but the Epic developer accounts for Unreal Engine. Basically Epic not only owes Apple money for their stunt, but they lost a year of revenue and tons of customers, and basically it is up to Apple if they can ever post a game or app on iOS again, on top of that Apple can even block the Unreal Engine which means some developers may chose other game engines to avoid the chance of that the their game gets blocked because the Unreal Engine becomes disqualified for approval on the app store . Basically Epic lost well... hate to use the pun.. but Epic took an Epic loss on this one.
So let me get this right... Apple created a whole industry (there was no market for apps in any comparison before apple) and you feel that you are some how owed a free ride on that network to get rich and Apple should just eat the cost for you? Try making any other product and selling it in a mall, you know where most malls rent spaces by the square foot and you have to pay rent regardless of how poor your sales are for your crummy product. The so called Sweetheart deals is that both Spotify and Netflix do not have any in app purchases to begin with, lots of people had accounts before that Apple was not really getting much anyway and any app can do that, not just netflix and spotify, if you want to charge for something you can sell codes on your website and customers can enter it themselves, just no one click solution where you pocket all the earnings. There are plenty of apps that do this and nothing stopping app developers from doing same.
Only Apple knows.
That wasn’t exactly what they were going to do, I think. I believe that the point was they were going to ban the Unreal developer account, which means the unreal engine couldn’t be signed, etc., and incorporated into future apps (at least not with any further updates). So existing apps would be fine, but since there wouldn’t be any further unreal updates, the end result is the same, just after more time.
So we should go back to prohibition and ban cigarettes anything addictive by your logic since isnt it a bit gross that these massive alchohol and tabacco companies are able to make fortunes out of people for buying addictive stuff... And if you think 100 dollars pays for storage, server security, bandwidth, advertising, payment processing, dispute resolution, technical support and development of APIs you are really not understanding it. The more successful developers do in many ways subsidize the the smaller developers. If the small developers had to pay the honest price for all that, without any garauntee on returns most would be out of business before they got anywhere. There are literally millions of games that are 100% free, millions of Apps like netflix and spotify that are 100% yet get the same support from Apple as the high value paid apps. And lets be reasonable, Apple is a business not a charity. Asking them to invest millions in creating new APIs, new software and hardware features that independant developers can exploit to create new software and new functions without any financial incentive is pretty sad. Shouldnt app developers have to put some back into the system? I mean if they were selling shirts they would have to pay rent at a mall or give a percentive to amazon etc, why should Apple have to do all that without making profit?
