It is essentially impossible to run a company without using ATT telecommunications infrastructure. ATT will grant developers a license to offer their apps using their property if you agree to follow their rules and pay them $ per year...
Not really, but the logic that company A owns some property that company B depends on implies that companyA deserves a share of all revenue from company B seems suspect to me. I mean I get that there needs to be an agreement over revenue owed (since company A does deserve compensation) but I don't think simply ATT being a public utility would logically preclude them from requiring payment - merely it would require them to treat everyone the same.
Could be, but all that does is add to my conclusion that the market didn't see this news as a win for Apple. You guys are merely arguing from an emotional position, not an objective one. I'm leaving it here, nothing more to add, we can go around in circles all day long. Over and out.
Right. The stock market, especially in the short run is a crappy prediction of what is going on. I suspect we had a lot of day trader who read the headlines and panicked. Heck, Sears which is known to be in deep trouble financially say their stock go up in the same period.
Objectively Apple won all but one point in the lawsuit and they only lost that one point because California's antitrust laws are far broader in scope than than even the Federal government.
I actually agree Apple has a right to charge licensing fees, rather I am more concerned with the efficacy and long term consequences of the way in which they currently operate the App Store. Continuing my analogy with ISPs. developers would be rightly outraged if ATT started charging a percentage fee of all developers that distributed content over their network. A similar logic to the one Apple uses would apply to this fee that ATT charged, that they built the infrastructure that these developers use to make money so its only logical that they get a cut.
The flaw here is that App Store exists on the Mac was well as iOS and you can side load all over the place on the Mac. In fact it is not uncommon for there to be two versions of programs - one for the external website and another for the App Store. More often than not the App Store version has fewer features.
Nope that’s a fat lie. There are multiple programs to make iOS software, you just need to Xcode to sign the thing needlessly. You could use Unreal Engine or Unity.
Facebook and those Apps are provided for free to everyone and their revenue is completely seperate of the app and so are many games. When a company decides to monetize the game, either through in App purchases or sale of the app itself then it is a business. Put simply if you look at it like a mall, most malls will let you stand inside and hand out free leaflets for an event as an example as long as it is not offensive, however if you try and setup a kiosk and sell stuff for free you are not allowed to unless you rent a space. Why should Apple let you sit in their mall and make money while they pay all the space and utilities payment etc. Not sure why this is a hard concept. If you want to sell your product in another companies space, there is rent, or in this case a service charge.
No Apple does not control the only mall in existence, even the judge stated that. Go to a Ford dealership and try to buy a Honda - that is how the judge saw Apple's market.
The yearly fee pays for among other things the priviledge of 'renting' the space. Tagging on 15% & 30% to in-app purchases is just an exercise in how to money grab.
