EU Accuses Apple's App Store Steering Rules of Violating DMA and Opens Investigation into Developer Fees

[bcortens]

I'd throw this back at you and ask you to show me where it says that Apple isn't allowed to charge developers the CTF? There's not one word that says they can't. The free of charge bits don't say anything about Apple having to provide its Intellectual Property "free of charge". There's not one word that says "you can't charge developers for the tools and services you provide to have them develop on iOS."

IMO Apple already sold the customer a copy of the IP for the APIs that already exist on device.

At that point Apple can not charge developers from accessing the APIs that are already on the devices in consumers hands.

I've seen some argue in here that the DMA says you can't treat developers differently that use Apple's App Store any different than you treat developers who use alternate App Stores. That may be the case - and if so, my guess is Apple has an uphill climb to make the CTF stick unless they start applying to Apps in the Apple App Store too. But obviously Apple's lawyers think they can charge the CTF and it's legal. If the EU disagrees then Apple will have to change it or fight over it in court.

I'm not saying who is right and wrong - I am just saying the law is not clear on what is and isn't allowed. I'll note that while the EU said that Apple was out of compliance on steering, they were only "opening an investigation" on the CTF. I am sure that investigation is going to say it is out of compliance. But if it was 100% as clear cut as you are saying, they would have said they were out of compliance on the CTF - the CTF and steering provisions were announced at the same time.

I think its pretty clear that the CTF is making it hard or impossible for larger devs to take advantage of the supposed benefits of the DMA, which is why we aren't actually seeing a version of Spotify, Netflix, et.al. available through alternative distribution schemes where they could trial things like their own IAP systems. I also think it likely that this is why we aren't seeing alternative browsers showing up using their own rendering engines.

 

[Damian83]

Thy sell those because it meets peoples' needs at an affordable (for a Porsche) price point. Not everyone needs or wants leather, high end rims, etc. Those that want or need that have the option to do so, just like Apple offers options to upgrade as well.

blablabla 🥱😴
PS: my example with Porsche was ironic 🤦‍♂️. only apple still sells computers with 256gb ssd. Even ssd producers doesnt make them from many years... you can find them only 2nd hand nowadays 🤦‍♂️

 

[jlc1978]

The “independent” study has been carefully crafted to support Apple’s position. Apple don’t dare telling how much (of either revenue, downloads or purchase transactions) these “small” developers account for.

The Verge summed it up nicely when reporting on the announcement of the small business program.
Just one sentence about those small developers you need to take in:

“According to analytics company Sensor Tower, an estimated 98 percent of developers would be eligible for the 15 percent cut, but those developers generated just 5 percent of the App Store’s total revenue last year.”

Which is why I think alternate app stores will not be a big deal - small developers, which already aren't making a lot of money, likely will not want to go elsewhere and deal with multiple payment services and varying levels of support along with a much smaller audience. The App Store represents the biggest opportunity for them.

Larger developers account for most of all app downloads or revenue.

Which is why Apple needs to find ways to maintain that revenue stream. If a large developer wants to stay on the App Store and the CTF is deemed a violation, Apple will need to up the fees to stay on it, for everything from a developer account to per download fees perhaps. The model will be much more like EPIC's except only apply to the App Store unless the EU allows a similar fee structure as EPIC.

If it goes away, the EU App Store economics change drastically; and small developers certainly can't even begin to make up for the lost revenue and Apple will need to find a way to keep it profitable or drastically change its EU model.

That is my point with the statistics; along with most developers do not pay 30% so using that to show Apple's somehow gouging the small developers is incorrect; and the DMA likely will not help that much if at all and may hurt them in the end.

 

[jlc1978]

blablabla 🥱😴
PS: my example with Porsche was ironic 🤦‍♂️.

but relevant to a discussion of markets.

only apple still sells computers with 256gb ssd. Even ssd producers doesnt make them from many years... you can find them only 2nd hand nowadays 🤦‍♂️

What other manufacturers do is not that important to Apple, they need to hit price points that bring in customers and maintain margins. 8/256 is more than enough for many Mac users, so they offer one at a price that people are willing to pay. Adding features that make no difference to most buyers is stupid becasue all it does is raise your costs and cut into margin or the cost to the consumer for no added value.

 

[webkit]

only apple still sells computers with 256gb ssd. Even ssd producers doesnt make them from many years... you can find them only 2nd hand nowadays 🤦‍♂️

Plenty of companies besides Apple still sell computers with 256GB SSD including Acer, Dell, HP, Lenovo, Microsoft, etc.

 

[Beautyspin]

I'd throw this back at you and ask you to show me where it says that Apple isn't allowed to charge developers the CTF? There's not one word that says they can't. The free of charge bits don't say anything about Apple having to provide its Intellectual Property "free of charge". There's not one word that says "you can't charge developers for the tools and services you provide to have them develop on iOS."

I've seen some argue in here that the DMA says you can't treat developers differently that use Apple's App Store any different than you treat developers who use alternate App Stores. That may be the case - and if so, my guess is Apple has an uphill climb to make the CTF stick unless they start applying to Apps in the Apple App Store too. But obviously Apple's lawyers think they can charge the CTF and it's legal. If the EU disagrees then Apple will have to change it or fight over it in court.

Refer to the following sections in the DMA: 41, 43, 50, 53, 54, 57, 62, and further. Apple cannot self-preference itself. If it is charging CTF from 3rd party Appstore and its apps, it should do the same for apps in its store.

"The following benchmarks can serve as a yardstick to determine the fairness of general access conditions: prices charged or conditions imposed for the same or similar services by other providers of software application stores; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for different related or similar services or to different types of end users; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service in different geographic regions; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service the gatekeeper provides to itself."

DMA Wording

I'm not saying who is right and wrong - I am just saying the law is not clear on what is and isn't allowed. I'll note that while the EU said that Apple was out of compliance on steering, they were only "opening an investigation" on the CTF. I am sure that investigation is going to say it is out of compliance. But if it was 100% as clear cut as you are saying, they would have said they were out of compliance on the CTF - the CTF and steering provisions were announced at the same time.

What Lawyers think is irrelevant. Every loser thinks he will win until he loses.
Even Oracle as well as many experts (Apple and Oracle shills) predicted doom and gloom for Google when Oracle sued Google over Java. What happened? Apple is used to winning cases in the US because of the biased jury. There are no juries in the EU. They look at the intent which is clear in every paragraph of the regulation that I have attached. You can see that for yourself.

 

[Beautyspin]

That didn't really answer my question. I wasn't asking about Apple's obligations, I was asking what an 'environment of competition' looks like, and why the current situation doesn't qualify. If not, how will we know when we get there?

Interesting. No fewer than 19 different instances of the term 'free of charge' in the document.

View attachment 2392030

How clear is it? Should Paragraph 9 just include data like (for instance) location logs, browser history, etc.? Or would it also include Photos, Music, Books, Movies, transactions, etc.? Say a new mobile OS appears on the scene. Would the 'Gatekeeper' be obligated to develop new apps allowing all of these items to be transported to this new OS, 'for the effective exercise of such data portability'?

Paragraph 9 clearly states it is the data provided by the end-user. Whatever data the end-user provides/generates, is his. That includes everything. Why do you think there is ambiguity? It seems clear to me.

 

[NT1440]

blablabla 🥱😴
PS: my example with Porsche was ironic 🤦‍♂️. only apple still sells computers with 256gb ssd. Even ssd producers doesnt make them from many years... you can find them only 2nd hand nowadays 🤦‍♂️

This is just a straight up lie.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Which is why I think alternate app stores will not be a big deal

…unless someone does provide a very good store at much more favourable pricing - and it gains traction. I certainly wouldn’t put that beyond SetApp, for example.

Halving transaction costs from 30% to 15% for most sales and revenue is a big thing.
Even if Apple does it on their own store and most people continue to use that store.

It’s about keeping Apple not setting their prices unilaterally anymore.

Which is why Apple needs to find ways to maintain that revenue stream. If a large developer wants to stay on the App Store and the CTF is deemed a violation, Apple will need to up the fees to stay on it

Replace “need” with “want”.

They want to continue charging rent.
But they don’t need to - they’re still hugely profitable anyway.

Apple will need to up the fees to stay on it, for everything from a developer account to per download fees perhaps

Outright display of their greed and anti-developer stance is the beginning of showing the truth.

 

[jlc1978]

Refer to the following sections in the DMA: 41, 43, 50, 53, 54, 57, 62, and further. Apple cannot self-preference itself. If it is charging CTF from 3rd party Appstore and its apps, it should do the same for apps in its store.

"The following benchmarks can serve as a yardstick to determine the fairness of general access conditions: prices charged or conditions imposed for the same or similar services by other providers of software application stores; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for different related or similar services or to different types of end users; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service in different geographic regions; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service the gatekeeper provides to itself."

Certainly. Apple could take a page from EPIC and charge the CTF across the board after a certain threshold is met. They could be more generous than EPIC is by making it an annual threshold, not lifetime, much as they do with the CTF now. EPIC even gets it if all they do is let a user d/l the engine and collect the (much larger than Apple's) license fee for the higher tier versions.

They can point to what MS and Sony charge and conditions they impose; although as a gatekeeper some are already illegal for Apple. Steam gets 30% of each sale as well.

As for self preference, most of Apple's apps are free so the CTF doesn't apply to them just as it doesn't for any free apps, and since they are unlikely to offer 3rd party payment or billings it would not apply either. That leaves the 30% fee for apps that exceed Apple's threshold, which they could charge as an expense to the App Store and revenue for Apple, although it is strictly a transfer payment.

The question is not can Apple charge for access to its store and services, but how and how much will the EU think is reasonable. In the end, this is a fight between software giants over who gets how much of the revenue the App Store generates; especially since most of the revenue is from a few large developers or service providers.

Perhaps Apple should spinoff the EU store into its own wholly owned subsidiary, much like Claris, with its own P/L. That would clarify the costs and revenue to a certain extent.

EDIT: Typos fixed

 

[Damian83]

Plenty of companies besides Apple still sell computers with 256GB SSD including Acer, Dell, HP, Lenovo, Microsoft, etc.

yes, on netbooks worth 300€ or less...

 

[jlc1978]

…unless someone does provide a very good store at much more favourable pricing - and it gains traction. I certainly wouldn’t put that beyond SetApp, for example.

I use SetApp, becasue it is cheaper than subscribing to several apps I use regularly on my Mac. They are moving into iOS as well. I wonder how much money developers actually get from Set App, because my monthly payments certainly would result in a few pennies/month for the developers of the few dozen apps I have d/l'd.

I suspect most stores will have a hard time gaining the traction they need to really compete with the App Store at a price point that is much better and provide teh same level of services and access to a lucrative customer base.

Halving transaction costs from 30% to 15% for most sales and revenue is a big thing.
Even if Apple does it on their own store and most people continue to use that store.

It is already at 15% for most developers. Only the biggest revenue generating ones pay 30%, and generate most of the App Store's profit. However, the developers also are a lot of revenue off of the App Store, and it is not unreasonable for them to pay for that access to Apple's customer base.

Apple should allow true sideloading like the do on the Mac and I think that will eventually happen, Then, if EPIC doesn't want to pay Apple, they should roll their own app without using Apple's tools and start their own store to make it available. Pull the app from teh App Store, and make users with to EPIC's payment system and new app. If EPIC wants access to early betas, etc,., pay a new tiered developer fee similar to theirs for Unity. If tehy want to be on the App Store, pay Apple's commission or markup just as any retailer gets.

It’s about keeping Apple not setting their prices unilaterally anymore.

However, their pricing isn't that out of line with many app stores in various markets.

Replace “need” with “want”.

They want to continue charging rent.
But they don’t need to - they’re still hugely profitable anyway.

As a for profit company, they rightly want to protect their revenue streams. The should not be forced to provide free or thin margin pricing simply because they are successful; even though forcing them to open up to allowing competing stores is not unreasonable.

Outright display of their greed and anti-developer stance is the beginning of showing the truth.

I just don't get this "Apple's greedy and anti-developer" stance. Apple's App Store has enabled small developers to reach a large and lucrative customer base for virtually no up front costs beyond the developer's fee, which is very low. They made development tools available for free as well. Developers get a much bigger hunk of an app's price then they did under the old ways of software distribution for essentially no up front financial risk.

I get that some people don't like that Apple had the only way to distribute iPhone apps, but developers still flocked to it for teh same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks, because that's where the money is.

What Apple is against is developers making large amounts of money off of the App Store and not wanting to pay Apple for access to Apple's customer base. Why should EPIC and Spotify get a free ride? If Apple's such a bad deal as soon as sideloading becomes avaiable leave and go it alone. Spotify already could do that with a web app but they know the customer experience would be worse and likely cause them to lose subscribers so they stay on teh App Store. A long as they want that I think Apple should be free to charge them for access because it is unreasonable, IMHO, for Apple to be forced to allow a competitor free access to their store.

 

[chmania]

It is already at 15% for most developers. Only the biggest revenue generating ones pay 30%, and generate most of the App Store's profit.

What most people don't (or won't) understand is that 15% (or 30%) is actually is paid by the user. The developer includes that in the price. So, actually, Apple is charging their own users additionally for using Apple devices, bought with their own money. The DMA might curb that, at least in the EU. When you can buy the same app at lesser price through the developer's web site, or another app store...

 

[Damian83]

What other manufacturers do is not that important to Apple, they need to hit price points that bring in customers and maintain margins. 8/256 is more than enough for many Mac users, so they offer one at a price that people are willing to pay. Adding features that make no difference to most buyers is stupid becasue all it does is raise your costs and cut into margin or the cost to the consumer for no added value.

You and all people repeating "most people won't notice the difference" looks like living in a bubble and never been out of it seeing reality. Most people (AKA noobs) needs more resources than experienced users (far lower user base %) and now i tell you how a noob's pc looks like:

Plenty of useless files, mostly pics or videos, but even old documents, total mess on the desktop, full trash bin. 0 knowledge about external drives, other than slow usb 2.0 thumb drives that needs an adapter to be connected to a macbook. 256gb? a joke. Those people keeps repeating "one day" ill make some order and remove useless files. Those files are actually "removed" thanks to a "superior force" like a drive failure. Otherwise those files will be transfered endlessly from a pc to the newer waiting for that superior force.

Plenty of browser's opened tabs (ive seen iphones with maybe 200 tabs opened at once), but on pc is the same, and plenty of opened apps (what is that black dot under apps icons?), pc never restarted totally because macbook's standard behavior is to stop it, leaving everything in the ram. 8gb? a joke.

Those people after max 2 years begin to say "u know, my macbook became slow recently, i need a new one", then buy the newer version with again base specs, when in fact was enough to remove some junk, format it and go well for another 2 years.

And now most of you also say "u can customize it". yes, but most people doesnt even know what the hell is ram and if 256gb is low or high. also, ive never bought from apple store. why i should pay 1300€ for a macbook if i can buy it for 1100€ from another retailer? however i cant get customized versions, but even if i can... jeez i just checked how much costs upgrading 256gb to 1tb for a mb air...460€!!! do u all realize a ps5 with even faster ssd costs the same??? the day ill tatoo "idiot" on my front, ill also buy a customized device from apple store 🤦‍♂️

 

[Beautyspin]

As for self preference, most of Apple's apps are free so the CTF doesn't apply to them just as it doesn't for any free apps, and since they are unlikely to offer 3rd party payment or billings it would not apply either. That leaves the 30% fee for apps that exceed Apple's threshold, which they could charge as an expense to the App Store and revenue for Apple, although it is strictly a transfer payment.

CTF applies to free apps too. So, unless Apple charges those same apps the same CTF in the Appstore, it will be considered self-preferencing, I guess.

Apple’s new Core Technology Fee could cost free apps $400,000 a month (or you can just stick with the old App Store rules)

Think back to 2013. An unknown developer in Vietnam built a truly simple game with a silly name that exploded to 90 million downloads on mobile app %

www.singular.net

The question is not can Apple charge for access to its store and services, but how and how much will the EU think is reasonable. In the end, this is a fight between software giants over who gets how much of the revenue the App Store generates; especially since most of the revenue is from a few large developers or service providers.

The EU will not say how much to charge for anything. They can charge a million-per-install for all they care. But it should be the same for all.

Perhaps Apple should spinoff the EU store into its own wholly owned subsidiary, much like Claris, with its own P/L. That would clarify the costs and revenue to a certain extent.

Then the spun off store has to have the same rules as any third party Appstore. That means, every install of the Appstore itself counts towards the initial million installs and then will attract 0.5 Euro per install thereafter. With 101 million iOS users and 21 million iPadOS users, that will bankrupt Apple first.

 

[GrayFlannel]

Both. One thing for certain is the lawyers get paid in the end. Confusion in laws is good for lawyers, accountants and consultants because there is profit in confusion.

The tedious attorney conspiracy schtick.

 

[webkit]

yes, on netbooks worth 300€ or less...

The point remains that there are still plenty of desktop and laptop computers being sold by several companies with 256GB SSD, including some much more expensive than 300 euros.

 

[Damian83]

The point remains that there are still plenty of desktop and laptop computers being sold by several companies with 256GB SSD, including some much more expensive than 300 euros.

ive said ssd manufacturers doesnt retail sale 256gb. most models starts from 512-1tb. then produce crappy 256gb oem for crappy and cheap pcs and...expensive macbooks!

 

[jlc1978]

What most people don't (or won't) understand is that 15% (or 30%) is actually is paid by the user. The developer includes that in the price. So, actually, Apple is charging their own users additionally for using Apple devices, bought with their own money. The DMA might curb that, at least in the EU.

That's no different than any store who pays X for product and charges the consumer a higher price than they paid.

When you can buy the same app at lesser price through the developer's web site, or another app store...

Given none seemed to drop the price when Apple reduced their fee by 50%, I doubt we'll see any noticeable price drops; plus I doubt any store will be able to charge much less than Apple and be profitable.

The tedious attorney conspiracy schtick.

No conspiracy. As a consultant I've made good money profiting off of confusion.

You and all people repeating "most people won't notice the difference" looks like living in a bubble and never been out of it seeing reality.

Considering I've been using Macs professional for over 30 years I think I have a pretty good grip on reality.

Most people (AKA noobs) needs more resources than experienced users (far lower user base %) and now i tell you how a noob's pc looks like:

I've seen plenty of "noob" pcs and helped them clean up the device and change a few habits so that their machine magically is good enough again. They don't need higher specs, they need a little education.

As for experienced users, I've seen plenty that use poor practices as well.

I find the idea of throwing cash at specs you don't need in reality a stupid waste of money better spent on other things. That's like saying I need a bigger house simply because one room will get dirty and cluttered so I just need to move to teh next room.

CTF applies to free apps too. So, unless Apple charges those same apps the same CTF in the Appstore, it will be considered self-preferencing, I guess.

Uh, no:
Apple provides conditions where many developers do not pay the CTF. Developers whose apps do not surpass one million first annual installs per year and nonprofits, educational institutions, and government entities with an Apple Developer Program fee waiver do not pay the CTF. The CTF is also not required for developers with a no revenue business that offer free apps without monetization. Additionally, small developers (earning less than €10 million in global business revenue) are provided with a 3-year free on-ramp to the CTF and won't pay the CTF for first annual installs that exceed the threshold within a 3-year period.


So Apple would not need to charge the CTF for its free apps and be no different fro any other developer.

The EU will not say how much to charge for anything. They can charge a million-per-install for all they care. But it should be the same for all.

And it can, based on size. Nothing says one size must fit all, so distinguishing between develops, an industry standard practice, should be fine.

Then the spun off store has to have the same rules as any third party Appstore. That means, every install of the Appstore itself counts towards the initial million installs and then will attract 0.5 Euro per install thereafter. With 101 million iOS users and 21 million iPadOS users, that will bankrupt Apple first.

A spun off wholly owned sub sends all the money back to the mothership, so Apple will be simply paying Apple, just appearing on a different P&L. Even so, the CTF for 121 million users is an amount Apple could pay out of petty cash.
Let's assume each new iPhone sale in the EU also pays the CTF; that .5cents is nothing and easily paid from each sale.

 

[webkit]

ive said ssd manufacturers doesnt retail sale 256gb. most models starts from 512-1tb. then produce crappy 256gb oem for crappy and cheap pcs and...expensive macbooks!

Once again, plenty of pricier (well over 300 euros) desktop and laptop computers are still being sold with 256GB SSD. Apple is hardly the only one. Your comment that "only apple still sells computers with 256gb ssd" is incorrect.

 

[bcortens]

Uh, no:
Apple provides conditions where many developers do not pay the CTF. Developers whose apps do not surpass one million first annual installs per year and nonprofits, educational institutions, and government entities with an Apple Developer Program fee waiver do not pay the CTF. The CTF is also not required for developers with a no revenue business that offer free apps without monetization. Additionally, small developers (earning less than €10 million in global business revenue) are provided with a 3-year free on-ramp to the CTF and won't pay the CTF for first annual installs that exceed the threshold within a 3-year period.


So Apple would not need to charge the CTF for its free apps and be no different fro any other developer.

From your own link, if you actually read the definition of what qualifies you would find that free apps are not subject to the CTF only in specific cases:

• Non-profit organizations, governments and education institutions with an Apple Developer Program fee waiver.
• Non-commercial developers with a no revenue business offering a free app without any monetization.
• Small developers (earning less than €10 million global business revenue) that have not previously exceeded one million first annual installs receive a 3-year free on-ramp to the CTF.

None of these describe Apple.

Thus any of Apple's free apps with exceed the annual install threshold (which would likely be all of them) would need to be charged the CTF with all of the associated accounting and tax implications.

A spun off wholly owned sub sends all the money back to the mothership, so Apple will be simply paying Apple, just appearing on a different P&L. Even so, the CTF for 121 million users is an amount Apple could pay out of petty cash.
Let's assume each new iPhone sale in the EU also pays the CTF; that .5cents is nothing and easily paid from each sale.

The thing with the CTF is that Apple would have to pay it per app, and each payment from the subsidiary to Apple would be subject to tax burden. So Apple would also have to pay additional tax on this. This wouldn't be trivial from either a monetary perspective or a documentation and bureaucracy perspective.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The EU needs to tell Apple they can charge an annual developer fee, and that's it, to cover remuneration for their tools.

The CTF concept is flat out stealing money they have no business getting any of.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Apple provides conditions where many developers do not pay the CTF. Developers whose apps do not surpass one million first annual installs per year and nonprofits, educational institutions, and government entities with an Apple Developer Program fee waiver do not pay the CTF. The CTF is also not required for developers with a no revenue business that offer free apps without monetization. Additionally, small developers (earning less than €10 million in global business revenue) are provided with a 3-year free on-ramp to the CTF and won't pay the CTF for first annual installs that exceed the threshold within a 3-year period.

Doesn't this indicate that Apple seeks to tax businesses that dare to be successful in the long-term? The same thing that people in here are accusing the European Union of doing?

 

[AppliedMicro]

I'd throw this back at you and ask you to show me where it says that Apple isn't allowed to charge developers the CTF? There's not one word that says they can't. The free of charge bits don't say anything about Apple having to provide its Intellectual Property "free of charge". There's not one word that says "you can't charge developers for the tools and services you provide to have them develop on iOS."

I agree on that. The yearly developer subscription is a charge for the tools and services - and no one seems to take issue with that.

But if it was 100% as clear cut as you are saying, they would have said they were out of compliance on the CTF - the CTF and steering provisions were announced at the same time.

Wait a moment… do you mean Apple’s anti-steering provisions that they were fined for?

On those, they were found not in violation of the DMA - but according to the much older “Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU')”.

As for self preference, most of Apple's apps are free so the CTF doesn't apply to them

They’re self-preferencing their own store over other stores.

It is already at 15% for most developers

Most developers are meaningless. They only account for a small fraction of sales.

However, the developers also are a lot of revenue off of the App Store, and it is not unreasonable for them to pay for that access to Apple's customer base.

I believe the same is true for internet access providers providing internet access between Apple and their customers.

The EU wanted to enable ISPs charging Large Traffic Generators (like Apple, I suppose, too) for internet traffic through EU regulation, you know?

I’m sure it’s not unreasonable for Apple to pay a 30% cut on their software revenue, given how much traffic that produces, is it?

However, their pricing isn't that out of line with many app stores in various markets.

But it is out of line with payment processing.

When a customer subscribes to a music streaming service or buy some „coins“ or weapons for their digital avatar within an app, that transaction does not happen on or from a marketplace. It happens on the app developer‘s turf - not Apple‘s.

The only thing Apple is providing at this point is transaction processing. Payment processing, that can be had for less than 3 and little else (that developers want or need anyway).

 

[psingh01]

ive said ssd manufacturers doesnt retail sale 256gb. most models starts from 512-1tb. then produce crappy 256gb oem for crappy and cheap pcs and...expensive macbooks!

First search I did showed a $999 surface laptop with 256gb ssd.