Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
American Express charges the highest, at that time (maybe someone charges more now) and answered the question of why so many stores don't accept their cards. It's the cost. But American Express does a lot more for their cardholders and I appreciate their 'value add'.

And have you looked at your credit card fees lately? The past due fees, bounced check fees, bad card fees, and all of it are ridiculous. BIG MONEY! They rape people for as much as they can get when they think they can get away with it. It's called Capitalism.

I tink I was paying somewhere around/north of 8% for Amex card processing. Oh, and paying more for times when the card wasn't available. It's a racket, and don't kid yourself it's not.
You weren't paying Amex 8%. You were paying a third party processor 8% to handle the Amex transactions. Amex still only got 3% tops. Trust me... It's my job to know. ;)
Third party processors were the main reason for lack of card acceptance. Visa and MC had placed restrictions on stores as to what cards they could accept in the contracts. They finally got sued by the feds and those clauses were voided as anti-competitive. Visa had to pay Amex $2 billion as a result. I don't recall what MC had to pay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG88
There are always fanboys who will defend Apple, the most valuable company in the world, no matter what they do. There are also always haters who will complain about Apple no matter what they do.

I love Apple and their products. I love my iPhone 12 and Apple Watch, and intend to keep using a Mac as my primary machine. That being said, I have enough of a backbone to have my own personal opinion on these issues and not magically line up with Tim Cook and Craig Federighi on every single tech issue under the sun.

Apple is wrong on this one. iPhones aren't game consoles and toys where it makes sense for Apple to restrict every piece of software allowed on it, and take a significant cut of payment for services including ones that can be used outside Apple's ecosystem, AND at the same time put significant restrictions on the type of content allowed in games.

Microsoft got in trouble for being anti-competitive with Windows back in the day. Capitalism doesn't mean survival of the fittest, no matter what impact it might have on people's everyday lives. When 9 out of 10 teens own an iPhone in the US, and they're essentially locked into that essential device with iMessage and FaceTime, AND Apple dominates the watch market, AND the music streaming market, AND the headphone market... they don't get to have unchecked control of all software without being asked a few tough questions by a judge. Sorry but if anyone is really butthurt that Apple got sued for forbidding any app sending you to a website to buy something just so they can take 15 to 30 percent of your Netflix and Spotify subscription.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry but pay to play games are stupid - people are just wasting their money - I had a friend hooked on "Game of War" in 2 years he spent $14,000.00 playing that game. It's sad for some with addictions.

Sorry, one face didn't quite do it.

😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧😧

I heard a convo, at an airport, between two brothers. One was raking the other over the coals for 'paying for sex'. It caught my attention. Apparently the other brother was sleeping with (prostitutes) and was adamant that it was cheaper than getting married. The one brother was flipping out. 'CHEAPER?!?! It's most definitely NOT CHEAPER!' It got me thinking... Oh, wait... Whatever...

But paying repeatedly for a game? Talk about the XBox, the Playstation, and how many other one armed bandit game machines. I *buy* a game, and have to buy a *subscription* just to play it? That really makes a lot less than 0% sense.

They are CHARGING me to PLAY MY GAME THAT I ALREADY BOUGHT? RIPOFF!!!
 
Card processors charge both a fixed and variable rate. Say 20 cents plus 2%. So on a $1 sale, that rate can easily be higher than 20%
Card processors are still regulated on what fees they can charge.
You have a base transaction fee and then a negotiated percentage after a certain dollar amount.
Most retailers factor that base fee into their cost of doing business. Small mom and pop shops will typically put restrictions on card purchases, min purchase amount, to offset the fee.
 
Or the judge does understand all this but your explanation of why Apple does it completely contradicts the way things work on the Mac, where Apple has an App Store but consumers are still able to purchase apps from wherever they please.

Tim basically confirmed the only reason they do this is to get more money. If they were to lock down the Mac the same way as the iPhone, the majority of Mac users would leave the platform.
It seems you didn't understand my post. Why don't you read it again...
 
What a lousy biased judge. Apple provides a lot for it’s developers. Sometimes I think they fall short but they’ve corrected themselves (see Apple silicon DTK return credit) Apple holds WWDC, has plenty of resources, introduces new and useful APIs every year for developers to build new functionality into their apps, etc.

I love how people want a free and open market, and then want to regulate apple to their advantage. I thought the idea behind a free market is to let Apple do what Apple feels is best. If customers don’t like it, go to Android or build your own.

I’m not defending Apple here, there was a lot of damning information against them. It’s clear that they do not treat all developers equally, but I disagree with what Epic is trying to accomplish. Whether apple should allow side loading of apps is another story, but in the current situation of how things were/are being handled, I do not like Epic’s goals or values.

Couldn't disagree more.

1. "Apple provides a lot for its developers." - So what. This doesn't excuse anticompetitive practices! What is an example of a monopoly in your mind if this isn't one? Apple stifles the entire in-app purchase market in a "virtual embargo" capacity.

2. "I love how people want a free and open market, and then want to regular Apple to their advantage." - Um, this isn't a free an open market; that's the whole point of this. When you argue this, you argue that the free market applies to hardware selection but then just stops applying to virtual markets. It makes no sense! Does Apple's income and profit stop at the moment you select your phone? No. So why should antitrust law?

3. "I’m not defending Apple here." - Yes you are. This isn't about "side loading". I hate the term. This is about simply loading. They created the monstrosity of proprietary installation to begin with, doubled down on it time and time again when it proved to be profitable, and then deemed installation by another means as some fringe installation outside of their parameters. That's garbage; they created iOS to be that way for specific purposes—one of which was profit. If I intentionally create a slave market, are you skirting slavery to not participate in it, or are you simply participating in freedom, your default state?

Point blank — Apple is wrong here in its anticompetitive nature, but the effects of Apple's anticompetitiveness have not necessarily all been bad. Most of the time it has been great for users in terms of phone security, stability, consistency, fraud protection, etc. It's created a market of trust for the otherwise untrustworthy! But even in light of all of these benefits, it still doesn't exempt Apple from antitrust behavior. I really think we're seeing the end of the tightly-controlled App Store era regardless of the outcome of this case. And the sky will not fall either when it happens.
 
I hope this lunatic judge doesn't end up destroying my beloved platform. Sure it's a walled garden, but it's a safe, well maintained, privacy oriented one. If I wasn't happy, I'd go buy an Android. Let the consumers choose what they want, we're perfectly capable of choosing for ourselves, thank you.

Also: in a brick and mortar store, it's the store that sets the retail price. If Apple cannot take a share of the subsequent in app sales, then it should have the ability to set the initial retail price of a given app to whatever it deems fit to pay for the upkeep of the App Store and the like. I don't think it's better for the user, though, and I'd rather it stays like it is now.
 
You weren't paying Amex 8%. You were paying a third party processor 8% to handle the Amex transactions. Amex still only got 3% tops. Trust me... It's my job to know. ;)
Third party processors were the main reason for lack of card acceptance. Visa and MC had placed restrictions on stores as to what cards they could accept in the contracts. They finally got sued by the feds and those clauses were voided as anti-competitive. Visa had to pay Amex $2 billion as a result. I don't recall what MC had to pay.

It's a distinction without a purpose. Non sequitur.

We *had* to pay a fee to accept credit cards, and whether Amex got 1% of that, or 95% of that, we had to pay it. Whatever...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ececlv
There are always fanboys who will defend Apple, the most valuable company in the world, no matter what they do. There are also always haters who will complain about Apple no matter what they do.

I love Apple and their products. I love my iPhone 12 and Apple Watch, and intend to keep using a Mac as my primary machine. That being said, I have enough of a backbone to have my own personal opinion on these issues and not magically line up with Tim Cook and Craig Federighi on every single tech issue under the sun.

Apple is wrong on this one. iPhones aren't game consoles and toys where it makes sense for Apple to restrict every piece of software allowed on it, and take a significant cut of payment for services including ones that can be used outside Apple's ecosystem, AND at the same time put significant restrictions on the type of content allowed in games.

Microsoft got in trouble for being anti-competitive with Windows back in the day. Capitalism doesn't mean survival of the fittest, no matter what impact it might have on people's everyday lives. When 9 out of 10 teens own an iPhone in the US, and they're essentially locked into that essential device with iMessage and FaceTime, AND Apple dominates the watch market, AND the music streaming market, AND the headphone market... they don't get to have unchecked control of all software without being asked a few tough questions by a judge. Sorry but if anyone is really butthurt that Apple got sued for forbidding any app sending you to a website to buy something just so they can take 15 to 30 percent of your Netflix and Spotify subscription.
What lock-in? Surely signal can be installed on android?
Yesterday I wanted to install a crypto wallet on android. Hesitated and chickened out because of security concerns. Google selling data as hell. So yes Apple has to earn money too.

And in the EU probably 9 out of 10 use android.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Couldn't disagree more.

1. "Apple provides a lot for its developers." - So what. This doesn't excuse anticompetitive practices! What is an example of a monopoly in your mind if this isn't one? Apple stifles the entire in-app purchase market in a "virtual embargo" capacity.

2. "I love how people want a free and open market, and then want to regular Apple to their advantage." - Um, this isn't a free an open market; that's the whole point of this. When you argue this, you argue that the free market applies to hardware selection but then just stops applying to virtual markets. It makes no sense! Does Apple's income and profit stop at the moment you select your phone? No. So why should antitrust law?

3. "I’m not defending Apple here." - Yes you are. This isn't about "side loading". I hate the term. This is about simply loading. They created the monstrosity of proprietary installation to begin with, doubled down on it time and time again when it proved to be profitable, and then deemed installation by another means as some fringe installation outside of their parameters. That's garbage; they created iOS to be that way for specific purposes—one of which was profit. If I intentionally create a slave market, are you skirting slavery to not participate in it, or are you simply participating in freedom, your default state?

Point blank — Apple is wrong here in its anticompetitive nature, but the effects of Apple's anticompetitiveness have not necessarily all been bad. Most of the time it has been great for users in terms of phone security, stability, consistency, fraud protection, etc. It's created a market of trust for the otherwise untrustworthy! But even in light of all of these benefits, it still doesn't exempt Apple from antitrust behavior. I really think we're seeing the end of the tightly-controlled App Store era regardless of the outcome of this case. And the sky will not fall either when it happens.

Anti-competitive? So will Microsoft be suing Apple next? Good grief, for giving away X-Code.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: bwillwall
It's a distinction without a purpose. Non sequitur.

We *had* to pay a fee to accept credit cards, and whether Amex got 1% of that, or 95% of that, we had to pay it. Whatever...
It's relevant to what Apple is doing here.
Charging a 30% fee to simply process the transaction. Because really, that is all they are doing at that point.
As a merchant you could always chose another card processor. With the App Store, you only have one choice.
 
Microsoft got in trouble for being anti-competitive with Windows back in the day. Capitalism doesn't mean survival of the fittest, no matter what impact it might have on people's everyday lives. When 9 out of 10 teens own an iPhone in the US, and they're essentially locked into that essential device with iMessage and FaceTime, AND Apple dominates the watch market, AND the music streaming market, AND the headphone market... they don't get to have unchecked control of all software without being asked a few tough questions by a judge. Sorry but if anyone is really butthurt that Apple got sued for forbidding any app sending you to a website to buy something just so they can take 15 to 30 percent of your Netflix and Spotify subscription.

At the end of the day, there are two types of the people.

Those who see the market share that Apple has in some markets and believe that they deserve more regulation and oversight because of that.

And those who see the business decisions Apple made (offer consumers a premium user experience that they are willing to pay for) that led them to having this dominant market share, and go “that’s why!”

People want Apple products for the experience that they offer. Why have all that compromised in a lawsuit by a company who has shown that he is clearly not doing this for benefit of users or developers?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
"If we allowed developers to link out like that, we would give up our monetization," said Cook. "We need a return on our IP. We have 150,000 APIs to create and maintain, numerous developer tools, and processing fees."

So the Mac's 150,000 APIs, dev tools processing fees etc somehow gets paid by themselves just fine on the Mac, but on iPad you need 30% to cover those costs?

B.S.

Screen_Shot_2021-05-21_at_7_23_56_PM_2-2.png
 
Last edited:
Judge is bringing up some good points. I don’t think that means she is biased or sided with Epic.
I agree. The Judge asked the tough questions that others wanted to be asked. It had to get out there and it was also a chance for Apple t respond and make their argument. If the judge didn't ask these questions they would have been labeled as biased for Apple so really they couldn't win. The only thing they could do is ask the same questions people on here ask. A better understanding is really needed of the economics and how the business model works to really give a ruling on the subject.

This should not just be an opinion based ruling and Apple needs to really explain why to all these questions.
 
Definitions of adjective 'Promiscuous' from Oxford English Dictionary:

1 having or characterized by many transient sexual relationships: promiscuous teenagers | they ran wild, indulging in promiscuous sex and experimenting with drugs.

2 demonstrating or implying an undiscriminating or unselective approach; indiscriminate or casual: the city fathers were promiscuous with their honors. • consisting of a wide range of different things: Americans are free to pick and choose from a promiscuous array of values and behavior.

Not everything is about 'sex'.
I see we can’t take a joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
Apple should just block in-app purchases, then watch all of the developers who abuse in-app purchases in free to play games leave in their droves. They can justify the no in-app purchases rule as protecting kids from predatory marketing policies etc. Apple have plenty of cash and can easily take the hit.
 
Compare the App Store to a Shopping Mall:

SHOPPING MALL
• You have to pay a security deposit and other fees in advance.
• To sell your products you'll need to pay rent every month. Your Landlord doesn't care how much money you make in sales each month. He will still collect the rent every month if you didn't make a penny.
• The more products you want to sell, the bigger the space you'll need to rent which increases your costs.
• If you want more people to enter your store at once, you'll have to get a bigger space, and that also increases your costs.
• You only get a space, you'll need to remodel it, paint it, get furniture, etc.
• You'll have to pay utilities every month.
• You'll need to pay Business Tax to the City, County and State where your store is located.
• Even if you want to give your products away for free, you must pay rent and Business Tax (see above) each month.
• You'll probably want to advertise so people would come to your store.

APP STORE
• You pay $99 each year. That's all.
• Get all the tools you need to develop your app.
• No monthly costs, only pay either 15 or 30% of your sale.
• Your App is exposed to an unlimited number of people.
• All the behind the scenes operations (Server maintenance, security, redundancy, backup and disaster recovery, internet bandwidth, delivery, eCommerce, etc.) are managed by Apple.
• You can have as many Apps as you want, at no extra charge.
• If millions download your App, you don't have to pay for bandwidth, even if your app is 1 GB in size.


(I'm tired of typing, been doing it all day, so someone continue with it or just drop it)
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.