How did they add anti-competively? Now if for example they were favoring Apple Music instead of Spotify you could say they acted anticompetitively. Not in this case?
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.
Judge Says Apple Has Until December 9 to Make App Store Change Letting Developers Link to Alternate Payment Methods
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually, that is very much the case where I live. I pay about $15 a month for my mobile plan (unlimited everything w/ 5Gb of rollover data I’ve banked up to nearly a 100gb during the pandemic) and about $50 a month for a 500Mbps synchronous fiber connection at home (it was under $35 for the first two years).
That’s what happens in countries that actually invest in infrastructure rather than cutting corners at every turn in the name of funneling more and more cash into corporate profits.
But, all that aside, your logic is comically flawed, since you seem to be suggesting that there was no need to break up the monstrosity that was Ma Bell because what replaced her wasn’t perfect to the last detail.
How preposterous.
Sure but Apple can still charge them 30% of their revenue from the App Store. It might not be instantaneous splitting of the revenues but it can be done.
Yes, exactly.
See above.
Not me, the judge. I'm just one guy with an opinion, no different than you or anyone else around here.
Exactly. Apple charging a commission For use of its intellectual property is not anti-competitive.
Because the people who create websites have to program to the lowest common denominator.
For many years it was internet explorer holding back progress on the web for everyone. Now it’s Safari.
Actually it's a perfect example of government trying to right one legal issue and ending up with something years later that's seems to show it should have been handled in a different way. I don't think the America people find the expense and lack of competition of cell phone service very comical.
Comes time, comes App, comes sideloaading…If only Epic had an app in the App Store that could take advantage of this…
Actually it’s good that Apple is blocking, this just prominently shows how anticompetitive Apples business is.
The fight will continue, with and additionally without EPIC.
And no different from the judge, who is just a person offering an opinion. The difference being they are in a position of authority to translate their opinion into law.
In a microcosm, is Apple preventing third parties from linking to external payment anti-competitive? Probably.
In a much bigger picture, who the hell are we (or the judge) to tell Apple what they can or can't do their with platform?
No they don’t, they can choose to ignore safari if they want.
Yeah, totally. That’s how you make all the money, right?
You just write off and ignore a massive chunk of the most affluent potential customers on the planet.
Wow. ?
Well that’s a business decision each individual business needs to make…
Ma Bell was broken up into Bellsouth, AT&T Corp., Ameritech, Pacific Telesis, Southwestern Bell (all part of the modern AT&T), Bell Atlantic, NYNEX (both part of Verizon) and US West. It's almost like the massive consolidation of allowing the AT&T breakup to be nearly entirely undone was a bad thing or something..
Um, it's literally her job to make judgements related to the law...
If you'd like anarchy, go create your own society.
And yet Apple just dropped the price to 15%. If 30% was what the market would bear, why would Apple take less? You think they did it from the goodness of their hearts lol?
This just gets sillier and sillier, huh?
There an an estimated 1 billion iPhone users in the world. Plus however many use iPads. And since every browser on every iOS device is actually just a reskinned Safari, anyone with a product to sell choosing to “ignore” those billion people rather than support Safari is a self destructive fool.
That’s why it’s vitally important that a company with Apple’s reach not hold back progress — except that just like Internet Explorer before it, Safari is doing exactly that.
“Just ignore them.”
Good lord.
Browsers exist on other platforms. No one is forced to work with Safari if they don’t want to. Make it work with Firefox only for all I care.
Why don’t we encourage competing operating systems with their own browsers instead? That would solve that problem AND increase competition AND give consumers more meaningful choice.
Stop Google from doing whatever it does with Android that makes it the only viable option for non-Apple companies.
It is becoming very typical for some people to compare opposing precedent-setting overreaches of law to anarchy. Scary.
Anytime anyone mentions how many iPhone users there are, it inevitably becomes yet another "Apple is so successful that people are now entitled to use their platform to make money" comment.
Of course people are forced to work with Safari, because that’s what a billion of the world’s most affluent customers have on their devices.
Again — and this is key — the ONLY browser allowed on iOS is Safari. If you want to do business with Apple customers, you support Safari. Period.
Suggesting that a business could just say, “Meh, I don’t care about reaching 1 billion of the most affluent people on the planet” is pure absurdity.
The lengths some people will go to to defend literally anything Apple does never cease to amaze me, that’s for sure.
It’s not absurdity, it’s a business decision they need to weigh up. They either work with Safari to access those customers or choose not to work with Safari and don’t access those customers. Business basics.
I don’t know where this massively entitled attitude comes from. Since when did businesses NOT have to spend serious money and effort to access certain market segments, and why SHOULDN’T they have to?