Microsoft Says Apple's 30% Fee Makes Xbox Cloud Gaming iOS App 'Impossible'

spazzcat said:
Apple spends millions every year on their software.
Click to expand...
They can spend trillions. It still isn't totally, wholly unique. It evolved from Unix, uses elements from Free BSD and other resources, depends on Open SSL for quite a lot of the security features, and often employs other open source tools. I.e., it is not unique and it would be very appropriate for the EU to use these facts to deny Apple any copyright protection on their software, thus allowing anyone who wants to, to break down the barriers preventing them from installing software they want, without paying Apple for the (unearned) privilege. If someone wants to use the app store to sell software, more power to them, THEN they owe Apple the 30%. But otherwise, that barrier needs to be removed and the total loss of copyright protection on that (not unique) software should be the main tool to ensure that
 
Hobbes42 said:
Absolutely. That does seem to be the situation.

What bugs me is the fact that Apple is not at all afraid of creating innovative hardware. The Vision Pro proves that. Apple can still do it.

Which makes the stagnation in their industrial design more frustrating. They have the talent. They have the resources. And yet the iPhone has looked the same for almost five years now.

I really wonder if the exodus of Ive is the reason for this. It doesn’t seem like Apple is excited or inspired about their hardware right now. It’s a bummer.

The focus is on “services”, while the reason Apple is in the market position they are in right now was because of hardware.

Tim Cook has been doing an amazing job at making all the money. But no one is excited about the hardware. It’s a problem.
Click to expand...
Smart phones have reached maturity, just like computers did many years ago. They are not going to change much over the next n number years. Sure, there will be gimmicks but that's about it. The next big thing will be to replaced the smart phone with something else.
 
mikerahl said:
They can spend trillions. It still isn't totally, wholly unique. It evolved from Unix, uses elements from Free BSD and other resources, depends on Open SSL for quite a lot of the security features, and often employs other open source tools. I.e., it is not unique and it would be very appropriate for the EU to use these facts to deny Apple any copyright protection on their software, thus allowing anyone who wants to, to break down the barriers preventing them from installing software they want, without paying Apple for the (unearned) privilege. If someone wants to use the app store to sell software, more power to them, THEN they owe Apple the 30%. But otherwise, that barrier needs to be removed and the total loss of copyright protection on that (not unique) software should be the main tool to ensure that
Click to expand...
They don't have copyright on the parts they are using that are either licensed or from open source. Again you have no idea what you are talking about and what are suggesting would kill software development.

Edit: If you think it so easy to create an phone OS you should do it.
 
Shirasaki said:
“Apple‘s profit margin must grow a thousand fold unhindered!” That’s what I see from ”debates” in similar thread.
Here is the thing, Apple won’t grow to what they are today if we don’t let them.
Click to expand...
Apples profit margin has been going to down. I think you are trying to get at is net profit which is something completely different.
 
spazzcat said:
They don't have copyright on the parts they are using that are either licensed or from open source. Again you have no idea what you are talking about and what are suggesting would kill software development.
Click to expand...
They shouldn't have copyright at all unless they can prove every part of every form of software they create is unique to them. Not an evolution of another concept, not developed from other code, but developed from scratch without any prior influence. Frankly, software should not be allowed to have copyright or patenting. All software should be open source as it cannot be shown that said software is unique. And certainly no corporation should be allowed special legal protections for inventions or software simply because there's no benefit to society to allow such protections. All software should be treated as open source (because it is not wholly unique). Lots of people develop open source software and don't ask for patents or copyright protections, instead using Open source licensing.
 
mikerahl said:
They shouldn't have copyright at all unless they can prove every part of every form of software they create is unique to them. Not an evolution of another concept, not developed from other code, but developed from scratch without any prior influence. Frankly, software should not be allowed to have copyright or patenting. All software should be open source as it cannot be shown that said software is unique. And certainly no corporation should be allowed special legal protections for inventions or software simply because there's no benefit to society to allow such protections. All software should be treated as open source (because it is not wholly unique). Lots of people develop open source software and don't ask for patents or copyright protections, instead using Open source licensing.
Click to expand...
Software is underlying everything, whether it is microcode, firmware operating system or application. All of it built in prior concepts.

Being unable to copyright software would cause most development to cease and that would lead to disaster.
 
JCCL said:
Hardly the same as a landlord. They are gatekeeping devices that the customers have fully paid for. We should be able to decide where we want to install software from. You don't want it, fine, I don't really care how you use your device, and you shouldn't care about what I want to do with mine either.
Click to expand...
So buy an Android and you can do that.

I don’t want to have to pay more so Apple can hire extra engineers to implement features that are forced on them by clueless regulators and selfish people like you who want everything your way.
 
WarmWinterHat said:
I am, by pushing for legislation that makes such unethical choices illegal, and that allows us to use our property as we wish, without interference.

No one can explain to me why it's okay for a company to control something that they don't own. I don't control, or get royalties, for stuff I have personally built and sold, and anyone and everyone would say it's unreasonable/laughable to even ask for it.
Click to expand...
The amount of time you spend on here complaining about this dwarfs the amount of time you'd need to buy a different product.

I find this behavior so odd.
 
Mrkevinfinnerty said:
Big Tech Monopolists...


mortal-kombat.gif
Click to expand...
What monopoly does Apple have?
 
WarmWinterHat said:
I am, by pushing for legislation that makes such unethical choices illegal, and that allows us to use our property as we wish, without interference.

No one can explain to me why it's okay for a company to control something that they don't own. I don't control, or get royalties, for stuff I have personally built and sold, and anyone and everyone would say it's unreasonable/laughable to even ask for it.
Click to expand...
1. Apple didn’t force you to buy an iPhone.

2. Apple is completely upfront about the capabilities and limitations of its devices, including the AppStore being the sole way to add apps. If you don’t like it, don’t buy an iPhone. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly so you have choices.

3. You are free to do whatever you want with your iPhone after you buy it. Apple is not and should not be required to help you do things they aren’t interested in doing.
 
spazzcat said:
Any you agreed upon when you turned on the device.
Click to expand...

Just because someone may agree to something doesn't mean the other party wasn't potentially being unethical or even doing something illegal.


spazzcat said:
But people do which kind of my point: people are not looking for complexity.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people would like options but because of Apple's restrictions on alternative iOS app stores and Google's restrictions on pre-installing alternative Android app stores, competition in those app markets was stifled for many years.
 
The solution is simple, Apple should start selling a version of the iPhone without an OS. If you want to do things Apple doesn’t support in iOS, go ahead and write your own software. From scratch. With zero documentation or tools or support of any kind. You paid for it and you are free to do whatever you want.

Meanwhile those of us who prefer Apples approach can continue being happy and Apple doesn’t have to waste anymore time or resources on asinine regulation that is mostly about appeasing Spotify et. al. then actually helping customers.
 
mikerahl said:
They can spend trillions. It still isn't totally, wholly unique. It evolved from Unix, uses elements from Free BSD and other resources, depends on Open SSL for quite a lot of the security features, and often employs other open source tools. I.e., it is not unique and it would be very appropriate for the EU to use these facts to deny Apple any copyright protection on their software, thus allowing anyone who wants to, to break down the barriers preventing them from installing software they want, without paying Apple for the (unearned) privilege. If someone wants to use the app store to sell software, more power to them, THEN they owe Apple the 30%. But otherwise, that barrier needs to be removed and the total loss of copyright protection on that (not unique) software should be the main tool to ensure that
Click to expand...
No it wouldn’t. As long as Apple abides by the conditions laid out by the open source tools they use then there is exactly zero grounds for the EU to deny them copyright protection.
 
WarmWinterHat said:
Because an outside company is controlling how I use my personal property.
Click to expand...
No they aren’t. You can use it however you like. So long as it performs the features it was advertised to perform when you purchased it Apple has met its legal burden to you. If you want to do something beyond what’s advertised then it’s 100% on you to figure out how. Why should Apple be required to help you?

If I buy a car from Toyota and it works as advertised I shouldn’t be able to force Toyota to help me turn it into a boat. I can try if I want but that’s on me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top