Multiple U.S. States Sue Google for Violating Antitrust Laws With Play Store Fees

[collin_]

Where did I say it didn't?



Subjective. Agree to disagree.



Because Play Store has the exponentially more downloads than sideloading. You expect a place that delivered 500 billion downloads to have less infections than the total number of sideloaded (probably less than a billion downloads) app infections (something that's hard for an end user to do)?

You're not making any sense at all.




Yet I've bashed Google on this message board hundreds of times. Examples:

Google Planning to Update iOS Apps With Privacy Labels Soon

They drag their feet when it comes to supporting user privacy, but they're first to adopt any new data collection features. Classic Google.

forums.macrumors.com

Gmail Now Able to Be Set as Default Mail App on iPhone and iPad in iOS 14

oh when it comes to becoming a default app, Google implements it in a hot second...but when it comes to other iOS features, Google drags its feet.

forums.macrumors.com

Google Authenticator iOS App Gains New Export Accounts Option

dump google auth. just use 1pass. easy. authy is a piece of crap too.

forums.macrumors.com

Tell me again how I'm "Google's personal lobbyist".

I argue what is the right thing to do regardless of what company is in question. That's called being unbiased.

We're done here. Have a nice day.

Yeah we are clearly not going to agree on this. You too.

 

[spicymints]

I don’t get why store fees are bad. If you sell beer or groceries to a grocery store you sell it for less than what the store sells it for. What’s the difference with the App Store?
Developers basically have a place on the shelf in the store and Apple takes a grocery store cut… bars are like this too.. and no one wants to sue bars for selling a bottled beer for 2-3x the price

Once you downloaded the app you are out of the AppStore. You are confined to pay 30% each time for a transaction, that shouldn't be the case. There should be some payment options.

Apple even forces you to set the same price as on your website to prevent the consumer from going on the web and subscribing through the web.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I’m aware of that. In terms of abuse I don’t make distinction between rich, poor, gender, kinds of business entities ... It seams that you do, its ok to disagree.

Whenever two multi-trillion dollar multinational organizations have disputes, they will work out their differences to where they are amicable to both parties. A woman being demoted (i.e. receiving less money, less exposure) is nowhere near an amicable outcome. It’s not the same thing as a multi-trillion dollar multinational organization being able to actually release the product they wanted to release ON the device of their choosing under terms that they find agreeable.

It would be more akin to the woman maintaining her current position, but she, say, no longer receives letterhead for free. She’s still able to perform the same job, same level of visibility, important intra and extra company contacts are maintained and even strengthened. However, while she’d prefer to get free letterhead, she’s ok paying market price for it. I mean, if this is the analogy you want to go for.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

@Unregistered 4U

Don’t believe that MS deciding to offfer no native app to avoid sharing revenue, game stream catalogue abd their business model around xCloud is an amicable solution, both to iOS users and MS. It’s just Apple forcing their control with crazy off the cuff conditions.

Also, don’t know if you noticed. But law suits seam to be coming up like mushrooms did to these App Stores, one way or another. So don’t think things are that amicable at the moment … even though shareholders are having a party.

Hey, one thing I have learned is that business like learning … it’s an infinite game. There are no winner or losers, just entities “party” more than others in a moment in time. What remains his history and memory for further ventures.

Personally looking at Apple, don’t think that the company needs the App Store to grow more than it needs a supportive third party digital market. Look at how much they have grown with a supportive market compared to say Windows Phone with an unsupportive one. In my opinion someone is favoring short term gains and lobbying rather than long.

Take iPhone out of the picture what they would have is … will see. The iPhone is responsible for much more than it’s own revenue. Take that out of the picture there we go a chain reaction across everything else but the Mac … Apple portfolio is not really that diversified due its product structure. It’s highly dependent on record breaking iPhone sales … one day there will be a market correction, it happens to every company …

Anyway … will see. Hopefully someone at Apple might agree that the App Store as it stands, for a company like Apple it’s a distraction. They will eventually need to push product adoption across other ventures less reliant on the iPhone … macOS, iPads and whatever they come up next with. For that matter they will also need apps, the digital market place support and industrious developers … I guess.

 

[jefhai]

Once you downloaded the app you are out of the AppStore. You are confined to pay 30% each time for a transaction, that shouldn't be the case. There should be some payment options.

Apple even forces you to set the same price as on your website to prevent the consumer from going on the web and subscribing through the web.

You don’t leave the AppStore ever. You are bound by its terms the entire time you use your iPhone. When you setup the iPhone for the first time you accept tons of terms of agreement. So you are always in Apples garden on your iPhone and bound by their terms. Just like Xbox, which is why they can ban you from their services even after you download a game. Apple is like Costco, it’s a membership by purchase of a device and an agreement to terms, but you never leave the store on Apple. It might look like you are but the agreement you accepted you haven’t.

Apple doesn’t force websites to change prices to my knowledge. Have an example or news article?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Don’t believe that MS deciding to offfer no native app to avoid sharing revenue, game stream catalogue abd their business model around xCloud is an amicable solution, both to iOS users and MS. It’s just Apple forcing their control with crazy off the cuff conditions

Whenever two large companies can’t come to an amicable solution, they launch lawsuits. If there’s no lawsuit SPECIFICALLY for “WE WANT TO HAVE AN APP ON THE APP STORE”, then it’s an amicable solution. Sure, Microsoft may REALLY want to have that free letterhead instead of paying market price. BUT, if there the free letterhead was a make it or break it situation, you can bet there would be a lawsuit on it.

Hey, one thing I have learned is that business like learning … it’s an infinite game. There are no winner or losers, just entities “party” more than others in a moment in time. What remains his history and memory for further ventures.

Right, no winners or losers and, by that definition, no abusers. Just companies working at trying to make money.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Right, no winners or losers and, by that definition, no abusers.

Free letterhead? What a smoke screen created by a device called App Store.

Anyway will see about the last part as the multiple actions evolve because the issues are over arching. Apple as been found guilty of abuse in courts some times. So it’s not out of character (like other big tech such as MS).

Now on this topic, what it is there for the history is that Apple unilaterally deems services like xCloud $not interesting$ to user devices, repeat users devices, if they can’t charge up to each $tream … should have remembered that one for video and music … maybe than crushed the likes of Spotify and Netflix right at the start … or nor maybe loose users in the process. MS on the other hand made the most of was technologically possible to serve their customers on the devices of their choice at minimal cost and keep on innovating even if ampered in iOS… again for customers … Never thought I would say this.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Free letterhead? What a smoke screen created by a device called App Store.

Free letterhead which equates to “a thing that was in no way a deal breaker in the engagement between the two parties”. Being on the App Store is a “nice to have” but the REAL win, which will make Microsoft AND Microsoft’s customers happy, is just being on the device. App Store would have been icing on the cake. But, again, if NOT being on the App Store was something that would seriously affect their offering, they would have continued to push for being on the App Store, even going so far as to NOT release the browser solution, until they got what they wanted.

Apple unilaterally deems services like xCloud $not interesting$ to user devices, repeat users devices

Yes, they found it SO not interesting to user devices, that they completely blocked it and it, and services like it, will never be usable on Apple devices. Including xCloud and GeForce Now which, strangely, are both available on Apple devices today.

MS on the other hand made the most of was technologically possible to serve their customers on the devices of their choice at minimal cost for them.

Yes, and you can bet that they appreciated the assistance they got from Apple that helped them to provide their solution to tens of millions of Apple hardware users.

 

[Abazigal]

Do you want the openness of windows, or the security of iOS? Make your choice, because you can’t have both.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Yes, they found it SO not interesting to user devices, that they completely blocked it and it, and services like it, will never be usable on Apple devices. Including xCloud and GeForce Now which, strangely, are both available on Apple devices today.

Never said they completely blocked it. Its like you previous argument stance, if there is at least one other option, its not abuse.

Snake oil args totally missing the point. Just like the case where Apple was caught manually boosting search results for their own apps, Files. Imagine, search Dropbox, a brand and … Apple Files would appear first. Apple statement after being cought:

“We created the App Store to be a safe and trusted place for customers to discover and download apps, and a great business opportunity for all developers. App Store Search has only one goal — to get customers what they are looking for. We do that in a way that is fair to all developers and we do not advantage our apps over those of any developer or competitor.”

I guess user could have always used Google Search instead of the App Store search … for you this is not abuse of customers and devs good faith in the company either.

Look man, I get your stance. As long as it makes $$$ for Apple, shareholders and employee is a good decision. Ok. But that is not a concern of everyone else.

Cheers.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Its like you previous argument stance, if there is at least one other option, its not abuse.

My previous stance was actually, if it’s two, multi-trillion dollar multinational organizations, that come to an agreement, it’s not abuse Microsoft has a LITTLE bit more influence that allowed them to get what they wanted, that a single female employee does not have over preventing her demotion. A couple trillion dollars more influence.

I get your stance. As long as it makes $$$ for Apple, shareholders and employee is a good decision. Ok. But that is not a concern of everyone else.

Well, in this PARTICULAR case, it’s of concern to Microsoft. Which got what they wanted, their solution on Apple devices. AND Microsoft xCloud users AND GeForce Now users got what they wanted, too. They get to play their streaming games on Apple devices if they so desire. More importantly, this doesn’t make money for Apple. In fact, Apple supporting Microsoft in this endeavor LOST them money in the hours of the employees that helped them to set up a solution that specifically does NOT benefit Apple (in addition to ongoing support of the solution via the additional testing they’re going to have to do every time they roll a new version of Safari).

As usual between two multi-trillion dollar multinational organizations, a compromise solution yielded a little something that each party wanted.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

My previous stance was actually, if it’s two, multi-trillion dollar multinational organizations, that come to an agreement, it’s not abuse

Compliance is not agreement as you know.

I was referring to this.

And yet, xCloud is available. If there was NO other avenue, maybe abuse.

On another point …

Microsoft has a LITTLE bit more influence that allowed them to get what they wanted, that a single female employee does not have over preventing her demotion. A couple trillion dollars more influence.

They did not get what they wanted. They had the app ready. Most business aren’t MS that can simply right off development cost of an app. Such demands against a smaller game streaming business would be devastating. Look at what MS needs to have to compete with Apple … with something like the xCloud vs Apple Arcade … because of a “simple” device … the App Store.

Apple stance is standard extraction, with exception of the ones that pay them billions to do otherwise. Why do they pay? Because the device owners are the product that Apple is in effect selling access to with a revenue share demand in app, after selling them the iOS devices. Never seen in the EULA with users that kind of agreement.

On the current Anti Trust cases the issue is not so much the relationship between Megs. In effect, never seen an Anti Trust case between these. But between these and smaller fishes in the pond. If Apple can do this to MS, imagine what they can do to any other company.

Anyway, one way or another, the market will correct itself … unfortunately I believe with regulation. For me this is a bad way for the market to correct itself, as its unpredictable for Apple. Yet, I think the solution to control the narrative are on Apple hands.

The modus operandi of the company is the same across the board. With the App Store is a matter of users privacy and security, that is why blablabla… in the right to repair the same thing … but is it?

A company like Apple, the Apple I’ve grown to appreciate and trust … all this is unnecessary … just look at the sales.

Cheers

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I was referring to this.

And yet, xCloud is available. If there was NO other avenue, maybe abuse.

Yes, using the term “abuse” that you introduced into the thread. I was indicating, using your term, that it MIGHT have been abuse if they were rejected by Apple, but their product is available, thus not even “might” abuse, i.e. treat with cruelty or violence. Helping Microsoft get their xCloud solution can’t realistically be seen as cruel OR violent.

They did not get what they wanted. They had the app ready.

Your assumption that Microsoft is on some religious crusade to be on the App Store is very likely not accurate as that’s not normally how multi-trillion dollar multinational corporations work. Microsoft’s trillion dollar level goal was “Make xCloud available to Apple device users.” That was completed. There were several ways to make this happen, including giving their customers instructions on how to jailbreak their iPhones. They picked the method that provided them a level of control and access they found acceptable. AND, even received support from the hardware vendor to ensure it ran as well as possible.

with something like the xCloud vs Apple Arcade

One offers content people actually would want to play. The other is Apple Arcade. These two services aren’t even comparable OR competitive, though. The ONLY benefit Apple Arcade provides is “no IAP’s for apps that are a part of this subscription”. That’s it. And each one of those Apple Arcade games? They’re a separate download. Just like it’s rumored Apple was requiring of Microsoft. Microsoft didn’t want to offer separate downloads. If Apple wanted to, they could have FORCED Microsoft to offer separate downloads (that might even give a cut of the money to Apple). But they didn’t. They helped Microsoft to develop a way to deliver the same content WITHOUT PAYING APPLE A PENNY.

Never seen in the EULA with users that kind of agreement.

My assumption is you’ve never read any of the EULA’s when buying Apple products?

Anyway, one way or another, the market will correct itself … unfortunately I believe with regulation.

Those are opposites, EITHER the market corrects itself OR regulations are introduced. What I find amazing is that people are willing to accept that Apple’s ability to delight customers is SO far and away better than any other companies capabilities that the ONLY solution is regulation. I, for one, am glad Apple DIDN’T go the regulation route and just did the hard work to make better products than anyone had ever seen before. I’d much rather have the iPhone and what it’s become than for Apple to have forced the government to have Motorola install a decent iTunes Music Player on the ROKR.

A company like Apple, the Apple I’ve grown to appreciate and trust … all this is unnecessary … just look at the sales.

All of this, that Apple does and has been doing for many years, the same which is apparently what delights Apple’s customers because they keep buying the devices, is unnecessary? You’re saying the things that makes Apple’s sales high are not required because their sales are high? No, Apple’s sales are high BECAUSE they do what they do.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

EITHER the market corrects itself OR regulations are introduced

Regulators and regulation are agents and components of the markets. Check the health market, automobile market, energy market so on and so forth. There are no opposites.

I guess we have different notions what are the multiple market components. As we have we have different definitions between compliance and agreement. Never seen an agreement between the two on this topic:

Apple's attempts to exclude Xbox exec's testimony a 'distraction,' Microsoft says | AppleInsider

Microsoft shot back at Apple's attempts to exclude Xbox executive Lori Wright's testimony in the Epic Games v. Apple trial, claiming that Apple is using the accusations as a distraction.

appleinsider.com

After Xbox testimony, Apple tells Microsoft to put up or shut up

A grudge match between Microsoft and Apple.

www.theverge.com

Redefining terms?

Yes, I’ve read the EULA. In a court an EULA is just one of the components to be evaluated … especially one presented after the device has been bought and initialized … and shops not accepting returns after opening the box … go figure. See how all of this dodgy stuff works collectively …?

As for Apple success be down to these policies and tactics … give us a break. Apple sucess is its ability to make dam good devices and OS … its not just a partial matter, its the thing the makes it. With the iPhone they managed to do it … not cheap … yet affordable ... business innovating with an uncommon deal with Telcos. That part is inspiring … wonderful even.

Yet the Mac success after the PowerPC “debacle” was down exactly to its more open architecture … it could even dual boot to Windows …

Moving to M! … will see … again damn good devices … yet with an architecture closed as possible. They had the good sense of not making the policies App Store in macOS like in iOS … otherwise it would be a flop. Will see … I’m truly excited by this tech.

Anyway, it does not matter. Regulation is coming to App Store tied to devices and vice versa … like the Right to Repair laws and regulations are coming.

Apple will adapt and still be an incredible company … and our sons and daughters will enjoy the same freedom to make a digital business without paying doe to access customers as Apple, Google and MS enjoyed …. the same freedom that Woz enjoyed playing with and fixing off the shelf hardware.

This trend o App Store’s tied to devices and devices ties do App Store’s its a thing worth regulation. The potential for abuse of power is incredible … without it soon would come to everything … from washing machines to houses …which means you will own your house as much as you own an iPhone … how would you like that?

Cheers.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Never seen an agreement between the two on this topic

Multi-trillion dollar multinational organizations sometimes disagree. That’s not new. In areas where they DO agree, they sign agreements to oversee how they’ll do business together. If either side doesn’t like the terms of the agreement, they don’t sign onto the agreement. An agreement in one area does not preclude disagreements in other areas.

Yes, I’ve read the EULA. In a court an EULA is just one of the components to be evaluated … especially one presented after the device has been bought and initialized … and shops not accepting returns after opening the box … go figure. See how all of this dodgy stuff works collectively …?

I believe the EULA’s for Apple’s products exist on Apple’s website. If consumers WANT to know what’s in the agreement, they can find out well before a purchase. Most don’t. But, because they never looked at the EULA doesn’t mean it’s “Never seen in the EULA”. It IS in the EULA. One can like it or NOT like it, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s there.

the same freedom that Woz enjoyed playing with and fixing off the shelf hardware.

Anyone who wants to play with and fix off the shelf hardware can do so today. The same way Woz did then, by choosing non-closed systems to play with and fix. That’ll never change.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Multi-trillion dollar multinational organizations sometimes disagree. That’s not new. In areas where they DO agree, they sign agreements to oversee how they’ll do business together.

I believe that there little point to this conversation anymore. Before you said that there both companies were in agreement on this issue. I give you facts pointing to that they don’t. You than say its natural that companies disagree sometimes … Which of course is not the point. So you are in a game of “I’m always right”.

I’m not interested in that game because I don’t play it myself. I have not much else to say at the moment on this topic.

Have fun, cheers.

PS: You say funny things. According to you the consumer standard practice before buying an off the shelf product is to go to the company website first to study the EULA .. which is of course not. So if they do not than its their problem. You seam to be making up standard practices as it goes to sustain your opinion that Apple‘s property overrules any other properties built before or on top. The fact is, all EULAs (exceptions are irrelevant) are indeed accepted in good faith as far as consumers go. If not much of the things done in business with the consumer would be extremely burocratic, hurting sales:

”In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract.”

Which is this case is the device(s) people have bought.

Personally I don’t see where is Apple good faith to ask for 550 euros something that can be fixed by 50 while going after businesses and people who do in order to condition the market against their customers interests, on top creating a smoke screen of security and privacy … this is not standard practice anywhere in consumer electronics … not what people expect. I don’t see what is in good faith demanding customers suppliers to split their entire catalogue (game streams) to to than collect 30% of each (that device owners pay)… or else have the device users use that keyhole (a web browser) if they ever so wish. People have not payed $500 to $1.5k on a iPhone to play in a web browser. This and uncountable other Apple episodes.

I understand that a company might attempt all sorts of things to get more out of customers, I would as a CEO and respect that. But don’t understand a customer, assuming you are one, defending to the teeth such practices when its clearly one that is not in favor of your interests. As I have said, I would understand if you are a a strong shareholder, or a member of Apple history (even Woz is not that blind so you know), or say a part of the group of people payed to lobby for Apple interests, but probably start with that disclaimer so we know you are being paid for that. But if you aren’t, if you are just a customer or an entreneur in the game … well … it has been learning experience of the human nature.

This is not just Apple, but also Google and others at this level… so choices are becoming thin on these matters. But I’m afraid that Apple is indeed leading many practices at a very large scale that are than adopted by others, some of them good for consumers and some of them bad, and some that have the potential to be very bad in the long term.

Cheers.

 

[grandM]

Fairly good comparison.

But game console developers back in the days were largely confined to catering to kids and adolescents with little computer games.

Apple's iOS and Google's Android developer bases and their products have far transcended children's rooms. Smartphones have not only become essential means of communication that have changed society. They've also become indispensable tools to do business with - and platforms to do business on.

Which is why, from a public policy standpoint, there are much more substantial reasons and much more pressure to regulate dominant platforms in this space. And more strictly than game console platforms.

And I have little doubt that governments will.

Business apps generate few money except for some well known names as Office 365. Most App Store money comes from games.

 

[grandM]

Once you downloaded the app you are out of the AppStore. You are confined to pay 30% each time for a transaction, that shouldn't be the case. There should be some payment options.

Apple even forces you to set the same price as on your website to prevent the consumer from going on the web and subscribing through the web.

So a person ordering his pint outside the pub should pay less? What holds a company from launching a free app through the App Store and charging the subscription over the web leaving Apple with only the costs?

 

[AppliedMicro]

I believe the EULA’s for Apple’s products exist on Apple’s website. If consumers WANT to know what’s in the agreement, they can find out well before a purchase. Most don’t.

...and in many jurisdictions they don't have to. EULA would be deemed invalid or unenforceable if they aren't agreed upon (or at least presented) pre-sale. Or if the phone's manufacturer is free to change them at will - as Apple regularly do.

What holds a company from launching a free app through the App Store and charging the subscription over the web leaving Apple with only the costs?

What prevents Apple from charging a developer subscription fee (they do) or a per-download or per-downloaded-MB App Store fee? Plus, maybe, a certain mark-up for Apple?

If we're speaking of Apple's "costs", that would allocate costs in the fairest of manners to developers, wouldn't it?

 

[grandM]

...and in many jurisdictions they don't have to. EULA would be deemed invalid or unenforceable if they aren't agreed upon (or at least presented) pre-sale. Or if the phone's manufacturer is free to change them at will - as Apple regularly do.


What prevents Apple from charging a developer subscription fee (they do) or a per-download or per-downloaded-MB App Store fee? Plus, maybe, a certain mark-up for Apple?

If we're speaking of Apple's "costs", that would allocate costs in the fairest of manners to developers, wouldn't it?

No. Best solution be ditching the fee and go percentual all the way. This way new devs would always be sure of a positive turnover. Big sellers earn enough. Maybe a special treatment for category in-between.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

...and in many jurisdictions they don't have to. EULA would be deemed invalid or unenforceable if they aren't agreed upon (or at least presented) pre-sale. Or if the phone's manufacturer is free to change them at will - as Apple regularly do.

A jurisdiction can claim it’s unenforceable, but in reality it’s quite enforceable, just by there only being one place to buy Apps from. If someone doesn’t know that the only place you’re going to be able to buy apps from is Apple’s App Store because they didn’t read the EULA, their only recourse is to try to return that device if they don’t like those terms. They COULD try to bring a case against Apple saying those terms are unenforceable, but that wouldn’t change the fact that there’s only one place to legally get apps.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I give you facts pointing to that they don’t. You than say its natural that companies disagree sometimes … Which of course is not the point. So you are in a game of “I’m always right”.

One story doesn’t mention xCloud at all, the other mentions there was a feud about xCloud, which I’m sure happened PRIOR to it ending up in Safari (with Apple’s help). There’s nothing in either of those links that says anything about Microsoft and Apple NOT currently having an agreement for xCloud to be available via Safari instead of on the App Store. However, reality states that, since xCloud IS available, and it’s NOT on the App Store, that’s exactly what happened. I am absolutely not always right. However, I DO know the meaning of the world “abuse” — treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence especially regularly and repeatedly.— and what Apple and Microsoft, two multi-trillion dollar multinational companies have can not remotely be considered abuse of either party where it specifically relates to Microsoft’s successful deployment of xCloud to Apple’s hardware via Apple’s Safari browser. You’re free to use emotionally charged inaccurate language when making your point. However, sometimes people will call you out on it.

According to you the consumer standard practice before buying an off the shelf product is to go to the company website first to study the EULA .. which is of course not. So if they do not than its their problem.

The consumer standard prior to entering ANY agreement is to find out what entering the agreement entails. Some folks don’t read the paperwork they sign when accepting a job. Some people don’t go over ALL of the documents presented when purchasing a house. Some people don’t review content release forms when presented, they just sign. However, there are very few legal jurisdictions (if any) that will do a “take back” simply because the person that signed didn’t read prior to signing a proper and legal document. There’s nothing special about buying phones. There ARE people (and organizations) that go over all the documentation prior to making a decision and, to make that review easier, Apple makes it available on their website.

But if you aren’t, if you are just a customer or an entreneur in the game … well … it has been learning experience of the human nature.

Nope, I’m just stating that there’s nothing going on between Microsoft and Apple that could remotely be considered abuse. I understand humans like to use charged language like “abuse” to try to draw parallels between two very large companies reaching an agreement on how to get a software solution deployed to a device and a company demoting an employee punitively. But, that’s not the definition of abuse.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

One story doesn’t mention xCloud at all, the other mentions there was a feud about xCloud, which I’m sure happened PRIOR to it ending up in Safari (with Apple’s help). There’s nothing in either of those links that says anything about Microsoft and Apple NOT currently having an agreement for xCloud to be available via Safari

You started by saying they are in an agreement with the policies. Show you that they aren’t. Mentioned MS is willing too to be in compliance because of their customers using iOS devices. Now your theses, goes from an agreement to ”there no evidence showing that there is a disagreement” … after all.

Look, the concept of Agreement on an issue to me implies support, not just compliance. There is no indication of MS supporting Apple stance, by the contrary. Apple told MS … in iOS either do this or do that regarding xCloud. MS went to court supporting Epic stance on the same issue, opposing Apple. The only thing that MS did differently to Epic is that it decided to comply and “do that”, yet they still support Epic stance on the iOS policies, at least that is what the facts point to. If MS came to that court to support Apple, than you conclusion would be self evident … but i did not, they did the contrary.

In my life, as probably yours, as a team member, we have complied with a lot of decisions and policies that we disagree. But decided to comply because there are other values at stake and things need to move on .. especially when one can’t do much about it at a moment in time. Or when you let someone else deal with that. Now, if this becomes a recurrent situation, the relationship does not really go for long …

Back to the issue of xCloud vs App Store. It in my opining a daring one for iOS users. Say you want to buy a house, Apple is selling. Now Apple say, look we sell a house the only supplier say for electricity, and its contents is us. We garantee you we will give the best service on the planet and fair treatment … You like the house, you like the service and ok you buy the house, trust in good faith … Later Apple comes and says, look this particular service, say Netflix, or heck why not a Meal / Takeway, you cannot have it with the lights on, or that you can only eat in the toilet. If you do not comply, we cut your supplies, and nothing is able to be serviced to your house. WTF? Nothing like this is in contract. What is in contract is general rule that parties agree in good faith.

Simple as that.

The consumer standard prior to entering ANY agreement is to find out what entering the agreement entails. Some folks don’t read the paperwork they sign when accepting a job.

According to the law in many countries you are required to present the customer the contract just before buying the product. If you tell, the customer to go to the web site. The customer is not responsible to look for the contract before buying, you need to present it, right there. Furthermore the supplier is required to get the agreement before selling. Otherwise its an illegal practice.

Now this law in many cases is not being strictly enforced. That is good for Apple, imagine going to a mega store and everytime you buy a non returnable product (case in case some Apple products in third party shops) … present you with a large contract to sign … much like say telcos contracts. This would hurt sales and not very convenient at all … both as a entrepreneur and a customer would not like that. The solution found was to work in a gray area and if there are abuses, disputes … work between parties or in courts.

When ecommerce came a regulation was defined for return policies in these cases to protect the customer. If this was left to EULAs of such e-commerce ventures, …, dear dear.

When working with these gray practices, EULAs aren’t entirely voided of course or unenforceable. But aren’t really set in stone either. There is a thing called good faith … subjective … but there is and is up to courts and regulators to interpret it in context.

What you are stating is your opinion about these practices. I’m stating mine … while providing facts and metaphors for easy understanding … and not extrapolating anything. Compliance does not necessarily imply support, agreement on the issue. Meaning, just because one may comply, its does not mean that its OK, you just bite the bullet for now.

Cheers.

 

[spicymints]

So a person ordering his pint outside the pub should pay less? What holds a company from launching a free app through the App Store and charging the subscription over the web leaving Apple with only the costs?

Unfair competitive market advantage especially with competing services the company offers. Increased conversion friction. Stifling competition by definition is monopolistic behavior. At this point I don't care where the case goes I own APPL shares so you paying 30% cut means more money for me.