Sure, your account will eventually be banned if you misuse the feature to distribute to anyone other than your own employees.
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.
Multiple U.S. States Sue Google for Violating Antitrust Laws With Play Store Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I doubt it. There’s no money in it, and any attempt at monetisation is deemed “mafia like”.
So out of interest how does this work? Genuinely interested.
I would be stupid to think that I'm not replaceable, and that I will last forever. 🤣
Everybody is replaceable, even Steve Jobs & Co.!
It's just a matter of...
How to replace me...
How long it will take to replace me...
Will it cost more to replace me...
What are the side effects of replacing me, if there are any...
etc.
I already denied many jobs, of course these companies found somebody stupid enough to will their gaps.
That's called competition!
Even though no law exists like that for PCs today? Also, how do you define a “general purpose computing device”? Are game systems “general purpose computing devices”? They have mass storage, displays, RAM and Turing-complete CPUs? What about in-Dash entertainment systems? They have touch screen keyboards, mass storage, RAM, Turing-complete CPUs? What about Samsung refrigerators with touch screen displays? They have mass storage, RAM, displays, keyboards, Turing-complete CPUs? How about AndroidTV TVs? RokuTV TVs? FireTV boxes?
Kind of confused here. Every Android phone runs Linux. From what I understand, the Linux kernel and device drivers are all open source. Nothing prevents you from installing pure Linux or AOSP on any of these phones. Using the public information, nothing would stop you from porting FreeBSD to these phones. Windows is a proprietary OS, as is iOS, so neither would be available to install as they would prevent it (or at least Apple would, and given that Microsoft ceased developing Windows Phone, it seems unlikely they would in an environment that would offer them less chance to succeed than before.
For what consumer devices? All of them? Who is going to produce these specs? Who is going to test them? Do these specs have to be prepared and distributed for free? What would prevent people from using these documents from building knock offs?
I'm not gonna waste my time and put up some fictive futuristic business plan.
Simply as it always has happened, the market adapts quickly, but it surely won't feed the greed and fill the throat.
The problem is, they aren't satisfied with normal healthy operating companies anymore.
They always want more and more for less and less, and this leads to shady practices like Apple and Google is doing.
Apple collects 30% outside usa no matter how small you are as I dont know any small developer yet which has been accepted in the small feveloper program (7 months since applied W/O answer)
Darth Tulhu
macrumors 68020
It seems to me that the "Information Age" has made dumb people dumber than ever before, because even stupid ideas get a huge platform to reach and convince huge numbers of stupid people, some of which are employed by the government.
To me, this and Apple's "Epic" battle are evidence of the above.
If I open a store, virtual or otherwise, it should be MY prerogative to charge whatever fees I feel like. Both vendors and customers can go elsewhere if they don't like them.
These scenarios are intellectual child's play and I can't believe they weren't resolved in minutes (I can believe it, but you know...)
To me, this and Apple's "Epic" battle are evidence of the above.
If I open a store, virtual or otherwise, it should be MY prerogative to charge whatever fees I feel like. Both vendors and customers can go elsewhere if they don't like them.
These scenarios are intellectual child's play and I can't believe they weren't resolved in minutes (I can believe it, but you know...)
Just put up a transition time, of course it's nothing you can switch off with a snap.
I'm sure there are enough experts that would happily sit down for a year or even two, and build up these definitions.
Device specs already exist, they are already partly involved into FDA approvals, key parts just need to be made available.
Yes add them all to the list, all devices with non-sense lock-ins.
Including car dash/console (entertainment part) are also stuff that needs to partly open for competition.
Ohh boy, you just reminded me of good old times, were we could just plug and unplug cool car radios and other entertainment stuff to the dash/console. Memories!!! What a nice time I had, compared to the build in crap we have today that needs to be unlocked/accepted by the system board, a.k.a. lock-in.
Last edited:
Again you did not meaningfully answer my question, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you really do not know that believe is often used to mean think in American English and I will rephrase it. What do you think Google will do? If you have so little knowledge of the market that you cannot even speculate what might happen, do you not think that your law might have serious negative consequences on the market?
No, companies want Google Services because their customers want them. Google does not force anyone to install them. What they actually do is have a set of requirements around installing Google Services that make it an all or nothing proposition. If companies did not think their customers cared about Google Services, they should not do it.
Finally, you are the one making the claim, saying that I should find support for your argument seems silly. If there are a so many examples, finding some should be easy and making this discussion a single point for people to evaluate your arguments would be much better.
Please provide specific examples.
Or maybe Apple uses its Privacy and Security focus to create a clear customer alternative in the market that you want to eliminate.
Or just disagree with you.
From the very beginning with their own application store for Android (which has seen little success, despite their spending quite a bit of money on it) and later with the Fire Phone. Amazon failed in the market and decided it was not worth it. They have massive resources and yet the market did not seem to care.
They have installed their own application store for years. Almost no consumers use it as almost no developers care about it. It can take the same Android applications but there is no real benefit to application developers to use it, so they do not, leaving very few applications available. Samsung also installs Samsung Pay on their devices which is far behind ApplePay and Google Pay in adoption. ApplePay is the number one mobile pay system despite being in fewEr than 25% of the phones world wide. What does Apple have to do with Samsung’s Android products?
Your statement seems to be: I have no idea what would happen if my polices were adopted, but things would change. They might be terrible for consumers, but I have no real idea. Let us burn down the world and see what happens. What
Apple’s Walled Garden and Android with Google Services are optional. You seem incapable of understanding this. Almost every Android user could choose to replace their phone’s Android with Google Services with a vanilla Android OSP installation. They could then download one of the many other Android applications stores (like that from Amazon).
Apple’s ecosystem is also optional. One has to buy an Apple device to get it, something no one is forced to do.
In other words, no one wants what you want, so the only way other companies will enter the market is if you prevent the current systems that consumers want to buy from being there.
You know they will not but when I asked you what you think they will do, you said you have no idea. Interesting.
Your argument for allowing sideloading on iOS is to abet piracy?
Actually, yes, let’s go with that, and watch the entire case get thrown out of court…
I have no idea what this means. A transition time for what?
You are proposing the law, it is a cop out to saw ”someone else will define it”. I asked you about several very specific examples, please provide your answers for each of them, preferably with an explanation for how you differentiate among them if you decide they are not all “general purpose computing devices”.
Very few devices are get FDA approval. Not sure how this is relevant to the PC and phone world?
So every electronic device would need to have publicly published specs. What will this cost? Given that you are imposing a great deal of extra cost, what percentage of the public with actually take advantage of this? Please provide a cost benefit analysis.
When you say they have to be “partly open for competition” are you saying they have to publish their specifications so that someone could replace them as they are, or that they should only be able to produce DIN/Double DIN format products? What percentage of the market do you think would prefer that rather than the better integrated much larger console systems that most cars have now? If you do not force them to build DIN/Double DIN radios, how many companies are going to produce products for such a fragmented market?
You mean when instead of beautifully integrated in-dash consoles that work with CarPlay and Android Auto, we had single DIN radios with terrible, tiny displays and incomprehensible controls.
You have a different definition of good times than 99% of the users, and that makes clear how skewed your views are.
The real sad thing, a lot of those states have benefited from the tech sector. They are/were part of the group that allowed these tech groups to get real big, and only now for some reason are proverbially biting the hand that fed them.
California and Utah: Silicon and Little Silicon states (Cali might not be during, but the court it is happening at is there)
N. Carolina and Iowa: Data centers.
California and Utah: Silicon and Little Silicon states (Cali might not be during, but the court it is happening at is there)
N. Carolina and Iowa: Data centers.
Sorry, no time to reply to all the TLDR; but LOL to "my views are skewed", better than having stockholm syndrome.
I will laugh out loud later, when all the anticompetition, monopoly, duopoly, antitrust cases around the world comes to an end. It will hopefully hit Google and Apple hard, just like MS in the past, and I'm confident it will.
You really don't know the difference? The difference with stores and bars is there are multiple stores and bars! There is only one App Store. That is literally what makes it anticompetitive lol.
I can't believe this has to be explained. With Apple, it's not so much that there is a fee, to t's companies don't have another choice than to pay it. If you don't like one bar's prices, guess what you do?
So, once again, a preference is being expressed, not a legal argument. And that is the whole problem re: people’s support of government intervention against Apple.
So, once again, a preference is being expressed, not a legal argument. And that is the whole problem re: people’s support of government intervention against Apple.
Apple, and its devices, ARE the choice. I cant believe this has to be explained.
The amount of time Alan has spent writing up replies and frothing at the mouth is kind of funny. He really, really likes Apple.
Sure, but Apple, Android etc are pay to enter.. very much like Costco and Sams Club… You buy a phone to enter the App Store… you even agree to a EULA.. So Apple is Costco and Android is BJs… my point is still valid that products sold in those store are sold for less to the grocery store than the store sells it to customers.
I think developers think it’s a store tax on them instead of a flat store tax on everyone… pretty sure developers can increase their prices to avoid the store tax…. Bars are doing this with beer all the time. And there is no argument that micro beer makers and farmers work less than developers.
The App Store has nothing to do with security or privacy Tim.
I do not understand why folks believe they should be able to force a company to make a product they want. You can certainly ask them to, make your case and provide feedback — but force them? I just. Don’t. Get it.
Some have claimed that once a company’s success grows enough, their market power justifies treating them as a monopoly. When exactly is that? Having 24% of a market is fine, but once you hit 25%, you’re too powerful? Tell me where the lines are, because this all has the feel of I-know-it-when-I-see-it level analysis.
I certainly get there are policies that apple enforces that developers and user might not agree with (e.g., not allowing an app to encourage users to go outside the app to purchase their services). But disagreement or dissatisfaction with a product shouldn’t mean you get to use the force of law to make a company do what you want.
Again, the developers in favor of forcing android and iOS to lower or eliminate fees, allow other app stores, etc., seem to be saying “There’s a market/customer base that I’d like access to without paying (as much) for. It’s unfair that I can’t do exactly what I want.”
At any price point, there will always be users or developers that can’t afford a fee (and be profitable). But there’s no right to profitability.
Some have claimed that once a company’s success grows enough, their market power justifies treating them as a monopoly. When exactly is that? Having 24% of a market is fine, but once you hit 25%, you’re too powerful? Tell me where the lines are, because this all has the feel of I-know-it-when-I-see-it level analysis.
I certainly get there are policies that apple enforces that developers and user might not agree with (e.g., not allowing an app to encourage users to go outside the app to purchase their services). But disagreement or dissatisfaction with a product shouldn’t mean you get to use the force of law to make a company do what you want.
Again, the developers in favor of forcing android and iOS to lower or eliminate fees, allow other app stores, etc., seem to be saying “There’s a market/customer base that I’d like access to without paying (as much) for. It’s unfair that I can’t do exactly what I want.”
At any price point, there will always be users or developers that can’t afford a fee (and be profitable). But there’s no right to profitability.