No one is taking anyone's money by skipping part of the video. And he never said that. Stop projecting Timmy!
Advertising only works and is profitable when people see the add .
Apple is like the IRS they will still get at the revenue they feel they’re owed.
laws, taxes .. gross
It's about competition. When one dominant player abuses it's market position to hamper competition, there should be laws to reign them in. Similar things happen in many different domains like telecoms, financial markets, energy. And everywhere there is regulation to increase competition, which leads to better outcomes for customers.
How well is this regulation working in the US for Broadband. I have 4 national players for gasoline in Canada, price is often the same. Competition does not guarantee lower prices for consumers, it just offers some choice.
And if they EU wants to regulate the players of console games sales as well, have at it I say. I see no sacred cows, unlike some folks view of Apple.
I don't consider Apple sacred in any way. But I will defend that business has the right to choose its margin. There are laws that dictate what isn't a legal lending rate (therefore limiting margin). No one supporting the free market wants to have government decide, what is and inst reasonable margin. The business will pay the consequences if others choose to deliver services at a lower marking and their customers flee.
Comparing an iPhone you bought to a physical store is beyond idiotic. The far more accurate analogy is buying a house manufactured by a company and then not being allowed to have anything delivered to you unless the business's products are on the approved company list and the maker of your home gets a cut of every delivery, in addition not being allowed to go out of the gate to grab the package.
Or it's like buying a house in an HOA where someone else decided what colour you can paint "YOUR HOUSE!". You bought the product, were presented with a contract, signed it .. no backsies
For example, we appropriately applaud Apple for their investment in accessibility features in iOS. The R&D costs for some of those implementations would be cost-prohibitive for any single developer. But developers benefit directly since it expand their addressable market or allows them to retain users who have become disabled. Because iOS is the most profitable mobile platform, such investment is allowed by shareholders who would otherwise question the ROI.
And that development is funded by BOTH the hardware sales and sales through the App Store. Companies get to decide their margins, until someone tells em different, no one has yet.
Apple can charge what they want. They can also compete with Epic, Spotify or whoever. But the competition needs to be fair.
It is fair. Don't like the rules of the platform, build your own. Epic/Spotify could say, build their own hardware and OS. Nothing is stopping them from doing that. There is even a chance that that platform is compelling enough for many IOS to abbadnon ship (unlikely in my opinion). They don't want to do that because IOS/Android platforms have taken investment of hundreds of billions of dollars to get where they are today.
Corporations will always charge more money, if they can get away with it. Look at Apple's margins. They don't need to cross-subsidize anything. They are rent-seeking from an artificially created monopoly.
No it's a business model !
Competition is more important than a free market.
No. Competition does not mean differing prices. A free market allows competitors to choose/set prices. The free market creates competition.
Once iOS devices are sold at break-even, or as a loss-leader, then I'll take your point into consideration.
...but not a minute before that.
Who died and made you the great decider of what someone else can charge for their stuff? Don't like their actions, don't buy the products. You can't just decide which parts of a EULA or Contract you want to honour.
