And I have never felt any iOS app which I have purchased (not that many) has been overpriced, so I guess the "tax" is reasonable. By the way, I have always found the term "apple tax" to be curious, as generally, isn't a tax something that you pay involuntarily?
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.
Tim Cook Says Apple 'Should be Scrutinized' But Disputes Claims Company is a Monopoly
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I just don't see the parallel, maybe you can clarify.
But the customer isn't worse off. I have subscribed to Spotify off and on. I have always subscribed via their site, and then simply entered the password when opening the iOS app, just to be fair to Spotify. If I am not mistaken, Apple then does not get a cut. Now, I am likely not going to subscribe to Spotify again, due to them underpaying artists.
Any app developer knows up front what Apple's cut will be. They don't have to sell their app in the app store if they don't want to.
Last edited:
No other company runs a Playstation Store, Xbox Store, Nintendo Switch store, etc and before you mention buying the digital assets at Amazon for Xbox that is the same as buying any iTunes card at Amazon. The Apple iOS eco-system was solely built by Apple so it can dictate what happens in it's eco system. It's not like they have locked out any other smartphone from existing.
[doublepost=1559706477][/doublepost]
You're right Walmart takes more than 30% on PC software. In fact you had to pay to get your title up on the shelf, on top of Walmart getting a major percent of the sale.
I can walk into best buy and buy physical ps4 games. Doesn't matter that it is physical.
Where/how can you do that??
If there was an ample amount of places on the web you could read non-biased news, there would be no Apple News.
Such a larger character count in your post and not one word backs up the monoply charge.
And Apple is not the only company that sells mobile devices. You’re certainly free to create your own smartphone hardware and software. No one is stopping you.
Not really the same analogy. He was talking about competition with apple software and alternatives in the same app store. This would be like walmart branded goods sold in their stores alongside alternatives.
Walmart may not take a 30% cut but they are also far more selective in letting products be sold in their stores than apple is in its app store.
While you say that people can shop at Target, so too can people get an android or other smart phone. Not only does android dominate market share they also have multiple stores to choose from.
If Apple purchased Qualcomm and then refused to sell chips to others THEN it would be a monopoly. Anyone can create a smartphone yet everyone wants to be in the iOS world. That world was created by Apple and it has the same right as Sony, MS, Steam and even Walmart to charge vendors (developers) to get the products on the shelf. Spotify should create their own player.
Note Steam takes a similar cut for sales as Apple. Walmart and Target also took a similar cut (30 to 40%) as well as charging for shelf space. Apple Retail Stores do this as well, early on Panasonic was a big purchaser of shelf space. In fact every major store picks which products can come in and they use to charge for shelf space and position. I haven't been in retail for 10 years but I am sure some are still doing it. Almost forgot Supermarkets don't charge for the stuff at the end of the line but they force a huge discount that is eaten by the manufacturer.
[doublepost=1559707917][/doublepost]
Please list some points on why it is a monopoly.
[doublepost=1559708467][/doublepost]
Yes but you can only sell a PS4 title after you have paid Sony for a Dev kit ($10k), gotten your title approved by Sony for their device, paid an approved PS4 Disc manufacturer to make the disc and boxes (Sony gets a kickback) and finally pay Sony for each unit sold ($15 per game). Now once you have subtracted all of that cost from the title get prepared to pay to get on the (Best Buy, Fry's etc) shelves. God help you if you need to release a patch. Sony is gonna need some more money. Note: You can replace Sony with MS and/or Nintendo.
Let me add that to release a title on iOS you need a Mac ($2500), $99 yearly subscription, iOS Approval process. DONE. Not paying for hosting, credit card transaction fees, maintaining a support infrastructure, etc...
Last edited:
That new display goes toe-to-toe with $10k reference monitors and $4k LCD TVs. The $1,000 stand is a cash grab though.
Use Feedly and handpick yourself the sources that you value. If there is an RSS feed, then you can add it to your feed.
The people that justify that Apple has non-biased news are the epitome of ignorance.
It is not the best analogy, as there are only two main players in the current mobile OS space: Apple & Google. In your car example, it would be that there were just two car manufacturers on the planet - Ford and, say, Mercedes - which, thankfully for all of us, is not the case.
I’ll take your word for it regarding the actual monitor. The price of the stand....outlandish.
It's probably as ridiculous as the fact the courts are investigating if it's a monopoly. Let the results of the court dictate if it's ridiculous.
Not even close to the same thing and arguing as much is disingenuous. It would seem like it's you who didn't really read much of the linked article. This bit in particular:
"Finally, the monopolist may have a legitimate business justification for behaving in a way that prevents other firms from succeeding in the marketplace. For instance, the monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services. In the end, courts will decide whether the monopolist's success is due to "the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident."
I would argue that the App Store's focus on keeping the whole system secure and free from bad actors (which still occasionally manage to slip through even with these protections in place) is a benefit to users and thus Apple has a very strong leg to stand on according to the quoted text.
There is Aptoid, Amazon Appstore, F-Droid, Opera Mobile Store, Samsung App Store, etc...
The AppStore is a curated environment designed to protect the system integrity. If anyone could upload imagine the junk and security risks. It’s proven difficult at times when app devs put in workarounds.
If I didn’t like the security model I’m not locked. If an app doesn’t get written for Apple devices I can buy other hardware. AppStore will survive on merit while users find value.
Checking facts isn’t an algorithm. That’s content curation.
Putting articles showing alternate views is balance. Not an algorithm.
Yes you can curate with direction and bias. Most media have done that for years.
Except iOS has a rich and criminally underused set of APIs for running web apps. In fact, most people don't realize that you can save any URL to a web app to your home screen as if it were an app, and launching it from that icon runs it in its own discrete memory space just like a real app. If developers don't want anything to do with the App Store, they have the option to create their apps that way. There are many out there. One of my favorite weather apps is a web app. The App Store is not the only path to publishing software on iOS, therefore it is not a monopoly.
But for the sake of argument, let's say the App Store is a monopoly, even though it doesn't actually meet the definition. The problem after that is that it's not actually illegal to be a monopoly. What's illegal is being a monopoly and exercising your power in that regard to unfairly crush competitors. Beyond making the case that the App Store is a monopoly, you will have to show how Apple is abusing that.