It's a good thing we aren't talking about that, and that this has nothing to do with the actual post.
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
It's a good thing we aren't talking about that, and that this has nothing to do with the actual post.
This will fail, i'm sure in court, because the argument to this is "Apple's away charged 30%", yet it's only NOW for some reason are raising about it today. 5 odd years LATER.
You have no basis if you are ok with it, but after 5 years so so,, all of a sudden, enough is enough..
If people felt bad about 30% Apple takes, then why did you wait so long for file a claim?
Tim may be on the users side, but the 30%, don't mix that up with the reason to make the outcome sound better. Because they should be treated as non-related. By asking Apple to change their model, your asking a company to change how it does business. Competitiveness is a good thing..
No one is forcing you to put apps on the store. You choose to do it. So you have no worry but yourself to blame, when you come back later, like SPotify, and say "Apple is asking too much" when these companies arereally short sighed, they know very well Apple has taken 30% all this time, but they raise the point only now, because they want to stir the media up, with no basis to go on.
You have no basis if you are ok with it, but after 5 years so so,, all of a sudden, enough is enough..
If people felt bad about 30% Apple takes, then why did you wait so long for file a claim?
Tim may be on the users side, but the 30%, don't mix that up with the reason to make the outcome sound better. Because they should be treated as non-related. By asking Apple to change their model, your asking a company to change how it does business. Competitiveness is a good thing..
No one is forcing you to put apps on the store. You choose to do it. So you have no worry but yourself to blame, when you come back later, like SPotify, and say "Apple is asking too much" when these companies arereally short sighed, they know very well Apple has taken 30% all this time, but they raise the point only now, because they want to stir the media up, with no basis to go on.
Last edited:
How is this unfair? The 30% Apple’s cut was clearly set at the beginning and applied to all developers indiscriminately, not just those in “direct competition with Apple”. It is not like Apple tried squeezing Spotify or Netflix with a different rate, like 40% vs 30. In fact, Apple did exactly the opposite, reducing the cut to 15% from the second year. Imagine the exposure App Store brought to these companies. They complain about losing subscription money, but they are not forced by Apple to offer subscription from within their iOS apps. People can subscribe to services from any web browser, so if I were building Spotify/Netflix app, I would just remove a subscription option from there. Problem solved. This will create an “inconvenience” for a customer of having to take an extra step and opening Spotify subscription window in Safari (a mega effort!
), yet will give them all the subscription money without any Apple cuts.
What did you want them to do, resurrect Jobs from the dead? Cook seems like any other CEO, not bad but not particularly great.
What else would a business do? Just lose money...because?
Did you read it? Here's a snipped from the linked FTC webpage:
"Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power."
Does Apple have the ability to "raise prices" or "exclude competitors"? The answer to that question, I think, may be yes when applied specifically to smartphone/tablet apps.
They can certainly exclude competitors if they want to. I'm less clear about what is meant by "raising prices" - that's a question for a lawyer.
Look, that's a machine for people who need fast, and very high quality, execution. If you're editing a 3D video, a big Hollywood film, a symphony orchestra recording with a thousand tracks, this is what you need, and the price, which might be $50,000 fully tricked out, is peanuts to a big production house, and this is who it's made for. The monitor is a third of the price a Sony Reference monitor costs-- $23,000 for starters. And unless you need a 1,000 nit screen -- you don't.
Good grief. I was afraid of that. The iPhone is already too expensive. But then again, I guess most buy through their carrier, so what's an extra $5 or so a month?
Or Apple could just choose not to add another camera to its 2020 iPhone line and thus save its customers 50$ or so. 3D Touch is going away too, being replaced by long-press in iOS 13, so less expensive screens too. Basically, Apple have enough room to manoeuvre.
Remember when they released the first 22” Cinema Display around 20 years ago? It was like $4000 first and was aimed for desktop publishers. Then they released smaller and less expensive versions for a wider crowd. With the inflation calculator that is 6000 today.
There will be a cheaper display but they start out with high end customers to cover for RnD first. The referees monitor they compared to at the keynote is $450000. If this display is as good it’s a bargain for those customers. So the monitor is not aimed to please everybody, they are pretty clear about it in the keynote.
Yeah. But on an Android device, I am not forced to use the Google Play Store. I can also use the Amazon App Store on the same phone. Or the App Store from the phone manufacturer. Or I can sideload apps from any other source. These are liberties that don't exist on the Apple platform, and this is what people are rightfully complaining about.
I get it, Apple is a company and all that. But say because of the tariffs, the iPhone XI (or whatever it's called) has a $1100 starting price for the base model...they might as well not even sell the phone where the exchange rates take the price to even crazier prices!
I'm assuming LG will be onboard again this year. Let's hope we don't get a displaygate like we did with the whole Intel/Qualcomm modem situation
This is exactly it. And everyone keeps talking about the cost of the stand, but the thing is Apple knows most studios already have VESA mounts installed, and so they're effectively knocking $1,000 off the price for those that don't need a stand. I think if they had explained it this way we wouldn't have had gasps from the audience. "It's a monitor our competitors charge $25k plus for, and we're selling it for $6k, or $5k if you don't need a stand" would have been the better pitch.
Tim Cook is the “John Sculley era” today. The only proof I need is a $1000 stand.
TC is about profit and ripping off customers. Nothing wrong with that when you run a large corporation. But the problem is he is just about that, and nothing more.
Curing cancer would actually require innovation, something TC doesn't understand.
More like:
Tim Cook: *cures cancer*
EVERYONE at MacRumors: Stay in your lane Tim! Focus on fixing that butterfly keyboard. And no more emojis!
[doublepost=1559715420][/doublepost]
Walmart has 100% of the current Walmart customer-base. No other company runs a Walmart.
And apparently you're still buying all the latest products. Is that Cook's fault too, or do you ever make up your own mind on what to spend your money on?
The way I see it, Apple built their entire brand on the cool factor and, as the market happily swallowed it, moved on testing their price limits. iPhone X was the latest test-product to gauge just how much people were ready to pay for the latest & greatest Apple offering. And guess what, people jumped on it, again! People had a choice of saying, “Hey, over a 1000$ for a phone is pushing it!” and sitting it out, yet they embraced it and started Animojiing themselves to push that cool factor even further. /s So we cannot really appeal for Apple’s mercy or kindness as they set their prices, as they do exactly what each business does - make a maximal possible profit selling their products and/or services. However, we are not forced to buy their most expensive hardware either, as we can get a brand new iPhone 7 for 449$ and it will still run the latest iOS just fine. Minus the amazingly cool anjmojis, of course.
People who always quote the 6k display are starting to get annoying. Why don't you understand, that you aren't the target market? Apple should have offered this display only to enterprise costumers so people would stop moaning.
How do you know Walmart and Target don’t have 30% margins on certain products?