671–680 of 688 posts
Can anyone explain why Wechat, the app that can do everything, streaming paid music, read paid ebooks, order food and goods, play games, are allowed to charge directly without IAP? Heck wechat even had its own mini app store.
Interesting. Also , is it impossible for spotify to offer its service through the ios browser?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your argument relies on combining the markets for iOS and Android apps into a single market. These are separate markets because you can't put an Android app on iPhone or an iOS app on Android. If iOS had 100% share, you probably wouldn't say it doesn't have a monopoly on apps because you can just use desktop apps instead. I also wouldn't say Comcast doesn't have a monopoly because they only have xx% share and you can…
Thats like saying that the market for car parts for fords and chevrolets are separate market and monopolized by ford and chevrolet respectively. It's bunkum and doesn't fit with 100 years of antitrust law.
However, he can buy an aftermarket part. It's a different product but the same market. So they don't have a monopoly.
I don't know much about antitrust law so I can't comment on that But I do understand basic economics. And from an economic perspective, Apple most definitely created a monopoly which they most definitely use for rent seeking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am very hard-pressed to believe iOS has a monopoly by most arguments. Market share argument: Android has 71% market share in the EU, as of February 2019 - compared to iOS's 21%. [1] Ease of customer switching argument: If Apple pressed too much in a way that harmed consumers, there are many other cheaper alternative Android phones vs. iOS to which they can easily port their number over (say what you want about ISPs…
Your argument relies on combining the markets for iOS and Android apps into a single market. These are separate markets because you can't put an Android app on iPhone or an iOS app on Android. If iOS had 100% share, you probably wouldn't say it doesn't have a monopoly on apps because you can just use desktop apps instead. I also wouldn't say Comcast doesn't have a monopoly because they only have xx% share and you can…
An android phone is just as portable and has all of the same features as an Apple phone. The only day to day difference is having access to the apple ecosystem.
It’s nothing but a minor inconvenience to switch between android and iOS. The same can’t be said for any of your other comparisons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is most likely using predatory pricing against Spotify which is illegal [0]. I highly doubt Apple music is profitable at a price point of $10 once the 30% cut is taken into account. But since they also get the 30% cut back, they can subsidize their product while Spotify has to charge $10 at a loss or price it at $14 which is more than Apples price and makes the un-competitive. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki…
> But since they also get the 30% cut back. That's not how that works. If you charge $50/hr as a freelance software developer and you work on your own stuff for a day you didn't "get $400 back", you paid $400 in opportunity cost.
If apple had a limited number of apps and they were declining other apps in lieu of its own, that would be true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your argument relies on combining the markets for iOS and Android apps into a single market. These are separate markets because you can't put an Android app on iPhone or an iOS app on Android. If iOS had 100% share, you probably wouldn't say it doesn't have a monopoly on apps because you can just use desktop apps instead. I also wouldn't say Comcast doesn't have a monopoly because they only have xx% share and you can…
None of your comparisons are apt because desktops are not smartphones. An android phone is just as portable and has all of the same features as an Apple phone. The only day to day difference is having access to the apple ecosystem. It’s nothing but a minor inconvenience to switch between android and iOS. The same can’t be said for any of your other comparisons.
Switching includes spending hundreds of dollars plus hours to setup and figure things out plus several days of frustrating adjustments.
You might call that a "minor inconvenience". It certainly is more minor than my examples above. But that absolutely is enough to separate the two app markets. Virtually nobody will switch systems for an app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is not "actively trying to prevent" people from managing their Spotify, Netflix et al subscriptions outside of their respective iOS apps, what are you talking about?
The app literally can't send you to the Web page so you can sign up there. It has to say something vague for Apple to approve it for publishing. Here's an example from Kobo [1]. They apparently can't even tell you the domain name. [1] http://imgs.fyi/img/7hut.png
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like you've set up an opinion where Apple Music is not allowed to exist in any form because Apple obeying the App Store rules like any other app is not considered enough.
I have no problem with Google Play Music/YouTube Music because those are treated like equal citizens with Spotify on Android. I think it’s better for everyone if Apple Music’s competitors weren’t at a disadvantage just because Apple makes the platform, and I say this as someone who owns many Apple products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to wikipedia, the USB-C spec was finalized in 2014, while lighting was introduced in 2012. So GP's point was correct that USB-C was not an option when lightning was created. As far as whether Apple should now migrate from lightning to USB-C, that's a separate question with tradeoffs on both sides.
I clearly mention new iPhones, don't i?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if you own a Mac it costs $0 to develop for any other platform. See the imbalance here?
No, it costs 100 euros to get a proper Windows license.