441–450 of 513 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really think they wouldn’t maximize their profit anyway? Being more expensive in the appstore is just politics.
pgrote posted this tweet elsewhere in the thread [0]. They literally gave users the option for apple app store pay for $9.99 and Epic direct payment as $7.99. [0]: https://twitter.com/ballmatthew/status/1293893660493455360
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The usual answer is that people who buy the phones must think it’s ok, otherwise they’d buy a competitor’s phone. And of course opinions differ on the good and bad aspects of their policies. It’s not like all the competitors who are complaining are ‘fair’ in any particular way. Also, your description fits a department store, or Amazon, or pretty much any other store for that matter. All store owners get to stock what…
> The usual answer is that people who buy the phones must think it’s ok, otherwise they’d buy a competitor’s phone. I think plenty of people might think on reflection "That's not cool but I still want that phone". That pretty much sums up my continuing commercial relationship with Google as well. And my feelings about most modern meat production practices. We don't always vote with our wallets.
We do, it's just not 100% of the weight of the decision, but it's rarely 0%.
Discussion of Apple topics here on HN almost always gets reduced to the argument that Apple is not a monopoly, so what they are doing is OK. I want to present an alternative viewpoint. It's not a monopoly issue, it is an anti-competitive issue. In Canada, we have three major cell carriers. None of them has a monopoly, or anything close to it. None of them has even 50% market share. You can have a 10 GB smartphone pla…
It's a regulation issue. Things were similar in my country until the state decided to sell the fourth frequency range licence at a reduced cost (to offset the lead of the other three) and made routing cheaper. In exchange the new provider had to commit infrastructure investments. At about the same time, it was legally mandated that transferring phone numbers between providers be simple and cheap. The prices cratered…
Discussion of Apple topics here on HN almost always gets reduced to the argument that Apple is not a monopoly, so what they are doing is OK. I want to present an alternative viewpoint. It's not a monopoly issue, it is an anti-competitive issue. In Canada, we have three major cell carriers. None of them has a monopoly, or anything close to it. None of them has even 50% market share. You can have a 10 GB smartphone pla…
> reduced to the argument that Apple is not a monopoly, so what they are doing is OK. Wait, how can what Apple does ever be okay even they legally don't have a monopoly. Apple provides a marketplace (which they name store, but it's a marked place not a store) which is the only way to install software (on their phone) for millions of persons which means it's a marked and not just a marked place and they do both run th…
The only thing I can infer from this comment is that you aren't arguing within a legal framework (although I suspect you might be wrong because "unfair competitive advantage" is something that can be enforced under US and EU law).
Discussion of Apple topics here on HN almost always gets reduced to the argument that Apple is not a monopoly, so what they are doing is OK. I want to present an alternative viewpoint. It's not a monopoly issue, it is an anti-competitive issue. In Canada, we have three major cell carriers. None of them has a monopoly, or anything close to it. None of them has even 50% market share. You can have a 10 GB smartphone pla…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except for it to be a black market illegality needs to be established and it isn't clandestine - the rules are freely available and there are other markets (android) available for apps. This is a poor analogy. I am still waiting for a real argument on HN as to what Apple is doing that is anti-competitive or illegal. Still have not found one.
Apple and Google are both charging 30% fees and together, they own almost the entire smartphone market. It is harming consumers due to the higher costs this 30% is imposing on transactions. Whether it is illegal or not is up to the court to decide. But as a customer, I would like to complain about this and state my dissatisfaction. Perhaps if enough people do it, they will change their behaviour. Also as a voter, I w…
They provide a great service to devs - a store to get consumers to see and buy their products.
Why is 30% unfair?
A company charging a certain percentage for something is neither unfair or anti-competitive. You need to develop your argument further.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> reduced to the argument that Apple is not a monopoly, so what they are doing is OK. Wait, how can what Apple does ever be okay even they legally don't have a monopoly. Apple provides a marketplace (which they name store, but it's a marked place not a store) which is the only way to install software (on their phone) for millions of persons which means it's a marked and not just a marked place and they do both run th…
The usual answer is that people who buy the phones must think it’s ok, otherwise they’d buy a competitor’s phone. And of course opinions differ on the good and bad aspects of their policies. It’s not like all the competitors who are complaining are ‘fair’ in any particular way. Also, your description fits a department store, or Amazon, or pretty much any other store for that matter. All store owners get to stock what…
People don't realize what's actually going on with the policies and practices of the app stores. They just buy the phone and use it. If they did know, they would probably be more opposed to it too. They don't realize how these practices actually impact them and their choices on the platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a regulation issue. Things were similar in my country until the state decided to sell the fourth frequency range licence at a reduced cost (to offset the lead of the other three) and made routing cheaper. In exchange the new provider had to commit infrastructure investments. At about the same time, it was legally mandated that transferring phone numbers between providers be simple and cheap. The prices cratered…
There is a fourth carrier with Freedom Mobile but the population density makes it so hard for them to truly compete.
Just look at the prices in Australia or Russia. There's no good technical reason Canada should just be massively more expensive than the rest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mastercard, Visa etc all take a fee for transactions. There are serious costs involved in running an international payments system. But that's very different from a proper 30% style cut.
Apple pay uses the Visa and Mastercard network though. It's on top of the V/MC cut. Apple only adds that you can use your card on the phone. You end up using your credit card anyways.
Apple has none of the risk and somehow thinks it is appropriate to charge per transaction AND customer. Yes, they charge the companies who wish to integrate with apple pay a quarterly fee per card.
Apple customers are footing this bill, of course, as vendors and banks aren't just going to lose money. Apple is way out of line, and apple customers would benefit from informing themselves.
Discussion of Apple topics here on HN almost always gets reduced to the argument that Apple is not a monopoly, so what they are doing is OK. I want to present an alternative viewpoint. It's not a monopoly issue, it is an anti-competitive issue. In Canada, we have three major cell carriers. None of them has a monopoly, or anything close to it. None of them has even 50% market share. You can have a 10 GB smartphone pla…