331–340 of 825 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Side note: Please stop using EU and Europe interchangeably, they are not the same thing. 100s of millions of people live on the continent of Europe, but not in the EU.
I'll do that when US people stop using America and Americans to describe themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A. This market is a duopoly so there is limited opportunity to vote with your wallet. This was not always the case. What’s stopping a competitor from defeating both Apple and Google? Windows Mobile had a peak market share of about 42%, higher than what Apple has in the EU. My response to B is the same to A. Regarding C what is an acceptable percentage - how did you come up with that number? Apple has been pretty tr…
42%? Was that on some random small market? Globally it peaked at 4%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if you personally won't benefit from it you should not be against someone else benefiting right? If you want to buy Cyberpunk 2077 you have the option of at least 3 stores, I did not see any Steam user getting damaged by the fact the game is on other stores too.
Is the App Store really an obstacle to apps getting on the iOS platform? Is it artificially raising prices? That's what matters from a consumer interests perspective, are they losing out or are they getting ripped off. If the answer is no, there's no case to answer. The reason for companies to exist and develop and sell products isn't to benefit their competitors.
Open question on if this is net beneficial to consumers or developers, but it could also be considered an economic inevitability when MC = MR = 0.
So, the EU will make a big fuss, lump Apple with a huge fine, which in the grand scheme of things amounts to a slap on the wrist, and then what? Apple will be forced to lower their fees, but i'm sure they'll come up with another creative way to fleece off app store vendors. Sigh. I wonder if they're not already selling information to Facebook after releasing ios 14.5...
Force Apple to allow other billing systems?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it is simply bizarre seeing these claims like it's some enormous expense that they're doing because they're benevolent. That's not a claim I've made in any way, shape, or form. Please don't misrepresent things I've written based on your own self-projections.
Predicting that they're going to charge a "bananas" amount for "hosting and distributing apps" -- ostensibly on the basis of the cost of all of these "free" users (where free means paid enormous amounts for devices based upon this service) -- certainly does seem to make that claim.
> ostensibly on the basis
Is where you begin to separate from my comment.
But in the spirit of good conversation, my point was that Apple will collect some fee for companies to be on the App Store, especially the large ones (Facebook, Netflix, Spotify, etc.). They're not going to just say well I guess we won't charge developers anymore. I think the idea with the percentage of revenue was to have the amount taken grow in proportion with the value of the user base and number of users using a particular app, especially if they might have discovered that app on the iOS platform (i.e. lead generation).
If that goes away, there's no reason that I can see that Apple won't say, well we charged you X last year, we estimate that you're deriving Y amount of revenue from the App Store so we're going to charge an annual fee of Z to be on the App Store.
Since this is an EU case, that should mean it'll actually do something, and won't take a decade and a half to conclude. The penalty won't be the big deal here, it'll be what Apple is prohibited from doing. And it'll be really exciting if the precedent set blows back on the entire 30%-rent-seeking-platform-industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's like saying that you shouldn't have more than one store per street, because they might stock exclusive items and that would be really annoying for customers to have to visit two stores for their shopping rather than one. Surely it's better to have only one store, even if it means your selection is limited by the store owner, think of all the inconvenience saved by not having any choice! I'm being sarcastic…
The argument you're making can be used to say just buy an Android phone which already can do what you're describing, no?
Like, imagine if a company making car mats had to ask for permission from Mercedes to sell mats compatible with their cars. Or brake pads or oils or literally anything car related. We've regulated this through legislation years ago - manufacturers cannot say what is and isn't allowed with their cars post sale, they don't have that power. Why not software platforms next?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is apple entitled to 30 percent of what any other business makes? Apple developed a platform and says to developers "pay is 30 percent to use it" sounds fair to me. Huge streaming service comes along "I want to use you platform but not pay the fee". How is that remotely fair? No one is making Spotify use it. What right has any one or any company got to demand special treatment. Many other app developers are fine…
People pretend that for-profit entities are supposed to build platform as a public good. When in fact corporations are incentivized by the market to be a monopoly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should add, the ruling is not really about the validity of the 30% fee. What EU seems to argue is this: 1. Apple is in phone business, Spotify music. So far so good... 2. Then apple wants to get into the music business too. Now they have an unfair advantage since Spotify must pay 30% to apple while apple music "pays" 0%. So apple use their dominance in one area (phones) to get an advantage in a totally different area…
Apple have been in the music business much longer than Spotify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Sure why not Are you trolling? or do not understand business?
I do understand business. You understand that customers are free to move on if they don't like a business' practices right? There are business's today whose websites only work on certain browsers, so I don't know what you're going on about to begin with.
False. Not when there is a monopoly or the cost is too big(do you need examples? or definitions?)
>There are business's today whose websites only work on certain browsers
Sure, show me more then one excpetion of a company that made a web product from scratch in the latest 10 years and their product supports ONLY a browser with less then 50% market share.
But if you REALLY think(and not trolling) that a real business like restaurant/gym/parking place/shop can support only Linux phones then stop replying , just buy a iPhone from US when the EU version will be unlock-able.