261–270 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good thing it's 15% for both of them then.
A teaser rate? Good luck getting publisher or VC funding for something that is a bet on you going big. They will discount projections by the full 30.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think stores have an obligation to carry your products, it isn't like supermarkets are breaking the law because they don't have an open-door policy on products. You don't have some intrinsic legal right to use someone else's infrastructure to sell your own stuff, on your terms. Framing this as a legal or ethical issue leaves me cold, when the reality is just... you'd PREFER higher margins. I get it! I'm not s…
> I don't think stores have an obligation to carry your products, it isn't like supermarkets are breaking the law because they don't have an open-door policy on products. I agree. However, consumers have the right to go to a different supermarket, without selling their house.
Consumers bought this house with their eyes wide open knowing that they can only access one supermarket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, paying off phone manufacturers and companies to not create or preinstall third party app stores on to devices is what hurt Google here
Right, which is not something Apple "needed" to do because they didn't allow competition in the iOS phone manufacturing business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think stores have an obligation to carry your products, it isn't like supermarkets are breaking the law because they don't have an open-door policy on products. You don't have some intrinsic legal right to use someone else's infrastructure to sell your own stuff, on your terms. Framing this as a legal or ethical issue leaves me cold, when the reality is just... you'd PREFER higher margins. I get it! I'm not s…
> I don't think stores have an obligation to carry your products, it isn't like supermarkets are breaking the law because they don't have an open-door policy on products. I agree. However, consumers have the right to go to a different supermarket, without selling their house.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, Google shouldn’t have given Riot Games $10m in marketing to prevent launching a competing android store, or give OEMs 20% cut of Play revenue to prevent them from bundling competing stores. Or cut a special deal with Spotify where it pays 0% while still using Play Store billing.
You mean just like Epic got special marketing deals from console manufacturers?
If it was revealed that Sony gave Epic a special marketing deal to prevent Epic from launching a console, then yeah that would be pretty dodgy!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden? Or at least, not if they're successful? That doesn't make sense to me, why is that not an acceptable and desirable feature for some people ? You don't have to buy an iPhone, this isn't like a railroad or a telecom that owns all of the possible infrastructure. If you want a walled garden get an iPhone. If you want freedom with all that implies, go Android.
> I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden You can provide a walled garden. But that's not Apple does. Instead, Apple is a mafia that shakes down all the vendors for the right to sell in their semi-open market square. If Apple iOS were a walled garden, it would have contained only Apple applications.
I think they actually have a monopsony since you can only sell to apple. If there were other app stores, you could sell to them instead.
"In economics, a monopsony is a market structure in which a single buyer substantially controls the market as the major purchaser of goods and services offered by many would-be sellers. The microeconomic theory of monopsony assumes a single entity to have market power over all sellers as the only purchaser of a good or service. This is a similar power to that of a monopolist, which can influence the price for its buyers in a monopoly, where multiple buyers have only one seller of a good or service available to purchase from."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
(And they probably have a monopoly wrt iphone customers)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I ran Apple or Google (and was running with the "customer safety" angle): If you want to run a third-party app store, okay. But you have to play by Apple/Google's rules and standards. Just like they have guidelines for their own store's apps, have the same guidelines for third-party stores. It puts the onus on third-party stores to make sure they're just as stringent as the parent store/platform. If you fail to be…
> If you want to run a third-party app store, okay. But you have to play by Apple/Google's rules and standards. I am not sure if you even posted on the right comment or if you even read the article. This whole post is about how actually those rules are illegal and therefore we don't have to follow them. The whole point is that actually we can use the law to force Google or Apple to change their rules, or forcibly all…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The jury These cases always goes like this. Jury awards 1 billion dollars etc. It always gets revised by the judge later on. Is this any different?
The judge cannot override the jury's ruling, so unless Google's appeal succeeds, the ruling stays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do we know for a fact Apple made fewer deals like these? I don't think we do. Apple makes a lot of deals. A lot. I'd expect them to be about even.
There was a whole trial about this. If Apple had these deals, it would have come out. Google and Apple ran things differently.