It does not. I have Firefox Focus Content Blocker enabled in iOS Safari, and other Content Blocker apps for Mac Safari.
They have banned the use of VPN APIs to tunnel traffic through a filtering proxy. Apps such as AdGuard Pro used to use this to perform whole-device adblocking.
VPN APIs is for VPNs, not ad blocker apps. Apple is “sandboxing” applications, so apps have limited ability to interfere with each other or alter the overall workings of the phone. Which is a good thing, one app should not see other app's traffic.
So you agree that Apple is using its market position to increase prices compared to what they would be if apps were available from other sources?
I'm not convinced that "Apple's refusal to let developers set app prices at a more granular level is an unfair predatory practice" is a slam dunk argument. Additional later note: the actual court case here does, in fact, argue that requiring that all app prices end in 0.99 means Apple is dictating pricing terms, which on some level is of course absolutely true, i.e., it's Apple's fault I can't price my app at $1.49,…
I'm not saying it's a slam dunk argument. I have no opinion on how this case will go because I don't know much about the law. I just think it's pretty clear that setting a 99 cent price floor increases the price of some apps.
And Nintendo, Somy, and MS have monopoles on their stores. Just like if you don’t like what one console offers you are free to buy another one, if you don’t like what’s available for iOS, you are free to buy an Android.
Yep! Monopoly just means there's only one supplier of any commodity. It does not mean there are no alternatives.
And Nintendo, Somy, and MS have monopoles on their stores. Just like if you don’t like what one console offers you are free to buy another one, if you don’t like what’s available for iOS, you are free to buy an Android.
Yep! Monopoly just means there's only one supplier of any commodity. It does not mean there are no alternatives. A patent is a government-issued monopoly.
In that case you can define monopoly however you want.
You could say that YCombinator has a monopoly on posts to HN.
Folks here on HN are (understandably) leaping on the notion that this will force Apple to allow other app stores, or sideloading, or something else that keeps the App Store from being the exclusive distributor of iOS apps. But, a few notes that are important to keep in mind: (1) Apple is the petitioner here. They're the ones asking the Supreme Court to make a ruling, specifically on whether the complainant has the le…
The difference here is that the 30% cut is on everything digital sold through apple's payment system - including in app purchases. Amazon has removed in-app purchases from it's kindle and comixology apps because they'd owe a 30% cut to apple. Make whatever justifications for the app store purchases you want, it's the digital content from other stores (video, music, books, etc) that will bring about the anti-trust issues. Add to that the fact that apple is the only one restricting users to their app marketplace and you have the recipe for an antitrust lawsuit. Microsoft got hit with antitrust because they included internet explorer by default, how apple has only allowed one source for applications for ten years and never been challenged on it I will never know.
Storage/hosting, support and distribution (bandwidth) are missing frim the list. Arguably, it may not cover 30%, but it does provide for more than 2.9%
Spotify/Kindle/etc subscriptions and purchases are not hosted or distributed by Apple.
No, but the apps are. Spotify comes in at 98MB, and Kindle at 113MB. That is a lot of bandwidth. Since Amazon don't offer IAP, they get that for free, Spotify do offer IAP, so contribute that way.
Spotify/Kindle/etc subscriptions and purchases are not hosted or distributed by Apple.
No, but the apps are. Spotify comes in at 98MB, and Kindle at 113MB. That is a lot of bandwidth. Since Amazon don't offer IAP, they get that for free, Spotify do offer IAP, so contribute that way.
Then Apple or Google can make developers pay for the size.
And no, Amazon doesn't get it for free, they pay the developer fees like ALL the other developers
No, but the apps are. Spotify comes in at 98MB, and Kindle at 113MB. That is a lot of bandwidth. Since Amazon don't offer IAP, they get that for free, Spotify do offer IAP, so contribute that way.
Then Apple or Google can make developers pay for the size. And no, Amazon doesn't get it for free, they pay the developer fees like ALL the other developers
> Then Apple or Google can make developers pay for the size.
They do; it's part of the 30% margin for the price of an App/IAP.