321–330 of 411 posts
I find headlines like this much more appropriate when placed in terms of days of revenue: "Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near 2 days of revenue!" For somebody that makes the median income, of about $50k, this is a fine of $273 for years of largescale systematic abusive behavior, done for profit.
I find headlines like this much more appropriate when placed in terms of days of revenue: "Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near 2 days of revenue!" For somebody that makes the median income, of about $50k, this is a fine of $273 for years of largescale systematic abusive behavior, done for profit.
In English law, is there a clearly defined, well understood, written standard of “fair”?
No, that's why courts and tribunals exist: to decide what's just in each specific case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fines can work. We should continue fining them one day of revenue every day until compliance occurs.
You believe that breaking them up is geopolitically infeasible but a fine larger than the GDP of Finland would fly? On top of that, giant bureaucracies are great at "compliance". That isn't the same as doing the thing you actually wanted though.
To achieve the thing you wanted, word the law vaguely and have a judge interpret it. You know, the same way the law is applied to poors like you and me. Nobody gets off a murder by saying "Your Honour, when I stabbed that man to death, technically I didn't meet the criteria in point 3 subsection 12 and therefore I am innocent." Why should corporations get that privilege? (I note they may be found innocent of murder but guilty of something like manslaughter - which is fine! Different degrees of violation of the law can result in greater or lesser sentences. Proportionality is a good thing. Apple should only have to pay half the fine if the judge estimates they've done half what they should)
> “developers were overcharged by the difference between a 17.5% commission for app purchases and the commission Apple charged, which Kent’s lawyers said was usually 30%.” > “The CAT also ruled that app developers passed on 50% of the overcharge to consumers.” And that's why I stopped buying Apple products - ultimately it is the end user that pays for everything. Apple exploits both developers and its consumers.
In which situation does the end user not pay for everything? Even a fine or a tax on a company ends rolled up in the price paid by the end user. Same thing with programs paid for by the government. It’s the taxpayers who foot the bill. I’m kinda split on the whole Apple situation. I’m firmly in the camp of “monopoly bad”, but apparently people are fine with apple’s practices. It’s not like they have to buy an iPhone.
In situations where the company needs to continue to compete, and factoring fines into prices would push it out of competitiveness, so it needs to find other ways to offset the fine.
Apple's unlikely to be in this situation, and probably has massive buckets of cash just sitting around in various offshore places anyway. I doubt a couple of billion are much danger.
> apparently people are fine with apple’s practices
I'm happy my mum has a phone that can only install apps and stuff that are sanctioned by apple.
She's not savvy enough to know differently, she doesn't really do apps, and frankly her best defence against any sort of tech-based scammers is likely to be "Oh, well, I wouldn't know how to do that", but otherwise extra-strong rails are a really useful thing.
Monopolies are bad but the current ecosystem is so good, and for me other app stores aren't that interesting. And for some less savvy users they would be an outright threat.
> “developers were overcharged by the difference between a 17.5% commission for app purchases and the commission Apple charged, which Kent’s lawyers said was usually 30%.” > “The CAT also ruled that app developers passed on 50% of the overcharge to consumers.” And that's why I stopped buying Apple products - ultimately it is the end user that pays for everything. Apple exploits both developers and its consumers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't jail a company. And breaking one up is pretty much impossible considering the geopolitical pressures on huge companies like this.
You can imagine things a country could do in this respect. Require the devices they sell in your country to be completely unlocked with respect to third party app stores and operating systems, but also with respect to regions so that people can buy the unlocked ones there and use them anywhere. Invalidate their copyrights in your country so that third parties can ship phones with iOS. It's punishment, they're not sup…
This must be an essential requirement for all PC-like devices.
> regions
People in different regions have very different average income. As long as manufacturer scales prices accordingly, I think locking to this region might be appropriate.
> buy the unlocked ones there and use them anywhere
In the case if the price is already the worldwide highest one, you're right, no locking to the region is needed.
> EU could actually break them up
I think, EU could only achieve that a non-EU-based company leaves EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2 days of global revenue is not a good baseline for breaking a single country. Comparing against their UK revenue is probably a better metric ?
Why? If a shoplifter steals from one shop, the judge will not take into consideration all the shops they didn't steal from.
Devs voluntarily choose to publish apps on the App Store and doing so gets them both another discovery channel and a low-friction sales channel. Stores being robbed by shoplifters don't voluntarily enter that arrangement and they get no benefit from it.
> “developers were overcharged by the difference between a 17.5% commission for app purchases and the commission Apple charged, which Kent’s lawyers said was usually 30%.” > “The CAT also ruled that app developers passed on 50% of the overcharge to consumers.” And that's why I stopped buying Apple products - ultimately it is the end user that pays for everything. Apple exploits both developers and its consumers.
In which situation does the end user not pay for everything? Even a fine or a tax on a company ends rolled up in the price paid by the end user. Same thing with programs paid for by the government. It’s the taxpayers who foot the bill. I’m kinda split on the whole Apple situation. I’m firmly in the camp of “monopoly bad”, but apparently people are fine with apple’s practices. It’s not like they have to buy an iPhone.