341–350 of 411 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do web pages accessed from (for example) Safari cost the publisher 30% of a subscription fee, when a subscription might be established off mobile first?
How are web pages analogous to installing mobile software, in this particular example?
is what the parent comment said, which overlooked web and assumed native app installs
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.
Laws apply to jurisdictions, there are no universal laws which are legally binding.
Even if it is illegal, it is for them to collect their own fines for that crime .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you expect them to do in this case in particular?
Consider Google Play, for starters.
There's a section "112. On 10 June 2022, the CMA published the final report in its MEM Study, which contains a number of findings in relation to both Apple and Google."
It's amazing that you never even tried to read the actual document but already immediately assume a position that is trivially proven wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Charging devs a percentage App Store sales is very different from shoplifting and equating the two is extremely misleading. 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.
Look I'm not going to say the analogy is perfect. No analogy ever is. But at a fundamental level, they are breaking the law to extract money from people. You may not call that stealing, but imho it's not a huge stretch of reality.
So what difference does it make to the regular joe that the loan shark got shook down by the mafia boss ?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No shit. That's completely different from what you claimed, though, which was specifically that people were giving up PCs to become smartphone users because they appreciated the lack of choice that smartphones gave them. The phenomenon you're talking about now is so completely in another universe that it's insane you would conflate the two. I actually can't finish typing this response properly because it's hurting my…
You think smartphones give people fewer choices?
Now you have a multibillion-dollar supranational corporation playing judge jury and executioner for any of your choices.
E.g. App Store prohibits adult content (which is not illegal). Prohibits emulators (which are not illegal) [1]. Prohibits or hinders the use of better alternatives to pre-installed apps (Photos, Camera, Maps, Siri) [1]. Removes any and all apps if there's a hint of displeasure from wannabe dictators.
Basically, you don't have your range of choices. You have Apple's range of choices.
[1] Some of these choices are now better on iOS precisely due to Apple losing the fight against governments. They finally allowed emulators after they lost a battle against alternative app stores. They finally gave options to change some default apps (but not all, and not in all countries, see e.g. https://mjtsai.com/blog/2025/03/14/dma-compliance-default-ma...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> and operating systems 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 i…
Exactly, also, the US would prevent that geopolitically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, but when every single business on the planet has to pay you 30% for access to mobile device users, it definitely isn't.
Why do so many people quote the 30% number? Only apps with more than $1,000,000 annual revenue are paying 30%. Most apps are smaller than that and are hit with a 15% fee.
And of course, when they announced this big discount it was reported to apply to about 5% of actual IAP spending, which would make the average commission fee being paid around 29%.
tldr; it's a weaselly discount.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As long as Apple requires they make use of those services for me to install software on the computer I bought, and they prevent others from producing equivalent competing devices via patents (i.e. government granted monopolies), zero. Right, that's the thing. And zero should also be their revenue and their asset value as long as they continue along that path. The fines should continue to escalate, and should also b…
That's a big enough number that the likely result is Apple would pull out of the UK altogether.