41–50 of 258 posts
30% is a lot to take away from the developers. It's good to have some pressure on Apple to lower their percentage.
Yeah? Have you ever tried pushing your software during Windows Mobile era?
Here’s what I don’t get: in what sense is this a monopoly? Consumers have knowledge that the App Store is the only game in town on an iPhone, and they have the option to buy a different phone if they don’t want to use the App Store. That’s like saying that the manufacturer of my vacuum has a monopoly on vacuum bags.
Read it again - it's about the monopoly on App Store. It's like buying a car and only able to use gas sold by that company.
Nintendo
Sega
Any loss leader product
Here’s what I don’t get: in what sense is this a monopoly? Consumers have knowledge that the App Store is the only game in town on an iPhone, and they have the option to buy a different phone if they don’t want to use the App Store. That’s like saying that the manufacturer of my vacuum has a monopoly on vacuum bags.
Read it again - it's about the monopoly on App Store. It's like buying a car and only able to use gas sold by that company.
There may be other laws that would prohibit that, but they aren't anti-trust laws.
I don't understand why Apple isn't getting slapped for only allowing Safari-based browsers in the App Store. I don't understand anti-trust laws that well, but didn't Microsoft settle out of a very similar case related to bundling Media Player and IE with Windows?
I expect the substantial difference is that Microsoft's share of the PC market was far closer to a monopoly than Apple's share of the smartphone market is now (about 40% in the U.S.)
Unfortunately for Apple, I do think the App Store being an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS is in fact causing prices of Apps, in many cases, to be higher than they should be. The perfect example of this is the subscription services, right now you can get a cheaper subscription to a service such as Spotify if you buy it off the App Store. That is a prime example of how much the 30% payment t…
Here’s what I don’t get: in what sense is this a monopoly? Consumers have knowledge that the App Store is the only game in town on an iPhone, and they have the option to buy a different phone if they don’t want to use the App Store. That’s like saying that the manufacturer of my vacuum has a monopoly on vacuum bags.
Yes, pretty much. Except vacuum cleaner manufacturers don't actually have that monopoly. You can easily buy substitute bags from another manufacturer for most popular vacuum cleaners.
Apple can make the argument that curating the App Store is required to maintain quality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article explicitly says “accusing it of breaking federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for iPhone apps “ I’ve never heard of a market being divided up like that legally. But it’s in the Supreme Court so it can’t be completely without legal merit.
> But it’s in the Supreme Court so it can’t be completely without legal merit. From my understanding, the lower courts haven't looked at that argument yet, since the question "do these people even have standing to sue" comes before any arguments.
“The question presented is: Whether consumers may sue for antitrust damages anyone who delivers goods to them, even where they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense.”
Isn't the premise of this case, that Apple's "monopoly" on the app store and 30% toll on developers is effectively jacking up app prices for consumers, pretty hard to support with evidence? My impression is that the modern app store coincides with (if it didn't actually cause , which is possible as well) an industry-historic decline in software prices for consumers. Things we pay $0.99 today for used to cost $50.
But it’s easy to make across the full ecosystem of digital app stores which are near universally 30 percent rakes. I’m including games in that list; Xbox, PlayStation, Steam, etc.
That said, even if mobile apps are cheaper than they used to be many could be even cheaper if Apple took a 10% cut.
I don’t like living in a world where almost every major distribution platform has complete vertical integration. The 30% cut is a farce. But I’m not sure this is the best argument to end it.
> Developers “cannot risk the possibility of Apple removing them from the App Store if they bring suit,” the American Antitrust Institute advocacy group said in a brief. To my untrained IANAL eyes, this seems to be the meat of the argument. Apple is trying to say they are just an agent facilitating a sale, all the while jingling the kingdom keys in their back pocket by controlling who gets to sell. They are seeking t…
"Apple said it is acting only as the agent for app developers who sell the apps to consumers through the App Store." Sure, an agent who just so happens to control the platform, the API's and building blocks, all the rules, the horizontal, the vertical, and unilaterally decides which apps are allowed to exist. But, "we're just an agent". I'm not familiar enough with the case to form an opinion on the whole thing, but…
Unfortunately for Apple, I do think the App Store being an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS is in fact causing prices of Apps, in many cases, to be higher than they should be. The perfect example of this is the subscription services, right now you can get a cheaper subscription to a service such as Spotify if you buy it off the App Store. That is a prime example of how much the 30% payment t…
Apple provides a service for that 30% though. They handle the payment processing, they build, moderate and curate the App Store apps and they provide a lucrative channel to market for app developers. So allowing Spotify et al to get all the benefits of the channel without paying for it is actually unfair to Apple.