51–60 of 357 posts
Essentially, the Supreme Court is letting an antitrust lawsuit against Apple proceed — and it has rejected Apple’s argument that iOS App Store users aren’t really its customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edit: friends, apologies for upsetting... first, I find the accusations horrendous. I am more just amused that K chose to write the opinion. Politics is a funny game. It’s hard to swallow, but we need a third constitutional convention because this stuff is wrecked in the us.
Prior to the confirmation insanity, Kavanaugh was viewed as one of the best supreme court justice nominations for all sides. All the confirmation hearings did was potentially radicalize him to the right. One of the best things about being a supreme court judge is that he no longer has to care about being reappointed or elected. He's not doing damage control, he's just being a supreme court judge.
No he wasn’t. He was considered a partisan hack at best and was less popular than most previously confirmed justices.
He did get approval from the Amy Chuas and Neal Katyals and Akhil Amars but that says more about elite Ivy League in-groups than anything else.
For those downvoting bitwize, get a life. This is an accurate and impartial explanation of the arguments actually at stake in the legal case, clarifying an ambiguity in the post it's replying to. Apple has two possible customers in this issue - the developers it provides distribution services to and the consumers that buy the apps. The point in question is which of these two customers has standing to sue on the basis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prior to the confirmation insanity, Kavanaugh was viewed as one of the best supreme court justice nominations for all sides. All the confirmation hearings did was potentially radicalize him to the right. One of the best things about being a supreme court judge is that he no longer has to care about being reappointed or elected. He's not doing damage control, he's just being a supreme court judge.
But I've seen some speculation that after all the awfulness of the confirmation hearings accusing him of being a hard-right leaning justice that he would actually try (consciously or not) to show he's not locked into that mindset.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple was basically playing the "whoa, we don't sell apps, we just make an app store. They buy apps from the developers" card. This is technically true. How is it technically true? Apple collects the payment and takes a cut. Yes, the developer gets to set their prices, but I don't see this as any different to manufacturers of products setting their cost price for retailers, who then go and apply their markup to it.
It's technically true because there is no real intermediary in apple's case (the "retailer" in your example). It's illusory. (this is also what the court found) Also keep in mind that various kinds of price fixing by manufacturers (IE forcing retailers to sell at a certain price) are also subject to antitrust arguments. It's simply no longer "per-se" illegal. For a long time, the precedent was that various forms of p…
To purchase a product I go to an Apple owned-and-operated store, give Apple my credit card, and receive an item that's been packaged and signed by Apple tools from an Apple server.
As an app developer, I'm not a fan of apple taking a 30% or 15% cut. It's is possible to get around by offering the app for free and then using a third party payment processor to allow users to purchase or subscribe to a service your app provides. The way I see it, developers have that choice to charge the "expensive, easy way" using Apple's platform, or the "more profitable but harder way" using a third party.
Sorry, but you have to take the 30% hit, or you can't mention your website, and you certainly can't put in a third party payment system. You'll get booted fast, or, won't even make it in the door when they review your app.
For those downvoting bitwize, get a life. This is an accurate and impartial explanation of the arguments actually at stake in the legal case, clarifying an ambiguity in the post it's replying to. Apple has two possible customers in this issue - the developers it provides distribution services to and the consumers that buy the apps. The point in question is which of these two customers has standing to sue on the basis…
It looks like there is a tremendous amount of downvoting of simple factual info in this thread, unfortunately (the subjective opinions, sure, whatever)
How can Apple’s App Store prices be monopolistic if the App Store has driven software prices so low that a lot of developers are having a hard time making money? Before the App Store, software licenses for Mac software could be priced in the $40-$70 range for software that might have had feature parity with what you get in a $3-$10 app on iOS these days. That’s not even taking into account the fact that paying for a…
But Apple is the one that's skimming all the revenue and making huge profits on their forced 30% cut. Apparently they made $12 billion just from the app store in Q3 2018. How is it surprising that a lot of developers are having a hard time making money?