551–560 of 627 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
30% was the iTunes deal for apps. On iTunes songs were all 99 cents and Apple got 30 cents.
Iirc Apple ate the credit card fees on their cut which meant they earned a few pennies if you only bought one somg at a time.
Apple has always deferred charging cards to minimize processing fees by bundling multiple purchases together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Iirc Apple ate the credit card fees on their cut which meant they earned a few pennies if you only bought one somg at a time.
Nope. It was always the deal. I have artist sales records predating the iPhone. Edit: Also worth remembering that iTunes is/was/is the iTunes Music Store (itms) and that Apple sold apps via it for the click wheel iPod under the same percentages.
https://nypost.com/2004/05/07/apple-tunes-up-price-of-hits-m...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Iirc Apple ate the credit card fees on their cut which meant they earned a few pennies if you only bought one somg at a time.
Go buy a couple of singles off iTunes over a couple of days and see how long it takes to hit your card. Apple has always deferred charging cards to minimize processing fees by bundling multiple purchases together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"significant enough for Apple and Google to not just pull out it’s business from South Korea and call it a day." I always found this line of argument disingenious and disturbing. Disingenious because it doesn't happen historically, so it sounds like a tired threat Disturbing - are we saying we would rather kneecap our democratic institutions, right or wrong, than live without iPhones? We'd die to defend our lands and…
Companies pull out of countries all the time when changes in the socio, political, economic and most importantly regularly environment make their business untenable. Case in point: China or post-Brexit UK. You use this hyperbolic rhetoric to describe the situation but it really is an every day occurence.
How many companies have pulled out of China or post-Brexit UK? I can't think of many.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes I try to imagine what the app store rules would look like if apple had to abide by those same rules for all of their own apps. I imagine the rules would be much more lenient, app review a lot less error prone, and developers would be chafed far less by those golden handcuffs. Pretty sure apple’s developer documentation would still be bad though.
I work on a platform that provides its subscribers with a store for 1st and 3rd party apps/solutions built on that platform. Every app delivered on this store must go through the same review process whether it's internally built or not. This has led to healthy innovation on the app store and deep empathy for the 3rd party developer. To be fair, it is possible to ship components that are part of the core platform outs…
I have a question about monopolies and market abuses. Apple released their phone in 2007, the App Store in 2008, and in-app payments in 2009. During that time their marketshare was fairly small, and it didn't start to really grow until they expanded availability to the Verizon network in 2011. Right at launch of the App Store, Apple announced its sales commission would be 30%. Then they extended that same fee to in-a…
You can do all sorts of "monopolistic abuse" on your platform as long as it is small and inconsequential. No one cares, even if it was illegal, though it mostly is not. But the rules and scrutiny changes once you become large enough to be "considered" a monopoly i.e. once your decisions and policies start affecting a significant portion of the market/ecosystem, then your policies are going to be subject to new regula…
This statement feels like an oxymoron.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
30% was highway robbery from the start. Pure and simple. It was merely a less awful deal than most other indie commission models, with sites like Kongregate and their ilk demanding >80%. Against that kind of flaying and skinning, 30% was an improvement! I've said it before. A very good agent, who actually works for their client and arranges them with repeat lucrative contracts, gets 15%. App stores, as gatekeepers to…
> 30% was highway robbery from the start. Pure and simple. Except it wasn't. Try getting an app published before the app store. It was 70% if you were lucky enough to find someone to publish it. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thought that a government could force your favorite, richest, international megacorporation might feel not right to you, but that is actually how the world works. Apple does not get to dictate how its products are available, no matter how much they would like to. They are free, however to not come sell in places it feels the rules are unfair towards it.
You seem to be making a weird argument. Obviously Apple isn't allowed to sell a smartphone that contains a large chunk of plutonium, or that is fake and doesn't actually contain any electronics. There are limits to what corporations can do. But they are free to choose the price. They can sell the next iPhone for $10,000 if they really wanted. Perfectly legal. They are free to choose under which terms they license the…
The point of all this is, Apple has absolutely no say in any of this. They are free to set the terms of their sales according to the law in the country, and that is it. It doesn't get anything more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It matters if you're making an emotional argument, but I'm not sure it's relevant to any legal argument.
Antitrust regulators don't care about the size of the trusts they're meant to regulate? Interesting.