61–70 of 289 posts
>Rep. Johnson: Does Apple treat every app and every developer the same? >Cook: “We treat every developer the same. We have open rules. It’s a rigorous process. Because we care about privacy and quality, we do look at every app before it goes on. We apply these rules equally to everyone.”
Tech companies that reach monopoly scale (like Apple, Facebook, Amazon) should have to disclose all their agreements and honor a "Most Favored Nation" clause giving all companies the same pricing and access as the best negotiated agreement with any one company. This is the most reasonable way I can think of without breaking them up to prevent them picking winners and losers as new opportunities emerge. If you have a…
Of note, it appears that Netflix’s gripe wasn’t so much about the 70/30 split as colloquially observed, but that Apple’s IAP saw more “voluntary churn” than Netflix’s direct purchase. Am I reading that right? Would this churn discrepancy apply to other services besides Netflix (like developer tools, access to smaller content libraries, etc)? Finally, what did Apple do to address their “voluntary churn” problem?
In other words, Netflix is harder to cancel directly than through Apple's subscription UI. As is the case for virtually every dark pattern subscription (most of them) when not through Apple. This isn't a problem, it's a benefit -- from customer point of view. Apple makes a customer-friendly rather than seller friendly subscription UI, the reason I won't subscribe to things any more except through Apple. It's genuinel…
Also very easy to change your plan level up or down.
>Rep. Johnson: Does Apple treat every app and every developer the same? >Cook: “We treat every developer the same. We have open rules. It’s a rigorous process. Because we care about privacy and quality, we do look at every app before it goes on. We apply these rules equally to everyone.”
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the consequence of such a blatantly false testimony to Congress?
In practice? None whatsoever. Even under oath. After all, Congress critters constantly lie or spout nonsense, why should we ask more of those before them? In principle, it's a crime. But, nobody will do anything about it, especially when it comes to a powerful white man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the consequence of such a blatantly false testimony to Congress?
In practice? None whatsoever. Even under oath. After all, Congress critters constantly lie or spout nonsense, why should we ask more of those before them? In principle, it's a crime. But, nobody will do anything about it, especially when it comes to a powerful white man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably any video platform could apply for the "Video Partner Program" mentioned in the email.
...which that email says in the very same sentence is different from the "unique arrangement" they have with Netflix.
Peter Stern:
"Longer Version: I explained that these IAP tests are not OK for Apple. Our commitment to developers and customers is to run the world's best App Store, and when Netflix is cycling in and out, they are undermining that. I also explained that we run a principled App Store, and they have a unique arrangement because it was struck before the existing Video Partner Program came into effect..."
Tech companies that reach monopoly scale (like Apple, Facebook, Amazon) should have to disclose all their agreements and honor a "Most Favored Nation" clause giving all companies the same pricing and access as the best negotiated agreement with any one company. This is the most reasonable way I can think of without breaking them up to prevent them picking winners and losers as new opportunities emerge. If you have a…
We could also just put a tax of 100% on any revenue in excess of $10bn a year and nip this entire society-destroying problem in the bud.
For example, if a company wanted to keep growing, it would have to split organically into separate corporate entities. What would stop them establishing "favored" relationships with each other? Say for example Facebook splits out "Zuckerburg data centers inc" - what's to stop them pricing themselves above market to avoid taking on other customers, and then giving FB a hefty discount? You could mandate that there be no board overlap, but shareholders would probably receive a split.
Tech companies that reach monopoly scale (like Apple, Facebook, Amazon) should have to disclose all their agreements and honor a "Most Favored Nation" clause giving all companies the same pricing and access as the best negotiated agreement with any one company. This is the most reasonable way I can think of without breaking them up to prevent them picking winners and losers as new opportunities emerge. If you have a…
We could also just put a tax of 100% on any revenue in excess of $10bn a year and nip this entire society-destroying problem in the bud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We could also just put a tax of 100% on any revenue in excess of $10bn a year and nip this entire society-destroying problem in the bud.
It's an interesting thought experiment at least. What would the hidden incentives of something like that be? For example, if a company wanted to keep growing, it would have to split organically into separate corporate entities. What would stop them establishing "favored" relationships with each other? Say for example Facebook splits out "Zuckerburg data centers inc" - what's to stop them pricing themselves above mark…