or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by EWTHeckman

Of course I don't think Amazon or Netflix will go out of business. I would only expect small developers who are dependent on Apple, don't have the margin to absorb the loss of revenue and can't raise to prices to go out of business. Either way, iOS users lose access to the content. The point is that if they decide to not raise prices, they can not and will not sell at a loss, leaving the only option to pull out of the platform.This is only possible if they had sufficient...
I like history books. Is that equivalent?
Or "If they don't want any business from Apple's customers, then stay the hell off the Mac!" Or "If they don't want any business from Microsoft's customers, then stay the hell off the Windows!" Apple does not own me. I am not their slave. I own my iDevices, not Apple. They have no right to say what apps I can and cannot run on my own device.
Sigh… I've already been over this. Go back and read my comments. Amazon (and other content providers) help Apple sell hardware. I am not Apple's slave. They do not own me. They have no right to attempt to exert total control over who I choose to purchase content from. If you want me to reargue the points again, I refuse. They're already in writing for you to read at your leisure.
Your restatement changes the meaning of my original statement.They don't "HAVE" to receive the same amount, but IN ORDER TO receive the same amount where 30% is taken off the top, the selling price must be increased by 43%.What businesses MUST do in order to stay in business is sell their products and/or services at something higher than their costs.For example, Amazon is willing to keep only 30% of the selling price of books which meet a certain criteria, one of which is...
I suspect this is probably part of what the FTC will be looking at. If they move on to a full investigation, I expect this be challenged. BTW, I don't think it's necessary to have a[n additional] court challenge to be able to argue that it's not valid to base an argument on an assumption that Apple has some presumed "right" to exert absolute control over which apps a customer can install on an iDevice. Apple's loss in the jailbreaking suit is sufficient to demonstrate that...
Occam's Razor: Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. When you start trampling business relationships where you're not invited in, it doesn't matter how "user friendly" your design is, you've crossed the line into "too simple".There's another way to do it with destroying your partners' profits*: Require such "content" apps to provide a certain fixed minimum of income to Apple, even if that minimum is 100% of the selling price. For example, $4.99 of income...
Apple may claim they have that right, even in their licensing, but I'm pretty sure such a right does not actually exist. First of all, I recall reading that Apple lost a suit over jailbreaking the iOS. That suggests that Apple does not actually have a right to control what applications are run on iOS devices once they've been sold. (Ah, here it is.) Second, there is established law that illegal terms in contracts cannot be enforced. Though I doubt an "Our App Store Only"...
Fascinating. You did all that work to argue why you don't want to do any work to make an argument. BTW, noting that two different issues can use the same form of argument, then claiming one is nonsense, therefore the other is nonsense is… well… nonsense! Please, either put forth your argument or go do something which is actually productive.
From what I keep reading in various places, Google is very worried about how poorly Android (the only serious smartphone competitor to the iPhone right now) Apps are selling. I've also been reading that part of the reason is that hardware specific dependencies as well as significant version fragmentation in Android make developing a single app for all Android devices essentially impossible, which doesn't give developers much encouragement to develop for Android. Also,...
New Posts  All Forums: