I've been called a statist, a socialist, and now a federalist at various times on these boards. I don't think I actually am any of those things, and certainly not in totality, but I don't take any of them as an insult.
Is that the beginning and the end of your counterpoint, just stating what I am?
It's unfortunate that the Snowden revelations have turned the European regulators/governments against American tech companies. They're all in the cross-hairs now, viewed with suspicion in nearly everything they do. Some might call Snowden a hero. I don't know what to call him, but he sure has damaged American companies goodwill overseas.
Oh, what colossal bullshit.
They had a whole string of proceedings against Microsoft WAY before Snowden exposed the whole NSA dreck.
The EU has always been extremely wary about US corporations strong-arming their way into the market with illegal means.
Snowden exposed (and continues to expose) abuse at the GOVERNMENTAL, not corporate, level. And sometimes even clearly beyond the competencies of the government.
Just to clarify my opinion upfront: Apple created the phone and the first platform including the whole genre of "apps" alone, and if someone does not like the terms and conditions just don't buy the phone or don't put your app in the store. Full stop.
Now my question: I'm thinking that there is quite a power behind default apps and settings. That's why eg there appears to be a strong interest to be the default sesrch engine, mapping service, streaming service etc. Simply because people are too lazy to inform themselves about alternatives. Now, some years back Microsoft lost a case where they bundled the Internet explorer and/or put its icon on the desktop. What's making the case here any different? Maybe if Apple would split as well into two companies: one for hw/operating system including store and one for apps this would shut up all idiots once and for all?
I think the question might eventually become - can apple own the store and then sell its own products in the store in competition with third party products and charge them. Maybe apple will be asked to separate the apps business and that separate entity should be charged like everybody else?
There is an issue of fairness here I believe, but it is a complicated issue.
Stores like target, Walmart sell generic items that are way cheaper than name-brands. Why aren't they being investigated? In addition, the stores probably charge a higher rate for shelf space/location than their own generics.
Stores like target, Walmart sell generic items that are way cheaper than name-brands. Why aren't they being investigated? In addition, the stores probably charge a higher rate for shelf space/location than their own generics.
Maybe because they don't constitute a monopoly in the sense that you can buy your groceries at other stores while you cannot buy apple apps outside of the Apple Store. But even then, if you don't like it then you're very free to not put your soup in walmarts shelves or your app in apple's store IMO. But there appears to be the demand for "I must be allowed to use the Apple Store to sell my app and according to my terms..." If you don't like it just don't buy an iPhone or don't code for iOS. There is plenty of "open Source" waiting in fairness and altruism for you... (You in the generic sense)
Stores like target, Walmart sell generic items that are way cheaper than name-brands. Why aren't they being investigated? In addition, the stores probably charge a higher rate for shelf space/location than their own generics.
Will they charge for shelf space? Would've thought they just buy product wholesale, and shelf management and cost is entirely on the store.
Well, if you're blind to history (both World Wars, for example affected large swats of Europe and pretty much defined what Europe is today), languages that are spoken in different countries (French, Dutch, German, Basque, Italian, Catalan, to name a few), the resulting cross-cultural influences, and, deeper yet, the origin of closely related languages and words currently in use that are derived from ancient Greek and Latin, it is going to be a huge task to lighten you up on the subject. I frankly have no time for that.
The EU and its postwar predecessors have brought peace and prosperity to its member states. That, to me, is far more important than the EU's impact on Apple's dealings in Europe. Which is not to say that the EU does not deserve criticism, but to wish for its demise on the basis of ill-informed opinions is bizarre.
They had a whole string of proceedings against Microsoft WAY before Snowden exposed the whole NSA dreck.
The EU has always been extremely wary about US corporations strong-arming their way into the market with illegal means.
Snowden exposed (and continues to expose) abuse at the GOVERNMENTAL, not corporate, level. And sometimes even clearly beyond the competencies of the government.
Like the US government going against Chinese companies that supply network equipment, e.g. Huawei.
Why would they do that?! There are no legal nor business reasons for Apple to change that rule.
I think there is. But you have to look at the much bigger picture.
How much is the Apple Pay commission? How much is the subscription commission? Even if Apple were to take 0% on RCCB (Recurring Credit Card Billing) for subscriptions, they are still making some profit from the credit card comission. This is what that 30% covers. On small items, eg 99 cent items 30% happens to be pretty close to how much it costs to eat the credit card payment fees. On something larger, eg 9.99, it's closer to 3% goes to the credit card processing overhead. If a user happens to actually care about subverting the Apple Store payments to save a few pennies, it would be on RCCB payments since it adds up over time.
Now the solution, at least from Apple's PoV would be to just outright tell Spotify they're in violation of their (Spotify)'s credit card merchant agreement, and that they must charge exactly the same amount to all users, regardless of platform. I don't see that going over well, so the logical thing for Spotify to do is to not have in-app subscription, just like Netflix.
Ultimately what Apple needs to do, is allow RCCB payments via App store software at a lower commission tier after X$ in sales, otherwise it leaves the impulse purchase on the table. They can't nix it entirely since it would lead other App software (eg freemium games) to try and get low-commission RCCB's as well, by moving to "unlimited subscription ceilings"
People quickly forget that the amount of services that would "need" such a low-commission RCCB are likely in the low tens, not hundreds or thousands. If an app generates a million dollars in revenue per month, it could effectively double that if the hassle of a second billing system goes away.
But I somehow doubt Spotify and other "radio" subscriptions are worth the headache for Apple to setup a lower commission tier for. What we're hearing is that Spotify makes so little money due to high costs incurred from the Recording Industry just to exist that they have to circumvent Apple's store to be competitive with other music services... who pay the exact same high costs, but maybe shuffle in a lot more cover versions that cost less to license. Remember the original version of online radio that the RIAA single-handedly killed around the turn of the century and caused a massive explosion in piracy? When people can't find what they want, and there is no legal means to obtain it, people will provide it... and you get zip.
Which come back to the moral of this story. You do -not- get to decide where your content resides unless you put it there first. If you want everyone to use "your" store because it makes you more money per purchase, you're perhaps missing the bigger picture that simply having your content on the "big evil store" results in a magnitude more sales. If your competitors are using the "big evil store", then you have no choice but to use it too, or they will crush you.
Just to clarify my opinion upfront: Apple created the phone and the first platform including the whole genre of "apps" alone, and if someone does not like the terms and conditions just don't buy the phone or don't put your app in the store. Full stop.
Now my question: I'm thinking that there is quite a power behind default apps and settings. That's why eg there appears to be a strong interest to be the default sesrch engine, mapping service, streaming service etc. Simply because people are too lazy to inform themselves about alternatives. Now, some years back Microsoft lost a case where they bundled the Internet explorer and/or put its icon on the desktop. What's making the case here any different?
Maybe if Apple would split as well into two companies: one for hw/operating system including store and one for apps this would shut up all idiots once and for all?
From the first paragraph from that Wikipedia article:
Quote:
Microsoft Corporation was accused of becoming a monopoly and engaging in abusive practices.. etc
Apple is no where near monopoly so there is a big difference. They are not a monopoly in digital music distribution and not even close to a monopoly in smartphones.
Stores like target, Walmart sell generic items that are way cheaper than name-brands. Why aren't they being investigated? In addition, the stores probably charge a higher rate for shelf space/location than their own generics.
Do they? If they do, it might not be significant enough, and so nobody one has complained? The charges might seem fair, rather than arbitrarily high?
You have to have a point for there to be a counter to it. I had the point; you lack the counter.
You've got it backwards; all you've done so far is opine that the EU needs to collapse and the founders were psychopaths. That's not a point, it's just a rant.
My counterpoint was that the EU has brought peace and stability to its member nations that has lasted half a century, which given the history (as you yourself claim, pre-EU Western Europe rarely lasts a few decades without breaking down into war) is remarkable. Avoidance of war, which was one of the core founding aims of the EU, is not the action of a psychopath, and hoping for such a system to collapse, and thereby risk war, is.
Given that you've given no actual reasoning behind your wild claims of psychopathy (as per usual) or your arrogant and hateful wishes for collapse (as usual) I think people have given far more counterpoint than they need to your nonsense.
Post something insightful, reasoned, and without the invective and maybe people will take you more seriously.
I think there is. But you have to look at the much bigger picture.
How much is the Apple Pay commission? How much is the subscription commission? Even if Apple were to take 0% on RCCB (Recurring Credit Card Billing) for subscriptions, they are still making some profit from the credit card comission. This is what that 30% covers. On small items, eg 99 cent items 30% happens to be pretty close to how much it costs to eat the credit card payment fees. On something larger, eg 9.99, it's closer to 3% goes to the credit card processing overhead. If a user happens to actually care about subverting the Apple Store payments to save a few pennies, it would be on RCCB payments since it adds up over time.
Now the solution, at least from Apple's PoV would be to just outright tell Spotify they're in violation of their (Spotify)'s credit card merchant agreement, and that they must charge exactly the same amount to all users, regardless of platform. I don't see that going over well, so the logical thing for Spotify to do is to not have in-app subscription, just like Netflix.
Ultimately what Apple needs to do, is allow RCCB payments via App store software at a lower commission tier after X$ in sales, otherwise it leaves the impulse purchase on the table. They can't nix it entirely since it would lead other App software (eg freemium games) to try and get low-commission RCCB's as well, by moving to "unlimited subscription ceilings"
People quickly forget that the amount of services that would "need" such a low-commission RCCB are likely in the low tens, not hundreds or thousands. If an app generates a million dollars in revenue per month, it could effectively double that if the hassle of a second billing system goes away.
But I somehow doubt Spotify and other "radio" subscriptions are worth the headache for Apple to setup a lower commission tier for. What we're hearing is that Spotify makes so little money due to high costs incurred from the Recording Industry just to exist that they have to circumvent Apple's store to be competitive with other music services... who pay the exact same high costs, but maybe shuffle in a lot more cover versions that cost less to license. Remember the original version of online radio that the RIAA single-handedly killed around the turn of the century and caused a massive explosion in piracy? When people can't find what they want, and there is no legal means to obtain it, people will provide it... and you get zip.
Which come back to the moral of this story. You do -not- get to decide where your content resides unless you put it there first. If you want everyone to use "your" store because it makes you more money per purchase, you're perhaps missing the bigger picture that simply having your content on the "big evil store" results in a magnitude more sales. If your competitors are using the "big evil store", then you have no choice but to use it too, or they will crush you.
Here's the thing, it's been mentioned that Google and Microsoft charges the same 30% commission in their app stores. So it doesn't cost anymore for Spotify to have a subscription app for Apple iOS users than for any of the other platforms.
Now you can argue that Android users don't have to get their Apps from Google Play. Which means that Spotify can set up their own App store for Android and MS phones (?) to avoid the 30% commission. But how much is this going to cost. Not only must Spotify set up CC payments but the site must be secure and maintained. One hack and the cost savings goes down the drain. What percentage of the $9.99 subscription fee will this cost? Not to mention that when AppleMusic is available for Android (later this year), Apple will have to pay the 30% commission for any subscribers they get from the Google Play Store since Android phones don't have access to the Apple app Store. Unless Apple wants to set up their own Android App Store. Which I don't think they will because it wouldn't be cost effective.
In the end, I think Spotify would rather have Apple, Google and MS maintain the site and chalk up the 30% as the cost of doing business. Even if it means a disadvantage when it comes to competing with the likes of AppleMusic , Google Play Music and MS Groove Music Pass.
Plus I don't think Spotify will be missing out on a lot if they don't have a subscription App in Apple App Store. Judging by how few of the 800 million iOS users are taking advantage of 3 months of free AppleMusic, iOS users are not going to be a big factor in the paying subscription music market. It seems that even though iOS users spends a lot more money on the internet than users on other platforms, they're not even interested in spending money on subscription music. Worldwide, iOS users are about 22% of the market. And so far, only 2% of them have shown any interest in AppleMusic, let alone paying for it.
The 30% was perhaps justified when there were a few thousand apps in the App store. But with more than a million apps, the exposure that a single app gets from Apple, is neglectable. If an app developer does not take care of the marketing for his own app, the number of downloads will be close to 0: the lousy search function in the App Store app does not really help neither. The cost of processing an e-payment is for large customers (like Apple) less than 1% of the transaction amount. And offering a secured hosting of the apps will only cost a few cents per app. So the app store must be highly profitable for Apple, while 90% of the apps are loss making for the developers. Spotify has no ground for a EU antitrust case because in Europe Android has a much bigger marketshare than iOS But because Google applies exactly the same percentage, Spotify could have more success fighting an illegal cartel agreement
The 30% was perhaps justified when there were a few thousand apps in the App store. But with more than a million apps, the exposure that a single app gets from Apple, is neglectable.
I’d probably disagree if neglectable was a word. I disagree anyway. Apple having more work to do makes them LESS worthy of it?
When I do that you just plug your ears and pretend it was never posted. Weird to find a Briton who wants to ride a flaming, sinking ship to the bottom.
I have never once done this, and you have never once been able to point to an instance where I have done this, despite your repeated claims.
And claiming that a single person doesn't respond to reasoned argument is a piss poor excuse for not posting reasoned argument on an Internet message board with hundreds of users.
I call BS. An avalanche of BS to distract from the fact that your bilge has no thought behind it. As always.
And again with bringing up my nationality? Why do you do that so often?
Comments
As expected of a federalist.
Cute
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I've been called a statist, a socialist, and now a federalist at various times on these boards. I don't think I actually am any of those things, and certainly not in totality, but I don't take any of them as an insult.
Is that the beginning and the end of your counterpoint, just stating what I am?
It's unfortunate that the Snowden revelations have turned the European regulators/governments against American tech companies. They're all in the cross-hairs now, viewed with suspicion in nearly everything they do. Some might call Snowden a hero. I don't know what to call him, but he sure has damaged American companies goodwill overseas.
Oh, what colossal bullshit.
They had a whole string of proceedings against Microsoft WAY before Snowden exposed the whole NSA dreck.
The EU has always been extremely wary about US corporations strong-arming their way into the market with illegal means.
Snowden exposed (and continues to expose) abuse at the GOVERNMENTAL, not corporate, level. And sometimes even clearly beyond the competencies of the government.
Now my question: I'm thinking that there is quite a power behind default apps and settings. That's why eg there appears to be a strong interest to be the default sesrch engine, mapping service, streaming service etc. Simply because people are too lazy to inform themselves about alternatives. Now, some years back Microsoft lost a case where they bundled the Internet explorer and/or put its icon on the desktop. What's making the case here any different?
Maybe if Apple would split as well into two companies: one for hw/operating system including store and one for apps this would shut up all idiots once and for all?
Here is the link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
Stores like target, Walmart sell generic items that are way cheaper than name-brands. Why aren't they being investigated? In addition, the stores probably charge a higher rate for shelf space/location than their own generics.
Maybe because they don't constitute a monopoly in the sense that you can buy your groceries at other stores while you cannot buy apple apps outside of the Apple Store. But even then, if you don't like it then you're very free to not put your soup in walmarts shelves or your app in apple's store IMO. But there appears to be the demand for "I must be allowed to use the Apple Store to sell my app and according to my terms..." If you don't like it just don't buy an iPhone or don't code for iOS. There is plenty of "open Source" waiting in fairness and altruism for you...
Stores like target, Walmart sell generic items that are way cheaper than name-brands. Why aren't they being investigated? In addition, the stores probably charge a higher rate for shelf space/location than their own generics.
Will they charge for shelf space? Would've thought they just buy product wholesale, and shelf management and cost is entirely on the store.
[...]
Thanks for all the refutations!
Well, if you're blind to history (both World Wars, for example affected large swats of Europe and pretty much defined what Europe is today), languages that are spoken in different countries (French, Dutch, German, Basque, Italian, Catalan, to name a few), the resulting cross-cultural influences, and, deeper yet, the origin of closely related languages and words currently in use that are derived from ancient Greek and Latin, it is going to be a huge task to lighten you up on the subject. I frankly have no time for that.
The EU and its postwar predecessors have brought peace and prosperity to its member states. That, to me, is far more important than the EU's impact on Apple's dealings in Europe. Which is not to say that the EU does not deserve criticism, but to wish for its demise on the basis of ill-informed opinions is bizarre.
Spotify don't have to use the App store, it's their choice.
70% of something is better than 100% of nothing or they wouldn't be there.
btw is Compton the best album ever produced by an Apple executive?
Oh, what colossal bullshit.
They had a whole string of proceedings against Microsoft WAY before Snowden exposed the whole NSA dreck.
The EU has always been extremely wary about US corporations strong-arming their way into the market with illegal means.
Snowden exposed (and continues to expose) abuse at the GOVERNMENTAL, not corporate, level. And sometimes even clearly beyond the competencies of the government.
Like the US government going against Chinese companies that supply network equipment, e.g. Huawei.
I think there is. But you have to look at the much bigger picture.
How much is the Apple Pay commission? How much is the subscription commission? Even if Apple were to take 0% on RCCB (Recurring Credit Card Billing) for subscriptions, they are still making some profit from the credit card comission. This is what that 30% covers. On small items, eg 99 cent items 30% happens to be pretty close to how much it costs to eat the credit card payment fees. On something larger, eg 9.99, it's closer to 3% goes to the credit card processing overhead. If a user happens to actually care about subverting the Apple Store payments to save a few pennies, it would be on RCCB payments since it adds up over time.
Now the solution, at least from Apple's PoV would be to just outright tell Spotify they're in violation of their (Spotify)'s credit card merchant agreement, and that they must charge exactly the same amount to all users, regardless of platform. I don't see that going over well, so the logical thing for Spotify to do is to not have in-app subscription, just like Netflix.
Ultimately what Apple needs to do, is allow RCCB payments via App store software at a lower commission tier after X$ in sales, otherwise it leaves the impulse purchase on the table. They can't nix it entirely since it would lead other App software (eg freemium games) to try and get low-commission RCCB's as well, by moving to "unlimited subscription ceilings"
People quickly forget that the amount of services that would "need" such a low-commission RCCB are likely in the low tens, not hundreds or thousands. If an app generates a million dollars in revenue per month, it could effectively double that if the hassle of a second billing system goes away.
But I somehow doubt Spotify and other "radio" subscriptions are worth the headache for Apple to setup a lower commission tier for. What we're hearing is that Spotify makes so little money due to high costs incurred from the Recording Industry just to exist that they have to circumvent Apple's store to be competitive with other music services... who pay the exact same high costs, but maybe shuffle in a lot more cover versions that cost less to license. Remember the original version of online radio that the RIAA single-handedly killed around the turn of the century and caused a massive explosion in piracy? When people can't find what they want, and there is no legal means to obtain it, people will provide it... and you get zip.
Which come back to the moral of this story. You do -not- get to decide where your content resides unless you put it there first. If you want everyone to use "your" store because it makes you more money per purchase, you're perhaps missing the bigger picture that simply having your content on the "big evil store" results in a magnitude more sales. If your competitors are using the "big evil store", then you have no choice but to use it too, or they will crush you.
Everything costs money. Have you ever wondered why "top" brands are located at eye level? Or why items are located at the ends of the aisle?
Just to clarify my opinion upfront: Apple created the phone and the first platform including the whole genre of "apps" alone, and if someone does not like the terms and conditions just don't buy the phone or don't put your app in the store. Full stop.
Now my question: I'm thinking that there is quite a power behind default apps and settings. That's why eg there appears to be a strong interest to be the default sesrch engine, mapping service, streaming service etc. Simply because people are too lazy to inform themselves about alternatives. Now, some years back Microsoft lost a case where they bundled the Internet explorer and/or put its icon on the desktop. What's making the case here any different?
Maybe if Apple would split as well into two companies: one for hw/operating system including store and one for apps this would shut up all idiots once and for all?
Here is the link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
From the first paragraph from that Wikipedia article:
Apple is no where near monopoly so there is a big difference. They are not a monopoly in digital music distribution and not even close to a monopoly in smartphones.
Stores like target, Walmart sell generic items that are way cheaper than name-brands. Why aren't they being investigated? In addition, the stores probably charge a higher rate for shelf space/location than their own generics.
Do they? If they do, it might not be significant enough, and so nobody one has complained? The charges might seem fair, rather than arbitrarily high?
Is that the beginning and the end of your counterpoint, just stating what I am?
You have to have a point for there to be a counter to it. I had the point; you lack the counter.
Peace? Perhaps, for now. Prosperity? Hardly.
My counterpoint was that the EU has brought peace and stability to its member nations that has lasted half a century, which given the history (as you yourself claim, pre-EU Western Europe rarely lasts a few decades without breaking down into war) is remarkable. Avoidance of war, which was one of the core founding aims of the EU, is not the action of a psychopath, and hoping for such a system to collapse, and thereby risk war, is.
Given that you've given no actual reasoning behind your wild claims of psychopathy (as per usual) or your arrogant and hateful wishes for collapse (as usual) I think people have given far more counterpoint than they need to your nonsense.
Post something insightful, reasoned, and without the invective and maybe people will take you more seriously.
I think there is. But you have to look at the much bigger picture.
How much is the Apple Pay commission? How much is the subscription commission? Even if Apple were to take 0% on RCCB (Recurring Credit Card Billing) for subscriptions, they are still making some profit from the credit card comission. This is what that 30% covers. On small items, eg 99 cent items 30% happens to be pretty close to how much it costs to eat the credit card payment fees. On something larger, eg 9.99, it's closer to 3% goes to the credit card processing overhead. If a user happens to actually care about subverting the Apple Store payments to save a few pennies, it would be on RCCB payments since it adds up over time.
Now the solution, at least from Apple's PoV would be to just outright tell Spotify they're in violation of their (Spotify)'s credit card merchant agreement, and that they must charge exactly the same amount to all users, regardless of platform. I don't see that going over well, so the logical thing for Spotify to do is to not have in-app subscription, just like Netflix.
Ultimately what Apple needs to do, is allow RCCB payments via App store software at a lower commission tier after X$ in sales, otherwise it leaves the impulse purchase on the table. They can't nix it entirely since it would lead other App software (eg freemium games) to try and get low-commission RCCB's as well, by moving to "unlimited subscription ceilings"
People quickly forget that the amount of services that would "need" such a low-commission RCCB are likely in the low tens, not hundreds or thousands. If an app generates a million dollars in revenue per month, it could effectively double that if the hassle of a second billing system goes away.
But I somehow doubt Spotify and other "radio" subscriptions are worth the headache for Apple to setup a lower commission tier for. What we're hearing is that Spotify makes so little money due to high costs incurred from the Recording Industry just to exist that they have to circumvent Apple's store to be competitive with other music services... who pay the exact same high costs, but maybe shuffle in a lot more cover versions that cost less to license. Remember the original version of online radio that the RIAA single-handedly killed around the turn of the century and caused a massive explosion in piracy? When people can't find what they want, and there is no legal means to obtain it, people will provide it... and you get zip.
Which come back to the moral of this story. You do -not- get to decide where your content resides unless you put it there first. If you want everyone to use "your" store because it makes you more money per purchase, you're perhaps missing the bigger picture that simply having your content on the "big evil store" results in a magnitude more sales. If your competitors are using the "big evil store", then you have no choice but to use it too, or they will crush you.
Here's the thing, it's been mentioned that Google and Microsoft charges the same 30% commission in their app stores. So it doesn't cost anymore for Spotify to have a subscription app for Apple iOS users than for any of the other platforms.
Now you can argue that Android users don't have to get their Apps from Google Play. Which means that Spotify can set up their own App store for Android and MS phones (?) to avoid the 30% commission. But how much is this going to cost. Not only must Spotify set up CC payments but the site must be secure and maintained. One hack and the cost savings goes down the drain. What percentage of the $9.99 subscription fee will this cost? Not to mention that when AppleMusic is available for Android (later this year), Apple will have to pay the 30% commission for any subscribers they get from the Google Play Store since Android phones don't have access to the Apple app Store. Unless Apple wants to set up their own Android App Store. Which I don't think they will because it wouldn't be cost effective.
In the end, I think Spotify would rather have Apple, Google and MS maintain the site and chalk up the 30% as the cost of doing business. Even if it means a disadvantage when it comes to competing with the likes of AppleMusic , Google Play Music and MS Groove Music Pass.
Plus I don't think Spotify will be missing out on a lot if they don't have a subscription App in Apple App Store. Judging by how few of the 800 million iOS users are taking advantage of 3 months of free AppleMusic, iOS users are not going to be a big factor in the paying subscription music market. It seems that even though iOS users spends a lot more money on the internet than users on other platforms, they're not even interested in spending money on subscription music. Worldwide, iOS users are about 22% of the market. And so far, only 2% of them have shown any interest in AppleMusic, let alone paying for it.
The cost of processing an e-payment is for large customers (like Apple) less than 1% of the transaction amount. And offering a secured hosting of the apps will only cost a few cents per app. So the app store must be highly profitable for Apple, while 90% of the apps are loss making for the developers.
Spotify has no ground for a EU antitrust case because in Europe Android has a much bigger marketshare than iOS
But because Google applies exactly the same percentage, Spotify could have more success fighting an illegal cartel agreement
I’d probably disagree if neglectable was a word. I disagree anyway. Apple having more work to do makes them LESS worthy of it?
Everything costs money. Have you ever wondered why "top" brands are located at eye level? Or why items are located at the ends of the aisle?
Absolutely...and they pay a lot of money for those "end caps". You may get into the store, but placement goes for a premium.
And claiming that a single person doesn't respond to reasoned argument is a piss poor excuse for not posting reasoned argument on an Internet message board with hundreds of users.
I call BS. An avalanche of BS to distract from the fact that your bilge has no thought behind it. As always.
And again with bringing up my nationality? Why do you do that so often?