Yes, let’s allow them to make laws about technology they don’t understand and barely use correctly. Not a year goes by that one of these imbeciles “lose” a laptop with sensitive data or accidentally tweet some social media hoe publicly.
This is not about technology it's about anti-trust laws which apparently a lot of "tech imbeciles" don't understand or do not care to.
How did the hearing confirm deeply disturbing behavior if they didn’t let ANYONE fully answer any of the questions? As for Apple, I still can’t understand how they can be considered a monopoly if they don’t control the smartphone market? Or how charging 30% is being abusive, when servers, bandwidth, development, et al, costs money, plus any company is trying to make money out of their products. Is there a company out there that sells a product and foregoes absolutely all profits? I doubt it. And if there’s one or some, I doubt they survive for long.
Apple sole income is not from the iPhone is it? How many billions come in from the App Store? The App Store is where Apple is breaking the law and the bigger and more powerful Apple gets the more it will abuse anti-trust laws
How did the hearing confirm deeply disturbing behavior if they didn’t let ANYONE fully answer any of the questions? As for Apple, I still can’t understand how they can be considered a monopoly if they don’t control the smartphone market? Or how charging 30% is being abusive, when servers, bandwidth, development, et al, costs money, plus any company is trying to make money out of their products. Is there a company out there that sells a product and foregoes absolutely all profits? I doubt it. And if there’s one or some, I doubt they survive for long.
A monopoly (from Greek μόνος, mónos, 'single, alone' and πωλεῖν, pōleîn, 'to sell') exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity.
Even if Apple sold 99% of all smartphones it would not be a monopoly.
I have no sympathy at all for Epic in this case. They are trying to take advantage of Apple and turn public (and governmental overreach) opinion against Apple - but only after having seriously leveraged Apple's contributions that helped create Epic's own business success on Apple's platforms. Epic has clearly stated that they only view Apple as a "middleman" in their business dealings with customers. That's all fine and good. But the transactional relationship between product makers and middlemen, be it an Apple, Walmart, FexEx, UPS, Maersk, etc., is based on the middleman providing an essential service, at a negotiated cost, between product makers and their customers. Middlemen aren't overhead or friction in the marketing equation, they do something that helps keep products moving from producers to consumers - and get paid for their services.
Okay, so you see all of these commercials that tout how a producer is "cutting out the middleman" to deliver products at lower prices to consumers. That's half true, but they are not really cutting out the middleman at all, they are simply reassigning the middleman role to someone else in the process. In some cases the producer takes on middleman responsibility while in other cases the customer take on middleman responsibility, like buying their new living room sofa from a big box warehouse with zero sales support and trucking it to their home on the roof of their minivan. The middleman role doesn't go away, the person or entity performing the role is reassigned, and somethings divided up across multiple players, some of whom are willing to work for free, like some consumers.
Therein lies the problem with Epic. They want to claim that Apple and its App Store is simply a "middleman" in their app marketing process. They want to be able to go to their customers and say "we've cut out the middleman and are passing our cost savings along to you." This would all be good except that Apple owns the platform and the secure, managed, and quality-gate based access to the platform is part of the middleman service and essential role that Apple provides to its customers. Apple is not willing to relinquish any of these essential services or roles to third parties and has established this as binding terms and conditions in their relationships with product suppliers. Under current App Store rules, that's a hard stop. Whether you agree with this arrangement or believe that it overreaches doesn't matter until a higher authority steps in and forces Apple to make a change.
In a highly competitive free market economy where customers get to vote with their wallet, forcing Apple to follow a centrally directed, socially imposed mandate from a government agency or judge would be a sad thing for consumers and disincentive for infrastructure builders, service providers, and innovation at large. It's no longer "if you build it - they will come." It becomes more like "if you build it really well and it's totally kickass - they will take it away."
“If applied to tech, a Glass-Steagall type stipulation would disallow a company like Apple from competing on a platform it runs.”
Wouldn’t that apply towards other platform App stores like Valve’s steam, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and if they want to start reaching, big box stores that sell products and have their own brands that compete with others they sell?
Plus, what happens to the cost of maintaining the servers for the App Store and other costs that Apple pays for as part of the 30%?
From seeing what has happened in the past when the government gets involved with your business and breaks it up, the customer still gets F’d. It’s just rather than one large member cornholing you, it’s a bunch of small ones. To the customer it still is painful.
At some point Apple will have to break down the costs and present a defense for why they charge a 30% fee. The judge in the epic Injunction yesterday asked the same question, so I imagine that the cost breakdown and rational for 30% will come out at that trial.
Is there some law I’m not aware of that caps profits to a certain percentage? Do you ask your doctor, lawyer, or the guy you bought your car from to justify their markups?
dewme said: They want to claim that Apple and its App Store is simply a "middleman" in their app marketing process. They want to be able to go to their customers and say "we've cut out the middleman and are passing our cost savings along to you."
Epic knows that's a huge lie. Digital stores on consoles reduced both costs and gave more generous cuts to video game developers/publishers, but they never passed along those savings to consumers. The prices were kept the same as traditional physical copies.
“If applied to tech, a Glass-Steagall type stipulation would disallow a company like Apple from competing on a platform it runs.”
Wouldn’t that apply towards other platform App stores like Valve’s steam, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and if they want to start reaching, big box stores that sell products and have their own brands that compete with others they sell?
Plus, what happens to the cost of maintaining the servers for the App Store and other costs that Apple pays for as part of the 30%?
From seeing what has happened in the past when the government gets involved with your business and breaks it up, the customer still gets F’d. It’s just rather than one large member cornholing you, it’s a bunch of small ones. To the customer it still is painful.
At some point Apple will have to break down the costs and present a defense for why they charge a 30% fee. The judge in the epic Injunction yesterday asked the same question, so I imagine that the cost breakdown and rational for 30% will come out at that trial.
Epic pays everyone else 30%. So it's a no win for Epic.
Well, that’s the claim. It hasn’t been true since... ever? When has our government been composed of only people with the same amount of money as average rest of us? Few of our “representatives” actually represent us by wealth culture alone, including by way of our taxes paying them to do nothing in the house but maintain the corporatocracy’s status quo.
Are they going to do anything about grocery stores competing against their own market clients? Many bigger grocery companies are selling their own store brands, sometimes blatantly EXCLUDING the third-party products they are themselves competing against.
Apple’s market share is in the low teens for smartphones. “Monopoly”? Hardly.
They’re at 49% in the US, in Europe and some other developed areas. The investigation is about their market dominance in the US and not in East Mongolia.
Most software on the iOS store is free. 30% of free is zero.
After a year the percentage take is less, say 15%. 15% is not 30%.
These politicians have no clue about how things run. Apple at max takes 30% of the listed price. Everybody else makes their money through mark-ups. What's the markup for jewelry stores? It's between 1000% and 2000%.
Speaking of monopolies, There is a monopoly in Congress -- 100% are politicians.
Apple’s market share is in the low teens for smartphones. “Monopoly”? Hardly.
What Is a Monopoly?
A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate a
sector or industry. Monopolies can be considered an extreme result
of free-market capitalism in
that absent any restriction or restraints, a single company or group
becomes large enough to own all or nearly all of the market (goods,
supplies, commodities, infrastructure, and assets) for a particular type
of product or service. The term monopoly is often used to describe an
entity that has total or near-total control of a market.
App stores or app marketplaces are digital distribution platforms for mobile and desktop apps. They offer online users a plethora of apps to browse through, purchase or download for free.
Market share has nothing to do with being a Monopoly. Apple completely controls their own app store and what can and can't be loaded onto their hardware. I have zero issue with this and care nothing about Fortnite or Epic games.Just wanted to add this info because I keep seeing this go back and forth.
What I don't get is why developers don't pass this 30% apple tax onto us? Charge more to get what you wanted in the first place. Much like with medical insurances.. hospitals and care providers charge more to get what they originally wanted from insurance. A dental cleaning is normally $80.00.. they send a charge to insurance for $100.00 knowing that insurance is only going to pay 80%. So they get their $80.00 that they originally wanted and insurance only pays the % they are obligated to pay. Crude example but I am sure you get the point. Another example is Youtube Premium.. when I first signed up few years back it was $12.99 a month as a recurring subscription through the app store. A little later I found out that it was $9.99 if I paid Google directly as they pass the extra 30% onto the customer. Prices on Googles side have since changed but this was just another example.
I hear time and time again that we IOS folks actually spend money and that is why EPIC and other developers want to have their product on the app store. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more to ease the 30% burden on smaller developers?
Epic can go kick rocks as they make a killing on console sales and are just looking to bleed every last cent out of these kids and young adults that play Fortnite game.
Most software on the iOS store is free. 30% of free is zero.
After a year the percentage take is less, say 15%. 15% is not 30%.
These politicians have no clue about how things run. Apple at max takes 30% of the listed price. Everybody else makes their money through mark-ups. What's the markup for jewelry stores? It's between 1000% and 2000%.
Speaking of monopolies, There is a monopoly in Congress -- 100% are politicians.
Good point. Apple is eating the maintenance costs on all of those free apps. The fact that Apple built the App Store with a no-cost provision for developers who can benefit by getting their wares out there at no cost to the end customer is actually a very good thing for everyone. It’s not like they added it after the fact to placate regulators or paint themselves in a more sympathetic tone with detractors. Anyone who thinks that the free riders in the App Store cost Apple nothing do not understand lifecycle costs associated with software products. This reality extends to software developers too. If they aren’t getting paid for their work, somehow and in some way, they won’t keep supporting their apps. There’s nothing mysterious about anything that’s happening in the vicinity of the App Store. Somebody’s paying for everything you see in there, one way or another.
It’s just a matter of time before the hammer drops. About time too.
Yep! Apple doesn’t have a leg to stand on!
There is little doubt they abused their position, the real question is how much cf a crime is it. If the Democrats win this election it will be a huge crime if not we will see more modest resolution.
I ask if both app and non app store options might coexist, and the free market can decide?
Those wanting to play it safe and finding value in a 30% 'insurance' premium and convenience have the Apple option, and those who prefer direct sales and in fact not wanting to give more data points to Apple about their every online move also have that choice...
Except those choosing “freedom” open up a world of attack vectors that then interact with those of us on Apple”s platform.
so can we sue the moron’s that set the laws and policies that allow this when my information and financials aren’t compromised through a security vulnerability opened by this?
Security is a fake argument in the discussion. Following scheme respects all security requirements:
Apple does a technical and security approval of the app, and signs the app before it can be put on a iOS device. The approval service does not have to be free of charge
The developer chooses how the signed app is distributed.
The end user has the choice to only download from App store or to download from multiple distribution channels.
If the developer chooses to use the App store , the existing business rules (30% cut, no links to external payment schemes, ....) are applicable. If he chooses a different one, there are different business rules.
If developers want to decide how a smartphone platform should work, they should create their own, not break someone else’s.
Comments
Apple sole income is not from the iPhone is it? How many billions come in from the App Store? The App Store is where Apple is breaking the law and the bigger and more powerful Apple gets the more it will abuse anti-trust laws
At least you admit to not understanding what makes Apple dominance in the market a threat.
Okay, so you see all of these commercials that tout how a producer is "cutting out the middleman" to deliver products at lower prices to consumers. That's half true, but they are not really cutting out the middleman at all, they are simply reassigning the middleman role to someone else in the process. In some cases the producer takes on middleman responsibility while in other cases the customer take on middleman responsibility, like buying their new living room sofa from a big box warehouse with zero sales support and trucking it to their home on the roof of their minivan. The middleman role doesn't go away, the person or entity performing the role is reassigned, and somethings divided up across multiple players, some of whom are willing to work for free, like some consumers.
Therein lies the problem with Epic. They want to claim that Apple and its App Store is simply a "middleman" in their app marketing process. They want to be able to go to their customers and say "we've cut out the middleman and are passing our cost savings along to you." This would all be good except that Apple owns the platform and the secure, managed, and quality-gate based access to the platform is part of the middleman service and essential role that Apple provides to its customers. Apple is not willing to relinquish any of these essential services or roles to third parties and has established this as binding terms and conditions in their relationships with product suppliers. Under current App Store rules, that's a hard stop. Whether you agree with this arrangement or believe that it overreaches doesn't matter until a higher authority steps in and forces Apple to make a change.
In a highly competitive free market economy where customers get to vote with their wallet, forcing Apple to follow a centrally directed, socially imposed mandate from a government agency or judge would be a sad thing for consumers and disincentive for infrastructure builders, service providers, and innovation at large. It's no longer "if you build it - they will come." It becomes more like "if you build it really well and it's totally kickass - they will take it away."
You can add XBOX to that.
Epic pays everyone else 30%. So it's a no win for Epic.
Most software on the iOS store is free. 30% of free is zero.
After a year the percentage take is less, say 15%. 15% is not 30%.
These politicians have no clue about how things run. Apple at max takes 30% of the listed price. Everybody else makes their money through mark-ups. What's the markup for jewelry stores? It's between 1000% and 2000%.
Speaking of monopolies, There is a monopoly in Congress -- 100% are politicians.
What Is a Monopoly?
A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate a sector or industry. Monopolies can be considered an extreme result of free-market capitalism in that absent any restriction or restraints, a single company or group becomes large enough to own all or nearly all of the market (goods, supplies, commodities, infrastructure, and assets) for a particular type of product or service. The term monopoly is often used to describe an entity that has total or near-total control of a market.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp