I don’t see why Apole cannot refuse to sell Epic products just like any restaurant can refuse service to anyone. More lawsuits coming
Poor analogy, more like a restaurant deciding which produce suppliers it uses or a department store deciding which vendors it hosts. After all, iPhone customers are iPhone customers first.
I don’t see why Apole cannot refuse to sell Epic products just like any restaurant can refuse service to anyone. More lawsuits coming
Apple is not obligated to sell any app just like Walmart cannot be required to sell a product. I’d just cut out Epic now. No one will miss their apps.
Good luck with that!
First of all, there
will be a class lawsuit instantly. Many people would argue that they
bought their iOS device also because of Epic’s game.
Another issue: Apple
pretends in ads that iPads are computers, so the customer perception is that
iPads are computers, like any other computer. I and millions of others buy a
computer to do whatever we want with it. It is not Apple’s decision to tell me
what to run on a device which they are advertising as a computer. That simple is it.
Apple is often portrayed (unfairly) in the press, and in these forums, as a bully. If Apple loses a big case (like the one with Epic) or laws are passed that take control away from Apple over its App Store Guidelines, then Apple becomes more of a victim than a bully. This will give Apple all the moral permission it needs to withdraw its App Stores, maybe even its brick and mortar stores, from any states where Apple loses its control over its own operating system's app store's rules.
It's the same as when Walmart pulls out of a city when the people in that city vote to unionize the employees at their local Walmart. "If you take control, we say goodbye." For some reason those words reminded me of a Beatles song ("Hello, Goodbye"), so I'm going to satirize that song here to make a point: (sing along to the real song if you can find it)
[Verse 1] I sell apps, You say no! You take control, you want your own store! oh no! [Chorus] You take control and I say Hell no! Hell no, Hell no! I don't know why you want it free, when I can go! [<--x2]
[Verse 2] I sell apps, you say Whoa! I charge fees, and and you say Hold up, no! oh no! [Chorus] You want "free apps", and I say Hell no! Background voices: (Hell no, goodbye) Hell no, Hell no! I don't know why you want it free, I say Hell no! [<--x2]
[Bridge] Why why why why why why do you even try? Goodbye, bye bye bye bye, Oh no! [Chorus] You want "free apps", and I say Hell no! Hell no, Hell no! I don't know why you want it free, I say Hell no! [<--x2]
[Verse 3] You want apps, You say so, You want free, And I say no no no! Oh, oh no! [Chorus] You want "free apps", and I say Hell no! Hell no, Hell no! I don't know why you it free, I say Hell no! [<--x3] oh, oh Hell no!
I don’t see why Apole cannot refuse to sell Epic products just like any restaurant can refuse service to anyone. More lawsuits coming
Apple is not obligated to sell any app just like Walmart cannot be required to sell a product. I’d just cut out Epic now. No one will miss their apps.
Good luck with that!
First of all, there
will be a class lawsuit instantly. Many people would argue that they
bought their iOS device also because of Epic’s game.
Another issue: Apple
pretends in ads that iPads are computers, so the customer perception is that
iPads are computers, like any other computer. I and millions of others buy a
computer to do whatever we want with it. It is not Apple’s decision to tell me
what to run on a device which they are advertising as a computer. That simple is it.
If you felt that way, why don't you sue Apple right now for not allowing apps that show violence, or porn, or smoking? There are a billion iOS devices and not a single person is suing over this yet? Is that because they are all stupid or because they would lose the case? You have to answer that. Have you tried suing Walmart for not selling tobacco or porn in their stores? It's their store. It's not your store. Did you read your iOS license agreement when you accepted its terms?
Just because you imagine that you have full control over the operating system does not mean that you do. Your imagination has nothing to do with it.
Apple could remove any app from their store just because they don't like the app. They don't even need a reason. But Apple is very generous by giving reasons in its Guidelines and following the rules fairly and evenly. Apple is an angel and you are talking like they are a devil.
Apple has their own store because it costs them $ to vet apps and run the store. They do not charge for free apps, but they do take a cut of in-app purchases to pay for the store. What right does Arizona have to tell a company that they have to allow the free app, and then not take a cut of the in-app purchase?
1. This argument is
invalid. Apple does not vet an App each time someone make a purchase, Apple
vets an App initially and at subsequent updates.
2. Have you ever heard that airlines pay percentages of each ticket to Boeing or Airbus? Have you ever heard of taxi
companies sharing their profits with the car manufacturer? They pay for the car
and for maintenance, but do not pay a percentage of each ride's fees to the car
manufacturer.
3. Apple does not share
the loss of the App developers, so Apple should also not share their profits.
Apple should just invoice the developer for the App store.
4. Apple is not doing a
favour to developers by providing the App Store: it help Apple to sell more
devices. Isn't that superior App Store not the argument of many Apple fans for buying Apple devices? The superior aspect is not the user interface of the App Store, it is the collection of its Apps.
1. Vetting isn't their only expense. Do you have any idea at all what Apple does behind he scenes? For one example, Apple collects and pays the taxes on each purchase. That's not done "once when the app is submitted", but on EVERY PURCHASE. Stop telling us that vetting is Apple's only expense. You are wrong.
2. Boeing and Airbus don't have expenses at every purchase of an airline ticket, but Apple does have expenses at every purchase of an app. As I stated above. So your argument is invalid.
3. Business doesn't work like that. Everyone who works in the delivery of a product or service gets to make profit. Apple works to deliver apps to users.
4. Apple is doing a favour to developers by providing all the development tools for free. Have you forgotten, or are you simply uneducated, or are you being deceptive?
I recommend that you make a list of all the things that Apple does to help developers and users create, distribute and sell apps through the Apple App Store. Once you do that, tell me what a fair profit Apple should make on these services. Is Apple allowed to make a profit at all own the services it provides? And who should it charge for these services? Is Apple allowed to subsidize one part of the business to support another?
It's a good thing I have some spare time on my hands, because there are so many people on the Internet who are wrong, and need to be corrected. It feels like a waste of effort because the same false arguments are being made over and over.
Interstate commerce laws would most likely make this law if passed stillborn, and what would stop Apple from saying no thanks and closing up the App Store and all 6 physical sores in Arizona?
"HB 2005 also features a specific carve-out for gaming consoles or music players, using very similar language to the North Dakota exception." How handy...and why the bill wouldn't be constitutional even if the idiots in Arizona passed it.
There's nothing unconstitutional about this proposed bill.
Apple has their own store because it costs them $ to vet apps and run the store. They do not charge for free apps, but they do take a cut of in-app purchases to pay for the store. What right does Arizona have to tell a company that they have to allow the free app, and then not take a cut of the in-app purchase?
This argument is
invalid. Apple does not vet an App each time someone make a purchase, Apple
vets an App initially and at subsequent updates.
Have you ever heard that airlines pay percentages of each ticket to Boeing or Airbus? Have you ever heard of taxi
companies sharing their profits with the car manufacturer? They pay for the car
and for maintenance, but do not pay a percentage of each ride's fees to the car
manufacturer.
Apple does not share
the loss of the App developers, so Apple should also not share their profits.
Apple should just invoice the developer for the App store.
Apple is not doing a
favour to developers by providing the App Store: it help Apple to sell more
devices. Isn't that superior App Store not the argument of many Apple fans for buying Apple devices? The superior aspect is not the user interface of the App Store, it is the collection of its Apps.
And yet shopping malls you know those places where people go to buy things, do in fact base rent paid on the revenue generated by individual stores.
Apple has their own store because it costs them $ to vet apps and run the store. They do not charge for free apps, but they do take a cut of in-app purchases to pay for the store. What right does Arizona have to tell a company that they have to allow the free app, and then not take a cut of the in-app purchase?
This argument is
invalid. Apple does not vet an App each time someone make a purchase, Apple
vets an App initially and at subsequent updates.
Have you ever heard that airlines pay percentages of each ticket to Boeing or Airbus? Have you ever heard of taxi
companies sharing their profits with the car manufacturer? They pay for the car
and for maintenance, but do not pay a percentage of each ride's fees to the car
manufacturer.
Apple does not share
the loss of the App developers, so Apple should also not share their profits.
Apple should just invoice the developer for the App store.
Apple is not doing a
favour to developers by providing the App Store: it help Apple to sell more
devices. Isn't that superior App Store not the argument of many Apple fans for buying Apple devices? The superior aspect is not the user interface of the App Store, it is the collection of its Apps.
And yet shopping malls you know those places where people go to buy things, do in fact base rent paid on the revenue generated by individual stores.
I'm probably on your side on this argument, but your statement needs a little correction. The malls that I know about charge tenants based on the average sales across the entire mall, not the revenue generated by individual stores. And because of this, stores end up paying more rent if an Apple Store moves in. While that sounds like a bad thing, an Apple Store also doubles (or triples) the foot traffic in a mall, so the increased rent tends to be offset by more customers.
If you think about it, it kinda makes sense. Total sales is a reflection of the value of a square foot of mall space. How else would you define the value of a square foot of space apart from how much that space in that mall sells per unit time? It's completely logical. It also implies that the mall owners require the mall tenants to inform them how much they sell each year. It's probably a requirement of the lease to report this data.
"The legislation would allow web developers to accept payments for their apps without going through Apple or Google's app stores, bypassing the app tax and reducing the cost for consumers without compromising security or safety," the representatives wrote.
That's a bunch of BS. The first sentence in the article states ...... "A bill that could force Apple and Google to allow third-party payment platforms for in-app purchases ..." And then later .... "The piece of legislation is an amendment to Arizona House Bill 2005. Specifically, it "restricts the ability of certain digital application distribution platforms to require use of a specific in-application payment system." The developers will not pass the saving to consumers, they will keep all the savings for themselves. They have to. They are talking about "in app" purchases here. Not the sale of an app in an app store for iOS or Android. The bill is specially written for big developers like Epic that makes their money through "in app" purchases in their games and Spotify that accepts "in app" subscription payment. Those with their own payment system already in place.
Here's why it won't lead to any savings for consumers. Right now, I'm paying for my Netflix subscription by way of automatic CC charge every month. I'm paying $12.99 a month. ( I think that's what Netflix just raised it to.) It's the same $12.99 as if I were to pay through iTunes with the free Netflix app on my iPad and iPhone. If Netflix were able to save the 30% Apple Store "tax", by using their own "in app" payment system and then pass some of that saving to their iOS customers, then what is preventing me from stopping my automatic CC payment and just pay every month going through the Netflix app on my iPad? Even if I save $1 a month, I would pay for my Netflix subscription through my iPad. This would be a nightmare for subscription services that have a free app on iOS and/or Android. Very few consumers don't have access to an iDevice or Android device, to pay "in app", for a discounted subscription. Developers like Spotify would have to lower the cost of their subscriptions for all subscribers, if they were to give a discount to iOS and Android users that pays using Spotify free app. .
The same goes for "in app" purchases while playing games like Fortnight, that are available on other platforms like the X-Box and PlayStations. If Fortnight players were to get a discount on buying Fortnight Bucks on iOS or Android, because Epic passed some of their "tax" savings to them, then why buy full price Fortnight bucks on the X-Box or PlayStation and pay Microsoft or Sony the 30% "tax". All virtual item purchased with Fortnight Bucks on one platform, are available to use on all the other platforms. Epic would have to lower the price of Fortnight Bucks on all platforms, if they passed on any savings to Fortnight players on iOS or Android. This to be fair to Microsoft and Sony. Though they might not like it.
It would be different if the bill was written for developers that "sells" apps in the Apple or Google Play stores. But that would not help Epic or Spotify any, as their apps are free in the two app stores.
"HB 2005 also features a specific carve-out for gaming consoles or music players, using very similar language to the North Dakota exception." How handy...and why the bill wouldn't be constitutional even if the idiots in Arizona passed it.
That language is exactly why these bills will never pass. Like gaming consoles and music players, Apple's iOS platform is not an open platform. All iOS software only runs on Apple hardware.
Apple has their own store because it costs them $ to vet apps and run the store. They do not charge for free apps, but they do take a cut of in-app purchases to pay for the store. What right does Arizona have to tell a company that they have to allow the free app, and then not take a cut of the in-app purchase?
This argument is
invalid. Apple does not vet an App each time someone make a purchase, Apple
vets an App initially and at subsequent updates.
Have you ever heard that airlines pay percentages of each ticket to Boeing or Airbus? Have you ever heard of taxi
companies sharing their profits with the car manufacturer? They pay for the car
and for maintenance, but do not pay a percentage of each ride's fees to the car
manufacturer.
Apple does not share
the loss of the App developers, so Apple should also not share their profits.
Apple should just invoice the developer for the App store.
Apple is not doing a
favour to developers by providing the App Store: it help Apple to sell more
devices. Isn't that superior App Store not the argument of many Apple fans for buying Apple devices? The superior aspect is not the user interface of the App Store, it is the collection of its Apps.
And yet shopping malls you know those places where people go to buy things, do in fact base rent paid on the revenue generated by individual stores.
I'm probably on your side on this argument, but your statement needs a little correction. The malls that I know about charge tenants based on the average sales across the entire mall, not the revenue generated by individual stores. And because of this, stores end up paying more rent if an Apple Store moves in. While that sounds like a bad thing, an Apple Store also doubles (or triples) the foot traffic in a mall, so the increased rent tends to be offset by more customers.
If you think about it, it kinda makes sense. Total sales is a reflection of the value of a square foot of mall space. How else would you define the value of a square foot of space apart from how much that space in that mall sells per unit time? It's completely logical. It also implies that the mall owners require the mall tenants to inform them how much they sell each year. It's probably a requirement of the lease to report this data.
The logic here is that a mall owner has an incentive to gets an Apple Store to move in as it would lead to more foot traffic for all the stores in the mall and more foot traffic leads to more sales and more sales leads to more rent collected, once a store passes a certain amount of gross sales.
It would be unfair for a store in the mall selling products with a low profit margin, that don't attract Apple Store shoppers, to have to pay rent based on how much revenue the Apple Store generates for the mall owner.
The value of a square foot of mall space before it's rented out is only based on foot traffic and the type of customers the mall attracts. The dollar value per square foot can not be determine before the retailer moves in. Two stores with the same square footage but one sells a lot of high profit margin products while the other sells enough low profit margin product to stay in business, would have two different dollar value per square foot. Yet both are the same square footage and in the same mall. The dollar amount of a square foot can only be determined after the retailer moves in and begins to sell stuff. It is not based on how much an Apple Store makes per square foot of mall space. The more rent collected from stores with a high dollar value per square foot, is from the percent of the gross profit that store has to pay, in addition to the rent.
Apple has their own store because it costs them $ to vet apps and run the store. They do not charge for free apps, but they do take a cut of in-app purchases to pay for the store. What right does Arizona have to tell a company that they have to allow the free app, and then not take a cut of the in-app purchase?
Apple is not doing a
favour to developers by providing the App Store: it help Apple to sell more
devices. Isn't that superior App Store not the argument of many Apple fans for buying Apple devices? The superior aspect is not the user interface of the App Store, it is the collection of its Apps.
More half baked lies from you. Not even good ones at that. There is nothing "superior" about Apple collection of apps in their App Store, that Apple uses to sell iDevices or Apple fans claim as superior. For the most part, most of the apps available in the Apple App Store are also in the Google Play Store and apps are available on the internet for Android devices. How can Apple or its fans claim that the collection of apps in the Apple App Store in their iDevices is "superior" when Google Play Store has about the same apps? If anything, Google and its Android fans can claim that the superiority of the apps available on their Android devices, as Android allow apps to be downloaded from the internet. Even porn apps and pirated apps.
What Apple and its fans claim as "superior" is the security of their iDevices. Something that is the result of iDevices not allowing the installation of apps from the internet, not allowing third party app stores and checking as much as possible, that all apps in the Apple App Stores meets Apple's guidelines. Guideline that are for the benefit of their customers, their developers and Apple themselves. No porn or pirated apps in the Apple App Store.
There is no argument that iDevices are superior to Android devices, when it comes to security against malware. Apple uses that as a main selling point for their iDevices. And Apple fans buy iDevices because of this. But in terms of the collection of apps available on iOS, there is nothing superior about it. Not even the 75% that are free. They are also free on Android.
Apple's response to this might be to change its developer licensing agreements to explicitly separate fees for processing payments from fees for using Apple's IP. As it is those things, and others, are effectively covered by the 30% or 15%. But Apple could say something like... you have the right to use our IP under these conditions but if you sell iOS apps or sell digital goods through iOS apps then you have to pay us 25% of the revenue generated from that monetization of our IP. If we process payments for you we will charge you an additional 5%.
States might be able to require Apple to allow other payment systems in some circumstances. But they wouldn't be able to tell Apple that it can't do more or less what I described above. States are effectively preempted by federal law when it comes to copyright issues. Generally speaking they can't, e.g., prohibit companies from exercising their copyrights in ways which are allowed by federal law - e.g., by applying a licensing fee as a condition of using their IP in certain ways.
Apple has their own store because it costs them $ to vet apps and run the store. They do not charge for free apps, but they do take a cut of in-app purchases to pay for the store. What right does Arizona have to tell a company that they have to allow the free app, and then not take a cut of the in-app purchase?
Apple is not doing a
favour to developers by providing the App Store: it help Apple to sell more
devices. Isn't that superior App Store not the argument of many Apple fans for buying Apple devices? The superior aspect is not the user interface of the App Store, it is the collection of its Apps.
More half baked lies from you. Not even good ones at that. There is nothing "superior" about Apple collection of apps in their App Store, that Apple uses to sell iDevices or Apple fans claim as superior. For the most part, most of the apps available in the Apple App Store are also in the Google Play Store and apps are available on the internet for Android devices. How can Apple or its fans claim that the collection of apps in the Apple App Store in their iDevices is "superior" when Google Play Store has about the same apps? If anything, Google and its Android fans can claim that the superiority of the apps available on their Android devices, as Android allow apps to be downloaded from the internet. Even porn apps and pirated apps.
What Apple and its fans claim as "superior" is the security of their iDevices. Something that is the result of iDevices not allowing the installation of apps from the internet, not allowing third party app stores and checking as much as possible, that all apps in the Apple App Stores meets Apple's guidelines. Guideline that are for the benefit of their customers, their developers and Apple themselves. No porn or pirated apps in the Apple App Store.
There is no argument that iDevices are superior to Android devices, when it comes to security against malware. Apple uses that as a main selling point for their iDevices. And Apple fans buy iDevices because of this. But in terms of the collection of apps available on iOS, there is nothing superior about it. Not even the 75% that are free. They are also free on Android.
No idea why you are so
aggressive in your post. But let us assume this
part of your post was true:
“What Apple and its fans claim as
"superior" is the security of their iDevices. Something that is the
result of iDevices not allowing the installation of apps from the internet, not
allowing third party app stores and checking as much as possible, that all apps
in the Apple App Stores meets Apple's guidelines.”
All the security risks arguments are irrelevant rubbish
if you read carefully what the law is about: it is not about opening 3rd
party App Stores and this way introducing new risks.
No, it is not about that. It is about a
company being allowed to have its own payment system which definitely won’t
open any backdoors. And at this point you lose all your
security arguments. And also Apple loses this argument in this case. The argument simply
does not apply.
Apple has their own store because it costs them $ to vet apps and run the store. They do not charge for free apps, but they do take a cut of in-app purchases to pay for the store. What right does Arizona have to tell a company that they have to allow the free app, and then not take a cut of the in-app purchase?
Have you ever heard that airlines pay percentages of each ticket to Boeing or Airbus? Have you ever heard of taxi
companies sharing their profits with the car manufacturer? They pay for the car
and for maintenance, but do not pay a percentage of each ride's fees to the car
manufacturer.
Very bad analogy. Neither Boeing or Airbus maintains the airports where the airlines operate and sell tickets. The auto manufacturers of the taxi are not ones that are driving customers into taking a taxi. And In case you don't know, the app developers ARE NOT the ones that bought the iDevice and maintains it. Like an airline buying planes from Boeing or a taxi company buying cars from Ford. The person that bought the iDevice are not the ones that Apple are charging a percentage of, when they buy an app or make in-app purchases. The developers are charged and has to pay Apple a percentage of their sales. It's up to the developers to charge the device owners to make up for it.
Just like how the airlines have to pay the cities where they operate, a percentage of each ticket, in the form of an airport tax on every airline ticket sold. The cities own, maintains and set guidelines for the airports where airlines operates and make money (or at least try to make money.). And they pass the cost on to their flying customers. Just like how Apple owns, maintains and set guidelines for iOS on iDevices. Where developers operates and make money. And then passes the cost to iDevice customers. Here, Apple is the city owned airport and the airlines are the developers. Apple is not like Boeing or Airbus.
If you drive for a taxi company, you have to pay the taxi company a percentage of your fare. It can be as much as 40%. The taxi company own and maintains the taxi you are driving. They set the rules. They also pay for the taxi permit or medallion to operate that taxi. You want access to the taxi company car, permit or medallion, customers calling in for a taxi and advertising, you have to pay a percentage of your fare. And the percentage you have to pay is built into the fare you charge your customers. Here, the taxi company is like Apple and the taxi drivers driving for a taxi company, are like the developers. Apple is not like the auto manufacturer of the taxi.
And if you drive a taxi and want to pick up passengers at a city own airport, you have to pay the city a fee for that privilege of accessing customers at their airport. Just like how developers have to pay Apple, Google, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, for the privilege of accessing customers at their "airports".
I don’t see why Apole cannot refuse to sell Epic products just like any restaurant can refuse service to anyone. More lawsuits coming
Apple is not obligated to sell any app just like Walmart cannot be required to sell a product. I’d just cut out Epic now. No one will miss their apps.
Good luck with that!
First of all, there
will be a class lawsuit instantly. Many people would argue that they
bought their iOS device also because of Epic’s game.
Another issue: Apple
pretends in ads that iPads are computers, so the customer perception is that
iPads are computers, like any other computer. I and millions of others buy a
computer to do whatever we want with it. It is not Apple’s decision to tell me
what to run on a device which they are advertising as a computer. That simple is it.
If you felt that way, why don't you sue Apple right now for not allowing apps that show violence, or porn, or smoking? There are a billion iOS devices and not a single person is suing over this yet? Is that because they are all stupid or because they would lose the case? You have to answer that. Have you tried suing Walmart for not selling tobacco or porn in their stores? It's their store. It's not your store. Did you read your iOS license agreement when you accepted its terms?
Just because you imagine that you have full control over the operating system does not mean that you do. Your imagination has nothing to do with it.
Apple could remove any app from their store just because they don't like the app. They don't even need a reason. But Apple is very generous by giving reasons in its Guidelines and following the rules fairly and evenly. Apple is an angel and you are talking like they are a devil.
Sorry, but your Walmart example it is not worth to be answered.
Apple could remove any app from their store just because they don't like the app. They don't even need a reason.
Aha, so company A is specialized
in developing iOS Apps and the living of several people depends on that
company.
You are seriously
saying Apple could simply remove the apps from the company A just because Apple
does not like the app? If you want to be taken seriously in a discussion,
please first come up with some serious arguments.
Apple has their own store because it costs them $ to vet apps and run the store. They do not charge for free apps, but they do take a cut of in-app purchases to pay for the store. What right does Arizona have to tell a company that they have to allow the free app, and then not take a cut of the in-app purchase?
1. This argument is
invalid. Apple does not vet an App each time someone make a purchase, Apple
vets an App initially and at subsequent updates.
2. Have you ever heard that airlines pay percentages of each ticket to Boeing or Airbus? Have you ever heard of taxi
companies sharing their profits with the car manufacturer? They pay for the car
and for maintenance, but do not pay a percentage of each ride's fees to the car
manufacturer.
3. Apple does not share
the loss of the App developers, so Apple should also not share their profits.
Apple should just invoice the developer for the App store.
4. Apple is not doing a
favour to developers by providing the App Store: it help Apple to sell more
devices. Isn't that superior App Store not the argument of many Apple fans for buying Apple devices? The superior aspect is not the user interface of the App Store, it is the collection of its Apps.
1. Vetting isn't their only expense. Do you have any idea at all what Apple does behind he scenes? For one example, Apple collects and pays the taxes on each purchase. That's not done "once when the app is submitted", but on EVERY PURCHASE. Stop telling us that vetting is Apple's only expense. You are wrong.
2. Boeing and Airbus don't have expenses at every purchase of an airline ticket, but Apple does have expenses at every purchase of an app. As I stated above. So your argument is invalid.
3. Business doesn't work like that. Everyone who works in the delivery of a product or service gets to make profit. Apple works to deliver apps to users.
4. Apple is doing a favour to developers by providing all the development tools for free. Have you forgotten, or are you simply uneducated, or are you being deceptive?
I recommend that you make a list of all the things that Apple does to help developers and users create, distribute and sell apps through the Apple App Store. Once you do that, tell me what a fair profit Apple should make on these services. Is Apple allowed to make a profit at all own the services it provides? And who should it charge for these services? Is Apple allowed to subsidize one part of the business to support another?
It's a good thing I have some spare time on my hands, because there are so many people on the Internet who are wrong, and need to be corrected. It feels like a waste of effort because the same false arguments are being made over and over.
You wrote so much but simply failed in understanding what the article is about.
Apple collects and pays the taxes on each purchase.
Besides the fact that
you obviously believe there is a person processing each single payment, the
bill is about allowing App developers to have their own payment system. This would
result in Apple not having to care about the payment of taxes or doing any kind
of activity.
Apple has their own store because it costs them $ to vet apps and run the store. They do not charge for free apps, but they do take a cut of in-app purchases to pay for the store. What right does Arizona have to tell a company that they have to allow the free app, and then not take a cut of the in-app purchase?
Have you ever heard that airlines pay percentages of each ticket to Boeing or Airbus? Have you ever heard of taxi
companies sharing their profits with the car manufacturer? They pay for the car
and for maintenance, but do not pay a percentage of each ride's fees to the car
manufacturer.
Very bad analogy. Neither Boeing or Airbus maintains the airports where the airlines operate and sell tickets. The auto manufacturers of the taxi are not ones that are driving customers into taking a taxi. And In case you don't know, the app developers ARE NOT the ones that bought the iDevice and maintains it. Like an airline buying planes from Boeing or a taxi company buying cars from Ford. The person that bought the iDevice are not the ones that Apple are charging a percentage of, when they buy an app or make in-app purchases. The developers are charged and has to pay Apple a percentage of their sales. It's up to the developers to charge the device owners to make up for it.
Just like how the airlines have to pay the cities where they operate, a percentage of each ticket, in the form of an airport tax on every airline ticket sold. The cities own, maintains and set guidelines for the airports where airlines operates and make money (or at least try to make money.). And they pass the cost on to their flying customers. Just like how Apple owns, maintains and set guidelines for iOS on iDevices. Where developers operates and make money. And then passes the cost to iDevice customers. Here, Apple is the city owned airport and the airlines are the developers. Apple is not like Boeing or Airbus.
If you drive for a taxi company, you have to pay the taxi company a percentage of your fare. It can be as much as 40%. The taxi company own and maintains the taxi you are driving. They set the rules. They also pay for the taxi permit or medallion to operate that taxi. You want access to the taxi company car, permit or medallion, customers calling in for a taxi and advertising, you have to pay a percentage of your fare. And the percentage you have to pay is built into the fare you charge your customers. Here, the taxi company is like Apple and the taxi drivers driving for a taxi company, are like the developers. Apple is not like the auto manufacturer of the taxi.
And if you drive a taxi and want to pick up passengers at a city own airport, you have to pay the city a fee for that privilege of accessing customers at their airport. Just like how developers have to pay Apple, Google, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, for the privilege of accessing customers at their "airports".
My analogy is the perfect one actually. I hoped it would be clear what the actual argument is but it seems that you need an extra explanation.
You fail to understand that in case of App Store you have no other choice but using Apple's payment system. But airlines can sell their tickets through whatever channel they want and if they decide to use a 3rd party channel, they are hapy to pay for it. But they are not forced to sell the tickets through Airbus or Boeing.
And the bill in question is exactly about this. Actually every discussion about the App Store and the Apple tax is about being forced to go through Apple. Apple is behaving as acting as a ruthless pi mp, whether you like it or not.
Comments
Good luck with that!
First of all, there will be a class lawsuit instantly. Many people would argue that they bought their iOS device also because of Epic’s game.
Another issue: Apple pretends in ads that iPads are computers, so the customer perception is that iPads are computers, like any other computer. I and millions of others buy a computer to do whatever we want with it. It is not Apple’s decision to tell me what to run on a device which they are advertising as a computer. That simple is it.
It's the same as when Walmart pulls out of a city when the people in that city vote to unionize the employees at their local Walmart. "If you take control, we say goodbye." For some reason those words reminded me of a Beatles song ("Hello, Goodbye"), so I'm going to satirize that song here to make a point: (sing along to the real song if you can find it)
Just because you imagine that you have full control over the operating system does not mean that you do. Your imagination has nothing to do with it.
Apple could remove any app from their store just because they don't like the app. They don't even need a reason. But Apple is very generous by giving reasons in its Guidelines and following the rules fairly and evenly. Apple is an angel and you are talking like they are a devil.
2. Boeing and Airbus don't have expenses at every purchase of an airline ticket, but Apple does have expenses at every purchase of an app. As I stated above. So your argument is invalid.
3. Business doesn't work like that. Everyone who works in the delivery of a product or service gets to make profit. Apple works to deliver apps to users.
4. Apple is doing a favour to developers by providing all the development tools for free. Have you forgotten, or are you simply uneducated, or are you being deceptive?
I recommend that you make a list of all the things that Apple does to help developers and users create, distribute and sell apps through the Apple App Store. Once you do that, tell me what a fair profit Apple should make on these services. Is Apple allowed to make a profit at all own the services it provides? And who should it charge for these services? Is Apple allowed to subsidize one part of the business to support another?
It's a good thing I have some spare time on my hands, because there are so many people on the Internet who are wrong, and need to be corrected. It feels like a waste of effort because the same false arguments are being made over and over.
If you think about it, it kinda makes sense. Total sales is a reflection of the value of a square foot of mall space. How else would you define the value of a square foot of space apart from how much that space in that mall sells per unit time? It's completely logical. It also implies that the mall owners require the mall tenants to inform them how much they sell each year. It's probably a requirement of the lease to report this data.
That's a bunch of BS. The first sentence in the article states ...... "A bill that could force Apple and Google to allow third-party payment platforms for in-app purchases ..."
And then later .... "The piece of legislation is an amendment to Arizona House Bill 2005. Specifically, it "restricts the ability of certain digital application distribution platforms to require use of a specific in-application payment system."
The developers will not pass the saving to consumers, they will keep all the savings for themselves. They have to. They are talking about "in app" purchases here. Not the sale of an app in an app store for iOS or Android. The bill is specially written for big developers like Epic that makes their money through "in app" purchases in their games and Spotify that accepts "in app" subscription payment. Those with their own payment system already in place.
Here's why it won't lead to any savings for consumers. Right now, I'm paying for my Netflix subscription by way of automatic CC charge every month. I'm paying $12.99 a month. ( I think that's what Netflix just raised it to.) It's the same $12.99 as if I were to pay through iTunes with the free Netflix app on my iPad and iPhone. If Netflix were able to save the 30% Apple Store "tax", by using their own "in app" payment system and then pass some of that saving to their iOS customers, then what is preventing me from stopping my automatic CC payment and just pay every month going through the Netflix app on my iPad? Even if I save $1 a month, I would pay for my Netflix subscription through my iPad. This would be a nightmare for subscription services that have a free app on iOS and/or Android. Very few consumers don't have access to an iDevice or Android device, to pay "in app", for a discounted subscription. Developers like Spotify would have to lower the cost of their subscriptions for all subscribers, if they were to give a discount to iOS and Android users that pays using Spotify free app. .
The same goes for "in app" purchases while playing games like Fortnight, that are available on other platforms like the X-Box and PlayStations. If Fortnight players were to get a discount on buying Fortnight Bucks on iOS or Android, because Epic passed some of their "tax" savings to them, then why buy full price Fortnight bucks on the X-Box or PlayStation and pay Microsoft or Sony the 30% "tax". All virtual item purchased with Fortnight Bucks on one platform, are available to use on all the other platforms. Epic would have to lower the price of Fortnight Bucks on all platforms, if they passed on any savings to Fortnight players on iOS or Android. This to be fair to Microsoft and Sony. Though they might not like it.
It would be different if the bill was written for developers that "sells" apps in the Apple or Google Play stores. But that would not help Epic or Spotify any, as their apps are free in the two app stores.
That language is exactly why these bills will never pass. Like gaming consoles and music players, Apple's iOS platform is not an open platform. All iOS software only runs on Apple hardware.
The logic here is that a mall owner has an incentive to gets an Apple Store to move in as it would lead to more foot traffic for all the stores in the mall and more foot traffic leads to more sales and more sales leads to more rent collected, once a store passes a certain amount of gross sales.
It would be unfair for a store in the mall selling products with a low profit margin, that don't attract Apple Store shoppers, to have to pay rent based on how much revenue the Apple Store generates for the mall owner.
The value of a square foot of mall space before it's rented out is only based on foot traffic and the type of customers the mall attracts. The dollar value per square foot can not be determine before the retailer moves in. Two stores with the same square footage but one sells a lot of high profit margin products while the other sells enough low profit margin product to stay in business, would have two different dollar value per square foot. Yet both are the same square footage and in the same mall. The dollar amount of a square foot can only be determined after the retailer moves in and begins to sell stuff. It is not based on how much an Apple Store makes per square foot of mall space. The more rent collected from stores with a high dollar value per square foot, is from the percent of the gross profit that store has to pay, in addition to the rent.
More half baked lies from you. Not even good ones at that. There is nothing "superior" about Apple collection of apps in their App Store, that Apple uses to sell iDevices or Apple fans claim as superior. For the most part, most of the apps available in the Apple App Store are also in the Google Play Store and apps are available on the internet for Android devices. How can Apple or its fans claim that the collection of apps in the Apple App Store in their iDevices is "superior" when Google Play Store has about the same apps? If anything, Google and its Android fans can claim that the superiority of the apps available on their Android devices, as Android allow apps to be downloaded from the internet. Even porn apps and pirated apps.
porn app on android
pirated apps on android
What Apple and its fans claim as "superior" is the security of their iDevices. Something that is the result of iDevices not allowing the installation of apps from the internet, not allowing third party app stores and checking as much as possible, that all apps in the Apple App Stores meets Apple's guidelines. Guideline that are for the benefit of their customers, their developers and Apple themselves. No porn or pirated apps in the Apple App Store.
There is no argument that iDevices are superior to Android devices, when it comes to security against malware. Apple uses that as a main selling point for their iDevices. And Apple fans buy iDevices because of this. But in terms of the collection of apps available on iOS, there is nothing superior about it. Not even the 75% that are free. They are also free on Android.
https://www.pandasecurity.com/en/mediacenter/mobile-security/android-more-infected-than-ios/
https://bgr.com/2020/03/02/iphone-vs-android-security-updates-delay-authenticator-adoption/
States might be able to require Apple to allow other payment systems in some circumstances. But they wouldn't be able to tell Apple that it can't do more or less what I described above. States are effectively preempted by federal law when it comes to copyright issues. Generally speaking they can't, e.g., prohibit companies from exercising their copyrights in ways which are allowed by federal law - e.g., by applying a licensing fee as a condition of using their IP in certain ways.
No idea why you are so aggressive in your post. But let us assume this part of your post was true:
All the security risks arguments are irrelevant rubbish if you read carefully what the law is about: it is not about opening 3rd party App Stores and this way introducing new risks.
No, it is not about that. It is about a company being allowed to have its own payment system which definitely won’t open any backdoors. And at this point you lose all your security arguments. And also Apple loses this argument in this case. The argument simply does not apply.
Just like how the airlines have to pay the cities where they operate, a percentage of each ticket, in the form of an airport tax on every airline ticket sold. The cities own, maintains and set guidelines for the airports where airlines operates and make money (or at least try to make money.). And they pass the cost on to their flying customers. Just like how Apple owns, maintains and set guidelines for iOS on iDevices. Where developers operates and make money. And then passes the cost to iDevice customers. Here, Apple is the city owned airport and the airlines are the developers. Apple is not like Boeing or Airbus.
If you drive for a taxi company, you have to pay the taxi company a percentage of your fare. It can be as much as 40%. The taxi company own and maintains the taxi you are driving. They set the rules. They also pay for the taxi permit or medallion to operate that taxi. You want access to the taxi company car, permit or medallion, customers calling in for a taxi and advertising, you have to pay a percentage of your fare. And the percentage you have to pay is built into the fare you charge your customers. Here, the taxi company is like Apple and the taxi drivers driving for a taxi company, are like the developers. Apple is not like the auto manufacturer of the taxi.
And if you drive a taxi and want to pick up passengers at a city own airport, you have to pay the city a fee for that privilege of accessing customers at their airport. Just like how developers have to pay Apple, Google, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, for the privilege of accessing customers at their "airports".
Aha, so company A is specialized in developing iOS Apps and the living of several people depends on that company.
You are seriously saying Apple could simply remove the apps from the company A just because Apple does not like the app? If you want to be taken seriously in a discussion, please first come up with some serious arguments.Besides the fact that you obviously believe there is a person processing each single payment, the bill is about allowing App developers to have their own payment system. This would result in Apple not having to care about the payment of taxes or doing any kind of activity.
You fail to understand that in case of App Store you have no other choice but using Apple's payment system. But airlines can sell their tickets through whatever channel they want and if they decide to use a 3rd party channel, they are hapy to pay for it. But they are not forced to sell the tickets through Airbus or Boeing.
And the bill in question is exactly about this.
Actually every discussion about the App Store and the Apple tax is about being forced to go through Apple. Apple is behaving as acting as a ruthless pi mp, whether you like it or not.