One point that a lot of power seekers and control freaks are missing is that Apple’s App Store is a private entity. Maybe this would have been more apparent had Apple named it the “iPhone App Store” from the get go. You can get all the apps you’ll ever need for your iPhone in the iPhone App Store. If you have a Nokia, Motorola, or Samsung phone - go fishing in their app store for apps for those phones.
If I developed a smart toaster that allowed apps to be installed that did things like toast images from photos and text from tweets, it would be a private app platform for apps that I’d develop myself and maybe I’d allow third party toaster apps under a set of rules that I would totally control, because it’s my private platform. At no point would I expect government regulators to be able to tell me who can put apps for my smart toaster platform in my store or how to structure my third party relationships and my app payment systems. That would be insane, but that’s what some folks are asking governments to force Apple to do.
The Walmart and Target analogies don’t apply to Apple’s app store because Walmart and Target aren’t exclusively selling products in their stores that are not only exclusive to their stores but also products that can only be consumed inside their platform, which is a physical Walmart store. If that were the case you’d only be able to buy and eat a Walmart blue light special pizza inside a Walmart store. Apps that you buy in Apple’s App Store can only be consumed inside an Apple device, not only a specific Apple device type but an Apple device instance that is associated with your Apple ID account and linked payment information. The Walmart pizza scenario would then narrow down to you having to eat the Walmart pizza in a specific Walmart store that you are contractually bound to Walmart for the purposes of eating Walmart pizzas (and other Walmart exclusive products).
That said, forcing a private or publicly held company to open up its private platform to public oversight, regulation, and control isn’t unheard of in many countries around the world. Telecoms, transportation systems, utilities, etc., have all followed this path. So there is obviously a path towards this capture model.
Lastly, we are all very attuned to the Apple and App Store nuances of the supposed “Big Tech” problem that regulators are crying about. They obviously want to lay down a hammer as quickly as they can to force private companies to submit to their will. That’s a power trip. My concern is that they are painting with far too broad a brush and completely ignoring the stark differences between concerns that impact consumer’s pocketbooks in what I believe are very subtle ways versus concerns that impact public safety and the democratic underpinnings of societies in general. On a scale of 1-10 my concerns about paying 15% more for a $3.99 app than what I could be possibly be paying is not even scraping the lower edge of a 1.
On the other hand, my concerns around companies like Facebook and Twitter taking active roles in the promotion of propaganda and insurrection and of course Privacy are way up there on the 1-10 scale. So all this talk about going after a 80% broad brush solution doesn’t sit well with me. Things that truly matter need 100% solutions, and scrutiny, while things that the free market can settle on its own … let’s see how competitive forces play out. If companies think they’re being starved by Apple or Google, or whom ever, let’s see if that hunger translates to them getting off their butts and doing something about it other than running crying to mommy.
mark fearing said: It's only weird when you look at the retail and sales environment as a whole. For instance, within Walmart, I'd not expect them to have posters for Target prices. Or at a restaurant they don't also show you the menu and prices from the restaurant across the street. But I get that this digital market is 'different'. But I think it's very much a debate about what is different with it.
IMO, the debate per anti-steering is based on a false pretense: that it's somehow difficult for an iPhone user to be aware that app developers could have an online presence outside the App Store. It just seems silly for the government to act like people in 2021 aren't aware the internet exists or that commerce takes place on the internet too.
Are you, and were you prior to being asked this question aware that YouTube charges $15.99 in-app but $11.99 on their website?
Do you think it's fair that they can't tell you there is a discount available outside of the app?
And if you weren't aware and have been paying $15.99 in-app instead of $11.99, do you feel you've been financially harmed as a customer?
It's about being able to tell consumers that there's another option available that they likely aren't aware of.
They can tell you all they want using other means.
Using the Target/Walmart analogy, how happy would Target be if a given brand of sneakers placed signs in Target saying Walmart happens to be running a sale today? You can save money if you shopped there.
Am I "financially harmed" because Best Buy charges more than Costco for the TV I just bought, if I don't bother to research it?
Not sure why people have latched onto anti-steering as somehow harmful. It's a standard practice throughout the business world. Limiting how companies can provide preferential treatment for their own products makes sense in situations where either consumers would expect neutrality (like search) OR the company itself is claiming that everyone is treated the same (Apple makes this claim with the App Store).
It's only weird when you look at the retail and sales environment as a whole. For instance, within Walmart, I'd not expect them to have posters for Target prices. Or at a restaurant they don't also show you the menu and prices from the restaurant across the street. But I get that this digital market is 'different'. But I think it's very much a debate about what is different with it. As mush as people have complained about Apple charing that 15 or 30% in the App Store, all grocery stores charge a shelving fee. And wholesale sellers have to pay money (or discount) for better sell space. That has been deemed legal. The contradictions are rife.
The thing is though, Apple is the sole provider of apps, there is no competing stores like there is in the retail space.
Walmart has Target and numerous other stores they compete with... The App Store has none...
Some may argue that the Play Store is competition, but how can you really say that when you need a completely different device in order to access it?
iOS competes with Android, the App Store does not compete with the Play Store, and that's where the comparison to retail falls apart.
Walmart can't tell Target "You can't build your store here because we have one of ours in the city already.", but Apple is doing exactly that with the App Store.
Your comparison is way off. A Federal Judge has already ruled that Apple "monopoly" with iOS and their Apple App Store can not be subject to anti-trust laws
That's not what the US judge decided, as would be clear from her comments regarding the ruling. It would also not be binding to any action the EU might decide is warranted.
Walmart can't tell Target "You can't build your store here because we have one of ours in the city already.", but Apple is doing exactly that with the App Store.
You might be surprised at the myriad local laws that prevent exactly that. In my country thee are all sorts of regulations about how close newsagents and pharmacies can be etc. and the list is very long.
Those regulations aren't invented by the owners of the already-existing store though. They're created by a local authority that (supposedly) has no financial, political or otherwise interest in either store, only that both play fair and to the same rules. Do you think if a Walmart could set the rules it would allow a Target anywhere nearby?
The thing is though, Apple is the sole provider of apps, there is no competing stores like there is in the retail space.
Walmart has Target and numerous other stores they compete with... The App Store has none...
Some may argue that the Play Store is competition, but how can you really say that when you need a completely different device in order to access it?
iOS competes with Android, the App Store does not compete with the Play Store, and that's where the comparison to retail falls apart.
Walmart can't tell Target "You can't build your store here because we have one of ours in the city already.", but Apple is doing exactly that with the App Store.
While true the App Store is the only way to get an Application, which Apple offers for free by the way, payments and accounts can be offered outside the store. so a developer/consumer has choice. I think we can all agree that you cannot expect Walmart to offer Target Pricing so the consumer can decide to go to Target in case it is cheaper. However Apple is now obliged to make that happen, so cased closed one would think, oh no .... The true gist of the story here is that Europe is jealous of US Tech, and is grasping at straws to get the EU tech industry back in the game ...
That is the tone one gets. Also the only real challenge to Apple's method in US courts is a ruling in a Federal court using a state law that is so vague I am surprised it has not been challenged. I mean who thinks a law that can be read 'oh you came close to violating so we can act as if you actually did' is good?
dantheman827 said: Are you, and were you prior to being asked this question aware that YouTube charges $15.99 in-app but $11.99 on their website?
Do you think it's fair that they can't tell you there is a discount available outside of the app?
Yes, I think it's fair that they can't tell you there is a discount available outside the app because my iPhone has access to the internet and web sites. I'm old enough to remember the days when software could only be purchased at brick/mortar stores or through the mail. The price through the mail might not be the same as the brick/mortar stores, and the brick/mortar stores might have different prices too. Nobody at the time considered that to be an unfair situation as a consumer. It was up to you to educate yourself on the WHERE and HOW MUCH part of the shopping experience.
But a manufacturer of a product can and they do put details in the packaging/user guide and indeed in the product itself in the case of a phone saying "you can buy supplies for this widget on our website", which is exactly what Apple has been banning apps from doing. Hell Apple does exactly that. I can buy an iPhone in Walmart, and then Apple advertises at me that I might like other accessories etc and provides a link to buy them. Does Walmart get a cut of those accessories because I bought the phone there? Nope, so why should Apple get a cut just because I acquired an app through them?
One point that a lot of power seekers and control freaks are missing is that Apple’s App Store is a private entity. Maybe this would have been more apparent had Apple named it the “iPhone App Store” from the get go. You can get all the apps you’ll ever need for your iPhone in the iPhone App Store. If you have a Nokia, Motorola, or Samsung phone - go fishing in their app store for apps for those phones.
You could say that about anything. My house is a "private entity" but it doesn't mean within it contracts are nulled, it doesn't mean laws don't apply there. Facebook is a "private entity" but that is facing plenty of scrutiny and regulation. People have been jailed through things they've posted on Facebook. Many people seem to have this weird concept that because someone created something laws should not apply to it. It's bizarre, as well as entirely wrong. The "power seekers" and "control freaks" you speak of are Apple themselves.
But Apple do not advertise that you can get the iPhone cheaper on their website, that is clearly visible on the iPhone packaging, before you pay for it at a Walmart. And Walmart (or any retailer) would not allow this on any of the product they sell in their stores or website. You actually think that Walmart would allow the maker of a product that they (Walmart) is selling online, to place an ad on their product page on the Walmart website, that it can be purchased cheaper on their own website? And then provide a link? Or that the product makers think they have the right to do so? Do Amazon allow third party Marketplace seller to advertise that the item they're selling on Amazon, is cheaper at their eBay store? Why would you even think that that should be the case?
Walmart don't get a cut on the accessories you buy for the iPhone that you bought from Walmart because those iPhone accessories no not depend on Walmart, in order for it to be of any use. Walmart only get a cut if you buy those accessories from Walmart. How hard is that to understand? When you buy an app from the Apple App Store, that app depends on the Apple IP on the iDevice, in order for it to be of any use. Apple IP DO NOT belong to you, no matter how much you think it does because you bought the iPhone.
If you were to use the iOS Amazon App to purchase a hair dryer, Apple do not get a commission. A hair dry do not depend on the Apple IP on the iDevice, for it to operate. Apple commission only applies to the sale and download of digital goods that rely on the Apple IP on iDevices. Buy an album on CD from Amazon using their app, no commission. Buy and download the MP3 of the same album from Amazon, Apple gets a commission. (Or Apple would get a commission if Amazon sold MP3's using the Amazon App.)
One point that a lot of power seekers and control freaks are missing is that Apple’s App Store is a private entity. Maybe this would have been more apparent had Apple named it the “iPhone App Store” from the get go. You can get all the apps you’ll ever need for your iPhone in the iPhone App Store. If you have a Nokia, Motorola, or Samsung phone - go fishing in their app store for apps for those phones.
You could say that about anything. My house is a "private entity" but it doesn't mean within it contracts are nulled, it doesn't mean laws don't apply there. Facebook is a "private entity" but that is facing plenty of scrutiny and regulation. People have been jailed through things they've posted on Facebook. Many people seem to have this weird concept that because someone created something laws should not apply to it. It's bizarre, as well as entirely wrong. The "power seekers" and "control freaks" you speak of are Apple themselves.
But there are also laws that protect the private property owner rights, that are included in the US Constitution and Copyright Laws. The right to monetize ones own property is one of the fundamental basis of Copyright Laws. These laws should also not be ignored because of greedy developers that thinks they should be allowed to use others property to profit from, without any compensation to the property owner. Or clueless government politicians paid to act on their behalf. Many people seem to have this weird concept that because Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. created something, Copyright Laws should not apply to it. The Coalition of App Fairness is full of such people. They think anything created by the big techs, that they can profit from, should be in public domain.
Not sure why people have latched onto anti-steering as somehow harmful. It's a standard practice throughout the business world. Limiting how companies can provide preferential treatment for their own products makes sense in situations where either consumers would expect neutrality (like search) OR the company itself is claiming that everyone is treated the same (Apple makes this claim with the App Store).
It's only weird when you look at the retail and sales environment as a whole. For instance, within Walmart, I'd not expect them to have posters for Target prices. Or at a restaurant they don't also show you the menu and prices from the restaurant across the street. But I get that this digital market is 'different'. But I think it's very much a debate about what is different with it. As mush as people have complained about Apple charing that 15 or 30% in the App Store, all grocery stores charge a shelving fee. And wholesale sellers have to pay money (or discount) for better sell space. That has been deemed legal. The contradictions are rife.
The thing is though, Apple is the sole provider of apps, there is no competing stores like there is in the retail space.
Walmart has Target and numerous other stores they compete with... The App Store has none...
Some may argue that the Play Store is competition, but how can you really say that when you need a completely different device in order to access it?
iOS competes with Android, the App Store does not compete with the Play Store, and that's where the comparison to retail falls apart.
Walmart can't tell Target "You can't build your store here because we have one of ours in the city already.", but Apple is doing exactly that with the App Store.
Your comparison is way off. A Federal Judge has already ruled that Apple "monopoly" with iOS and their Apple App Store can not be subject to anti-trust laws
That's not what the US judge decided, as would be clear from her comments regarding the ruling. It would also not be binding to any action the EU might decide is warranted.
And that is not what I said. Why do you always do things like this. What i said was ...... "A Federal Judge has already ruled that Apple "monopoly" with iOS and their Apple App Store can not be subject to anti-trust laws, with your way of thinking". (That of the OP)And "the OP way of thinking", is the same as Epic way of thinking, in the lawsuit they filed against Apple.
By cutting off my quote, it takes on a different meaning. Did I say that a Federal Judge had rule that the "monopoly" Apple have with iOS and the Apple App store CAN NOT be subject to into-trust laws? That's what you make it seem like I said.
If you have a case of attention deficit or short term memory loss, when reading, then I can see how you can make such a mistake. You should look into it. Otherwise, it's just another failed attempt by you, to make yourself seem smarter than you are.
But Apple do not advertise that you can get the iPhone cheaper on their website, that is clearly visible on the iPhone packaging, before you pay for it at a Walmart. And Walmart (or any retailer) would not allow this on any of the product they sell in their stores or website. You actually think that Walmart would allow the maker of a product that they (Walmart) is selling online, to place an ad on their product page on the Walmart website, that it can be purchased cheaper on their own website? And then provide a link? Or that the product makers think they have the right to do so? Do Amazon allow third party Marketplace seller to advertise that the item they're selling on Amazon, is cheaper at their eBay store? Why would you even think that that should be the case?
You have read my comment completely wrong.
I purposefully did not refer to the purchase of apps (or iPhones) themselves. I clearly stated "a manufacturer of a product can and they do put details in the packaging" and sales from that garners the original seller zero no commission. In this case the "packaging" is the app, and Apple feels they should be able to stop a developer mentioning other sources for IAPs/subscriptions, which are akin to "accessories" in physical products. Apple thinks they should get a cut of every monetary transaction that goes through that app despite providing nothing, no physical seller has the gall to do that.
So as I said, manufacturers can and do put links to accessories that are not in the original seller's store inside the packaging of physical products. The seller of the product the accessories are used with gets no cut. "Accessories" are akin to in-app purchases, and Apple forces developers to go through Apple's store despite there being essentially no cost to Apple to enable access to the IAP.
In other words it would be like Walmart taking a cut of all apps purchased on an iPhone that was originally bought at Walmart, or AT&T taking a cut of all transactions that happen though its phone lines.
One point that a lot of power seekers and control freaks are missing is that Apple’s App Store is a private entity. Maybe this would have been more apparent had Apple named it the “iPhone App Store” from the get go. You can get all the apps you’ll ever need for your iPhone in the iPhone App Store. If you have a Nokia, Motorola, or Samsung phone - go fishing in their app store for apps for those phones.
You could say that about anything. My house is a "private entity" but it doesn't mean within it contracts are nulled, it doesn't mean laws don't apply there. Facebook is a "private entity" but that is facing plenty of scrutiny and regulation. People have been jailed through things they've posted on Facebook. Many people seem to have this weird concept that because someone created something laws should not apply to it. It's bizarre, as well as entirely wrong. The "power seekers" and "control freaks" you speak of are Apple themselves.
But there are also laws that protect the private property owner rights, that are included in the US Constitution and Copyright Laws. The right to monetize ones own property is one of the fundamental basis of Copyright Laws. These laws should also not be ignored because of greedy developers that thinks they should be allowed to use others property to profit from, without any compensation to the property owner. Or clueless government politicians paid to act on their behalf. Many people seem to have this weird concept that because Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. created something, Copyright Laws should not apply to it. The Coalition of App Fairness is full of such people. They think anything created by the big techs, that they can profit from, should be in public domain.
You seem to be mistaken. What aspect of IAPs fall under Apple's copyright? The copyright is the developer's, they wrote the app. Yes Apple provided the tools, that doesn't mean they own the copyright. If they did, everything written on your Mac would be Apple's copyright.
Your attempt at irony there has fallen very flat on its face. No one has claimed Apple etc shouldn't have copyright over things they have created, but they did not create the apps the developers submit. Amazon doesn't own the copyright for books sold on its store. No one else thinks this is the case, and no one else is trying to defend Apple by claiming they should charge a fee due to their "copyright" because they know how that's complete tripe. You're really digging yourself a big hole here and showing you've not the slightest clue how copyright works. The surpreme court ruled recently that Google was right, that APIs cannot be copyrighted. One judge said "As part of an interface, the copied lines are inherently bound together with uncopyrightable ideas ... and the creation of new creative expression". Apple's APIs therefore are not copyrighted works, and your angle is entirely wrong.
Not sure why people have latched onto anti-steering as somehow harmful. It's a standard practice throughout the business world. Limiting how companies can provide preferential treatment for their own products makes sense in situations where either consumers would expect neutrality (like search) OR the company itself is claiming that everyone is treated the same (Apple makes this claim with the App Store).
It's only weird when you look at the retail and sales environment as a whole. For instance, within Walmart, I'd not expect them to have posters for Target prices. Or at a restaurant they don't also show you the menu and prices from the restaurant across the street. But I get that this digital market is 'different'. But I think it's very much a debate about what is different with it. As mush as people have complained about Apple charing that 15 or 30% in the App Store, all grocery stores charge a shelving fee. And wholesale sellers have to pay money (or discount) for better sell space. That has been deemed legal. The contradictions are rife.
The thing is though, Apple is the sole provider of apps, there is no competing stores like there is in the retail space.
Walmart has Target and numerous other stores they compete with... The App Store has none...
Some may argue that the Play Store is competition, but how can you really say that when you need a completely different device in order to access it?
iOS competes with Android, the App Store does not compete with the Play Store, and that's where the comparison to retail falls apart.
Walmart can't tell Target "You can't build your store here because we have one of ours in the city already.", but Apple is doing exactly that with the App Store.
Your comparison is way off. A Federal Judge has already ruled that Apple "monopoly" with iOS and their Apple App Store can not be subject to anti-trust laws
That's not what the US judge decided, as would be clear from her comments regarding the ruling. It would also not be binding to any action the EU might decide is warranted.
And that is not what I said. Why do you always do things like this. What i said was ...... "A Federal Judge has already ruled that Apple "monopoly" with iOS and their Apple App Store can not be subject to anti-trust laws, with your way of thinking". (That of the OP)And "the OP way of thinking", is the same as Epic way of thinking, in the lawsuit they filed against Apple.
By cutting off my quote, it takes on a different meaning. Did I say that a Federal Judge had rule that the "monopoly" Apple have with iOS and the Apple App store CAN NOT be subject to into-trust laws? That's what you make it seem like I said.
If you have a case of attention deficit or short term memory loss, when reading, then I can see how you can make such a mistake. You should look into it. Otherwise, it's just another failed attempt by you, to make yourself seem smarter than you are.
How can someone's "way of thinking" change how a judge has ruled? You can interpret it differently, but doesn't mean that twisted interpretation is right. Also your post was an irrelevant ramble making fictional claims about dantheman827's way of thinking that don't even reflect his post. He never even mentioned antitrust. The judge said essentially that Apple's high profit margins in and of itself isn't monopolistic, but didn't say Apple didn't have a monopoly. Please do elaborate on what exactly is the "Epic way of thinking".
But Apple do not advertise that you can get the iPhone cheaper on their website, that is clearly visible on the iPhone packaging, before you pay for it at a Walmart. And Walmart (or any retailer) would not allow this on any of the product they sell in their stores or website. You actually think that Walmart would allow the maker of a product that they (Walmart) is selling online, to place an ad on their product page on the Walmart website, that it can be purchased cheaper on their own website? And then provide a link? Or that the product makers think they have the right to do so? Do Amazon allow third party Marketplace seller to advertise that the item they're selling on Amazon, is cheaper at their eBay store? Why would you even think that that should be the case?
You have read my comment completely wrong.
I purposefully did not refer to the purchase of apps (or iPhones) themselves. I clearly stated "a manufacturer of a product can and they do put details in the packaging" and sales from that garners the original seller zero no commission. In this case the "packaging" is the app, and Apple feels they should be able to stop a developer mentioning other sources for IAPs/subscriptions, which are akin to "accessories" in physical products. Apple thinks they should get a cut of every monetary transaction that goes through that app despite providing nothing, no physical seller has the gall to do that.
So as I said, manufacturers can and do put links to accessories that are not in the original seller's store inside the packaging of physical products. The seller of the product the accessories are used with gets no cut. "Accessories" are akin to in-app purchases, and Apple forces developers to go through Apple's store despite there being essentially no cost to Apple to enable access to the IAP.
In other words it would be like Walmart taking a cut of all apps purchased on an iPhone that was originally bought at Walmart, or AT&T taking a cut of all transactions that happen though its phone lines.
Where the comparison falls apart is that with the vast majority of IAP (maybe all of them), the original app is free. There was no sale for Apple to earn a commission on. With the iPhone purchased from Walmart, Walmart at least made money selling the iPhone. Or do you think Walmart should allow you to open the packaging to see where the product can be purchased cheaper, without having to pay for it?
What you're saying would be like if Walmart were to allow manufacturers to place a coupon or scan code, right next to their items on Walmart shelves, pointing to where the Walmart shopper can get a discount on the item, without having to buy it from Walmart. What's in it for Walmart? Why would Walmart allow this? Now if Walmart were paid by the manufacturers of the product, to advertise their websites in their stores, that would be different. Or maybe Walmart shoppers can purchase the item from the manufacturer website, using a scan code next to the item on the store shelve and the manufacture would still pay Walmart a commission for the sale. (Much like how AI gets a cut on purchases using a link on AI)
The Fortnite app (the packaging) is free on iOS, Android, Playstation, Xbox and Switch. The owners of these platforms do not make any money from offering the free app and Fortnite players can play for free using the platform owners IP. All platform owners make their money from the sale with IAP in Fortnite. This is not like Walmart making money selling the iPhone (the packaging), that has the detail of where to purchase accessories for it, inside the box. Now if these platform owners were to charge for the Fortnite app on their platform to begin with, that would be different. But the whole business model of apps like Fortnite is to ...... give away the razor and sell the blade. How do these platform owners make their money off the free razor? They don't, they make it off the sale of the blades. The same way Epic does.
One point that a lot of power seekers and control freaks are missing is that Apple’s App Store is a private entity. Maybe this would have been more apparent had Apple named it the “iPhone App Store” from the get go. You can get all the apps you’ll ever need for your iPhone in the iPhone App Store. If you have a Nokia, Motorola, or Samsung phone - go fishing in their app store for apps for those phones.
You could say that about anything. My house is a "private entity" but it doesn't mean within it contracts are nulled, it doesn't mean laws don't apply there. Facebook is a "private entity" but that is facing plenty of scrutiny and regulation. People have been jailed through things they've posted on Facebook. Many people seem to have this weird concept that because someone created something laws should not apply to it. It's bizarre, as well as entirely wrong. The "power seekers" and "control freaks" you speak of are Apple themselves.
But there are also laws that protect the private property owner rights, that are included in the US Constitution and Copyright Laws. The right to monetize ones own property is one of the fundamental basis of Copyright Laws. These laws should also not be ignored because of greedy developers that thinks they should be allowed to use others property to profit from, without any compensation to the property owner. Or clueless government politicians paid to act on their behalf. Many people seem to have this weird concept that because Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. created something, Copyright Laws should not apply to it. The Coalition of App Fairness is full of such people. They think anything created by the big techs, that they can profit from, should be in public domain.
You seem to be mistaken. What aspect of IAPs fall under Apple's copyright? The copyright is the developer's, they wrote the app. Yes Apple provided the tools, that doesn't mean they own the copyright. If they did, everything written on your Mac would be Apple's copyright.
I think davidw is talking about the code need to tie into the MacOS rather than APIs or IAPs. "Portions of the Apple Software and Apple Services utilize or include third party software and other copyrighted material. Acknowledgements, licensing terms and disclaimers for such material are contained in the electronic documentation for the Apple Software and Apple Services, and Your use of such material is governed by their respective terms."
Before anyone brings up Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. that was limited' "the Supreme Court didn't provide any guidance on whether an API can be copyrighted—the main question everyone expected the court to answer. Instead, the court ruled that even if APIs can be copyrighted, Google's copying was protected by fair use" (How the Supreme Court saved the software industry from API copyrights)
Another wrinkle is the whole Psystar Corporation mess as it is unclear what code in Xcode would fall under the DMCA (I don't think anyone sane wants to program for the iPhone/iPad not using Xcode)
Not sure why people have latched onto anti-steering as somehow harmful. It's a standard practice throughout the business world. Limiting how companies can provide preferential treatment for their own products makes sense in situations where either consumers would expect neutrality (like search) OR the company itself is claiming that everyone is treated the same (Apple makes this claim with the App Store).
It's only weird when you look at the retail and sales environment as a whole. For instance, within Walmart, I'd not expect them to have posters for Target prices. Or at a restaurant they don't also show you the menu and prices from the restaurant across the street. But I get that this digital market is 'different'. But I think it's very much a debate about what is different with it. As mush as people have complained about Apple charing that 15 or 30% in the App Store, all grocery stores charge a shelving fee. And wholesale sellers have to pay money (or discount) for better sell space. That has been deemed legal. The contradictions are rife.
The thing is though, Apple is the sole provider of apps, there is no competing stores like there is in the retail space.
Walmart has Target and numerous other stores they compete with... The App Store has none...
Some may argue that the Play Store is competition, but how can you really say that when you need a completely different device in order to access it?
iOS competes with Android, the App Store does not compete with the Play Store, and that's where the comparison to retail falls apart.
Walmart can't tell Target "You can't build your store here because we have one of ours in the city already.", but Apple is doing exactly that with the App Store.
Your comparison is way off. A Federal Judge has already ruled that Apple "monopoly" with iOS and their Apple App Store can not be subject to anti-trust laws
That's not what the US judge decided, as would be clear from her comments regarding the ruling. It would also not be binding to any action the EU might decide is warranted.
And that is not what I said. Why do you always do things like this. What i said was ...... "A Federal Judge has already ruled that Apple "monopoly" with iOS and their Apple App Store can not be subject to anti-trust laws, with your way of thinking". (That of the OP)And "the OP way of thinking", is the same as Epic way of thinking, in the lawsuit they filed against Apple.
By cutting off my quote, it takes on a different meaning. Did I say that a Federal Judge had rule that the "monopoly" Apple have with iOS and the Apple App store CAN NOT be subject to into-trust laws? That's what you make it seem like I said.
If you have a case of attention deficit or short term memory loss, when reading, then I can see how you can make such a mistake. You should look into it. Otherwise, it's just another failed attempt by you, to make yourself seem smarter than you are.
How can someone's "way of thinking" change how a judge has ruled? You can interpret it differently, but doesn't mean that twisted interpretation is right. Also your post was an irrelevant ramble making fictional claims about dantheman827's way of thinking that don't even reflect his post. He never even mentioned antitrust. The judge said essentially that Apple's high profit margins in and of itself isn't monopolistic, but didn't say Apple didn't have a monopoly. Please do elaborate on what exactly is the "Epic way of thinking".
Epic way of thinking is this .......
Apple is only able to charge a high 30% commission on IAP because of the "monopoly" they have with iOS and the Apple App Store. Apple is preventing any competition and thus abusing their "monopoly" in violation of anti-trust under the Sherman Act. Developers also have no choice but to use the Apple App Store as Apple do not allow any third party app stores in iOS. Epic claim of Apple highly profitable 30% commission is a sign that Apple is abusing a "monopoly". If other app stores were allowed in iOS to compete, Apple would have to lower their commission or developers would be able to choose to sell in an app store with a lower commission.
Well the Judge shot that down. Apple can charge a very profitable 30% commission even if Apple do have a "monopoly" with iOS and that Epic did not prove that the "monopoly" Apple have falls under the Sherman Act. She plainly stated that single-branded markets are rarely appropriate to use for anti-trust cases, as all companies would be a monopolist if the market were narrowed down to only include their brand. Which is what Epic did with Apple and iOS. If Epic were to prove that Apple had a monopoly in the mobile operating system market, then they might have had a case.
And dantherman827 is thinking the same way as Epic, when he/she stated that .... "The thing is though, Apple is the sole provider of apps, there is no competing stores like there is in the retail space. Walmart has Target and numerous other stores they compete with... The App Store has none..." "
The "retail space" that the Apple App Store is competing in is not just iOS. Like what Epic thinks. Apple (with their app store) is not the sole provider of apps. The Google and Amazon also have app stores on their platforms, that provide apps. The "retail space" dantherman827 imply to as Apple being the sole provider, must include all smart mobile operating systems. Otherwise it would be a single-brand market. It makes no difference in anti-trust if one has to change device, just like it makes no difference if Target shoppers might have to travel to a different city, if they want to shop at a Walmart.
One point that a lot of power seekers and control freaks are missing is that Apple’s App Store is a private entity. Maybe this would have been more apparent had Apple named it the “iPhone App Store” from the get go. You can get all the apps you’ll ever need for your iPhone in the iPhone App Store. If you have a Nokia, Motorola, or Samsung phone - go fishing in their app store for apps for those phones.
You could say that about anything. My house is a "private entity" but it doesn't mean within it contracts are nulled, it doesn't mean laws don't apply there. Facebook is a "private entity" but that is facing plenty of scrutiny and regulation. People have been jailed through things they've posted on Facebook. Many people seem to have this weird concept that because someone created something laws should not apply to it. It's bizarre, as well as entirely wrong. The "power seekers" and "control freaks" you speak of are Apple themselves.
But there are also laws that protect the private property owner rights, that are included in the US Constitution and Copyright Laws. The right to monetize ones own property is one of the fundamental basis of Copyright Laws. These laws should also not be ignored because of greedy developers that thinks they should be allowed to use others property to profit from, without any compensation to the property owner. Or clueless government politicians paid to act on their behalf. Many people seem to have this weird concept that because Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. created something, Copyright Laws should not apply to it. The Coalition of App Fairness is full of such people. They think anything created by the big techs, that they can profit from, should be in public domain.
You seem to be mistaken. What aspect of IAPs fall under Apple's copyright? The copyright is the developer's, they wrote the app. Yes Apple provided the tools, that doesn't mean they own the copyright. If they did, everything written on your Mac would be Apple's copyright.
Your attempt at irony there has fallen very flat on its face. No one has claimed Apple etc shouldn't have copyright over things they have created, but they did not create the apps the developers submit. Amazon doesn't own the copyright for books sold on its store. No one else thinks this is the case, and no one else is trying to defend Apple by claiming they should charge a fee due to their "copyright" because they know how that's complete tripe. You're really digging yourself a big hole here and showing you've not the slightest clue how copyright works. The surpreme court ruled recently that Google was right, that APIs cannot be copyrighted. One judge said "As part of an interface, the copied lines are inherently bound together with uncopyrightable ideas ... and the creation of new creative expression". Apple's APIs therefore are not copyrighted works, and your angle is entirely wrong.
Apple own the copyright to IOS. Developers developing for iOS has no right to monetize iOS with their apps, without compensating Apple. No one said, including me, that Apple owns the copyright to the apps developers created. If a developer developed an app that uses a copyrighted song, the song artist do not own the copyright to the app, but the developer has to compensate the artist for using their copyrighted song for commercial purpose. (Or at least get permission to do so.) Developers developing for apps for iOS, can not do this without using iOS. Developers creating a method for IAP in an app for iOS, must use Apple IP to create that IAP. Apple grants them permission to do that. But Apple requires that they pay a 30% commission for any sales. Developers knows this ahead of time. It's not like the developer first developed for IOS and then find out about the commission.
Book sellers wanting to use Amazon Marketplace to sell books has no right to do so, without compensating Amazon for their IP in running their Marketplace. Same with eBay.
If you made handcrafted jewelry and want to sell it in a jewelry store at the local mall, do you expect to do this for free, without compensating the the jewelry store for use of their property? No. Even if the jewelry store do not own your handcrafted jewelry, you're going to have to pay the jewelry store for using their property to sell your jewelry. It could be rent or a commission. You can't demand to use the jewelry property for free because it's the only jewelry store in the mall.
This is like what developers are doing, when they sell their copyrighted work to iOS users. They are paying a commission for the use of Apple IP, that is iOS. Along with all the other Apple IP that goes into a mobile operating system. Did the developer "create" the software needed to use the GPS in an iPhone? Or did they use Apple IP, with permission? AFAIK Apple iOS is not open source nor in public domain. Without Apple IP that went into iOS, there would not be any developers making money by creating apps for iOS. Or do you think otherwise?
Comments
If I developed a smart toaster that allowed apps to be installed that did things like toast images from photos and text from tweets, it would be a private app platform for apps that I’d develop myself and maybe I’d allow third party toaster apps under a set of rules that I would totally control, because it’s my private platform. At no point would I expect government regulators to be able to tell me who can put apps for my smart toaster platform in my store or how to structure my third party relationships and my app payment systems. That would be insane, but that’s what some folks are asking governments to force Apple to do.
The Walmart and Target analogies don’t apply to Apple’s app store because Walmart and Target aren’t exclusively selling products in their stores that are not only exclusive to their stores but also products that can only be consumed inside their platform, which is a physical Walmart store. If that were the case you’d only be able to buy and eat a Walmart blue light special pizza inside a Walmart store. Apps that you buy in Apple’s App Store can only be consumed inside an Apple device, not only a specific Apple device type but an Apple device instance that is associated with your Apple ID account and linked payment information. The Walmart pizza scenario would then narrow down to you having to eat the Walmart pizza in a specific Walmart store that you are contractually bound to Walmart for the purposes of eating Walmart pizzas (and other Walmart exclusive products).
That said, forcing a private or publicly held company to open up its private platform to public oversight, regulation, and control isn’t unheard of in many countries around the world. Telecoms, transportation systems, utilities, etc., have all followed this path. So there is obviously a path towards this capture model.
Lastly, we are all very attuned to the Apple and App Store nuances of the supposed “Big Tech” problem that regulators are crying about. They obviously want to lay down a hammer as quickly as they can to force private companies to submit to their will. That’s a power trip. My concern is that they are painting with far too broad a brush and completely ignoring the stark differences between concerns that impact consumer’s pocketbooks in what I believe are very subtle ways versus concerns that impact public safety and the democratic underpinnings of societies in general. On a scale of 1-10 my concerns about paying 15% more for a $3.99 app than what I could be possibly be paying is not even scraping the lower edge of a 1.
On the other hand, my concerns around companies like Facebook and Twitter taking active roles in the promotion of propaganda and insurrection and of course Privacy are way up there on the 1-10 scale. So all this talk about going after a 80% broad brush solution doesn’t sit well with me. Things that truly matter need 100% solutions, and scrutiny, while things that the free market can settle on its own … let’s see how competitive forces play out. If companies think they’re being starved by Apple or Google, or whom ever, let’s see if that hunger translates to them getting off their butts and doing something about it other than running crying to mommy.
Walmart don't get a cut on the accessories you buy for the iPhone that you bought from Walmart because those iPhone accessories no not depend on Walmart, in order for it to be of any use. Walmart only get a cut if you buy those accessories from Walmart. How hard is that to understand? When you buy an app from the Apple App Store, that app depends on the Apple IP on the iDevice, in order for it to be of any use. Apple IP DO NOT belong to you, no matter how much you think it does because you bought the iPhone.
If you were to use the iOS Amazon App to purchase a hair dryer, Apple do not get a commission. A hair dry do not depend on the Apple IP on the iDevice, for it to operate. Apple commission only applies to the sale and download of digital goods that rely on the Apple IP on iDevices. Buy an album on CD from Amazon using their app, no commission. Buy and download the MP3 of the same album from Amazon, Apple gets a commission. (Or Apple would get a commission if Amazon sold MP3's using the Amazon App.)
But there are also laws that protect the private property owner rights, that are included in the US Constitution and Copyright Laws. The right to monetize ones own property is one of the fundamental basis of Copyright Laws. These laws should also not be ignored because of greedy developers that thinks they should be allowed to use others property to profit from, without any compensation to the property owner. Or clueless government politicians paid to act on their behalf. Many people seem to have this weird concept that because Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. created something, Copyright Laws should not apply to it. The Coalition of App Fairness is full of such people. They think anything created by the big techs, that they can profit from, should be in public domain.
By cutting off my quote, it takes on a different meaning. Did I say that a Federal Judge had rule that the "monopoly" Apple have with iOS and the Apple App store CAN NOT be subject to into-trust laws? That's what you make it seem like I said.
If you have a case of attention deficit or short term memory loss, when reading, then I can see how you can make such a mistake. You should look into it. Otherwise, it's just another failed attempt by you, to make yourself seem smarter than you are.
I purposefully did not refer to the purchase of apps (or iPhones) themselves. I clearly stated "a manufacturer of a product can and they do put details in the packaging" and sales from that garners the original seller zero no commission. In this case the "packaging" is the app, and Apple feels they should be able to stop a developer mentioning other sources for IAPs/subscriptions, which are akin to "accessories" in physical products. Apple thinks they should get a cut of every monetary transaction that goes through that app despite providing nothing, no physical seller has the gall to do that.
So as I said, manufacturers can and do put links to accessories that are not in the original seller's store inside the packaging of physical products. The seller of the product the accessories are used with gets no cut. "Accessories" are akin to in-app purchases, and Apple forces developers to go through Apple's store despite there being essentially no cost to Apple to enable access to the IAP.
In other words it would be like Walmart taking a cut of all apps purchased on an iPhone that was originally bought at Walmart, or AT&T taking a cut of all transactions that happen though its phone lines.
Your attempt at irony there has fallen very flat on its face. No one has claimed Apple etc shouldn't have copyright over things they have created, but they did not create the apps the developers submit. Amazon doesn't own the copyright for books sold on its store. No one else thinks this is the case, and no one else is trying to defend Apple by claiming they should charge a fee due to their "copyright" because they know how that's complete tripe. You're really digging yourself a big hole here and showing you've not the slightest clue how copyright works. The surpreme court ruled recently that Google was right, that APIs cannot be copyrighted. One judge said "As part of an interface, the copied lines are inherently bound together with uncopyrightable ideas ... and the creation of new creative expression". Apple's APIs therefore are not copyrighted works, and your angle is entirely wrong.
What you're saying would be like if Walmart were to allow manufacturers to place a coupon or scan code, right next to their items on Walmart shelves, pointing to where the Walmart shopper can get a discount on the item, without having to buy it from Walmart. What's in it for Walmart? Why would Walmart allow this? Now if Walmart were paid by the manufacturers of the product, to advertise their websites in their stores, that would be different. Or maybe Walmart shoppers can purchase the item from the manufacturer website, using a scan code next to the item on the store shelve and the manufacture would still pay Walmart a commission for the sale. (Much like how AI gets a cut on purchases using a link on AI)
The Fortnite app (the packaging) is free on iOS, Android, Playstation, Xbox and Switch. The owners of these platforms do not make any money from offering the free app and Fortnite players can play for free using the platform owners IP. All platform owners make their money from the sale with IAP in Fortnite. This is not like Walmart making money selling the iPhone (the packaging), that has the detail of where to purchase accessories for it, inside the box. Now if these platform owners were to charge for the Fortnite app on their platform to begin with, that would be different. But the whole business model of apps like Fortnite is to ...... give away the razor and sell the blade. How do these platform owners make their money off the free razor? They don't, they make it off the sale of the blades. The same way Epic does.
Before anyone brings up Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. that was limited' "the Supreme Court didn't provide any guidance on whether an API can be copyrighted—the main question everyone expected the court to answer. Instead, the court ruled that even if APIs can be copyrighted, Google's copying was protected by fair use" (How the Supreme Court saved the software industry from API copyrights)
Another wrinkle is the whole Psystar Corporation mess as it is unclear what code in Xcode would fall under the DMCA (I don't think anyone sane wants to program for the iPhone/iPad not using Xcode)
Apple is only able to charge a high 30% commission on IAP because of the "monopoly" they have with iOS and the Apple App Store. Apple is preventing any competition and thus abusing their "monopoly" in violation of anti-trust under the Sherman Act. Developers also have no choice but to use the Apple App Store as Apple do not allow any third party app stores in iOS. Epic claim of Apple highly profitable 30% commission is a sign that Apple is abusing a "monopoly". If other app stores were allowed in iOS to compete, Apple would have to lower their commission or developers would be able to choose to sell in an app store with a lower commission.
Well the Judge shot that down. Apple can charge a very profitable 30% commission even if Apple do have a "monopoly" with iOS and that Epic did not prove that the "monopoly" Apple have falls under the Sherman Act. She plainly stated that single-branded markets are rarely appropriate to use for anti-trust cases, as all companies would be a monopolist if the market were narrowed down to only include their brand. Which is what Epic did with Apple and iOS. If Epic were to prove that Apple had a monopoly in the mobile operating system market, then they might have had a case.
And dantherman827 is thinking the same way as Epic, when he/she stated that .... "The thing is though, Apple is the sole provider of apps, there is no competing stores like there is in the retail space. Walmart has Target and numerous other stores they compete with... The App Store has none..."
"
The "retail space" that the Apple App Store is competing in is not just iOS. Like what Epic thinks. Apple (with their app store) is not the sole provider of apps. The Google and Amazon also have app stores on their platforms, that provide apps. The "retail space" dantherman827 imply to as Apple being the sole provider, must include all smart mobile operating systems. Otherwise it would be a single-brand market. It makes no difference in anti-trust if one has to change device, just like it makes no difference if Target shoppers might have to travel to a different city, if they want to shop at a Walmart.
Apple own the copyright to IOS. Developers developing for iOS has no right to monetize iOS with their apps, without compensating Apple. No one said, including me, that Apple owns the copyright to the apps developers created. If a developer developed an app that uses a copyrighted song, the song artist do not own the copyright to the app, but the developer has to compensate the artist for using their copyrighted song for commercial purpose. (Or at least get permission to do so.) Developers developing for apps for iOS, can not do this without using iOS. Developers creating a method for IAP in an app for iOS, must use Apple IP to create that IAP. Apple grants them permission to do that. But Apple requires that they pay a 30% commission for any sales. Developers knows this ahead of time. It's not like the developer first developed for IOS and then find out about the commission.
Book sellers wanting to use Amazon Marketplace to sell books has no right to do so, without compensating Amazon for their IP in running their Marketplace. Same with eBay.
If you made handcrafted jewelry and want to sell it in a jewelry store at the local mall, do you expect to do this for free, without compensating the the jewelry store for use of their property? No. Even if the jewelry store do not own your handcrafted jewelry, you're going to have to pay the jewelry store for using their property to sell your jewelry. It could be rent or a commission. You can't demand to use the jewelry property for free because it's the only jewelry store in the mall.
This is like what developers are doing, when they sell their copyrighted work to iOS users. They are paying a commission for the use of Apple IP, that is iOS. Along with all the other Apple IP that goes into a mobile operating system. Did the developer "create" the software needed to use the GPS in an iPhone? Or did they use Apple IP, with permission? AFAIK Apple iOS is not open source nor in public domain. Without Apple IP that went into iOS, there would not be any developers making money by creating apps for iOS. Or do you think otherwise?