Xbox = Dedicated Interactive Entertainment Software Platform.
iOS = Operating System Platform that manages computer hardware (iPod, iPhone, iPad), software resources, and provides common services for computer programs for multiple purposes in consumer and business use.
Xbox = Microsoft Allows any interactive software on its store, regardless of how it directly competes with Microsoft, including other subscription services.
iOS = Apple allows software based on its security standards and non-direct competition to its own apps.
Windows = Allows app installation from multiple sources outside of its own app store.
iOS = Allows only apps that are located in its app store.
Mac OS = Allows app installation from multiple sources outside of its own app store.
It seems like even apple is contradicting itself.
Your first point: Microsoft created the Xbox platform and chooses what limits to put on its software functions. No question that the hardware could run the same types of applications as an iPhone/iPad or a desktop/laptop. Microsoft just prefers that it doesn't.
Your second point: not sure where you get the idea that Apple only allows non-direct competition to its own apps on iOS. Netflix is a competitor for Apple TV+. So is Hulu. So is Disney+. So is Paramount+. All of those are on the App Store. Ever heard of Spotify? World's largest music streaming service? They're on the App Store. Chrome? Firefox? On the App Store. Amazon's Luna cloud gaming service and Microsoft's Game Pass cloud gaming service are available on iOS through the browser. Netflix' new gaming service is available through the App Store. All of Microsoft's Office applications are available in the App Store. It goes on and on...
Your third point: iOS native apps are accessed through the App Store. Apps that are not iOS native can be accessed through the cloud via internet browser or as web apps. Obviously the Luna and Game Pass gaming subscription services don't involve iOS native apps, thus not being available in the App Store.
I don't like the language here or the company making the statement. Apple does not need to be stopped. It just needs a behavior modification. Apple should not only respect the privacy of their customers, it should respect their freedom to make their own decisions about the apps they can run. Warn them and then allow them to side load any app they want with some important restrictions and limitations. For example, when side loading is enabled the phone is wiped and access to the traditional App Store and iCloud is disabled. You can run anything you want but you are on your own. It would be perfect for that older iPhone languishing at the bottom of a draw somewhere.
1) There's a term for exactly what you've described: Jail-break. A jail-broken iPhone allows for all the side-loading, etc, but voids its relationship with Apple and Apple support. This already exists in the messy, unsanctioned fashion that such an arrangement warrants.
2) Expecting that Apple should instead sanction that practice is to expect them to sanction an unsupported, janky iPhone that ruins their reputation based on core practices that ensure reliability and security.
The difference between #1 and #2 is one of expectations. If you jailbreak your iPhone under scenario #1 and the whole thing crashes, should you complain to Apple about it, Apple will say Sorry, mate. We told you not to do that and did not provide you with a means to do that, so your bad decision is your own mess. If you jailbreak your iPhone under scenario #2, where Apple was forced to provide a jailbreak toggle, no matter how blunt the warning is on that toggle, there will be people who loudly demand Apple be held responsible to fix their mess because Apple included the toggle to allow them to jailbreak their iPhone.
For the same reason, your local zoo does not provide a gate into the tiger exhibit, secured only with a sign saying tigers may kill you, enter at your own peril. You may believe that your zoo ticket means you should have access to any part of the park, but the zoo doesn't agree with you and is not going to sanction it. If you scale the fence to get into the tiger enclosure anyway, when the tiger tears your arm off, it's going to be crystal clear that you were not sanctioned by the zoo to be in the tiger exhibit having your arm torn off.
Bringing Xbox into the argument shows the supreme lack of intelligence on the topic. For the ones who have trouble doing basic logic, gaming consoles are specialized devices that are not designed for personal computing. Oh it has a web browser? Yeah well so does refrigerators nowadays.
Might as well pull in Sony and Nintendo also, and make the comparisons even more nonsensical.
Phones are personal computers. We can use our PCS and Macs without paying any sort of tax on software. So how is it acceptable for our phones that we already paid for the hardware, devs are still paying a 30% premium for software?
Yes Apple deserves to get paid for their work. And they have been handsomely. Nobody asked them to make iOS, that was their own choosing. Building out a app store pulling in health and gaming etc that's all their choice. So to cry blood for Apple and near sad situation that they need to charge 30% to developers is bongos thinking. You have to pay into Apple just to make software anyway and then you're paying out for every sale on top of it every single time. Yes there are certain scenarios in there where is not flat 30% but come on.
So for the love of all thats holy please stop bringing up the utterly ridiculous Xbox comparison...its very foolish and child-like.
Love mac hardware, apple otherwise are control freak narcissists that deserve the scrutiny.
A device being “specialized” should not factor into what it can and can’t do… iOS devices are completely proprietary devices and just as any other proprietary device, the maker of that device should be able to control it and develop it as they desire.
Comparing them to game consoles and set top boxes is completely valid in this regard. In all cases, there are restrictions on what a developer can and cannot create. This is called a closed development platform; developers are granted access by the proprietor and must and can only use API’s provided by the maker of that device.
And MS is right! Let’s also open up all of Microsoft’s stores to 3rd parties! I wanna be able to sell my crappy games on Xbox without giving them money!!
Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows!! Microsoft, police yourselves!
Microsoft doesn't put the same controls on Windows that Apple puts on their platforms.
For one you can install whatever you want on their devices. For another they allow third party payments for when you do use their store.
Windows is Not a mobile device that stores all your data and can be easily stolen or misplaced. When windows phone existed they had a similar store but it failed miserably and they a jealous now.
If MS is jealous of Apple mobile market, I suppose Apple is jealous of MS enterprise market, right?
They are afraid Apple will finally get serious about enterprise software and compete with Office in a concerted manner. They also see the Mac install base increasing significantly since the pandemic. That means fewer windows licenses. What’s crazy is that if Apple doubled their install base Microsoft would still have 80% of the market, but they are just greedy and want it all.
Do you really MS is afraid of Apple enterprise software? Apple has a lot work to do if they want to get close to MS in the enterprise, specially when you consider the ecosystem MS have for enterprises.
And yes, Mac installed based grew, but looks like Windows too, considering Windows 10 / 11 are installed in 1.5B devices.
Windows 10/11 install base grew at the expense of Windows 7/8 users that upgraded. Overall, Windows is losing market share to Google ChromeOS and MacOS. Windows global marketshare (based on quarterly sales figures) is now only about 80%. It has lost about 7% in the past couple of years.
But as you said, in recent years, both, macOS and Chrome OS market share are growing quickly.
While I'm sure that is true, I am not sure that it is meaningful since Microsoft has, for decades, held a a near complete monopoly over operating systems.
The genius of Bill Gates was not in technology but in marketing -- he figured out how to monopolize the OS side of a rapidly growing industry using an inferior technology. Neither his DOS nor his Windows were the match for things like CPM, MacIntosh and OS2 -- all of them were superior to Windows.
Personally I think Steve Jobs was also a genius in marketing. I remember the time when many consider the Commodore Amiga better and more advanced than the Mac. It looks like that the operating systems that survived were the one with the best marketing (Windows / DOS, Mac) while the best (OS/2, Amiga) didn't succeed. Still, both companies have improved a lot and now we have very reliable operating systems in Windows, macOS / iOS and Linux / Android.
danvm said: Do you think that MS "NEED to buy the developer of Candy Crush" for $70B? I think the real purpose of acquiring Activision / Blizzard is CoD, Overwatch, Diablo and WoW, among other IP's. I think Candy Crush still one of the most popular games in iOS and Android, so it was good it was part of the deal.
COD is the only Activision/Blizzard game that generates more revenue per year than Candy Crush. CC generated over $2 billion in 2020.
I don't think that MS "need" to purchase the developer of Candy Crush. There were a list of big names in gaming, as the one I posted before. When you consider how MS is pushing to GamePass, I don't think Candy Crush is too high in the list of reasons for the acquisition.
Bringing Xbox into the argument shows the supreme lack of intelligence on the topic. For the ones who have trouble doing basic logic, gaming consoles are specialized devices that are not designed for personal computing. Oh it has a web browser? Yeah well so does refrigerators nowadays.
Might as well pull in Sony and Nintendo also, and make the comparisons even more nonsensical.
Phones are personal computers. We can use our PCS and Macs without paying any sort of tax on software. So how is it acceptable for our phones that we already paid for the hardware, devs are still paying a 30% premium for software?
Yes Apple deserves to get paid for their work. And they have been handsomely. Nobody asked them to make iOS, that was their own choosing. Building out a app store pulling in health and gaming etc that's all their choice. So to cry blood for Apple and near sad situation that they need to charge 30% to developers is bongos thinking. You have to pay into Apple just to make software anyway and then you're paying out for every sale on top of it every single time. Yes there are certain scenarios in there where is not flat 30% but come on.
So for the love of all thats holy please stop bringing up the utterly ridiculous Xbox comparison...its very foolish and child-like.
Love mac hardware, apple otherwise are control freak narcissists that deserve the scrutiny.
A device being “specialized” should not factor into what it can and can’t do… iOS devices are completely proprietary devices and just as any other proprietary device, the maker of that device should be able to control it and develop it as they desire.
Comparing them to game consoles and set top boxes is completely valid in this regard. In all cases, there are restrictions on what a developer can and cannot create. This is called a closed development platform; developers are granted access by the proprietor and must and can only use API’s provided by the maker of that device.
Additionally, the iPhone is, practically speaking, the first internet-connected computing device designed from the ground up. The secure, locked down operating and file systems, followed in later iterations with the secure, closed development platform, were all designed in response to the security disaster of standalone personal computing platforms appended with afterthought networking portals. If the Mac were originally developed with the internet in mind, MacOS would be every bit as closed as is iOS. As an always-on, always-connected computing device, the iPhone's App Store is a closed development system for good reason, and that closed system is a significant factor why iPhone is chosen by many customers as a reliable, secure device. Maintaining that level of reliability and security isn't free, and app developers who think it should be are the ones who are having trouble doing basic logic. These folks are doing little more than swinging an axe at the goose that laid the golden egg.
I think people would lay off Apple if they would just allow third party payment systems fully.
Developers already spend $99+ a year for distribution of their apps in the app store. 3rd party payments require $0 for Apple to maintain because they use zero of Apple's infrastructure outside of the phone you already paid for.
Apple doesn't need to take a cut in your entire business.
Have you look at how many free and <$5 apps there are on the App (Mac and iOS) stores? Heck Epic is self admitted it will not see a profit until 2027 with its 13%. Maintaining shrives and having any kind of App oversight costs money.
brian.on.android said: Spotify doesn't need Apple's IAP infrastructure and shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
Netflix agreed. That's why they pulled support for IAP.
None of which supports the idea that Apple is unreasonably restraining anyone's trade. Spotify, Netflix, and Amazon Kindle have all been quite successful with people paying for products/services on the web while still distributing their apps through the App Store. That shouldn't be possible if Apple had antitrust level control.
Apple just knows they'd be screwed if they chased Netflix off the App Store.
Apple has clearly shown that they will force developers to implement in-app purchases for a service being sold through their website if they don't have enough money to fight back, but Netflix and Amazon would put up one hell of a fight.
In the case of WordPress, that backfired because the app never sold anything in the first place.
Are their alternative Xbox stores? Can I side load games onto my Xbox?
That’s a ridiculous comparison. Xbox has around 100 million active users; iOS is nearing 2 billion. Xbox is limited to games; iOS is used in devices that are used in just about every facet of one’s life.
Oh, so we’re criticizing based on success. Ok.
APPLE YOU’RE TOO SUCCESSFUL!! WE WANT YOUR STORES TO BE FREE!!
And MS is right! Let’s also open up all of Microsoft’s stores to 3rd parties! I wanna be able to sell my crappy games on Xbox without giving them money!!
Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows!! Microsoft, police yourselves!
Microsoft doesn't put the same controls on Windows that Apple puts on their platforms.
For one you can install whatever you want on their devices. For another they allow third party payments for when you do use their store.
Windows is Not a mobile device that stores all your data and can be easily stolen or misplaced. When windows phone existed they had a similar store but it failed miserably and they a jealous now.
If MS is jealous of Apple mobile market, I suppose Apple is jealous of MS enterprise market, right?
They are afraid Apple will finally get serious about enterprise software and compete with Office in a concerted manner. They also see the Mac install base increasing significantly since the pandemic. That means fewer windows licenses. What’s crazy is that if Apple doubled their install base Microsoft would still have 80% of the market, but they are just greedy and want it all.
Do you really MS is afraid of Apple enterprise software? Apple has a lot work to do if they want to get close to MS in the enterprise, specially when you consider the ecosystem MS have for enterprises.
And yes, Mac installed based grew, but looks like Windows too, considering Windows 10 / 11 are installed in 1.5B devices.
What a stupid comment.
Why the fu** would anyone think Apple is “jealous too” when they aren’t making any ridiculous claims to the government?
The jealous argument is based on a FACT and not a random fallacy.
The genius of Bill Gates was not in technology but in marketing -- he figured out how to monopolize the OS side of a rapidly growing industry using an inferior technology. Neither his DOS nor his Windows were the match for things like CPM, MacIntosh and OS2 -- all of them were superior to Windows.
Marketing is many more things than most people realize, you know, the full depth the “4 Ps” for traditionalists, but engaging in monopolistic behavior isn’t part of marketing.
Bill Gates, with regards to his active Microsoft tenure, was particularly adept at exploiting the egregious weaknesses and desperation in those he took advantage of - and getting away with it, starting with IBM, but plowing through many others along the way.
Bill Gates knew when he had someone “over a barrel,” even “bent over a barrel” in some cases, and used it to great advantage as he developed and used the power and clout that comes with mountains of money and lack of competition. The biggest of those who are on the wrong side of the barrel relationship are all these PC builders and OEMs being forced to pay high prices for Microsoft licenses regardless of how much cost they try to squeeze out of their build BOMs. People talk about the Apple Tax like it’s a real thing. That’s all made up BS. The Microsoft Tax in the form of licenses is a real tax. Taxation isn’t part of marketing either, or at least it’s not supposed to be.
Bill Gates as savvy businessman knowing how to exploit a dominant position, being in the right place at the right time, and sharing some of the spoils with partners like Intel? Sure. Marketing genius? Not so much, at least in my opinion.
Spotify completely misrepresented its own financial position to the EU. They spent a lot of time complaining about Apple's 30% commission, then their own financial records showed that less than 1% of their iOS subscribers were subject to Apple's commission AND that the commission they were subject to was 15%, not 30%.
99% of their subscription business on iOS didn't involve Apple making a cent. That hardly seems unreasonable.
Spotify doesn't need Apple's IAP infrastructure and shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
Netflix agreed. That's why they pulled support for IAP.
So why isn’t Netflix’s solution acceptable for Spotify?
Apple incurs a cost running the App Store. 15% really doesn’t seem unreasonable. If Spotify was allowed to have other payment services they’d pay someone else 5%. So 10% for hosting, delivery, etc…? It easily costs Apple that much to provide that service to Spotify, and ALSO to provide that service to themselves. That article arguing that Apple is at an advantage because it doesn’t have to pay 15% to itself is where the flaw is. It DOES. Indirectly. Otherwise that argument assumes there is zero cost to Apple for the payment processing, hosting, delivery, and everything else that comes with the App Store. Apple Music pays Apple for those services. Just because it’s internal accounting doesn’t mean the costs for all that is zero. Sheesh.
Just because the EU says Apple has to provide its services to Spotify for free doesn’t mean it’s right. There’s a lot of stuff the EU just doesn’t understand about business.
Spotify can find their own customers and sign them up on the web, for free. And then get all Apple’s hosting, delivery, etc. for free as well. Or they can have Apple’s access to customers and use Apple’s much more convenient (which is why they want it) in-app payment and other services. And pay Apple for those services andthosecustomers. Why should they get all of that for free?
Perhaps Apple should just charge Spotify a flat hosting and delivery fee — for EVERY download, including the ones that Spotify doesn’t pay Apple anything for now, because they sign up on the web. I’m sure that will be cheaper for Spotify. Not.
And perhaps Apple should charge a much higher price for the customers that discover Spotify entirely through the App Store - These are APPLE’s customers being handed to Spotify, NOT Spotify’s customers.
Or… Maybe Spotify can just kill the native app and offer their service in a web app. Oh wait. Web apps suck compared to native apps. Hmmm. Why’s that? Maybe native apps are better because of the 150,000 API’s that Apple provides to achieve that, effectively for free. Don’t try to tell me the $99 per year covers that. That’s $8 a month. About the price of ONE Spotify subscription. You really think that covers the $billions Apple has poured into those API’s the last 20+ years? No.
So either use the APIs to give your users a better experience - and pay Apple for it. Or don’t, and provide a web app, and pay Apple nothing.
Regardless, this article is about Microsoft criticizing Apple’s hosting and billing system (in the case of a game app - Fortnite) that is virtually identical to Microsoft’s hosting and billing system on the only platform Microsoft provides for that same game. They’re fools. If Epic ever wins this case who do you think they’ll go after next? If they get their gaming store, alternate payments, etc on iOS what’s going to stop them going after the same thing on Xbox, PlayStation, et. al. Nothing. How Microsoft can not see that is ludicrous.
And MS is right! Let’s also open up all of Microsoft’s stores to 3rd parties! I wanna be able to sell my crappy games on Xbox without giving them money!!
Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows!! Microsoft, police yourselves!
Microsoft doesn't put the same controls on Windows that Apple puts on their platforms.
For one you can install whatever you want on their devices. For another they allow third party payments for when you do use their store.
Microsoft licenses their OS to 3rd party OEMs. Apple does not.
Actually, Apple tried the 3rd party OEM route back in the 1990s and it was a total disaster as instead of growing the MacOS it broke the market into smaller pieces. When Apple got Jobs back he looked at the contracts ($50 for the OS per machine) came up new ones more favorable to Apple and offered them to the third party companies. He did this four or five time and every time they told him to "go pound sand." "We finally made the decisions we had to make." (Steve Jobs Killing the Clones) and he upgraded the OS effectively locking out the clone makers from updating their hardware.
Says the company trying to monopolize AAA gaming by literally buying the competition.
MS does the same thing Apple does. They just aren’t successful.
This is petty jealousy snd and anticompetitive behavior from Microsoft.
I read that MS will be #3 after the acquisition, so I don't think they are trying to monopolize AAA gaming.
IMO, a $2.35T company is very, very successful.
I don't see them as jealous. They are just getting better to improve and expand GamePass market share. Even Apple is copying GamePass with Apple Arcade.
And MS is right! Let’s also open up all of Microsoft’s stores to 3rd parties! I wanna be able to sell my crappy games on Xbox without giving them money!!
Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows!! Microsoft, police yourselves!
Microsoft doesn't put the same controls on Windows that Apple puts on their platforms.
For one you can install whatever you want on their devices. For another they allow third party payments for when you do use their store.
Windows is Not a mobile device that stores all your data and can be easily stolen or misplaced. When windows phone existed they had a similar store but it failed miserably and they a jealous now.
If MS is jealous of Apple mobile market, I suppose Apple is jealous of MS enterprise market, right?
They are afraid Apple will finally get serious about enterprise software and compete with Office in a concerted manner. They also see the Mac install base increasing significantly since the pandemic. That means fewer windows licenses. What’s crazy is that if Apple doubled their install base Microsoft would still have 80% of the market, but they are just greedy and want it all.
Do you really MS is afraid of Apple enterprise software? Apple has a lot work to do if they want to get close to MS in the enterprise, specially when you consider the ecosystem MS have for enterprises.
And yes, Mac installed based grew, but looks like Windows too, considering Windows 10 / 11 are installed in 1.5B devices.
What a stupid comment.
Why the fu** would anyone think Apple is “jealous too” when they aren’t making any ridiculous claims to the government?
The jealous argument is based on a FACT and not a random fallacy.
If you ask me, MS is one of the few companies that has a business reason, considering Apple created rules to block genuine services, as cloud gaming, which includes GamePass. I don't think is because of jealousy, as you said.
Since you can speculate about MS being jealous, I could do the same, and say that is a fact that Apple is jealous of MS GamePass and that's the reason they reject it, right?
Says the company trying to monopolize AAA gaming by literally buying the competition.
MS does the same thing Apple does. They just aren’t successful.
This is petty jealousy snd and anticompetitive behavior from Microsoft.
I read that MS will be #3 after the acquisition, so I don't think they are trying to monopolize AAA gaming.
If they were #1 then they'd be succeeding, not trying.
Xbox Series X is selling out, GamePass is at 25M subscriptions and games like Halo, FH5 and SoT are extremely popular in consoles and PCs. Even their games are selling extremely well in Steam. Don't you think they are succeeding, even though they are not #1?
Says the company trying to monopolize AAA gaming by literally buying the competition.
MS does the same thing Apple does. They just aren’t successful.
This is petty jealousy snd and anticompetitive behavior from Microsoft.
I read that MS will be #3 after the acquisition, so I don't think they are trying to monopolize AAA gaming.
IMO, a $2.35T company is very, very successful.
I don't see them as jealous. They are just getting better to improve and expand GamePass market share. Even Apple is copying GamePass with Apple Arcade.
MS spent quite a lot in M&A to get to that $2.35T market cap; Apple, not so much.
Apple has made exceptional acquisitions to get to its $2.87 T market cap, as that list below would demonstrate.
Says the company trying to monopolize AAA gaming by literally buying the competition.
MS does the same thing Apple does. They just aren’t successful.
This is petty jealousy snd and anticompetitive behavior from Microsoft.
I read that MS will be #3 after the acquisition, so I don't think they are trying to monopolize AAA gaming.
IMO, a $2.35T company is very, very successful.
I don't see them as jealous. They are just getting better to improve and expand GamePass market share. Even Apple is copying GamePass with Apple Arcade.
MS spent quite a lot in M&A to get to that $2.35T market cap; Apple, not so much.
Apple has made exceptional acquisitions to get to its $2.87 T market cap, as that list below would demonstrate.
Comments
Your second point: not sure where you get the idea that Apple only allows non-direct competition to its own apps on iOS. Netflix is a competitor for Apple TV+. So is Hulu. So is Disney+. So is Paramount+. All of those are on the App Store. Ever heard of Spotify? World's largest music streaming service? They're on the App Store. Chrome? Firefox? On the App Store. Amazon's Luna cloud gaming service and Microsoft's Game Pass cloud gaming service are available on iOS through the browser. Netflix' new gaming service is available through the App Store. All of Microsoft's Office applications are available in the App Store. It goes on and on...
Your third point: iOS native apps are accessed through the App Store. Apps that are not iOS native can be accessed through the cloud via internet browser or as web apps. Obviously the Luna and Game Pass gaming subscription services don't involve iOS native apps, thus not being available in the App Store.
2) Expecting that Apple should instead sanction that practice is to expect them to sanction an unsupported, janky iPhone that ruins their reputation based on core practices that ensure reliability and security.
The difference between #1 and #2 is one of expectations. If you jailbreak your iPhone under scenario #1 and the whole thing crashes, should you complain to Apple about it, Apple will say Sorry, mate. We told you not to do that and did not provide you with a means to do that, so your bad decision is your own mess. If you jailbreak your iPhone under scenario #2, where Apple was forced to provide a jailbreak toggle, no matter how blunt the warning is on that toggle, there will be people who loudly demand Apple be held responsible to fix their mess because Apple included the toggle to allow them to jailbreak their iPhone.
For the same reason, your local zoo does not provide a gate into the tiger exhibit, secured only with a sign saying tigers may kill you, enter at your own peril. You may believe that your zoo ticket means you should have access to any part of the park, but the zoo doesn't agree with you and is not going to sanction it. If you scale the fence to get into the tiger enclosure anyway, when the tiger tears your arm off, it's going to be crystal clear that you were not sanctioned by the zoo to be in the tiger exhibit having your arm torn off.
A device being “specialized” should not factor into what it can and can’t do… iOS devices are completely proprietary devices and just as any other proprietary device, the maker of that device should be able to control it and develop it as they desire.
Comparing them to game consoles and set top boxes is completely valid in this regard. In all cases, there are restrictions on what a developer can and cannot create. This is called a closed development platform; developers are granted access by the proprietor and must and can only use API’s provided by the maker of that device.
APPLE YOU’RE TOO SUCCESSFUL!! WE WANT YOUR STORES TO BE FREE!!
Why the fu** would anyone think Apple is “jealous too” when they aren’t making any ridiculous claims to the government?
The jealous argument is based on a FACT and not a random fallacy.
Bill Gates as savvy businessman knowing how to exploit a dominant position, being in the right place at the right time, and sharing some of the spoils with partners like Intel? Sure. Marketing genius? Not so much, at least in my opinion.
Apple incurs a cost running the App Store. 15% really doesn’t seem unreasonable. If Spotify was allowed to have other payment services they’d pay someone else 5%. So 10% for hosting, delivery, etc…? It easily costs Apple that much to provide that service to Spotify, and ALSO to provide that service to themselves. That article arguing that Apple is at an advantage because it doesn’t have to pay 15% to itself is where the flaw is. It DOES. Indirectly. Otherwise that argument assumes there is zero cost to Apple for the payment processing, hosting, delivery, and everything else that comes with the App Store. Apple Music pays Apple for those services. Just because it’s internal accounting doesn’t mean the costs for all that is zero. Sheesh.
IMO, a $2.35T company is very, very successful.
I don't see them as jealous. They are just getting better to improve and expand GamePass market share. Even Apple is copying GamePass with Apple Arcade.
Since you can speculate about MS being jealous, I could do the same, and say that is a fact that Apple is jealous of MS GamePass and that's the reason they reject it, right?
Apple has made exceptional acquisitions to get to its $2.87 T market cap, as that list below would demonstrate.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-19/microsoft-s-69-billion-activision-deal-dwarfs-past-acquisitions
https://www.pcgamer.com/every-game-and-studio-microsoft-now-owns/
Apple acquisitions;
https://moneyinc.com/biggest-apple-mergers-and-acquisitions/
1. Beats Electronics – $3 billion
2. Dialog Semiconductor – $600 million
3. Anobit – $500 million
4. NeXT – $404 million
5. Shazam – $400 million
6. PrimeSense – $360 million
7. AuthenTec – $356 million
8. P.A. Semi – $278 million
9. Quattro Wireless – $275 million
10. C3 Technologies – $267 million