Australian court is the latest to attack Apple on behalf of rich corporations

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 29
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,081member
    avon b7 said:
    I do not believe a word of what he is saying.

    So there was no note-taking after the observation that notes were in fact being taken? 

    I wonder why notes were being taken at all. Probably because it was absolutely normal behaviour in all meetings up to that point! 

    And poor Phil has no 'recollection' of financial analysis! 

    All of that relative to the Apple financial side of things yet on the App Store rules and regulations side of things (commissions for developers included) it was no doubt a note taking frenesí with no financial stone left unturned.

    Of course proving anything is probably not easy.

    Each to their own but I'm not swallowing any of it. 

    >Much is being made in the Australian court of this unusual approach to create a revenue-generating business, and in particular how there is very little documentation from the time. The implication is that this lack of documented evidence was in some way deliberate, but Schiller says it's just how things were.

    "I'm not trying to be difficult," he said at one point. "When [Steve] Jobs came back in 1997 he set this process up."

    "In one of the earliest meetings... someone was taking notes," said Schiller. "He stopped and said why are you writing this down? You should be smart enough to remember this."

    According to Schiller, most executives stopped taking notes after that.<

    What is so hard to understand? Notes were being taken during meetings, before Jobs came back to Apple in 1997. After Jobs came back, he notice someone taking notes during one of his meeting and questioned why?. After that, no-one took notes, at least not during any of Jobs meetings. App Store open in mid 2008. Cook took over CEO in 2011. Maybe notes are being taken during Cooks meetings.

    You thinking that there should have been a ....."note taking frenesi"  shows that you are not smart enough to remember things. But really, what is so hard to remember (for how any Apple Store works). In 2003, Apple Music Store split was 70/30. In 2006 iTunes Store (including now movies and movie rentals) split was 70/30. In 2008, Apple App Store split was 70/30. In 2010, iBook Store split was 70/30.  And in every case, it was the hardware sale that matter most, not the profits from the 30% revenue split. Apple Music Store was for the iPod. Apple Store was for the Apple TV (and later the iPad) Apple App Store was for the iPhone. Apple iBook store was for the iPad.

    It only recently that Apple revenue from services account for about 20% of total revenue. and by no means does that mean the services accounts for 20% of Apple net profit.

    And hindsight is 20/20. In 2008, Apple iPhone was still being predicted as going to be a failure. CEO's of Blackberry, Nokia, Microsoft didn't give the $599 (fully subsidized and only from ATT) iPhone much of a chance. And then Android phones came along at the end of 2008 and end up eating Apple iPhone lunch and dinner. So how did Schiller and other Apple Execs know in 2008, that the 30% commission would be a windfall 10 years in the future? If they did, then you're not giving Apple Execs as much credit as they deserve.


    Bart YStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 29
    Excellent article. You know you mentioned the way it used to be, but you left out another significant  cost to devs the App Store eliminated: piracy.  It wasn’t so long ago that big software companies like Adobe or Macromedia might, when pressed, say that up to 10% of their software in use was pirated. When they knew it was closer to 20% or more.  Sadly this ‘leakage’ was considered the price of doing business. But with the App Store, piracy is gone. If your app is on someone’s device, you can be sure it’s legit.
    Bart Ymattinozwatto_cobrawilliamlondon
  • Reply 23 of 29
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,902member
    davidw said:
    avon b7 said:
    I do not believe a word of what he is saying.

    So there was no note-taking after the observation that notes were in fact being taken? 

    I wonder why notes were being taken at all. Probably because it was absolutely normal behaviour in all meetings up to that point! 

    And poor Phil has no 'recollection' of financial analysis! 

    All of that relative to the Apple financial side of things yet on the App Store rules and regulations side of things (commissions for developers included) it was no doubt a note taking frenesí with no financial stone left unturned.

    Of course proving anything is probably not easy.

    Each to their own but I'm not swallowing any of it. 

    >Much is being made in the Australian court of this unusual approach to create a revenue-generating business, and in particular how there is very little documentation from the time. The implication is that this lack of documented evidence was in some way deliberate, but Schiller says it's just how things were.

    "I'm not trying to be difficult," he said at one point. "When [Steve] Jobs came back in 1997 he set this process up."

    "In one of the earliest meetings... someone was taking notes," said Schiller. "He stopped and said why are you writing this down? You should be smart enough to remember this."

    According to Schiller, most executives stopped taking notes after that.<

    What is so hard to understand? Notes were being taken during meetings, before Jobs came back to Apple in 1997. After Jobs came back, he notice someone taking notes during one of his meeting and questioned why?. After that, no-one took notes, at least not during any of Jobs meetings. App Store open in mid 2008. Cook took over CEO in 2011. Maybe notes are being taken during Cooks meetings.

    You thinking that there should have been a ....."note taking frenesi"  shows that you are not smart enough to remember things. But really, what is so hard to remember (for how any Apple Store works). In 2003, Apple Music Store split was 70/30. In 2006 iTunes Store (including now movies and movie rentals) split was 70/30. In 2008, Apple App Store split was 70/30. In 2010, iBook Store split was 70/30.  And in every case, it was the hardware sale that matter most, not the profits from the 30% revenue split. Apple Music Store was for the iPod. Apple Store was for the Apple TV (and later the iPad) Apple App Store was for the iPhone. Apple iBook store was for the iPad.

    It only recently that Apple revenue from services account for about 20% of total revenue. and by no means does that mean the services accounts for 20% of Apple net profit.

    And hindsight is 20/20. In 2008, Apple iPhone was still being predicted as going to be a failure. CEO's of Blackberry, Nokia, Microsoft didn't give the $599 (fully subsidized and only from ATT) iPhone much of a chance. And then Android phones came along at the end of 2008 and end up eating Apple iPhone lunch and dinner. So how did Schiller and other Apple Execs know in 2008, that the 30% commission would be a windfall 10 years in the future? If they did, then you're not giving Apple Execs as much credit as they deserve.


    In fact I question the whole notion of this supposed Jobs claim. 

    If people were taking notes, it's because it was, always has been and still is normal to take notes at meetings. Even at Apple. Anywhere.

    The simple fact that someone stepped in and basically told them to stop taking notes, when they had already started, raises concerns. 

    Think about it for a second. Jobs is there. People are taking notes. Where's the problem? What pushes you to tell them to stop a completely natural process? Even if you are Jobs. 

    There is no decent reason to tell people to stop taking notes. Literally zero. And the one given only serves to highlight the concerns raised.

    Even at that point in time Apple was a multi billion dollar operation. 
  • Reply 24 of 29
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,081member
    spheric said:
    entropys said:
    I love the story of the little red hen, particularly the Ronald Reagan version.
    it explains so much about the nexus of entrepreneurism and just who is entitled to benefit from those activities. And the role of government in capturing those benefits for the loudest voices.

    […]
    "Exactly," said the agent. "That's the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations the productive workers must divide their product with the idle."

    And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, I am grateful." 

    But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.

    Ah yes, the capitalist corporate CEOs who all build the cars on their own, with their bare hands, while ten thousand workers stand by, idly watching the executive toil away, all while demanding their fair share of profits. 

    Reagan was a genius. 

    Ah, yes the socialist who thinks workers aren't paid for their work in a capitalistic economy. No one is talking about the workers who gets paid for helping produce a product or service and some are very well paid. They are not the cow, pig, duck and goose. We're talking about people like the CEO of Epic Game and Spotify as being the pig, cow, duck or goose, who made no contribution at all to building an ecosystem and yet feel entitled to enjoy all the benefits of the ecosystem, without paying for it.

    Not even the EU think Apple should be forced to allow that. Even the Socialism in EU gives IP owner a monopoly on the exclusive right to monetize their IP, for capitalistic gains. Even socialism depends on capitalism. Otherwise they'll run out of other peoples money to spend. No where in the DMA does it state that a "gatekeeper" can't charge a fee for the use of their IP. So long as they aren't utilizing any  business practices determined to be anti-competitive.
    Bart Ywatto_cobrabaconstangentropys
  • Reply 25 of 29
    1348513485 Posts: 361member
    entropys said:
    I love the story of the little red hen, particularly the Ronald Reagan version.
    it explains so much about the nexus of entrepreneurism and just who is entitled to benefit from those activities. And the role of government in capturing those benefits for the loudest voices.

    ...

    But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.


    That was a long way to go for a typically flawed Reagan understanding of capitalism. 
    williamlondonspheric
  • Reply 26 of 29
    1348513485 Posts: 361member
    avon b7 said
    In fact I question the whole notion of this supposed Jobs claim. 

    If people were taking notes, it's because it was, always has been and still is normal to take notes at meetings. Even at Apple. Anywhere.

    The simple fact that someone stepped in and basically told them to stop taking notes, when they had already started, raises concerns. 

    Think about it for a second. Jobs is there. People are taking notes. Where's the problem? What pushes you to tell them to stop a completely natural process? Even if you are Jobs. 

    There is no decent reason to tell people to stop taking notes. Literally zero. And the one given only serves to highlight the concerns raised.

    Even at that point in time Apple was a multi billion dollar operation. 
    It does not raise any concerns. And if you are familiar with Jobs' ofttimes withering comments to employees that sounds like exactly what he might have said.

    But more to the point, notes, real or not, from meetings in 2008 are irrelevant to the current court case, as are initial projections of financial benefits.  The why's and how's of the pricing set up in 2008 are irrelevant, because the issue is whether there is some consumer/developer harm being done today. Given that 30% is an often-applied charge in the retail markets, which vendors have to accept or go elsewhere, that charge is not unreasonable for what is provided. 
    StrangeDayswatto_cobraentropys
  • Reply 27 of 29
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,962member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    I do not believe a word of what he is saying.

    So there was no note-taking after the observation that notes were in fact being taken? 

    I wonder why notes were being taken at all. Probably because it was absolutely normal behaviour in all meetings up to that point! 

    And poor Phil has no 'recollection' of financial analysis! 

    All of that relative to the Apple financial side of things yet on the App Store rules and regulations side of things (commissions for developers included) it was no doubt a note taking frenesí with no financial stone left unturned.

    Of course proving anything is probably not easy.

    Each to their own but I'm not swallowing any of it. 
    As an executive of a public company he is barred from lying, and doubly so when speaking to the court. He’s testifying to the facts of what happened.

    Sign of a crankpot — when one disagrees with facts and engages in conspiracy theory as an alternative explanation to the facts. 

    Tighten that tinfoil, my man!
    Yet I didn't say he lied. Is that what you are implying? I said I don't believe it. There is a difference. 

    You speak of tinfoil but let's be frank here. Being barred from lying is great. I'd hate for anything other than that to be the case but don't you think it's more 'tinfoil' to think that plays out without exception? 

    And doubly barred? 

    You know, you even have an ex-president and his lawyer who seem to be spending more time in legal proceedings than out of them. Under oath and whatever you want, but do you actually believe a lot of what is said? Really? Triply barred? 

    Your honour, I don't recall. 

    Simple and very difficult to prove. All the more reason to actually take notes, don't you think?
    What on earth are you talking about? Saying you don’t believe a word of his testimony IS saying he’s lying. What sort of silly semantic game are you playing now?

    As for the ex-president, he hasn’t delivered testimony to a judge in his current trials so your whataboutism is a fail, not to mention completely off-topic and irrelevant.
    edited April 16 williamlondonbaconstang
  • Reply 28 of 29
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,962member
    avon b7 said:
    davidw said:
    avon b7 said:
    I do not believe a word of what he is saying.

    So there was no note-taking after the observation that notes were in fact being taken? 

    I wonder why notes were being taken at all. Probably because it was absolutely normal behaviour in all meetings up to that point! 

    And poor Phil has no 'recollection' of financial analysis! 

    All of that relative to the Apple financial side of things yet on the App Store rules and regulations side of things (commissions for developers included) it was no doubt a note taking frenesí with no financial stone left unturned.

    Of course proving anything is probably not easy.

    Each to their own but I'm not swallowing any of it. 

    >Much is being made in the Australian court of this unusual approach to create a revenue-generating business, and in particular how there is very little documentation from the time. The implication is that this lack of documented evidence was in some way deliberate, but Schiller says it's just how things were.

    "I'm not trying to be difficult," he said at one point. "When [Steve] Jobs came back in 1997 he set this process up."

    "In one of the earliest meetings... someone was taking notes," said Schiller. "He stopped and said why are you writing this down? You should be smart enough to remember this."

    According to Schiller, most executives stopped taking notes after that.<

    What is so hard to understand? Notes were being taken during meetings, before Jobs came back to Apple in 1997. After Jobs came back, he notice someone taking notes during one of his meeting and questioned why?. After that, no-one took notes, at least not during any of Jobs meetings. App Store open in mid 2008. Cook took over CEO in 2011. Maybe notes are being taken during Cooks meetings.

    You thinking that there should have been a ....."note taking frenesi"  shows that you are not smart enough to remember things. But really, what is so hard to remember (for how any Apple Store works). In 2003, Apple Music Store split was 70/30. In 2006 iTunes Store (including now movies and movie rentals) split was 70/30. In 2008, Apple App Store split was 70/30. In 2010, iBook Store split was 70/30.  And in every case, it was the hardware sale that matter most, not the profits from the 30% revenue split. Apple Music Store was for the iPod. Apple Store was for the Apple TV (and later the iPad) Apple App Store was for the iPhone. Apple iBook store was for the iPad.

    It only recently that Apple revenue from services account for about 20% of total revenue. and by no means does that mean the services accounts for 20% of Apple net profit.

    And hindsight is 20/20. In 2008, Apple iPhone was still being predicted as going to be a failure. CEO's of Blackberry, Nokia, Microsoft didn't give the $599 (fully subsidized and only from ATT) iPhone much of a chance. And then Android phones came along at the end of 2008 and end up eating Apple iPhone lunch and dinner. So how did Schiller and other Apple Execs know in 2008, that the 30% commission would be a windfall 10 years in the future? If they did, then you're not giving Apple Execs as much credit as they deserve.


    In fact I question the whole notion of this supposed Jobs claim. 

    If people were taking notes, it's because it was, always has been and still is normal to take notes at meetings. Even at Apple. Anywhere.

    The simple fact that someone stepped in and basically told them to stop taking notes, when they had already started, raises concerns. 

    Think about it for a second. Jobs is there. People are taking notes. Where's the problem? What pushes you to tell them to stop a completely natural process? Even if you are Jobs. 

    There is no decent reason to tell people to stop taking notes. Literally zero.
    And the one given only serves to highlight the concerns raised.

    Even at that point in time Apple was a multi billion dollar operation. 
    Because some people act at a higher cognitive level, and if these people are bullies they may shame others, who comply out of fear. Jobs is known to have done both. Which part is hard for you to accept?

    You’re trying to suggest this never happened and Schiller’s testimony is false. Again, you’re denying the facts he’s presented as a witness, from behind your keyboard on the other half of the planet with no insight into anything because you weren’t there. Thus, crankpot denying facts and instead pitching conspiracy theory. 
    edited April 16 williamlondon
  • Reply 29 of 29
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,111member
    It’s no worse than what IBM went through with their 1956 Consent Decree with the DOJ that forced them for 40 years to separate hardware sales from software and services sales or what AT&T was forced to do such as making all their patents (including for the original transistor) royalty free to all other American companies and then carved apart in 1984. So if you are going to cry a river for Apple then you should at least show one or two tears for IBM and AT&T.

    IBM is now the walking tech dead now soon they will join Sun, Digital, and Motorola........And there are no tears for IBM is done in the same sense as Xerox is done, both are just marking time until the doors close like Motorola.

    IBM had a chance in fact many chances, to turn it around, when they had the infrastructure and the means, they missed the opportunity to build, smaller faster more powerful CPU’s for use in desktop/ mobile computers. They even had Steve Jobs the CEO of Apple, asking them, begging them to do something at the time they refused

    A similar story happen at Intel, and Intel will pay a huge price for not building the SOC’s‘s for the iPhone, and the iPad, not to mention, basically, allowing Apple develop and to eventually replace them at the desktop level, blunders at that scale eventually lead to the end like Motorola.

    edited April 16 williamlondonbaconstangentropys
Sign In or Register to comment.