Do you really think you should be charged tens-f-thousands of dollars just to put an app on the App Store when you will have so little revenue and cost so little in effort and traffic from Apple?
Why should Spotify pay 25% when handling payment on their own while gov. agencies and banks pay nothing? The effort required by Apple is the same. Apple can only do this as a gatekeeper. DMA is all about making sure it doesn't happen.
Apple offered another option that didn’t violate the written rule the EU put in place. Why isn’t that good enough?
Do you really think you should be charged tens-f-thousands of dollars just to put an app on the App Store when you will have so little revenue and cost so little in effort and traffic from Apple?
Why should Spotify pay 25% when handling payment on their own while gov. agencies and banks pay nothing? The effort required by Apple is the same. Apple can only do this as a gatekeeper. DMA is all about making sure it doesn't happen.
Apple does not have a monopoly and I believe in a free market. Apple hasn't violated anything in the DMA as it's written. You don't need to be lawyer to know that works in a fair court of law.
Why do you believe Apple should be the only company that you think should be forced to create an OS with a sophisticated development environment without being compensated?
If Apple sells something that I find is to be too expensive — of which there are many examples — I don't purchase it. It's that simple.
Do you really think you should be charged tens-f-thousands of dollars just to put an app on the App Store when you will have so little revenue and cost so little in effort and traffic from Apple?
Why should Spotify pay 25% when handling payment on their own while gov. agencies and banks pay nothing? The effort required by Apple is the same. Apple can only do this as a gatekeeper. DMA is all about making sure it doesn't happen.
Apple does not have a monopoly and I believe in a free market.
I believe in democracy. We have elected politicians directly and locally to ensure strong competition and space for innovation. You keep discussing whether Apple is a monopoly. DMA is not about monopolies. DMA is about gatekeepers and Apple is on the list.
The EU needs to take the gloves off. Apple is obviously not serious about complying, it's time to hit them with the daily billion dollar fines until they end the nonsense and just allow normal software installation on iDevices. There is ZERO reason Apple should have ANY control over what users install on their own iPhones.
I don't care if Apple charges a 95% commission in their app store. But we should be able to install software from ANYWHERE ELSE without paying them a penny or saying "mommy may I" first. I should be able to go to Github, download a .ipa, and install it.
That's like saying an auto maker should have no say what liquids you put in your gas tank... but then also try to force them to make your car run on urine simply because you don't want to be forced to use gasoline.
There are major costs associated with SW and I'm afraid of how IOS, Xcode, App Store and all those advancements we see each year at WWDC could hurt users if companies like Epic and Spotify keep making all the rules.
No. What Apple is doing is like an automaker saying you can't put gas in your tank unless they get 30% of what you pay for every gallon, and if they don't approve the gas station you can't put the nozzle in the fill port.
I really can't comprehend how anybody could defend Apple's rent-seeking behavior. What hurts users is Apple's monopoly on iDevice software distribution. And I'll also point out that Xcode existed BEFORE iDevices. The stupid app store is a negative, the opposite of a useful innovation. We would be better off without it.
The EU needs to take the gloves off. Apple is obviously not serious about complying, it's time to hit them with the daily billion dollar fines until they end the nonsense and just allow normal software installation on iDevices. There is ZERO reason Apple should have ANY control over what users install on their own iPhones.
I don't care if Apple charges a 95% commission in their app store. But we should be able to install software from ANYWHERE ELSE without paying them a penny or saying "mommy may I" first. I should be able to go to Github, download a .ipa, and install it.
That's like saying an auto maker should have no say what liquids you put in your gas tank... but then also try to force them to make your car run on urine simply because you don't want to be forced to use gasoline.
There are major costs associated with SW and I'm afraid of how IOS, Xcode, App Store and all those advancements we see each year at WWDC could hurt users if companies like Epic and Spotify keep making all the rules.
No. What Apple is doing is like an automaker saying you can't put gas in your tank unless they get 30% of what you pay for every gallon, and if they don't approve the gas station you can't put the nozzle in the fill port.
I really can't comprehend how anybody could defend Apple's rent-seeking behavior. What hurts users is Apple's monopoly on iDevice software distribution. And I'll also point out that Xcode existed BEFORE iDevices. The stupid app store is a negative, the opposite of a useful innovation. We would be better off without it.
More apropos is for you to claim that the gas station and oil companies should get nothing from selling you gas and refining the oil simply because, in this scenario, they also made the car that they sold you. Their product. Their rules. No monopoly. It's a free market which means you and I have a choice to choose alternatives if we don't like what they charge. You are going down a very dangerous path when you decide that a free market system shouldn't be in effect for companies that are you deem too successful or because you have a bias that wants to hurt foreign companies even when they follow your rules to a tee and refuse to write laws well simply so you can say you meant this when they're followed and you don't like the results. This hurts the consumer in the end, which is what you should be focusing on.
“What Apple is doing is like an automaker saying you can't put gas in your tank unless they get 30% of what you pay for every gallon, and if they don't approve the gas station you can't put the nozzle in the fill port.“
A poor analogy. The electricity you charge your devices battery is analogous to the gasoline. Apple doesn’t get a cut of that. But the bigger problem is that the whole car analogy doesn’t fit the phone market. Companies like Spotify want to place a free app in Apple’s App Store, pay nothing for access to Apple’s customer base and services while profiting off of the same.
A better car analogy would be for a company like SiriusXM to demand that Ford place it’s products in Ford’s showrooms for free, allow Ford’s customers to install their product in Ford’s cars without any compensation. Or that Coke should be able to put their machines in McDonalds for free and profit off McDonald’s customers.
“What Apple is doing is like an automaker saying you can't put gas in your tank unless they get 30% of what you pay for every gallon, and if they don't approve the gas station you can't put the nozzle in the fill port.“
A poor analogy. The electricity you charge your devices battery is analogous to the gasoline. Apple doesn’t get a cut of that. But the bigger problem is that the whole car analogy doesn’t fit the phone market. Companies like Spotify want to place a free app in Apple’s App Store, pay nothing for access to Apple’s customer base and services while profiting off of the same.
A better car analogy would be for a company like SiriusXM to demand that Ford place it’s products in Ford’s showrooms for free, allow Ford’s customers to install their product in Ford’s cars without any compensation. Or that Coke should be able to put their machines in McDonalds for free and profit off McDonald’s customers.
The problem with analogies should be obvious by now. None of them entirely work, and they can all be tagged by the first four letters.
gatorguy said: Apple develops iOS for hardware, which they monetize to the tune of $Billions every year. It's not essential to apps except for the need to enable install and run on an Apple mobile device. With generally minor changes, the apps as a rule could run on top of any OS and in many cases do. What can't operate without iOS is an Apple mobile device, which is the reason the OS exists.
Other way around: Apple develops the hardware to run the software. Operating systems are obviously the highest bar to clear when it comes to development and commercial viability. Apps are a dime a dozen by comparison. There's a reason that the EU considers the mobile OS market to be a duopoly: no one else has succeeded at that type of software product to any significant degree. Thousands of companies succeed with apps. Apple is doing the heavy lift commercially, not Epic or Spotify.
Maybe Gatorguy hasn't seen this quote before...
Cute saying, but not particularly true with photo processing programs, accounting software, graphic design, engineering design programs, and a plethora of other software uses that doesn't require the provider create their own computer for the programming to work properly.
Apple's goal from the beginning was inventing consumer hardware devices. Having a software system capable of operating a smartphone or tablet was a necessary sub-development, not the goal. It's in hardware that ongoing iOS development is monetized. If there were no Apple hardware to run it, the OS would have zero value unless they go the Microsoft route and license it to computer or smartphone manufacturers for their own hardware.
Anyway, I'm sure when that slide was presented it was relevant to that particular discussion. It doesn't make it applicable here.
You skipped over the fact that Mac OS, from the get-go, made photo processing programs, accounting software, graphic design programs, engineering design programs, and a plethora of other software run with a consistent interface and user experience unlike anything that came before.
A better car analogy would be for a company like SiriusXM to demand that Ford place it’s products in Ford’s showrooms for free, allow Ford’s customers to install their product in Ford’s cars without any compensation. Or that Coke should be able to put their machines in McDonalds for free and profit off McDonald’s customers.
You subscribe to Disney+ directly to watch it on your Sony TV. Sony is taking 25% of the subscription and has the right to decide if the content made by Disney is acceptable according to rules set by Sony. This is OK as Sony has spent time on the color processing, audio improvements, and OS on the TV you bought. And you're thrilled when LG and Samsung decide to do the same making gatekeeping an industry standard showing how the market works perfectly without any regulation.
gatorguy said: Apple develops iOS for hardware, which they monetize to the tune of $Billions every year. It's not essential to apps except for the need to enable install and run on an Apple mobile device. With generally minor changes, the apps as a rule could run on top of any OS and in many cases do. What can't operate without iOS is an Apple mobile device, which is the reason the OS exists.
Other way around: Apple develops the hardware to run the software. Operating systems are obviously the highest bar to clear when it comes to development and commercial viability. Apps are a dime a dozen by comparison. There's a reason that the EU considers the mobile OS market to be a duopoly: no one else has succeeded at that type of software product to any significant degree. Thousands of companies succeed with apps. Apple is doing the heavy lift commercially, not Epic or Spotify.
Maybe Gatorguy hasn't seen this quote before...
Cute saying, but not particularly true with photo processing programs, accounting software, graphic design, engineering design programs, and a plethora of other software uses that doesn't require the provider create their own computer for the programming to work properly.
Apple's goal from the beginning was inventing consumer hardware devices. Having a software system capable of operating a smartphone or tablet was a necessary sub-development, not the goal. It's in hardware that ongoing iOS development is monetized. If there were no Apple hardware to run it, the OS would have zero value unless they go the Microsoft route and license it to computer or smartphone manufacturers for their own hardware.
Anyway, I'm sure when that slide was presented it was relevant to that particular discussion. It doesn't make it applicable here.
You skipped over the fact that Mac OS, from the get-go, made photo processing programs, accounting software, graphic design programs, engineering design programs, and a plethora of other software run with a consistent interface and user experience unlike anything that came before.
And you're arguing Adobe Photoshop, QuickBooks, CorelDraw, Illustrator, AutoCad, and Solidworks would be better and the developers more successful if the software companies designed, built and sold their programs only on their own hardware? If not, then you seem to agree with me: Companies who care about software DON'T always need to make their own hardware.
gatorguy said: Companies who care about software DON'T always need to make their own hardware.
And? That doesn't change the fact that creating apps or creating hardware is easier to do commercially than creating an operating system. There is no argument to be made that a company that successfully develops a commercially viable OS is less deserving of monetizing it than an app developer or hardware developer.
gatorguy said: Companies who care about software DON'T always need to make their own hardware.
And? That doesn't change the fact that creating apps or creating hardware is easier to do commercially than creating an operating system. There is no argument to be made that a company that successfully develops a commercially viable OS is less deserving of monetizing it than an app developer or hardware developer.
I agree with you. That's why Microsoft licenses their OS. Apple doesn't license their OS, not even to developers (remember Corellium), so it's costs, are covered, monetized if you prefer that term, by the hardware sales, just as many other companies do with proprietary operating systems. But they are not in any way "monetizing" iOS separately from hardware, and have never even hinted that they might.
What Apple will do instead of licensing (monetizing) the OS is sell a Developer License which includes access to Xcode, various developer tools, a testing platform, and a path to a distribution method. All things required to create compatible apps to run on top of iOS.
Not yet mentioned is the likelihood Google (Alphabet) is going to get a fine from the EU for doing nearly the same things, but with different names, in their own Playstore. It's almost as though Google and Apple are working together behind closed doors to coordinate the responses to DMA. they're so similar after both made recent "adjustments".
Comments
1. that would be hard because they’d have to think through all the unintended consequences
2. they’d miss some unintended consequences and then have to own responsibility for them
much easier to just keep saying “OMG. You big American meanies! Why won’t you comply with the spirit of our lovely law!”
Why do you believe Apple should be the only company that you think should be forced to create an OS with a sophisticated development environment without being compensated?
If Apple sells something that I find is to be too expensive — of which there are many examples — I don't purchase it. It's that simple.
A poor analogy. The electricity you charge your devices battery is analogous to the gasoline. Apple doesn’t get a cut of that. But the bigger problem is that the whole car analogy doesn’t fit the phone market. Companies like Spotify want to place a free app in Apple’s App Store, pay nothing for access to Apple’s customer base and services while profiting off of the same.
A better car analogy would be for a company like SiriusXM to demand that Ford place it’s products in Ford’s showrooms for free, allow Ford’s customers to install their product in Ford’s cars without any compensation. Or that Coke should be able to put their machines in McDonalds for free and profit off McDonald’s customers.
That is not how we play in the EU.
Companies who care about software DON'T always need to make their own hardware.
What Apple will do instead of licensing (monetizing) the OS is sell a Developer License which includes access to Xcode, various developer tools, a testing platform, and a path to a distribution method. All things required to create compatible apps to run on top of iOS.