Apple insists App Store 'not a monopoly,' expects to win in court

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 69
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    avon b7 said:
    You put yourself on dodgy ground when you start claiming that you know what other Apple users want and then use that as a basis for your argument.

    In this particular case, it is not about what users want. It is about Apple's supposed harming of competition.

    As an Apple user you can't speak for me. I would like an alternative App Store if only for competitive reasons. From there, everybody can make their own decisions.

    There is nothing to suggest an alternative app store could not compete with Apple. If that is the case, app store competition could bring the 30% down, there would likely be more offer on the store and store imposed restrictions  could be different.
    I know Apple well enough to know that it's plain common sense to know that Apple would never allow a third party app store to be able to install apps onto their devices. It goes against everything that Apple is about.

    Some third party, uncontrolled app store would be full of crap and dangerous apps, illegal apps, virus infected apps, malware apps, rip offs of games and other apps, apps that use illegal APIs and Apple would never allow it.

    If you want the wild, wild west of apps, and the garbage that comes along with it, then go use Android.
  • Reply 42 of 69
    darinbdarinb Posts: 8member
    If Apple is a monopoly engaging in monopolistic pricing the market would show evidence of this. Prices where the monopoly has power would be higher than where the monopoly did not have power.

    In the iOS App Store it is hard to say because those exact programs are not for sale anywhere else. However, many of the apps in the iOS App store have equivalents (same developer, same title, different OS) for Android. Except for a few oddball cases (e.g. Spotify) the app's price is the same in the iOS store as it is in the Android market. If Apple was extracting monopoly rents in its area of control you'd expect the software prices to be higher in the iOS App store and lower for the same app for Android.

    So, no obvious evidence of monopolistic pricing.

    On the other hand, it seems clear that having a central library of software titles has lead to a greatly increased level of competition in the software market for iPhones. Many small players are suddenly able to compete against large software firms due to greatly increased discoverability. This greatly benefits the consumer.

    In addition, Innovation has been rapid. Under a monopoly you'd expect a slow down in innovation as the monopolist enjoyed its protected position. Instead what has been created is a competitive area within which software firms compete, driving innovation. This also greatly benefits the consumer.

    Finally, it is obvious to all that the emergence of iOS and the app store has had an incredible downward effect on retail prices. Top-selling games can be had for a dollar or two. Wonderful word processors for a few dollars more. Plenty of free titles. All of these titles have received some level of vetting for privacy standards, quality, and suitability. Furthermore, keeping all of your software current is trivial as the iOS app store makes it clear what apps need updated. There are all large and important benefits to the consumer.

    Consumers have plenty of choice in the market and most of them do not choose iOS. However those who do choose iOS make more purchases of software for their device no doubt having determined that it is valuable for them to do so. The minority of consumers who choose iOS seem happy with their purchase and purchase new models of iOS when they upgrade, despite the ease of changing platforms. Harm to the consumer is very hard to discern here.

    For government action you need demonstrated harm to the consumer, I think. I am having a difficult time identifying what form that harm might take. 


  • Reply 43 of 69
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,913member
    apple ][ said:
    avon b7 said:
    You put yourself on dodgy ground when you start claiming that you know what other Apple users want and then use that as a basis for your argument.

    In this particular case, it is not about what users want. It is about Apple's supposed harming of competition.

    As an Apple user you can't speak for me. I would like an alternative App Store if only for competitive reasons. From there, everybody can make their own decisions.

    There is nothing to suggest an alternative app store could not compete with Apple. If that is the case, app store competition could bring the 30% down, there would likely be more offer on the store and store imposed restrictions  could be different.
    I know Apple well enough to know that it's plain common sense to know that Apple would never allow a third party app store to be able to install apps onto their devices. It goes against everything that Apple is about.

    Some third party, uncontrolled app store would be full of crap and dangerous apps, illegal apps, virus infected apps, malware apps, rip offs of games and other apps, apps that use illegal APIs and Apple would never allow it.

    If you want the wild, wild west of apps, and the garbage that comes along with it, then go use Android.
    apple ][ said:
    avon b7 said:
    You put yourself on dodgy ground when you start claiming that you know what other Apple users want and then use that as a basis for your argument.

    In this particular case, it is not about what users want. It is about Apple's supposed harming of competition.

    As an Apple user you can't speak for me. I would like an alternative App Store if only for competitive reasons. From there, everybody can make their own decisions.

    There is nothing to suggest an alternative app store could not compete with Apple. If that is the case, app store competition could bring the 30% down, there would likely be more offer on the store and store imposed restrictions  could be different.
    I know Apple well enough to know that it's plain common sense to know that Apple would never allow a third party app store to be able to install apps onto their devices. It goes against everything that Apple is about.

    Some third party, uncontrolled app store would be full of crap and dangerous apps, illegal apps, virus infected apps, malware apps, rip offs of games and other apps, apps that use illegal APIs and Apple would never allow it.

    If you want the wild, wild west of apps, and the garbage that comes along with it, then go use Android.
    You are making the same mistake. This isn't about what users or Apple wants. That is irrelevant.

    If this case (or any similar case) reaches a negative verdict for Apple, it would not be a question of 'Apple never allowing'. Apple might be forced to change something.
  • Reply 44 of 69
    Johan42Johan42 Posts: 163member
    apple ][ said:
    Johan42 said:
    Sorry but you sound fucking retarded @bold, since whatever you do on your device will never affect the next persons’.

    Anyways, bring on the options. There’s a couple of apps that I love (but Apple doesn’t allow) and would like to have installed on my iPhone without having to re-download every time Apple decides to screw with the certificates.
    Go jailbreak your device if you want. I don't even know if that's still a thing anymore, but it doesn't really matter to me.

    Your wish is never going to happen. Apple is never going to allow it.
    Jailbreak my iPhone and risk damaging it just so that I can install some simple apps. Amazing.

    I hope Apple loses this lawsuit.
    Carnage
  • Reply 45 of 69
    airnerdairnerd Posts: 693member
    safe and secure is correct, I don't hesitate to download something from the App store.  That doesn't mean the App store isn't a monopoly.  Unless they allow another app store to sell apps to your phone, it's a monopoly.  There are valid reasons for having the monopoly, like control over the product going onto phones.  That is the way Apple should be attacking this, not saying "It's not a monopoly because the people we force to do business with only us are the ones passing our surcharge to the consumer".  That's a stupid argument, of course the business passes the costs on.  The apps shouldn't face the lawsuit, they aren't the ones having to follow the rules of the monopolistic app store.  
  • Reply 46 of 69
    cropr said:
    apple ][ said:
    ralphie said:with iOS the developer has NO choice.
    They have the choice of not developing any apps for iOS. Nobody ever forced anybody to make any iOS apps.
    Being a developer of apps, and de facto  I  don't have a choice.  E.g for large npo's I am developing a voting app for their general assembly.  I can only sell the app if all members of the npo can vote, meaning I need both an iOS and an Android version.  If I had only an Android version  I would have zero sales, If I had only an iOS version I would have zero sales.  So basically the Apple eco system as such does not bring new customers, but economically seen, I must make my app available on iOS
    Enabling your business model is not Apple's responsibility.  I can think of at least one way to solve your "problem" without requiring any of your  customers to even own a phone.
  • Reply 47 of 69
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,020member
    I'll state it again:   It's important to understand what was ruled on here.  SCOTUS allowed the suit to go forward at the lower level.  It didn't agree to hear it.  5 justices agreed there was sufficient grounds to at least let the case proceed.  It's perfectly fine to debate whether that is correct, but given I'm not a lawyer or justice, I'll defer to them.  On the merits, I think the plaintiffs have a tough row to hoe, as they say.  iOS does create a virtual monopoly for apps on the platform, though there are of course other platforms.  It's not clear to me how exclusivity and taking a flat rate commission violates anti-trust laws.  I know an IP attorney well....it's not fully his area, but I'm interested to get his take.  
  • Reply 48 of 69
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,395member
    Notsofast said:
    knowitall said:
    As I mentioned in another thread, there’s nothing illegal about having a monopoly (in the US). Abusing monopoly power is where corporations run into trouble.

    Even if it can be proven that the App Store has a monopoly, which I think will be difficult for obvious reasons, how is Apple abusing that power?
    By taking a 30% cut and not allowing other means of app distribution.
    Apple should ask for a fixed amount for a fixed set of ‘services’ needed to run the store.
    As I mentioned before, apps can be signed by Apple (after some sanity and virus checks) and distributed via any digital means. App developers can put the apps on their home page (or whatever) and pay apple a few cents for signing only and skip the hosting fees. This adds the benefit of even better visibility for the app because Google can find it directly.
    Thankfully, the law doesn't run according to what you feel a company should charge.  We let supply and demand in a free market decide.

    Isn't that the crux of the original complaint? There is no free market regulating prices re: iOS apps. There is but one distribution channel, fully controlled by a single company who as an aside does not permit apps that in some way may, even minimally, compete with an Apple app/service even if that Apple service did not originally exist when the developer went to market. Sorry, needed another cup of coffee. That was not accurately stated.

    That is not in any way endorsing the plaintiffs complaint. Simply explaining what's behind it and why your reference to a free market probably means exactly the opposite of what you thought. 
    edited May 2019 avon b7
  • Reply 49 of 69
    gatorguy said:
    Notsofast said:
    knowitall said:
    As I mentioned in another thread, there’s nothing illegal about having a monopoly (in the US). Abusing monopoly power is where corporations run into trouble.

    Even if it can be proven that the App Store has a monopoly, which I think will be difficult for obvious reasons, how is Apple abusing that power?
    By taking a 30% cut and not allowing other means of app distribution.
    Apple should ask for a fixed amount for a fixed set of ‘services’ needed to run the store.
    As I mentioned before, apps can be signed by Apple (after some sanity and virus checks) and distributed via any digital means. App developers can put the apps on their home page (or whatever) and pay apple a few cents for signing only and skip the hosting fees. This adds the benefit of even better visibility for the app because Google can find it directly.
    Thankfully, the law doesn't run according to what you feel a company should charge.  We let supply and demand in a free market decide.

    Isn't that the crux of the original complaint? There is no free market regulating prices re: iOS apps. There is but one distribution channel, fully controlled by a single company who as an aside does not permit apps that in some way may, even minimally, compete with an Apple app/service even if that Apple service did not originally exist when the developer went to market. 

    That is not in any way endorsing the plaintiffs complaint. Simply explaining what's behind it and why your reference to a free market probably means exactly the opposite of what you thought.
    Huh? There are word processing apps other than Pages, spreadsheet apps other than Numbers, video editors other than iMovie and so on, all on the App Store now. 
  • Reply 50 of 69
    cincyteecincytee Posts: 419member
    apple ][ said:
    The vote was split but not along party lines, with even Republican Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledging the case should go forward.
    Kavanaugh was the only one and he was joined by 4 liberals.

    The court's four liberal justices joined Kavanaugh in the 5-4 decision.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/13/tech/apple-app-store-supreme-court/index.html
    I’m not understanding your post. What AI wrote is the same thing you wrote. 5-4 vote, not on party lines as Kavanaugh acknowledged the case should go forward. 
    I believe the point is that there was no wholesale buy-in among conservative justices, which AI's wording could imply. Also, since Kavanaugh wrote the decision, it could be argued that the more accurate wording would be that the liberals joined him, not vice versa. It's admittedly a wonky argument.
  • Reply 51 of 69
    sarthossarthos Posts: 36member
    knowitall said:
    As I mentioned in another thread, there’s nothing illegal about having a monopoly (in the US). Abusing monopoly power is where corporations run into trouble.

    Even if it can be proven that the App Store has a monopoly, which I think will be difficult for obvious reasons, how is Apple abusing that power?
    By taking a 30% cut and not allowing other means of app distribution.
    Apple should ask for a fixed amount for a fixed set of ‘services’ needed to run the store.
    As I mentioned before, apps can be signed by Apple (after some sanity and virus checks) and distributed via any digital means. App developers can put the apps on their home page (or whatever) and pay apple a few cents for signing only and skip the hosting fees. This adds the benefit of even better visibility for the app because Google can find it directly.
    Another example of someone who could never run a business trying to tell others how to run theirs...
    pscooter63
  • Reply 52 of 69
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,395member
    gatorguy said:
    Notsofast said:
    knowitall said:
    As I mentioned in another thread, there’s nothing illegal about having a monopoly (in the US). Abusing monopoly power is where corporations run into trouble.

    Even if it can be proven that the App Store has a monopoly, which I think will be difficult for obvious reasons, how is Apple abusing that power?
    By taking a 30% cut and not allowing other means of app distribution.
    Apple should ask for a fixed amount for a fixed set of ‘services’ needed to run the store.
    As I mentioned before, apps can be signed by Apple (after some sanity and virus checks) and distributed via any digital means. App developers can put the apps on their home page (or whatever) and pay apple a few cents for signing only and skip the hosting fees. This adds the benefit of even better visibility for the app because Google can find it directly.
    Thankfully, the law doesn't run according to what you feel a company should charge.  We let supply and demand in a free market decide.

    Isn't that the crux of the original complaint? There is no free market regulating prices re: iOS apps. There is but one distribution channel, fully controlled by a single company who as an aside does not permit apps that in some way may, even minimally, compete with an Apple app/service even if that Apple service did not originally exist when the developer went to market. 

    That is not in any way endorsing the plaintiffs complaint. Simply explaining what's behind it and why your reference to a free market probably means exactly the opposite of what you thought.
    Huh? There are word processing apps other than Pages, spreadsheet apps other than Numbers, video editors other than iMovie and so on, all on the App Store now. 
    Thanks, went back and edited. I was incorrect on that particular point.
  • Reply 53 of 69
    The App Store is not a monopoly? Great! Hey Apple I want to create my own competing iOS App Store. That should make it through the app review process, right?
  • Reply 54 of 69
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,038member
    The App Store is not a monopoly? Great! Hey Apple I want to create my own competing App Store. That should make it through the app review process, right?
    1) I fixed that for you.

    2) There is no review process for you to make your app store on the your system so go right ahead.
  • Reply 55 of 69
    AppleZulu said:
    The basic argument underlying this case - that Apple has injured consumers by inflating app prices - is just incorrect. Prior to Apple's introduction of the App Store, computer applications were generally much more expensive. By creating a single, trusted source for iOS applications, Apple actually drove prices down, not up. The iOS developer system makes sure that programs follow a common intuitive user interface, which eliminates the need for instruction manuals and documentation, which cuts costs for developers and increases willingness of users to try new apps. The fact that programs are sandboxed and vetted by Apple also lowers consumer risk for buying malware, which again lowers consumer risk to try new apps. Both of these factors lead to the opportunity for developers to sell their programs in significant volume, which allows for the commonplace pricing of apps at 99 cents or maybe a few bucks. That inexpensive pricing structure itself drives consumer willingness to try new apps, which in turn drives volume. The App Store also eliminates the need for developers to manage a retail infrastructure, which lowers the developer's costs and risk for creating something and putting it out there to see if anyone will buy it. This, in turn drives down prices for apps. 

    All this is worth the overhead that Apple charges for selling apps through the App Store. Were Apple to open up the system to outside sales and installation of apps, the alternatives would not drive prices down. An entirely independent developer selling their app through their own website would be hard-pressed to generate volume sales, because consumers would have to find them first, and also be convinced that the application isn't loaded with malware. They would also have to develop and maintain a sales and customer service back-end. That won't drive down prices. Without high volume sales, developers would have to charge more just to recoup the cost of development and overhead. That won't drive down prices. The other alternative, selling through a large third-party app store, run by Amazon, or Google, or BestBuy, or whoever, would be subject to the retailer taking a cut to cover their overhead. That won't drive down prices. The truth of all this is borne out by the fact that Android apps aren't any cheaper than iOS apps.

    So the argument that the App Store injures consumers by inflating prices is specious. The argument that the App Store is a monopoly is also bogus, because you can bypass the whole thing by buying an Android phone and load it with whatever bloatware and malware apps you care to buy. 
    I don't get why customers are so against having more options? It would be awesome to have more app stores. For customers who love Apple, you can still only use the apple app store. I would love to have more competition. I would love for other to open their own app store. Just like on the Android side I can go to google play, amazon, or even epic to download Fortnite. Option is a beautiful thing. Apple has done an amazing job and tricking these applesheep to believe having option is a bad thing. Just wow.
  • Reply 56 of 69
    mjtomlin said:
    ElCapitan said:
    It is not a traditional monopoly in the overall market, but it is a monopoly for distribution of apps in the iOS, tvOS and watchOS ecosystems.

    A "traditional monopoly". It's either a monopoly or not. Owning something does not make you a monopoly it makes you the OWNER of it. It's Apple's platform, they OWN it. It has NEVER been an open development platform nor an open app distribution platform... EVER. Apple owns the developer tools and they own the OS, if they choose to own the distribution model that's absolutely within their right.

    No one has to open their operating system to development and it's ludicrous to think that. Could people develop apps for the iPod? No. It was a closed platform. Apple did let a few developers write games for it, but that was it. iOS is NO different than that other than Apple has opened the doors to more developers, but they still have absolute control over the development and distribution of apps for the platform.

    Saying Apple can't own and control any part of that is the same as saying Apple cannot tie their hardware and their operating system together, because people want iOS, but don't want to pay Apple's prices for their hardware. Well, tough sh!t. That's the PRODUCT Apple is selling. You don't like it, buy a different product.

    There is no way, this is going win, doing so, means any product from any company on the market can be forced into breaking it apart and letting others in.
    You need to study your history. That is like telling Microsoft it's their platform and they don't need to open it up to anyone. Microsoft gave away Internet Explorer for free and was hit w/ a million dollar fine per day by the courts because it hurt Netscape. It was viewed as being a monopoly. They kept giving it away until Netscape finally folded and didn't mine the fine. Just because it's their platform doesn't mean they can do whatever they want.
  • Reply 57 of 69
    pscooter63pscooter63 Posts: 1,080member
    I don't get why customers are so against having more options? It would be awesome to have more app stores. For customers who love Apple, you can still only use the apple app store. I would love to have more competition. I would love for other to open their own app store. Just like on the Android side I can go to google play, amazon, or even epic to download Fortnite. Option is a beautiful thing. Apple has done an amazing job and tricking these applesheep to believe having option is a bad thing. Just wow.
    I don't get why this matters to you, given that you admit you are invested in the Android ecosystem already.  Newsflash: Apple doesn't want customers with your mindset anyway.  That's their prerogative, and it's not against the law.

    At the risk of sounding overly paranoid, I believe this suit was instigated by Apple's competitors, in an attempt to bring Apple's ecosystem down to their level.  Yes, down.  The smell of desperation is in the air.
  • Reply 58 of 69
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,100member
    AppleZulu said:
    The basic argument underlying this case - that Apple has injured consumers by inflating app prices - is just incorrect. Prior to Apple's introduction of the App Store, computer applications were generally much more expensive. By creating a single, trusted source for iOS applications, Apple actually drove prices down, not up. The iOS developer system makes sure that programs follow a common intuitive user interface, which eliminates the need for instruction manuals and documentation, which cuts costs for developers and increases willingness of users to try new apps. The fact that programs are sandboxed and vetted by Apple also lowers consumer risk for buying malware, which again lowers consumer risk to try new apps. Both of these factors lead to the opportunity for developers to sell their programs in significant volume, which allows for the commonplace pricing of apps at 99 cents or maybe a few bucks. That inexpensive pricing structure itself drives consumer willingness to try new apps, which in turn drives volume. The App Store also eliminates the need for developers to manage a retail infrastructure, which lowers the developer's costs and risk for creating something and putting it out there to see if anyone will buy it. This, in turn drives down prices for apps. 

    All this is worth the overhead that Apple charges for selling apps through the App Store. Were Apple to open up the system to outside sales and installation of apps, the alternatives would not drive prices down. An entirely independent developer selling their app through their own website would be hard-pressed to generate volume sales, because consumers would have to find them first, and also be convinced that the application isn't loaded with malware. They would also have to develop and maintain a sales and customer service back-end. That won't drive down prices. Without high volume sales, developers would have to charge more just to recoup the cost of development and overhead. That won't drive down prices. The other alternative, selling through a large third-party app store, run by Amazon, or Google, or BestBuy, or whoever, would be subject to the retailer taking a cut to cover their overhead. That won't drive down prices. The truth of all this is borne out by the fact that Android apps aren't any cheaper than iOS apps.

    So the argument that the App Store injures consumers by inflating prices is specious. The argument that the App Store is a monopoly is also bogus, because you can bypass the whole thing by buying an Android phone and load it with whatever bloatware and malware apps you care to buy. 
    I don't get why customers are so against having more options? It would be awesome to have more app stores. For customers who love Apple, you can still only use the apple app store. I would love to have more competition. I would love for other to open their own app store. Just like on the Android side I can go to google play, amazon, or even epic to download Fortnite. Option is a beautiful thing. Apple has done an amazing job and tricking these applesheep to believe having option is a bad thing. Just wow.
    You have options. If you want an open OS where you can install third-party apps from anywhere, you can buy an Android phone and have at it. Having that choice for others should not require breaking the secure, closed system that I chose when I bought an iPhone. 
  • Reply 59 of 69
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    avon b7 said:
    apple ][ said:
    avon b7 said:
    You put yourself on dodgy ground when you start claiming that you know what other Apple users want and then use that as a basis for your argument.

    In this particular case, it is not about what users want. It is about Apple's supposed harming of competition.

    As an Apple user you can't speak for me. I would like an alternative App Store if only for competitive reasons. From there, everybody can make their own decisions.

    There is nothing to suggest an alternative app store could not compete with Apple. If that is the case, app store competition could bring the 30% down, there would likely be more offer on the store and store imposed restrictions  could be different.
    I know Apple well enough to know that it's plain common sense to know that Apple would never allow a third party app store to be able to install apps onto their devices. It goes against everything that Apple is about.

    Some third party, uncontrolled app store would be full of crap and dangerous apps, illegal apps, virus infected apps, malware apps, rip offs of games and other apps, apps that use illegal APIs and Apple would never allow it.

    If you want the wild, wild west of apps, and the garbage that comes along with it, then go use Android.
    apple ][ said:
    avon b7 said:
    You put yourself on dodgy ground when you start claiming that you know what other Apple users want and then use that as a basis for your argument.

    In this particular case, it is not about what users want. It is about Apple's supposed harming of competition.

    As an Apple user you can't speak for me. I would like an alternative App Store if only for competitive reasons. From there, everybody can make their own decisions.

    There is nothing to suggest an alternative app store could not compete with Apple. If that is the case, app store competition could bring the 30% down, there would likely be more offer on the store and store imposed restrictions  could be different.
    I know Apple well enough to know that it's plain common sense to know that Apple would never allow a third party app store to be able to install apps onto their devices. It goes against everything that Apple is about.

    Some third party, uncontrolled app store would be full of crap and dangerous apps, illegal apps, virus infected apps, malware apps, rip offs of games and other apps, apps that use illegal APIs and Apple would never allow it.

    If you want the wild, wild west of apps, and the garbage that comes along with it, then go use Android.
    You are making the same mistake. This isn't about what users or Apple wants. That is irrelevant.

    If this case (or any similar case) reaches a negative verdict for Apple, it would not be a question of 'Apple never allowing'. Apple might be forced to change something.
    SCOTUS is currently a majority conservative court. I think people are making a mistake in thinking the eventual ruling will disfavor Apple.
  • Reply 60 of 69
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    Notsofast said:
    knowitall said:
    As I mentioned in another thread, there’s nothing illegal about having a monopoly (in the US). Abusing monopoly power is where corporations run into trouble.

    Even if it can be proven that the App Store has a monopoly, which I think will be difficult for obvious reasons, how is Apple abusing that power?
    By taking a 30% cut and not allowing other means of app distribution.
    Apple should ask for a fixed amount for a fixed set of ‘services’ needed to run the store.
    As I mentioned before, apps can be signed by Apple (after some sanity and virus checks) and distributed via any digital means. App developers can put the apps on their home page (or whatever) and pay apple a few cents for signing only and skip the hosting fees. This adds the benefit of even better visibility for the app because Google can find it directly.
    Thankfully, the law doesn't run according to what you feel a company should charge.  We let supply and demand in a free market decide.  Under your model, Ebay, Amazon, Etsy, Google, etc., all would be prevented from charging commissions.  It's alarming that so many folks think the way it works is that a person or company should be able to decide they want to get in the app business and want to support iPhones, but they should be able to decide they don't like the fees charged.  LOL, then don't decide to make an iOS app. Just like someone deciding they want to make a product for Walmart to sell, but then when Walmart lets them know they are going to only get half of the sales price, the person cries "unfair."  LOL. 


    Exactly the point, programmers have no option and must let Apple take 30% without doing a fair bit in return. Free market cannot change that because there is no alternative. That must change.
Sign In or Register to comment.