I can just see all these tech companies saying. Due to new government regulations, we are unable to help you with your IT issues. Please write to your congress person. Or something that will make it look as though the government was at fault. lol
Of course he declines to give specifics bcoz it’s fucking bullshit.
Is he standing for re-election this year? If so then a quick check of his donors might give you an answer.
But honestly, refusing to let a witness finish answering would see the lawyer pulled up by a judge pretty quickly (after repeated objections by the other side). How can any committee come up with this sort of report unless...
They were told was to conclude before the charade even started.
Who but those insiders really know but if that had been me in the hot seat rather than Tim Cook, and experienced their behaviour I may well have just stopped speaking and let them rant. The point about a hearing (sic) is to listen and hopefully learn and certainly not to grandstand your own POV.
Dear mister congressman, you can't hide behind your silly smile, that you are trying to destroy your own country’s companies and you are opening widely the door for the Chinese competition.
Where the China’s government is supporting their own companies with every legally and illegally means to help them conquer the world, you are doing just the opposite around.
"monopoly" meaning exclusive control of a commodity or trade doesn't fit here. 58% is not 100% (or even close). If the other companies cannot make a product that people want, that's on them. Also, how has the consumer been hurt? Geez... even when Standard Oil, the holy grail of monopolies was in its heyday, the price of oil dropped from 36 cents/gallon to 8 cents (1869-1885). Plus, its market share went from 90% to 65% when it was broken up. (1880-1911). This was also a deflationary time, so 8 cents in 1885 was worth 5.64cents in 1869.
Should we demand that Google farm out searches to other engines, because they have the largest market share of searches?
I ask if both app and non app store options might coexist, and the free market can decide?
Those wanting to play it safe and finding value in a 30% 'insurance' premium and convenience have the Apple option, and those who prefer direct sales and in fact not wanting to give more data points to Apple about their every online move also have that choice...
Except those choosing “freedom” open up a world of attack vectors that then interact with those of us on Apple”s platform.
so can we sue the moron’s that set the laws and policies that allow this when my information and financials aren’t compromised through a security vulnerability opened by this?
I ask if both app and non app store options might coexist, and the free market can decide?
Those wanting to play it safe and finding value in a 30% 'insurance' premium and convenience have the Apple option, and those who prefer direct sales and in fact not wanting to give more data points to Apple about their every online move also have that choice...
Except those choosing “freedom” open up a world of attack vectors that then interact with those of us on Apple”s platform.
so can we sue the moron’s that set the laws and policies that allow this when my information and financials aren’t compromised through a security vulnerability opened by this?
Security is a fake argument in the discussion. Following scheme respects all security requirements:
Apple does a technical and security approval of the app, and signs the app before it can be put on a iOS device. The approval service does not have to be free of charge
The developer chooses how the signed app is distributed.
The end user has the choice to only download from App store or to download from multiple distribution channels.
If the developer chooses to use the App store , the existing business rules (30% cut, no links to external payment schemes, ....) are applicable. If he chooses a different one, there are different business rules.
How did the hearing confirm deeply disturbing behavior if they didn’t let ANYONE fully answer any of the questions? As for Apple, I still can’t understand how they can be considered a monopoly if they don’t control the smartphone market? Or how charging 30% is being abusive, when servers, bandwidth, development, et al, costs money, plus any company is trying to make money out of their products. Is there a company out there that sells a product and foregoes absolutely all profits? I doubt it. And if there’s one or some, I doubt they survive for long.
58.78% does not make one a monopoly. It means they have a majority share. Based on the definition of monopoly:
Definition: A market structure characterized by a single seller, selling a unique product in the market. In a monopoly market, the seller faces no competition, as he is the sole seller of goods with no close substitute.
Therefore, Apple are not the sole seller of smart phones. They do face competition. There are plenty of close substitutes.
“If applied to tech, a Glass-Steagall type stipulation would disallow a company like Apple from competing on a platform it runs.”
Wouldn’t that apply towards other platform App stores like Valve’s steam, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and if they want to start reaching, big box stores that sell products and have their own brands that compete with others they sell?
Plus, what happens to the cost of maintaining the servers for the App Store and other costs that Apple pays for as part of the 30%?
From seeing what has happened in the past when the government gets involved with your business and breaks it up, the customer still gets F’d. It’s just rather than one large member cornholing you, it’s a bunch of small ones. To the customer it still is painful.
Exactly, if they say a company can not directly compete with other companies on its own platform (store), this decision affect more than Apple and Amazon. Every grocery store chain offer their own brand of products which are lower cost than any name brand, this will all go away.
The Apple servers will not go away, it just means Apple will not be allowed to offer a competing software app for your phone, so mail is gone, maps is gone, safari id's gone and the list goes on.
When these idiots broke up banking and investing it made this so much complicated. I use to have my checking and saving and investments at same companies it was so easy and quick to move money between all the accounts, today it takes days if I do not want to pay wire fees or I have to use snail mail to send checks. How did that help only allowed the banks and investment companies to make more money.
Apple’s market share is in the low teens for smartphones. “Monopoly”? Hardly.
That doesn't matter at all to these people. They want control, plain and simple. They'll keep screaming "monopoly" until enough people believe them and allow them to take control.
Apple’s market share is in the low teens for smartphones. “Monopoly”? Hardly.
They only care about apples App Store and it’s policies. They do have a monopoly on there App Store, since they completely control who can be on it. Take the latest issue with epic as an example.
You mean the way Walmart, Target, etc "completely control" who can be in their stores? Why is it OK for them, but not OK for Apple, Google, Steam, Epic, etc?
I think everyone knows that sweeping antitrust legislation would be DOA in the current Senate, so it would probably be up to the next Congress to address the report. I think they're going to have a hard time with the "platform" aspect in terms of a definition for antitrust purposes. Is a platform an OS? Or hardware? Or a store? Or an application? Or a search engine? Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook aren't really the same when it comes to "platforms" at all.
People keep grumbling about the 30% that Apple take, but I bet if it had always been 10% people would still grumble.
What percentage would everyone like Apple to charge? And at what point can Apple step in and say, "Hey, hold on a freakin' second! It's extremely expensive to run data centres, to employ people to review apps, to employ people to code the development tools those apps are written with, and to keep on top of security threats etc. to make the platform safe for our customers."? 5%? 2%?
Who are these people to KNOW exactly what it costs Apple to run the App Stores? They probably think the entire 30% is pure profit. It's not (and I can know that for sure, because those items I listed above aren't free).
Who else charges 30%? Practically everyone, so why is everyone grumbling at Apple?
Can I put a game on the Epic store? If so, what cut do they take, and does it only cover their costs?
Sometimes, people in government really get on my t*ts.
Unless this law is unfairly crafted to specifically target Apple it will have huge (and probably unforeseen) consequences. Microsoft also has an App Store. Would this mean they can no longer sell Office through that store? Or will subscriptions be considered “services” and somehow exempt? Would even Google’s office apps—which started out as web base but are now offered as apps on its own store—be considered unfair competition?
I certainly think many of these companies need some oversight, I just think this solution as it applies to Apple (and Amazon) is going to create more problems than it solves.
Personally, I think there should be more carefully considered guidelines for digital-only marketplaces. Also Amazon should be broken up. I don’t know why Congress insists on conflating these disparate issues. Just because they both “involve computers” (AKA “Tech”) doesn’t mean the issue or legislative solution is the same.
I think everyone knows that sweeping antitrust legislation would be DOA in the current Senate, so it would probably be up to the next Congress to address the report. I think they're going to have a hard time with the "platform" aspect in terms of a definition for antitrust purposes. Is a platform an OS? Or hardware? Or a store? Or an application? Or a search engine? Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook aren't really the same when it comes to "platforms" at all.
Look what Calif did on the anti-uber independent contractor law, the law may or may not had lots unintended consequences, such as a musician who plays at a bar at night for tip and booking fee, is not longer able to do this since they are not employee of the Bar and get benefits. You also have to consider the government may have want this since their tax benefit to the government not to allow contractors and have everyone be an employee.
You think you have problem now, wait to you see the solution the government comes up with. Remember our bright is minds do not go into public service or work for the government. yes they may consult with best minds on the subject, but do you think these people can really understand these topics and all the down stream effect of their laws.
58.78% doesn’t suggest a monopoly, but even if it did that’s not a relevant statistic for this issue.
Someone would have to show how Apple uses their US smartphone marketshare to drive out their competition to establish a case for monopoly. You may think 30% is greedy, or you may want 3rd party app stores to reduce app pricing because you think $1.99 is too expensive for an app (being too young to know how much software used to cost before Apple’s App Store...), but neither of those Apple policies are affecting competition for anyone involved.
At some point Apple will have to break down the costs and present a defense for why they charge a 30% fee. The judge in the epic Injunction yesterday asked the same question, so I imagine that the cost breakdown and rational for 30% will come out at that trial.
Why will Apple have to justify their fee? How is their fee harming competition? We may think it’s greedy but that doesn’t mean competition is suffering.
I’m not meaning to accuse you, but it’s amazing how quickly we forget that the App Store market did not exist before Apple. Apple created it as a business opportunity for themselves and other developers, and more developers than ever were given the opportunity to create and sell their products, and they’ve made a ton of money doing it. Asking for more is being even more greedy than Apple’s 30%.
Well if it is as I understand Apple representing it is about ensuring a positive customer experience, I ask if both app and non app store options might coexist, and the free market can decide?
Those wanting to play it safe and finding value in a 30% 'insurance' premium and convenience have the Apple option, and those who prefer direct sales and in fact not wanting to give more data points to Apple about their every online move also have that choice...
I for one with what I know would prefer non T2 storage, easily upgradable ram, and a right to repair, either OEM at a premium for quality assurance and speed, or DIY if I feel I have skills, time, inclination and in some cases faster than a repair shop queue...
Then you are free to buy something else, not dictate how Apple designs or produces their products.
Comments
Should we demand that Google farm out searches to other engines, because they have the largest market share of searches?
so can we sue the moron’s that set the laws and policies that allow this when my information and financials aren’t compromised through a security vulnerability opened by this?
Definition: A market structure characterized by a single seller, selling a unique product in the market. In a monopoly market, the seller faces no competition, as he is the sole seller of goods with no close substitute.
Therefore, Apple are not the sole seller of smart phones. They do face competition. There are plenty of close substitutes.
The Apple servers will not go away, it just means Apple will not be allowed to offer a competing software app for your phone, so mail is gone, maps is gone, safari id's gone and the list goes on.
When these idiots broke up banking and investing it made this so much complicated. I use to have my checking and saving and investments at same companies it was so easy and quick to move money between all the accounts, today it takes days if I do not want to pay wire fees or I have to use snail mail to send checks. How did that help only allowed the banks and investment companies to make more money.
You mean the way Walmart, Target, etc "completely control" who can be in their stores? Why is it OK for them, but not OK for Apple, Google, Steam, Epic, etc?
What percentage would everyone like Apple to charge? And at what point can Apple step in and say, "Hey, hold on a freakin' second! It's extremely expensive to run data centres, to employ people to review apps, to employ people to code the development tools those apps are written with, and to keep on top of security threats etc. to make the platform safe for our customers."? 5%? 2%?
Who are these people to KNOW exactly what it costs Apple to run the App Stores? They probably think the entire 30% is pure profit. It's not (and I can know that for sure, because those items I listed above aren't free).
Who else charges 30%? Practically everyone, so why is everyone grumbling at Apple?
Can I put a game on the Epic store? If so, what cut do they take, and does it only cover their costs?
Sometimes, people in government really get on my t*ts.
I certainly think many of these companies need some oversight, I just think this solution as it applies to Apple (and Amazon) is going to create more problems than it solves.
Personally, I think there should be more carefully considered guidelines for digital-only marketplaces. Also Amazon should be broken up. I don’t know why Congress insists on conflating these disparate issues. Just because they both “involve computers” (AKA “Tech”) doesn’t mean the issue or legislative solution is the same.
You think you have problem now, wait to you see the solution the government comes up with. Remember our bright is minds do not go into public service or work for the government. yes they may consult with best minds on the subject, but do you think these people can really understand these topics and all the down stream effect of their laws.
Then you are free to buy something else, not dictate how Apple designs or produces their products.