How would Tesla or Cessna like it if you found a way to hack their vehicle's operating systems to MODIFY their autopilot algorithms so that you didn't have to touch the steering wheel every 15 seconds to prove you were paying attention. I'll tell you, they wouldn't like it.
I suspect that would be illegal, regardless of Tesla’s license. You can’t have idiots endangering other road users like that.
I would HOPE it would be illegal, but it isn't. https://www.theverge.com/2015/11/4/9670744/tesla-self-driving-autonomous-cars-regulation-oversight - If Tesla isn't required to submit any code for approval, why should my personally modified Tesla code be required to be submitted? There is no approval process for any software developer for any autopilot on the road. So my question remains open, namely, "What's wrong with me saying that I want to install MY own autopilot software on MY car and NOBODY should be allowed to stop me from doing that!" (a little sarcasm in the tone of voice there.)
Well that certainly needs tightening up. You can’t just lump any piece of software in an aircraft, so cars should be the same.
Actually the reason Boeing's 737 MAX is grounded is because they made changes to their 737 flight control software, causing 346 fatalities, and did NOT submit those software changes to the FAA. So in reality you can patch software on airplanes' flight control systems without any approval. The groundings won't end any sooner than mid-October 2020. And no one in the US has any idea how software in self-driving cars should be regulated. Patches to Tesla autopilot are sent wirelessly to cars from time to time from Tesla's servers. What's in them? No one ever knows. Does Tesla even log anything? There's no requirement to log anything.
A good thing for who? The average citizen? Sure there’s no place like home, and everybody likes to say and feels they live in the best country in the world. But there are objective ways to rank this, and the USA significantly trails other developed countries, in every independent report of best places in the world to live. The USA never cracks even the too 10.
Because the success of one is not the success of everyone.....US capitalism, and ingenuity has no doubt achieved many great things, and brought great standards of living to many, but that latter measure is slipping further and further into inequality and has been going further and further downhill for some time.
Why? Pretty easy to trace it right back to the will to ensure free markets remain free. Unbridled capitalism seeks an end game of winner take all, into perpetuity, game over. This is what Apple has abs wants to keep, It has won so it doesn’t want to play anymore. Fans of Apple are cheering like lemmings as if this means they too have won.....
The greatest period of growth of household wealth and a fair and equal shot at the American dream happened in the decades after WW2. The parasitic Rockefeller conglomerate than controlled everything was broken up no anti trust laws were renewed and enforced with vigour. The decline of the American dream, and slowing economic growth directly parallels the decline in enforcement of anti trust principles , to ensure winners like Apple that have effectively stopped the competition are forced to allow true competition to continue....
Dpkroh, I wouldn't mind reading your posts but most of your posts are quoting your own words in the same block of text as the people you are quoting. I find that it hurts my brain to try to decipher who is saying what.
Hopefully Apple will be hit with severe sanctions for filing this frivolous action. This may even qualify for California's SLAPP law because it's such an egregious and obvious attempt to silence Epic (and ultimately the rest of us).
This isn't really about Epic.
This is about MY right to install any software of MY choice on MY iPhone.
NOT Apple's iPhone. MY iPhone. Apple sold it to me, it's not Apple's any more. And Apple is illegally denying me the right to run software of my choice on MY iPhone.
For the hundredth time, dude… You own your iPhone device, and you can jail brake it is much as you like. But Apple owns iOS and App Store running on it, and you can't expect them to assist you in bypassing them or their rules. If you want to use those two Apple-owned entities, of course you have to do it according to Apple's rules. Like all other services out there. So go ahead and jail brake your iPhone, like you always could. Where have you been the last few weeks? Everyone knows about this since long by now – even the haters. Or is your tape just stuck in a loop?
Is Apple required to let Epic back on the store even if Epic relents and wants to pay 30%?
The court may order it to, but as of now it has not so ordered Apple.
Apple has informed Epic that it will deny a reapplication (by Epic) for at least a year. So at this point, Epic doesn't have the option to just undo the hotfix and make Fortnite compliant.
Have you got a statement from Apple about the year-long ban? This is the se ind time I’ve heard this, and I still can’t find the original link for it.
What I think he means is the Apple Developer Program. Apple has rules for reapplying to that program if you've been kicked out from it — one year minimum in the quarantine. Apple also clearly emphasized that in the legal documents sent to court and Epic in this case. So the net effect is that Epic can't submit any new version of any of their software for publishing in the App Store for at least a year.
Imagine visa and MasterCard charging merchants 30% to use their system;)
Eaxctly what products do Visa and Mastercard sell through their cards? I must've missed their "card stores". But sure, let's imagine that. You're free to imagine anything. Let's imagine pigs flying. That would be so fun.
“wants to pay nothing”? I guess anything less than 30% is nothing for Apple
But whether a 30% or 26% or 32% fee is better is actually a toootally different discussion. It can probably only be found out if we know the consumer value and developer value of every single service the App Store and the Apple Developer Program gives. But we would also then need to know the costs of providing them, which would require Apple to open up their financial books. I seriously don't think neither of these things will happen.
However, I would actually advice Apple to consider publishing something about their costs for upholding this app publishing ecosystem. I know it sounds radical, but I think it could be a smooth move right now — not only for the Epic court case, but also to win back the public opinion and trust … especially from developers.
The App Store is NOT just another business, Even Walmart and Costco have far more competitors than does the App Store. The app store is the ONLY choice for people with iPhones. The only quasi alternative here would be an Android App Store. Are those very similar choices ? Practically every Apple lover here would argue “no, the Apple experience is far superior”. This is much different than being able to buy the very same identical TV at a large number of different retailers, as some have suggested.
.............
It is you that is missing the point. It's not the Apple App Store that is analogous to a Walmart or Costco, it's the iDevice that is analogous to a Walmart or Costco or any other retailer. And every retailer has a monopoly with their own customers, as they have full control as to what they sell in their own stores.
When you join Costco or shop at Walmart, that's like choosing to use an iDevice. You know ahead a time that you can only buy what Costco or Walmart has in their stores. Costco and Walmart has monopoly control on what is sold in their stores, to their own customers. If the Costco or Walmart customers don't like the selections of products available to them in the stores, they are free to choose another store to shop at, like Target or Best Buy or Sears. If iDevice users don't like the selection of apps available to them on iOS, they can choose to use an Android device or Windows device.
No one is forcing you to join Costco or shop at Walmart or use an iDevice. Saying that iDevice owners can only buy their apps from the Apple App Store is like saying Costco members shopping in a Costco can only buy what Costco has to offer in their stores. Costco members can choose to shop elsewhere and iDevice owners can choose to use an Android or Windows device.
What the customers can not do, is demand that they should be allowed to buy from other retailers, from inside the store. Costco member shopping in a Costco store can not demand that Best Buy be allowed to sell their electronic from inside a Costco store. Or that Walmart must allow venders of products that they don't carry, to set up a shop inside a Walmart. Don't expect Walmart to sell xxx rated videos or allow venders to sell it from inside their store, even if they are protected by the 1st and some of Walmart customers demand it. Or that Apple must provide iDevice users another app store for iDeice customers to shop from or to provide developers with another way of selling their software, other than through the Apple App Store. It's iDevice, not the Apple App store, that is analogous to the Costco Store or Walmart Store.
Apple do not have to allow another app store in their iDevices. Just like Costco do not have to allow Best Buy to sell electronics inside their stores. Or a Lenscrafter to complete with Costco own eyeglasses optician store, inside a Costco store. Costco has a monopoly with Costco shoppers as Apple has with iDevice users. Costco members can shop elsewhere if the Costco store do not sell what they want and iDevice users can switch to Android if they can't find the app they need in the Apple App Store. It doesn't matter that iDevice users can only shop for apps in the Apple App Store. Just like it do wasn't matter the Costco members shopping in a Costco store can only buy products that Costco makes available to them in their own stores. What matters is that no one is forcing the iDevice users to use an iDevice. They can choose to use an Android device, if that better suits their needs. Just as a Costco shopper can choose to shop at a Best Buy.
A choice need not be convenient or cost efficient. There just has to be a choice and there are many that have no problems with that choice. If the nearest Best Buy is 50 miles and a bridge toll away from a Costco, so be it. It's still a choice that Costco members have and other shoppers are happy with that choice. If switching to Android means buying a new mobile device and signing up for a new data plan, so be it. Over 80% of people on a mobile platform makes that choice. It's a choice that iDevices users can easily make, if they are not happy with what apps are available to them through the Apple App Store. Nothing is stopping a Costco shopper from shopping at both Costco and Best Buy and nothing is stopping an iDevice owner from also owning an Android device.
iDevice owners can alway jailbreak their iDevice, to get apps not available to them in the Apple App Store. The choice comes at a cost to security on their iDevice, but it's a choice none the less. An iDevice owner can always sign up for a $99 a year developer license and side load apps into their iDevice using their developer license. But unless they can develop their own apps, they must depend on others to develop the apps for iOS (or tvOS) they need and making them available. And the iDevice retains all the feature of the iDevice. And if an iDevice owner really wants to get cheap, they can sign up for a free 7 days developer license to side load apps into their iDevice that way (I think the limit is still 3 devices per free license.). But every 7 days, they need to sign up for another 7 day free developer license and reload all their apps that was loaded using their free developer license. So as an iDevice owner, there are others ways to get apps into your iDevice, other than by way of the Apple App Store.. They may not be elegant or cost efficient, but choices none the less.
Imagine visa and MasterCard charging merchants 30% to use their system;)
I can't imagine that at all. But I can imagine people like you, that don't have a clue as to what's going on here, can imagine just that.
MasterCard and Visa can not charge 30% for what's being charged because they have nothing to do with the customer buying the items being charged. They can not take any credit for the customer buying stuff from the store. The store customers can very well pay with cash, debit, check, a store CC, Discover Card, American Express, travelers checks, or a store lay-a-way plan, etc..
But the 30% that Apple, MS, Sony and Nintendo charges is a commission for helping the developer locate people that buys the software the developer is selling. MasterCard and Visa do not help the store locate customers to buy stuff from the store. They make it convenient for the customers to buy the stuff but the customers aren't shopping there just because they have a MasterCard or Visa CC in their wallet.
The customers that buy games from developers belongs to Apple, Google, MS, Sony and Nintendo. They are there because of the platforms that Apple, Google, MS, Sony and Nintendo built. Developers can not sell their software to iDevice users, Android device users, X-Box users, PlayStation users and Switch users, without the help of Apple, Google, MS, Sony and Nintendo, allowing them access to the users of the platforms that they built. A store do not need the help of MasterCard or Visa, to sell the stuff in their stores, to the customers that walks into the store to shop. But a game developers sure as Hell needs the help of MS, to develop and sell games to people playing games on the X-Box. And 30% commission, is the going rate for such help. Developers can always choose not the pay the 30% commission and for go the 70% they would make, from selling their games to X-Box users. No one is forcing them to develop games for the X-Box (and any other platform for that matter).
If Epic wins, it will turn Apple's App Store into the wild-west, malware-ridden infestation that is Android. I can't believe that anyone, including the government can force any company to open their all-in-one product to allow other companies free reign.
This is not anything remotely similar to what Microsoft did with Windows. Microsoft owned the software, but not the hardware that vendors were loading the OS onto. Microsoft was forcing PC makers to submit to its will. The iPhone is owned and made by Apple, for Apple. It's a toaster. Critics can say whatever they will to suit their narrative, but when it comes down to it, this is Apple's exclusive product and it can do whatever it wants with it.
I'm embarrassed to be a developer, with these crybabies feeling entitled to barge into someone else's house and give orders.
The iPhone is owned by the person who buys it.
Yes. You can do what ever you want with your phone.
And you can through it out (better Mail it to my address).
But Apple owns iOS on your iPhone. And Apple Store is part of the iOS.
Hopefully Apple will be hit with severe sanctions for filing this frivolous action. This may even qualify for California's SLAPP law because it's such an egregious and obvious attempt to silence Epic (and ultimately the rest of us).
This isn't really about Epic.
This is about MY right to install any software of MY choice on MY iPhone.
NOT Apple's iPhone. MY iPhone. Apple sold it to me, it's not Apple's any more. And Apple is illegally denying me the right to run software of my choice on MY iPhone.
You do own the hardware, but not the OS. You are granted a "right to use the operating system. If you don't agree to the Terms and Conditions of using iOS, the your hardware will not work. Read you iOS agreement the next time you do an upgrade.
Hopefully Apple will be hit with severe sanctions for filing this frivolous action. This may even qualify for California's SLAPP law because it's such an egregious and obvious attempt to silence Epic (and ultimately the rest of us).
This isn't really about Epic.
This is about MY right to install any software of MY choice on MY iPhone.
NOT Apple's iPhone. MY iPhone. Apple sold it to me, it's not Apple's any more. And Apple is illegally denying me the right to run software of my choice on MY iPhone.
Actually, Apple has proven that Epic has not acted in “good faith”. Especially since all of Epic’s actions were premeditated and not reactionary. This proves motive of ill intent to try to void a contract illegally.
This is why the judge would not compel Apple to restore Epic’s program to the App Store. She noted that Epic harmed themselves by maliciously acting to cut Apple out of their agreed 30%. its going to be very hard for Epic to prove that Apple has a monopoly or an unfair advantage because Apple does not compete with Epic, but is a distributor of software for a device they make. Epic has had about a decade to bring up issues of lost revenue, or claims that Apple’s 30% has harmed them, but didn’t because Apple hasn’t.
You should read the EULA before setting up your iPhone, because you agreed to the terms and conditions that Apple set forth when you powered it on and accepted them. So next time, don’t buy an iPhone or read the EULA.
If you buy a new iPhone and don’t agree to the terms and conditions, the seller is required to give you a refund.
Imagine visa and MasterCard charging merchants 30% to use their system;)
Eaxctly what products do Visa and Mastercard sell through their cards? I must've missed their "card stores". But sure, let's imagine that. You're free to imagine anything. Let's imagine pigs flying. That would be so fun.
I guess johnbear doesn't understand how a merchant account works. There is a monthly fee whether you process a CC transaction or not. When you process a transaction, a percentage of that charge goes to Visa & MC via the clearinghouse. AMEX charges a higher fee, which is why some merchants don't accept AMEX, or if they do, will charge the buyer a surcharge.
Apple could, on its own, (or under pressure from any government) completely revoke the 30% flat fee and charge both the buyer and the seller for the services they provide. For starters, that would be the end of any free apps, including Fortnite. And all these "service charges" would have a 30% profit margin attached to them. Probably even more that 30%, because Apple's accounting costs would go way up. Each free app would probably cost $1 now, and all of that dollar would go to Apple. Not a dime would go to the software developer. Is that what App-Store-Opponents (ASOs) here want to see? The annual developer fee would rise from $99 to $10,000 and there would be lots of new fees for products and services that Apple currently provides for free, like Xcode, data hosting, app review charges, promotion costs, and so on. Is that really what the ASOs here want? Is this good for the consumer? Will this inspire software developers? Would this even benefit Epic if Epic's free apps now cost $1 and every penny of that goes to Apple?!?
On the other hand, I do admit that the 30% model does take some money from the rich developers (eg, Epic) and transfer it to the poor (small software developers) because some of the small software developers are honing their skills while not being charged any fees at all for their free apps. Is this the imbalance that the ASOs are objecting too? I confess, it's a tax on the rich which goes to the poor. As a capitalist, I prefer everyone should pay their own way. But I also am a free-marketalist and if Apple wants to try this imbalanced system out, I'm okay with that.
If the governments of the world feel that micromanaging online retailers' profit margins is okay, who's next? Amazon? Sellers on eBay with their vastly overpriced shipping charges? Mom and Pop?
Hopefully Apple will be hit with severe sanctions for filing this frivolous action. This may even qualify for California's SLAPP law because it's such an egregious and obvious attempt to silence Epic (and ultimately the rest of us).
This isn't really about Epic.
This is about MY right to install any software of MY choice on MY iPhone.
NOT Apple's iPhone. MY iPhone. Apple sold it to me, it's not Apple's any more. And Apple is illegally denying me the right to run software of my choice on MY iPhone.
Actually, I don't believe you want ANY of your software on your phone. What you actually want is to MODIFY Apple's OS so that you can have a modified version of macOS. Your goal isn't to jailbreak and replace all of iOS, but to modify iOS to make it do what you want. I don't think Apple would care if you totally replaced iOS with Linux (this is a very important point.) They wouldn't sue you even if you admitted to doing it. What they care about, the only thing they care about, is the modification of THEIR operating system to do unsafe things.
How would Tesla or Cessna like it if you found a way to hack their vehicle's operating systems to MODIFY their autopilot algorithms so that you didn't have to touch the steering wheel every 15 seconds to prove you were paying attention. I'll tell you, they wouldn't like it. So why aren't you angry with THEM? If you show equal anger against Tesla, maybe I'll consider you more seriously.
For the record I put Linux on my iPod many many years ago. There were whole sites that talked about using the iPod hardware to do other things. Not a word from Apple because step one was to nuke the device and replace the OS.
I didn’t know Cessna has added the need to touch the steering wheel periodically to their autopilot systems. That’s good.
If you created a store that was subjectively nicer than most other stores, and it was reasonably popular, would you be legally bound to sell any third-party product and agree to whatever terms the manufacturer decided upon? No. That’s what Apple has done here. There are other cellphones, and other app marketplaces with significant market share. The assumption here is that iPhones (including the OS and other platform support) are just so far superior to anything offered by other manufacturers that Apple essentially has a “monopoly” on quality. It’s ridiculous. Subjectively, I’m inclined to agree in a way, but I know more than a few people who prefer Android, God help them.
The App Store is NOT just another business, Even Walmart and Costco have far more competitors than does the App Store. The app store is the ONLY choice for people with iPhones. The only quasi alternative here would be an Android App Store. Are those very similar choices ? Practically every Apple lover here would argue “no, the Apple experience is far superior”. This is much different than being able to buy the very same identical TV at a large number of different retailers, as some have suggested.
The ultimate goal of capitalism is to become so successful, as to destroy the free market by eliminating and preventing all competition. Let that sink in because most people can’t grasp that at first, Once again, the end goal of capitalism is to destroy free markets, and create an all powerful, monopoly or all powerful, duopoly. That destroys consumer choice, which is the very goal of a free market, People often assume capitalism and free markets go hand in hand, and generally they do.... until a business grows so big that it is no longer subject to competition because it can or has effectively destroyed it,
That’s the very point of anti-trust law. To prevent the destruction of free markets,
There is a price to be paid for total success and rightly so. Once a company becomes so successful that it has essentially destroyed competition, the checks and balances of a free market are destroyed. Either the company is forcibly broken up in a way that restores a level of free market control or it becomes subject to regulations as a substitute for the loss of free market checks and balances.
is the App Store a monopoly or even just a duopoly? The argument for the latter is strong, and for the latter is almost certain,
The real question here is do you support free markets, defined as markets that encourage healthy competition for the benefit of consumers ? If so, you can’t argue that Apple should be allowed to do whatever it wants, because Apple created the App Store. As you cheer on Apple becoming a 2 trillion dollar company, remember that you are also cheering the end of a truly functional free market for mobile apps.
The United States has become a poster child for massive inequality in developed countries and is getting worse. That “American Dream” that is all but gone, was strong after world war 2. The reason the American dream was reborn was the Sherman Act.... powerful anti trust law that broke up large corporate Robber Barons, like Rockefeller. Forcing the breakup of too large and powerful corporations after world war 2 is what brought back the American dream and decades of shared prosperity.
So the larger question here is do you want to worship the control of monopolistic corporations that have grown to destroy free markets, or do you want to see the American dream restored, where the free market ensures maximum productivity and a fair chance for everyone to share in that prosperity ?
The Apple App Store was established in 2008 and it has ALWAYS been the only way to load an app into an iPhone (and now any iDevice with iOS or tvOS). It was a monopoly from day one. So why is it only now that anti-trust and monopoly, are a concern? Why didn't anti-trust law apply when there was only 10M iPhones out there and the Apple App Store was a monopoly? Or when there was only a 100M iPhones out there? Even now with over 1B iDevices that must use the Apple App Store to load apps, iOS iDevices only make up about 20% of the market of people using a mobile platform.
Just exactly what competition did the Apple App Store destroyed, when there has been no competition from day one of its existence? Name just one competitor to the Apple App Store that Apple destroyed. Just one. Why haven't anti-trust laws done anything about that, since Apple first opened the Apple App Store in 2008?
Having only about 20% of the mobile platform users only being able to load apps into their devices by way of the Apple App Store, does not make the Apple App Store a monopoly. It doesn't matter that 100% of iOS iDevices users must get their apps from the Apple App Store. Those 100% of IOS iDevice users only represent about 20% of the market for mobile apps. It doesn't matter that iOS users might be over 50% of mobile users in a few countries. The Apple App Store is available in all countries where iDevices can be use. And Android devices are available in every country where iDevices are available.
Just like 100% of the people walking into a KFC must order a Pepsi, if they want a cola with their meal. It doesn't matter that some might think Coke is superior and Pepsi is a quasi alternative. It doesn't matter that the reason why KFC serves only Pepsi brand drinks is because PepsiCo once own KFC, before they spun off their fast food division to YUM. KFC customers can not cry monopoly and want anti-trust laws to apply because they can't order a Coke with their KFC meal. If they wanted a Coke, they can to go to a McDonalds and order one with their Chicken McNuggets. It doesn't matter one bit in anti-trust law, that McNuggets is an inferior alternative to any meal KFC has to offer. It's still a choice, if one must have a Coke with their meal.
I didn’t know Cessna has added the need to touch the steering wheel periodically to their autopilot systems. That’s good.
I mis-worded that sentence. I thought it was obvious Cessna could not enforce touch-the-wheel technology because in a car the autopilot can slow down and stop the car, but in an airplane there is no equivalent option. Autopilot can't land a plane.
For those who want to argue that autopilot can land a plane, bear in mind that they only reason that some planes can land on autopilot is that the pilot manually enters the landing data into the autopilot system. Without that pilot's manual data entry, planes cannot land on autopilot. Ground traffic control cannot send data up to a plane to make it land on autopilot, although they are thinking about adding that feature in the future.
Comments
Eaxctly what products do Visa and Mastercard sell through their cards? I must've missed their "card stores".
But sure, let's imagine that. You're free to imagine anything. Let's imagine pigs flying. That would be so fun.
However, I would actually advice Apple to consider publishing something about their costs for upholding this app publishing ecosystem. I know it sounds radical, but I think it could be a smooth move right now — not only for the Epic court case, but also to win back the public opinion and trust … especially from developers.
When you join Costco or shop at Walmart, that's like choosing to use an iDevice. You know ahead a time that you can only buy what Costco or Walmart has in their stores. Costco and Walmart has monopoly control on what is sold in their stores, to their own customers. If the Costco or Walmart customers don't like the selections of products available to them in the stores, they are free to choose another store to shop at, like Target or Best Buy or Sears. If iDevice users don't like the selection of apps available to them on iOS, they can choose to use an Android device or Windows device.
No one is forcing you to join Costco or shop at Walmart or use an iDevice. Saying that iDevice owners can only buy their apps from the Apple App Store is like saying Costco members shopping in a Costco can only buy what Costco has to offer in their stores. Costco members can choose to shop elsewhere and iDevice owners can choose to use an Android or Windows device.
What the customers can not do, is demand that they should be allowed to buy from other retailers, from inside the store. Costco member shopping in a Costco store can not demand that Best Buy be allowed to sell their electronic from inside a Costco store. Or that Walmart must allow venders of products that they don't carry, to set up a shop inside a Walmart. Don't expect Walmart to sell xxx rated videos or allow venders to sell it from inside their store, even if they are protected by the 1st and some of Walmart customers demand it. Or that Apple must provide iDevice users another app store for iDeice customers to shop from or to provide developers with another way of selling their software, other than through the Apple App Store. It's iDevice, not the Apple App store, that is analogous to the Costco Store or Walmart Store.
Apple do not have to allow another app store in their iDevices. Just like Costco do not have to allow Best Buy to sell electronics inside their stores. Or a Lenscrafter to complete with Costco own eyeglasses optician store, inside a Costco store. Costco has a monopoly with Costco shoppers as Apple has with iDevice users. Costco members can shop elsewhere if the Costco store do not sell what they want and iDevice users can switch to Android if they can't find the app they need in the Apple App Store. It doesn't matter that iDevice users can only shop for apps in the Apple App Store. Just like it do wasn't matter the Costco members shopping in a Costco store can only buy products that Costco makes available to them in their own stores. What matters is that no one is forcing the iDevice users to use an iDevice. They can choose to use an Android device, if that better suits their needs. Just as a Costco shopper can choose to shop at a Best Buy.
A choice need not be convenient or cost efficient. There just has to be a choice and there are many that have no problems with that choice. If the nearest Best Buy is 50 miles and a bridge toll away from a Costco, so be it. It's still a choice that Costco members have and other shoppers are happy with that choice. If switching to Android means buying a new mobile device and signing up for a new data plan, so be it. Over 80% of people on a mobile platform makes that choice. It's a choice that iDevices users can easily make, if they are not happy with what apps are available to them through the Apple App Store. Nothing is stopping a Costco shopper from shopping at both Costco and Best Buy and nothing is stopping an iDevice owner from also owning an Android device.
iDevice owners can alway jailbreak their iDevice, to get apps not available to them in the Apple App Store. The choice comes at a cost to security on their iDevice, but it's a choice none the less. An iDevice owner can always sign up for a $99 a year developer license and side load apps into their iDevice using their developer license. But unless they can develop their own apps, they must depend on others to develop the apps for iOS (or tvOS) they need and making them available. And the iDevice retains all the feature of the iDevice. And if an iDevice owner really wants to get cheap, they can sign up for a free 7 days developer license to side load apps into their iDevice that way (I think the limit is still 3 devices per free license.). But every 7 days, they need to sign up for another 7 day free developer license and reload all their apps that was loaded using their free developer license. So as an iDevice owner, there are others ways to get apps into your iDevice, other than by way of the Apple App Store.. They may not be elegant or cost efficient, but choices none the less.
MasterCard and Visa can not charge 30% for what's being charged because they have nothing to do with the customer buying the items being charged. They can not take any credit for the customer buying stuff from the store. The store customers can very well pay with cash, debit, check, a store CC, Discover Card, American Express, travelers checks, or a store lay-a-way plan, etc..
But the 30% that Apple, MS, Sony and Nintendo charges is a commission for helping the developer locate people that buys the software the developer is selling. MasterCard and Visa do not help the store locate customers to buy stuff from the store. They make it convenient for the customers to buy the stuff but the customers aren't shopping there just because they have a MasterCard or Visa CC in their wallet.
The customers that buy games from developers belongs to Apple, Google, MS, Sony and Nintendo. They are there because of the platforms that Apple, Google, MS, Sony and Nintendo built. Developers can not sell their software to iDevice users, Android device users, X-Box users, PlayStation users and Switch users, without the help of Apple, Google, MS, Sony and Nintendo, allowing them access to the users of the platforms that they built. A store do not need the help of MasterCard or Visa, to sell the stuff in their stores, to the customers that walks into the store to shop. But a game developers sure as Hell needs the help of MS, to develop and sell games to people playing games on the X-Box. And 30% commission, is the going rate for such help. Developers can always choose not the pay the 30% commission and for go the 70% they would make, from selling their games to X-Box users. No one is forcing them to develop games for the X-Box (and any other platform for that matter).
in order to bay something with YOUR own money.
On the other hand, I do admit that the 30% model does take some money from the rich developers (eg, Epic) and transfer it to the poor (small software developers) because some of the small software developers are honing their skills while not being charged any fees at all for their free apps. Is this the imbalance that the ASOs are objecting too? I confess, it's a tax on the rich which goes to the poor. As a capitalist, I prefer everyone should pay their own way. But I also am a free-marketalist and if Apple wants to try this imbalanced system out, I'm okay with that.
If the governments of the world feel that micromanaging online retailers' profit margins is okay, who's next? Amazon? Sellers on eBay with their vastly overpriced shipping charges? Mom and Pop?
I didn’t know Cessna has added the need to touch the steering wheel periodically to their autopilot systems. That’s good.
Just exactly what competition did the Apple App Store destroyed, when there has been no competition from day one of its existence? Name just one competitor to the Apple App Store that Apple destroyed. Just one. Why haven't anti-trust laws done anything about that, since Apple first opened the Apple App Store in 2008?
Having only about 20% of the mobile platform users only being able to load apps into their devices by way of the Apple App Store, does not make the Apple App Store a monopoly. It doesn't matter that 100% of iOS iDevices users must get their apps from the Apple App Store. Those 100% of IOS iDevice users only represent about 20% of the market for mobile apps. It doesn't matter that iOS users might be over 50% of mobile users in a few countries. The Apple App Store is available in all countries where iDevices can be use. And Android devices are available in every country where iDevices are available.
Just like 100% of the people walking into a KFC must order a Pepsi, if they want a cola with their meal. It doesn't matter that some might think Coke is superior and Pepsi is a quasi alternative. It doesn't matter that the reason why KFC serves only Pepsi brand drinks is because PepsiCo once own KFC, before they spun off their fast food division to YUM. KFC customers can not cry monopoly and want anti-trust laws to apply because they can't order a Coke with their KFC meal. If they wanted a Coke, they can to go to a McDonalds and order one with their Chicken McNuggets. It doesn't matter one bit in anti-trust law, that McNuggets is an inferior alternative to any meal KFC has to offer. It's still a choice, if one must have a Coke with their meal.
For those who want to argue that autopilot can land a plane, bear in mind that they only reason that some planes can land on autopilot is that the pilot manually enters the landing data into the autopilot system. Without that pilot's manual data entry, planes cannot land on autopilot. Ground traffic control cannot send data up to a plane to make it land on autopilot, although they are thinking about adding that feature in the future.