Counter example: The Oculus Quest. It has a company app store that is carefully regulated by FaceBook. It also has a way to side load apps so there is a competing app store that allows apps that FaceBook would not. There is an app could Virtual Desktop that on the FaceBook app store simply allows you to view your Windows desktop in VR. On the third party app store, it lets you download a version that can view any Windows VR game on the Quest in VR. It essentially turns the Quest into a wireless Windows VR headset. Try going around the Apple app store like that an iPhone.
So? Try loading porn from YouTube or try buying recycled space shuttle parts at Wal Mart.
Excellent news! Any other industry and the execs would have already been in jail. Imagine a car company telling you that you have to buy all accessories from their store, and ones bought from anywhere else will just not work. And the makers have to get their products approved before they can be sold, by a somewhat arbitrary set of rules, and they have to pay 30% to the car manufacturer commission.
If those third party manufacturers sold their products to a car manufacturer's retail store or dealership, the third party manufacturers would get a lot less than 70%.
In the days of physical software, software publishers had to give distributors such as Ingram Micro-D around a 52% discount (and sometimes up to 60%). And let's not forget that Apple's store covers the Credit/Debit card service charges, which for a small to medium sized developer could be 6% all by itself. Apple's 30% take is a bargain by any standard. Software publishers should be careful what they wish for. The idiots in Congress apparently have no idea what wholesale discounts are today.
The fact is that as cars become more computerized and technically complex, you will have to buy replacement parts primarily from the car company, outside of battery, tires and windshield wiper blades.
Excellent news! Any other industry and the execs would have already been in jail. Imagine a car company telling you that you have to buy all accessories from their store, and ones bought from anywhere else will just not work. And the makers have to get their products approved before they can be sold, by a somewhat arbitrary set of rules, and they have to pay 30% to the car manufacturer commission.
Yet...., every accessory you buy for your car no matter where you buy, you pay more than 60% margin of sales (not costs). Brakes for your car? 200 %. Oil filter 50-100 %, trunk cover 200%. Yes, I was an importer and wholesaler. No business work with less than 100%. Then, deduct costs, depreciation, obsolete inventory, equipment, machinery, insurance, hydro, maintenance, payroll, and taxes. Thanks for reading
What kind of moron believes a company's control OVER ITS OWN PRODUCTS/PLATFORM constitutes a monopoly???
A federal one. One who’s never spent more than a moment of their lives working in the private sector, producing a good or service others would willing pay for.
Excellent news! Any other industry and the execs would have already been in jail. Imagine a car company telling you that you have to buy all accessories from their store, and ones bought from anywhere else will just not work. And the makers have to get their products approved before they can be sold, by a somewhat arbitrary set of rules, and they have to pay 30% to the car manufacturer commission.
Yet...., every accessory you buy for your car no matter where you buy, you pay more than 60% margin of sales (not costs). Brakes for your car? 200 %. Oil filter 50-100 %, trunk cover 200%. Yes, I was an importer and wholesaler. No business work with less than 100%. Then, deduct costs, depreciation, obsolete inventory, equipment, machinery, insurance, hydro, maintenance, payroll, and taxes. Thanks for reading
Three quotes without comment:
1) “There are very few companies out there that have a 30 percent profit margin,” said Andy Yen, the chief executive of ProtonMail, an email service. “The only way we can support this fee is by passing that cost on to customers.” ProtonMail charges 30 percent less for subscriptions purchased on its website, but when the company advertised that to its iPhone users, Apple restricted its app.
2) Spotify increased its monthly subscription to $13 from $10 in 2014 to account for Apple’s fee. A year later, Apple introduced a competing music service — priced at $10. In order to remain price competitive Spotify needed to opt out of Apple’s payment system to avoid the 30% premium. “Either we lose because we have to pay them a 30 percent tax just to operate and raise our prices for consumers as a result, or we lose because it becomes much more expensive to convert users from free to premium”.
3) “I think we’re realizing that 30 percent is way too much,” said Phillip Shoemaker, a former senior App Store executive, who left Apple in 2016. Credit card companies charge roughly 3 percent to process payments. “It should be closer to that,” he said. He also stated the company implements “arbitrary” and “arguable” App Store approval guidelines, and uses its control of the App Store “as a weapon against competitors.”
The house judiciary committee should learn about the legislative processing and how to write laws which accomplish their purpose and persuade fellow legislators to pass those laws instead of attempting to warp and reshape and reinterpret current law.
Lord knows what Senator John Sherman would've thought of the app store - though I suspect that he would've pooh-poohed the concerns of the House Judiciary committee over Apple exercising control over what software it sells to its own customers and what it takes for its cut.
After all, there are other smartphone makers and markets out there, and Apple doesn't even sell a majority of those devices, and Apple's terms are no more onerous than any other electronic market's terms.
Apple's not doing what say Microsoft did in the 90s trying to cut the throats of browser competitors - and even Microsoft wasn't really broken up over that.
Forcing Apple to allow competing stores on iOS is not as terrible as many are making it out to be.
I prefer the peace of mind I get from downloading apps from the App Store. If other stores are made available I will simply not download apps from them. If a developer wants to reach me as a user they will need to submit their app to the App Store.
Exactly, and if other stores existed then other people would have the choice to download from those stores, and you can choose to download from the Apple App Store.
What a stupid idea.
You think freedom of choice is stupid? No wonder you're a cheerleader for a monopoly.
You guys claim to be the "freedom of choice" side but you are imposing your own rules on both consumers and on Apple so that neither Apple nor consumers of Apple products get their "freedom of choice" to choose Apple's way of doing business.
It's like Kim Jong Un calling his country "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" when it's neither Democratic nor a Republic.
Comments
In the days of physical software, software publishers had to give distributors such as Ingram Micro-D around a 52% discount (and sometimes up to 60%). And let's not forget that Apple's store covers the Credit/Debit card service charges, which for a small to medium sized developer could be 6% all by itself. Apple's 30% take is a bargain by any standard. Software publishers should be careful what they wish for. The idiots in Congress apparently have no idea what wholesale discounts are today.
The fact is that as cars become more computerized and technically complex, you will have to buy replacement parts primarily from the car company, outside of battery, tires and windshield wiper blades.
Three quotes without comment:
1) “There are very few companies out there that have a 30 percent profit margin,” said Andy Yen, the chief executive of ProtonMail, an email service. “The only way we can support this fee is by passing that cost on to customers.” ProtonMail charges 30 percent less for subscriptions purchased on its website, but when the company advertised that to its iPhone users, Apple restricted its app.
2) Spotify increased its monthly subscription to $13 from $10 in 2014 to account for Apple’s fee. A year later, Apple introduced a competing music service — priced at $10. In order to remain price competitive Spotify needed to opt out of Apple’s payment system to avoid the 30% premium. “Either we lose because we have to pay them a 30 percent tax just to operate and raise our prices for consumers as a result, or we lose because it becomes much more expensive to convert users from free to premium”.
3) “I think we’re realizing that 30 percent is way too much,” said Phillip Shoemaker, a former senior App Store executive, who left Apple in 2016. Credit card companies charge roughly 3 percent to process payments. “It should be closer to that,” he said. He also stated the company implements “arbitrary” and “arguable” App Store approval guidelines, and uses its control of the App Store “as a weapon against competitors.”
Lord knows what Senator John Sherman would've thought of the app store - though I suspect that he would've pooh-poohed the concerns of the House Judiciary committee over Apple exercising control over what software it sells to its own customers and what it takes for its cut.
After all, there are other smartphone makers and markets out there, and Apple doesn't even sell a majority of those devices, and Apple's terms are no more onerous than any other electronic market's terms.
Apple's not doing what say Microsoft did in the 90s trying to cut the throats of browser competitors - and even Microsoft wasn't really broken up over that.
It's like Kim Jong Un calling his country "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" when it's neither Democratic nor a Republic.