The irony is Epic has its own store and dev platform, and certainly wouldn't allow devs to introduce their own unapproved mini-store inside their games to circumvent Epic. They want control over their platform, but don't want Apple to have control over its platform.
I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.
It would also break Apple's reputation for rock solid stability, privacy and security. No Thank You! It's one of the reasons I buy Apple products.
it wouldn't...as long as you do not install Apps from 3rd party app stores. And a very small percentage (<0.1%) of people would dare install Apps from 3rd party app stores, so it wouldn't make a difference to the Apple's ecosystem in reality. Not sure why you think it would break Apple's reputation.
Your thinking is so wrong. So long as there is a legitimate way of downloading apps from third party sources or unsecured sites on the internet, hackers will find a way to get users to download apps into their devices, without their knowledge. It doesn't matter if the users never intend to ever download apps from the internet or other third party sources, their device is less secure than if there were no possible way to download apps from a third party source or the internet.
Do you actually think that all the malware problems with Android are caused by users purposely and knowingly downloading from third party sources or the internet? There's a reason why hackers and phishers target Android devices and it's not the because of the users.
Let me ask you this. If the government forced Apple to provide them with a backdoor key to iOS encryption and the government promise to keep the key secure, do you honestly think that iOS devices are just as secure as if there wasn't a backdoor key available? Hackers will be trying to find a way to enter that backdoor, without the key. And will eventually succeed. No matter if the government kept the key secured.
I have been deposed and have endured a 10 hour deposition. It’s a nightmare for even the best prepared. You are questioned relentlessly by the opposing counsel. I can understand how people crack under the pressure of interrogation.
I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.
There is no monopoly.
Would you stop stating as fact, something you don't understand?
I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.
There is no monopoly.
Would you stop stating as fact, something you don't understand?
From his history here I don't think he understands app development let alone monopolies, despite the username.
I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.
And you’ll be the first one in here trashing Apple when a misbehaving/malware app obtained from god-knows-where hoses you.
I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.
It would also break Apple's reputation for rock solid stability, privacy and security. No Thank You! It's one of the reasons I buy Apple products.
it wouldn't...as long as you do not install Apps from 3rd party app stores. And a very small percentage (<0.1%) of people would dare install Apps from 3rd party app stores, so it wouldn't make a difference to the Apple's ecosystem in reality. Not sure why you think it would break Apple's reputation.
No, sorry -- but as soon as stories about iPhones being breached came out, Apple's reputation would sink. It wouldn't matter if the breach came from an app from a third party store.
Apple acts as a Monopoly when it demands that all payments be made through the App Store so that Apple can take its cut of 20 % or 35 %. As Apple also restricts to the App Store the possibility to download applications from independant third party application developpers, Apple has become a Monopoly on the distribution of iOS and iPad OS applications.
Apple was always too greedy for its own good. And Tim Cook knows exactly what Apple should do to end the Monopoly of Apple on iPhone and iPad application distribution. Will Tim Cook acknowledge the Monopoly behavior of Apple or will he force the Court to quash the Monopoly of Apple ?
So, if Samsung distributes it and Samsung sell more phones than Apple, how can Apple have a monopoly? Having the more profitable products does not equal a monopoly. The question then are we redefining what a monopoly is because one company goes against the grain in almost everything they do and makes more money because of it.
It's not a monopoly in that there is only one source for the product. Read the case. It's about the fact that Apple only allows one method of payment for in-app purchases, and that is through Apple's own systems and at Apple's own rate (30%). CC transactions typically cost businesses 2-3%.
That is wrong. It cost businesses much more than the 2-3 % of the CC transaction. 2-3% is just what the CC and issuing bank charges the business. There are many players involve and they all charge a fee and more often than not, a set fee per transaction. Businesses that does a lot of CC must also pay to have that transaction insured. Otherwise, they are the ones on the hook for fraud CC purchases. They must also pay a monthly or annual fee to set up an account with each of the credit cards that they will honor. The more CC transactions in a year, the less the monthly or annual fee.There's also the cost of maintaining or renting the equipment to process CC payments.
Plus there's a set transaction fee of usually $.05 or $.10 PER transaction and can be as high as $.20, depending on the type of account they have set up. Use your what math skills you have and calculate what the CC transaction percentage cost would be for a $.99 transaction, if it cost the business $.10 plus the 3%. It would only cost businesses close to 2-3% per transaction, if the transaction was over $15.
Here's a run down of what it cost a business to accept CC. For sure Apple will be on the low end in term of overall cost but will be on the high end for the App Store as most of the transaction there are probably less than $5 with $.99 being most of that. The set fee PER transaction they have to pay, along with the percentage of the transaction will put their cost way above the 2-3%.
It a long read but maybe you'll stop passing on the lie that it only cost a business 2-3% of the CC transaction, to accept CC payments.
The set fee per transaction was the reason why Steve Jobs stated that Apple about breaks even or takes a slight loss per $.99 iTunes purchase, even though Apple gets 30% of the $.99 transaction. But when one buys more than 1 song or a $9.99 album, per transaction, Apple begins to make money. The set transaction fee is the same whether it's a $.99 purchase or a $9.99 purchase or a $99.99 purchase. But a $.10 set transaction fee is 10% of a $.99 transaction, 1% of a $9.99 one and .1% of a $99.99 one. But Apple did not penalize the buyers that only purchase one song at a time.
One of the cheapest way for a business to accept CC is to use Square. They can charge as low as 2.6% of the transaction plus a $.10 per transaction fee or as high as 2.9% plus a $.30 per transaction fee. Either way, it's not going to cost a business just 2-3% of the CC transaction, if most of the transactions are below $5.
Apple was always too greedy for its own good. And Tim Cook knows exactly what Apple should do to end the Monopoly of Apple on iPhone and iPad application distribution. Will Tim Cook acknowledge the Monopoly behavior of Apple or will he force the Court to quash the Monopoly of Apple ?
You oppose Apple's "monopoly" of distribution over apps in the Apple App Store. Are you equally opposed to Epic's "monopoly" of distribution over apps in the Epic Game Store?
That's just a simple question. You should be able to answer a simple question. Are you able to answer a simple question?
And should Epic be forced to allow Apple Pay or PayPal for purchase of products on the Epic Game Store?
My questions for you are sincere, honest questions. You need to have an answer. What is your answer?
So, if Samsung distributes it and Samsung sell more phones than Apple, how can Apple have a monopoly? Having the more profitable products does not equal a monopoly. The question then are we redefining what a monopoly is because one company goes against the grain in almost everything they do and makes more money because of it.
It's not a monopoly in that there is only one source for the product. Read the case. It's about the fact that Apple only allows one method of payment for in-app purchases, and that is through Apple's own systems and at Apple's own rate (30%). CC transactions typically cost businesses 2-3%.
That is wrong. It cost businesses much more than the 2-3 % of the CC transaction. 2-3% is just what the CC and issuing bank charges the business. There are many players involve and they all charge a fee and more often than not, a set fee per transaction. Businesses that does a lot of CC must also pay to have that transaction insured. Otherwise, they are the ones on the hook for fraud CC purchases. They must also pay a monthly of annual fee to set up an account with each of the credit cards that they will honor. The more CC transactions in a year, the less the monthly or annual fee.There's also the cost of maintaining or renting the equipment to process CC payments.
Plus there's a set transaction fee of usually $.05 or $.10 PER transaction and can be as high as $.20, depending on the type of account they have set up. Use your what math skills you have and calculate what the CC transaction percentage cost would be for a $.99 transaction, if it cost the business $.10 plus the 3%. It would only cost businesses close to 2-3% per transaction, if the transaction was over $15.
Here's a run down of what it cost a business to accept CC. For sure Apple will be on the low end in term of overall cost but will be on the high end for the App Store as most of the transaction there are probably less than $5 with $.99 being most of that. The set fee PER transaction they have to pay, along with the percentage of the transaction will put their cost way above the 2-3%.
It a long read but maybe you'll stop passing on the lie that it only cost a business 2-3% of the CC transaction, to accept CC payments.
The set fee per transaction was the reason why Steve Jobs stated that Apple about breaks even or takes a slight loss per $.99 iTunes purchase, even though Apple gets 30% of the $.99 transaction. But when one buys more than 1 song or a $9.99 album, per transaction, Apple begins to make money. The set transaction fee is the same whether it's a $.99 purchase or a $9.99 purchase or a $99.99 purchase. But a $.10 set transaction fee is 10% of a $.99 transaction, 1% of a $9.99 one and .1% of a $99.99 one. But Apple did not penalize the buyers that only purchase one song at a time.
One of the cheapest way for a business to accept CC is to use Square. They can charge as low as 2.6% of the transaction plus a $.10 per transaction fee or as high as 2.9% plus a $.30 per transaction fee. Either way, it's not going to cost a business just 2-3% of the CC transaction, if most of the transactions are below $5.
This is all very interesting. When you say that "Apple about breaks even or takes a slight loss per $.99 iTunes purchase," does that also (or actually) mean for App Store purchases?
If so, what about all those free apps? Does this mean that Apple takes a loss on all the free apps (I mean really free, no in-app purchase)? I suppose having a bunch of free apps help makes the ecosystem look better, so I guess it could be considered a "marketing cost," but still...People often forget to mention the huge number of free apps when bringing up the 30% (or less) that Apple charges.
That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I don’t think a libertarian judge would delight in hearing this case. In fact quite the opposite. Libertarians are typically very pro-free-market, which this case is pretty much the opposite of.
Only one payment method allowed doesn't sound very free market.
So, if Samsung distributes it and Samsung sell more phones than Apple, how can Apple have a monopoly? Having the more profitable products does not equal a monopoly. The question then are we redefining what a monopoly is because one company goes against the grain in almost everything they do and makes more money because of it.
It's not a monopoly in that there is only one source for the product. Read the case. It's about the fact that Apple only allows one method of payment for in-app purchases, and that is through Apple's own systems and at Apple's own rate (30%). CC transactions typically cost businesses 2-3%.
That is wrong. It cost businesses much more than the 2-3 % of the CC transaction. 2-3% is just what the CC and issuing bank charges the business. There are many players involve and they all charge a fee and more often than not, a set fee per transaction. Businesses that does a lot of CC must also pay to have that transaction insured. Otherwise, they are the ones on the hook for fraud CC purchases. They must also pay a monthly of annual fee to set up an account with each of the credit cards that they will honor. The more CC transactions in a year, the less the monthly or annual fee.There's also the cost of maintaining or renting the equipment to process CC payments.
Plus there's a set transaction fee of usually $.05 or $.10 PER transaction and can be as high as $.20, depending on the type of account they have set up. Use your what math skills you have and calculate what the CC transaction percentage cost would be for a $.99 transaction, if it cost the business $.10 plus the 3%. It would only cost businesses close to 2-3% per transaction, if the transaction was over $15.
Here's a run down of what it cost a business to accept CC. For sure Apple will be on the low end in term of overall cost but will be on the high end for the App Store as most of the transaction there are probably less than $5 with $.99 being most of that. The set fee PER transaction they have to pay, along with the percentage of the transaction will put their cost way above the 2-3%.
It a long read but maybe you'll stop passing on the lie that it only cost a business 2-3% of the CC transaction, to accept CC payments.
The set fee per transaction was the reason why Steve Jobs stated that Apple about breaks even or takes a slight loss per $.99 iTunes purchase, even though Apple gets 30% of the $.99 transaction. But when one buys more than 1 song or a $9.99 album, per transaction, Apple begins to make money. The set transaction fee is the same whether it's a $.99 purchase or a $9.99 purchase or a $99.99 purchase. But a $.10 set transaction fee is 10% of a $.99 transaction, 1% of a $9.99 one and .1% of a $99.99 one. But Apple did not penalize the buyers that only purchase one song at a time.
One of the cheapest way for a business to accept CC is to use Square. They can charge as low as 2.6% of the transaction plus a $.10 per transaction fee or as high as 2.9% plus a $.30 per transaction fee. Either way, it's not going to cost a business just 2-3% of the CC transaction, if most of the transactions are below $5.
This is all very interesting. When you say that "Apple about breaks even or takes a slight loss per $.99 iTunes purchase," does that also (or actually) mean for App Store purchases?
If so, what about all those free apps? Does this mean that Apple takes a loss on all the free apps (I mean really free, no in-app purchase)? I suppose having a bunch of free apps help makes the ecosystem look better, so I guess it could be considered a "marketing cost," but still...People often forget to mention the huge number of free apps when bringing up the 30% (or less) that Apple charges.
One has to remember at the time Steve Jobs stated that, the iTune Store was a relatively new operation for Apple. Therefore, the cost of RD, expansion, maintenance and learning curve of operating the iTunes Store, would be a higher back then, than it would be now for the Apple App Store. But in terms of how much Apple makes per $.99 purchase, it's the same $.30 now as it was back then and I imagine Apple cost per $.99 CC transaction hasn't changed that much.
Free apps are not free for Apple. They cost Apple something to host them in the App Store. They are subsidize by Apple making money with the apps they do get a commission from and somewhat from the sales of hardware whose features are enhanced, with the availability of free apps on iDevices. But remember, the free apps in the App Store are also free on Android. So it's not as much of a selling point for iDevices, as some make it out to be. So if you factor in how much it cost to subsidize free apps, I wouldn't think the sale of a $.99 app would be very profitable, if at all. I remember reading somewhere that the top 1% of developers account for over 90% of Apple gross revenue in the App Store. And I can't imagine that the top 1% are there from selling a Hell of a lot of $.99 apps. The biggest revenue generator are in-game purchases (like with Fortnight) and then with on-going subscription payments (like with Netflix). Over 75% of the apps in the App Store, are free. The same as in the Google Play Store.
I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.
It would also break Apple's reputation for rock solid stability, privacy and security. No Thank You! It's one of the reasons I buy Apple products.
it wouldn't...as long as you do not install Apps from 3rd party app stores. And a very small percentage (<0.1%) of people would dare install Apps from 3rd party app stores, so it wouldn't make a difference to the Apple's ecosystem in reality. Not sure why you think it would break Apple's reputation.
You have no basis to make this assumption. More likely it would end up, over time, that people get their apps from a variety of places. And screw up reliability, privacy, etc.
What in god’s name is that picture at the top of the article supposed to imply?
That’s from the dumb Epic ad (which I haven’t actually watched) mocking the famous 1984 Mac ad. I guess maybe you know that, but it isn’t clear. Anyhow, it’s related to the story. As for what it implies, I think it probably is just supposed to make you laugh.
That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I don’t think a libertarian judge would delight in hearing this case. In fact quite the opposite. Libertarians are typically very pro-free-market, which this case is pretty much the opposite of.
Only one payment method allowed doesn't sound very free market.
It's not a free market - it's Apple's business model, and the App Store and its functionality are a feature of there iOS devices. You choose to use it or not.
Go to a BMW dealership and insist they offer you a new Merceds Benz... see how far you go. Choices are conversely offered and limited all the time. The marketplace decides if they enjoy, are indifferent, or dislike the model put forth.
I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.
It would also break Apple's reputation for rock solid stability, privacy and security. No Thank You! It's one of the reasons I buy Apple products.
it wouldn't...as long as you do not install Apps from 3rd party app stores. And a very small percentage (<0.1%) of people would dare install Apps from 3rd party app stores, so it wouldn't make a difference to the Apple's ecosystem in reality. Not sure why you think it would break Apple's reputation.
Your thinking is so wrong. So long as there is a legitimate way of downloading apps from third party sources or unsecured sites on the internet, hackers will find a way to get users to download apps into their devices, without their knowledge. It doesn't matter if the users never intend to ever download apps from the internet or other third party sources, their device is less secure than if there were no possible way to download apps from a third party source or the internet.
Do you actually think that all the malware problems with Android are caused by users purposely and knowingly downloading from third party sources or the internet? There's a reason why hackers and phishers target Android devices and it's not the because of the users.
Let me ask you this. If the government forced Apple to provide them with a backdoor key to iOS encryption and the government promise to keep the key secure, do you honestly think that iOS devices are just as secure as if there wasn't a backdoor key available? Hackers will be trying to find a way to enter that backdoor, without the key. And will eventually succeed. No matter if the government kept the key secured.
I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.
It would also break Apple's reputation for rock solid stability, privacy and security. No Thank You! It's one of the reasons I buy Apple products.
it wouldn't...as long as you do not install Apps from 3rd party app stores. And a very small percentage (<0.1%) of people would dare install Apps from 3rd party app stores, so it wouldn't make a difference to the Apple's ecosystem in reality. Not sure why you think it would break Apple's reputation.
No, sorry -- but as soon as stories about iPhones being breached came out, Apple's reputation would sink. It wouldn't matter if the breach came from an app from a third party store.
I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.
It would also break Apple's reputation for rock solid stability, privacy and security. No Thank You! It's one of the reasons I buy Apple products.
it wouldn't...as long as you do not install Apps from 3rd party app stores. And a very small percentage (<0.1%) of people would dare install Apps from 3rd party app stores, so it wouldn't make a difference to the Apple's ecosystem in reality. Not sure why you think it would break Apple's reputation.
You have no basis to make this assumption. More likely it would end up, over time, that people get their apps from a variety of places. And screw up reliability, privacy, etc.
The real comparison is not iOS Vs Android. It is iOS Vs MacOS. Is MacOS inherently unsafe, not trust-worthy because it allows you to install Apps from other sources? Why can't Apple adopt a model similar to MacOS, not necessarily the Android way of doing things?
The real reason is money, NOT security/privacy. Apple will stand to lose billions of dollars from in-app purchases from games if they allowed apps to be installed from other sources. And it is not even funny when people in this forum claim that Apple is just breaking even with the App store due to operational costs of hosting free apps. App store is a huge revenue generator for Apple and Apple does not want to lose control of that.
I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.
It would also break Apple's reputation for rock solid stability, privacy and security. No Thank You! It's one of the reasons I buy Apple products.
it wouldn't...as long as you do not install Apps from 3rd party app stores. And a very small percentage (<0.1%) of people would dare install Apps from 3rd party app stores, so it wouldn't make a difference to the Apple's ecosystem in reality. Not sure why you think it would break Apple's reputation.
My friends and family, whom I advise to buy Apple, would no longer get that recommendation from me if Apple had to abandon its rules of control. They need Apple's protection. Maybe you don't, because you are savvy, but they do. I myself would likely abandon Apple if Apple's controls were removed by the courts or the government. It's the main reason that I buy from Apple. And if Epic completely wins, Apple loses my business, and the business of my friends and family. The only thing Apple could do to win back my business is to offer no third party app store at all. The courts cannot mandate that Apple offer a third party app store.
I am not a legal expert, so I wouldn't comment on what court's rulings would/could be. But governments can very well choose to pass laws to force Apple to allow apps to be installed from 3rd party sources and Apple would be legally obligated to follow suit. And it need not be US, but other major markets like EU or China that can bring in this change for those markets.
Comments
Do you actually think that all the malware problems with Android are caused by users purposely and knowingly downloading from third party sources or the internet? There's a reason why hackers and phishers target Android devices and it's not the because of the users.
Let me ask you this. If the government forced Apple to provide them with a backdoor key to iOS encryption and the government promise to keep the key secure, do you honestly think that iOS devices are just as secure as if there wasn't a backdoor key available? Hackers will be trying to find a way to enter that backdoor, without the key. And will eventually succeed. No matter if the government kept the key secured.
You make it sounds like a human right violation.
Would you stop stating as fact, something you don't understand?
Plus there's a set transaction fee of usually $.05 or $.10 PER transaction and can be as high as $.20, depending on the type of account they have set up. Use your what math skills you have and calculate what the CC transaction percentage cost would be for a $.99 transaction, if it cost the business $.10 plus the 3%. It would only cost businesses close to 2-3% per transaction, if the transaction was over $15.
Here's a run down of what it cost a business to accept CC. For sure Apple will be on the low end in term of overall cost but will be on the high end for the App Store as most of the transaction there are probably less than $5 with $.99 being most of that. The set fee PER transaction they have to pay, along with the percentage of the transaction will put their cost way above the 2-3%.
It a long read but maybe you'll stop passing on the lie that it only cost a business 2-3% of the CC transaction, to accept CC payments.
https://www.merchantmaverick.com/the-complete-guide-to-credit-card-processing-rates-and-fees/
The set fee per transaction was the reason why Steve Jobs stated that Apple about breaks even or takes a slight loss per $.99 iTunes purchase, even though Apple gets 30% of the $.99 transaction. But when one buys more than 1 song or a $9.99 album, per transaction, Apple begins to make money. The set transaction fee is the same whether it's a $.99 purchase or a $9.99 purchase or a $99.99 purchase. But a $.10 set transaction fee is 10% of a $.99 transaction, 1% of a $9.99 one and .1% of a $99.99 one. But Apple did not penalize the buyers that only purchase one song at a time.
One of the cheapest way for a business to accept CC is to use Square. They can charge as low as 2.6% of the transaction plus a $.10 per transaction fee or as high as 2.9% plus a $.30 per transaction fee. Either way, it's not going to cost a business just 2-3% of the CC transaction, if most of the transactions are below $5.
https://squareup.com/us/en/townsquare/credit-card-processing-fees-and-rates
.
That's just a simple question. You should be able to answer a simple question. Are you able to answer a simple question?
And should Epic be forced to allow Apple Pay or PayPal for purchase of products on the Epic Game Store?
My questions for you are sincere, honest questions. You need to have an answer. What is your answer?
If so, what about all those free apps? Does this mean that Apple takes a loss on all the free apps (I mean really free, no in-app purchase)? I suppose having a bunch of free apps help makes the ecosystem look better, so I guess it could be considered a "marketing cost," but still...People often forget to mention the huge number of free apps when bringing up the 30% (or less) that Apple charges.
Free apps are not free for Apple. They cost Apple something to host them in the App Store. They are subsidize by Apple making money with the apps they do get a commission from and somewhat from the sales of hardware whose features are enhanced, with the availability of free apps on iDevices. But remember, the free apps in the App Store are also free on Android. So it's not as much of a selling point for iDevices, as some make it out to be. So if you factor in how much it cost to subsidize free apps, I wouldn't think the sale of a $.99 app would be very profitable, if at all. I remember reading somewhere that the top 1% of developers account for over 90% of Apple gross revenue in the App Store. And I can't imagine that the top 1% are there from selling a Hell of a lot of $.99 apps. The biggest revenue generator are in-game purchases (like with Fortnight) and then with on-going subscription payments (like with Netflix). Over 75% of the apps in the App Store, are free. The same as in the Google Play Store.
Go to a BMW dealership and insist they offer you a new Merceds Benz... see how far you go. Choices are conversely offered and limited all the time. The marketplace decides if they enjoy, are indifferent, or dislike the model put forth.
The real reason is money, NOT security/privacy. Apple will stand to lose billions of dollars from in-app purchases from games if they allowed apps to be installed from other sources. And it is not even funny when people in this forum claim that Apple is just breaking even with the App store due to operational costs of hosting free apps. App store is a huge revenue generator for Apple and Apple does not want to lose control of that.