I think it might be time for Apple to get ahead of all this. There’s no technical reason for them to implement the same system as Gatekeeper on the Mac. App Store only, Apple Certified Apps and App Store. More than likely Apple wouldn’t allow Any Downloaded like the Mac does. What would be interesting to see is how many people would still use the App Store, if just for the ease of the payments. I for one think it’s the best way to pay. Certainly don’t want to go back to buying software from who knows where online again.
I hope the bill succeeds. It’s time these giant tech companies and their lobbyist start to abide to free market values.
These ‘stores’ are marketed as stores, but are in fact monopolist, world-wide gatekeepers to content distribution, especially Apple. The irony is that ‘free market values’ made them so big to begin with, but with everything, there should be rules and measures in place to safeguard balance and competition.
Actually, you have no idea what you're talking about. Since iPhones aren't even the most popular handset, they cannot have a monopoly on the market, plenty of competition to choose from. Nor can they have a monopoly on their own store -- it's their store, in the same way that McDonald's or Burger King don't have a "monopoly" on their own store, their own menu, their own suppliers, etc. They own it, they 100% get to decide which suppliers they work with what they sell inside it.
The free market is present -- there are Apple handsets/app stores, Google, Samsung, and other Chinese knockoff brands, each with their own ecosystem. Much like in consoles there is a market & store for Playstation, for Nintendo, and Xbox.
As I've said many times, once I've bought it it's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone.
Stopping me from installing apps from any source I choose on MY iPhone should absolutely be illegal.
I don't care what Apple charges on their app store. I don't care if they want 30% of in-app purchases from apps installed via their app store. But I should be able to go to developersite.com or someotherappstore.com and install an app directly, and Apple should have zero control of that.
That's old news dude - you already can jailbreak and sideload apps onto your phone, it's not illegal. A court decided this over a decade ago.
But that's entirely different than Apple's own store allowing its apps to be sideloaded, or allowing its store's apps to be listed and available but circumventing the checkout lane in the store.
Arizona, the new California. The conspiracy theories are true about people leaving California because of its radical left-wing, anti-business laws and policies and moving to Arizona and Texas only to bring that tripe with them when they vote.
No, that's just nutter nonsense festering in your brain. There's nothing "radical left-wing" about California, it's just not alt-right wingnut enough for you. People have moved out of CA because it's crowded and expensive. But that's because it's a very popular place to be in the first place. "Nobody Goes There Anymore, It's Too Crowded!"
Arizona and Texas are becoming less conservative because people are becoming less conservative. Especially in cities, major metros where people are exposed to diverse backgrounds and learn to work together.
I personally don’t see the problem with this bill, but I’m not gunning for Apple to increase its massive multi billion dollar profits by every cent they can get either. I’d rather it gives something back to the end users and customers and allow freedom of choice. The American justice system is daft though, basically lobbyists are there to bribe the politicians right? So one bribes for one thing whilst the other bribes for the opposite?
I have no doubt Apple will win though with its huge power and influence it has.
I think you’re missing the point. Apple provides the platform, coding language and storage for these apps. Before the App Store and its ilk, it cost a developer much more to develop and distribute software, often requiring physical media in the past.
Why should Apple provide all those services for free? Can you go up a to a public storage facility and tell them you want to leave your stuff there but not pay them for the it? Can you ask a store to sell your products without taking a cut of the profits of being paid for their shelf space? Of course not. Why should Apple have to do these things?
This. I've brought my own products to national retailers, and you absolutely have to pay to play. They buy from you wholesale, mark it up, and sell it for retail prices. Often there's a distributor in the middle who does the same. I was also free to sell direct to consumers w/o those markups (and slotting fees!), but from my own web store, not from inside the retailer!
So if these apps don't want to pay the App Store, they obviously shouldn't be *in* the App Store.
I think we may be missing Epic's and others point here: this is not a war on Apple and/or Google's business model, but on every platform. I believe that if they win this, they will go after Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo...
From the look of it Apple is destined to loose the control of its App Store, will be forced to allow sideloading or other Stores on iOS. EU will push for that.
Unfortunately every user pushing for this will regret it, since it will only take the power from Apple to, for example Epic, - we won't pay less for apps. Also I think small developers will loose big time (or at least things will be the same). Epic is not going to let them sell on their store for free and small developers cannot afford to create their own store...
Don't get me wrong I think Big Tech is out of control, but this is not going to address the real problems: 1) Is it fair that Apple and others blocks apps based on contents they don't agree? 2) Is it fair that Apple and Google charge a 15% or 30% fee to a developer in direct competition with them (Netflix, Spotify...)? 3) Is it fair that Apple and others (including Starbucks) avoid paying taxes in Europe with smart accounting tricks? 4) Do we trust a private company this much power?
Dom't get me wrong I love everything Apple, I'm all in on Apple Music, AppleTV+, Apple Arcade, iCloud... But still...
Can Apple just turn off developer accounts in Arizona? That would suck for the developers, but it would contain the problem.
As written the law would also require that alternative payment processing was allowed for apps purchased (or in-app purchases) by Arizona users. So it wouldn't just be a matter of not allowing developers from Arizona to sell through the App Store.
That said, these proposals are really just for show. This Arizona proposal, e.g., probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster. States generally don't get to decide what conditions federal copyright holders can place on the licensing of their copyrighted material. Federal law preempts state law in this area. If federal law - and federal judicial interpretations thereof - allow Apple to condition the use of its iOS IP on licensees selling only through the App Store with Apple handling payments, then states don't get to prohibit such a condition.
I think we may be missing Epic's and others point here: this is not a war on Apple and/or Google's business model, but on every platform. I believe that if they win this, they will go after Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo...
From the look of it Apple is destined to loose the control of its App Store, will be forced to allow sideloading or other Stores on iOS. EU will push for that.
Unfortunately every user pushing for this will regret it, since it will only take the power from Apple to, for example Epic, - we won't pay less for apps. Also I think small developers will loose big time (or at least things will be the same). Epic is not going to let them sell on their store for free and small developers cannot afford to create their own store...
Don't get me wrong I think Big Tech is out of control, but this is not going to address the real problems: 1) Is it fair that Apple and others blocks apps based on contents they don't agree? 2) Is it fair that Apple and Google charge a 15% or 30% fee to a developer in direct competition with them (Netflix, Spotify...)? 3) Is it fair that Apple and others (including Starbucks) avoid paying taxes in Europe with smart accounting tricks? 4) Do we trust a private company this much power?
Dom't get me wrong I love everything Apple, I'm all in on Apple Music, AppleTV+, Apple Arcade, iCloud... But still...
Are you really saying Apple has no right to get any financial cut of any products that are sold within iOS... not any money at all? What if those apps use toolkits created by Apple to talk to Apple's services online like CloudKit, Notifications, HomeKit, etc.? Some of those apps have HUGE data transfers from Apple's servers to the client's devices, such as HomeKit Secure Video devices sending their video to iOS devices via Apple's servers. And Apple can't get paid for any services it provides through the apps that people purchase that use those services?
As I've said many times, once I've bought it it's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone.
Stopping me from installing apps from any source I choose on MY iPhone should absolutely be illegal.
I don't care what Apple charges on their app store. I don't care if they want 30% of in-app purchases from apps installed via their app store. But I should be able to go to developersite.com or someotherappstore.com and install an app directly, and Apple should have zero control of that.
Should Apple be forced to perform online services for apps sold on third party app stores when Apple never received a dime from the sales of those apps?
A) From the look of it Apple is destined to loose the control of its App Store, will be forced to allow sideloading or other Stores on iOS. EU will push for that. 1) Is it fair that Apple and others blocks apps based on contents they don't agree? 2) Is it fair that Apple and Google charge a 15% or 30% fee to a developer in direct competition with them (Netflix, Spotify...)? 3) Is it fair that Apple and others (including Starbucks) avoid paying taxes in Europe with smart accounting tricks? 4) Do we trust a private company this much power?
In response to your points, I've labelled your paragraphs and my responses with the same numbers. I find this approach to be clarifying.
A) It's entirely possible that some jurisdiction like the EU will demand side loading, which will reduce or eliminate Apple's profits. But you've worded it wrong: they can't force Apple to do anything because they can't force Apple to do any business at all in their country. All they can do is "prohibit" Apple from notpermitting side loading. And Apple could comply with that prohibition by not selling anything in the EU, or most likely they could comply by just not selling apps to any user in the EU. It's a valid response that Apple could take, but people always ignore this valid response because they want Apple to lose.
1) Apple already blocks apps that promote tobacco, or contain porn, or many other things. Apple doesn't agree with those apps. I notice you aren't complaining about that. Why aren't you complaining? Do you or do you not agree with the fact that Apple can and does block apps that it doesn't agree with. Here's an interesting one: Apple blocks all apps that tell the time on watchOS. Do you think that's fair? Should the courts overturn that rule?
2) Apple can simply block any developer in direct competition with them. As I stated in the previous paragraph, they already block any app that tells the time on watchOS, and nobody complains about that. Apple decided that they want the monopoly on time apps on watchOS. but they have graciously allowed nearly every other kind of app onto watchOS (excluding tobacco, porn, etc.) So if they can legally block, then they can certainly legally charge them a fee. But if for some reason they aren't allowed to charge a fee, they should just block them because they are in direct competition with them, just like watch apps on watchOS.
3) Since you aren't explaining what accounting tricks you are concerned about, I will ignore you. But I'll bet you don't pay any more taxes than you have to, and your accountant probably uses smart accounting tricks to get your taxes reduced. Since when is being "smart" unfair?
4) You obviously hate big companies, for the sole reason that they are big and powerful. They got rid of big companies in 1918 in Russia, and that didn't work out very well for them. Or did it, from your perspective? Please answer that.
I think we may be missing Epic's and others point here: this is not a war on Apple and/or Google's business model, but on every platform. I believe that if they win this, they will go after Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo...
From the look of it Apple is destined to loose the control of its App Store, will be forced to allow sideloading or other Stores on iOS. EU will push for that.
Unfortunately every user pushing for this will regret it, since it will only take the power from Apple to, for example Epic, - we won't pay less for apps. Also I think small developers will loose big time (or at least things will be the same). Epic is not going to let them sell on their store for free and small developers cannot afford to create their own store...
Don't get me wrong I think Big Tech is out of control, but this is not going to address the real problems: 1) Is it fair that Apple and others blocks apps based on contents they don't agree? 2) Is it fair that Apple and Google charge a 15% or 30% fee to a developer in direct competition with them (Netflix, Spotify...)? 3) Is it fair that Apple and others (including Starbucks) avoid paying taxes in Europe with smart accounting tricks? 4) Do we trust a private company this much power?
Dom't get me wrong I love everything Apple, I'm all in on Apple Music, AppleTV+, Apple Arcade, iCloud... But still...
Are you really saying Apple has no right to get any financial cut of any products that are sold within iOS... not any money at all? What if those apps use toolkits created by Apple to talk to Apple's services online like CloudKit, Notifications, HomeKit, etc.? Some of those apps have HUGE data transfers from Apple's servers to the client's devices, such as HomeKit Secure Video devices sending their video to iOS devices via Apple's servers. And Apple can't get paid for any services it provides through the apps that people purchase that use those services?
My gosh,
you just don‘t get it or don’t want to! You write again and again the same
thing, but fail to understand the basic point.
If companies
wanted to use Apple’s payment system, they should pay. Nobody is disputing
this. But there are companies who don’t need this “generous” favour from Apple:
they can do that on their own without feeding the pi mp Apple in between.
Are you really saying Apple has no right to get any financial cut of any products that are sold within iOS... not any money at all? What if those apps use toolkits created by Apple to talk to Apple's services online like CloudKit, Notifications, HomeKit, etc.? Some of those apps have HUGE data transfers from Apple's servers to the client's devices, such as HomeKit Secure Video devices sending their video to iOS devices via Apple's servers. And Apple can't get paid for any services it provides through the apps that people purchase that use those services?
No, on the contrary, I believe Apple like any other company has the right to charge gor their services and products. I don’t think Epic is on the right side here, I was just saying that their goal might be beyond Apple. I only think that some boundaries must be put in place to control the amount of power Big Tech has (censorship is very dangerous). Also, I’m not a fan of Spotify (tried it and felt like I was always listening to the same song) but Apple is not competing on a level playing field there (the same can be said about Netflix and others).
In response to your points, I've labelled your paragraphs and my responses with the same numbers. I find this approach to be clarifying.
A) It's entirely possible that some jurisdiction like the EU will demand side loading, which will reduce or eliminate Apple's profits. But you've worded it wrong: they can't force Apple to do anything because they can't force Apple to do any business at all in their country. All they can do is "prohibit" Apple from notpermitting side loading. And Apple could comply with that prohibition by not selling anything in the EU, or most likely they could comply by just not selling apps to any user in the EU. It's a valid response that Apple could take, but people always ignore this valid response because they want Apple to lose.
1) Apple already blocks apps that promote tobacco, or contain porn, or many other things. Apple doesn't agree with those apps. I notice you aren't complaining about that. Why aren't you complaining? Do you or do you not agree with the fact that Apple can and does block apps that it doesn't agree with. Here's an interesting one: Apple blocks all apps that tell the time on watchOS. Do you think that's fair? Should the courts overturn that rule?
2) Apple can simply block any developer in direct competition with them. As I stated in the previous paragraph, they already block any app that tells the time on watchOS, and nobody complains about that. Apple decided that they want the monopoly on time apps on watchOS. but they have graciously allowed nearly every other kind of app onto watchOS (excluding tobacco, porn, etc.) So if they can legally block, then they can certainly legally charge them a fee. But if for some reason they aren't allowed to charge a fee, they should just block them because they are in direct competition with them, just like watch apps on watchOS.
3) Since you aren't explaining what accounting tricks you are concerned about, I will ignore you. But I'll bet you don't pay any more taxes than you have to, and your accountant probably uses smart accounting tricks to get your taxes reduced. Since when is being "smart" unfair?
4) You obviously hate big companies, for the sole reason that they are big and powerful. They got rid of big companies in 1918 in Russia, and that didn't work out very well for them. Or did it, from your perspective? Please answer that.
Thank you, I will try to do the same, it’s very effective.
A) thank you for the enlightenment. I don’t know why you would think I want Apple to loose. Just saying that the writing is on the wall...
1) I’m aware of that and I didn’t complain, i posed a question. I’m not sure we should give private companies such power. I agree that some degree of control should exist, but I would rather have it done by law (as we did with traditional advertising).
2) again I think it’s a slippery slope, however you must concede that Apple created a great tool/market for developers as much as developers helped Apple creating this wonderful ecosystem. So Apple is not doing any favour by allowing anyone on the appstore it’s just good business practice.
3) no I don’t pay more taxes than I should, but I also don’t make deals with certain states to have tax reductions, which, by the way is anticompetitive - again not a level playing field. To be honest I believe that Apple is not doing anything wrong, but that our lawmakers are failing us.
4) I don’t hate big companies. And much less Apple. You couldn’t be more wrong. Nevertheless I also don’t believe in the virtue of the free market ... markets should operate freely under some rules that guarantee the rights of individuals, fair competition... not even saying that Apple did anything wrong. I believe, because it was new and we didn’t, and probably still don’t, know how to handle/rule Big Tech we allowed it to grow without restrains. Maybe it’s time to think if we want to trust them all the power they have... Do you think they are always right, that everything they fo is right? Can we complain? Can we question them?
As I've said many times, once I've bought it it's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone.
Stopping me from installing apps from any source I choose on MY iPhone should absolutely be illegal.
I don't care what Apple charges on their app store. I don't care if they want 30% of in-app purchases from apps installed via their app store. But I should be able to go to developersite.com or someotherappstore.com and install an app directly, and Apple should have zero control of that.
And most here have been telling you that no one, not even Apple, is stopping you from jailbreaking YOUR iPhone. NO ONE. It's YOUR iPhone. YOU paid for it. So go for it and stop complaining about how you should be able to install apps from anywhere you want. We here are getting tire of your whining. If it's that important to you, jailbreak your iPhone or switch to Android.
It's really not that hard. I jailbroke an old iPod Touch 5th generation a while back because the app I needed to use was no longer available and i did not have it before it became no longer available. But I found it in the CydiaAppStore or some other place on the internet. It's not as easy as rooting an Android device, but still easily doable, even if for the first time and some say that it's not for the faint of heart. Just take your time and follow the instructions to the letter. And it is much easier to install apps on to a jailbroken iPhone than it is to install apps from the internet using an Android device. There are several more steps required to install apps from the internet, on to an Android device. While with a jailbroken iPhone, it's just like using the Apple App Store.
So instead of coming here and whining about how it's YOUR iPhone and .... blah .... blah .... blah. Spend a little time here .....
And learn how you can actually do something about it, instead of complaining. So good luck and good riddance.
Now personally, I wouldn't jailbreak any iDevice that I'm currently using for every day things like email, eBay, banking, PayPal, phone calls, etc.. I value the security built in. But for iDevices stuck on an old iOS and I'm not using except maybe to surf the internet or watching Netflix or control my iTunes library on an old Mac Cube that is hook into my stereo and have no real personal info on it, I have no problem with jailbreaking it to make it a little more useful or just for fun.
I think we may be missing Epic's and others point here: this is not a war on Apple and/or Google's business model, but on every platform. I believe that if they win this, they will go after Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo...
From the look of it Apple is destined to loose the control of its App Store, will be forced to allow sideloading or other Stores on iOS. EU will push for that.
Unfortunately every user pushing for this will regret it, since it will only take the power from Apple to, for example Epic, - we won't pay less for apps. Also I think small developers will loose big time (or at least things will be the same). Epic is not going to let them sell on their store for free and small developers cannot afford to create their own store...
Don't get me wrong I think Big Tech is out of control, but this is not going to address the real problems: 1) Is it fair that Apple and others blocks apps based on contents they don't agree? 2) Is it fair that Apple and Google charge a 15% or 30% fee to a developer in direct competition with them (Netflix, Spotify...)? 3) Is it fair that Apple and others (including Starbucks) avoid paying taxes in Europe with smart accounting tricks? 4) Do we trust a private company this much power?
Dom't get me wrong I love everything Apple, I'm all in on Apple Music, AppleTV+, Apple Arcade, iCloud... But still...
Are you really saying Apple has no right to get any financial cut of any products that are sold within iOS... not any money at all? What if those apps use toolkits created by Apple to talk to Apple's services online like CloudKit, Notifications, HomeKit, etc.? Some of those apps have HUGE data transfers from Apple's servers to the client's devices, such as HomeKit Secure Video devices sending their video to iOS devices via Apple's servers. And Apple can't get paid for any services it provides through the apps that people purchase that use those services?
My gosh,
you just don‘t get it or don’t want to! You write again and again the same
thing, but fail to understand the basic point.
If companies
wanted to use Apple’s payment system, they should pay. Nobody is disputing
this. But there are companies who don’t need this “generous” favour from Apple:
they can do that on their own without feeding the pi mp Apple in between.
I asked a question and you covered your eyes and refused to think or respond. My question is legitimate: Should Apple be able to get any financial compensation from any apps that are sold on third party app stores which uses Apple's online services? You failed to reply. Reading between the lines, I think you are implying no. You seem to think that Apple has no right to get any cut of any sale of any software product that uses Apple's online services if that app is not sold on Apple's App Store. You need to answer with a "yes" or "no".
In response to your points, I've labelled your paragraphs and my responses with the same numbers. I find this approach to be clarifying.
A) It's entirely possible that some jurisdiction like the EU will demand side loading, which will reduce or eliminate Apple's profits. But you've worded it wrong: they can't force Apple to do anything because they can't force Apple to do any business at all in their country. All they can do is "prohibit" Apple from notpermitting side loading. And Apple could comply with that prohibition by not selling anything in the EU, or most likely they could comply by just not selling apps to any user in the EU. It's a valid response that Apple could take, but people always ignore this valid response because they want Apple to lose.
1) Apple already blocks apps that promote tobacco, or contain porn, or many other things. Apple doesn't agree with those apps. I notice you aren't complaining about that. Why aren't you complaining? Do you or do you not agree with the fact that Apple can and does block apps that it doesn't agree with. Here's an interesting one: Apple blocks all apps that tell the time on watchOS. Do you think that's fair? Should the courts overturn that rule?
2) Apple can simply block any developer in direct competition with them. As I stated in the previous paragraph, they already block any app that tells the time on watchOS, and nobody complains about that. Apple decided that they want the monopoly on time apps on watchOS. but they have graciously allowed nearly every other kind of app onto watchOS (excluding tobacco, porn, etc.) So if they can legally block, then they can certainly legally charge them a fee. But if for some reason they aren't allowed to charge a fee, they should just block them because they are in direct competition with them, just like watch apps on watchOS.
3) Since you aren't explaining what accounting tricks you are concerned about, I will ignore you. But I'll bet you don't pay any more taxes than you have to, and your accountant probably uses smart accounting tricks to get your taxes reduced. Since when is being "smart" unfair?
4) You obviously hate big companies, for the sole reason that they are big and powerful. They got rid of big companies in 1918 in Russia, and that didn't work out very well for them. Or did it, from your perspective? Please answer that.
Thank you, I will try to do the same, it’s very effective.
A) thank you for the enlightenment. I don’t know why you would think I want Apple to loose. Just saying that the writing is on the wall...
1) I’m aware of that and I didn’t complain, i posed a question. I’m not sure we should give private companies such power. I agree that some degree of control should exist, but I would rather have it [restrictions on apps?] done by law (as we did with traditional advertising).
2) again I think it’s a slippery slope, however you must concede that Apple created a great tool/market for developers as much as developers helped Apple creating this wonderful ecosystem. So Apple is not doing any favour by allowing anyone on the appstore it’s just good business practice.
3) no I don’t pay more taxes than I should, but I also don’t make deals with certain states to have tax reductions, which, by the way is anticompetitive - again not a level playing field. To be honest I believe that Apple is not doing anything wrong, but that our lawmakers are failing us.
4) I don’t hate big companies. And much less Apple. You couldn’t be more wrong. Nevertheless I also don’t believe in the virtue of the free market ... markets should operate freely under some rules that guarantee the rights of individuals, fair competition... not even saying that Apple did anything wrong. I believe, because it was new and we didn’t, and probably still don’t, know how to handle/rule Big Tech we allowed it to grow without restrains. Maybe it’s time to think if we want to trust them all the power they have... Do you think they are always right, that everything they fo is right? Can we complain? Can we question them?
hope that was enough to clarify my positions
You are being polite, so I'll try to return the favour. I like people like you who remain civil even when disagreeing. I like being civil myself, although occasionally I cross a line and call someone's arguments "ridiculous."
1) You said that you want control over the app store's restrictive policies "done by law". That is ambiguous on several levels. First of all, are you saying Apple shouldn't have restrictions against tobacco or porn because these things are NOT currently "restricted by law"? It really sounds like you are probably saying that. Or maybe you meant that Apple's App Store rules shouldn't be written by Apple but should be written "by law" (the government)? If so, which government? I really can't tell what you are saying here so I won't spend much time disputing you. But I will say that Apple's App Store Guidelines comply with all US law. And I will also say that if the US government is prohibited from restricting people's free speech, but private companies are PERMITTED under the constitution to limit free speech, then it sounds very much like Apple has every constitutional right to restrict whatever it wants from running in its OSs. Have you considered my point that Apple prohibits watch apps from being sold on watchOS? Doesn't this sound like an abuse by a monopoly on their "rights" to write watch apps and sell them to the public? You didn't answer this question earlier. Why didn't you answer it? Because it's a tough question for you to answer. Whatever you answer, I'm prepared to jump back on you.
2) Even if I concede that Apple's ecosystem is good for both users and developers, I don't see how that can be used to argue that Apple shouldn't be able to restrict apps or charge users a fee for using software that runs on their OS and/or contacts Apple's servers for services. It's only a slippery slope if you want various different parties partly responsible for Apple's policies. There is no slippery slope if Apple has the sole discretion to decide what can be run on iOS, after all, nobody is forced to use iOS (people often forget this.)
3) Okay, the lawmakers are at fault, if indeed something is wrong, (and I'm not saying there is because I'm not a tax expert, especially for countries that I don't live in) but your original point said, "Is it fair that Apple..." so your words strongly imply that you were blaming Apple initially for this. I infer that you would reword your original comment now.
4) So you don't believe in "the virtue of the free market" but you say "free markets... should operate freely under some rules that guarantee rights of individuals". We already have rules, and they are called laws and constitutions. What is it that you don't like about the current laws and constitutions that don't "guarantee the rights of individuals"? And where is an individual's rights violated if Apple charges for apps that use Apple's online services? I've read the US constitution (even though I'm not American), which is the only "document" that defines the "rights" of US citizens. I didn't see anything about "rights to unrestricted app downloads onto my computer." Even the first amendment talks only about the government not being able to restrict people's free speech, it doesn't say anything about private companies like Apple or Facebook from restricting your speech. If anything, the first amendment of the US constitution EXPLICITLYPERMITS private companies to restrict what people say in the company's publications (eg, in their newspapers) , or on their property, or under their employment, or on their servers or operating systems.
I'm not being silly when I say that the US Constitution's First Amendment strongly suggests that the government cannot pass any law that would restrict what Apple can "say" in its own OSs and policies. Even if the government somehow passed a "law" that prohibits Apple from denying people a third party app store, that law would be in danger of being overthrown by the US Supreme Court because of the First Amendment which says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". An OS and its rules could potentially be considered "free speech rights" under the Constitution. But it's up to the US Supreme Court to see it this way. The Supreme Court currently leans in the direction of literal interpretation, not liberal interpretation, so Apple's rights to control what goes on within its OS is likely to stand firm.
A) It's entirely possible that some jurisdiction like the EU will demand side loading, which will reduce or eliminate Apple's profits.
A) thank you for the enlightenment. I don’t know why you would think I want Apple to lose. Just saying that the writing is on the wall...
I actually want Apple to lose in some jurisdiction like Arizona so we can see what Apple will do. Most likely they will appeal to the Supreme Court (and won't be required to comply until the case is resolved at the highest court.) And most likely they will win. But if they do lose, then we will see how Apple will fight back. There are about four ways of fighting back which I listed in an earlier post.
I think we may be missing Epic's and others point here: this is not a war on Apple and/or Google's business model, but on every platform. I believe that if they win this, they will go after Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo...
From the look of it Apple is destined to loose the control of its App Store, will be forced to allow sideloading or other Stores on iOS. EU will push for that.
Unfortunately every user pushing for this will regret it, since it will only take the power from Apple to, for example Epic, - we won't pay less for apps. Also I think small developers will loose big time (or at least things will be the same). Epic is not going to let them sell on their store for free and small developers cannot afford to create their own store...
Don't get me wrong I think Big Tech is out of control, but this is not going to address the real problems: 1) Is it fair that Apple and others blocks apps based on contents they don't agree? 2) Is it fair that Apple and Google charge a 15% or 30% fee to a developer in direct competition with them (Netflix, Spotify...)? 3) Is it fair that Apple and others (including Starbucks) avoid paying taxes in Europe with smart accounting tricks? 4) Do we trust a private company this much power?
Dom't get me wrong I love everything Apple, I'm all in on Apple Music, AppleTV+, Apple Arcade, iCloud... But still...
Are you really saying Apple has no right to get any financial cut of any products that are sold within iOS... not any money at all? What if those apps use toolkits created by Apple to talk to Apple's services online like CloudKit, Notifications, HomeKit, etc.? Some of those apps have HUGE data transfers from Apple's servers to the client's devices, such as HomeKit Secure Video devices sending their video to iOS devices via Apple's servers. And Apple can't get paid for any services it provides through the apps that people purchase that use those services?
My gosh,
you just don‘t get it or don’t want to! You write again and again the same
thing, but fail to understand the basic point.
If companies
wanted to use Apple’s payment system, they should pay. Nobody is disputing
this. But there are companies who don’t need this “generous” favour from Apple:
they can do that on their own without feeding the pi mp Apple in between.
You got it all wrong, as usual. It's ... if a company makes money selling their products on Apple's platform, they should pay. If you want to make money on Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Amazon or eBay platforms, you pay them. Game developers pay Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo the same 30% commission if they sell through their stores. (and I don't need to hear from the clueless that say that it's different because with game consoles, developer has other means of getting their games into it or that game consoles are not computers. That has nothing to do with the 30% commission they still have to pay, if they sell through the game console's platform store.) Seller using eBay or Amazon MarketPlace to make money, pay eBay and Amazon a commission and a fee. Publishers selling their books and e-Books on Amazon platform, pay Amazon a commission on each sale.
If you sell games in the Epic Game Store, you pay Epic a commission. It may only be 12% but you still have to pay the "pi mp" in-between. Do Epic allow developers that has the ability to process the payment for the sales they made inside the Epic Game Store, to bypass Epic Game Store checkout and not pay the commission? Name just one platform owner that allows developers or sellers to bypass the platform checkout payment system and not pay the commission?
You seem to think that the commission developers and sellers have to pay Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Amazon, eBay and Epic, is only for their "generous" offer to process the payment of their sales. Not only is that being wrong, but also being ignorant at the same time. Why is Epic being a "pi mp" for charging a 12% commission if people like you think processing a payment only cost 3%? Music labels selling their music in the iTunes Music Store seems to have no problem paying the 30% commission, even though they have the ability to process their sales with their own payment system. Why haven't they complained about having to use Apple "generous" favor, after nearly 20 years?
Spotify don't need to put a free app in iOS in order for iDevice owners to listen to music with Spotify. ALL iDevice owners can log into their Spotify account using a browser and listen to music with their Spotify account. And they can pay for their account while logged on there. So why do Spotify need to have a free Spotify app on iOS? Why make it so they have pay the in-between "pi mp" a commission, if their customers uses the free app to pay for their Spotify subscription? Because Spotify knows that they will lose a lot of iOS customers if they don't provide a free app that don't use an iTune account as a payment method. Every iOS user needs an iTunes account to download apps from the App Store. Even the free ones. Spotify main beef is not that they have to pay the 30% but that Apple, their main competitor, do not.
The truth is that developers and sellers have to pay for access to customers of a platform that is not their own, if they want to use that platform to make money. The platform owners spends a lot of money to attract and keep consumers on their platforms. Nothing is stopping developers and sellers from trying to attract consumers to their own platform or website, if they have one. But if they want to take the easy way out, they need to pay in order to make money on someones else's platform. If the in-between "pi mp" is not there, neither will be the platform. This is not that hard to understand. An yet you have failed every time, no matter how simply it is explained to you.
You are being polite, so I'll try to return the favour. I like people like you who remain civil even when disagreeing. I like being civil myself, although occasionally I cross a line and call someone's arguments "ridiculous."
1) You said that you want control over the app store's restrictive policies "done by law". That is ambiguous on several levels. First of all, are you saying Apple shouldn't have restrictions against tobacco or porn because these things are NOT currently "restricted by law"? It really sounds like you are probably saying that. Or maybe you meant that Apple's App Store rules shouldn't be written by Apple but should be written "by law" (the government)? If so, which government? I really can't tell what you are saying here so I won't spend much time disputing you. But I will say that Apple's App Store Guidelines comply with all US law. And I will also say that if the US government is prohibited from restricting people's free speech, but private companies are PERMITTED under the constitution to limit free speech, then it sounds very much like Apple has every constitutional right to restrict whatever it wants from running in its OSs. Have you considered my point that Apple prohibits watch apps from being sold on watchOS? Doesn't this sound like an abuse by a monopoly on their "rights" to write watch apps and sell them to the public? You didn't answer this question earlier. Why didn't you answer it? Because it's a tough question for you to answer. Whatever you answer, I'm prepared to jump back on you.
2) Even if I concede that Apple's ecosystem is good for both users and developers, I don't see how that can be used to argue that Apple shouldn't be able to restrict apps or charge users a fee for using software that runs on their OS and/or contacts Apple's servers for services. It's only a slippery slope if you want various different parties partly responsible for Apple's policies. There is no slippery slope if Apple has the sole discretion to decide what can be run on iOS, after all, nobody is forced to use iOS (people often forget this.)
3) Okay, the lawmakers are at fault, if indeed something is wrong, (and I'm not saying there is because I'm not a tax expert, especially for countries that I don't live in) but your original point said, "Is it fair that Apple..." so your words strongly imply that you were blaming Apple initially for this. I infer that you would reword your original comment now.
4) So you don't believe in "the virtue of the free market" but you say "free markets... should operate freely under some rules that guarantee rights of individuals". We already have rules, and they are called laws and constitutions. What is it that you don't like about the current laws and constitutions that don't "guarantee the rights of individuals"? And where is an individual's rights violated if Apple charges for apps that use Apple's online services? I've read the US constitution (even though I'm not American), which is the only "document" that defines the "rights" of US citizens. I didn't see anything about "rights to unrestricted app downloads onto my computer." Even the first amendment talks only about the government not being able to restrict people's free speech, it doesn't say anything about private companies like Apple or Facebook from restricting your speech. If anything, the first amendment of the US constitution EXPLICITLYPERMITS private companies to restrict what people say in the company's publications (eg, in their newspapers) , or on their property, or under their employment, or on their servers or operating systems.
I'm not being silly when I say that the US Constitution's First Amendment strongly suggests that the government cannot pass any law that would restrict what Apple can "say" in its own OSs and policies. Even if the government somehow passed a "law" that prohibits Apple from denying people a third party app store, that law would be in danger of being overthrown by the US Supreme Court because of the First Amendment which says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". An OS and its rules could potentially be considered "free speech rights" under the Constitution. But it's up to the US Supreme Court to see it this way. The Supreme Court currently leans in the direction of literal interpretation, not liberal interpretation, so Apple's rights to control what goes on within its OS is likely to stand firm.
Thank you for your kind words. I think that if you want to be respected and listened you need to respect and listen to others.
In this specific case I don't know if we disagree. I have the impression I'm not being very clear (maybe my English is not as good as I think it is ). Let me try it one more time.
I agree that Apple created a very profitable ecosystem, that they are entitled to create the rules they feel appropriate, they are entitled to a compensation by developers who use their services/API's. I have no problem with all of that. However, given their size and their power, I think we all should think if we need to regulate it somehow. Not sure how or what, but I think a discussion about it is in order. Thus my questions. We may even conclude that things are fine the way they are right now...
I agree with most of the things you say. I don't have the answers just the questions .
1) Yes it is ambiguous, I would also help you out saying that it is also dangerous. I'm lucky enough to live in a Democracy, and to have free speech, so I think that whatever lawmakers would decide here wouldn't undermine those values. In other not so Democratic countries this could be very dangerous - although I would argue that in those countries the content of the App Store is already being restricted/controlled. I considered your point on the Apple Watch but I have no answer. Yes I think it might be seen as monopoly, but on the other hand it is a watch, right? an Apple Watch... so I would say that it might make sense for them to restrict that specific type of apps on an Apple Watch. Here's a question for you: Facebook wants Apple to be forced to allow Messenger, WhatsApp and others to be set as the default messaging app in iOS. What is you stance on that? I'm completely against it and I can give several reasons why (one of which is that I don't trust Facebook) but here is one: it's an Apple iPhone so everything about the basic Phone features part of it should be Apple. All other messaging systems may coexist in the platform, that is up to Apple to decide, but SMS are a basic function of a mobile phone.
2) Again I don't think iOS is a monopoly. I'm happy with how things work on iOS right now. I just think Apple will loose this battle (for the wrong reasons if you ask me) so that it is time for them to find a solution, which I'm sure they already have. Someone talked about bringing Gatekeeper to iOS - that is one possible solution. Also, if Apple is prohibited to prohibit other App Stores I think they are still entitled for some sort of compensation because of their API's.
3) Listen, as a business owner, I think that what Apple pays in taxes in Europe is an outrage. I'm sure you read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_illegal_state_aid_case_against_Apple_in_Ireland. There are several other smart tricks big companies are using. It's not fair for other companies doing business, it doesn't foster competition. Again I believe that they didn't make anything illegal, they did what was allowed them to do. That's why I blame lawmakers and not Apple.
4) I'm not saying we don't have rules, maybe I jumped to soon. I was under the impression that you were defending the virtues of liberal capitalism, that the markets are able to regulate themselves without the need of laws or Government intervention. I don't believe in that.
I don't know the American Constitution that well. I' don't understand why prohibiting Apple from denying people a third party app store would undermine Apple's right to free speech. It's not like they would be silencing Apple. I wouldn't go that way, it seems the wrong approach but I'm not an expert on constitutional law.
Listen, I don't want my iPhone to change - I LOVE the walled garden. But you need to recognise the wind is changing and that Apple will have to adapt somehow, even if it is just for marketing reasons...
I’d rather not see this effort by the Coalition for App Fairness succeed. I believe platform owner rights should be above platform user rights. However, this aspect of the AppStore is very unpopular. Particularly since there are only two major competitors in the space which causes a degree of lock in. I would love for Apple to find a better middle ground, however I side with Apple on this.
I highly doubt that. 99.9% of consumers couldn't care less about this issue and see no benefit from having multiple different payment schemes. Obviously some (very large) companies see this as a way to increase their profits, but this doesn't make it "very unpopular."
A friend and I developed a medical app that we initially published the first year the App Store was open to developers. This app is his only source of income. We are DELIGHTED to pay 30%. Why? Because before the App Store Apple built, we wouldn’t have been able to market it, and would have made nothing at all.
Comments
The free market is present -- there are Apple handsets/app stores, Google, Samsung, and other Chinese knockoff brands, each with their own ecosystem. Much like in consoles there is a market & store for Playstation, for Nintendo, and Xbox.
That's old news dude - you already can jailbreak and sideload apps onto your phone, it's not illegal. A court decided this over a decade ago.
But that's entirely different than Apple's own store allowing its apps to be sideloaded, or allowing its store's apps to be listed and available but circumventing the checkout lane in the store.
Two different issues.
No, that's just nutter nonsense festering in your brain. There's nothing "radical left-wing" about California, it's just not alt-right wingnut enough for you. People have moved out of CA because it's crowded and expensive. But that's because it's a very popular place to be in the first place. "Nobody Goes There Anymore, It's Too Crowded!"
Arizona and Texas are becoming less conservative because people are becoming less conservative. Especially in cities, major metros where people are exposed to diverse backgrounds and learn to work together.
This. I've brought my own products to national retailers, and you absolutely have to pay to play. They buy from you wholesale, mark it up, and sell it for retail prices. Often there's a distributor in the middle who does the same. I was also free to sell direct to consumers w/o those markups (and slotting fees!), but from my own web store, not from inside the retailer!
So if these apps don't want to pay the App Store, they obviously shouldn't be *in* the App Store.
From the look of it Apple is destined to loose the control of its App Store, will be forced to allow sideloading or other Stores on iOS. EU will push for that.
Unfortunately every user pushing for this will regret it, since it will only take the power from Apple to, for example Epic, - we won't pay less for apps.
Also I think small developers will loose big time (or at least things will be the same). Epic is not going to let them sell on their store for free and small developers cannot afford to create their own store...
Don't get me wrong I think Big Tech is out of control, but this is not going to address the real problems:
1) Is it fair that Apple and others blocks apps based on contents they don't agree?
2) Is it fair that Apple and Google charge a 15% or 30% fee to a developer in direct competition with them (Netflix, Spotify...)?
3) Is it fair that Apple and others (including Starbucks) avoid paying taxes in Europe with smart accounting tricks?
4) Do we trust a private company this much power?
Dom't get me wrong I love everything Apple, I'm all in on Apple Music, AppleTV+, Apple Arcade, iCloud... But still...
That said, these proposals are really just for show. This Arizona proposal, e.g., probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster. States generally don't get to decide what conditions federal copyright holders can place on the licensing of their copyrighted material. Federal law preempts state law in this area. If federal law - and federal judicial interpretations thereof - allow Apple to condition the use of its iOS IP on licensees selling only through the App Store with Apple handling payments, then states don't get to prohibit such a condition.
A) It's entirely possible that some jurisdiction like the EU will demand side loading, which will reduce or eliminate Apple's profits. But you've worded it wrong: they can't force Apple to do anything because they can't force Apple to do any business at all in their country. All they can do is "prohibit" Apple from not permitting side loading. And Apple could comply with that prohibition by not selling anything in the EU, or most likely they could comply by just not selling apps to any user in the EU. It's a valid response that Apple could take, but people always ignore this valid response because they want Apple to lose.
1) Apple already blocks apps that promote tobacco, or contain porn, or many other things. Apple doesn't agree with those apps. I notice you aren't complaining about that. Why aren't you complaining? Do you or do you not agree with the fact that Apple can and does block apps that it doesn't agree with. Here's an interesting one: Apple blocks all apps that tell the time on watchOS. Do you think that's fair? Should the courts overturn that rule?
2) Apple can simply block any developer in direct competition with them. As I stated in the previous paragraph, they already block any app that tells the time on watchOS, and nobody complains about that. Apple decided that they want the monopoly on time apps on watchOS. but they have graciously allowed nearly every other kind of app onto watchOS (excluding tobacco, porn, etc.) So if they can legally block, then they can certainly legally charge them a fee. But if for some reason they aren't allowed to charge a fee, they should just block them because they are in direct competition with them, just like watch apps on watchOS.
3) Since you aren't explaining what accounting tricks you are concerned about, I will ignore you. But I'll bet you don't pay any more taxes than you have to, and your accountant probably uses smart accounting tricks to get your taxes reduced. Since when is being "smart" unfair?
4) You obviously hate big companies, for the sole reason that they are big and powerful. They got rid of big companies in 1918 in Russia, and that didn't work out very well for them. Or did it, from your perspective? Please answer that.
My gosh, you just don‘t get it or don’t want to! You write again and again the same thing, but fail to understand the basic point.
If companies wanted to use Apple’s payment system, they should pay. Nobody is disputing this. But there are companies who don’t need this “generous” favour from Apple: they can do that on their own without feeding the pi mp Apple in between.
I only think that some boundaries must be put in place to control the amount of power Big Tech has (censorship is very dangerous).
Also, I’m not a fan of Spotify (tried it and felt like I was always listening to the same song) but Apple is not competing on a level playing field there (the same can be said about Netflix and others).
A) thank you for the enlightenment. I don’t know why you would think I want Apple to loose. Just saying that the writing is on the wall...
2) again I think it’s a slippery slope, however you must concede that Apple created a great tool/market for developers as much as developers helped Apple creating this wonderful ecosystem.
So Apple is not doing any favour by allowing anyone on the appstore it’s just good business practice.
3) no I don’t pay more taxes than I should, but I also don’t make deals with certain states to have tax reductions, which, by the way is anticompetitive - again not a level playing field. To be honest I believe that Apple is not doing anything wrong, but that our lawmakers are failing us.
4) I don’t hate big companies. And much less Apple. You couldn’t be more wrong. Nevertheless I also don’t believe in the virtue of the free market ... markets should operate freely under some rules that guarantee the rights of individuals, fair competition... not even saying that Apple did anything wrong. I believe, because it was new and we didn’t, and probably still don’t, know how to handle/rule Big Tech we allowed it to grow without restrains. Maybe it’s time to think if we want to trust them all the power they have...
Do you think they are always right, that everything they fo is right? Can we complain? Can we question them?
hope that was enough to clarify my positions
It's really not that hard. I jailbroke an old iPod Touch 5th generation a while back because the app I needed to use was no longer available and i did not have it before it became no longer available. But I found it in the CydiaAppStore or some other place on the internet. It's not as easy as rooting an Android device, but still easily doable, even if for the first time and some say that it's not for the faint of heart. Just take your time and follow the instructions to the letter. And it is much easier to install apps on to a jailbroken iPhone than it is to install apps from the internet using an Android device. There are several more steps required to install apps from the internet, on to an Android device. While with a jailbroken iPhone, it's just like using the Apple App Store.
So instead of coming here and whining about how it's YOUR iPhone and .... blah .... blah .... blah. Spend a little time here .....
https://www.idownloadblog.com/jailbreak/
And learn how you can actually do something about it, instead of complaining. So good luck and good riddance.
Now personally, I wouldn't jailbreak any iDevice that I'm currently using for every day things like email, eBay, banking, PayPal, phone calls, etc.. I value the security built in. But for iDevices stuck on an old iOS and I'm not using except maybe to surf the internet or watching Netflix or control my iTunes library on an old Mac Cube that is hook into my stereo and have no real personal info on it, I have no problem with jailbreaking it to make it a little more useful or just for fun.
You are being polite, so I'll try to return the favour. I like people like you who remain civil even when disagreeing. I like being civil myself, although occasionally I cross a line and call someone's arguments "ridiculous."
1) You said that you want control over the app store's restrictive policies "done by law". That is ambiguous on several levels. First of all, are you saying Apple shouldn't have restrictions against tobacco or porn because these things are NOT currently "restricted by law"? It really sounds like you are probably saying that. Or maybe you meant that Apple's App Store rules shouldn't be written by Apple but should be written "by law" (the government)? If so, which government? I really can't tell what you are saying here so I won't spend much time disputing you. But I will say that Apple's App Store Guidelines comply with all US law. And I will also say that if the US government is prohibited from restricting people's free speech, but private companies are PERMITTED under the constitution to limit free speech, then it sounds very much like Apple has every constitutional right to restrict whatever it wants from running in its OSs. Have you considered my point that Apple prohibits watch apps from being sold on watchOS? Doesn't this sound like an abuse by a monopoly on their "rights" to write watch apps and sell them to the public? You didn't answer this question earlier. Why didn't you answer it? Because it's a tough question for you to answer. Whatever you answer, I'm prepared to jump back on you.
2) Even if I concede that Apple's ecosystem is good for both users and developers, I don't see how that can be used to argue that Apple shouldn't be able to restrict apps or charge users a fee for using software that runs on their OS and/or contacts Apple's servers for services. It's only a slippery slope if you want various different parties partly responsible for Apple's policies. There is no slippery slope if Apple has the sole discretion to decide what can be run on iOS, after all, nobody is forced to use iOS (people often forget this.)
3) Okay, the lawmakers are at fault, if indeed something is wrong, (and I'm not saying there is because I'm not a tax expert, especially for countries that I don't live in) but your original point said, "Is it fair that Apple..." so your words strongly imply that you were blaming Apple initially for this. I infer that you would reword your original comment now.
4) So you don't believe in "the virtue of the free market" but you say "free markets... should operate freely under some rules that guarantee rights of individuals". We already have rules, and they are called laws and constitutions. What is it that you don't like about the current laws and constitutions that don't "guarantee the rights of individuals"? And where is an individual's rights violated if Apple charges for apps that use Apple's online services? I've read the US constitution (even though I'm not American), which is the only "document" that defines the "rights" of US citizens. I didn't see anything about "rights to unrestricted app downloads onto my computer." Even the first amendment talks only about the government not being able to restrict people's free speech, it doesn't say anything about private companies like Apple or Facebook from restricting your speech. If anything, the first amendment of the US constitution EXPLICITLY PERMITS private companies to restrict what people say in the company's publications (eg, in their newspapers) , or on their property, or under their employment, or on their servers or operating systems.
I'm not being silly when I say that the US Constitution's First Amendment strongly suggests that the government cannot pass any law that would restrict what Apple can "say" in its own OSs and policies. Even if the government somehow passed a "law" that prohibits Apple from denying people a third party app store, that law would be in danger of being overthrown by the US Supreme Court because of the First Amendment which says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". An OS and its rules could potentially be considered "free speech rights" under the Constitution. But it's up to the US Supreme Court to see it this way. The Supreme Court currently leans in the direction of literal interpretation, not liberal interpretation, so Apple's rights to control what goes on within its OS is likely to stand firm.
I actually want Apple to lose in some jurisdiction like Arizona so we can see what Apple will do. Most likely they will appeal to the Supreme Court (and won't be required to comply until the case is resolved at the highest court.) And most likely they will win. But if they do lose, then we will see how Apple will fight back. There are about four ways of fighting back which I listed in an earlier post.
If you sell games in the Epic Game Store, you pay Epic a commission. It may only be 12% but you still have to pay the "pi mp" in-between. Do Epic allow developers that has the ability to process the payment for the sales they made inside the Epic Game Store, to bypass Epic Game Store checkout and not pay the commission? Name just one platform owner that allows developers or sellers to bypass the platform checkout payment system and not pay the commission?
You seem to think that the commission developers and sellers have to pay Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Amazon, eBay and Epic, is only for their "generous" offer to process the payment of their sales. Not only is that being wrong, but also being ignorant at the same time. Why is Epic being a "pi mp" for charging a 12% commission if people like you think processing a payment only cost 3%? Music labels selling their music in the iTunes Music Store seems to have no problem paying the 30% commission, even though they have the ability to process their sales with their own payment system. Why haven't they complained about having to use Apple "generous" favor, after nearly 20 years?
Spotify don't need to put a free app in iOS in order for iDevice owners to listen to music with Spotify. ALL iDevice owners can log into their Spotify account using a browser and listen to music with their Spotify account. And they can pay for their account while logged on there. So why do Spotify need to have a free Spotify app on iOS? Why make it so they have pay the in-between "pi mp" a commission, if their customers uses the free app to pay for their Spotify subscription? Because Spotify knows that they will lose a lot of iOS customers if they don't provide a free app that don't use an iTune account as a payment method. Every iOS user needs an iTunes account to download apps from the App Store. Even the free ones. Spotify main beef is not that they have to pay the 30% but that Apple, their main competitor, do not.
The truth is that developers and sellers have to pay for access to customers of a platform that is not their own, if they want to use that platform to make money. The platform owners spends a lot of money to attract and keep consumers on their platforms. Nothing is stopping developers and sellers from trying to attract consumers to their own platform or website, if they have one. But if they want to take the easy way out, they need to pay in order to make money on someones else's platform. If the in-between "pi mp" is not there, neither will be the platform. This is not that hard to understand. An yet you have failed every time, no matter how simply it is explained to you.
In this specific case I don't know if we disagree. I have the impression I'm not being very clear (maybe my English is not as good as I think it is
I agree that Apple created a very profitable ecosystem, that they are entitled to create the rules they feel appropriate, they are entitled to a compensation by developers who use their services/API's. I have no problem with all of that. However, given their size and their power, I think we all should think if we need to regulate it somehow. Not sure how or what, but I think a discussion about it is in order. Thus my questions. We may even conclude that things are fine the way they are right now...
I agree with most of the things you say. I don't have the answers just the questions .
1) Yes it is ambiguous, I would also help you out saying that it is also dangerous. I'm lucky enough to live in a Democracy, and to have free speech, so I think that whatever lawmakers would decide here wouldn't undermine those values. In other not so Democratic countries this could be very dangerous - although I would argue that in those countries the content of the App Store is already being restricted/controlled. I considered your point on the Apple Watch but I have no answer. Yes I think it might be seen as monopoly, but on the other hand it is a watch, right? an Apple Watch... so I would say that it might make sense for them to restrict that specific type of apps on an Apple Watch. Here's a question for you: Facebook wants Apple to be forced to allow Messenger, WhatsApp and others to be set as the default messaging app in iOS. What is you stance on that? I'm completely against it and I can give several reasons why (one of which is that I don't trust Facebook) but here is one: it's an Apple iPhone so everything about the basic Phone features part of it should be Apple. All other messaging systems may coexist in the platform, that is up to Apple to decide, but SMS are a basic function of a mobile phone.
2) Again I don't think iOS is a monopoly. I'm happy with how things work on iOS right now. I just think Apple will loose this battle (for the wrong reasons if you ask me) so that it is time for them to find a solution, which I'm sure they already have. Someone talked about bringing Gatekeeper to iOS - that is one possible solution. Also, if Apple is prohibited to prohibit other App Stores I think they are still entitled for some sort of compensation because of their API's.
3) Listen, as a business owner, I think that what Apple pays in taxes in Europe is an outrage. I'm sure you read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_illegal_state_aid_case_against_Apple_in_Ireland. There are several other smart tricks big companies are using. It's not fair for other companies doing business, it doesn't foster competition. Again I believe that they didn't make anything illegal, they did what was allowed them to do. That's why I blame lawmakers and not Apple.
4) I'm not saying we don't have rules, maybe I jumped to soon. I was under the impression that you were defending the virtues of liberal capitalism, that the markets are able to regulate themselves without the need of laws or Government intervention. I don't believe in that.
I don't know the American Constitution that well. I' don't understand why prohibiting Apple from denying people a third party app store would undermine Apple's right to free speech. It's not like they would be silencing Apple. I wouldn't go that way, it seems the wrong approach but I'm not an expert on constitutional law.
Listen, I don't want my iPhone to change - I LOVE the walled garden. But you need to recognise the wind is changing and that Apple will have to adapt somehow, even if it is just for marketing reasons...