I am starting to believe that in the most cases the government only makes the situation worse. This is one of those situations. With “twin monopolies” - LOL, they have even coined a new term just to make their absurd case which hurts free market.
The US House of Representatives has a lower level of individual representation of its alleged constituents than any other comparable body in any other industrialized democracy, whether direct or limited, and has been so since 1929. This is nothing more than asserting power in order to grow power. By definition, a twin anything is not a monopoly. This isn’t the first time politicians have fabricated terms in order to frighten the ignorant and justify their violation of the takings clause. It won’t be the last.
I agree that politicians say (often) stupid things but at least in this case I can see whee they are coming from. A monopoly is the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. Otherwise, it is an oligopoly. However, with Apple versus Google or iOS versus Android you really have two distinct markets which are each controlled by one player. So the term Twin Monopolies is not so stupid in my opinion.
Apple's recent App Store concessions have seemingly failed to appease U.S. lawmakers, who are still moving ahead with legislation to change how the app marketplace is runscrew things up royally and then blame everyone but themselves.
Let’s see a show of hands—how many would like to see a change in the way the App Store is run vs. how many would like to see a change in the way congress is run.
And which’s would make a bigger and more positive impact?
I'll take your bait. Speaking only for myself, I'd be happy to see the entire App Store paradigm burned to the ground, and then burned again. But this reflects my own preferences. I am not so strident that I can't see how the structure, as it exists, serves a certain class of user quite well.
The App Store paradigm is your company spends billions developing a store to offer safe goods of a certain quality. You set a fair price and allow others to profit off your creation. Greedy developers who want all the profits for themselves complain and even get government stooges to demand you give them your profit while continuing to invest in the platform.
Your options are continue at a loss or shutdown development and invest those funds into a new venture with profit potential. The only loosers here will be the 99% of developers who this model as worked well for and real Apple supporters. Apple will cut bait just like they did with Newton and more recently IPod. Even though fans will want a continuance, a lack of profitability will determine its fate.
At this point, the App Store as you know it is doomed. Not because there will be many ways to buy apps. More likely, there will only be ways to buy web apps but because Native 3rd party apps will go away and hundreds of thousands of developers will be unemployed over night.
You realise if it wasn't for "greedy developers" the iPhone wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as it is today? It wouldn't be making Apple the vast sums it is now, and Android would be 99% of the market.
And you realize that most developers never would have had a chance to make the money they made if it wasn’t for the system Apple set up. How many developers could have set up a distribution and payment system if Apple haven’t done it for them. How many developers came out of nowhere to create great apps simply because they could afford $99.00 which gave them access to Apple’s entire ecosystem. How many users (not developers) have you heard complaining about the App Store?
They wouldn’t, I completely agree. However, it’s a mutual relationship very much biased in favour of Apple. Apple makes billions from the App Store, whereas most small developers barely break even. The costs of running the store are a small fraction of the 30% they take.
Let’s see a show of hands—how many would like to see a change in the way the App Store is run vs. how many would like to see a change in the way congress is run.
And which would make a bigger and more positive impact?
I'll take your bait. Speaking only for myself, I'd be happy to see the entire App Store paradigm burned to the ground, and then burned again. But this reflects my own preferences. I am not so strident that I can't see how the structure, as it exists, serves a certain class of user quite well.
The App Store paradigm is your company spends billions developing a store to offer safe goods of a certain quality. You set a fair price and allow others to profit off your creation. Greedy developers who want all the profits for themselves complain and even get government stooges to demand you give them your profit while continuing to invest in the platform.
Your options are continue at a loss or shutdown development and invest those funds into a new venture with profit potential. The only loosers here will be the 99% of developers who this model as worked well for and real Apple supporters. Apple will cut bait just like they did with Newton and more recently IPod. Even though fans will want a continuance, a lack of profitability will determine its fate.
At this point, the App Store as you know it is doomed. Not because there will be many ways to buy apps. More likely, there will only be ways to buy web apps but because Native 3rd party apps will go away and hundreds of thousands of developers will be unemployed over night.
I agree. Developers bitching about the 30% don't know how good they have it. As a former owner of a software company pre any such entity as the App Store concept I know how much it really costs to market, print, duplicate, pack and ship , and staff a company selling software, in the 'good old days'. I'd have bitten Apple's arm off to be able to net 70%.
The government has no business forcing a private company to change their business model because a vocal minority of people want them to.
Apple is not a monopoly.
Apple has broken no laws.
Developers and users are free to switch platforms at any time if they don't like the way Apple does things.
The government does not exist to force your every little wish and desire on others. This is a huge overstep and should not be allowed to proceed. If this law gets passed, it will be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court and I hope that the conservative leaning court smacks it down.
Everyone keeps mentioning "sending Apple money" as if that were a bad thing. If you opened a storefront on 5th Avenue or Rodeo Drive not only would you pay rent but also a percentage of your sales. But that premiere location affords you benefits that earn you greater income than a more pedestrian location would. We also live in country (world?) that gravitates toward two parties only - politically that would be Democrats and Republicans (as third parties never succeed) but it carries into other areas as well. Customers have not been wronged and do not complain. The only complaints come from developers who want to keep all their money and not pay the rent due. This duopoly is not a crisis. What is, and what should be occupying the lazy lives of Congress people, is the pandemic, voting rights, climate problems, infrastructure, etc. This is not a single company controlling an entire industry, and the rates charged are not unusual or out of order. The greedy developers already making hundreds of millions dollars are the ones that complain for more. Keep the government out of it!
Let’s see a show of hands—how many would like to see a change in the way the App Store is run vs. how many would like to see a change in the way congress is run.
And which would make a bigger and more positive impact?
I'll take your bait. Speaking only for myself, I'd be happy to see the entire App Store paradigm burned to the ground, and then burned again. But this reflects my own preferences. I am not so strident that I can't see how the structure, as it exists, serves a certain class of user quite well.
The App Store paradigm is your company spends billions developing a store to offer safe goods of a certain quality. You set a fair price and allow others to profit off your creation. Greedy developers who want all the profits for themselves complain and even get government stooges to demand you give them your profit while continuing to invest in the platform.
Your options are continue at a loss or shutdown development and invest those funds into a new venture with profit potential. The only loosers here will be the 99% of developers who this model as worked well for and real Apple supporters. Apple will cut bait just like they did with Newton and more recently IPod. Even though fans will want a continuance, a lack of profitability will determine its fate.
At this point, the App Store as you know it is doomed. Not because there will be many ways to buy apps. More likely, there will only be ways to buy web apps but because Native 3rd party apps will go away and hundreds of thousands of developers will be unemployed over night.
You realise if it wasn't for "greedy developers" the iPhone wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as it is today? It wouldn't be making Apple the vast sums it is now, and Android would be 99% of the market.
You realize that if wasn't for Apple's billion spendy customers developers wouldn't be making the money they are making now. See how that works? Good luck making money on the Google Play Store.
Comments
I agree that politicians say (often) stupid things but at least in this case I can see whee they are coming from. A monopoly is the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. Otherwise, it is an oligopoly. However, with Apple versus Google or iOS versus Android you really have two distinct markets which are each controlled by one player. So the term Twin Monopolies is not so stupid in my opinion.
Apple is not a monopoly.
Apple has broken no laws.
Developers and users are free to switch platforms at any time if they don't like the way Apple does things.
The government does not exist to force your every little wish and desire on others. This is a huge overstep and should not be allowed to proceed. If this law gets passed, it will be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court and I hope that the conservative leaning court smacks it down.