Some people STILL want to cry "get an android if you don't like it" when they don't realize the the Playstore has the same issue and these states are going to apply any possible regulation to BOTH stores. Just fanboys thru and thru. Only cry about regulation when it comes to Apple.
What would you say if your local gas station wasn't regulated? "Just use electric cars if you don't like the outrageous prices gas station owners would surely raise their prices to, or good old fashioned horses!"
Who wants an android piece of crap anyway? I just saw they were 105 million android phones affected by some data scam.
We see who side you are on and that’s fine and dandy but who wants their iPhones to be attacked my malware ransom ware and whatever other kind of virus at IPhone users and then the idiots crying fir side loading will of course be standing in line with their lawyer wanting to sue Apple for allowing malware into their iPhones.
"Apple continues to monopolize app distribution and in-app payment solutions for iPhones...."
I guess this is a lesson in the danger of unintended consequences. Legislators now actually equate iPhone with all smartphones. Dumb and wrong, but a testament to Apple's brand power.
Some people STILL want to cry "get an android if you don't like it" when they don't realize the the Playstore has the same issue and these states are going to apply any possible regulation to BOTH stores. Just fanboys thru and thru. Only cry about regulation when it comes to Apple.
What would you say if your local gas station wasn't regulated? "Just use electric cars if you don't like the outrageous prices gas station owners would surely raise their prices to, or good old fashioned horses!"
And you are STILL truly clueless. There are regulations to operating a gas station but gas stations prices are not regulated. Gas stations to not form a monopoly. If their prices were regulated, all the gas stations would HAVE to charge about the same price. The reason why all local gas stations seems to charge about the same price is because of competition. If it takes only a few minutes for drivers to find another local gas station that charges $.05 less per gallon, nothing is stopping them from getting gas at the cheaper station. So there's a limit to how much a gas station can charge because of nearby competition, not because prices are regulated. If anything, regulation decreases competition.
Gas stations that have a mini mart or sell lottery tickets, often sell their gas a little cheaper because it attracts customers to their stations. Gas stations with mini mart makes more profit from selling coffee, lottery tickets, potato chips, candy, hotdogs and other snacks, than from selling gas. Gas stations make average profit of $.02 on a gallon of gas. They can make over $1.00 profit from a large soda.
And guess what, consumers that are fed up with high gas prices are buying electric or hybrid cars.
Plus, it's not the consumer that are crying about the high prices of apps. Over 70% of the apps on both Apple and Android are free. And it's not the small developers that are crying about the 15% commission. It seems that the biggest cry babies are the multi-million or multi-billion developers that are already making obscene profits selling virtual goods. Obscene profits that they wouldn't be making, if it weren't for Apple iOS or Google Android.
Plus this little tidbit:
Over 100 million Android phones hit with malicious apps that steal your money — what to do
That is exactly why I do not have an iPhone. Who the heck needs this crap.
These idiots keep talking about harm to consumers. Where’s the harm?
On The App Store there are countless Apps in thousands of categories that can do almost anything with most of them either free or priced from $0.99-4.99.
Huge selection to choose from at low prices. That’s literally the opposite of “harm”.
Forget the dev, not your problem that app stores take almost a third of that $0.99-4.99, right!? No biggie, just switch to Android where they take .....?
It's no biggie because developers can charge what they want. Neither Apple of Google prevents developers from making a decent profit from selling their apps in their app stores, by charging what they need to. But competition will. A developer can not charge much more for their apps than the consumers are willing to pay. If one developer is happy with making $.70 for every $.99 app they sell, then another developer selling a similar app, can not cry about how unfair Apple or Google is because their commission only allows them to make $.70 per app sale because they can't charge more than $.99 for their app, due to competition.
Both Apple and Google app stores are level playing field for developers because the commission applies the same way to all.
Neither Apple of Google should subsidize the profits of developers that are crying about the commission because they can't make a descent profit from selling junk apps that consumers are not willing to pay a lot for. No where in any industry, is getting to keep 85% or 70% of the selling price of your product or service, consider unfair. Not when you get to set the selling price.
Make these AGs wear sponsorship patches like nascar drivers.
Hands down the best political idea I’ve heard in a long time! Congress people too…imagine a representative railing against a bill to negotiate drug prices with a huge blinking “sponsored by Merck” sign on their chest.
shareef777 said: Yep, issue has been about the 30% cut that both app stores are mandating. I get it from both sides. Both stores are ABSOLUTELY entitled to a cut and there's no denying that. What they've accomplished has changed the way we live our lives. However, they've both become such a large economy in and of themselves that they now demand regulation. Far too many developers (both small and large) rely on the the app stores to survive and the fact that it's a duopoly merits the discussion of regulation. I don't agree with Epic of allowing separate app purchases as that would mean that Apple/Google wouldn't get anything in exchange for maintaining their respective platforms. But an almost THIRD of their income is very excessive. And what's even worse is that it's not fair amongst even large companies considering apps like Amazon don't pay ANYTHING outside of the $100 dev fee.
Apple already called the bluff on the cut by lowering it to 15% for anyone making under a million per year with their app (meaning the vast majority of developers on iOS). That should have been enough if the "issue" was really the level of cut. 15% is like a gratuity at a restaurant.
These idiots keep talking about harm to consumers. Where’s the harm?
On The App Store there are countless Apps in thousands of categories that can do almost anything with most of them either free or priced from $0.99-4.99.
Huge selection to choose from at low prices. That’s literally the opposite of “harm”.
Forget the dev, not your problem that app stores take almost a third of that $0.99-4.99, right!? No biggie, just switch to Android where they take .....?
It's no biggie because developers can charge what they want. Neither Apple of Google prevents developers from making a decent profit from selling their apps in their app stores, by charging what they need to. But competition will. A developer can not charge much more for their apps than the consumers are willing to pay. If one developer is happy with making $.70 for every $.99 app they sell, then another developer selling a similar app, can not cry about how unfair Apple or Google is because their commission only allows them to make $.70 per app sale because they can't charge more than $.99 for their app, due to competition.
Both Apple and Google app stores are level playing field for developers because the commission applies the same way to all.
Neither Apple of Google should subsidize the profits of developers that are crying about the commission because they can't make a descent profit from selling junk apps that consumers are not willing to pay a lot for. No where in any industry, is getting to keep 85% or 70% of the selling price of your product or service, consider unfair. Not when you get to set the selling price.
OK, then allow other app stores, Apple can lower their fees and "compete". Or is competition only ok when it's not against apple!?
So much greed comes from Apple fanboys it's insane. They're always looking at it from THEIR perspective. But when it comes to devs, screw em. It's ok if they have to gut each other to the bottom, as long as Apple gets their 30%, you guys are fine with that SMH. Let them eat cake.
Why should Apple have to "compete" with themselves. The US Constitution hands copyright and patent owners the exclusive right to monetize their discoveries. iOS is Apple intellectual property. Apple do not have to allow third party app stores on to iOS, so others can profit from iOS.
Could government force Epic to allow third party stores to sell virtual goods to Fornite players? The profit margin for the virtual goods Epic sells to Fortnite players is obscenely higher than what Apple makes on their commission. But Fortnite is Epic IP and they have exclusive rights to monetize it. The same as with Apple with iOS.
And Microsoft with their Xbox. And Sony with their PlayStation. Can the government force Microsoft to allow a third party app store on their Xbox, that sells Xbox games to compete with Microsoft own Microsoft Store? No. Because Xbox platform is Microsoft IP and Microsoft has the exclusive right to profit from its use. Same with Sony.
U.S. Constitution Article I Section 8 | Clause 8– Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
The only time government can and should regulate Apple App Store (under anti-trust violations), is when there is a monopoly AND there's abuse of that monopoly. But first there must be a monopoly that falls under the Sherman Act. Something that would be very difficult, if not impossible to prove, as it would require a "relevant market" that is compose only of Apple brand. iOS is only 25% of the mobile OS market and just being highly profitable for Apple, is not a matter for anti-trust.
>This decision is consistent with prior rulings that have rejected
attempts by plaintiffs to bring antitrust cases based on a defendant's
alleged dominance of a "market" limited to its own products.<
It's the same reason why the Judge in the Epic Vs Apple case threw out Epic claim that Apple have a monopoly with iOS.
None of what you are saying is relevant and just plain jibberish, unless one can prove that Apple have a monopoly with iOS in a "relevant market". Not a "market" that is selectively narrowed down to just one brand ...... Apple.
shareef777 said: Yep, issue has been about the 30% cut that both app stores are mandating. I get it from both sides. Both stores are ABSOLUTELY entitled to a cut and there's no denying that. What they've accomplished has changed the way we live our lives. However, they've both become such a large economy in and of themselves that they now demand regulation. Far too many developers (both small and large) rely on the the app stores to survive and the fact that it's a duopoly merits the discussion of regulation. I don't agree with Epic of allowing separate app purchases as that would mean that Apple/Google wouldn't get anything in exchange for maintaining their respective platforms. But an almost THIRD of their income is very excessive. And what's even worse is that it's not fair amongst even large companies considering apps like Amazon don't pay ANYTHING outside of the $100 dev fee.
Apple already called the bluff on the cut by lowering it to 15% for anyone making under a million per year with their app (meaning the vast majority of developers on iOS). That should have been enough if the "issue" was really the level of cut. 15% is like a gratuity at a restaurant.
I think that's a HUGE step in the right direction, but that's not the only issue. There's still the aspect of them removing apps that compete against them, and then the idea that they don't treat all apps/devs equally (why doesn't Amazon pay a fee on all purchases). Why does Hey have to give a cut of their fees, but Slack doesn't?
If Apple has any sense at all it will bow to the desires of its customers and relinquish exclusively of distributing apps to the iPhone and iPad before government forces it to. It is the right thing to do and what their customers want. How many more billions do you really need Tim? There is choice on the Mac. Let there be choice on the iPhone.
If Apple has any sense at all it will bow to the desires of its customers and relinquish exclusively of distributing apps to the iPhone and iPad before government forces it to. It is the right thing to do and what their customers want. How many more billions do you really need Tim? There is choice on the Mac. Let there be choice on the iPhone.
This is not what the customers want. It's what several highly profitable, cry baby developers want.
If customers wants to obtain their apps from other than the Google Play Store, third party app stores and side loading that is allowed on Android, would be way more popular. But over 85% of Android users get their apps exclusively from the Google Play Store. (Not counting China for obvious reasons) Why is that, if that's what the customers want? iOS customers are no different. Plus iOS customers tends to be more security minded.
These idiots keep talking about harm to consumers. Where’s the harm?
On The App Store there are countless Apps in thousands of categories that can do almost anything with most of them either free or priced from $0.99-4.99.
Huge selection to choose from at low prices. That’s literally the opposite of “harm”.
I believe they feel the harm is to them the consumers of collected data to target voters in elections.
appstore already broke many channels to tie information together. Apples efforts in breaking web tracking further reduced that product.
If Apple has any sense at all it will bow to the desires of its customers and relinquish exclusively of distributing apps to the iPhone and iPad before government forces it to. It is the right thing to do and what their customers want. How many more billions do you really need Tim? There is choice on the Mac. Let there be choice on the iPhone.
Consumers on Android have this choice and largely haven’t taken it up.
Apple has a choice. They can either keep fighting this battle to the bitter end and, if what has happened over the last year is any indication, get something really bad imposed on them. Or they can accept where this is going, get out ahead and control the result. The world has changed. Attitudes have changed. Apple needs to change too or they will have something bad for them and their customers forced upon them.
It’s far better to control the landing than to fight to stay aloft and end up stalling and crashing.
Apple has a choice. They can either keep fighting this battle to the bitter end and, if what has happened over the last year is any indication, get something really bad imposed on them. Or they can accept where this is going, get out ahead and control the result. The world has changed. Attitudes have changed. Apple needs to change too or they will have something bad for them and their customers forced upon them.
It’s far better to control the landing than to fight to stay aloft and end up stalling and crashing.
The arguments against Apple amount to nothing, it doesn't matter how bitter people are about it. Apple doesn't have a majority marketshare, Android does and they allow 3rd party stores. Apple allows access to the internet unrestricted and software can run either via the web or streamed. Not that it matters, people keep making the same stupid argument about an iPhone being a general purpose product, every product is designed by its manufacturer whether it's a smart TV, a console, a phone, a PC and they have a right to design it how they want with security restrictions on native software. If a manufacturer designs a Windows PC that can only run a single store and gains a 30% marketshare, it's not anticompetitive if people can buy an alternative product. If they gained a 90% marketshare, it might be different but it likely wouldn't gain that kind of marketshare if it was restrictive.
The original argument was about Fortnite being accessible on iOS without Apple's control, it can be accessed via the cloud, this was always an option via a browser and here it is currently running on iOS:
Apple doesn't set the prices for in-app purchases. No developers have been monetarily harmed by Apple. Here's the letter they are presenting:
They talk about the ruling undermining antitrust law but they aren't being honest about what their motives are. For a lot of these politicians, this is about Parler being removed from the store, getting retribution for it and laying groundwork for it not happening again and for some it will be Apple not allowing backdoors on iPhones. They want the ability to install backdoors on iPhones without Apple's permission. There was an article today about this:
The proposed legislation has been specifically targeted at companies with over 50m US store users to deliberately target it at Apple and Google. If it ever moves ahead, Apple can easily block access to the store in the 34 states that pushed for this to get the number to stay below 50m. If it moves ahead and they choose to go the route of allowing 3rd party stores instead, they can just create an entirely closed off sandbox for each store possibly running a separate copy of the OS in a VM so that malware is isolated from the boot capability of the device.
Apple has plenty of options to go for but before this is even worth considering, the complainants have to prove what they are arguing about - that Apple is stifling competition and harming developers and users. They haven't demonstrated this at all. The fact Fortnite is currently capable of running on iOS without Apple doing anything discredits the entire argument.
At present the free apps in the app store are effectively supported by the profit from the paid apps and in-app purchases of other apps.
The only logical alternative to the current situation is that Apple removes the “free” price tier, so that all app downloads are charged for and thereby commission is paid for all apps - and in return maybe Apple abandons/bans in-app purchases. Basically a return to how mobile software was priced before the app-store - I remember paying $ for java games on my Symbian mobile before the iPhone. But I can’t see that happening as in-app purchases account for so much profit.
Even better would be for Apple to ban in-app mobile ads too. Imho.
In 1997, when Michael Dell infamously said Apple should be shut down, and the money given to the shareholders, the company was not only on its deathbed, but also completely irrelevant and superfluous. Who needed a Mac with a PowerPC when the ENTIRE WORLD ran on Windows 95 and Intel? What would you have said back then had I told you that, 25 years later, Apple would be the biggest and most profitable company in the world? So much so that 34 states would want to regulate it as a monopoly lol?!
In 1998, when Steve Jobs took over as interim CEO and I first invested in AAPL, Apple Computer had a market cap of less than $5B. Including the $1.5B to $3B in cash and no debt, AAPL book value was about $10 to $12 a share and AAPL was trading at 1.5X book valve at about $18 a share. The $10 to $12 a share book value was what M.Dell was alluding to, that should be returned to AAPL shareholders by shutting them down.
Today Epic has a valuation of $28B and revenue of over $4B a year. Granted Sweeney isn't fit to tie Jobs tennis shoe laces, there's no excuse for anyone to think that Epic needs some form of government "affirmative action" to "level the playing field", in order for them to compete. Since Epic Games is not a publicly trade company, how much profit they making does not have to be made public. But the Epic vs Apple lawsuit gave us a hint.
Just exactly how was Epic harmed by Apple App Store policies or commission? Because they should had made $1.55B in profit instead of the $1.54B, in 2020? Epic Games seems to be doing just fine without having Fortnite in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, for nearly 1.5 years now. Fortnite is still one of the most popular and profitable games. And yet the CEO of Epic is one of the biggest cry baby of all, when it comes to complaining about how paying Apple and Google app stores commission, has done his company irreparable harm.
Marvin said: Apple has plenty of options to go for
One option, which I've been touting for years, but not a single person has supported, is that Apple could provide a way to allow users to install Android on its iPhones. But Apple wouldn't have to support Android. Apple allows users to install Windows on Macs, but Apple doesn't support Windows on Macs. This would allow the idiots who argue "it's MY phone and I want to install MY software on it"to do just that.
Comments
Over 100 million Android phones hit with malicious apps that steal your money — what to do
Both Apple and Google app stores are level playing field for developers because the commission applies the same way to all.
Neither Apple of Google should subsidize the profits of developers that are crying about the commission because they can't make a descent profit from selling junk apps that consumers are not willing to pay a lot for. No where in any industry, is getting to keep 85% or 70% of the selling price of your product or service, consider unfair. Not when you get to set the selling price.
Article I Section 8 | Clause 8– Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
If customers wants to obtain their apps from other than the Google Play Store, third party app stores and side loading that is allowed on Android, would be way more popular. But over 85% of Android users get their apps exclusively from the Google Play Store. (Not counting China for obvious reasons) Why is that, if that's what the customers want? iOS customers are no different. Plus iOS customers tends to be more security minded.
appstore already broke many channels to tie information together. Apples efforts in breaking web tracking further reduced that product.
It’s far better to control the landing than to fight to stay aloft and end up stalling and crashing.
this isn’t an appeal. This is inequitable cruel and unusual punishment
the one difference between Apple and the aforementioned? Success.
The original argument was about Fortnite being accessible on iOS without Apple's control, it can be accessed via the cloud, this was always an option via a browser and here it is currently running on iOS:
Apple doesn't set the prices for in-app purchases. No developers have been monetarily harmed by Apple. Here's the letter they are presenting:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/States-amicus-brief-for-Epic-v-Apple-appeal.pdf
They talk about the ruling undermining antitrust law but they aren't being honest about what their motives are. For a lot of these politicians, this is about Parler being removed from the store, getting retribution for it and laying groundwork for it not happening again and for some it will be Apple not allowing backdoors on iPhones. They want the ability to install backdoors on iPhones without Apple's permission. There was an article today about this:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/01/28/fbi-considered-using-pegasus-spyware-for-us-domestic-surveillance
The proposed legislation has been specifically targeted at companies with over 50m US store users to deliberately target it at Apple and Google. If it ever moves ahead, Apple can easily block access to the store in the 34 states that pushed for this to get the number to stay below 50m. If it moves ahead and they choose to go the route of allowing 3rd party stores instead, they can just create an entirely closed off sandbox for each store possibly running a separate copy of the OS in a VM so that malware is isolated from the boot capability of the device.
Apple has plenty of options to go for but before this is even worth considering, the complainants have to prove what they are arguing about - that Apple is stifling competition and harming developers and users. They haven't demonstrated this at all. The fact Fortnite is currently capable of running on iOS without Apple doing anything discredits the entire argument.
The only logical alternative to the current situation is that Apple removes the “free” price tier, so that all app downloads are charged for and thereby commission is paid for all apps - and in return maybe Apple abandons/bans in-app purchases. Basically a return to how mobile software was priced before the app-store - I remember paying $ for java games on my Symbian mobile before the iPhone. But I can’t see that happening as in-app purchases account for so much profit.
Even better would be for Apple to ban in-app mobile ads too. Imho.
Today Epic has a valuation of $28B and revenue of over $4B a year. Granted Sweeney isn't fit to tie Jobs tennis shoe laces, there's no excuse for anyone to think that Epic needs some form of government "affirmative action" to "level the playing field", in order for them to compete. Since Epic Games is not a publicly trade company, how much profit they making does not have to be made public. But the Epic vs Apple lawsuit gave us a hint.
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/78687/report-epic-games-made-3-85-billion-in-2020-1-54-profit/index.html
Just exactly how was Epic harmed by Apple App Store policies or commission? Because they should had made $1.55B in profit instead of the $1.54B, in 2020? Epic Games seems to be doing just fine without having Fortnite in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, for nearly 1.5 years now. Fortnite is still one of the most popular and profitable games. And yet the CEO of Epic is one of the biggest cry baby of all, when it comes to complaining about how paying Apple and Google app stores commission, has done his company irreparable harm.