teejay2012

randyl said:

.. I'm guessing there is a more optimal way that is secure/easy for the consumer, fairer to the developer considering I'm subsidizing the app store with my iphone purchase....

Nonsense really. You bought a high tech iPhone for a price you felt was worth it and I am pretty sure that like most of us, you never really thought of the App Store as part of your purchase price. By your logic, you should get 'all' of Apple's services because after all... 'you subsidized it all' with your iPhone purchase. Apple should get a return for inventing, developing and maintaining the App Store and it should be market forces that dictate what companies want to charge for products or services. If Apple charges too much... well we can move on.

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

It sounds like the only advantage is that those local Norwegian banks don't allow Apple Pay. 

The major benefit is choice for the end user and with it, competition and innovation.

I didn't see any innovations or pricing benefits mentioned in the article. 

The benefit seems to be that this is not Apple. The innovation seems to be that this is not Apple but runs on Apple hardware. Very exciting /s

Apple should have remedied the anti steering, as this was the ONE point that they lost on in US federal court with the Epic case. So it was not going to go away in the EU either. Why Apple resisted goes along with their naturally obstructive nature I guess. But the EU claiming this harms EU companies like Spotify when 99% of their paid users signed up through the web seems a stretch. Apparently signing up on the web is not a closely guarded secret. No. The real issue for the EU is that Apple still insists on charging 'something' for  subscriptions regardless of the path and the EU want it to be 'nothing'. That is also a stretch but the EU will still keep fining Apple. I had wondered if there will be an EU court pathway for an appeal like as in the Irish-Apple tax case, where EU regulators lost?  As for some comments here that Apple should 'just leave' the EU, why would you want that if you owned an iPhone? That would be a disaster imo for users and Apple. I suspect they actually do not own an iPhone and have no standing in this debate, except to stir the pot with hyperbole and illogical comments.

If Apple absorbs the tariff cost rather than pass to buyers, then the tariff really becomes an Apple tax. That by itself is a problem if some tariff exclusion does not happen.  Additionally Apple has in past absorbed costs with currency exchange, when the US dollar was so much higher than most currencies. Currently, the US dollar is two standard deviations above its 50-year average so FX is another headwind for Apple selling outside of the US.

phoenix1386 said:

On another note, is it possible to ignore a writer here? 

It is called scrolling.

davgreg said:

"...It will take time as the rest of the world is used to taking advantage of the US in trade by the use of VAT taxes with rebates, tariffs and other trade barriers..."

Not sure how a VAT takes advantage of the US, as these sorts of consumer taxes are applied to ALL goods and services, regardless of origin. Even domestic goods and services. Trump knows this of course but he keeps referring to VATs as some sort of barrier to US companies. No.  Actually with its economy being 70% consumer based, the US could probably cover its deficit with some sort of VAT in a decade or two, but then every American would see the tax on their bill, and that would be political poison. Rather,  Trump has applied tariffs as as a regressive tax that applies to all consumers buying imported goods, but affects those with less money more than those with more money, and never appears on a bill. And Republicans fall for this slight of hand LOL?

CheeseFreeze said:

teejay2012 said:

randyl said:

.. I'm guessing there is a more optimal way that is secure/easy for the consumer, fairer to the developer considering I'm subsidizing the app store with my iphone purchase....

Nonsense really. You bought a high tech iPhone for a price you felt was worth it and I am pretty sure that like most of us, you never really thought of the App Store as part of your purchase price. By your logic, you should get 'all' of Apple's services because after all... 'you subsidized it all' with your iPhone purchase. Apple should get a return for inventing, developing and maintaining the App Store and it should be market forces that dictate what companies want to charge for products or services. If Apple charges too much... well we can move on.

Imagine you purchase a new apartment constructed by Apple Real Estate, you now have to take a mortgage from Apple Mortgages, and get all the groceries, water, gas, electricity and insurances from Apple with a 30% markup. 

Another nonsense analogy.  Did I have a choice in buying this apartment? There were no other apartments? I would be with you if Apple had a monopoly on phones. But it doesn't.

9secondkox2 said:

teejay2012 said:

I did not understand the Spotify - Apple Music fine. The Commission conveniently overlooked that it is Spotify that has a monopoly in the EU and is not financially harmed by Apple, even becoming profitable after many years despite Daniel Ek's extravagant CEO lifestyle. Anti steering should have been a simple thing for Apple, with a notice that the app  could be purchased on the web. A url could have even have been provided, but I could not see how Apple should provide an actual link on the App Store page. That would be like Walmart arranging for an Uber to take you to Target to buy the product at a lower price. Apple was likely surprised how aggressive Vestager was, and how committed she was to promote EU industry by fining US industry. She is gone. Apple will appeal to the courts, which have in past over ruled the Commission, but the chances are small of reversing this. After all, this is 'only 500 million' and this is Apple...

A “notice” thst an app can be purchased elsewhere is such an egregious and corrupt thing to force on a company. 

It’s equivalent to a popular exclusive store being forced to put up a sign next to designer jeans pointing people to a sale at wal/mart down the street. 

I don't disagree with you, but the EU has dug its heels in.  Being practical, I thought simply indicating "Subscription or app prices may be different on the developers site www.spotify.com" might suffice work. Nothing more and as I wrote, certainly Apple should not link the url. But... does Apple need to put in warnings about security concerns for apps downloaded from alternative stores? Does Apple need to state that any problems with transactions outside of Apple are not covered by Apple?  I think it is these kinds of 'small' details that are 'big' sticking points for Apple.

App Store hosting fee, increasing price for App Development software that is differential on sales numbers, giving advanced notice of iOS changes to an inner core of developers, implementing Core Technology Fee in US...  Apple should be paid for the stuff they invented and costs money to support.

Amazon and Jeff Bezos and their DOJ are just the best.  /s