- [email protected]
- Last Active
- unconfirmed, member
Not so long ago Microsoft had a go trying to be a third mobile platform. They even bought Nokia to make it happen.
They know tech and had a more than decent OS, and they failed.
If Microsoft and Nokia together can not manage to be a competitor who can?
Forcing Apple and Google to make their products worse is going to make competition happen?
NFC is crusty old tech.
Ars Technica had an article in 2013 complaining about years of NFC hype while nothing happened.
Banks just recently caught up with 2010 and started using NFC. Banks love crusty old tech.
Apple never liked it, but if they want to play in mobile payments, which they do, they need to go with old tech the banks can handle.
If Apple is forced to keep supporting NFC at the low levels banks want access to, they will be stuck with it longer and their options for moving forward will be restricted.
That is what they mean by stifling innovation.
jayweiss said:There will be no more FREE Apps. Someone is going to have to pay for the infrastructure that provides developers a storefront where their Apps can be discovered.There is no such thing as a free lunch.
If these will have to start paying many will just leave and users will have to use their website.
Then even more developers will not think it worth the trouble, and money, to be on the AppStore.
This downward spiral might force Apple's take to go below break-even.
swat671 said:[email protected] said:Regulation tends to benefit the big players, those that can afford to pay for a chief compliance officer and staff.
Regulation makes the price of entry into a market higher.
Those that are already there become stronger.
I'm just floating the idea that those that think more regulation will make Big Tech less powerful might be disappointed with the results.
Maybe Apple will just start charging those that do not qualify for the small business program, those that make more than 1 million on the app store, a lot more for developer membership, and also for dev tools and app submissions. Apple hinted at this in the Epic trial. They will get their money one way or another, they prefer the system they have now.
The Apple Store windows have some serious glass. It took four bullets and none went through. One of the bullets is reportedly still stuck in the glass.
Apparently the loony demanded 200 million in crypto.
A few hours in the gunman asked for water, the police sent a robot with water to the door. He sent his hostage to get it, but the hostage ran, he chased him out of the store and a police car hit him to the ground. While he was down a robot was sent to check for explosives on his body.
avon b7 said:RudolfGottfried said:avon b7 said:RudolfGottfried said:saarek said:rob53 said:When I go into any store I have one choice for payment--what the store has to offer. I have no ability to use a third-party payment system to pay for my groceries, household items or anything else. How is the Apple App Store any different? I go to this store and use their payment system. How difficult is it to understand?
As for specifying dating apps, ?????????? Why are they special? Is the Dutch government trying to make sure Apple doesn't know who's actually using their App Store and apps? I guess it's time to go after Costco and other membership stores along with every grocery store forcing them to allow me to walk into their store, pick up an item, and tell them I'm using an outside payment system. Of course they'll let me walk out the door. /s Yea, right into a police car on its way to jail. I know all of this is being done because governments want to dictate anything they can while not telling anyone how much in bribes they're getting.
But with the iPhone you don’t have that choice.
Yes, you were aware of that before you bought your iPhone. But ultimately it comes down to choice. If you want an iPhone you have to accept that you have no choice, it’s Apple App Store with exorbitant fees or the highway.
Apple makes 35-45% mark up on every phone they sell. The 30% markup on the App Store isn’t really justifiable and we all know it.
Yes, there are benefits to the end user to being locked down to one App Store. But Apple is blowing their chance of keeping iOS apps locked down by their greed. And yes, it is greed. Most companies either make money on the hardware sale or hope to make it up via the software. Apple makes eye watering profits on the hardware and then takes 30% for all software sales. Sadly that’s Tim Cook for you though, he’s obsessed with profits over everything else.
Anyone who claims that simple greed is the main driving force behind Apple or Tim Cook has no idea about the subject. And usually comes instead up with inappropriate analogies.
There is an obvious problem with the mall analogy and that's why it fails.
Once you purchase an iPhone or iPad (gaining access to that mall in the process) your only 'mall' is the 'Apple mall' but there are no stores competing with each other. No. There is only really one store, which not only doesn't have any competition, but also decides for you what you have access to purchase.
On top of that, no purchaser of iDevices is ever clearly made aware of these limitations.
In fact, that is where I believe Apple could run into problems in the EU.
It's not that the current setup couldn't survive scrutiny but that it might end up being necessary to make purchasers sign acceptance of Apple's control, for it to continue.
And as for your mall statements, have you ever seen a sign there that said: "Dear competitor, would you like to place your mall in my mall? No problem, I will provide you with enough space, electricity and water. I will advertise for you and take care of your security. And in the evening I will clean up your mess. Everything for free!"?
Or in the individual stores signs like: "You get this product much cheaper five blocks away." or "Take what you want and pay for it somewhere else."?
And for the fact that you have to pay individually in each store of a mall, the store owners pay a fee to the mall owner. It's called RENT.
That will suck, a little or a lot depending in the kind of app, but that is the alternative.
Why do apps suck less than the internet?
Because Apple worked and works to make it suck less, for which they want to be paid if you benefit from it.
If a developer think it's too expensive, because they have a business model that doesn't allow for paying for Apple's services, they shouldn't use Apple's services.
If you have a product to sell, but you cannot make money if the supermarket takes their margin, and setting up a stall on the street sucks, would it be sensible for a judge to order the supermarket to allow you to set up your own cash register in the supermarket?