davidw

AppleInsider said:

..........

Apple has defended its decision, saying it "won't make an exception" for Epic to skirt App Store rules. The tech giant promises to terminate Epic's developer account and cut off its access to iOS and Mac development tools, a move that would prohibit Epic from updating the Unreal Engine on which many iOS and Mac games are built. Epic this week requested a temporary restraining order to stop Apple from following through with its threat.

Once again, that is not entirely accurate. Most news site are only reporting what Epic is saying. And epic is lying or at the very least, not telling the whole truth. And its doing as much as possible to paint Apple as the only bad guy in all this. Very few sites are reporting what is actually happening.

Epic is claiming that Apple will be terminating their developer license over their App Store violation of linking to an outside source to buy Fortnite V-bucks at a discount. Plus that Apple is retaliating against them for no other reasons. All Apple did for this violation was to ban Fortnite from the Apple App Store. As did Google from their Play Store.

The threat of terminating Epic developer license stems from other violations that Apple discovered, after Fortnite was already banned.

In a letter they sent to Epic, which few sites publishes or even mention, Apple gave the reasons for their action in terminating Epic developer license and the letter was not about Epic violating the Apple App Store agreement by including an outside link to buy V-bucks at a discount with-in the Fortnite app.

this from macrumor     https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-threatens-to-terminate-epic-games-developer-accounts-on-august-28.2250375/

The letter Apple sent reads .....

>Upon further review of the activity associated with your Apple Developer Program membership, we have identified several violations of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement. Therefore, your Apple Developer Program account will be terminated if the violations set forth below are not cured within 14 days. [...]

If your membership is terminated, you may no longer submit apps to the App Store, and your apps still available for distribution will be removed. You will also lose access to the following programs, technologies, and capabilities:

- All Apple software, SDKs, APIs, and developer tools
- Pre-release versions of iOS, iPad OS, macOS, tvOS, watchOS
- Pre-release versions of beta tools such as Reality Composer, Create ML, Apple Configurator, etc.
- Notarization service for macOS apps
- App Store Connect platform and support (for example, assistance with account transition, password reset, app name issues)
- TestFlight
- Access to provisioning portal for certificate generation, and provisioning profile generation
- Ability to enable Apple services in-app (i.e. Apple Pay, CloudKit, PassKit, Music Kit, HomeKit, Push Notifications, Siri Shortcuts, Sign in with Apple, kernel extensions, FairPlay Streaming)
- Access to Apple-issued keys for connecting to services such as MusicKit, DeviceCheck, APNs, CloudKit, Wallet
- Access to Developer ID signing certificates and Kernel Extension signing certificates 
- Developer Technical Support
- Participation in Universal App Quick Start Program, including the right to use the Developer Transition Kit (which must be returned to Apple)
- Engineering efforts to improve hardware and software performance of Unreal Engine on Mac and iOS hardware; optimize Unreal Engine on the Mac for creative workflows, virtual sets and their CI/Build Systems; and adoption and support of ARKit features and future VR features into Unreal Engine by their XR team

We hope that you are able to cure your breaches of the Apple Program License Agreement and continue to participate in the program. <

i have yet to see a site that has what the letter listed as the violations that Apple stated Epic must correct. Of course, maybe bringing a suit against Apple, might be a violation of the Apple developer license agreement that can get you license revoked. 

brian.on.android said:

waveparticle said:

verne arase said:

Apple is much too successful - we need to stop it now! -- Microsoft

Microsoft is pretty pathetic, and Apple's privacy terms rankle Microsoft's nerves. Too bad Windows doesn't have the same privacy safeguards - with Windows attempting to force everything through Edge.

Microsoft runs their own closed ecosystem with XBox, so it's a lot of Microsoft calling the kettle black.

The real monopoly is in the enterprise software realm where Microsoft keeps boosting prices for their good enough software.

What really pisses off Microsoft is that they don't have access to Apple Silicon ARM processors, so Windows ARM will run faster on Apple hardware than on their OEMs - or indeed on their own surface machines.

Microsoft has a point here. In the 90s it was so successful it almost killed Apple. On the other hand, Steve Jobs resurrected Apple without having to stop Microsoft. 

Worth noting Microsoft invested in Apple in the 90's. Apple may owe Microsoft to a degree.

Microsoft bought $150M worth of AAPL at around $20 a share. They were non-voting shares and if I recall, did not split in 2000 (Microsoft sold them all before the second split in 2005). At the time Apple had no debt and rumored to had had about $1B in cash. Apple did not financially need the $150M investment. 

What Jobs needed was time to get Apple back on track and he did not want to have to the spend the time and resources to fight Microsoft in court over Microsoft stealing QuickTime technology.  A case that Apple was sure to win. So he made an offer to Microsoft to settle by having them invest in AAPL. This ended the lawsuit so Jobs can concentrate on Apple Computer, not the lawsuit. Plus by Microsoft showing confidence to invest $150M in Apple, it gave AAPL investors confidence to not sell and other investors to buy AAPL Thus bolstering AAPL share price until Jobs can release the iMac. Jobs could had ask for $150M in cash and Microsoft would had probably settled. Apple had that strong of a case. But Apple didn't need the money. 

If Microsoft had held on to those shares, they would be worth close to $1.5B today, even without the splits along the way. Instead Microsoft "only" made about $350M profit with their investment. (If they had gotten the splits, their shares would be worth about $170B today.)   

On a side note. Steven Jobs himself boosted his role in saving Apple by claiming Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy when he took over and only had enough cash to last another quarter or two. But he was using a quarter where Apple lost over $600M. Apple was not losing $600M every quarter. That quarter was an anomaly. Apple was only losing about $100M to $200M a quarter at the time. So Apple could have lasted another year or even two, with just cash on hand. $150M wouldn't even cover what Apple was losing in a quarter. So how did Microsoft $150M investment save Apple?  

What's next? Are you going to tell us the fable about how Apple wouldn't be here today, if they hadn't "stolen" PARC technology? 

Alex1N said:

How come Google Play gets a free kick? Conspicuous from its abs ence in the lait in the article.

Lots of alternatives to iMessage - Signal, Telegram, Discord, LINE…

Because Android allow third party app stores and there are already over a dozen app stores on Android. Also, Android allows for sideloading.  About the only issue the EU have with Apple App Store is that it is the only way to get apps installed into iOS. The EU don't count jailbreaking or having to pay for a developer account (and learning Xcode) as other ways to install apps. Even the 15/30% commission is not an issue for the EU.

nubus said:

macxpress said:

I can't wait for this to be a failure so Mr Sweeney can bitch and complain again about how Apple's App Store practices are unfair after he can't even get people to buy his apps and addon's via a 3rd party store. 

Triple-A gaming on iOS is a failure with Fornite being the exception. The fact that Apple didn't make a quiet "marketing kickback" deal but allowed fragmentation of App Store is on Apple. Will it work? It takes devoted users to make this happen and Fortnite users are devoted.

gatorguy said:

davidw said:

gatorguy said:

rob53 said:

It's about time Apple drew a line in the sand. I'm sick and tired of countries dictating how a product is designed especially when those countries have nothing worthwhile to offer. Yes, the UK and EU make some cellular devices but nothing compared to what Apple produces. The removal of end-to-end encryption is simply a ploy to allow governments to capture all kinds of personal information without even having a warrant. The UK wants to go back to the days of the telephone party line so they can snoop constantly. 

The problem for Apple, at least in some eyes, including politicians, is Apple has found a way to adhere to a country's security laws even if it requires compromising user's privacy and individual security in order to do so. The demarcation line for Apple isn't yet clearly established, but there is one nonetheless, likely based on market size and type of government, and that's a fact.

"Apple stores customer data on Chinese government servers."

"Apple agreed to store the digital keys that unlock its Chinese customers' information in those (government) data centers. And Apple abandoned the encryption technology it uses in other data centers after China wouldn't allow it."

My guess is the UK probably teeters on that edge and perhaps where Apple makes a public proclamation that they are NOT big enough on their own. Or it could be that the UK has more exposure to public pressure than some other less open countries and Apple is counting on them to convince the UK to drop the plan.

 In order to try to avoid future demands from others, Apple might make the UK the sacrificial lamb. 

BTW- Even China allows end to end encryption with iMessage. 

AFAIK, as of 2021 (?) they do not, at least in a practical sense.  E2EE would mean the Chinese government cannot access typed or sent messages at all, which would be against Chinese security laws, the same reason other Apple E2EE services had to be disabled in China. It may be encrypted,but that does not mean the Chinese had not already established a means of seeing the typed messages on your phone prior to being sent.

The best I've been able to understand is that iPhone vendors in China install a new certificate in the enterprise enrollment chain-of-trust. This allows the Chinese government to use that certificate to bypass the Apple signed one for code execution on the device.

So they really don’t care that the data is encrypted on the way out of the phone, because they’ve already established access to it before it ever leaves the phone in the first place.

Now I may be wrong, but my understanding is that yes, in the practical sense, there is E2EE with iMessage in China. No one else can read the encrypted iMessage after it's sent from the sender device, while it's being sent and before it is un-encrypted on the receiver device. That is E2EE.

In the US, if the sender backups up his device to the iCloud, Apple re-encrypts the iMessages when they are stored in the iCloud. And  Apple has access to the key. If the government get a court order, Apple can access those E2EE messages.

But in China, when iMessage users backs up their iMessages to the iCloud, they are store in the government servers and the government now has access to those messages without needing to get a court order.    

The only place where E2EE messages can be kept where only the sender and receiver have access to them, is encrypted on their own devices that are protected by a passcode. Apple have no access to that passcode and not even a court order can force Apple to turn over something they don't have access to.  Pretty sure an iPhone in China do not have a backdoor that can bypass the user passcode. But not sure. And for sure, the government can install their own spyware on any iPhones they want. But iMessage E2EE works the way it does in China as in the US. It's just that in China, it's much harder to keep the government from seeing that message, when it's un-ecrypted on the sender or receiver device, due to government spyware. But spyware like Pegasus can do this with any iPhone, anywhere in the World.  And it's not Apple that installs the spyware on their China devices to compromise iMessage nor is there a government backdoor to the iMessage in China.

plalonde said:

Eddy should not be happy with this news after his testimonial earlier this week saying the opposite...

Apple executive Eddy Cue is expected to testify in court that the company has no plan to make an "Apple Search" engine, because its deal with Google is the best for users.

mikethemartian said:

greginprague said:

mikethemartian said:

You also have to account for the 3% to 3.5% inflation from Jan, Feb, Mar 2023 to Jan, Feb, Mar 2024 earnings, respectively.

Inflation of what?  As far as I know Apple hasn’t raised the prices for any of their core products.

$94.8B in early 2023 is the equivalent of 94.8B(1.03)=$97.6B in early 2024, so the inflation corrected percentage change in revenue is actually ((90.75-97.6)/97.6)*100=-7.0%. You have to at least beat inflation to have a true growth in wealth.

mpantone said:

randominternetperson said:

That scrutiny led to the CDTFA's 2023 audit. The agency concluded that tax revenue from Apple's online transactions should be distributed across the state based on where purchases were actually made or delivered -- not where the company is headquartered.

So, why is the money refunded to Apple, and not those other municipalities across the state?

The previous linked article from October 2024:

https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/10/04/cupertino-wins-and-loses-millions-over-californias-apple-tax-ruling?utm_medium=social&utm_source=ai_forums

explains that in a little more detail.

Basically the City of Cupertino gets to keep the tax revenue from 2023 (when the investigation started) until now (2025). A new system will be put into place by the State of California where digital sales tax revenue is collected will go into a new system designed to spread the revenue statewide based on where the digital buyer placed the transaction.

This is just a short term reprieve for the City of Cupertino. They need to figure out fairly quickly how to set their budget accordingly due to a change in expected sales tax revenue from 2025 onward. Apart from Apple, Cupertino is basically a bedroom community with very little retail. It doesn't even have a proper legacy downtown district and its one shopping mall, Vallco failed and is mostly dead.

Read the other article carefully. But the basic gist is that the state has not yet set up the process to disperse that tax revenue yet. As the other article mentions, the ruling affects other California companies with digital retail sales. I'm guessing that companies like Meta (Menlo Park), Alphabet (Mountain View), Netflix (Los Gatos) will be affected as well as maybe others such as Sony Interactive Entertainment (a.k.a. PlayStation) which is headquartered in Redwood City.

Note that for physical goods, there is a long standing system in place that collects sales tax calculated at the point of sale (defined as where the buyer takes possession of the purchased goods). California has a base sales tax however many counties and some municipalities have add-on taxes that increase that amount. So someone buying Gadget A in San Francisco will pay a different sales tax rate than someone in Mendocino County.

This ruling is for digital sales so there is no localized sales tax collection system yet in place. This probably means additional work for Apple (and other digital merchants) who will need to use things like FIPS county codes, ZIP codes, etc. to determine exact sales taxes to be collected just as they do for physical goods (like buying AirPods from store.apple.com).

Until now Apple just collected sales tax based on their location in Cupertino, CA (Santa Clara County) and remitted what was required to the state and county. They did not collect anything more or less. The CDTFA's decision is not retroactive.

mpantone said:

Huh, I apparently did not understand this particular issue perhaps because I have usually done so from the same county. It's strange that Apple would just bill every online tangible item as a sale from Cupertino.

Anyhow, Cupertino gets to keep some of their tax revenue and now has to tighten their belts and find other sources of revenue. LOL, maybe a bond measure.

StrangeDays said:

foregoneconclusion said:

Once again, the reason prices are always being raised is because streaming isn’t a workable business model.

Oh yeah? Then how come Netflix has been profitable for at least 13 years, more so every year? Oops

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/gross-profit


Why you carrying their water, bro?

It is only greed that demands ever-increasing profit margins year over year. Why are they entitled to that? Corporate greed for more is what drives inflation (not labor costs).

Me, what I’ve noticed when I look at legacy hit shows like Star Trek: TNG and compare it to streaming shows like Star Trek: SNW, is that the legacy seasons had two and a half times more episodes (26) while focusing on good writing and character development, while the new seasons have 10 episodes that focus on very expensive, cinematic set pieces and effects. That is a choice. Writing has been devalued, which we see again by the studios’ resistance to paying them. 

Only "gross profit" is not an indicator that Netflix have been more profitable every year.  oops!

Gross profit is the revenue from selling a product minus the cost of producing the product. It does not take into account the cost of operating the business. Which includes taxes, labor cost, rent, electricity, water, insurance, maintenance, accounting cost, advertising, improvements, etc.. If these cost total more than the gross profit, then company is operating at a loss, regardless of their gross profit.  


Try this ....

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/net-profit-margin

Clearly one can see that Netflix net profit did not increase every year. Now revenue has increased every year but increase revenue doesn't always lead to increase profit if cost increased more than revenue.

Plus Netflix net profit margin is not that outrages.

Here's Apple Inc. charts ....

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/profit-margins

Currently, Apple net margin of 25% is nearly twice that of Netflix at 13%, so is Apple twice as greedy as Netflix?