ericthehalfbee

blitz1 said:

To all who write that Epic violated the contract terms: these terms are unlawful.

Of course Epic had to breach them to make their point.

CheeseFreeze said:

libertymatters said:

A maze of red tape to make it prohibitive.  An alternative app store on macOS requires no interaction or input from Apple at all.  An example is MacPorts.  The real answer here is customers demanding app freedom on iOS and iPadOS from Apple and voting with their dollars if Apple doesn't deliver.  The same app freedoms should exist on iOS/iPadOS as has existed on macOS since 1984: 'sideloading' allowed.  The very term 'sideloading' is itself a loaded term that presumes an authority that Apple doesn't have, control of YOUR device.  It is your device not Apple's.  You should be able to load on it whatever app you darn well please.   That is still true on the Mac.  It should be true for iPhones too.

Well said and good observation around the term “side loading”, which by itself is a propaganda term. It’s really simply “downloading”.

As long as the operating system has the necessary protections to “sandbox” security on a per app-level and the app not having the ability to touch things like the kernel or system level services, it’s perfectly fine to place the responsibility in the user’s hands when it comes to downloading from other sources.

The snarky, somewhat juvenile comments from “Chasm” feel like fanboyism, defending a large corporation who has been actively lobbying a false narrative of security vs exploits, but is really only interested in two things: control and profits.
It reduces what can be a mature dialogue to personal attacks, and this keeps happening on this forum.
It is just a matter of time before these rules become the new standard. EU is considered a perfect pilot for the US and other territories. 

gatorguy said:

ericthehalfbee said:

radarthekat said:

avon b7 said:

This is part of what the EU had to say:

"Today's decision concludes that Apple's anti-steering provisions amount to unfair trading conditions, in breach of Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU'). These anti-steering provisions are neither necessary nor proportionate for the protection of Apple's commercial interests in relation to the App Store on Apple's smart mobile devices and negatively affect the interests of iOS users, who cannot make informed and effective decisions on where and how to purchase music streaming subscriptions for use on their device.

Apple's conduct, which lasted for almost ten years, may have led many iOS users to pay significantly higher prices for music streaming subscriptions because of the high commission fee imposed by Apple on developers and passed on to consumers in the form of higher subscription prices for the same service on the Apple App Store.

... "

Apple makes no reference to its anti-competitive behaviour in its statement and instead tries to put the spotlight on Spotify, its European nature and music streaming.

I’m curious, does Spotify discount its service by the amount of Apple’s commission when a customer pays directly through Spotify’s website?  

No. Apple pointed out that Spotify has always charged the same prices and never passed any savings on to consumers.

Spotify has 56% of the EU market. Next is YouTube and Amazon with Apple in 4th place at 11%.

So where’s the harm to Spotify? They’re the largest streamer in the world and completely dominate the EU. I’ve heard the idiotic argument that “Spotify could be even more successful if Apple didn’t put up roadblocks”. So…your argument is Spotify didn’t become an even bigger monopoly in music so Apple should pay up?

Same with consumers. Where’s the harm? Spotify hasn’t had in-App subscriptions since 2016. There was a brief period of overlap from 2015 to 2016 where Apple Music and Spotify competed unfairly, and if anything the fine should reflect that period of time only. And where does Vestager get off claiming this has been going on for 10 years when Apple Music has only been around 8 years?

Apple won the Irish tax case on appeal. This case will be easier to overturn as the EU can’t prove harm to…anyone.

Wasn't Spotify charging an extra $3 a month for Premium over the on-site price if subscribed via the App Store? Now, of course, you can't subscribe at all through the AppStore, only directly through Spotify. 

BTW, the tax case is not over. In fact it's likely it will be retried, with several Judicial errors affecting the appeal ruling. You've forgotten that AppleInsider had an article about it back in November. 

radarthekat said:

avon b7 said:

This is part of what the EU had to say:

"Today's decision concludes that Apple's anti-steering provisions amount to unfair trading conditions, in breach of Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU'). These anti-steering provisions are neither necessary nor proportionate for the protection of Apple's commercial interests in relation to the App Store on Apple's smart mobile devices and negatively affect the interests of iOS users, who cannot make informed and effective decisions on where and how to purchase music streaming subscriptions for use on their device.

Apple's conduct, which lasted for almost ten years, may have led many iOS users to pay significantly higher prices for music streaming subscriptions because of the high commission fee imposed by Apple on developers and passed on to consumers in the form of higher subscription prices for the same service on the Apple App Store.

... "

Apple makes no reference to its anti-competitive behaviour in its statement and instead tries to put the spotlight on Spotify, its European nature and music streaming.

I’m curious, does Spotify discount its service by the amount of Apple’s commission when a customer pays directly through Spotify’s website?