tjwolf
About
- Banned
- Username
- tjwolf
- Joined
- Visits
- 99
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 1,032
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 424
Reactions
-
Apple's 'flat out victory' will cause problems for antitrust regulatory efforts
I think pretty much everything you wrote is bogus. E.g. if what you say is 'literally written in the contract', please provide a link - because everything I have read indicates that the 30% commission is simply for in-app digital transactions. Nothing to do with hosting or other expenses Apple has. Only some 20% of apps offer IAPs, so the 30% commission these apps get charged is meant to cover all of Apple's App Store related expenses. As a result of the ruling, apps can point to outside payment mechanisms. By definition, if a user clicks on a link to a web site and pay for their digital goods there, Apple wold not get the 30% - since it's no longer an IAP.Bosa said:I don’t know where the public determined that using an off-site provider avails the developer of paying Apple’s fees. The fees are not from the payment itself, that would be ridiculous. Those are developer fees owed to the platform hosting the app, that pay for the review process. Free apps bypass the typical 30% fee for the app sale, so Apple then tacks that same fee onto in-app purchases. If the developer throws a button in an app to PayPal, they don’t suddenly not owe Apple any money just because of where the transaction was made. It’s literally written into the contract. One of the points of this case was whether that was legal, and Apple won that their contract with developers is completely legal, and they have to right to ban Epic’s account, on the matter of the violation alone, even if they pay the money owed to Apple. The public is turning on Epic, but this is now completely out of their hands – Apple has 100% of the say on whether Fortnite can ever return to the app store. They can choose to permanently ban Epic’s developer account from the iOS platform. That has more than just Fortnite keep in mind, that also has a chilling effect on whether Epic can deliver tools to game developers for their Unreal Engine on iOS. Epic bet the farm on this ruling and lost, and have put a lot of their business in jeopardy right now; and instead of begging forgiveness for the reinstatement of their developer rights, they are choosing to appeal. Literally spitting in Apple’s face. I will tell you right now, if they go forward with this appeal and lose, or the court decides not to pick up this case because they agree with the lower court’s ruling – Apple will never allow Epic back on iOS.In short, Apple is now in a position to completely end Epic Mobile as we know it , and that would likely finish off Epic, Epic backers can all thank Tim Sweenie. What is astounding , is , knowing al this , Tim Weenie still filed an appeal! This is the time to beg to save your company!!
Epic board should cal an emergency meeting and remove Tim Sweenie ASAP to save the company
The judge ruled that Apple had a right to get compensated for the sales Epic garnered outside of the Apple platform during the time it violated what was a valid contract. The judge did NOT say that Apple could continue banning Epic if Epic began adhering to the contract they signed. However, the judge did rule that one component of the contract, the one to do with outside linking, was anti-competitive under California law and declared that part of the contract unenforceable. So Epic and other developers may now link to outside payment systems without violating their contracts. None of what you say about everything being in Apple's hands now is nonsense. If Epic adheres to the contract, they have to be let back into the App Store - if Apple doesn't do so, Epic can simply sue again - this time for discrimination - and it would be a pretty open and shut case in Epic's favor.
-
Worst case App Store scenario only translates to 2% revenue hit, analyst says
Your suggestions completely ignore Apple's larger legal issues: the perception that they're a monopolist abusing their monopoly. While the ruling has already struck down that aspect of Epic's suit down, the judge did rule that their behavior with regards to linking was anti-competitive. Now, given that congress here in the US and the EU in Europe are also looking at Apple's practices, do you think Apple can really afford to willy-nilly introduce new fees? One of the defining attributes of a monopolist is that they can raise prices with impunity. Introducing the new pricing schemes you suggest would do exactly that.bloggerblog said:I believe Apple has may more options than we realize, I am restating a previous post as an example:
Apple can change their store policy and add a hosting fee, the fee is waived only when a vendor uses Apple's payment system. Also if a vendor wants to use their own external payment system they'll get a click charge and a link to their website. If they opt for an integrated experience using their own payment system there'll be a charge for that as well.
Apple can turn this into a different type of profit center, they won't lose anything and basically make it really easy to use the current flow, and charge for alternative options.
I'm completely on the judge's side with respect to her declaration that Apple does not have a monopoly - but her ruling was for the market of 'mobile gaming' (where she estimated Apple had some 53% instead of the required 66+%). I don't know how the EU defines monopoly and, besides, they might be defining a different 'market' when they go after Apple.
-
Apple not a monopoly but must allow alternate payment methods for apps, judge rules
The title is factually incorrect or at least extremely misleading. The one ruling against Apple (all others were in favor of Apple) was that Apple can no longer prevent developers from linking to alternative payment methods OUTSIDE OF Apple's ecosystem. I.e. developers can present a link/button to an outside web site for making payments. The judge did not tell Apple it must allow alternative payment methods within its ecosystem.
Big deal! Most iOS users will still use Apple's payment method because they trust it. Who knows what that outside vendor will do with your credit card info.
Fortnite lost on all real anti-trust claims. And they have to pay Apple around $4 million for lost revenue.
-
Apple now looking to tackle car manufacture by itself
Cook's primary legacy will be AR glasses, not a car. To boot, he's spent a heck of a lot more time hyping AR than he has cars. I believe he's reportedly even hinted at retiring after an AR product is released (but maybe that was just another rumor).elijahg said:
IMO it’s Cook’s primary legacy, with AppleTV+ as a backup. I don’t believe Apple can set up a manufacturing facility for cars when they have little actual manufacturing experience themselves. They got out of that game in the early 90’s. It took Tesla 10 years to get manufacturing right, and even then it’s not to Apple standards.DAalseth said:This is going to dribble along for another decade until it finally fades away producing nothing. It’s become someone’s vanity project.
-
Apple Pay usage remains steady despite decline in mobile wallets, survey says
Apparently the authors are oblivious to the fact that a steady percentage of users using something is not the same as the actual number of users using something when the number of users themselves are increasing. The # of active iPhones in the world more than doubled since 2015, so if 6% used Apple Pay in both 2015 and 2021, then the number people using Apple Pay has doubled too.
