teejay2012

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.

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.

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.

Not surprising. Apple clearly does not retain the best lawyers and Apple majorly annoyed the judge by slow walking her orders. Not sure that Apple will lose that much. I personally will not share payment credentials with each and every developer,  so I will stay with Apple for IAP unless there is a signficant discount. While having a choice is user friendly, could Apple force developers to be 'in' or 'out' as far as payments, and offer perks to those that remain 'in', like app development tools at a discount, longer lead times for new iOS features, accelerated reviews of submitted apps, etc. Apple spends money on the App Store. They should not give it away for free.