tmay

spheric said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said:

Xed said:

avon b7 said:

Xed said:

avon b7 said:

dewme said:

jimh2 said:

VictorMortimer said:

Apple's 30% is highway robbery.

Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge.  As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.

But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.

You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.

Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store. 

It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.

Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month. 

I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d

Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers. 

We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business. 

It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform. 

This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily. 

It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product. 

As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify  (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.

You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited  due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.

I agree with Dewne. The tools are great value - as tools. 

Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere. 

Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations. 

That is not word salad. It's fact based context. 

They do not have a monopoly on "commissions" and it's been shown that Spotify uses Apple's tools and don't pay nearly their fair share. These actions will end up hurting all developers because Apple will simply find a different way to get compensated for building the tools that make their SW great.

Hasn't Apple already had its 'fair share' for years by simply not allowing any other stores to even exist while taking a cut out of every paid app? It does not matter if it's 5% or 50%. The commission percentage is irrelevant to that debate if Apple is the only one getting the commission because Apple itself determined competition should not exist. 

It's not possible for Apple to prevent competition due to the fact that app developers are the ones that choose which platforms to develop for and not Apple. Haven't you ever noticed that the apps available for the iPhone aren't necessarily available for iPad/ATV/Vision Pro? Those are single store platforms too and yet somehow Apple's anticompetitive powers don't seem to translate into forcing developers to support them.

Apple prevents competition by literally not allowing competing stores to exist. 

That is enough to demonstrate consumer harm and is undeniable IMO. Apple does not allow consumer choice in App Stores unless a law obliges them to do so. It matters not that multiple Apple stores exist. 

As the world has moved into a digital era, a platform 'duopoly' has emerged which needs new laws to regulate. That is why the DMA/DSA were created. 

To look at things from a different perspective, if ten independent platforms existed and mergers and takeovers were proposed to reduce those to two in 2024, it would never ever get regulatory approval. Too much influence in two few hands leads to abuse of dominant position. That is what we are seeing. 

While I don't support the idea of platform break ups I can see why some people think it's a reasonable proposal. 

Interestingly enough, when AT&T was broken up into the regional Baby Bells, the market was on the cusp of change to mobile, and a few of the Baby Bells were ultimately reincorporated into the AT&T of today, which continues as the fourth largest mobile operator in the world, behind China Mobile, Verizon Communications, and Comcast.

This sounded weird to me, and sure enough: It's hogwash. 

The top 10 is populated by 3 different Chinese networks, two Indian, América Móvil from Mexico, South African MTN, UK's Vodafone, Spanish Telefónica, and Orange (France Télécom). The latter three are EU-wide providers. 

#11 is Vodafone India, and then comes AT&T Inc. at #12. 

Verizon is at #19, and Comcast isn't even in the top 30. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mobile_network_operators

Market Cap...

https://companiesmarketcap.com/telecommunication/largest-telecommunication-companies-by-market-cap/

Your list is based on subscriptions;

This is a list of the world's thirty largest terrestrial mobile phone network operators measured by number of subscriptions.

Sadly, I spend too much time watching Youtube video's on economics.

While opinions vary, it is notable that the consensus is that Spain, Italy, and Greece, are already in a demographic crisis of an over-age population, and weak economies, and the remainders are, for the most part, in a very precarious position, excepting Norway, and the Baltic States. The UK, in its own right, is a basket caae.

While it's apparent that the EU believes that punishing the Big Tech "gatekeepers" to level the playing field is a great idea, the reality is that it is lack of investment in innovation has and is hampering the EU. The DMA isn't going to fix that, and it is only going to solidify the Big Tech's in the EU, albeit less profitably.

I can't wait for a store that selects AI stores for me!

danox said:

tmay said:

mac_dog said:

They want access to everyone’s phones. This is about the fact that this government is having such a difficult time controlling their narrative and they want more access to be able to control it. Yes, I’m talking about the genocide in Gaza. It’s making clear to everyone the myth that the US as global peacekeeper is just that when the reality is that we are still colonizing the world and we’re the global bullies. 

Israel may have committed war crimes, but not genocide.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4442213-israels-may-have-committed-war-crimes-in-gaza-but-not-genocide/

You are likely unaware of how much the U.S. Military, and our allies, facilitate global trade via maintaining freedom navigation; see Yemen current events as an example.

You are probably unaware that France failed at creating a canal thru the Isthmus of Panama, likely due to Malaria, that the U.S. was able to complete later. That was more inline with our take on the Monroe Doctrine. The U.S. maintained its presence, including military, in the Canal Zone up until the very end of 1999, where it became Panamanian again. I would agree that the U.S. peacekeeping has been a mixed bag, as peacekeeping often is.

France completed the Suez Canal in 1869. It, and the Panama Canal, are the two premier shortcuts for shipping in the world. Neither France nor the U.S. are "colonizing the world", and they haven't for very many decades.

You know who is still colonizing the world? That would be Russia and the PRC, and interestingly enough, there are plenty of people as yourself that are fine with that, just as they were fine with Assad murdering Syrians.

Put your efforts into actually stopping colonization by those two parties, and I will no longer consider you a "tankie", or a "useful idiot".

 

Not true currently indigenous people around the world are currently getting the boot as usual the Mapuche in Chile or the islanders on the Indonesia western side of New Guinea, West China, or the Nordic Far North, do America Indians still exist in the eastern US I notice that when they raise their hands in mild protest like union organizers they seem to get crushed? Colonization is still on going worldwide it's just more quiet it is more than a Two Body Problem in fact it's a collective Human problem.

And the surviving (people) leftovers will be gaslighted out of existence do the Netanyahu.

Native Americans, as they prefer to be called, still exist in the Eastern U.S.

It's a long list;

https://www.bia.gov/regional-offices/eastern/tribes-served

I apologize for not recognizing all of the colonization going on around the world, if that is what is going on with your examples, but I completely agree that indigenous people are facing pressure from larger populations of other ethnicities within their own countries.

I stand by my statement that the U.S. is not currently colonizing the world, and hasn't since the end of WWII, when the Philippines was granted its full independence.

There are a few vestiges of the Spanish colonization that the U.S. acquired in the Spanish American War, that are still maintained today. Guam, a few other islands in the Pacific, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

 The United States assumed territorial control over the southern portion of Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Lease. The United States exercises jurisdiction and control over this territory as the home of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, while recognizing that Cuba retains ultimate sovereignty.

Your statement with regard to the U.S. being a colonizer is false.

mac_dog said:

They want access to everyone’s phones. This is about the fact that this government is having such a difficult time controlling their narrative and they want more access to be able to control it. Yes, I’m talking about the genocide in Gaza. It’s making clear to everyone the myth that the US as global peacekeeper is just that when the reality is that we are still colonizing the world and we’re the global bullies. 

Israel may have committed war crimes, but not genocide.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4442213-israels-may-have-committed-war-crimes-in-gaza-but-not-genocide/

You are likely unaware of how much the U.S. Military, and our allies, facilitate global trade via maintaining freedom navigation; see Yemen current events as an example.

You are probably unaware that France failed at creating a canal thru the Isthmus of Panama, likely due to Malaria, that the U.S. was able to complete later. That was more inline with our take on the Monroe Doctrine. The U.S. maintained its presence, including military, in the Canal Zone up until the very end of 1999, where it became Panamanian again. I would agree that the U.S. peacekeeping has been a mixed bag, as peacekeeping often is.

France completed the Suez Canal in 1869. It, and the Panama Canal, are the two premier shortcuts for shipping in the world. Neither France nor the U.S. are "colonizing the world", and they haven't for very many decades.

You know who is still colonizing the world? That would be Russia and the PRC, and interestingly enough, there are plenty of people as yourself that are fine with that, just as they were fine with Assad murdering Syrians.

Put your efforts into actually stopping colonization by those two parties, and I will no longer consider you a "tankie", or a "useful idiot".