cropr

Djacobs said:

That all being said, Apple SHOULD make money from providing the platform, the tools, the support, the marketing, and the market. Every other company gets paid when they do these things. The app store is NOT a monopoly. Nor is the iPhone. You have a choice to buy an iPhone, or a different phone. When you make that CHOICE, you agree to the rules that come with buying the product. Just as the developer shave a choice to produce apps for the iPhone or not. If the business terms are so terrible dealing with Apple, then don't develop for Apple products. Develop an app so good that users will switch platforms to buy your app.

I've been developing apps that are available on Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS and Android.  From the app developers point of view the App store was until very recently the only way to distribute my iOS version of the apps, while I have a secure distribution platform (made for downloading for Windows, macOS, Linux versions) that I was not allowed to use.  So indeed the App Store WAS a monopoly.   

For my most successful app, an electronic voting system, the app makes only sense it is available on all platforms: my customers, which are NPO organisations, are only interested in a voting app if all common platforms are supported, so their members can use any devices during the general assembly.  For the voting app, roughly 75% of the users use Windows or Android, but without an iOS version (or a macOS version) I would a very limited number of customers.   And concerning the marketing: a survey among my customers clearly revealed that no customer was acquired via the App Store. 

So I don't win any customers because I have an iOS version, but I would lose customers if I didn't.

hummerchine said:

As has been said countless times, if you don’t like the way Apple manages its App Store then buy an Android phone and shut up!  ߤ렉 do not see any reason for the courts to be legally mandating that Apple make a single change to the way they run their App Store.  Personally I prefer it exactly the way it is and am upset that some judge on a power trip is messing with me.

As has been said countless times, the issue is not about the end users, who have the choice between an iPhone and an Adroid phone, but about the app developers, who want to offer their apps on both platforms because their customers are using not only iPhones but also Android phones.

anonymouse said:

This so-called "law" known as the DMA, and the regulatory bodies "enforcing" it, is not actually law at all. What it is is a purported "legal" framework that erodes the very concept of law in a way that leads to lawlessness. Much is talked about the "spirit of the law" in regard to the DMA, but that's not how law works. Law works according to the letter of the law, and anything that depends on "spirit" is not actually law.

anonymouse said:

Like everything else the EU and Eropean countries do, this is like a bad joke. "We didn't say what you needed to do, but, because you didn't do what we wanted, we're fining you."

That's like deciding you want a low speed limit, not setting or posting it, then fining "speeders" for being over the limit by whatever amount you want them to be. Europe and the EU no longer operate under the rule of law, they operate under the whims of the "regulators".

There is a fundamental difference between the way American laws and European laws are applied.   American laws are applied very strictly.  You must do exactly X to comply to the law.  In Europe the spirit of the law is as important as the letter of the law, and it is up to the people to apply the law in good faith according to common sense.   Disclaimers for  products sold in the US are on average 5 times longer than their European counterparts.

I understand that a lot of Americans have cultural issues accepting the way European law is working.  In this case, the court stated that Apple did not fulfill the requirements and that is for Europeans more than sufficient to understand what is meant: Apple should apply ATT for its own apps as well, but it is up to Apple to decide which changes should be made to comply to the rule.

You last sentence is clearly an indication that you fail to understand that any non US law system can have its own merits

mknelson said:

gatorguy said:

beowulfschmidt said:

Apple, being an American company, is probably going to take the position that, "We don't need to prove our innocence.  If you think we're guilty, prove it."

If DoC thinks Apple is doing the nefarious things, prove it.  It seems at least possible that Apple is indirectly responsible for some of them.  Apple's suppliers might not be as scrupulous as Apple itself, and also might also be victims of bad actors even farther down the chain.

The cases are being heard in France and Belgium, where the DRC has filed its evidence. It's not a case of prove your innocence.

Completing your thought… in that those jurisdictions also assume innocent until proven guilty, so the DRC would have to provide credible evidence to prove guilt. "none of its smelters or refiners have financed armed gangs selling the conflict materials outside of official channels." That's an odd sentence. They finance armed gangs through official channels?

The legal system in Belgium and France are both based on the code Napoleon, which in this case means that Apple is assumed to be innocent until proven, but contrary to American legal system, DRC has not to provide any prove of guilt.  In both countries the the complaint will be handled by an "investigation judge", who will decide how to procede. The investigating judge assembles evidence for and against the complaint, he is assumed to be impartial.  In order to do that he has a lot of power: he can instruct the police to investigate certain aspects, he can arrest people, he can confiscate documents, he can issue search warrants, ....  If the investigating judge concludes the case has its merits, he will transfer the case to a criminal court where a criminal judge will decide (no jury).