carnegie
About
- Username
- carnegie
- Joined
- Visits
- 213
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 3,613
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 1,085
Reactions
-
Minnesota the latest to introduce bill that allows developers to bypass App Store billing
That CNBC report doesn't contradict Apple's quarterly reports. Apple's financial statements don't report the metric which is being estimated in that CNBC article.22july2013 said:
(2) The "kits" that I mentioned (HomeKit, CloudKit, and many others) are code that COMMUNICATE with Apple's servers and obtain services from Apple's servers. I'd have to go through the list of 50 kits to determine how many are online services and how many are not. And you are implying that Apple's online services need to support apps that communicate with Apple's servers to obtain services but are obtained by users without having paid Apple any fee for doing so. I hope you see how that position is both hilarious and insane. You should be admitting that Apple has not obligation to provide any services to any app that was obtained without paying any fee.avon b7 said:
(1) On App Store revenue. A quick Google returned this:22july2013 said:
Are you aware that apps sold on the App Store use Apple's APIs like HomeKit, CloudKit, and 50 other "Kits"? Do you think that apps sold on third party store should still be allowed to use all these Kits? Basically, people on your side of the argument want apps to be able to use Apple's services without paying for them.avon b7 said:Maybe Android is already more profitable but that wasn't my point. I was referring to the costs involved in running an App Store.
If Apple is generating billions for App developers, it's part of the pie is surely in the billions too. Some estimates put 2020 App Store revenue at over 60 billion dollars. I'd say there is plenty of margin there for competition.
By the way, that 60 billion figure you float refers to all Apple online services, not just app store revenue. And you're also talking revenue, not profit. By comparison, Walmart makes 500 billion revenue in its stores (ten times as much as all Apple's services combined) and I don't see you using that argument to set up third party stores inside Walmart.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/apples-app-store-had-gross-sales-around-64-billion-in-2020.html
No one knows for sure as Apple doesn't reveal that information. I'd guess there's a good reason for that and it's profit related.
(2) The different 'kits' are in iOS.
Apps are made using Apple's IDE. Developers pay for that.
It has nothing to do with the App Store per se.
(1) I would rather believe Apple's quarterly reports than a contradictory report from CNBC. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/FY21 Q1 Consolidated Financial Statements.pdf says that Apple's total revenues from all online services was only $12 billion in the last quarter.
Based on Apple's financial reports, it had about $57 billion in Services revenue in calendar year 2020. That includes App Store revenues in addition to, among other things, revenues from Apple Care and Apple Card. But Apple accounts for App Store revenues on a net basis. So $64 billion in gross App Store revenue would translate into something like $19 billion (or less) in net revenues to Apple. Apple generally doesn't count the portion of App Store revenue which goes to developers. Of $57 billion in Services revenue, it seems plausible to me that $19 billion or so is attributable to App Store sales.
-
Apple owes more than $500K in taxes for iPhones sold between 2010 and 2013
The original assessment was issued in 2014 and covered a period from 2010 to 2013. Apple challenged that assessment at several levels, that's why resolution is taking so long.rob53 said:What’s statute of limitations on sales tax payments. This ended almost 8 years ago. -
Apple owes more than $500K in taxes for iPhones sold between 2010 and 2013
Yeah, based on the lower court ruling there probably was some legitimate question as to whether Apple was required to collect and remit the sales tax in question. But reading this recent decision it seems to me that it's correct and Apple properly owes the taxes.larryjw said:The fact that there is a difference of opinion between the lower courts and this supreme court indicates to me that this was not an open and shut case.
The facts or the law is under significant dispute.
Will Apple just pay the amount and fine. Well, it might be important from the legal perspective to petition SCOTUS.
That said, there wasn't a fine. Rather, there was interest. Also, this is a state law interpretation issue. That's not the kind of issue the Supreme Court (of the Untied States) takes up. -
Apple owes more than $500K in taxes for iPhones sold between 2010 and 2013
There's no fine involved, at least not yet and as far as I'm aware. The $100,000 or so was for interest, not a fine. The original assessment found that Apple owed $438,000 in tax and another $101,000 in interest. That assessment is what was just effectively upheld.davidw said:
Not only payment for what the State undercharged, but also a $100K fine for not paying the amount of tax that the state should have charged, but didn't.sdw2001 said:So the state undercharged them and now demands payment. Apple should probably just pay it for PR reasons. Or they tell them to go screw.
I could see the fine if Apple knew how much tax they were suppose to be paying, but underpaid it. -
Prepear revises logo to settle Apple trademark dispute
(1) Apple didn't sue over the Prepear mark. It didn't even ask that Super Healthy Kids not be allowed to use the mark. Rather, it opposed a federal registration of the mark in classes of goods and services which were the same as those in which Apple has registered trademarks. Super Healthy Kids was asking for special protections for its mark - those that come with federal registration - and that is what Apple opposed.MplsP said:
And your post just solidifies the point I made in my previous post - if the difference pictured above is worthy of a lawsuit then the entire advertising industry is deeply out of touch with the rest of the world. But then we knew that. After all, this is the industry that makes deception and borderline lying acceptable.mainyehc said:Design PhD student (specialised in graphic design, namely typography and all related disciplines, including branding and corporate identity) here: Apple was absolutely in the right here. The leaf shape, while generic and very pure in a geometric sense (just like Apple's, and yes, you might argue that those shouldn't be accepted in the first place as intellectual property because of prior art and for being too generic, but context here is key) was waaaaaaaay too similar in proportion and orientation (it was just mirrored). If you look at AI's original coverage of the lawsuit, you can definitely see it: https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/apple-legal-action-pear-logo/
Sure, Apple was a bit overzealous about it, but that's kind of par for the course for a billion-dollar company. If it was resolved amicably, that kind of lays the “bullying” angle to rest, now, doesn't it? The guys at Prepear were throwing a tantrum, IMHO. Especially considering how, yes, they are a tech company (if they were, say, some random agricultural business I could see how Apple might be overreaching to branches of business their own Nice classification codes likely don't even cover, except Prepear has… apps. In App Stores).
No, really. What's more, I actually like the revised version better. The contrast between the more continuous contour of the pair and the leaf is starker, and the latter's half-circle shape not only pairs better with the tops and bottoms of the pear, but it also somewhat echoes the counter-shape (or the “eye”) of the lowercase “e” in their logo.
TL;DR: Not only did they not lose an expensive lawsuit, Apple actually forced them to better their own design and, as someone else said, this actually brought them some publicity. Win-win, if you ask me.
Just so everyone is clear, below is a comparison of the two logos. The only people that would confuse them are a brain-dead advertising exec and a lawyer.
(2) Apple didn't just argue confusion. It argued dilution; that's about association, not confusion. The issue is the likelihood that people would associate (again, not confuse) goods and services, which overlap with those offered by Apple, bearing the Prepear mark with Apple.
(3) If people think the difference between the marks is sufficient enough that such association wouldn't be made, then whey do they not use the actual Prepear mark at issue when making side-by-side comparisons to Apple's mark in an attempt to show how different they are? Why not use the actual mark Prepear tried to register (which is black and white and claims no color), and let the actual difference speak for itself?
