Notsofast

knowitall said:

ihatescreennames said:

As I mentioned in another thread, there’s nothing illegal about having a monopoly (in the US). Abusing monopoly power is where corporations run into trouble.

Even if it can be proven that the App Store has a monopoly, which I think will be difficult for obvious reasons, how is Apple abusing that power?

By taking a 30% cut and not allowing other means of app distribution.
Apple should ask for a fixed amount for a fixed set of ‘services’ needed to run the store.
As I mentioned before, apps can be signed by Apple (after some sanity and virus checks) and distributed via any digital means. App developers can put the apps on their home page (or whatever) and pay apple a few cents for signing only and skip the hosting fees. This adds the benefit of even better visibility for the app because Google can find it directly.

Thankfully, the law doesn't run according to what you feel a company should charge.  We let supply and demand in a free market decide.  Under your model, Ebay, Amazon, Etsy, Google, etc., all would be prevented from charging commissions.  It's alarming that so many folks think the way it works is that a person or company should be able to decide they want to get in the app business and want to support iPhones, but they should be able to decide they don't like the fees charged.  LOL, then don't decide to make an iOS app. Just like someone deciding they want to make a product for Walmart to sell, but then when Walmart lets them know they are going to only get half of the sales price, the person cries "unfair."  LOL. 

22july2013 said:

One thing I'm always puzzled about is how Apple knows the correct amount to compensate its game publishers if they aren't tracking what users do. (Same for News, Music, etc.)

It's because you assume that anyone needs to know what INDIVIDUALS are doing, versus the aggregate use. Apple clearly knows from it's servers how many people are clicking on a news article or magazine or game, etc., but they don't collect that Joe Blow read that article.

lkrupp said:

So Cook was forced to respond to the NYT article that implied Apple was intentionally removing apps that competed with its own Screen Time app. Many here are always caterwauling about how evil corporations are, how corporations price gouge their customers, do nefarious things for the sake of profit, practice anti-competitive actions, and so forth. If we really believe that then why do we continue to do business with them?

That turned out to be the latest "fake news" article and has been thoroughly debunked.  Just like when Facebook and Google were caught misusing the MDM feature allowed for businesses to install on their company phones,  every one of the companies that had installed a MDM on children's phones did in violation of the App store rules meant to protect consumers and Apple notified them to stop.  When companies didn't stop using MDM in their apps, Apple took them off the store until those companies complied.  At least two companies were following the rules and remained on the store.  The other ones are free to remove the MDM from their app and resume offering it on the App store.

BTW, it's misleading to say those Apple is in competition with those companies.  Screen time is a feature that is included with every iOS device, and soon MacOS.  Apple doesn't sell it and isn't hurt when someone decides to purchase an app that similarly monitors screen usage.  That's very different from Apple Music vs. Spotify,  etc.

rogifan_new said:

Like I’ve said many times Apple wasted $3B on Beats. And don’t throw headphones at me; that’s not why Apple bought Beats.

LOL.  That's why you're not in the business world.  Apple's purchase of Beats was a genius financial move.  It allowed them to move from zero in streaming to #2 in the entire world in a remarkably short period of time with now about $6 BILLION in revenue each year, and growing rapidly, from just Apple Music, with margins over a billion dollars a year.  So, just from profits from Apple Music, Apple has more than paid for the entire Beats acquisition.  But, of course, the value of Apple Music to the entire Apple ecosystem goes far beyond that with increased hardware sales, customer lock in, etc.  

Now add the Beats line of headphones and now you'll realize why the financial experts are bowing to Tim Cook.  With their acquisition of Beats, Apple has now grown to be the largest seller of wireless headphones IN THE WORLD.  Beats headphones have a huge profit margin and under Apple's ownership, Beats has grown to own over 70% of the entire worldwide market of premium headphones.  Think about that.  Just from the headphones, Apple has paid for the Beats purchase long ago, and it is an ever growing cash cow of profits.

The headline misleads at the ACLU Is correct that current law allows Border agents an unfettered ability to search you and your belongings when you are entering America (as is the case in most countries in the world). Instead, the headline should read that the ACLU is proposing the US Supreme Court change the well established and clear and consistent rulings that there is a "border search exception" to the general warrant requirement and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy at the border.  Border searches have NEVER required a warrant or probable cause  in our nation's history for obvious reasons. 

The ACLU and others are attempting to make a distinction that digital records should be treated differently.  This is an unlikely outcome from the Supreme Court as it would effectively vitiate much of the efficacy of protecting the country at our borders.