temperor

dantheman827 said:

The thing is though, Apple is the sole provider of apps, there is no competing stores like there is in the retail space.

Walmart has Target and numerous other stores they compete with... The App Store has none...

Some may argue that the Play Store is competition, but how can you really say that when you need a completely different device in order to access it?

iOS competes with Android, the App Store does not compete with the Play Store, and that's where the comparison to retail falls apart.

Walmart can't tell Target "You can't build your store here because we have one of ours in the city already.", but Apple is doing exactly that with the App Store.

While true the App Store is the only way to get an Application, which Apple offers for free by the way, payments and accounts can be offered outside the store. so a developer/consumer has choice.
I think we can all agree that you cannot expect Walmart to offer Target Pricing so the consumer can decide to go to Target in case it is cheaper. However Apple is now obliged to make that happen, so cased closed one would think, oh no .... The true gist of the story here is that Europe is jealous of US Tech, and is grasping at straws to get the EU tech industry back in the game ...

libertymatters said:

'Side loading' also known, prior to 2007, as installing an application on your computer.  The key phrase here being 'your computer'.  Who does Apple think they are to deny people the right to install any application they want on THEIR iPhone?  Apple's entire case falls apart when you realize the Macintosh can still 'side load' applications to this day.  Right-click, open.  Annoyed by that?  Disable Gatekeeper completely with a command in the Terminal.  Why does this 'side loading' persist on the Macintosh? Simple, their customers would not tolerate such computer tyranny. Remember, Gatekeeper was added in to the Macintosh in Snow Leopard. iPhone customers should start to speak up about Apple's heavy handedness on their iPhones.  The iPhone's walled garden should be optional just like it is on the Macintosh.  Heck, most times I'd choose to stay in the walled garden for security, but when Apple gets heavy handed, like they are today with their outrageous censorship on the App Store and Podcasts, we need an opt out.

Bottom-line, this is about maintaining 30% profit on apps and control of people's devices.  It is as simple as that.

Apps that sell physical goods, 0% most streaming apps pay 0% as they do not offer IAP and make you sign up and pay outside the store. You can as a developer use this approach, granted a bit cumbersome, but you get a free hosting and updated platform for free (99$ per year developer contract). You are a digital content provider, after year one your IAP drops to 15%. You are a small developer you pay 15% Today the 30% is exception not the rule.

Gaming consoles (which today offer more than gaming, 30% and closed as well) ...

Computers you say well yeah I'll trust my computer with my personal and financial data, NOT, for the reason it's an open door, though I'm not easily to fool, I;'m not so sure about my family members ...
Apple needs to be paid for the constant free updates/ hosting / reimbursement if for example you get tricked into IAP scams etc ... 

Last but not least, not happy, there is choice out there, so buy something else ,,,, I do not want to manage another set of stores like on Windows, what a Fing nightmare that has become, hence the reason I'm switching to an AppleSilicon Mac soon.



 

Apple already set itself ready for the future, the big streaming platforms ones a big contributor already do most of their transactions outside the AppStore. So what did Apple do, it created ATV+, AM, FITNESS+, Apple Arcade and cloud storage, it will take time but these services and the 10’s of thousands of small developers will keep the services revenues growing. They just need some hits in the respectively services and of they are … they have the money and tenacity.

Initial reaction, Apple we are Happy with the verdict, but we are studying the complete verdict. Epic, we appeal, guess it’s clear who has won.

If a government wants access to devices they can pass legislation to mandate it, they do not need Apple’s CSAM architecture to do so … You know the saying you get the politics you voted for … If it ever comes to that I would prefer the architecture Apple developed though, as long as I stay out of terrorisme and child abuse I would keep my “privacy”. To be clear I do not want this, but wait, if in the next years there are some more terrorist attacks, you can bet all the money in the world, governments are going to mandate this.