tehabe

sdw2001 said:

tehabe said:

sdw2001 said:

tehabe said:

sdw2001 said:
 Apple does not have a monopoly.  

repeating this doesn't make it true, as long as there is no other way to install software on an Apple device, Apple has a monopoly over the software distribution on that device. It doesn't matter if you can buy another one or that only a few people are using it, it is a monopoly. The same is true for Google and the Play Store, Sony and the PlayStation store, Nintendo and their Switch store. It is not true for Apple on macOS or Microsoft on Windows.

It could even be argued that Apple requirement to have a developer license and that applications on macOS have to be signed and notarised that is creating a monopoly.

You clearly don't understand even the basics of anti-trust law.   You might start by understanding what a monopoly is, and also what constitutes an illegal monopoly.  Standard Oil was one.  Bell Telephone was one.  But what you're arguing is that Kia Motors can't require me to get a software update at the dealer because they have a monopoly on installing that software.  Or that I should be able to buy a Big Mac at Burger King.  

And you don't know what a monopoly is, because you only work within the lmited definition of anti-trust law, which deals only with one type of monopoly. but they come in different shape and sizes, Apple's App Store is one of them. And it is also not that you can't sign up for Apple TV+ on Android or use Google Play Film on iOS, while you can use Apple Music on Android and YouTube Music on iOS. So the example buying a Big Max at Burger King just misses the point entirely. That is not the point. The point is, that Apple disallows you on their platfom any other marketing than through Apple, you can't mention sign up processes elsewhere you can't even mention Android. And the point is that Apple treats its own services (which compete with other services on iOS) differently than those third party services. Apple shouldn't be allowed to run the iOS platform this way.

Btw, where do you get the idea I want anything for free? Prices are currently not relevant, this is about access and conditions for access. And I want Apple to be regulated. And before you even ask, this is also true for Google. I'm not a apologetic fanboy who defend a commercial profit driven company. They are all awful in their own way. And companies won't behave without regulation.

Just like Apple demands from services that you can delete accounts within there apps by the end of January 2022 I want Apple to treat all services egually, this includes Apple's own ones. When Spotify must pay 30% of their in-app subscriptions, Apple Music must do that too. (Btw, who at Apple thought it was a good idea that the subscription mangement is part of the Music app?)

I happen to know exactly what a monopoly is.  So did the judge in the Epic trial.   You apparently disagree, which you are free to do.  It just doesn't make you right.  

The point is, that Apple disallows you on their platfom any other marketing than through Apple, you can't mention sign up processes elsewhere you can't even mention Android. 

When the Epic ruling goes into effect, that won't be true. Apple must allow other payment systems to be advertised.  I don't know about "mentioning" Android.  That's pretty broad.  

And companies won't behave without regulation.

That's debatable, though I wasn't arguing for zero regulation, so you may put that straw man away now.  I will note that regulation has everything to do with price because price impacts the consumer.  Clearly, consumers benefit from Apple's current system, especially compared to what buying software was like 15 years ago.  Quality is way up, security is way up, price is way down.  

Just like Apple demands from services that you can delete accounts within there apps by the end of January 2022 I want Apple to treat all services egually, this includes Apple's own ones. When Spotify must pay 30% of their in-app subscriptions, Apple Music must do that too. (Btw, who at Apple thought it was a good idea that the subscription mangement is part of the Music app?)

There you go again.  Apple has to promote competitors?  It has to treat rival software developers and even services equally to its own?  Why? Putting aside the nonsense of Apple paying itself a commission from Apple Music (a store it runs and maintains), Apple must now treat, say, Netflix exactly the same as Apple TV+? Again, on what grounds? Because Apple does not have a monopoly on smartphones, it can absolutely promote its own products and services over others.  

Do you have any understanding of how business works?  Companies promoting their own wares over others is just the start of it.  We haven't even gotten into affiliates and partnerships and what not.  

There are few things you don't understand, the first one is, that I don't care about the decision of some american judge on if Apple is a monopoly or not. I'm neither American nor a lawyer. Secondly, monopolies come and many shapes and sizes and since I'm an economist I'm not a big fan of any of those but in some cases they are unavoidable or even good. third point is, even when a monopoly is unavoidable or good it needs to be regulated.

dewme said:

freeassociate2 said:

Just want to take a quick moment to remind everyone, particularly the “30% is robbery” folks, that you pay far greater markups every single day. I’m sure many of you are paying far more than 30% in the aggregate just on markups of materials from your contractor, electrician, or some other service provider. Or a utility company. Or just going to your local stores — where the percentage on markups can run to the thousands of the manufacturing costs. Where are the protests from manufacturers when Walmart marks a product up by hundreds of a percent? That money could be going to the creators, but instead goes to the distributers. Overwhelmingly so. (Or did you think HBO was a charity? Or say, when was the last time you refused to buy an exorbitantly priced drink with your meal?)

Additionally, each layer is taking it’s supposed ‘value-added’ cut. Personally, I think this is what this is all about — Apple cuts out so many middle-actors that are used to getting their pound of flesh, that they’re now trying to do this end run in order to assert what they see as their rightful places in the food chain. Basically, a revolt of the usual parasites.

You’ll notice that the industries that know how to pay off these characters, by giving powerful interests a cut of the action, aren’t being scrutinized. Even though they are enormously more anti-competitive and anti-consumer. So it’s not ethics at stake here — but the hierarchy of who profits and how.

Just a thought.

ps - please excuse the writing quality. Had to tap this out quickly.

In certain markets like grocery, restaurants, food production, and even construction, the final product or service cost to consumers also reflects things like spoilage, waste, "shrinkage" (including employee theft), mandatory insurance costs that employers must pay, and other losses not associated with middlemen taking a cut. To the consumer these are invisible costs that don't show up on a bill of material or a service fee handed off to a service provider, but to employers and people making things they really add up and someone has to pay for them. There's a reason why the failure rate for new businesses within 5 years of their inception is close to 50%. When the invisible becomes visible and you're footing the bill for the invisible, your perception of who is on which side of the "robbery" equation can suddenly change.

Apple is trying to run a business as a business. A lot of these bureaucrats are trying to force Apple to run a business as a charity, because frankly, they don't know how to run a business and have an unlimited source of funds to keep their little adventures in wielding political power going on forever, or until enough of their constituents realize that they're also on the wrong end of the robbery equation too and kick 'em all to the curb.

The most confusing argument here is, that Apple would lose money if it were regulated. To be honest, I don't care if Apple earns money or not. It is not my concern. When they liberated the phone market in Germany and forced the Telekom to rent out their lines to competitiors I didn't care much if the Telekom would make money with those rented line, I cared more about having a choice which phone company I can choose and it worked. There is competition. And if the Telekom wants to earn money, they have to work for it.

sdw2001 said:

tehabe said:

sdw2001 said:
 Apple does not have a monopoly.  

repeating this doesn't make it true, as long as there is no other way to install software on an Apple device, Apple has a monopoly over the software distribution on that device. It doesn't matter if you can buy another one or that only a few people are using it, it is a monopoly. The same is true for Google and the Play Store, Sony and the PlayStation store, Nintendo and their Switch store. It is not true for Apple on macOS or Microsoft on Windows.

It could even be argued that Apple requirement to have a developer license and that applications on macOS have to be signed and notarised that is creating a monopoly.

You clearly don't understand even the basics of anti-trust law.   You might start by understanding what a monopoly is, and also what constitutes an illegal monopoly.  Standard Oil was one.  Bell Telephone was one.  But what you're arguing is that Kia Motors can't require me to get a software update at the dealer because they have a monopoly on installing that software.  Or that I should be able to buy a Big Mac at Burger King.  

And you don't know what a monopoly is, because you only work within the lmited definition of anti-trust law, which deals only with one type of monopoly. but they come in different shape and sizes, Apple's App Store is one of them. And it is also not that you can't sign up for Apple TV+ on Android or use Google Play Film on iOS, while you can use Apple Music on Android and YouTube Music on iOS. So the example buying a Big Max at Burger King just misses the point entirely. That is not the point. The point is, that Apple disallows you on their platfom any other marketing than through Apple, you can't mention sign up processes elsewhere you can't even mention Android. And the point is that Apple treats its own services (which compete with other services on iOS) differently than those third party services. Apple shouldn't be allowed to run the iOS platform this way.

Btw, where do you get the idea I want anything for free? Prices are currently not relevant, this is about access and conditions for access. And I want Apple to be regulated. And before you even ask, this is also true for Google. I'm not a apologetic fanboy who defend a commercial profit driven company. They are all awful in their own way. And companies won't behave without regulation.

Just like Apple demands from services that you can delete accounts within there apps by the end of January 2022 I want Apple to treat all services egually, this includes Apple's own ones. When Spotify must pay 30% of their in-app subscriptions, Apple Music must do that too. (Btw, who at Apple thought it was a good idea that the subscription mangement is part of the Music app?)

mark fearing said:

No, what you write is riddled with non-logic and inconsistencies.  Again - what you are saying is  I can't buy Target products at Trader Joes. And what about grocery stores charging SELF fees? Is THAT illegal? If so on what grounds? If a supplier doesn't pay shelf fees, guess what, they don't get into the store. None of what you say can be applied to any other situation in any way. It's really just anger that another company has had success and you want to make sure they don't.

If you don't know what the difference between the compitition between Trader Joe's and Target and the competition between Android and iOS is, that there is no way I can explain it to you.  Why is this so hard to understand what the differences are? Why simple grocery store around the corner and the app store on your phone are not the same? I mean, I could buy an HP printer from store A and get the ink from store B but I can't buy an app for my iPhone from store A today and store B tomorrow. And I would have to switch the entire platform, with all the consequences it entails. How is that the same of getting bread from store A today and store B tomorrow? Sorry, but you really don't understand what a monopoly is and what it isn't.

And if Apple has only success because they use their market power on iOS, I mean they just advertised their services in the settings, than they can go bankrupt for all I care.

sdw2001 said:

No, that's not how any of this works.  

Apple doesn't have a monopoly.  They have a system in which you agree to participate when you buy your device.  Don't like their walled garden approach?  By a Samsung.  Buy a Pixel.  There are numerous viable alternatives to iOS.  If you want to install apps from third parties, get one of those alternatives.  Or create a movement to get Apple to change its mind.  But no, you want government to force Apple to change its own product with no evidence it will help consumers or that it's violating any laws.  

Now, the commission.  Why is it "absolutely insane?" Obviously, the market disagrees.  Apple is in business to make money.  They charge what the market will bear and what will be good for their business.  This is why the commission is 15% in some cases...because the good PR and goodwill with small developers will make Apple more money.  

Opinions like the one you've stated are not based on reality or the law.  It's just a tantrum. 

Imagine, you own a house, the town you live in sells the street to your house to a private investor, because it needs money, and the new owner says to you, pay 30% of your income as rent for the street. You can't sell your home because the value decreased due to that and there is also not another street you can use to reach your house. And maybe because you are such a "free market" lover that you convinced the city council that property owner should be regulated by the state. So essentially you have exchanged regulation by a public body with the regulation of a private company which can do what ever it wants, because the company's only reason to exist is making money. And yes, the owner of your street has in this example an monopoly for accessing your house, even if there are houses on other streets which are not owned by the same person.

I hope your are rich enough to live in your dream world.