tehabe

thrang said:

Everyone overcomplicates, including government interventionists

Who cares what Apple charges? If they charge too much, developers should stop supporting them and users should not buy an iPhone (or buy apps). The market strongly indicates pricing is not an issue. Apple is a premium price company across the board, and they deliver an experience that many desire and appreciate. 

The app store is a feature of the iPhone, like BMW's Connected Drive is a feature of their cars. Should you be able to demand a Mercedes Command system be made available to your BMW?

A company can seek and must seek to maximize its profits. The markets will decide if they have pushed too far. There are cheap Android phones anyone can buy around the world. Go at it.

Should Apple be forced to provide free services to third parties? Why? Should Peloton be allowed to set up a kiosk in Dick's Sporting Goods to sell its bikes and treadmills direct to customers who walk into Dick's, with no compensation to Dick's? 

How would security be managed with sideloaded apps if it were to come to that dopey idea? Access to and transmission of private data? Does Apple have to give Cockamamie Email Plus access to your Contacts? Photos? Calendar? What about access to the larger ecosystem of devices and data? Permitted? Not permitted? What about unvetted poor coding (leading to perhaps overheating, battery drain, lock ups, ie a poor user experience). Who is responsible for supporting the grey area of shitty sideloaded apps making your iPhone unstable or slow? Who pays for the extra work in iOS coding, testing, support, investigations if it were even remotely possible to manage such a thoughtless concept of sideloading into an otherwise secure environment?

How can Apple maintain responsibility for its reputation in such a paradigm (and that is among the many critical considerations that governments and yahoos don't give a hoot about)

Does a company have a right to manage and protect against such dangers to its profit, reputation, brand, and, most importantly, protect a users trust in them? 

Who is forced to support Apple? No one. But it is readily apparent that customers and developers find it far more worth it than not to join and stay part of the Apple ecosystem. People love the product as it is. If Apple is missing the boat by not offering something different, that's there choice, and maybe their mistake.

There is a desire to hate on the successful in the world, at business and personal levels. It's a sad state of affairs really. No one will build a better mousetrap with that type of thinkin; they just want to steal the cheese off of someone else's...

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.  

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.

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.  

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.