elijahg

foregoneconclusion said:

elijahg said: I'm not saying there is a law around it, but anticompetitive behaviour is very opinionated and it would be much easier for Valve to justify that they "need" that profit to operate and invest than Apple can. This is especially true when you consider the lock-in, when the alternative requires the expenditure in the form of purchasing a different device.

The quote from the court is saying that 30% commission is too high relative to the intellectual property involved which = iPhone hardware + iOS + App Store. That's multiple IP developments versus the app developer that has a single IP development...their app. So the single IP developer gets 70% and the multiple IP developer gets 30%. I'm just saying that I don't follow how that is interpreted as supracompetitive. 

I agree, not really sure why the court used IP as a reason. It's not really anything to do with that.

foregoneconclusion said:

elijahg said: I suspect if the 30% commission was Apple's only major source of profit, like the commission on the Steam store is Valve's only real source of profit, the outcome would have been  different. 

What would that be based on though? Is there a law that limits profit margins based on how many different profit margins you generate? That has always seemed nebulous at best.

I'm not saying there is a law around it, but anticompetitive behaviour is very opinionated and it would be much easier for Valve to justify that they "need" that profit to operate and invest than Apple can. This is especially true when you consider the lock-in, when the alternative requires the expenditure in the form of purchasing a different device.

foregoneconclusion said:

gatorguy said: To summarize: One, after trial, the Court found that Apple’s 30 percent commission “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” and was not tied to the value of its intellectual property, and thus, was anticompetitive. 

This has always been the part that doesn't make much sense. In order for Apple to offer the App Store, they had to develop both the phone hardware and operating system. And in order for the App Store to attract a large numbers of developers, iPhone/iOS would need to be highly successful with consumers. App developers are typically attracted to the systems that have large install bases. No idea how the court arrives at the conclusion that 30% is too high for what Apple developed: highly quality phone hardware + very popular OS + large install base of potential app customers.

I suspect if the 30% commission was Apple's only major source of profit, like the commission on the Steam store is Valve's only real source of profit, the outcome would have been different. Before the App Store commission for online stores was like 60%+, Apple was very disruptive in lowering it so much. This doesn't seem to be considered anywhere. It seems to me that they are more concerned about the commission being hugely more than it directly costs Apple to run the App Store. 

If Apple has the best product, they won't need to worry about developers using outside payment providers. I would certainly rather use Apple Pay than put my card details into some unknown third party vendor's site. I don't see a problem with Apple requiring Apple Pay to be listed alongside other methods, but to only allow Apple Pay (and overly discourage other methods) is clearly anticompetitive.

This is what happens when your CEO is driven purely by profit and nothing else.

 To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath. Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly.

If this is true, and there is no reason to believe otherwise - Cook is entirely complicit, and the board should seriously consider the next steps. Cook himself decided that being in contempt of court was a better option than losing some profit. That is not okay.

I'd be super happy with an iPhone 17 Fat. Imagine, with an extra 3-4mm you could lose the camera bump, and you could have a battery 4x what it is now. But Apple would never do that, because whilst their thinness obsession does seem to have receded somewhat, they'd never make something thicker just for more battery.