mayfly

waveparticle said:

Highly doubt this will happen. Microsoft will charge businesses $30 per user per month. They will become more addicted to Windows.

tmay said:

mayfly said:

Why on earth would anyone see getting a larger share of a collapsing market as good news?

That's what happened to the companies making buggy whips a hundred years ago. As more and more companies went bankrupt, the ones remaining got a larger and larger share of the remaining market. You can draw your own conclusions about how much money they make today versus when they had a smaller share of a larger market!

Uhm, maybe because all that the buggy whip companies made were buggy whips, which is not like PC companies, most of which are at least a little bit diversified into other consumer products.

davidw said:

mayfly said:

Wesley Hilliard said:

Semantics will be the death of humanity.

I'll offer this: Apple's 30% charge is a commission. However, some people refer to it as a tax as a way to slight the idea of the payment as being unjustified.

Yes, tax has a literal meaning, and Apple isn't a government. But sometimes, colloquialisms will win out.

And the title doesn't say Apple is appealing a Supreme Court ruling. It says Apple is appealing the Supreme Court, which in this context means making a request -- if you want to be semantic about it.

Remember, feel free to discuss the topic, but don't criticize how we cover the topic, titles, or even typos in forums. It tends to derail conversations. If you have concerns about what we've covered or the titles we use, email us.

It's in the Forum rules. Don't make us smack you with a rule violation or eventual ban. Play nice here, folks. I shouldn't have to keep banging this drum, but I will.

I agree that it's a commission. But I also agree that calling it a tax is a distinction without a difference beyond semantics. You'd think Epic had no case, since all wholesale distributors charge more than they pay for their products and services. But say if an Apple VAR (value added reseller) buys a Macbook Pro from an Apple authorized distributor like Ingram Micro or TechData, that VAR is then able to buy cases, adapters and cables, and other third party accessories without having to pay Apple a commission.

On Friday, May 20, 2022, Epic games won a rather one-sided condition against Google App Store payment policies. The decision is backed up by years of litigation between Epic Games and the Google App Store. Sounds like precedent to me. This one is going to SCOTUS, and I don't like their chances with this reactionary court.

https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/23/epic-games-bandcamp-temporarily-wins-right-to-use-its-own-payments-system-on-google-play/

Epic haven't won crap. All Epic got was an injunction that prevented Google from removing the BandCamp app from the Google Play Store, even though Epic was violating Google Play Store policy by providing a payment link that bypassed paying Google their commission, until the case goes to trial. It's schedule for Nov. 2023. So how can this ...."sound like a precedent" ..... when the case haven't even gone to trial yet? Get your hearing check.

How is this a "win" if Epic has to keep 10% of the IAP revenue in escrow until the case is settled. It's only 10% commission because Google was willing to offer this to Epic but Epic claimed that that was still too much. Don't forget, when Epic lost against Apple, Epic had to pay Apple $6M in back commission on the revenue they made when they provided a direct link to their own payment site in their Fortnite app (before they got banned.).

If anything, Epic have a much weaker case against Google, than they had against Apple. With Android, Epic is not required to use the Google Play Store to have an app on Android devices. There are other app stores, they could have their own app store and they could have it side loaded. There is no "monopoly" angle to cry about. Plus Google offered to lower the commission to 10% (in the case with BandCamp). But Epic claim that that was still too much to pay to be in the Google Play Store. And this is the same Epic Games that at first made Fortnite only available by sideloading and then later put it in the Google Play Store. And when in the Google Play Store, Fortnite produce much more profit for Epic than when it was only available by sideloading, even though they had to pay Google a 30% commission.

Remember, so far none of the court cases against Apple and Google app stores have ruled that Apple and Google are not entitled to a commission. No matter how the customer chooses to pay. Epic wants to pay 0, regardless of how the customer pays. 

Wesley Hilliard said:

Semantics will be the death of humanity.

I'll offer this: Apple's 30% charge is a commission. However, some people refer to it as a tax as a way to slight the idea of the payment as being unjustified.

Yes, tax has a literal meaning, and Apple isn't a government. But sometimes, colloquialisms will win out.

And the title doesn't say Apple is appealing a Supreme Court ruling. It says Apple is appealing the Supreme Court, which in this context means making a request -- if you want to be semantic about it.

Remember, feel free to discuss the topic, but don't criticize how we cover the topic, titles, or even typos in forums. It tends to derail conversations. If you have concerns about what we've covered or the titles we use, email us.

It's in the Forum rules. Don't make us smack you with a rule violation or eventual ban. Play nice here, folks. I shouldn't have to keep banging this drum, but I will.