tech_traveller
About
- Username
- tech_traveller
- Joined
- Visits
- 12
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 226
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 46
Reactions
-
Epic vs Apple suit finally ends, as Supreme Court refuses to hear both appeals
foregoneconclusion said:carnegie said:foregoneconclusion said:godofbiscuitssf said:So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?foregoneconclusion said:flydog said:foregoneconclusion said:godofbiscuitssf said:So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060628/epic-apple-injunction.pdf
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/supreme-court-rejects-apples-request-for-epic-app-store-review#
So what I was wrong about was that the appeal per anti-steering was ongoing. SC refused to hear both Epic and Apple's appeals. -
Apple overtakes Samsung in global smartphone shipments across 2023
danox said:tech_traveller said:One question though, can this be utilised by courts when Apple argues that they are not a monopoly?
Apple sold more devices in the premium space than Samsung which serves both Premium and midrange markets and at a variety of price points, that's a big deal. -
Epic vs Apple suit finally ends, as Supreme Court refuses to hear both appeals
melgross said:tech_traveller said:Well, despite Tim Sweeney being a crook, you can't deny that this case helped developers.
Now they can advertise prices where they get 100% of the income, maybe we will even get cheaper options now.
what has been so easily forgotten is that when Apple first announced the App Store and spoke about the 30% and what developers were getting for it, they were dancing in the streets because other stores were charging between 40 - 60% and developers had to do all of their own accounting, marketing, etc. Apple’s low charges changed the industry and forced others to follow. But people forget the old world and begin to get greedy. I’ve read a number of times over the years that of the 30 cents Apple gets on every dollar of sales, they get 5 cents of profit. The rest is spent in software development of the store, marketing of products, accounting for themselves and developers products, and of course, the fact that about 2/3rds of what’s in the store is free where Apple gets nothing for downloads. Those free downloads cost Apple plenty and they have to be paid for through the paid apps.
so when developers started to sell things through their apps, such as extra features, loot for games and such, Apple decided they should get a cut. The fact that most of these sales were coming from “free” apps, most of which weren’t really that useful without the extra paid for features, it’s understandable that Apple would want a cut. These developers were really getting around the rules with this. If they all had it that way, Apple would only be getting the yearly $99 developers fee. That’s nowhere near enough to cover even part of the App Store costs. So I can understand Apple wanting to staunch the bleeding. Some of these companies are really blatantly arrogant. They want their store within Apple’s store without paying them anything, all the while getting paid for goods sold in their own stores. That’s too much!
I do agree with Apple allowing them to point to other sources for products though. That does make sense.
According to my knowledge, Stripe or other merchants take only 3-5% which is a lot less than Apple. Big developers don't really have to worry about accounting as they already had those divisions and in the future will not utilise them more. Small developers will probably stick with Apple.
-
Epic vs Apple suit finally ends, as Supreme Court refuses to hear both appeals
-
EU companies are complaining that US big tech is ignoring a new antitrust law