tundraboy

"Also not clear, is why Samsung didn't get fined"

Oh it's pretty clear-- Korea is one of the biggest homers when it comes to business regulation.  Only China beats it.

This supposedly "thin" phone, will the camera lenses still jut out like a barnacle?  If so, then meh.  My car has a wireless charging pad for a cell phone but the protruding lens island doesn't allow the iPhone to lie fully flat on the pad hence charging is slow and even the smallest bump on the road shifts the phone just enough to lose charging contact.

gatorguy said:

foregoneconclusion said:

Question: why would developers complain about Apple handling the payment processing if they can't negotiate a better rate than 3% themselves? The reality for credit card processing fees is that online transactions are ALWAYS going to have higher cost than physical transactions with a card. That's how the banks have set it up. 

It's not the 3% fee that's an issue. It's the attached 27% cut of the gross for Apple that the company insists on. Apple gets the same cut as before while doing far less to deserve it.  It's a good time for Mr.Cook to remember his semi-famous comment to the US Congress: “We not only comply with the laws but we comply with the spirit of the laws,” he said.


Apple won't win this one. 

Last I heard, the US is basically, still a free enterprise economy, so unless you are a regulated utility or have been declared by the courts to be a monopoly, no one, not even the government, can dictate the prices or commission rate that you charge.  Apple has no obligation to reduce its commission rate just to make high-cost payment providers competitive. That completely turns the free enterprise system on its head by rewarding inefficient companies.  If a judge doesn't understand this, he's not competent enough to preside over the case, and especially with a Supreme Court leaning the way it does, Apple will win this one.

27% sounds like a steep commission but compared against the margins over wholesale that physical stores charge, 27% is actually on the low side.

payeco said:

rexsceleratorum said:

Apple could've made an app for Android years ago and made chats secure for iPhone users by not sending anything over SMS. But surprise surprise, they don't actually care about users' privacy more than they care about their bottom line by locking in American teenagers who don't want to be outcasts. The latter being a problem which does not exist outside of the US, because everyone uses Whatsapp or similar instead of texting. 

I’ll never understand this mindset. Why is it Apple’s responsibility to make messaging better on someone else’s platform? You can dance around it all you want but that is what you’re saying. 

I totally agree.  One may or may not want to live in a capitalist/free enterprise system but like it or not, the US on the whole has chosen to do so and by all accounts it has been a major factor in the standard of living we enjoy now.  A key feature of such an economy is that it is not the responsibility of one company to make a competing company's products better.  This spurs competition and innovation which is why no surprise, the US leads the world in filing patents, developing new products and technologies, and creating new industries.

The problem with the suit is there is no discernible underlying legal or economic theory that will explain why something is objectionable when Apple does it but it's okay when other companies do it.  30% commissions are supposedly a horrible thing.  Hello?  Ask any retailer what margins they slap on their merchandise.  30% is on the low side.  Now ask Walmart if any manufacturer can just put their products on Walmart's shelves.  But Apple should just let any app developer get on the iPhone platform and for free, or at a cost dictated by the government?  Maybe you have an argument if Apple is the only smartphone out there and so the government has to step in to make sure that the smartphone monopoly doesn't get abused.  But Android is available and what the DOJ is trying to do amounts to going after Apple because Android is such a lousy product that smartphone customers and thus app developers avoid it like the plague.

There is also the issue, hardly mentioned but implicit in the litigation:  Is the iPhone platform, which is infrastructure built with private funds, a public space, in the same way that streets, side walks, parks, shoreline, etc. are public spaces where easement is guaranteed to anyone who wants to use it (as long as its for legal purposes)?  Or related to this, is the iPhone by itself -- not all smartphones taken together, mind you--  a public utility like power grids, telecoms, water, etc. and is thus subject to more regulation as to who can hook up to the system and what services the utility is required to offer?  This question has far-reaching implications and should be decided by Congress, not the courts.  I don't think as highly of the Supreme Court as I used to but I expect if it even reaches them, they will slap down this lawsuit like a soggy, flea-bitten dish rag.