thrang

https://chng.it/PPSJPgC94z

Petition to demand DoJ withdraw the suit!

It's quite disturbing when governments feel they can decide how a company can or can not develop its business model or run its business internally. Especially when their claims are based on a false assumption - that Apple is an entire market (rather than a participant in a larger market). Apple is as much a "monopoly" as BMW, Mercedes or Tesla is. Each of them "owns" their respective businesses, but are only part of larger marketplaces - not the marketplace itself. Just because iOS is successful doesn't mean it's the monopolistic entity for the "application marketplace" (which comprises dollars spent across all devices). If they wish to define iOS as a marketplace, then that logic would need to be applied to every business that owns 100% - of it's own business!

Why in the world would ANY company invest in innovation if they were forced to give those innovations away freely to competitors, or at a cost far below a required return on investment and to detriment of profitability?

App Store, Wallet, Messages and other technologies are core parts of their ecosystem strategy and are part of their intellectual assets which they solely bore the cost of development (and continue to solely bear ongoing costs to develop, maintain, and support). So now, simply force them to give access to others? For what?

If end users don't like Apple's limitations or exclusions, or don't like the synthesized ecosystem, or their overall business model and cost to live in it, they will decide to go elsewhere. But in fact, users have decided - the success of Apple proves that they love and appreciate the semi-wall garden model, and the handful of complainers are the some app developers who, one way or another, want a free or low cost ride on the coattails of Apple.

This is a suit brought by the government, ostensibly for the people, that the people in fact never clamored for nor wants, and it will harm they very things that attracted them to Apple if it were successful. Astounding...

Too many subscriptions in our lives. End of story.

"It was already clear going in that this was not going to be a year when the Oscars made the best picture be the Best Picture. "

Can this be translated to English?

avon b7 said:

mike1 said:

avon b7 said:

 explicitly accepting that Apple will take a cut (commission, fee or whatever you want to call it) of every transaction the consumer makes. That, after all is what Apple wants: its part of the pie. 

Like EVERY major retailer on the face of the planet.

Except EVERY major retailer does not try to take a cut from every transaction in the mall (to use a well worn but often flawed analogy).

Apple is not the mall. They are a major department store in the mall (which has Google, Microsoft, Meta, Sony, and all countless others with their own shops selling sometimes different, sometime similar products and services.

And every department store absolutely does take a cut from every single transaction (product margin). Or they cease to exist. And the mall takes its cut from every sale, indirectly, as they lease the space for profit, so product sell prices are in part influenced by that cost of doing business. Ultimately every commercial entity pays for its retail presence in the mall.

Yet Spotify and Epic want to squat. But have no right to sell or promote their products for free through Apple's developed, maintained and funded ecosystem. That is as inane a thought as a physical manufacturer, who doesn't want to pay a cent of margin to a department store, demanding and being granted free counter space in the store to sell and keep 100% of the profits. But this does not happen. They instead must open their own store, pay all the associated fees of leasing, staffing, insurance, fixtures, point of sale processing, returns/support, marketing, advertising, etc. and compete on their own. And many retailers to this, or do both.

There is not one kangaroo court in the world that would "side" with the manufacturer in such a once sided demand, But here, it happened.

And I am bemused how "anti-steering" is even a thing. Every single commercial entity who sells products or services is constantly making every effort possible to be the best or singular choice of the consumer. Marketing, advertising, social influencing, financially incentivizing, etc. It's all - without question -  designed to steer consumers to you, and you only.  Does BMW provide their website visitors or dealer showroom visitors choices to consider Mercedes' or Audi's? I don't see Hermes explaining to customers the options of Louis Vuitton or Gucci.

Actually, Apple's App Store provides far more exposure to third-party (competitive) options than nearly any other equivalent for-profit company than I can think of.