davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 187
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,770
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,202
Reactions
-
Newly-appointed Apple CFO denies 75% App Store profit claim in UK trial
avon b7 said:
Apple could also make that store stand on its own two feet and unscramble the accountability.foregoneconclusion said:
Pointless exercise. Example: Apple has a "strings from the mothership" store for digital downloads of movies/television shows. The prices on that store are typically in line with what other stores of that type offer. That's no different than the prices for mobile apps on the App Store being typically in line with prices on app stores on Android. So while the EU and UK like to claim there would be bargains to be had with multiple stores, the reality is that the prices are always going to be very similar.avon b7 said: The solution is to make the App Store stand on its own two feet without strings from the mothership all over the place and actually make that division accountable for the services it provides.
Prices, whether they are similar or not, aren't the issue in this case.If the "price" (Apple 30% commission in this case) is not the issue, then why do Apple need to "unscramble the accountability" on how much it cost them to operate the Apple App Store? This so that the plaintiffs can use it to show that Apple "price" yield a 75% profit margin. How can the plaintiffs prove a 75% profit margin, if the "price" is not an issue?The issue, whether you understand it or not, is that the lawsuit is claiming that Apple is not justified in charging a 30% commission and is only able to so because they have a "monopoly" with their app store on iOS, thus no competition.But that is a losing argument. (Even if they manage to prove that Apple have a "monopoly" under current UK anti-trust laws.) There are over a dozen third party app stores and sideloading, on Android, so Google Play Store have plenty of competition but still able to charge a 30% commission. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo game consoles app stores have competition in the form of physical media and they are still able charge a 30% commission. The Mac App Store charges a 30% commission, even though software can be loaded on to a Mac without going through the Mac App Store. Competition has not forced Microsoft, Sony and Google to lower their 30% commission. So why would the UK think that Apple would not be able to charge a 30% commission, if the Apple App Store was not a "monopoly"?Not even the EU, with their BS "Gatekeeper" labeling, ever thought of regulating Apple 30% commission. They might be hoping that by forcing Apple to allow third party app stores on iOS, that consumers would benefit from Apple lowering their 30% due to competition in the market, providing of course that the developers pass along that saving. But they aren't holding their breathe, since that has not happened on Android. And here's another thought. If the EU government forced Apple to lower their commission, then third party app stores would become less profitable to operate as they must compete with the Apple App Store lowered commission. And if there's not much of a saving on the commission of a third party app store vs the Apple App Store, then the developer might as well choose the more trusted Apple App Store.
-
Newly-appointed Apple CFO denies 75% App Store profit claim in UK trial
nubus said:thrang said:
Protecting against intellectual capital theft, and enforcing that protection, has nothing to do with a company being able to set the margin for specific products or services without government scrutiny. The marketplace will determine if a company is "gouging", and not buy/look elsewhere.nubus said:You want a free market but at the same time you expect for governments to set laws regarding patents and enforce them. You can't have both.
Didn't work with AT&T or Standard Oil or keep competition in browsers (until Microsoft got stopped by regulation) or stop <any financial crisis>. The market is not perfect. We can't doing old mistakes on repeat. Or well... U.S. decided to. Most of the world is moving on. This includes UK. Nations are indeed not alike. Some prefer to learn and adapt.Neither ATT or Standard Oil was broken up because they were "price gouging" or for their high profit margins. In fact, for the average consumers, the cost of telephone service and gasoline (kerosene) were never lower, than when ATT and Standard Oil were monopolies. When they were broken up by the government, for the sake of "more competition", the cost of telephone service and gas, increased. It was the competition that were complaining about ATT and Standard Oil monopoly because they couldn't compete. Not because of the consumers complaining about the high cost of telephone service and gasoline due to ATT and Standard Oil "high profit margin".What government "regulation" ended Microsoft browser monopoly on Windows. The EU in 2009? LOL That was case of too little too late. Microsoft lost their browser monopoly because Apple introduced their iPhone with the full internet on iOS in 2007. Which Google answered with Android and their Chrome browser a year later. As more and more consumers switched to mobile for their internet, Chrome took over the desktop browser market.FYI- one could always change to a competitors browser on Windows. All the EU did was forced Microsoft to make the choice of browsers easier to install. It did nothing to offer more browsers to choose from. Chrome became the consumers choice on desk top because it was the browser being used on most consumers mobile devices. -
Newly-appointed Apple CFO denies 75% App Store profit claim in UK trial
mikethemartian said:
Tell that to Ma Bell.thrang said:It should be no business of any government to know or consider what a company’s profit margin is for a specific component of their business.. It’s absurd. Companies already report their fiscal performance in whatever way they see fitPlease inform yourself about "government granted monopoly", before bringing "Ma Bell" (ATT) into any discussion concerning monopolies as a result of competition or the lack there of.ATT was granted a monopoly by the US government, where the US government suppressed competition. Therefore, in exchange, the US government regulated what ATT could charge the public. It is no different than your city government granting your garbage and recycle collector a "monopoly" in your municipality and can regulate what they charge. There's a reason why your electrical, gas and water companies must seek approval from the PUC (or some other government commission), in order to raise rates.The US government did not want dozens of telephone companies setting up poles throughout the country, with different companies telephones not compatible with each other. Your city do not want several companies setting up poles and digging up their streets to supply electricity, gas and water, to all its residents. You do not want to hear garbage being picked up in the early morning, every day of the week, because your neighbors are using different garbage pick up services.
-
Newly-appointed Apple CFO denies 75% App Store profit claim in UK trial
nubus said:
The fact that Apple is doing something doesn't make it lawful even under the current legislation. It is for the courts to decide.AppleInsider said:It's not clear why Kent believes that Apple has no right to charge what it wants. It very clearly does -- until the laws about platform accessibility get changed.
The fact that Apple is doing exactly what Microsoft is doing with their app store on their Xbox and what Sony is doing on their PlayStation and Nintendo is doing on their Switch and Google is doing in their Google Play Store with the UK government so far doing NOTHING to regulate them, means that what Apple is doing is not illegal under current legislation.
-
Ending Google search partnership would hamstring Apple, says Eddy Cue
dewme said:Isn’t Bing the default search engine in Edge? But just like Safari, Edge users can change it if they want to but most mainstream users probably don’t. Ignorance is bliss and they are none the wiser.
Yes, most AppleInsider commenters are outside of the normal range of browser users. We use ad blockers and some of us use more than one layer of them because they don’t all work the same or update their filters as often or as deeply. I use the ad blockers in my security gateway for all internet traffic plus 1Blocker (paid) on all of my devices. I still see a few ads on pages and pop-under ads but it’s tolerable and works quite well. I’ve heard that using a Pi-Hole on a Raspberry Pi or in a container works quite well also because the community support keeps whacking more and more moles all of the time. Of course you can reach a point where some pages will not load, but none of the sites I rely on are an issue. If they were I can set exceptions.
I agree with those who insist that Google Search is more comprehensive with its results. Of course this doesn’t keep me from using DuckDuckGo as the default search engine on most of my devices and computers. If I’m struggling to find what I’m looking for I’ll use Google Search. However, in the last year or so, instead of using Google Search as a fallback I’ve been using ChatGPT. I find that ChatGPT is very good at digging out harder-to-find details that get me pointed in the right direction for me to drill in more deeply.
I like having many tools at my disposal, so just like I have a tool chest and tool cabinets filled with all kinds of electrical, pneumatic, and mechanical tools I want my computing toolbox to have a diversity of tools for different challenges. No one tool serves all purposes.But Edge is the default browser on Windows 10 and Windows 11. And they are on over 90% of the Windows PC being used today. So why do Google Chromium browser have 67% of the desktop computer browser market? Windows PC still have over 75% of that market. If what you say is close to being true, that most users do not change the default setting, how come Edge have only 13% of the browser market on desktop computers? This means that most Windows users are aware of the default setting and know how to change it. And if they know how to change the default browser, they are probably not ignorant in knowing how to change the default search engine of the browser they chose.Even with Macs users, 1/3 of them change the default Safari browser to some other browser. Macs have about 15% of the desktop computer market and yet, Safari market share in the desktop computer market is 9%.But what you said is true, most of the 13% of users that stayed with Edge as their default, do not change the Bing default search engine. Even when one account for Bing being used on other browsers. But I wouldn't go as far as to say it's because .... ignorance is bliss.The vast majority of consumers using computers and mobile devices to surf the internet, knows about the default settings and know they can easily change it .... at any time. The fact that many do not change it, is in no way a sign of ignorance. Choosing to use the default setting, is no less of a choice than choosing to use another browser or another search engine. We don't need the government telling consumers that chooses to use the product of a company that has a "monopoly", that the company is abusing their "monopoly" ....... by some how taking advantage of their "ignorance", in that they don't know any better.
