davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 163
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,335
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,053
Reactions
-
EU's antitrust head is ignoring Spotify's dominance and wants to punish Apple instead
avon b7 said:
In the EU they won't have a monopoly on commissions but up until now they have. Not only that, they did not offer better terms until they were pushed to do so.Xed said:
They do not have a monopoly on "commissions" and it's been shown that Spotify uses Apple's tools and don't pay nearly their fair share. These actions will end up hurting all developers because Apple will simply find a different way to get compensated for building the tools that make their SW great.avon b7 said:
I agree with Dewne. The tools are great value - as tools.Xed said:
As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.avon b7 said:
Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers.dewme said:
Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month.jimh2 said:
You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.VictorMortimer said:Apple's 30% is highway robbery.Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge. As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.
Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store.
It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d
We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business.
It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform.
This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily.
It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product.
You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.
Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere.
Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations.
That is not word salad. It's fact based context.
Spotify has nothing to do with Apple's developer tools pricing, and never will, because spotify is just one app developer out of thousands or hundreds of thousands.
'Fair share' is a curious claim.
Has Apple paid its fair share of taxes around the world? Tim Cook says Apple has values. Not only that. He says Apple pays every cent of taxes it owes. It's only when you wade through the complaints and paperwork that you realise that Apple was actually deciding for itself what to make available for taxation and in one famous case that amounted to 0.005% for one year (according to an EU investigation). Then you browse through the Paradise Papers and Apple’s name pops up more than it should with its external representitives seeking shadowy places to move money to where oversight is less stringent.
I think Apple has had more than its fair share of just about everything when it comes to collecting money.
Is it fair for those trying to make money from their apps to have to 'subsidise' those who don't have to pay more than their subscriptions? Or should prices go up for those who offer apps for free? Or is Apple doing all the subsidising itself? How can we know? Is that fair? Or does $99 cover the cost of everything involved.
Hasn't Apple already had its 'fair share' for years by simply not allowing any other stores to even exist while taking a cut out of every paid app? It does not matter if it's 5% or 50%. The commission percentage is irrelevant to that debate if Apple is the only one getting the commission because Apple itself determined competition should not exist.
Isn't it trying to keep its grip on those commissions, even now, by not allowing competition to exist in places like the US? Is that fair?
It definitely looks like enough authorities think it's unfair.
UK, EU, Japan, South Korea have pretty much made it clear that things need to change. Each one might go about that in a different way but I doubt any of them would use 'fair' to describe any of Apple's practices where competition isn't even allowed.
Has Apple abused its dominant position? A lot of authorities seem to think so. What does the DoJ think?
And don't think this is an 'everybody against poor Apple' thing because it's not.In your mind, when did Apple iOS become "public domain" or "open source" or deemed a "public utility"? The last I checked, Apple iOS is still Apple copyrighted IP. And copyright laws in the US and the EU, grant the owners of copyrighted works the exclusive right to monetize them. So of course Apple have the right to collect a commission on every app that depends on their IP, that is iOS. But what gives others the right to open a store in iOS, sell iOS apps and collect a commission .... without compensating Apple for the for-profit use of iOS?Taylor Swift is one of the richest musician/songwriter today. Can anyone use any of her copyrighted works to profit from, without compensating Swift or at least get her permission? Of course not. It doesn't matter that Swift is a billionaire and also make tons of money selling her image to advertisers and have her own product lines. It does not diminish the copyright rights she have on her musical works. Nor require her to give away her music for free.So it doesn't matter if Apple were to allow (or forced to allow) third party app stores. They still have the right to charge others for the for-profit use of their IP. Can you set up a kiosk in the middle of a shopping mall to sell your handcrafted items, without paying the owner of the mall rent and/ or a percentage of your gross sales? Don't the property owner have the right to charge something for the space your kiosk is occupying in their mall? Shouldn't the mall owners be compensated for the expense of attracting shoppers to the mall, so you have a steady stream of customers to sell your items to? Shouldn't the mall owners have the right to limit what you can sell, on their property? What if the owner don't want you selling adult DVD's, or counterfeit purses or items that competes with vendors paying rent for retail store fronts in the mall? Do the mall owner have the rights to control what is being sold on his property?So why do you think Apple should allow third party app stores to sell apps that runs on iOS, in an app store that uses iOS, to customers that Apple spent lots of money on in attracting them to buy iPhones (or other Apple devices), without being able to collect a commission to compensated for the use of the IP Apple spent billions on developing? Can you demand to set up a "store" inside Spotify Music app, to sell your digital downloaded music to Spotify customers and not compensate Spotify for the use of their IP? Do developers have the right to use Epic Games IP to create their own virtual goods for Fortnight and then demand that the government force Epic Games to allow other stores inside their Fortnite game because the Epic Fortnite Store have no competition and is charging too much for the virtual goods in their game?There is no such thing as a "monopoly" on commission. Monopolies exist in defined "markets" and commissions are not a "market", by any definition where one could have a "monopoly" that can be use in anti-trust cases. Just because Apple is granted the exclusive right to collect a commission for the for-profit use of their IP, it doesn't mean that Apple have a "monopoly" on commission. That's as nonsensical as saying ....... Walmart have a "monopoly" on the markup of every item they sell in their Walmart Stores. Or, the landlord of an apartment building have a "monopoly" on the rent collected from the tenants in the building. You seem to just want to throw in the word "monopoly" when talking about Apple, without the least bit of understanding about what a "monopoly" is, just to make it appear that Apple do have a "monopoly" in something.BTW- As far as i know, Apple has paid all the taxes that they are legally required to pay. If you have a problem with whether it was their "fair share", then take it up with your government about changing the tax laws. So far, the EU General Courts have agreed that Ireland did nothing illegal by charging Apple a tax rate that they thought was "fair". Even though the EU Commission is crying that Apple ....... "didn't pay their fair share"..... in taxes.The free Spotify App on iOS is about one of the top ten downloaded apps from the Apple App Store. An yet Spotify is paying Apple nothing for having their app on hundreds of millions of Apple devices. Is Spotify paying their "fair share" for the use of Apple IP? Yes, because Apple App Store policies allows for this. So long as Spotify abide by the rules, it's fair. And no less fair than when Apple abide by the tax laws, no matter how some might cry ......Apple is not paying their "fair share".Download numbers that I'm sure leads to the increase of revenue Spotify get from advertising in their free ad supported music streaming tier.
-
UK denies Apple's bid to dismiss App Store lawsuit
avon b7 said:
Yes. Developers knew the price of admission. We all do. The question is if that constitutes abuse of dominant position. That we can't know until the process is over.paisleydisco said:Okay. Now go after supermarkets and retail stores that charge 30% and more for products to be placed in store.Developers knew the price of admission and now are crying. GTFO.Having a "dominate" position has nothing to do with it. It's because Apple have been labeled the BS position of being a "gatekeeper", under the DMA. And many countries are using the DMA as a reference, even if the DMA do not apply their country. And this is what the EU set out to do.The "Microsoft Store have a "dominate"position on the Xbox. The Sony Store have a "dominate" position on the PlayStation. Steam gaming platform is a dominate position on the PC. Google Play Store have a "dominate" position on Android phones. They all charge about the same 30% commission, if a developer want to sell in their stores.Plus how were developers harm? They are allow to set the price of their own apps. This isn't like if Apple were forcing developers to sell their apps at a certain price and then taking 30% of the sale price. The developers should be including cost of the commission in the price of their apps, don't you think? Surely they must factor in cost like, taxes, cost of development tools, rent, electricity, employees wages and their own internet cost, when pricing their apps when trying to make a profit from its sale.If any one can claim to be harm by the commission, it's maybe the consumers that pays for apps. But it can be argued that both developers and consumers have greatly benefited from online store sale of software. No matter the platform. For developers, it has greatly driven down the cost of distributing their software to the consumers. When was the last time a consumer can walk into a retail store and 90% of the software available ........ was free?And In the end, consumers pays for all the cost of producing a product or service , plus the profits made by the who ever sells the product or service. Including the sales tax the government charges.
-
Teenagers still overwhelmingly want iPhone and Apple Watch more than any other brand
charlesn said:This watch statistic, with respect to upper income teens, makes me question all the stats in this article:
"However, Apple's 36% share is a drop from the 42% of the Fall 2023 and Spring 2023 surveys, and it's only just ahead of its nearest rival, Rolex at 34%."
Come again? The #2 watch for these teens, with 34% market share and just barely behind Apple Watch is ROLEX?! Yeah, no. Just. Not. Possible.>For watch brands, upper-income teens have continued to rate Apple as their favorite once again. However, Apple's 36% share is a drop from the 42% of the Fall 2023 and Spring 2023 surveys, and it's only just ahead of its nearest rival, Rolex at 34%.
It is said that 34% of overall teens currently own an Apple Watch, which is flat versus last fall. The intent to buy an Apple Watch in the next six months did go up from 10% in the fall to 13%.<The way the article has it, if one is not paying attention, one can easily confuse "rating", with "ownership". The 36% Apple Watch share and 34% Rolex share, are not the percent of teens that own these watches. They are the percent of teens that rated these watches as their favorite brand. But reading the next sentence, we find out that 34% of teens actually own an Apple Watch. And no numbers are given for teens that actually own a Rolex or any other brand watches.
-
Apple employees urge management to act on Gaza conflict
Stabitha_Christie said:
If you argument is that Apple follow the UN's lead then I'd assume you are advocating in favor of Apple stopping sales in Israel until they comply with the UN's demand for a ceasefire.nubus said:Apple is doing the right thing.Employees simply can't bring this to work. I wouldn't accept other flags on employees either.
Apple also did the right thing when stopping sales to Russia. The invasion of another state was a clear violation of the UN charter.I'm not aware of any economic sanction imposed on Russia, by the UN. If I'm not mistaken, it would take an unanimous vote of the UN Security Council to impose such a sanction and Russia is a permanent member and thus would not vote for it.It's the Group of Seven (otherwise known as G7, of which the US is a member) that have imposed economic sanctions on Russia. Apple is complying with the US (as a member of the G7) economic sanction on Russia, not any economic sanction imposed by the UN. Now if the US (or G7) imposed economic sanction on Israel, then we would expect Apple to comply.
-
Another Find My misfire led to a raid on a suburban family's home
longfang said:
They had a warrant so throw in clueless about tech judge.foregoneconclusion said:
Ferguson, Missouri. The police in that town don't exactly have the best reputation for controlled reactions.ihatescreennames said:This seems less like a failure on the part of Find My, since the AirPods were found in the yard of the house where Find My said they were, and more a failure on the part of police procedure.
The lawsuit also said they ransacked drawers and punched a hole in the drywall. Did they think the car jackers hid a Dodge Charger there?No, just because a Judge signed a search warrant, doesn't mean that he/she automatically approved of the officers serving the warrant by bust down the door. If there was no obvious sign of danger, the officers could have or should have just rang the door bell and serve the warrant. The AirPods gave a very accurate location of where it was and it was there. It wasn't across the street or several homes down the block.But the officers serving the search warrant should have known that the car-jacked car was not there. And unless they knew for sure that the car-jackers were inside the home, they didn't need to bust down the door for the element of surprise. AirPods are not armed and dangerous. Remember, these officers were not primarily looking for the AirPods and the search warrant wasn't issued by the Judge to recover the AirPods. (At least I hope not.) They were hoping to catch the car-jackers who were a danger to the public.Never the less, the Judge and officers were in the right to sign and serve the search warrant at that residence. They were trying to solve a violent crime. What was not in the right was to bust down the door (in order to serve the warrant) without any evidence that the car-jackers were still in possession of the Air Pods and inside. Or worst yet, knowing that the car-jackers were not inside. All they knew was that the AirPods were inside or very near by. A knock on the door would have suffice.
