davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 187
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,771
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,202
Reactions
-
Apple admits third-party App Stores in Europe are inevitable
There's a difference between customers willing to sharing their CC info with companies like Amazon, Sony, Google PayPal or even smaller developers like Epic Games, than with a developer that is selling a $1.99 crypto app that they might be interested in but not allowed in the Apple App Store.nubus said:
iPhone users share their credit cards with Amazon, Sony, Google, Paypal, and a lot more - and personal information with Meta... it isn't like "99.99%" of users have very high standards. This will change things. All companies doing apps should start their planning. Apple is adding 43% to prices. That revenue could go to developers or lower prices. Users might download apps from Apple but pay through Paypal. And developers might offer 2 in-app prices "Apple" or "Paypal".jimh2 said:Those using the 3rd party app stores for their products will quickly find out 99.99% of iPhone users will never venture over there to hand out the credit card and personal information to another company. They may well find out the $99 developer kit is no longer $99 for them or their is a per install licensing fee. The really do not know how good they have it now.You haven't been keeping up. One can add PayPal (here in the US at least) as a payment method through ones iTunes account, for over 5 years now. Though it might benefit the developers to accept payment through PayPal, if they can save on the commission, it's of no benefit for the iTunes account holder. Unless the developer passes on their savings, which is unlikely, as it's not that common for this to happen on Android.And just exactly why would you think developers will not have to pay a commission with IAP (or even with app purchases and subscriptions), if their customer don't use Apple iTunes payment method to pay for it. Google allows payment outside their Google Play payment method but still collect their commission, though discounted by 4%. Not every developer are as greedy as that Looney Tunes Sweeney CEO of Epic Games. Who thinks they shouldn't have to pay anything for making money using some one else's IP and hardware. No where has the EU stated that just because Apple must allow 3rd party app stores, that Apple is not allow to collect a commission from sales (that relies on Apple's IP) in third party app stores.Spotify made a deal with Google with "Google Choice Billing" but how much discount they got on Google commission has not been revealed. But for sure, Spotify is still paying Google a commission on payment outside of the Google Play store. And they are not charging Google Play customers any more for their subscriptions, even though they are still paying Google a commission.
-
California wants to end Cupertino's tax deal with Apple
Too many here don't quite understand what's going on. It more about various governments being greedy than that of any greed by Apple.in a nutshell, when Apple makes an online sale from their online Apple Store, Apple collects the sales tax base on where the sale is shipped to and then remit that sales tax to the governments involve. So if a person in Dallas, TX makes an Apple Store online purchase, Apple collects the State and Local sales tax for Dallas, TX and remit it to TX and Dallas.(Or maybe just to TX and TX turns over the portion to Dallas.) If they make an online sale to a person in OR, they collect no sales tax. And they do it like this for all Cities, States and Countries, based on where the purchase is shipped to.But if an online purchase was made from CA, no matter where the purchase was shipped to in CA, Apple collect the State and Local sales tax as though it was shipped to Cupertino, CA and then remit the State portion to CA and the Local portion to Cupertino. For the State, this deal don't affect what they collect. The State portion of the sales tax is the same no matter where a sale in made in CA. However, the local portion of the sales tax varies and is suppose to be remitted to the various local governments. Like how it's done for out of state online purchases. So by making it so that all in-State purchases were made from Cupertino, Cupertino got all of the local sales tax portion that Apple collected on in-State online purchases. Then Cupertino would give Apple a tax rebate for doing it this way.But there's nothing really illegal about doing this way. it's as though a person who lives in Los Angeles, CA were to walk into an Apple Store in Cupertino and made a purchase. They would pay the State and Local sales tax for Cupertino, not that for Los Angeles. And if a local business in Los Angeles were to take orders over the telephone or internet, they would collect the sales tax as though the purchase was made from their store in Los Angeles and then remit it to CA and Los Angeles. Imagine the bookkeeping headaches involve if every local brick and mortar business had to collect the local sales tax on purchases base on where the purchasers lived rather than where the purchase was made? And then remit that local sales tax to all the different cities where their customers lived. Imagine the headache for a pizza parlor located near the city border, if they had to collect the local tax for a delivery made to a customer that lives in the next city over, that might have a higher or lower local sales tax than the city where the pizza parlor is located and remit that tax collected to that city. So there is some sort of precedence of collecting CA sales tax, the way Apple is doing it. Of course, this was before purchasing online became a major and now normal, way for consumers to buy stuff. Even if there's no saving involve with the online purchase, except for not having to pay for gas, parking or paying for transportation, to shop at a local store. Plus the time.But the biggest complainers about this deal (and this was about when Apple moved into their new HQ in Cupertino) were the cities of Sacramento and Los Angeles (and maybe a few other cities by now). That's because the main Apple warehouses in CA are located there and it's where most of the online purchases are shipped from. (But some items might be shipped directly from a CA Apple Store because they have it in stock or it saves on shipping if the CA purchaser lives near by and then Apple would remit the local tax collected to the city of that Apple Store.) But Sacramento and Los Angeles wants a piece of that CA local sales tax that Apple collects and remits only to Cupertino. And CA government is on their side as they are claiming that because Sacramento and Los Angeles are not getting their "fair share" of the local tax Apple collect on CA online purchases, the State must make up for it when they spend more than what they are collecting in local sales tax now. (But just about every city spends more than what they collect in taxes.
) There is nothing really illegal about the tax rebate Apple is getting, as local government makes tax rebate deals all the time, to attract businesses to open a store or have their HQ located in the city. The benefit of having more businesses operating in the city out weights any tax rebate. The State government should have no or little say on how local cities spend the local sales tax they collect. Well, it turned out to be a big nutshell.
-
Apple deal makes Google "seamless and easy" to use -- CEO
>Prosecutors claim that Google paid $26.3 billion to be the default search engine used on mobile phones and by web browsers in 2021, with analysts claiming the majority of that money going to Apple. <That is not the most correct way to put it and the prosecutors saying that way automatically makes it seem as though Google is doing something wrong.The more correct way to put it is that it cost Google $26.3B to be the default search engine. Google deal (at least with Apple) is one of revenue sharing. Google and Apple might have a general idea of of the sum involve with the deal that includes a percentage of the ad revenue generated with iOS/MacOS, in exchange for Google being the default search on Safari, but Google didn't pay Apple $20B up front to be the default.What Apple will eventually earn is still dependent on how much revenue Google derive from ads place on Apple customers searches. The more Google earns, the more Apple earns. It's not as though Google took the chance of paying Apple $20B up front, while maybe earning only $25B in ad revenue on iOS/MacOS (for the year). There should be nothing wrong with Google sharing their advertising revenue made on an ecosystem, with the company that makes that ecosystem possible. I'm sure that if this deal was not a good ROI( Return of Investment) for Google, they would reduce the amount of revenue sharing.This is not a case of Google using their monopoly power to force Apple into making Google search the default on Safari. This is not a case in which Google welding their monopoly power to force Apple into having Google as the only search engine choice on Safari. And because Apple is not a competitor in the search engine market, Google is not making an illegal deal to not compete with a competitor. One can't make a illegal deal to not compete, with a company that is already not competing with you. (Maybe in the EU, but not in the US)What's next? Should the DoJ go after big companies like Coca Cola, Anheuser Busch, Pepsi Co, Chase, Visa, Yum! and others major brand for paying millions of dollars for a 30 second ad during the Super Bowl, just because it's an unfair advantage to their smaller competitors that can't afford to? Shouldn't the NFL be allow to charge as much as advertisers are willing pay, to place an ad during one of the most watched sporting events of the year? (and most likely the most watched in the US). If advertising during the Super Bowl is not a good ROI, ads wouldn't cost as much as it does. What if the government stepped in and made it some bogus anti-trust issue for corporations with big market shares to buy ads during the Super Bowl because they see it as an unfair competitive advantage that big corporations have over their smaller competitors? How is it fair to the NFL that the government would deny them the right to profit from customers that are willing to pay the most, to advertise during their Super Bowl?
-
Google did what it could to stifle Apple's search efforts, show court documents
mikethemartian said:22july2013 said:Samsung competes with Apple in the phone business, but Apple pays Samsung billions for phone components.
Google competes with Apple in the phone business, but Google pays Apple billions for services used by their phones.
Neither case is inherently evil. I don't mind investigations. But I would recommend that if investigations come up really empty, the investigators and people who called for and funded it should be publicly shamed for wasting government money.The Sherman Act
Section 1:
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.Section 2:
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.The "deal" between Google and Apple have nothing to do with Section 1 or Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act mainly deals with contracts made between parties that are normally competitors or rivals. Since Apple do not compete with Google in the internet search engine market, any contract between them (regarding search engines) can not be construed as limiting trade or an attempt to monopolize. Just exactly what existing trade was restraint by Apple choosing not to develop a search engine? And just exactly how is this "deal" an attempt by Google and Apple to monopolize a market, when Apple have 0 percent of internet search engine market share?It would be a violation of the Sherman Act if Google were to force Apple into making Google their default on Safari, by threatening to not provide Safari with a Google search engine. And since the "default" is like the slotting fee in retail, there is no violation of the Sherman Act if Apple were to sell that "default" position for a price. Just like how it's perfectly legal for retail to sell their prime shelf space for a premium.If Intel makes a deal to pay Dell millions of dollars in rebates, if they were to purchase so many Intel CPU's for the PC's they sell, there is no violation of Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act. Neither would there be if Dell chose not to spend the cost of RD to develop their own CPU, because using Intel CPU is much more profitable. One can't make the silly argument that Dell choosing not develop their own CPU is somehow limiting competition in the CPU market, just because Apple was able to developed their own CPU.If Intel threaten Dell to stop supplying them with CPU, if Dell were to also use AMD CPU, that is a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. (This was what got Microsoft in anti-trust trouble by forcing third party PC makers to only sell PC's with Windows installed. There would be no issue if Microsoft sold PC's with only Windows installed.)If the combine market share of Intel and AMD gave them monopoly power and they made a deal to sell CPU's at a fixed price to PC vendors, then that is a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. This is the classic case of competitors making a deal to not compete with each other.If the combined CPU market share of Intel and AMD gave them monopoly power and they made a deal to cut the price of their CPU below competitive prices, in order to force other competitors out of the market, then that would be a violation of Section 2. The contract would be seen as Intel and AMD (who are normally competitors) attempting to monopolize the CPU market.
-
DuckDuckGo could have been Apple's private search engine
DrumHead said:Blocking the display of alternative search engine choices at device setup…It takes two to do the collusion shuffle.AFAIK one do not have the choice to select any default search during initial device setup. One get to select the default search when one set up their browser of choice and all the search choices possible are listed and easy to select. So how can Apple be blocking the display of alternative search engine during device setup, when AFAIK, that's not when you get to choose the default search engine?And please learn the meaning of collusion ...>What is the definition of a collusion?Collusion is a non-competitive, secret, and sometimes illegal agreement between rivals which attempts to disrupt the market's equilibrium. The act of collusion involves people or companies which would typically compete against one another, but who conspire to work together to gain an unfair market advantage.<Apple is not a rival of Google in search and nor does Apple have a search engine that competes with Google in search. So there is no "two" doing the collusion shuffle in this case. It would be different if Apple was already in the search engine market and decided to not compete because of any deal with Google.
