davidw

kmarei said:

EU imposed its rules on Microsoft with windows media player 
just like china imposes rules on apple to sell in china, I think iCloud has to be hosted in China for Chinese phones  
Just like France had that headphone (or was it charger)  rule with iPhones 
I think it should be a switch to allow side loading, if you turn it on, you get a message that your warranty will be voided, 
If a sideloaded app somehow damages your phone, why should apple be financially liable ?

Microsoft Windows is a true monopoly under any country's current anti-trust laws. There is no need to come up with new "anti-trust" laws, in order to impose regulations on Microsoft in regards to Windows.

China is a Communist country.

The headphone rule or charger rule in France do not involve any force changes to any of Apple's IP. 

In the EU, warranties are regulated. I think it was Italy that enforces a two year minimum warranty on certain electronic items and Apple had to comply. There's is no way that the EU will allow Apple to void their warranty, because the consumer did something that the EU forced Apple to allow. 

avon b7 said:

davidw said:

avon b7 said:

DAalseth said:

TheObannonFile said:

Can’t this be handled with flick of a switch to make everyone happy? Have a setting in Settings > App Store “Allow Sideloading”. Have it switched off by default.  If a user switches it on, they can side load. Everyone wins, and nobody is forced to do something they don’t want to.

In theory it could be. The trouble is, as I'm sure I've mentioned before, is that there will be a rush for the exits. A lot of the apps that we need from MS, Adobe, and such, will immediately exit the AppStore for their own company stores so they can keep that 30%. Companies will appear overnight offering to host  apps for 10% commission, so even a lot of small time developers will feel the urge to leave the AppStore.  The result will be that even if some of us don't want to leave the Walled Garden, we will have no choice. We will all have to flip the switch, set up an account, give them our credit card info, and cross our fingers. We will all have to allow side loading. 

Whether this will be good or bad I'm not going to get into. I'm just pointing out that once this Rubicon is crossed, it will be a very different world we are operating in.

No reason for them to do that. It would be easier to simply hike prices to compensate for the commissions and let users to decide which option is better for them. 

So do you think a developer simply raising their price in the Apple App store to make up for the commission and then selling that same app in their own store (or another third party app store) at the same price it was selling for in the Apple App Store before they raised the price, is some how good for the consumers because they now have a "choice" to pay the same price in another app store?  What the Hell difference does it make whether the consumers only had the choice to pay $X for an app in the Apple App Store and having a "choice" to pay $X+$ in the Apple App Store and paying $X in another app store? All this did was to shift more money into the pockets of big developers that can afford to operate their own app stores and take it away from the pockets of the company that invested in the RD to create, improve and the cost to maintain the platform the third party app stores are profiting from. Will third party app stores be forced to host free apps? Over 90% of apps in the Apple app Store are free.   

Why should these big developers actually lower the price of their apps in their own store (or a third party app store)  when they can just simply raise the price of their apps in the Apple App Store and still claim that consumers are benefiting from the lower price in their own app store (or a third party app store)? Or more simply, not make their app available at all in the Apple App Store and still charge the same in their own app store. Why should these developers give consumers a "choice"? Why should they compete with themselves with their own apps?

You are under the misconception that this DMA is about consumers having more choices to pay less, when in fact, it's more about developers having more choices to make more.  

And no where does it state that Apple has to allow third party app stores to use their IP, "rent" free. Apple could very well charge a 15% commission on third party app stores  sales as "rent". Just like how Apple can still charge a commission on third party payment systems, when that payment system is access from an iOS app. And then the developers can choose what's better for them.

It would be no different than the copyright owner of a song, to charge a fee and royalty, for the use of their copyrighted song in a movie.  It is and should be, very hard to deprive copyright/patent owners the right to monetize their IP as thy see fit. In the US, copyright laws in the US Constitution, hands copyright owner a monopoly with the monetization of their copyrighted works. Micheal Jackson estate is still raking in $60M a year in royalty. Even in death, MJ did not lose his right to monetize his copyrighted works.

 And remember this, the copyright laws that hands Apple a monopoly with the rights to monetize iOS as they see fit, are the same laws that hands developers a monopoly with the monetization of their copyrighted apps. The government should not be able to force Epic to allow third party stores from which others can profit from selling virtual items for Epic's copyrighted Fortnite game, as they shouldn't be able to force Apple to do the same with iOS. Copyright laws should not change because Apple have been determined by some BS criteria, as being a "gatekeeper".

With Android, it's different, as Android is Open Source. 

Yes. Choice is good for consumers. 
Yes. Competition is good for consumers. 

"What the hell difference does it make?"

LOL. It makes a hell of a difference! 

It doesn't matter how many apps are 'free' on the Spp Store. It's still a multi billion dollar revenue stream. 

I am under no misconceptions and neither are the people behind the DMA. 

No one is talking about rent free IP either. 

Apple chose a model that depends on commerce with the 'outside' world. There are external rules and regulations in that world. 

Apple could make everything first party and see how things go. It could pull out of the EU. It could comply with the proposals. There are choices. 

Yes choice and competition are good for consumers. But you have the misconception that this is about consumer "choice" and that there will be more "competition" that will be good for the consumers.

More choices and more competition are generally not good for the developers. They are the ones that have to deal with more competition, by lowering their prices or making their products better than their competitors thus making less profits off the consumers. So why are there so many big developers that makes their profit selling to consumers, favoring this DMA? 

Take this ..

Suppose there's only Walmart from which the maker of a popular product can sell to consumers. Along comes Target, so that product maker switches from Walmart to Target and still charges the same price. Where is the consumer's choice?  Where is the competition? The consumers still only have one choice from where they can purchase the product and at the same price. What happened to the choice of the consumers that wants buy that product from Walmart? All that happened was that the profit from selling the product shifted from Walmart to Target. But government can not and should not, pass laws that forces product makers to sell to both stores.  Even if it results in more choices for the consumers. 

Suppose there are Walmart's and Target's and the product maker sold the product at both stores at the same price.  All else being equal, is the choice of where to buy the product from at the same price, of any benefit for the consumers? Maybe you detest Walmart for making so much money, so for you, having the choice to buy that same product from a less profitable Target, at the same price, was good for you. But government shouldn't be pasting laws to punish Walmart, to please people like you. You might not be the average consumer or the consumer that matters.

Suppose there's only Walmart and the product maker opens their own store that only sells their own products. The products are not available in any other stores.  From a consumer point of view, how is that any different that when the same products at the same price, were only available at Walmart?  Would you consider that the store has a "monopoly" on their own products? Should the government step in and force the product maker to sell their products at other stores, so that consumers have more choices from which to buy the products at the same price?

What you have to consider here with app stores is that the developers have a monopoly with their apps and they set the price. There is no true competition for their apps, that benefit the consumers. True competition would only occur with the wholesale business model, where the app stores buys the apps from the developers at wholesale and then they set the price of the apps, to compete with other app stores for customers. So long as the developers can determine where their apps are sold and set the price of their apps, from the consumers point of view, choice and competition is only an illusion. Apps stores competing with other app stores by lowering their commission does not mean the developers will pass on that savings to the consumers. They don't have to because they have a monopoly with their apps. And app stores can not lower the price of the apps that they are allow to sell.

Suppose there's only Walmart and the product maker own store and down the road in the shadier part of town, there's a store that is selling an almost exact copy of the product for half the price. Is that competition? Is having that choice of buying almost the same product at half off, good for the consumers? Walmart can't do anything about it, it's not their product. And Walmart won't do anything about it, if the product maker wasn't selling that product at Walmart. They are not ones losing any sales.

The Apple App Store is not a consumer product. iOS is not a consumer product. Apple do not sell iOS to other mobile device venders and force them to only include the Apple App Store. The iOS devices are consumer products and consumers have dozens of choices with other mobile phones and tablets. The EU concern should be that the consumers choosing to buy iDevices, can only install apps from the Apple App Store. But only if the iDevice is a monopoly under anti-trust definition. The EU should not be concern with .....  25% of consumers choosing to use iOS, can only get apps from the Apple App Store. When a consumer chooses to buy an iDevice, there is no other choice but to use iOS.

So should the EU force Apple to offer iOS to other mobile device makers so that consumers have more choices of devices, if they want to use iOS? Or so that consumers will benefit from Apple having more competition in the "iOS market"?  After all, choices and competition is good for the consumers. Right?  

No, this is about developers, specially large ones, having the choice to make more profit by eliminating any cost they face, when they sell their apps to iOS users. Apps that they have a monopoly on and they set the price, no matter which app store they are sold in. There is no guarantee what so ever that the consumers will benefit from this, with more choices or competition. 

Are consumers that uses the much less secure Android, that don't care about having more app stores and have no need to side load, any better off than current iOS users, just because there are more choices in app stores and side loading on Android? Are apps any cheaper on Android, than the same or similar apps, on iOS? More choices might come at a cost that most iOS users might not want to pay. But developers don't care, it's not a cost that will affect their bottom line. The choice that benefit consumers is the choice to use Android devices and iDevices, because of their differences. Would eliminating or reducing Apple ability to compete with Android devices by offering a more secure mobile device, good for consumers? Would eliminating the differences between Android and iOS good for the consumers? It sure as Hell will be for the large developers, hackers and scammers.  

avon b7 said:

DAalseth said:

TheObannonFile said:

Can’t this be handled with flick of a switch to make everyone happy? Have a setting in Settings > App Store “Allow Sideloading”. Have it switched off by default.  If a user switches it on, they can side load. Everyone wins, and nobody is forced to do something they don’t want to.

In theory it could be. The trouble is, as I'm sure I've mentioned before, is that there will be a rush for the exits. A lot of the apps that we need from MS, Adobe, and such, will immediately exit the AppStore for their own company stores so they can keep that 30%. Companies will appear overnight offering to host  apps for 10% commission, so even a lot of small time developers will feel the urge to leave the AppStore.  The result will be that even if some of us don't want to leave the Walled Garden, we will have no choice. We will all have to flip the switch, set up an account, give them our credit card info, and cross our fingers. We will all have to allow side loading. 

Whether this will be good or bad I'm not going to get into. I'm just pointing out that once this Rubicon is crossed, it will be a very different world we are operating in.

No reason for them to do that. It would be easier to simply hike prices to compensate for the commissions and let users to decide which option is better for them. 

So do you think a developer simply raising their price in the Apple App store to make up for the commission and then selling that same app in their own store (or another third party app store) at the same price it was selling for in the Apple App Store before they raised the price, is some how good for the consumers because they now have a "choice" to pay the same price in another app store?  What the Hell difference does it make whether the consumers only had the choice to pay $X for an app in the Apple App Store and having a "choice" to pay $X+$ in the Apple App Store and paying $X in another app store? All this did was to shift more money into the pockets of big developers that can afford to operate their own app stores and take it away from the pockets of the company that invested in the RD to create, improve and the cost to maintain the platform the third party app stores are profiting from. Will third party app stores be forced to host free apps? Over 90% of apps in the Apple app Store are free.   

Why should these big developers actually lower the price of their apps in their own store (or a third party app store)  when they can just simply raise the price of their apps in the Apple App Store and still claim that consumers are benefiting from the lower price in their own app store (or a third party app store)? Or more simply, not make their app available at all in the Apple App Store and still charge the same in their own app store. Why should these developers give consumers a "choice"? Why should they compete with themselves with their own apps?

You are under the misconception that this DMA is about consumers having more choices to pay less, when in fact, it's more about developers having more choices to make more.  

And no where does it state that Apple has to allow third party app stores to use their IP, "rent" free. Apple could very well charge a 15% commission on third party app stores  sales as "rent". Just like how Apple can still charge a commission on third party payment systems, when that payment system is access from an iOS app. And then the developers can choose what's better for them.

It would be no different than the copyright owner of a song, to charge a fee and royalty, for the use of their copyrighted song in a movie.  It is and should be, very hard to deprive copyright/patent owners the right to monetize their IP as thy see fit. In the US, copyright laws in the US Constitution, hands copyright owner a monopoly with the monetization of their copyrighted works. Micheal Jackson estate is still raking in $60M a year in royalty. Even in death, MJ did not lose his right to monetize his copyrighted works.

 And remember this, the copyright laws that hands Apple a monopoly with the rights to monetize iOS as they see fit, are the same laws that hands developers a monopoly with the monetization of their copyrighted apps. The government should not be able to force Epic to allow third party stores from which others can profit from selling virtual items for Epic's copyrighted Fortnite game, as they shouldn't be able to force Apple to do the same with iOS. Copyright laws should not change because Apple have been determined by some BS criteria, as being a "gatekeeper".

With Android, it's different, as Android is Open Source. 

22july2013 said:

My opinion is that Netflix could make more money by lowering their monthly rate but prohibit account sharing (simultaneous streaming.) I would probably subscribe if they did that. If I had a family of twelve, I would probably like the account sharing surcharge, but I don't.

Just for testing, they could introduce an account type that was cheaper but blocked sharing. See how popular it would be.

There is such an plan. It's the "Basic". Only allow for 1 stream at a time. "Standard" allows 2 streams at a time and "Premium" allows 4 streams at a time. And they are all priced accordingly. But no HD with the Basic. (At least the last time I checked.) 

This still doesn't address sharing an account, as some can still use the same account in a different household, just not at the same time. 

BTW- a "household' as defined by Netflix is  ...... all persons living under one roof, using the same IP address to access Netflix. It doesn't matter the relationships between all the persons. IT IS NOT defined as ........ all the members a family, no matter where they are living. 

Netflix only track the IP address for devices like a TV. They do not track the IP address of mobile devices as they know mobile device moves around.(Though Netflix do know the IP address being used.) So all one would have to do to share an account is to access the account on a mobile device. This is why Netflix do not support AirPlay on Apple devices nor Lightning to HDMI adapters to stream to a TV. (I think Netflix works with a USB C to HDMI on Android devices. But not sure if you get full resolution on the TV.) But one can stream Netflix from a laptop (or computer) to a TV, using the an HDMI cable and/of adapter from the laptop (computer). Even on a Mac.  It still counts as a stream. 

AppleUfmyI said:

Step 1: Let the account owner know when someone hacks your account and is streaming for free!!!!  This would appear as account sharing but is not.  I did not even know someone was streaming on my account until I streamed the next day and the language was changed and several user types were added!  There is no way I found to track this or lock it down. 

What you do is to first change your password. Then you go to where all your devices are listed. If you know what device is not yours, select it and force it to log out. Or "log out all devices". This will force who ever is using that device, to log back in, with your new password. 

If the Netflix hacker can still log in, then you have a bigger problem than just some one hacking your Netflix account.