davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 185
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,741
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,184
Reactions
-
Epic Games shifts EU app store strategy after missing target by 71 million users
mikethemartian said:That’s a pretty big miss.So far, that is the most massive understatement of the year.The Epic Games alt app store is available on iOS in the EU and on Android Worldwide. There are 3.3B Android users Worldwide. So Sweeney expecting 100M users in their alternative app store was just 3% of all the Android users Worldwide (not including the 120M iOS users in the EU). That is setting the bar very low to begin with. And Epic only got 29M. That's less than 1% (.089%) of all Android users Worldwide (not including the iOS users in the EU). Not only did Sweeney fail to clear the low bar he set, he fell flat on his face before the jump.Why would any developer want to put their apps in the Epic Games alt app store to reach less than 1% of the mobile users, even for just a 12% commission. All of a sudden, having your app available Worldwide in the Google Play Store and/or Apple App Store and paying the applicable commission, makes perfect business sense. Too many don't realize that the Google and Apple commission includes having access to their app stores loyal customer base.
-
Norway gets world's first Apple Pay alternative for iPhone
spheric said:
I had no idea the United States is now part of the EU…charlesn said:"We have fought for years to be able to compete on equal footing with Apple," said Rune Garborg, CEO of Vipps MobilePay
Only in the EU is it considered "equal footing" when the government hands you another company's hardware and IP to use free of charge. Maybe Vipps should have spent those years developing its own phone and VippsPay system? Little wonder that European economies are and have been in the toilet. I honestly wish Apple would just pull the plug on selling to Europe and "Let them eat Android."
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets
Point 4:
„- Limiting Third Party Digital Wallets. Apple has prevented third-party apps from offering tap-to-pay functionality, inhibiting the creation of cross-platform third-party digital wallets.“
FYI- The Department of Justice is not the US Courts. The DoJ is part of the Executive Branch whose head is appointed by the POTUS. Until the Judiciary Branch of the US government rules in favor of the DoJ claims, Apple can not be held guilty for violating any of those claims.Federal Trade Commission is also part of the Executive Branch whose head is appointed by the POTUS. They alleged that Facebook is a monopoly (in Social Media market) but the US courts decided otherwise. The FTC is appealing.With Amazon, the FTC case against them won't be heard in the US Courts until 2026. So until the US Courts rule on the matter, the FTC case against Amazon in not a matter of law and no action can be taken against Amazon until then. Not to mention before any appeal is heard.With Google, the US Courts has ruled in favor of the FTC and against Google (Alphabet). But there's still the appeal to the SCOTUS. So until then, Google will most likely not be broken up, as recommended by the DoJ.So the DoJ claiming that Apple is .......... "Limiting Third Party Digital Wallets. Apple has prevented third-party apps from offering tap-to-pay functionality, inhibiting the creation of cross-platform third-party digital wallets.“, means nothing until the US courts rule on the matter. This is not at all like the EU, where the DMA is a matter of law and already been tested in their courts.At least you're in the EU. There are many people here in the US, that thinks the DoJ is part of the US Court system. But even the DoJ have to prove their case in a US Federal Court and if needed, all the up to the SCOTUS, before the DoJ claim(s) can be acted upon. Think of the DoJ as the prosecuting attorney representing the US government in a court case against Apple. Apple have the right to disprove any of the DoJ allegations in a court. And the US Court can side with Apple.
-
EU's latest demand on Apple about geolocking is unforgivably naive
nubus said:
Read: https://support.apple.com/en-us/111741davidw said:nubus said:
Apple does accept PayPal as a payment method in App Store making this a very odd limitation. Amazon, Google, United, Delta, Amtrak, and so many more US companies do accept that the credit card and the country of the site don't match. This is the first time I wanted Apple to behave a bit more like Amtrak.JMaille said:Apple requires that the country of origin of the Apple Account and the billing address of the credit card used for purchases run through Apple's billing system must be identical to the country of the Apple or App Store in use.AFAIK, Apple do not accept any other form of payments in their App StoreNo, you are misunderstanding what is being stated in your link.What Apple is saying is that you a can use PayPal, a CC, your Bank account or gift cards to fund your iTunes account. You can only use an iTunes account to pay for apps in the Apple App Store. When you use PayPal to fund your iTunes account, payment is made to Apple, NOT to the developers you purchase the apps from. The same if you use a CC to fund your iTunes account. When you pay for an app using your CC funded iTunes account, it's Apple that shows you on your CC bill, not the developer that you purchased the app from.I for one fund my iTunes account balance using iTunes gift cards that I often buy at 5-10% discount. This does not mean that I can use Apple gift cards to pay for apps in the Apple App Store. I must still use my iTunes account, (that is funded with gift cards) to pay for the apps.Your first clue should had been the heading (in your link)....Payment methods that you can use with your Apple Account
Notice that it says .... use with your Apple Account. Not ...... use in the Apple App Store.But yes, theoretically, if you fund your iTunes account using PayPal, you are using PayPal to pay for your app purchases in the Apple App Store. Even if that's not what the developers sees. And try to explain that to that looney Epic Games CEO Sweeney, who sued Apple for abusing their App Store "monopoly" because an iTunes account is the only way to pay for apps in the Apple App Store.
-
Apple removes independent media app from Russian App Store
dewme said:I would prefer the statement: “Apple has responded to criticism of the removals by saying it has to operate within the laws of the countries it decides to serve” followed by “and Russia is not a country that Apple has decided to serve.”
Wishful thinking, but there are times when unfettered capitalism is not appropriate, imho, even when it involves a financial loss for shareholders. Actions are stronger than words.Apple is primarily a hardware company and Apple have already stop selling their hardware in Russia. At least I don't recall Russia actually banning Apple from selling any of their hardware (in Russia). It's because of US (G7) sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine.But for those Russians that purchased iPhones, iPads and Macs before Apple stopped selling them in Russia, Apple is still allowed to support them. So long as Russia (or US (G7) sanctions) do not ban Apple from doing this. And I'm assuming Russia can ban Apple from supporting their devices in Russia, if Apple do not follow the laws of the country. Thus rendering all Apple hardware, (specially iPhones and iPads), that are in Russia even more useless. It would be as easy as forcing Russian mobile telecoms stop supporting iPhones.
-
Apple beats patent troll, wins suit over Secure Enclave tech
gatorguy said:
Every tech does the same thing, asking for patents on stuff they have no plans of making, including Apple.rob53 said:"All four deal with methods of improving user security" Nothing ever created for sale so was it ever really a patentable product? It was simply an idea that never was used in a product so why should something like this even be patentable?Actually, the thing that should had made it not patentable, was that they were just "ideas". Not that there were no plans of making the product. Ideas are not patentable (under US patent laws). An actual working model based on an idea is patentable. Even if the "working model" is not an actual product but a detailed blueprint of how to build a working product.Otherwise Gene Roddenberry (estate) would already own the patents for devices that are based on the "Transporter", Warp Drive, Tricorder, Phaser, Cloaking Device, Tractor Beam, Dilithium Crystal and Apple iPad would be infringing upon his idea of a computer in tablet form. Not to mention "Siri". Plus Motorola StarTac flip phone would had infringed on the Roddenberry idea of a "communicator".
