davidw

maciekskontakt said:

viclauyyc said:

If it passes, I don’t think it stand a chance in court. This is so biased on one industry but not the other. This is very far away from fair.

Can you ask Walmart to use other payment system? If you think it is nonsense, then why it is ok to ask AppStore or Google Play store to have other means of payment. 

It does... exactly the same as with telecommunication few decades ago. Read about Baby Bells. Your feelings are misplaced. This has proven to work in EVERY court.

And to be honest you should thank for this because otherwise you would be paying for your mobile upwards $300 for AT&T service monthly today if they did not break up telecommunication decades ago.

This is no where near "exactly the same" as with the ATT breakup. ATT monopoly was 100% of the telecommunication market at the time. Not only was ATT the only long distance and local call provider, consumers had to rent ATT telephones (Western Electric) and had to pay ATT to install any extra telephones in the home (along with the monthly rent for the extra phones). Consumers had no choice but to use ATT for their telephone service. The government handed  ATT their monopoly and thus ATT pricing was government regulated. ATT had no competition because of government policies and regulations. And even with all this, ATT telephone service was never expensive to have or use.  

None of these big techs have 100% of the market they compete in. None of these big techs services or products, are the only choice consumers have. None of these big tech services are deemed essential services by the government. None of these big tech are monopolies. None of these big techs control every aspect of the service they provide or the products they sell.  

Most consumers did not benefit from the breakup of ATT.  

The ATT we have today is actually "Cingular" of yesteryear. The original ATT Wireless became unprofitable and put themselves on the market to be acquired. Cingular won the bidding.

Cingulat was owned by two Baby Bells, SBC (60%) and BellSouth (40%). The ATT acquisition made Cingular the largest wireless service. Then SBC acquired ATT corp. and changed their name to the new ATT. And then the new ATT acquired BellSouth. Now the new ATT (which is actually SBC) own all of Cingular and changed the Cingular brand to ATT Mobility (but still hold the trademark for ATT Wireless). The ATT  today, is no where near the original ATT  that was broken up decades ago. The original ATT never made it in the wireless telecommunication market. About the only thing the two have in common, are the 3 letters in their name.       

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT&T_Mobility

On a side note- Steve Jobs actually cut an exclusive deal with Cingular, for the 1st iPhone. But when the iPhone came out, it was on ATT. Many thought that ATT bought out Cingular, just to get the iPhone contract. But is was the other way around. Cingular bought out ATT Wireless and then changed their name to the more recognized brand, ATT. 

dantheman827 said:

GeorgeBMac said:

So what exactly will this fix?   Who gains here?

It's reminiscent of busting up AT&T to make MCI stockholders happy.

As Obama said:   "Don't do stupid things"

In this case, the status quo harms nobody.   But, like MCI, others want a piece of the pie -- so they (mis)use government to get it.  That hurts the nation by weakening one of its biggest and best assets.

But if they hadn't broken them up, we'd be paying considerably more for our phone service and they would have no incentive to improve their networks because of there being no competition.

Just like ISPs with a monopoly, they would just keep overcharging for mediocre service with no improvements in sight while the CEO gets big fat raises.

Only when there is sufficient competition do we actually see any meaningful improvement.

And don't forget, no one is breaking up anyone here, nor does the rule Apply solely to Apple... it applies to all marketplaces regardless of what they actually sell (apps or physical) as long as they're sufficiently large

This allows smaller competitors into the market in a way that actually gives them a chance.

That is false. ATT pricing was regulated by the government. ATT could not raise their prices, without government approval. This because ATT got their monopoly because of government policies and regulations, that essentially eliminated competition, in favor having a national telephone service that was easily accessible and affordable to everyone. The government deemed that everyone in the US should have a telephone service, where anyone can call everyone. Having dozens of telephone service providers would not accomplish that. Plus local municipalities did not want more telephone poles and lines erected to accommodate all the telephone service providers in their cities and towns. 

And as for sufficient competition leading to any meaningful improvement. ATT wasn't broken up into 7 Baby Bells. The original ATT was only broken up into two parts. The very profitable long distance service and the local calling service. The original ATT kept all of the long distance services and still had a monopoly. The local calling services was what got broken up into the 7 Baby Bells. And essentially, each Baby Bell was a monopoly in the area they covered. 

When this happen, consumer cost of local calls went up and kept on increasing. It was never as low as it was when ATT was the only company providing both local and long distance calls. Why? Because ATT subsidized the cost of local calls with the profits they made on long distance calls. None of the Baby Bells got any profit from the very profitable long distance services, to help subsidize local calls.

And then ATT was forced to allow others to lease their long distance infrastructures, to foster in more competition. This led to large companies like MCI and Sprint providing long distance services to the consumers, by paying ATT a lease to use their long distance lines. But for consumers, if they wanted long distance services along with their local calling services, they had to pay about $5 a month fee, just have ATT, MCI or Sprint readily available. No matter if they made any long distance calls during the month or not. When ATT handled both services, there was no extra monthly cost to have long distance service as part of your telephone service. 

Otherwise, consumers could use one of the many prepaid long distance calling cards, which made it more expensive to make long distance calls. Or one could dial in a 10 to 15 digit code (along with the long distance phone number) of one of the many smaller companies providing long distance services and your local calling service would bill you and then collect a fee from the long distance provider for the billing service.  A fee that is passed on to the customers. But for causal long distance users, this inconvenience was still cheaper than paying $5 every month for a service they seldom used. 

For most of the home customers that only occasionally needed long distance services, it was never as cheap as it was when ATT was the only long distance provider. Businesses  that made a lot of long distance calls saw the biggest drop in long distance service cost. It only began to drop when satellite started to replace ATT land lines.  

carnegie said:

longfang said:

avon b7 said:

carnegie said:

avon b7 said:

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

Every online store gets a cut from sales.

It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.

Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 

I don't see where Apple's comment is contrary to the spirit of the Netherlands ACM's decision. Whether Apple could continue to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP wasn't at issue. The summary of the decision doesn't even mention Apple's commission. Apple's commission isn't what the ACM concluded was problematic.

If the ACM meant to prevent Apple from collecting the commission, its failure in the summary to mention the commission and explain why it's problematic would seem conspicuous. But the reality is this decision isn't about the commission. Whether or not the Netherlands would like to prevent Apple from collecting that commission, it likely understands that it probably can't. Doing so would probably violate international intellectual property agreements.

I haven't followed the case beyond what it was based on which is anti competitive behaviour under EU regulations and Dutch consumer protections. 

Apple basically coming out and saying 'we'll get our cut one way or another' flies against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level. 

But that's why I said we'll have to see how it plays out. As it is right now, according to AI, the Dutch authorities are studying Apple's proposal to see if it is acceptable. 

Spirit of the rules count for squat. If it’s so important for Apple to miss out on commissions then write it down in the rules rather than “imply” it.

And they didn't even imply that Apple couldn't continue to collect the commission. If anything, they tacitly acknowledged that Apple could do so.

Apple's commission just isn't discussed - in either the ACM's summary of its decision or the provisional-relief judge's ruling on the ACM's order. That ruling discusses the issues at some length and doesn't refer to Apple charging a commission. It, e.g., goes through the ways in which Apple's abuse of its dominant position harm both developers and consumers but in doing so doesn't say anything about developers having to pay Apple a commission or consumers facing higher prices as a result. Rather, it specifies numerous other ways in which the anti-steering policy and the lack of choice in payment processing (for IAP) harms developers and consumers.

The same with the Epic vs Apple case in the US. The Judge ruled Apple violated a vague and catch all CA Unfair Competition Law and that Apple had to allow developers to at least inform IAP purchasers that they could pay for their IAP on their website and can provide a link, inside their app. The Judge stopped short of requiring Apple to host a third party payment system inside the app. Which was what Epic really wanted.

But the Judge also made a comment that Apple have the right to protect their intellectual property rights and the ability to obtain compensation for their use. Thus some of the limitations in Apple's DPLA (Developer Program License agreement are justified.

The Judge ruling did not limit Apple ability to collect their commission. Otherwise she would not have ruled that Epic still had to pay Apple their commission on the revenue they made on IAP outside their iOS app, when they violated their DPLA by providing a link for payment outside their app. This before Apple shut them down. If the Judge thought that the commission was tied to Apple unfairly competing by forcing developers to use only iTunes to process payments, she would not have forced Epic to pay Apple their due commission on those payments that were made outside the app, after finding Apple violated CA UCL. 

https://www.lit-antitrust.shearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Finds-That-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Technology-Platform

https://www.imore.com/epic-games-pays-apple-6-million-result-epic-v-apple-lawsuit

It really seems that all Apple has to do is to spell out in their DPLA that any app purchases, including IAP, are subject to a commission outlined in a rate table. If the developer don't pay up, Apple can remove them from the Apple App Store for breach of contract. Apple only needs to keep track of the purchases, not necessarily get hold of the actual  funds themselves.

I don't think any country would claim that charging a commission, fee or obtaining a license, for using another entity services or IP, is somehow anti-competivie. Even the Judge in the Epic vs Apple lawsuit did not question Apple right to collect a commission for the use of their IP. Her only reservation was the percent of the commission. But even if the 30% seems high to the Judge, it was not a matter that the courts should be concern with, if there were no anti-trust violations.

And Apple IP is not only the App Store and iTunes, but also iOS. If you buy a CD, you own the CD but only have "fair use" rights to the songs on it. If you want to use any of the songs on it commercially or to make money from by creating a derivative of it, the copyright owner has the right to obtain compensation for its commercial use or deny you any rights to use their songs for anything other than "fair use". iOS developers have no inherited rights to make money off iOS, without Apple permission or having to compensate Apple. Just like Xbox game developers have no right to develop and sell games for the Xbox, without Microsoft permission and compensating Microsoft. That's why there are copyrights laws to protect the rights of copyright owners. 

cropr said:

waveparticle said:

Apple is perfectly entitled to collect the commission. Without Jobs invented the iPhone there is no developer app ecosystem. Developers need to thank Apple providing this opportunity to get rich quickly. 

Do you realize that according to marketing research 90% of the apps are not profitable for the developer?   The only one who is getting rich quickly, is Apple

The top 1% of developers (publishers) accounts for 93% of app stores revenue (both Google Play and Apple App). That leaves 99% of them accounting for just 7% of app stores revenue. It doesn't matter how you do the math, Apple is not quickly getting rich from the 90% of developers not making any profit. 

https://sensortower.com/blog/top-one-percent-downloads


And consider this, Apple commission for developers making less than $1M is 15% and not making any profit counts as less than $1M. If a developer isn't making a profit by keeping 85% of sales revenue, then it's not Apple fault. Apple do not tell the developer how much to charge. Plus if an app is not profitable for a developer because no one is buying it, then how is Apple quickly getting rich off that? 

chadbag said:

Actually, if Wardle is based in the US, he has by default the copyright on the name (if he was the first to use it).   What he doesn't seem to have is a federal copyright registration, which makes backing up his claims easier.  And he doesn't seem to have a trademark for it (which he should go put on it asap -- even if he doesn't register it, though that would be a good idea.  (The difference between ™️ and ®️))

That's not even close to being true, not even in the US. If that were the case, Apple signature smartphone, might not be known as an "iPhone". 

Cisco got the trademark for "iPhone" when they acquired a small company called Infogear. "iPhone" is a made up "word" by Infogear , which they intended to use as a trademark for an "internet phone", but never did. And yet Cisco had no copyright protection for it, even though the company they acquired was first to come up with the "word", "iPhone".

However, Cisco did register "iPhone" as a trademark. But with trademark laws, a trademark must be tied to a product or service or else one loses it. Cisco never marketed a product or service that used their "iPhone" trademark. One can not sit on a trademark name, even if registered. Otherwise there would be entities registering trademark names, just to sell the license to it later. Like they do with web domains names.

When Apple applied for the "iPhone" trademark, it was granted to Apple because Cisco did not market a product or service using their "iPhone" trademark, in time. One only have so much time to use their trademark for a product or service, in order to keep a trademark. And as long as one uses the trademark for a product or service, they own that trademark forever. Cisco tried to make a mock up of a product and presented a "photoshopped" photo of a box for a phone with "iPhone" on it, at the last moment. But they never marketed and sold such a product and time had expired to use their "iPhone" trademark" for a product or service. Thus they lost their registered trademark for "iPhone".   

With trademarks, the "TM" after the name or term, offers no legal protection what-so-ever. It's only an indication that the owner of the product name, intends to register it as a trademark. With trademark, it's first to register (and use it for a product or service), not first to come up with the word or term used for a trademark. There is no automatic trademark, just because one made up the "word" or term, to use as a trademark. And one can not copyright a "word", not even a made up one.