davidw

gatorguy said:

maximara said:

Google must be desperate to pull this nonsense.  Apple at best has had perhaps 35% of the EU marketshare while Googie, via android has nearly double that (67%) as a quick trip to statcounter will show.  North America is about the only market where Apple and Google enjoy nearly equal marketshare.  Everywhere else Apple is a second.

Add just Xiaomi's own forked version (not Google Android) accounting for 24% of the EU market to the not Android Apple devices then roughly half of the users in Europe are using an OS that is not Google Android. 

But yeah when there's a few $Billion involved of course companies are going to look for reasons to lessen the blow. Google is using only one of the arguments for this particular objection. They have voiced others. 

You are confusing the Xiaomi's phones sold inside China, with the ones they sell outside of China. Xiaomi's international phones do come with "Google Android" and if not, the Google Play Store can be sideloaded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIUI

Google has had disagreements with the Chinese government, and access to many Google services is blocked. MIUI does not ship with Google Play Services in mainland China. However, Xiaomi has expanded its operations outside China; MIUI releases for Android devices outside mainland China have Google Play Services and Google Apps such as Gmail, Google Maps, Google Play Store pre-installed and functioning as on any other Android device. MIUI global versions are certified by Google.[10]

https://www.techbout.com/install-google-play-store-on-xiaomi-phones-20192/

Recently, Xiaomi installed a custom ROM in the phones sold in China, so that they can not be made to run any Google Services, even if sideloaded or rooted. This did not affect their international phones.

So we can add back their 24% marketshare in the EU as "Google Android" ...... yes?   

sflocal said:

I'm a bit mystified by this.  Why don't they allow others to fork Windows then?

I find it odd that a government is forcing a company to make its own product (test, based on open-source) to be modified by others and used in however they want.  

I supposed if they're to do that, then Google should require that it no longer be called Android.  So odd.

It's Google that is allowing the forks of open source Android. No one if forcing Google to do this. Microsoft does not allow anyone to fork Windows. 

The problem is that Google do not allow any device maker to market a device using a fork of open source Android, if they also market a device running the Google license version of Android.  Samsung is not allow to market a phone using a fork of open source Android because they sell phones that uses the Google license version of Android. The license version of Android comes with the Google Play Store installed and support all of Google services. 

LG was going to make the Fire tablet for Amazon, that runs on a custom fork of open source Android, but had to drop out because they were selling phones and tablets  that had the Google license version of Android. They didn't want to risk losing that license by also making a device for Amazon, that was going to use a fork of open source Android. This is what Google is getting in trouble for. 

It's like how Microsoft got in anti-trust  trouble when they prevented PC makers from selling computers with Linux, by threatening to cancel their Windows license. 

Here's a nice but long article detailing how Google controls Android. Both their license version and their open source version. 


https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/

leehericks said:

Fragmenting an OS is an awful idea. Google needs to open source because they are built on an os foundation but...the resulting product should be licensable no?

I think if they fork Android, they shouldn't be able to call it Android and no Google services. Seems fair enough. Google should be able to withhold unique and expensive developments from the open source version as well.

Just Samsung and government corruption.

That is the way it is. If a mobile device maker uses a fork of open source Android, they can not call their device an "Android device". Neither can they use that green robot logo when marketing their device. "Android" and that green robot are trademarks of Google and can only be use on devices running Google licensed version of Android.

Devices that runs on an open source Android fork can only be labeled as a device that runs on Android. 

Any fork of open source Android do not come with any of the Google services. Like the Google Play Store, Google map, gmail, Google Photo, gCloud, Google search, etc.. In order for a device maker to install those services, they have to pay Google for a license. Then they can call their device an Android device and use that green robot logo. Plus there is no guarantee that any device running on an open source fork of Android, will run any of the Google services if side loaded. Though many services do work. But no support from the device maker or Google.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/

Amazon tablets uses a fork of Android. Amazon do not call their Amazon tablet an Android device. Nor use that green robot logo.And do not come with any Google services installed. But many have side loaded Google Play Store into their Amazon tablet and say that for the most part, it works. But it might have to be side loaded again after Amazon update their Android fork. Much like jailbreaking. 

CheeseFreeze said:

And now watch the lack of outcry by Apple fanboys, because it’s Google.

No. The lack of outcry will be due to the fact that this ruling has nothing to do with anything Apple had ever done, is doing now or will ever do. Apple do not provide an open source version of iOS, do not license any version of iOS to other mobile device makers and iOS is only for Apple devices. 

In fact, many Apple fan will not even know what this ruling is actually about, except it has to do with Google and Android and nothing to do with Apple and iOS. 

rundhvid said:

davidw said:

jcs2305 said:

georgie01 said:

canukstorm said:

So you think you're smarter than the judge? Go apply for her job.  Apple's a company, not your friend.  Sooner you realize that the better your life will be.  Apple got exactly what it deserved.

So you believe that Apple should be required to allow developers to put their apps on Apple’s App Store for free and users download them for free and the developer can charge for the app outside of Apple’s App Store. So then Apple makes no money for providing a really easy place for the developers to distribute apps while spending money for the resources and infrastructure to maintain a secure App Store?

Talk about a spoiled and entitled attitude…

I have paid for Netflix and Youtube Premium outside of the app store for years now. Netflix premium is what actually made me aware of the 30% charge that Apple adds if you do the recurring payment through the app store. I was paying $12.99 a month , but I kept seeing the price advertised as $9.99? Eventually it dawned on the extra $3.00 was being put back on me because of Apple charging them 30% to handle the payment? I cancelled my subscription on my iPhone and set up my monthly billing through youtube's website. I have been paying $9.99 ever since.

You can also sign up for Disney+ or their bundle with ESPN+ and Hulu on Disneyplus.com and pay them directly instead of through the app store.

https://www.disneyplus.com/welcome/disney-hulu-espn-bundle

These services didn't steer me like Epic did by offering alternative payment options within the app, but the end result is still the same.

That is wrong. One do not get a discount from Netflix (or YouTube Premium) for paying outside the platform. Whether paying on Android, iOS or a computer, Netflix charges the same.

For one

There is no $9.99 Netflix subscription plan. The lowest cost plan now is Basic and cost $8.99. Basic plan can only stream on 1 screen at a time and no HD. The Standard plan cost $13.99, stream on 2 screen at a time and has HD. The Premium plan cost $17.99  has 4K and can stream on 4 screen at a time. 

For two

$9.99 is not a 30% discount from $12.99. A 30% discount on $12.99 would be $3.90. So if you got a 30% discount, it should cost you $9.10.

For three

I don't think you can pay for your Netflix subscription on YouTube. And even if you could, you would not get a discount.

For four

About the only way to get a discount on your Netflix subscription is to buy discounted iTunes gift cards and use your iTunes account to pay for your subscription. But this has ended for new subscribers.

https://runningwithmiles.boardingarea.com/a-trick-for-cheaper-netflix-has-ended-with-one-big-exception/

I been paying for my Standard Netflix subscription for over 15 years now. I started when Netflix was only a mail order DVD rental business. And i've been paying using auto CC deduction since the second or third month. No discount given and no discount ever offered when they became a streaming service on mobile devices using their free app.  



 

Back to school, Buddy: the mathematics of discount vs surcharge is a little more complicated than that 👀😳🥸

              9,99

+                30%

              2,997

--------------------

=         12,987

--------------------

That's not the way it's done. 

If Netflix is charging $12.99 for their Standard plan, Apple commission would be $3.89. If Netflix were to save on the commission and wanted to pass that saving to the subscriber, they would discount the $12.99 by $3.89 and not by $3.00. This is not like a surcharge or sales tax that the buyer pays. It is a commission that is based on the selling price of the app sold (Without any tax added), that the seller has to pay.

If the buyer had to pay Apple the 30% commission after paying $9.99 and the seller collected the commission and turned it over to Apple, then it will work out the way you stated. But that is not the case. The seller is paying Apple the 30% commission based on the  price the buyer paid for it (without the tax). Apple does not remove the cost of the commission that the seller might have added to the final price, when calculating their commission. 

Look at it this way. If Netflix wants to make $9.99 from selling a subscription plan, after paying the 30% commission, they don't charge $12.99 ($9.99 + $2.99). If they charge $12.99, Apple commission would be $3.89 not $2.99. And Netflix would only make $9.09. That's because Apple's commission would not be based on $9.99 but on the final selling price of $12.99. Netflix would need to charge $14.27, in order to make $9.99, after paying the 30% commission. 

It goes like this 

x -.3x = $9.99           where x is how much they have to charge in order to make $9.99, after paying the 30% commission (.3x) on x.

3.33 x - x = $33.27

2.33x = $33.27

x = $14.27 


BTW- if this guy been paying his/her Netflix subscription with iTunes for years, then Netflix would only be paying Apple a 15% commission after 1 year. Why would Netflix be giving him/her a 30% discount for paying outside iTunes?