davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 187
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,769
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,198
Reactions
-
Apple will crush the DoJ in court if Garland sticks with outdated arguments
avon b7 said:
"The 2009 agreement between the telecoms to use a standard USB charger with the Micro connector for charging, that was signed by Apple, only concern the charger. It allowed for the use of a dongle/adapter so that a charger with a USB Micro connector could be use for charging"davidw said:nubus said:
Well.. it is in an interview with Greg Joswiak from Apple that they worked 10 years against EU on this:coolfactor said:
Apple never promised USB-C for 10 years. What nonsense it that?Apple+EU has been a disaster for years. Apple spent 10 years on promising before finally being forced to USB-C. Now EU has had enough with politicians hitting Apple in several ways causing disruptions to hardware and software. Apple is taking a beating every week.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/iphone-will-get-usb-c-charging-as-apple-says-it-will-comply-with-eu-law/
As the article also states it all started in 2009 when Apple signed a proposal for using a common charger to reduce e-waste (EN/IEC 6268). Obviously Apple never delivered on that but allowed other companies to sell dongles so that users could connect to the common charger. That is not how e-waste is reduced. So - either 10 or 15 years.Apple only converted to USB-C after the EU passed the law in 2022 and companies affect have until the end of 2024 to comply. Apple never promised to use USB-C ....... 10 years ago. And they never promised to use USB Micro 15 years ago. That's all in your imagination because of the way you twist the facts or a reading comprehension problem.The 2009 agreement between the telecoms to use a standard USB charger with the Micro connector for charging, that was signed by Apple, only concern the charger. It allowed for the use of a dongle/adapter so that a charger with a USB Micro connector could be use for charging. Which Apple did, rather than to replace their 30pin connector. There was no way that USB Micro connector can replace all the functions of their 30 pin connector. And it would make absolutely no sense to add a USB Micro port on iPhones, just for charging. Apple would not have signed the agreement if it meant replacing the port on iPhones with a USB Micro or USB-C.The agreement also allowed for innovation. Telecom were not restricted from using better developed technology. This allowed for the standard to change from USB Micro to USB-C. If it weren't for this, USB-Micro would still be the standard. In 2009, Apple already had plans to replace their nearly 10 year old 30 pin connector with their Lightening connector, in 2012. Two years before USB-C specs were finalized. iPhones with Lightning connectors were probably already being designed in 2009, for release 2 to 3 years out. And the Lightening connector adhere to the USB charging standards and any USB Micro charger (with the correct adapter), can be used to charge iPhones and iPads.In wasn't until 2022, that the EU mandated that all mobile devices use a USB-C port. Until then, the agreement signed by most of the telecoms in 2009, only required that mobile devices use a USB charger (with either a Micro or C connector) for charging. No where did the 2009 agreement state that the port on the device must be a USB Micro or USB-C. This agreement was to standardize the charger, not the port on the device. As long as the device adopt the USB charging standard, the port on the device didn't matter, so long as it could be adapted to use a standard USB Micro (and later USB -C.) charger. By 2022, the lightening was already 10 years old technology and falling way behind USB3.2 specs. Apple probably already had plans on using USB-C but had to move up their plans because of the new EU law that passed in 2022.
'Malicious Compliance' jumps to mind here. LOL.
The MoU didn't only concern the charger. Most of the texts from the period used the term 'common interface' and specifically mentioned micro-USB.
Putting a dongle into the equation does not really cut it and Apple never helped resolve the problem the EU wanted to tackle.
The MoU in no way shape or form meant that today we would have been stuck with micro-USB.
Fast forward to now and we have legislation as a direct result of industry not doing enough.
The directive is up for review in four years to see how it is progressing and perhaps take on the subject of wireless charging.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_09_301And who is to say that a 30 pin connector with a USB Micro dongle is not a USB Micro interface? You? LOL The 30 pin device can use the same USB Micro charger. And that's all that matters.Well the EU allowed Apple to supply the dongle and considered it in compliance with the MoU. If you think it was "malicious compliance", what does that say about the EU? Why would they allow it if they thought it was "malicious compliance"? If the EU considered Apple in compliance, then who cares what you think? LOLAnd think about it. Isn't it less e-waste for Apple to supply a dongle so their users can use both the older original 30 Pin (or Lightening) charger and also the newer USB Micro (or USB-C) charger. Rather than to change the port on their device to render the older chargers obsolete? There were a lot of Apple users that complained about having to carry the dongle but would you really rather have them throw away their old charger and buy a new one, so they don't have to carry the dongle?One of the biggest generator of e-waste was the including of a charger with every new mobile device purchase. Chargers that most buyers didn't need. Apple was one of the first company to stop supplying a charger with each new purchase. And Apple did this worldwide, not just in the EU. And Apple got flak for it in some countries.Of course it wasn't enough. That's because in 2014, the standard was changed to USB-C and consumers began throwing away their USB Micro chargers. Then faster charging became a thing a few years later and guess what? Older USB-C chargers and cables ended up as e-waste, as consumers went out to buy newer USB-C chargers and cables, for faster charging and some newer phones required it. And not to mention that laptops are now using USB-C for charging and require an even higher wattage USB-C charger that the standard mobile device USB-C chargers can't handle. The only way to end the ever increasing e-waste from chargers is to top innovating and use the same charger for as long as possible. Otherwise the EU is legislating just for the sake of legislating.And you can't blame Apple for not using USB-C port on their devices, (even if that's all you want to do), for the EU not meeting any set criteria for the reduction in charger e-Waste. Since 2014 and the adoption of USB-C standard, Apple devices still used the Lightening port.This means that all this time, Apple users kept their lightening chargers. If Apple had converted to USB-C port, then there would have been a surge in lightening charges as e-waste. Don't you think?Apple managed to use the same 30PIN connector and charger for 10 years before they switched to Lightening and still managed to use the same Lightening charger (abet a higher wattage one for iPads) for another 10 years, before now switching to USB-C. That was a better track record than the EU with their USB Micro charger standard that lasted about 5 years and then their USB-C charger standard that is still evolving and changing due to innovation in charging.To this day, a 12 year old lightening charger can still be use to charge the newest iPhone. It might take a few hours more to fully charge from 20% but it's still works and no problem when charging overnight. In fact, it a known fact that the slower the charging, that longer the battery life. Thus reducing battery e-waste. A lightening charger should not be e-waste, if one still using an iPhone, unless it no longer works. But 5 years from now, lightening chargers will all become e-waste as older Apple devices using Lightening connectors begins to reach their end of life and all newer Apple device are using USB-C. Or what ever the standard is 5 years from now.And if you have any critical thinking skill, just how is the EU legislating that all devices must have a USB-C port, going to significantly reduce chargers e-waste? So far, every USB-C charger I've seen, comes with USB-C port on the charger and a cable with USB-C on both ends. This itself reduces charger e-waste significantly as one of the main reason why chargers get thrown away is because of a damaged cable that is built in to the charger. So now all that needs to be replaced is the cable. So what real difference in e-waste, does it make whether that cable have two USB-C ends or a USB-C and a Lightening end? It's only the detachable cable that is different. The USB-C charger is still the standard and can be used on any device with the right cable. In fact, one can use the same USB-C charger to charge an iPhone with Lightening, an Android phone with USB-C, headphones with USB-Micro and a camera li-ion battery charger with USB-Mini, all with the right cable. A cable that will most likely be damaged or lost, before it becomes useless and thrown away as e-waste.
-
EU antitrust chief remarks about $2 billion Apple Music fine ignores Spotify dominance
spheric said:dmitrek said:Well it's good that he said that Apple is punished for the past behaviour. I think laws does not have backward power and past behaviour can not be objected.
The antitrust legislation they violated has existed for decades.
There is absolutely nothing retroactive here.The law existed, Apple broke it, someone complained, Apple got investigated and now gets punished.The end (until appeal).What's being applied retroactive is the way the fine was calculated.Apple is accused of violating EU Anti-trust laws Article 102. Which is a vague and general law stating that any business practice determined to be anti-competitive is a violation of anti-trust. Not unlike the CA Unfair Competition Law that Apple was only found guilty of in the Epic vs Apple lawsuit. The law doesn't state any specific business practices as the being anti-competitive, as same business practice could be deemed anti-competitive with one company and not with another. The market dominance of the company has a lot to do with determining whether a business practice is determined to be anti-competitive.>The Commission found that the anti-steering provisions constituted unfair trading conditions in contravention of Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In the Commission’s view, these provisions were neither necessary nor proportionate to protect Apple’s commercial interests and negatively affected the interests of iOS users by preventing them from making an informed decision about where and how to purchase music streaming subscriptions.<This is the anti-trust law that has existed for decades.However, under this more than a decade old law, (Article102), the fined is calculated as a percentage of the revenue that directly benefited by the anti-competitive business practice.>According to the 2006 Guidelines on Fines, undertaking’s starting point for the fine is a percentage of the company’s annual sales of the product or service concerned by the infringement. The relevant sales are usually the sales of the product or service covered by the infringement during the last full business year of the infringement.<But the EU is fining Apple based on the DMA. Using a percentage of global revenue because Apple is a "gatekeeper". Apple wasn't a "gatekeeper" before being labeled that under the DMA. And the DMA just recently passed and went into affect this month. If Apple was found guilty of violating EU Anti-trust Article 102 5 years ago, the fine would not be based on a percentage of total global revenue.When Google was fined €2.4B for violating anti-trust laws in 2017, the fine was based on the same 2006 Commission Guidelines on fines. Not based on a percentage of Google global revenue.>The Commission's fine of €2 424 495 000 takes account of the duration and gravity of the infringement. In accordance with the Commission's 2006 Guidelines on fines (see press release and MEMO), the fine has been calculated on the basis of the value of Google's revenue from its comparison shopping service in the 13 EEA countries concerned.So even though Apple is violating an EU anti-trust law (Article 102) that's been around for decades, they are being fined under a law (DMA) that hasn't been in affect for a month yet. To be fair, Apple fine should be in accordance with the EU commission 2006 Guidelines on fines, not the DMA. But then again, being "fair" is not what the EU Commission is concern about when it comes to extracting money from any of their pre-determined "gatekeepers" (under the DMA).
-
Apple faces 500M euro fine following EU music probe
nubus said:
Mac-users as a group have gained most from regulation (though from US). At one point 95% of all users were on the Microsoft IE browser with sites demanding ActiveX that only worked on Windows. It forced consumers to Windows as Mac browsers including IE for Mac didn't work with their banks or other basic systems. I had to switch bank to stay on Mac, but most didn't.dewme said:Are EU consumers taking advantage of the bludgeoning of the "evil gatekeepers" and suddenly basking in the glory of being able to purchase EU made products and services at more affordable prices? That is the goal, improving choice and driving lower prices, isn't it?
US regulation forced the unbundling of IE from Windows and it opened the web + made Mac a platform that could be used on the level as Windows for most people. And the fear of regulation forced Microsoft to make a deal with Apple to producing MS Office for "at least 5 years" + made a huge investment (+3% of Apple). At that time Apple was 90 days from going bankrupt. Microsoft needed Apple to stay alive to keep US authorities at bay. Thanks to US regulation we still have Apple and competition.It still amazes me how many people still believe in this myth. Microsoft "generous" offers were the result of Microsoft settling the QuickTime lawsuit, where Apple claimed they (and Intel) pirated Apple QuickTime codes for their Windows video player. The $150M had nothing to do with warding off any US government anti-trust investigation and did nothing to save Apple. Steve Jobs announcing Microsoft investment of $150M worth of Apple preferred stock, was Jobs way of letting Gates save grace by not making public that Microsoft had to pay Apple over $1B (rumors have it as high as over $2B ) to settle the QuickTime lawsuit out of court. A lawsuit Microsoft knew they couldn't win.Apple at the time still had over $1B in cash and was worth more the $5B. Jobs statement about Apple going bankrupt in 90 days was partially based on Apple losing over $700M the year before. But part of that was the $400M Apple paid for Next. Jobs saying that Apple was going to go bankrupt in 90 days, involved more than running out of money. Which Apple was not in danger of, even without MS $150M investment.Here's an easy to understand YouTube video explaining this, if you don't have the time to read all the articles disproving this myth.
-
Epic vs Apple suit finally ends, as Supreme Court refuses to hear both appeals
gustav said:Why didn’t Sweeney go after or even mention Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft? Don't those consoles have exclusive app stores too?They did and during both trials. But is was the same lame excuse, that because game console makers were selling their hardware at a loss and making up the loss with software sales, Epic had no problem with paying MS, Sony and Nintendo their demanded 30% commission. While Apple and Google were making massive profits from their ecosystem, that they have no right to gouge app developers with a 30% commission, that they claim was/is only to pay for the 3% payment transaction cost.But in reality, Epic did not sue any of the console makers because over 70% of Fortnite players were using a game console. While only about 12% of them played Fortnite on mobile devices. Plus Epic knew that a good percent of the players that played on mobile devices, also owned a game console from which they can still play Fortnite on. And the revenue numbers were more like close to 80% of their revenue from Fortnite, came from players on game consoles.So no way that Sweeney was going to pull off his plan of ... getting kicked out of an app store for the massive PR, for an already planned lawsuit against the 30% commission ... with a game console maker. Epic could not afford to lose the profits from any one of the game console makers, if they got kicked out of their app store(s). Mobile on the other hand was worth the risk as many would just continue to play Fortnite on their game console anyway and sideloading was still available on Android. And we know that Epic got kicked out for the PR over profits because if they had just sued Apple (and Google) in the first place and not violate any app store policies, that alone would not have gotten them kicked out of the Apple App Store.Plus Sony owns about 5-7% of Epic Games. And MS went out of their way to kiss Sweeney's ass and provided supporting documents and testimonies at both trials.
-
Epic vs Apple suit finally ends, as Supreme Court refuses to hear both appeals
tech_traveller said:
I would argue there is some benefit to developers not paying the 30% cut, they wouldn't have been protesting so hard if it was so clear cut as you said.melgross said:
They never get 100% of sales (it’s not income). Apple takes care of everything for them. But now, they will have to maintain a sales site, not just a information site. That’s costs money. They now have to do none of their accounting for sales as Apple does it. But with this, they will have to do their own. The costs continue. I’ll bet that in the end they will get about the same percentage after all those added in costs are accounted for.tech_traveller said:Well, despite Tim Sweeney being a crook, you can't deny that this case helped developers.
Now they can advertise prices where they get 100% of the income, maybe we will even get cheaper options now.
what has been so easily forgotten is that when Apple first announced the App Store and spoke about the 30% and what developers were getting for it, they were dancing in the streets because other stores were charging between 40 - 60% and developers had to do all of their own accounting, marketing, etc. Apple’s low charges changed the industry and forced others to follow. But people forget the old world and begin to get greedy. I’ve read a number of times over the years that of the 30 cents Apple gets on every dollar of sales, they get 5 cents of profit. The rest is spent in software development of the store, marketing of products, accounting for themselves and developers products, and of course, the fact that about 2/3rds of what’s in the store is free where Apple gets nothing for downloads. Those free downloads cost Apple plenty and they have to be paid for through the paid apps.
so when developers started to sell things through their apps, such as extra features, loot for games and such, Apple decided they should get a cut. The fact that most of these sales were coming from “free” apps, most of which weren’t really that useful without the extra paid for features, it’s understandable that Apple would want a cut. These developers were really getting around the rules with this. If they all had it that way, Apple would only be getting the yearly $99 developers fee. That’s nowhere near enough to cover even part of the App Store costs. So I can understand Apple wanting to staunch the bleeding. Some of these companies are really blatantly arrogant. They want their store within Apple’s store without paying them anything, all the while getting paid for goods sold in their own stores. That’s too much!
I do agree with Apple allowing them to point to other sources for products though. That does make sense.
According to my knowledge, Stripe or other merchants take only 3-5% which is a lot less than Apple. Big developers don't really have to worry about accounting as they already had those divisions and in the future will not utilise them more. Small developers will probably stick with Apple.Less than 3% of developers (that makes money selling apps or from IAP) pays a 30% commission And many are only paying 15% on subscriptions over a year. Over 97% of developers either pay 0% because they distribute free apps or 15% because they make less than $1M a year selling apps. The top 1% of Apple App Store developers (mostly with games apps), accounts for over 90% of Apple App Store revenue. (These numbers are also true with the Google Play Store).So essentially, Epic just got a "tax" break for the wealthiest 3% app developers that are making 10's of millions of dollars, if not billions, with their apps in the Apple App Store. (and like Epic, most of them are making massive profits from selling digital goods that cost them nearly nothing to produce.) Plus many that are making less than $1M a year, do not have the resources to set up their own payment system. For them, a 15% commission is a bargain and they would hate to see that go up because the wealthiest of wealthy developers don't want to pay their "fair share". This would be like if the government lowered the top marginal tax bracket from 39% to 35% because the top 5% bought the politicians that voted for it. Over 95% of the tax payers will not see much benefit, if any at all and they would not be the ones complaining about the 39% top marginal tax bracket in the first place.>Top 1 Percent by Revenue: All Apps
Analyzing revenue widens the gap even more between the top 1 percent of publishers and the rest of the cohort. In the first half of 2022, the top 1,800 publishers collectively held 91 percent market share of overall revenue, or approximately $42 billion. The remaining 183,000 publishers shared 9 percent of market share, or $4 billion.
Among both game and non-game publishers, Tencent was the top grosser with approximately $3.3 billion revenue generated in the first half of 2022. This was 153 percent more than the second-highest performing publisher, ByteDance, which generated $1.3 billion. With a portfolio that includes perennial chart toppers such as Honor of Kings and PUBG Mobile, including the Chinese localization Game for Peace/Peacekeeper Elite, Tencent alone generated more than 7 percent of worldwide consumer spending in apps during 1H22.<
Gee, guess who owns 40% of Epic Games and have their hands up Sweeney ass and using him like a hand puppet? That's right .... Tencent. If you actually think Sweeney was looking after the developers ...... I think you can still find some one willing to sell you that bridge in Brooklyn, that you've been looking at.
There's only about 1000 iOS developers that are subject to a 30% commission on their app sales or from IAP.
