flydog

rorschachai said:

Apple's limitations and continued collection of a commission will likely light new fires for litigation opportunities

• Hosting
• Bandwidth
• Technical support
• Xcode and all the other developer tools
• Apple-developed frameworks

All of that for only $99 a year, a rate that hasn't changed since the App Store opened 16 years ago. If Apple is at some point forced to stop charging a commission, prepare for that to increase and potentially have itemized billing. Per-gigabyte bandwidth charges will add up very quickly for popular apps that are hundreds of megabytes or more, as well as monthly per-user licenses for Xcode.

You conveniently overlooked the billions of dollars in ad revenue that Apple generates from developers who 16 years ago didn't need to spent anything on advertising.  Apple doesn't just collect 15 or 30%, they collect closer to 50% once advertising is factored. 

And most of that laundry list of crap you mentioned is either of nominal cost or not worth the 15-50% a developer pays Apple:

• Hosting and bandwidth - practically free these days - For an app earning $100k a year it certainly doesn't cost $15k to host a store.  Maybe $50 a month. 
• Tech support - Seriously?  Apple's tech support is limited to 2 incidents a year, and is basically worthless.  Nothing is ever resolved.
• Xcode - Another hot piece of garbage - bug riddled junk that could easily be replaced with a third-party tool if Apple allowed it.
• Frameworks - this doesn't make much sense. If Apple didn't offer frameworks, no one would be able to develop any apps.  The existence of third-party apps benefits Apple just as much as developers. Would anyone buy an iPhone if there were no third-party apps?  Nope!  Would people be locked into Apple's ecosystem without third-paerty apps?  Again, no.  Would Apple be able to charge for advertising of third-party apps?  I think you get the idea.

The fundamental problem is Apple offers very little (practically nothing) in exchange for the absurd commission. Also Apple treats developers with disdain as if they were the lowest scum on earth.  

The only real benefit Apple offers is the existence of a large user base to market apps to. 

 

igorsky said:

My understanding is the basis for the parent is that it’s an oxymeter on a watch. How in the world was something so general given as a patent to begin with?  Ridiculous. 

Your understanding is not correct. Maybe you should actually read the patents before spouting nonsense.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en

This might be helpful too https://www.inquartik.com/blog/apple-watch-masimo-pulse-oximeter-litigation/

larryjw said:

Why does it seem that the ITC is a party to this case?

They should have no business before the federal court, making arguments to the Court. The federal court can read and consider the ITC's decision, but only Masimo and Apple are parties.

What am I missing?

A quick google search will reveal what you're missing:

As a quasi-judicial entity, the USITC investigates the impact of imports on U.S. industries, and directs actions against unfair trade practices, such as subsidies; dumping; and intellectual property infringement, including copyright infringement.

saarek said:

There was nothing stopping them from upgrading Lightning to take faster speeds, etc. 

Source?

chasm said:

Panner_Nudding said:

He's made a lot of money, I mean a lot of money over the years and knew the risk building a business off another business and that risk finally materialized like it always does. 

A. Probably a lot less than you imagine. Developing apps COSTS money, you know, in terms of both support and upkeep, and Selig updated his a lot.

B. Nearly all businesses are built off of another business. Do you think McDonald’s  raises its own cattle and grows its own potatoes?

McDonald's pays for beef and potatoes. Selig paid Reddit nothing.