Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Another Antitrust Bill That Would Allow Sideloading on iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple spends much less than other tech firms, and apparently, their lobbying spending has gone down in recent years.
Anyway, my point was that in DC, money buys everything. If Apple were to increase their lobbying spending to Facebook or Amazon levels, this issue would likely go away, or at least the bill would lose some of its teeth. That's just an opinion of mine. No data to back that up.
EDIT - it's also interesting to note that over the last couple of years, Google/Alphabet has reduced their lobbying spending as well. They were routinely in the in the Top-10 in Lobbying spending and now they're not even in the top 20.
Last edited:
As it stands right now is those apps flat out don't exist on iOS.
Would you rather have an app not exist for iPhone users just because it can't deal with the App Store rules?
As for the rest of your argument I honestly don't care if Apple loses money on their stupid in-app purchase fees? They'll be fine with the obscene amount of money the make off selling great hardware and software, they'll be fine without the 2-3 billions in service revenue or whatever.
They have no right to get 30% of something they're not helping at all with.
Keeping the app on the store? Sure, whatever; they're hosting the files, making it accessible, promoting it (once in a blue moon) and in general demanding a fee to be on their platform, a fee that you pay by giving them 99 (or 299 if you-re a big corporation) dollars a year. That's more than enough.
But they sure as hell don't need 30% off every single thing users are paying for MY app to do.
5-10% maybe, just to cover processing and a hefty fee for convenience, but anything more is absolutely pushing it.
Either lower it to a point where it makes sense or keep it sky-high but give me the option to do it in a different way, some business cannot afford a 30% cut. That doesn't include Epic or Spotify obviously, but 30% or like 2,99 can make a real difference for your bottom line.
Yup
Exactly why they are resisting any changes around openness and optionality
(it's not about your safety or privacy or any of that folks...)
Apple know damned well how much they are royally screwing everyone and how so many Devs would run for the exits on their App Store (if it stayed as is but there were basically any other option)
I know so many here love Apple - almost to a fault - but I promise you, it really isn't a good thing (even for you - even if you think you like it) to have Apple gouging and controlling to the level they are.
I consider the price of an iOS device to be discounted by $99/annum for people who can't run Xcode or who aren't interested.
A "real" iOS device is natively user programmable computer, and thus its full price includes a Developer enrollment, and a Mac to run Xcode. Otherwise a toy of limited usefulness.
I never understood why idiot politicians feel the need to tell people and businesses how to do things/live our lives, and why anyone would support these narcissistic fools.
To think taxpayers are giving them billions to waste their brain cells on this when there are so many more important issues to address, it’s simply mind boggling.
To think taxpayers are giving them billions to waste their brain cells on this when there are so many more important issues to address, it’s simply mind boggling.
Not according the man who created Apple. The only thing separates MS and Apple is their business model and one is enterprise-focused while the other is consumer-focused. At the end of the day both of these companies have customer base of 1+ billion users that is heavily fueled by 3rd party developer support. Apple has a history of disrespecting 3rd party developers while MS doesn't
My point though was that after numerous studies it was found to not exist. Audi took a major brand hit for a very long time due to the '60 Minutes' report. I could see the same thing happening to Apple if sideloading caused significant issues.
From Wikipedia:
Sudden unintended acceleration
"Subsequently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that the majority of unintended acceleration cases, including all the ones that prompted the 60 Minutes report, were caused by driver error such as confusion of pedals"I have followed Apple long enough to know that their senior execs have always said that macOS is safe. They're only back tracking now because there's a lot of heat on their a**.
And you sir, are obfuscating the point which is that the supreme court said that Apple was demonstrating monopolistic behavior. You are absolutely correct about the outcome and case purpose, but when the highest court in the land says "you are acting monopolistic" and this thread says "Apple treats everyone with love, candy, and kisses", then ... no.
Is acting "monopolistic" different from being a "monopoly"? Seems like with a ruling like this Apple should have been out of business a few years ago. Yet...why are they not?
Hope this helps...
A monopoly is the type of imperfect competition where a seller or producer captures the majority of the market share due to the lack of substitutes or competitors. A monopolistic competition is a type of imperfect competition where many sellers try to capture the market share by differentiating their products.
And
Is Apple a monopoly or monopolistic competition?
Apple Inc. maintains oligopoly market structure in the competition of smart phone brands announcements, but Apple Inc. is known as monopolistic competition in the branded computers. Monopolistic competition in which many sellers are producing highly differentiated products
Monopolistic competition sounds like the definition of how we want our markets to work.
A monopolistically competitive market is productively inefficient market structure because marginal cost is less than price in the long run. Monopolistically competitive markets are also allocative-inefficient, as the firm charges prices that exceed marginal cost.
Monopolistic Competition: Definition, How it Works, Pros and Cons
Monopolistic competition exists when many companies offer competitive products or services that are similar, but not exact, substitutes.
Basically, for the iPhone to continue succeeding, Apple has to differentiate its product in a positive fashion in comparison to its competitors. It's more secure. It's more private. It .... This relies heavily on reputation and advertising. If this falls, so does the product.
Good example: laundry soap.
Now think about the amount that the iPhone plays into Apple profit and what Apple is willing to do to keep it in the forefront.
It's all about $$$
Right, so reading the definition in the link, monopolistic competition is exactly what we should strive for, products that do roughly the same thing, but aren’t exactly the same (e.g., iOS and android).Monopolistic Competition: Definition, How it Works, Pros and Cons
Monopolistic competition exists when many companies offer competitive products or services that are similar, but not exact, substitutes.www.investopedia.com
Basically, for the iPhone to continue succeeding, Apple has to differentiate its product in a positive fashion in comparison to its competitors. It's more secure. It's more private. It .... This relies heavily on reputation and advertising. If this falls, so does the product.
Good example: laundry soap.
Now think about the amount that the iPhone plays into Apple profit and what Apple is willing to do to keep it in the forefront.
It's all about $$$
Something to think about.....
Apple needs another product with the impact of the iPhone. Till then it will do whatever it can to keep the cash cow mooing.
Google doesn't.
Apple needs another product with the impact of the iPhone. Till then it will do whatever it can to keep the cash cow mooing.
Google doesn't.
Yes, they can restrict controlled items, but they can’t force the stores to sell something, which would be the more accurate analogy. This would be more like Apple demanding to set up a cash register in WalMart stores and not pay WalMart. Maybe they could even offer to price them cheaper since they don’t have to pay WalMart their cut.
Exactly! Monopoly behaviour is not controlling what can be done with products you build, it is trying to eliminate competitive products.
The short answer is yes, it's different. And like it was stated, it wasn't really a ruling that Apple was a monopoly, just that it was engaging in monopolistic behavior that deserved the right for antitrust cases to proceed.
The longer answer is that markets are fickle and sometimes a duopoly or oligarchy exists. But for the sake of argument lets assume that only IOS and Android exist, and there's a duopoly in essence. Apple can still engage in monopolistic behavior by raising the entry fees, or manipulating the terms of service which could bar customers and developer - all consumers in this context - from paying a fair price in a market. And that market is really worldwide, but they can use this market context they entirely control to raise prices in the USA but lower it elsewhere, etc. It's unfair business.
So to the point of this thread, when apple controls a market of app store goods, and already has been established that it is manipulating that market with unfair, anti-competitive practices, it is actually entirely relevant and appropriate to consider that this market be opened. I'm not designing a solution here, just saying that for apple to utterly control this is creating the unfair business model.
Be that as it may, I do appreciate you editing your earlier post to quote me accurately. Thanks.
The relevant quote is: “Quite simply, it is illogical to argue that there is a market for something that is not licensed or sold to anyone.” The court isn’t ruling that iOS isn’t a relevant market because it isn’t relevant, they’re stating it isn’t a relevant market because it can't be a market. iOS isn't sold, and it isn't licensed, therefore it is part of the iPhone which is sold in competition with many other smartphones.
I think you may have linked to the wrong document. This one is a SCOTUS ruling that people buying apps are direct purchasers from Apple, not indirect purchasers. I don’t see any decision on monopolization of anything in that document.