U.S. Senate Panel Approves Antitrust Bill That Would Allow Sideloading

[I7guy]

Another straw man argument.

Obviously you don't. Do you believe platforms should be public and controlled by the government.

When you are presented with an observation for which you have double feelings … you systematically jump wagons.

Disagreeing with your take on this.

Individual property rights are not under threat by gov regulators. In fact as it seams quite the contrary. A company being able to enforce a charge on each buy / sale of a product it does not sell or host,

The company provides the platform and that is why it is charging.

as well as blocking the sales and acquisitions of things it does not sell or host,

Websites are a great invention to use when one doesn't want to go to an app store.

all on top of properties/ devices it does not own but are owned by 50% of Americans looks more like Apple is a the threat to property owners rights.

I own my property, yet there are certain things I cannot do with it. But there are a lot I can. Same with Apple etc. One thing I can do is decide who gets to enter and who gets to leave.

In fact these rights have been eroding in the last decade, up and down to the recent Right to Repair (their own property) movement.

Nothing has been eroding.

There is a difference between a company having the right of receiving compensation over the use of its tech and the method of compensation adopted that throttles over the property rights of others if not also value.

A company that provides a platform should get paid for the use of it's platform. Of course the company decides the payment rules which the user of the platform agrees to.

I wonder if the iPhone came to market advertising a royalty of 30% over digital business revenue would have attracted so many people and businesses (the exception Ad based businesses). The reality is the it came with an App Store, meaning a software device / business that distributes and sells software programs … this was accepted by the general public.

I guess if other businesses advertised their commissions and fees what would happen. Especially car dealerships.

All the extensions to this reasonable concept came after the fact in time with successive unilateral policy changes leveraging on its mobile market power to push digital businesses to accept such changes in the deals. Either take the deal or leave 50% of your customer with minimal support from the business on their mobile device of choice … leaving the business backdoor open to competitors if not Apple itself.

Changes that gave the App Store the power to charge … say dating arrangements, a remote math lesson, a game stream, a song, a remote IP call, groceries … whatever it is offered by the business in their property / App … none of it owned, sold, hosted or distributed by the App Store …

Apple doesn't charge where it's IP is not being leveraged. Being an app on IOS is leveraging apple IP.

this is not a traditional Shop or Market fee but a “tax” over commerce on smartphones! People that think its like regular retail … it isn’t and know nothing … its not even a matter of opinion … its a straight demonstrable fact.

Dev makes money and Apple makes money. Sweet deal it seems.

This is the impression I have over the complaints at hand.

Its not even a matter of winner and losers. Its indeed a change in the fabric of commercial processes empowered by recent digital technology advances that devoid American individuals and businesses of common rights over their properties … rights are being taken by Big Tech companies such as Apple using terms such as App Store, Google Play … as as the front “man” of such practice. Rights that used to be guaranteed by democratic governments whose power to act on it seams to be shaken in the midst of armies of lawyers and lobbyists.

I think is preferable to leave this sort of arguments at bay and focus on the complaints and address them rationally and reasonably. Its totally unreasonable to expect a bank down to a math or music teacher to come up and market their own mobile phone in order to avoid and compete with private ”taxes” over commerce.

Cheers.

Your nuances and my nuances take different paths. You want to separate completely digital assets from physical assets, even though they are sold in the same type framework of a store, someone entering a store, making a purchase with a credit card, etc.

 

[kc9hzn]

“Allow” or “require to allow”? There’s a very huge difference between those words. When a government says “allow”, they mean, “we used our power to block this before but will relent”. When they say “require”, it means “we’ll use our full power to require this thing to come into existence, consequences be damned”. It’s the difference between a permissive stance and a mandate, and governments usually make a right mess of tech mandates.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Do you believe platforms should be public and controlled by the government.

No. But the government legislate. This happens all the time since the inception of democracy. Its seams people brain on legislation stops where software tech starts.

The company provides the platform and that is why it is charging.

Never asked why they are charging as it’s conclusion is trivial.

Websites are a great invention to use when one doesn't want to go to an app store.

The dichotomy is not about App Store vs Web Sites.

I own my property, yet there are certain things I cannot do with it. But there are a lot I can. Same with Apple etc. One thing I can do is decide who gets to enter and who gets to leave.

Yes ... mostly.

Nothing has been eroding.

Don't agree ... I believe a lot of people would not.

A company that provides a platform should get paid for the use of it's platform. Of course the company decides the payment rules which the user of the platform agrees to.

Agreed.

guess if other businesses advertised their commissions and fees what would happen. Especially car dealerships.

10%. But don't of course charge for music bought within the car, much less after the fact, what would that have to do with the sale of the Car anyway right? Would that even be legal

Apple doesn't charge where it's IP is not being leveraged. Being an app on IOS is leveraging apple IP.

Now that is a mouthful. Next time we close a deal in a restaurant we will be going to have the cook saying that the deal was leveraged on its meal and IP ... What about devs saying that Apple success is leveraged on third party digital services IPs? What about Apple leveraging on say the user telco subscription ... so ...

This leverage mambo talk ... its absurd. What is actually happening is that Apple provides a set of tools / APIs to build apps for iOS. These tools are used to build Apps for iOS and should be payed for. Set a $price$ for its use and ... that is it.

No way 30% of say a specific dating arrangement, a specific eBook sale ... reflects this reality. It’s more of a commerce tax rather than a payment for the use. Now there are common royalty practices that can be used of course what do you say … 5%?

This is like the story of the cook above. Hey Cook, how do you know that the deal was leveraged on your meals ... well says the Cook, the deal was closed in my dinner wasn't it? Hey Cook, but that could have happened in other restaurants ... well choose another restaurant. Hey but these customer in particular have payed your restaurant for us to talk ... Cook: Well you see, what have I told you Bling Bling double charge.

Dev makes money and Apple makes money. Sweet deal it seems.

And our customer in common pays the bill. Sweet.

 

[I7guy]

No. But the government legislate. This happens all the time since the inception of democracy. Its seams people brain on legislation stops where software tech starts.

The job of the government is to legislate. That doesn't mean they do a perfect job and get everything right and are totally above board and transparent.

Never asked why they are charging.



The dichotomy is not about App Store vs Web Sites.



Yes ... mostly.



Don't agree ... I believe a lot of people would not.



Agreed.



10%. But don't charge for music bought within the car ... what would that have to do with the sale of the Car anyway right?



Now that is a mouthful. Next time I close a deal in a restaurant I'm going to have the cook saying that the deal was leveraged on its IP ... What about devs saying that Apple success is leveraged on their IP? ... so ...

This leverage mambo talk ... its absurd. What is actually happening is that Apple provides a set of tools / APIs to build apps for iOS. These tools a being used to build Apps and should be payed for. Set a $price$ for its use and ... that is it.

No way 30% of say a dating arrangement, a eBook sale ... reflects this reality.

This is like the story of the cook above. Hey Cook, how do you know that the deal was leveraged on your meals ... well says the Cook, the deal was closed in my dinner wasn't it? Hey Cook, but that could have happened in other restaurants ... well choose another restaurant. Hey but these customer in particular likes your restaurant ... Cook: Well you see, what have I told you Bling Bling.



And our customer in common pays the bill. Sweet.

I think this is mostly:
- agree is some points
- disagree in some others
- and for the rest agree to disagree

 

[Nuno Lopes]

You want to separate completely digital assets from physical assets …

You can see by my previous post that is not the case.

I don’t see such separation is needed for a company not to charge the sale of a thing that it does not sell, host, distribute or create.

The OS is required for the Device to work and the App to run. The OS, to deliver its usefulness and run also requires the Device and Apps to work as intended

All these 3 properties require each other to function yet belong to different entities. Yet only one property owner in practice controls all of them from a value standpoint and gets payed for use of its property. The OS owner, Apple, that changes policies every couple of months or so.

The others are to blindly trust this entity, having no legal framework to stand upon. When the … hits the fan, say another policy change now to charge for grocery sales, suck it up or take your losses and move on. Is this the future of commerce with smart cars, smart house, smart glasses, so on and so forth?

This does not look balanced at all in terms of property rights by any measure. This kind of problems can only be solved with legislation, especially when lacking.

If the device and the platform are indivisible, then the owner of the device already payed for the use of the platform and it’s abilities including running Apps, meaning that is logically indivisible too. But it seams that Apple argues that Device, the OS and the App Store are divisible when talking with Devs, yet indivisible when talking with customers and the Gov.

It’s splitting hairs for double charges. If it the Device, the OS and the App Store where divisible yes, its logically to charging capabilities separately. But it’s not the case argued by Apple is it?

Customers pay the “OS” billions to run an App and then pay the “OS” for the App to run. Isn’t this the same thing? If all it’s components are indivisible … one and the same … why pay more than once for each device for the same capability? Whatever royalties to run an App should be included in the Device price tag in order not double charge for the same capacity. The IP for such capacity is already payed buy the device owner.

You see … when you move a Car you move the entire thing not just part. You may pay for fuel, but not again for the ability run. Neither are petrol stations embedding in petrol the price the Car IP once again, just their IP and fuel. Yet in the digital real all this makes sense, sell the same capabilities more than once by giving the perception people are paying for something different. Hehehe.

So we can only assume that the App Store fees are not down to royalties … right? It’s for App distribution and the sale of Apps. But why is than charging for more than Apps, including things that it does not sell. Than you say … use of IP … loop again …

Tim Cook might as well want to charge for the use of its properties … but he cannot define unilaterally property and property rights, not even in his home … that is one of legislators. That is the pact we have with society. The perception of property is not the same as property … he seams to be playing with that.

That doesn't mean they do a perfect job and get everything right and are totally above board and transparent.

Yes. No one is arguing such sort of thing. Neither are companies above the board.

We are all learning. Mistakes will be done by the Gov and Big Tech … but we need to believe that decisions will converge to the right decisions for US citizens. Without that pact what you will have is either chaos or tyranny, monkey business.

 

[BaldiMac]

But find me a link where this has been held up in court. I can write anything in an agreement and it does not mean a thing until it is held up in court. In fact, most companies like Apple have avoided this going to court because they cannot predict the outcome.

You see there is this small problem. I pay my money at the Apple store for an iPhone, then take it home. I have bought the phone. I did not agree to any software agreement when I bought my phone. Period. If Apple disables my phone they have stolen my money. That is just the way the law works. Hmmm.

Imagine taking your car to the gas station and filling it up. Then you find out that your car won't start because you did not use the brand of gasoline the car manufacturer required. The car manufacturer was only thinking about the engine and making sure you used the most expensive gasoline because that was best for the engine.

You think that would stand up in court. Of course not.

Until this is challenged in court, it is just a big dark spot that everyone walks around and fanboys like to spout about. Does not change the fact that it is wrong.

Software use agreements are held up in court all the time. Including Apple's.

Apple Wins Permanent Injunction Against Psystar

On Tuesday, Apple won a permanent injunction against Psystar following summary judgement in favor of Apple's claims of copyright infringement and...

www.macrumors.com

 

[I7guy]

[...]


Yes. No one is arguing such sort of thing. Neither are companies above the board.

We are all learning. Mistakes will be done by the Gov and Big Tech … but we need to believe that decisions will converge to the right decisions for US citizens. Without that pact what you will have is either chaos or tyranny, monkey business.

I agree. But lawmakers have had flawed bills before this, and will have flawed bills after this. And imo, this is a flawed bill.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

… imo, this is a flawed bill.

As far as I read, if the solution put forward is mandatory side-loading … I also believe its a flawed bill. No need for such a technical measure.

I would be more inclined to agree with a law that blocked these companies ability:

- of mandating a percentage of each sale of things that they do not comercialize, in or out of Apps.
- ban third party businesses from competing in equal terms on users devices because of it.
- of double charging for the same thing.

Yes, democratic government systems are flawed as much as anything else. Yet as a system for governing a society its better than Apple, its better than any Big Tech. Apple answers to its shareholders. A government answers to all its Country citizens and businesses.

 

[I7guy]

As far as I read, if the solution put forward is mandatory side-loading … I also believe its a flawed bill. No need for such a technical measure.

I would be more inclined to agree with a law that blocked these companies ability:

- of mandating a percentage of each sale of things that they do not comercialize, in or out of Apps.
- ban third party businesses from competing in equal terms on users devices because of it.
- of double charging for the same thing.

Yes, democratic government systems are flawed as much as anything else. Yet as a system for governing a society its better than Apple, its better than any Big Tech. Apple answers to its shareholders. A government answers to all its Country citizens and businesses.

Electing to use Apple's (or googles) app store platform as a distribution point to render services or products and earn revenue from such services or products should entitle Apple (or google) a percentage of the revenue.

Now the government may not like this and decide to cut it off at the knees, however, our representatives should, imo be concerned with other stuff. But that is me and these things will do what these things will do.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Electing to use Apple's (or googles) app store platform as a distribution point to render services or products and earn revenue from such services or products should entitle Apple (or google) a percentage of the revenue.

Two words used here that create a manipulative reality distortion field:

“Electing”: No digital businesses elected the App Store. What happens in reality is that digital businesses customers are using smartphones, in the US 50% or so have chosen the iPhone for reasons none to do with such ill practice.

”Entitle”: Apple uses all the time distribution channels for their devices and OS, they get a fee of the sale of the device, but none of them are entitled to say a percentage of the App Store revenue, part of the device. If say Best Buy or any other Store selling iPhones came with such demands it would be the comedy of the day … A software program is as much as is an iPhone … its just that one is made of hardware+software and the other is just software. App Store sells and distributes Software Programes / Devices, nothing more, just like Best Buy sells and distributes iPhones.

This practice (entitlements) are fundamentally Apple business “innovation” and its overstepping third party propetry rights in my view, common rights of both businesses and iPhone/iPad users. Its should be stoped by law, its an abusive anti competitive practice. This practice is not consented but forced … actually came after with policies changes.

 

[Michael Scrip]

This practice is mostly Apple business innovation and its overstepping third party propetry rights in my view. It should be stopped by law, it's an abusive anti-competitive practice.

So what's the solution here?

Apple shouldn't be allowed to collect a commission?

And if collecting a commission is such a big no-no... why wasn't this addressed 14 years ago when the App Store was first opened?

 

[I7guy]

Two words used here that create a manipulative reality distortion field:

“Electing”: No digital businesses elected the App Store. What happens in reality is that digital businesses customers are using smartphones, in the US 50% or so have chosen the iPhone for reasons none to do with such ill practice.

Electing is a synonym here for "opt-in". Nobody is forcing anybody to use a particular means of distributing products or services. Web services via a browser is available on most platforms. App store is a particular use of a distribution mechanism and akin to a physical store where manufacturers pay slotting fees and the store gets a percentage of the goods sold. There is no ill practice.

”Entitle”: Apple uses all the time distribution channels for their devices and OS, they get a fee of the sale of the device, but none of them are entitled to say a percentage of the App Store revenue, part of the device.

We'll have to disagree on this point.

If say Best Buy or any other Store selling iPhones came with such demands it would be the comedy of the day … A software program is as much as is an iPhone … its just that one is made of hardware+software and the other is just software. App Store sells and distributes Software Programes / Devices, nothing more, just like Best Buy sells and distributes iPhones.

This practice (entitlements) are fundamentally Apple business “innovation” and its overstepping third party propetry rights in my view, common rights of both businesses and iPhone/iPad users. Its should be stoped by law, its an abusive anti competitive practice.

Again, we will have to disagree.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

So what's the solution here?

It does not require much brains to come up with multiple options:

- If the App is for sale App Stores gets a commission for selling it or selling the subscription for its updates. Just like any other Store selling iPhone devices or Apple Music subscriptions / vouchers. 30% if you will ..

- If the App is provided for free, then simply charge for the hosting and distribution of the App … Just like any digital host … website hosts, files hosts and so on are examples of such thing that serve as inspiration to come up with a model.

- If the business want to use the App Store and payment billing system … pay fee for that … like its done with Paypal and other similar services for models.

None of the above requires charges over services not provided by the App Store, or over things it does not sell. It respects third party properties as well as Apples.

No need for side loading for businesses to have these standard options. Heck even Facebook and Twitter could join in and contributes.

Finally …

- If the businesses needs the all shebang, provide the app for free+Apple marketing+App Store payment processing+ billing …. the simplicity and all well leave 30% to Apple for whatever. Your choice.

So you see, there are multiple ways Apple can get payed. The last one, is not the only possible option, its just that only option allowed by the company business policies at the moment.

Cheers.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Electing is a synonym here for "opt-in".

When 50% of your customers use a smartphone of a particular brand there are not many options to stay in the game, even less options when you compete with Apple digital services. Unless one consider the use of “force” as one of applying physical force, you know tying people and so on … there are many ways to apply pressure for entities to opt for options that wouldn’t opt otherwise.

 

[Michael Scrip]

It does not require much brains to come up with multiple options:

Are you calling me brainless?

?

- If the App is for sale get a commission for selling it or selling the subscription for its updates. Just like any other device store.

That sounds like the current App Store.

Apple gets a commission on all sales and subscriptions inside the store.

- If the App is provided for free and the business charge for the distribution of the App … Just like any distribution channel.

That sounds like the current App Store.

There are plenty of "free" apps that have external subscriptions. See Netflix, Spotify, etc.

Apple doesn't get a cut from external purchases and subscriptions.

- If the business want to use the App Store and payment billing system … pay fee for that … like its done with Paypal and other similar services

That sounds like the current App Store.

If the developer uses Apple's App Store and Apple's billing system... Apple gets a cut.

- If the businesses needs the all shebang … well pay 30% whatever.

Again... that's the current App Store.

 

[vipergts2207]

When 50% of your customers use a smartphone of a particular brand there is not much option to stay in the game, even less options when you compete with Apple digital services. Unless one consider the use of “force” as one of applying physical force, you know tying people and so on … there are many ways to apply force.

The argument you're responding to is about as insightful as one claiming nobody forces you to work. Well true, nobody forces anyone to go to their job at gunpoint, however most people have a severe aversion to starving and being homeless. So we all work, even if we'd rather not.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Are you calling me brainless?

No. That wasn’t my intention. But, your question is quite recurrent as of suggesting that if things aren’t done the way its currently done … Apple would not be able to be payed for its services entirely. Which is a fallacy of course.

Apple has many options to skin the cat, some less abusive of third party property properties than others in my opinion.

Now, if you consider that all options individually is the current App Store …. than maybe you need to borrow some .

Currently, there is only one option, the last one that packages all the others services into one leading to mandatory in app charges into things the App Store does not sell or host. Mandatory because there are no other options. Of there where, it wouldn’t be mandatory. There is a difference.

If the App Store sells your app, and than inside the App say you sell dating arrangements, Apple still required 30% of that sale, you cannot link the user to outside payment, neither offer alternative payments in app … This IMHO is an abusive practice.

Furthermore, there is no way to pay just for distribution of the App, giving any and all digital businesses the freedom to sell their goods and services in app as they lawfully please. They need opt for the App Store billing and payment, for in app sales regardless. Businesses do the sale in App up into the point the users needs to pay … at which point the cake is given to Apple for it to bill, sum and stack the all thing up into its revenue books. You know some accounting right?

So you see, your conclusion is far off

Cheers.

 

[Michael Scrip]

If the App Store sells your app, and than inside the App say you sell dating arrangements, Apple still required 30% of that sale, you cannot link the user to outside payment, neither offer alternative payments in app…

I'm still confused why "dating apps" get charged the 30%

I thought Apple didn't get a cut from non-digital purchases?

Apple doesn't get 30% from a transportation arrangement like Uber or Lyft, right?

So why would Apple get 30% from a dating arrangement?

But I guess that's what this whole Dutch dating hubbub is all about!

 

[I7guy]

When 50% of your customers use a smartphone of a particular brand there are not many options to stay in the game, even less options when you compete with Apple digital services. Unless one consider the use of “force” as one of applying physical force, you know tying people and so on … there are many ways to apply pressure for entities to opt for options that wouldn’t opt otherwise.

Yes, one can choose their platform and manufacturer to showcase their digital wares.

 

[gregmancuso]

I'm still confused why "dating apps" get charged the 30%

I thought Apple didn't get a cut from non-digital purchases?

Apple doesn't get 30% from a transportation arrangement like Uber or Lyft, right?

So why would Apple get 30% from a dating arrangement?

But I guess that's what this whole Dutch dating hubbub is all about!

I guess I should actually visit Holland and download one of these stupid apps. Am I being naïve and thinking these apps are just processing subscriptions through the IAP? That seems reasonable.

If they are in fact the iPhone equivalent of a Red Light District "window" and the IAP is actually buying 60 minutes with a particular person? If the latter I would think it would fall more along the lines of Uber and there would be no cut since you are just "hiring a ride."

 

[devinci99]

DAM. Can I just get this right though, you would only be at risk of you download a sideloaded app right? If you keep to AppStore apps wouldn’t it still technically be secure?

If someone access your phone while it was unlocked they could sideload a Trojan horse.

How often do you hand over your phone to a stranger to take a photo or check something on it?

I handed over my phone to to show an e receipt to best but two the other day. But with apple I know they can’t do much with it cause it doesn’t allow sideloading.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I'm still confused why "dating apps" get charged the 30%

I thought Apple didn't get a cut from non-digital purchases?

Apple doesn't get 30% from a transportation arrangement like Uber or Lyft, right?

So why would Apple get 30% from a dating arrangement?

But I guess that's what this whole Dutch dating hubbub is all about!

Now we are getting to the crux of the matter. Currently Apple, operating on 50% Americans pockets can unilaterally mandate charges for whatever within an App of any business on users devices. From software licenses, to groceries … health insurance … you name it, sky is the limit. As long as the final deal (click the buy button) happens in-app (wait for an Apple chip in your arm, we aren’t yet there, say a in-arm purchase device …get the pun. As ridiculous as this in app principle and boundary to charge commerce fees or not may sound as pretext, this is the on going practice of App Stores today.

The fact that they don’t currently charge for the in-app sale of say groceries, cars …, X or Y, … all without actually selling nothing of these things it does not mean that it will not come in the future. They are doing it now, dating arrangements an example out of many of such things. In fact, considering the company policies seam to be so fluid, over what to charge and not, it might, in 10, 20 years who knows. There is no regulation conditioning such practice that businesses and customers can rely on.

Apple’s in-app-purchase device changes commerce game completely in very profound and negative ways. For the first time, since ever I guess, through the use of technology a company can apply force for the installation of a device on properties that aren’t theirs (user smartphone and businesses software properties) to bill for whatever thing the company wants to bill in return or using an consumer OS. Empowered by a market share of smartphone sales.

There are simply no legal boundaries and regulation for the application of such a device like there are with others used for similar practices, say electrical meter boxes. In comparison, the in app purchase device, is like an commerce meter, a commerce surveillance system within the citizens pocket. Whatever you buy in App, Apple knows. If it does not know, either its ready to be banned, or does not want o know … yet.

You may think that, Apples current policies protect you from abuse but it makes no sense. This its the line of though that leads to your current post. The way I see, Apple is already the abuser when mandating fees over the sale of things it does not sell, host or distribute. All based on a fallacy, that we already discussed and that was broken in pieces using simple logical reasoning.

I believe that laws needs to evolve to actually cope with the fact that the digital matter is as real as the physical matter. An App, is as much as of a device as an iPhone. Just because one cannot physically touch an App, it does not make it less. Especially when we are at the border with things such as VR, Smarhouses, Cars, Glasses … Arms (wait for actual accessible bionics). If Apple did with iPhones what digital businesses are doing with their Apps, they could give the iPhone for free, yet they would still need to pay the Stores for distribution and hosting the device in the shelves. Same principles.

You may think, that regulating this would be bad for Apple businesses. Well I believe otherwise and have some facts to back this line of though up. Take a look at the HomePod, another Apple device. It was build exclusively for Apple services, keeping the digital world at bay … Well the HomePod was discontinued as it was not really that usefull. Meaning, digital businesses with their Apps bring incredible intangible value to Apple devices that are built towards their contributions. Value that Apple is able to convert in devices sales and their own services exposure and sales (trillion valuations).

If Apple back than applied the HomePod way to the iPhone design … entirely focused on Apple services … I wonder if it would have a different result. Anyway this is speculation. I’m glad it did not, I am glad it came with the App Store, its lovely to have a central place to get Apps from anyone. Let’s keep it that way.

We just need recognise that for the public to benefit from such a thing and businesses such as Apple to have a profit and incentive to sell and distribute software devices, Apps: digital businesses and users do not need opt in for App Store fees on the sale of things it does not sell, host or distribute: music, videos, “TV” broadcasting, dating arrangement, remote lessons of whatever, remote communication … groceries, insurance, transportation … whatever ... commerce in general that might happen in App …. makes no sense. No sense at all and its an abuse of power over the smartphone users and digital businesses that have them as customers! Its just a machine built that way that no smartphone buyer actually opted in, neither did businesses as policies changed in time in the middle of OS updates, better displays, performance, cameras …. Its all down to the application of clever communication, application of business leverages typical of conglomerates and market pressure. Nothing more.

If you take the human dating and mating context as a motif to bring to light a practice, you’ll discover that the Dutch have a very sophisticated sense of humour.

 

[kc9hzn]

Now we are getting to the crux of the matter. Currently Apple, operating on 50% Americans pockets can unilaterally mandate charges for whatever within an App of any business on users devices. From software licenses, to groceries … health insurance … you name it, sky is the limit.

Yes, but we’re also talking about letting an entity with the following characteristics set the parameters when we discuss regulation: entity operates on 100% of Americans, can unilaterally mandate changes on virtually every business transaction (and on virtually every aspect of our private lives, apparently including those categories of things that are supposed to be off limits per the Bill of Rights: see the restrictions on the exercise of religion that occurred during the pandemic, also restrictions on protesting COVID measures in April and May of 2020 but the about-face on protesting that occurred after George Floyd’s murder), and an entity that claims to be democratic and claims to act in the public interest but often acts in self serving ways. And since we’re talking regulatory bodies here, we’re talking entities to whom the first line of appeal is themselves (that is, in the United States, the “court” of appeal that you appeal any regulatory proceeding to is a special body of the same regulatory agency, which seems like a conflict of interest to me, after all how unlikely are they to rule against themselves). And most people live in locations where they have little say or influence over their elected officials. For instance, I live in New York state, and I am one voice countered by so many others. In what sane way could Senator Schumer be described as representing me? Never mind that when a congressperson reaches that level of power, their everyday individual constituents aren’t likely to catch their ear when the lobbyists start calling. (The problem with lobbyists, though, isn’t so much that they exist but that individual congresspeople can get unreasonably strong and that local constituents aren’t empowered to be able to exercise more power against a rogue congressperson that ceases to represent them— or that opts to only represent a certain percentage of them by being hyper-partisan.)

The problem with the idea of government regulations on something like this is the odds that they’ll mess it up big time (likely as a result of lobbying from companies like Epic). The incentive to “get it right” just isn’t all that strong for them, and folks like Epic are driving the narrative. (In reality, Epic’s beef isn’t about paying the Apple 30% on IAPs as it is more about being able to make money on an Epic Game Store port to iOS, so they’re incentivized to break iOS security using regulatory pressure.) Heck, look at building security and elevator safety. Most state governments mandate a certain elevator key as part of code, but these keys are almost all fairly easily copied and/or picked, and the elevator key can provide dramatic levels of control of the elevator in a way that makes people less secure. And many of these keys were chosen on the basis of lobbying efforts by lock manufacturers. And once you require an exception to a security policy for regulatory reasons, that exception exposes new attack vectors and increases the surface area of attacks.

Also, for what it’s worth, you claim that Apple isn’t a distributor, but, from a technical level, they kinda are the distributor of apps on the App Store. Especially for apps that get the App of the Week boost or an App Store story.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

The problem with the idea of government regulations on something like this is the odds that they’ll mess it up big time (likely as a result of lobbying from companies like Epic).

I understand that Big Tech boards and shareholders “believe” that no government in the Planet has the competence to discuss their matters. As such be above any Governement.

(In reality, Epic’s beef isn’t about paying the Apple 30% on IAPs as it is more about being able to make money on an Epic Game Store port to iOS, so they’re incentivized to break iOS security using regulatory pressure.)

You seam to argue Governements on these matter are some sort of puppet of Epic. I think a theory that bares no rationale.

Also, for what it’s worth, you claim that Apple isn’t a distributor, but, from a technical level, they kinda are the distributor of apps on the App Store. Especially for apps that get the App of the Week boost or an App Store story.

I’ve never claimed that the App Store was not a distributor and seller of Apps. But that it was a distributor and seller of just Apps, not of anything else. Yet, as absurd as it is the App Store policies seams to move towards not charging for that but commerce … in other words, charging for things that does not distribute or sell. All on top of properties it does not own, case in case the Apps and the users Smartphones.

EDIT: Simplification …

Apps are devices like is an iPhone or a Car. The App Store deals Apps like a Car Dealer deals with Cars … yet it’s policies are not towards charging for the Sale or lease/subscription of Cars. The thing that actually deals with. But the actual use of a Car for whatever reason. This for Cars that aren’t theirs to charge the use of.

Car dealers charge for the Car not its use. The same as any stores selling devices, say Best Buy … charge for the sale of an iPhone … not its use. Why … not to mention that technically it would be impossible to implement such practice … it would be extremely unfair and abusive.

If inside your Car, while on the road you close a deal of 1M, say a dating arrangement, why is the Car dealer entitled 300K? It’s absurd. But somehow the same thing happens inside your App, Apple can demand 300k cut by forcing its own POS (in app purchase device). In order not to, one you’ll need stop the Car, leave and close the deal outside your own stupid Car. It’s totally absurd!!

Now it Apple doing this … all seams reasonable … due to fallacious reasonings. I think the world as playedong enough with such a farce of policies.

App Stores dealing with Apps, yes. App Store imposing direct charges over deals concerning things that they don’t deal with … no. Of course not.

 

[I7guy]

I understand that Big Tech boards and shareholders “believe” that no government in the Planet has the competence to discuss their matters. As such be above any Governement.



[...]

Logical fallacy alert. Does government get it right 100%.