Mark Zuckerberg Said Apple Is Charging 'Monopoly Rents' With Its 'Stranglehold' On iPhones (buzzfeednews.com) 162
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg took a swing at Apple on Thursday, calling the iPhone maker's app store monopolistic and harmful to customers during a company-wide meeting. From a report: "[Apple has] this unique stranglehold as a gatekeeper on what gets on phones," Zuckerberg said to more than 50,000 employees via webcast. He added that the Cupertino, California-based company's app store "blocks innovation, blocks competition" and "allows Apple to charge monopoly rents." While the Facebook CEO was specifically answering a question about Apple blocking gaming-related apps, his comments came at a time where authorities are scrutinizing both Silicon Valley giants for antitrust behavior. [...] Zuckerberg's comments were another signal that there's no love lost in the long-contentious relationship between the leader of the social network and the $2 trillion electronic device maker. "That's innovation that could really improve people's lives," Zuckerberg said on Thursday. "And Apple's just balking at it."
Translation... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Mark Zuckerberg is actually hurting Epic. While I have some minor empathy for Epic's position against Apple and I think there's a solution that both parties could have agreed to without the courts, I have absolutely none at all for Facebook. When I read Zuck's complaints I think "good, go Apple".
Re: (Score:2)
While I have some minor empathy for Epic's position against Apple and I think there's a solution that both parties could have agreed to without the courts
Epic is going to win.
Re: (Score:3)
If Epic does win, and it just might, it will be interesting to see what this does to the consoles. Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony have been doing this for ages.
Deep linking into face book (Score:2)
Let me know when mark lets me deep link and google search all of face book without being signed in.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, what I understood from Zuck is that he wants large tech companies that got too powerful to be broken up.
Re: (Score:2)
The 30% is admittedly standard (way too high) across Google and Apple. The main difference is that Google is strictly speaking optional relative to their platform, but mandatory on Apple.
Facebook cares less about that and more about changes in iOS that reduce their ability to gather the data they would want to target ads.
Sorta right but wrong messenger (Score:5, Interesting)
The Zuck has a point, but it's a sticky situation. I think Apple should have every right to profit off it's ecosystem, they built it, they maintain it and it's very popular. On the other hand I do find it wrong that they feel able to take a cut of essentially any transaction that takes place on an iPhone almost. On the balance I think the issue is that percentage. 30% seems very excessive for what boils down to development and hosting, especially at the scale they are operating at. I would think with a cut closer to 5-10% this would have never become an issue but 1 out of every 3 dollars is going to make companies principally upset eventually.
That said Zuckerberg can fuck right off and I hope Apples new privacy system starts ball rolling downhill on FB.
He doesn't really (Score:5, Interesting)
As for excessive, 30% is golden compared to the good old days of cell phones locked down by carrier. Try 40-60% and the SDK was $25,000. And you had to do that for every, single, carrier.
Could Apple charge less? Hard to say. For smaller apps that don't sell well probably not. Microsoft dropped the indies because even at 30% they weren't making any money off them on XBox. They could do a multi-tired system (which is what Zuck really wants since it would make it harder for competitors while maybe even leaving him room for a cut) but that's not going to go over well.
Re: (Score:2)
not so long as Android exists and hold the kind of market share it does. It won't fly in court.
You mean the Android in which customers also pay a 30% tax? If there is defacto collusion between two duopolies that's no better for consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
"As for excessive, 30% is golden compared to the good old days of cell phones locked down by carrier."
The bad old cellphone days you talk about was basically a carrier duopoly; and now we've traded that for a os-vendor duopoly. That's not much progress of the free market.
And remember, apps in the crappy old days of dealing the carriers weren't terribly lucrative. Mobile operating systems were
"Could Apple charge less? Hard to say."
It's not that hard. We force them to allow 3rd party stores onto the phone, an
Yes and no (Score:2)
And like I said, XBox literally couldn't make a profit selling Indie games with a 30% cut. This is a fact, and it's why they dropped them. They picked them back up because of fan backlash, but that doesn't mean they're profitable, just that they don't want to risk people buying PlayStations to get the indies.
The support needed to keep these platforms running is expensive as hell. And yeah, Apple does make money off the hardware tha
Re: (Score:2)
5% is payment processor territory, and 10% would just cover a seller that gains some other revenue stream for the privilege— practically a loss-leader. The floor for Apple’s cut is likely 15%, and at that point they should get some form of revenue from “free” ad-supported software, as there is a cost to maintaining app standards that should be recovered... and, yes, profit.
Apple should have been smarter with their cut a couple years ago. It started out as a premium service, but it
Re: (Score:2)
5% is payment processor territory, and 10% would just cover a seller that gains some other revenue stream for the privilege— practically a loss-leader. The floor for Apple’s cut is likely 15%,
If Apple can't go lower, then they should allow alternate app stores on the devices, and alternate payment processors.
Apple does not own your device.
Re:Sorta right but wrong messenger (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the thing that baffles me most is where on earth did anyone get the idea that 30% is "too high" other retail stores have markup that far exceeds that. Apple does not run the app store as a public service for developers. They run it to make some profit for themselves too (as well as subsidize all the untold numbers of free apps provided).
Furthermore, it was actually Apple that got other digital platforms to lower their cut. Microsoft and Sony used to take 70% (and were also the only option for their platforms).
Book, video and music publishers have been taking almost all the profits for decades and it was only the rise of Apple, Google and Amazon that enabled content creators to have a platform where they actually get to keep 70% of the sale price.
And people are taking sides against Apple to support who exactly? Facebook, Spotify and Epic? Some of the most evil companies that exist today.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the thing that baffles me most is where on earth did anyone get the idea that 30% is "too high"
The hosting costs are much cheaper than that, and the transaction fees are much smaller than that. For comparison, look at the fees on the Mac.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple charging a 30% cut of sales from the app store is abusive, but they probably could have gotten away with it forever and ever if not for charging a 30% cut of sales through the apps purchased from the app store.
Re: (Score:2)
The 30% doesn't even include hosting costs associated with the subscription. Companies like Spotify/Netflix/Amazon would end up paying a 30% payment processing fee. Whatever a CDN costs - to actually serve up the content - is on top of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad both sides can't lose (Score:2)
Both have got far too much power to stifle potential competitors.
Scare quotes in headline? Pass (Score:2)
Always fun (Score:2)
*RUBS HANDS TOGETHER* (Score:2)
OH BOY!
I can't be the only one that loves to watch the infighting between the tech giants. Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon and Google taking pot-shots at each other always seems so funny to me when ultimately they're all trying to do the same thing. Get all the information, get all the eyeballs, make all the money.
Maybe we just stick all the CEOs into a steel cage match. Hell, I'd be willing to watch a PPV with Cook, Bezos, Zuckerberg, and the others going at it. I'd imagine there'd be some super pan
innovation that could really improve people's live (Score:4, Interesting)
ads, he's talking about directed ads. This does not improve anything. I'm tired that if I search for a thing then in the following hours my FB or IG feed is full of this thing even if I don't need it...
I just browse FB or IG about once a day because all my familty and relatives are on it and it's often the only way to have news/pics of them especially those who are far... else I would delete this damn FB, it's also full of covidiots.
I also never had an Apple device in my life and could care less, but a thumb up for Apple to try to respect people privacy, and a thumb down for they $ appetite
Sure it's no coincidence (Score:2)
Yes, that is correct. (Score:2)
POT. KETTLE. BLACK. (Score:2)
Yes, FaceBook thinks people are that stupid.
No surprise, I guess.
Stop developing for Apple, then. (Score:2)
If Facebook discontinued its iPhone app, and Netflix did, and so on, it would make the iPhone a much less attractive proposition for users and Apple would lose market share.
Once Apple cries "Uncle!", then you turn your attention to Android. If the big app makers united to divide Apple and Google, they could have a lot of influence. It does mean a willingness to take on short-term or even medium-term pain.
It's not about 30%. It's the iOS privacy lockdown (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not about the 30%. Face it, it's Facebook.
They already conceded that IOS14 will be a disaster for them because it's going to cut revenue in half from iPhone users as they can't slurp up your delicious user data.
The problem is, you can't convince people of that. Nor can you convince them it's a bad idea since Apple will force consent.
So instead you attack them by what they can do - the 30%. Facebook doesn't care about it - they have their own payment system in place and most people already use it. So the 30% means zilch to Facebook as few people even spend money using Apple on Facebook.
But they DO understand money, and you can say "Apple is teh evilz for 30%!" constnatly and people understand taht.
Because well, notice how Facebook doesn't go after Google for the same thing? The payment policies are the same - you h ave to use Google Pay on Android and Google takes 30%. But Android doesn't have all those revenue-hurting privacy protection.
And Facebook knows this. They also know that iPhone users are VERY profitable for Facebook as they are users that advertisers want - the ones willing to spend money. And with iOS14, the writing is on the wall because Apple literally cut off Facebook's oxygen supply.
No one complains about the 30%. Epic, Telegram, Facebook, etc. They don't care. They really care about the fact Apple has all this tracking information but refuse to share it.
You can bet iOS 15 will pretty much lock everything down to the point where Facebook and Epic will complain that they can't get user data at all even though they got their wish and have their own app stores on iOS. Maybe even something like Firewall iP which was the main reason I jailbroke - it's an outgoing firewall. There will be apps that will auto-add every tracker on the planet to Apple's implementation and automatically block ALL tracking and phone-home traffic.
Soon you'll find apps that beg you to turn on location services and to allow tracking because Big Bad Apple locks it away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
https://payam.minoofar.com/202... [minoofar.com]
Re: (Score:3)
iOS 14 privacy settings will tank ad targeting business, Facebook warns
Facebook is worried that users won't opt in to tracking when given the choice.
Facebook is warning developers that privacy changes in an upcoming iOS update will severely curtail its ability to track users' activity across the entire Internet and app ecosystem and prevent the social media platform from serving targeted ads to users inside other, non-Facebook apps on iPhones.
Closed, expensive, stifling. (Score:2)
We keep getting lost in the weeds (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is the same for all of these "Platforms"
You should not be allowed to both host the marketplace (and charge rent to use it) while at the same time selling things on said marketplace. Full stop.
30% cut is fine, as long as you are not opening yourself up to the possibility of undercutting your clients (people paying the 30% cut of sales to use the marketplace) by releasing cloned apps without the need to pay the 30% to yourself, or cloned products sold at a 30% discount, ect.
This is the root cause
Re:We keep getting lost in the weeds (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as gatekeepers go it's pretty clear that APPLE > MICROSOFT > GOOGLE > FACEBOOK. I choose Apple. If they every stop gatekeeping their products, I'm not sure what I would do. I guess I could tolerate an Android with an absolutely minimal plain-jane install. What a drag, though.
Effective gatekeeping is a valuable service.
Re: (Score:2)
You left out Amazon. Which is clearly between Apple and Facebook. Probably between Microsoft and Google.
The pot calling the kettle black (Score:2)
I love these feuds!
Hold your ground, Apple (Score:2)
Better translation: waaaaa. WAAAAAAAAA there are rules that prevent me from taking a huge steaming dump on my neighbors lawn!
I realize that maybe Apple needs to adjust things a bit in order to avoid strangling too many little players. But dammit, the constraints imposed by the App store is a big part of why my iPhone doesn't descend into the a steaming pile of malware, CPU-sucking crapware a
Make a... (Score:2)
Now's a good time to use this (Score:2)
STANDARD WALLED GARDEN (prison) REPLY FORM
Rev. 0
I see you are complaining about
[X] Apple [] M$ [] other:_____
You bought the device (un)knowingly
[X] That the above selected company is lord of the realm
[X] you should know by now corporations don't play fair
[X] You decided to give up freedom for:
[X] imagined security [X] to look hip [] because you just had to get that device specific app
Furthermore
[] You need to read the fine print
[] You should check out web forums to see if the device i
Re: (Score:2)
F^ck Zuck (Score:2)
Mark Zuckerberg is one of those people who just looks like he deserves a punch in the face.
"Citizen, why did you assault Mr. Zuckerberg?"
"Your Honour, just look at that smug little twerp and tell me you wouldn't like to smack the smirk right off his face."
"I see what you mean. Case dismissed."
I have an idea (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft got nailed to the wall for less (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to take seriously the claims that Apple is a monopoly when they account for 13.5% of all smartphones sold worldwide. Why not play in the the other 86.5% of the market until Apple changes their tune?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, stats I've found are more like 30% globaly, and 50% in the US.
It's big enough to worry, but small enough to not be Microsoft level of lack of options. I am unaware of any third party software that I personally want but can't use because I won't buy Apple, for example. However there definitely was a lot of such software when Microsoft got hit that was exclusive to Windows.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, stats I've found are more like 30% globaly, and 50% in the US.
The cool thing about statistics is that they can be twisted to suit your needs.
If you look at Apple's share of current sales by units, you get about 13%.
If you look at Apple's share of current sales by revenue, you get about 30%.
If you look at Apple's share of the installed base, you get yet another number.
If you look at Apple's app store revenue, it is more than all the Android app stores combined.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
At least with android it is possible to download non store apps and or use a second store. ( They are still probably skirting the law and should make it a lot easier.) Still there is a significant difference between not intentionally enabling something vs actively working to prevent it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft got nailed to the wall for less (Score:5, Interesting)
The hassle of changing between iPhone and Android is not that big in either direction. I say that as someone with several hundred dollars worth of apps. Inertia is a bigger issue in limiting conversion rates.
Contrast that with the complexity of getting off Facebook’s ecosystem. Who is the monopoly?!
Re: (Score:2)
You've paid 'hundreds' of dollars for iPhone apps? Holy crap. I've been on Android since the beginning and I've hardly ever paid up front or an app.
- Necron69
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You've paid 'hundreds' of dollars for iPhone apps? Holy crap. I've been on Android since the beginning and I've hardly ever paid up front or an app.
- Necron69
And people are surprised that developers make money on iPhone apps...
Re: (Score:2)
You've paid 'hundreds' of dollars for iPhone apps? Holy crap. I've been on Android since the beginning and I've hardly ever paid up front or an app.
- Necron69
So you’re one of those people who wouldn’t dream of paying $10 for a game, so you pay $1.99/month in perpetuity or spend 50% of your gaming time shopping for stuff in the “store” so that you may have some hope of winning. You’re the reason all games are more or less shopping apps. You’ve also never used some of t
Re: (Score:2)
I'll pay $60 for a game, but I don't play games on my phone. I use it for making phones calls, looking at the map, or occasionally browsing the web. I've got a $30-50 gift card for google play sitting around somewhere, I don't see myself using it anytime soon.
Re: Microsoft got nailed to the wall for less (Score:2)
I have games on my phone, and in the past I have paid for games that I think are good.
Over the past 10 years I've owned an Android device I've might have spent $15 tops total on games. Less for the odd paid app I couldn't find a suitable freeware alternative for.
I have no interest in games that require loot boxes or any of that crap to progress or win. None of the games I have even require an internet connection, other than a couple ad supported games, and they work fine even in 'airplane mode'.
Hund
Re: Microsoft got nailed to the wall for less (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)ve been an iPhone user since the iPhone 4 came out. Iâ(TM)ve probably spent less than GBP 20 on apps, and no subscriptions. I donâ(TM)t see the need of any of the things that cost money. Most things can be done in a browser anyway, which comes with much better control of privacy and security. For things like music, Iâ(TM)m still adding to my CD collection and rip everything to FLAC and AAC, as Iâ(TM)ve been dong since long before the iPhone came out.
Re: (Score:2)
You've paid 'hundreds' of dollars for iPhone apps? Holy crap. I've been on Android since the beginning and I've hardly ever paid up front or an app.
Yup. My spouse has an app business and 95% of her revenue is from iOS.
Android users are cheapskates. They don't pay for apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's complex to get off Facebook? It's no more complex than getting off Slashdot- you simply stop visiting it (as many former Slashdotters will attest to).
If, however, you're referring to getting out of their data-tracking then yes that's probably impossible.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There are laws against illegal tying that this probably runs afoul of, enforcement just hadn’t caught up with technology.
If the only reason you can’t use other stores is because Apple blocks your ability to do so, it’ll eventually have to stop.
I mean, when automakers used to do this and require you only use certain brand parts for your car, you could argue that it was their car business, you knew what you we’re getting when you bought it, could have bought a different car, etc.
This c
Re: (Score:2)
I say, let Facebook and Apple fight it out in the market. Personally, I am happy not using Facebook on my iPhone and have voted my preference with my $$.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Microsoft got nailed to the wall for less (Score:2)
You can buy iPhones from many places. This is like being forced to buy digital version PlayStation games from the PlayStation store, which is exactly the current situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Bookmarks can be migrated.
By your average user? Without a Mac to run the desktop version of Safari?
Photographs can be migrated.
Easily if you have a computer, but otherwise, only with considerable difficulty.
Music libraryâ(TM)s can be migrated/transcoded to/as MP3 or whatever format you use. If one uses Apple Music or whatever they donâ(TM)t have to purchase music through the Apple store they can just use your existing MP3s or whatever in the player.
But if they did purchase music through the Apple store, they can't move it unless it is DRM-free. At least at one time, that involved paying an additional per-track fee. Not sure if that's still true. And for movies and TV shows that you've purchased (why?), you can't get DRM-free versions at all, AFAIK.
DRM doesn't cease to be a barrier to portability just because you could have avoided it by not buying something that you already bought.
If you purchase a VPN app that subscription transfers over.
If the VPN app has a version on the other platform. And that only applies to software that involves a monthly subscription fee. Any app that you actually buy becomes worthless when you switch platforms. And in-app purchases to unlock ad-free versions of shareware-style apps are also not necessarily honored if you switch platforms.
Looking at the list of apps that I use on a regular basis, there's at least one critical paid app for which no Android version exists and no Android equivalent exists even if I were willing to pay for the app all over again. That's what lock-in looks like; my migration strategy would involve quitting my job so that I could spend a year writing the software that I need. That's the polar opposite of your experience.
For most users, reality lies somewhere in between those two extremes, with a mixture of minor inconveniences, significant hurdles, and things that you paid for and can no longer use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much. Apple has no monopoly. Sure, they managed to create a cult, but if that were monopolistic, all the large religions would need to be banned. (Not that I would mind in principle, although I am aware this would not work. People are very much in love with their delusions.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion the market for addware subsidized smartphones and feature phones are substantially seperate from non addware smartphones.
That leaves iPhones with Pinephone and Librem as the only commercial competitors ... that's a much bigger monopoly than Microsoft ever had.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You do not need a monopoly for tying to be illegal. Tying is illegal in general, even with robust competition.
Apple requires that you use only iOS on you handheld computer, which is an OS that they have “licensed” one-sidedly in order to retain control of your personal property, without offering you consideration for using your phone to serve their interests. Such lack of consideration invalidates whatever “agreement” they convinced you that you had.
If someone sold you a server an
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Tying is not necessarily illegal.
Tying is illegal, at both the federal and the state level.
The iPhone is sold with IOS installed. Together they represent the product as sold and to which any guarantees and warranties apply.
Your argument is that the phone and the OS are a single product. Epic's argument is that a payment processor is a completely different product, separate from the OS/phone, and also that an App Store is a completely different product.
Apple's counter-argument is that they own your phone, it is theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Target the biggest (by revenue) bully in the town. I have doubts about Zuck's angle on this though, he sounds like he's just salty because he's not in on the app-market racket.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Microsoft got nailed to the wall for less (Score:2)
My main issue is that they dont allow anyone else to communicate with iMessages. That is anti-competitive because if your friends and family are on iPhone and you are forced to SMS .. which costa money in many plans and is made to lack many convenience things like appearing across devices via iCloud especially when your phone is offline.
They should either open iMessages up, even if it requires a certification process, or at least support RCS on the same level as iMessages.
Re: Microsoft got nailed to the wall for less (Score:2)
Given that the majority of people donâ(TM)t have an Apple device, I find a good chunk of my messaging is via WhatsApp instead of iMessage. I hate using a Facebook app, but thatâ(TM)s the way it is. So Iâ(TM)m not sure what your point is because it doesnâ(TM)t reflect reality.
Would you like to cite precedent? (Score:2)
As a voter I get to have an opinion on what the laws of my country are.
As a member of a democracy I understand that my opinion doesn't immediately apply to reality. There is some give and take when 250m other people with varying opinions on the subject.
As a lay person, I know that a judge determines the law, not a law firm. Winning cases is ideal for a law firm's reputation, billing hours is what ultimately sustains the business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
no, they will not license their software to anyone who makes hardware so they have a complete monopoly and the hardware and software market. (Neither of which is illegal). They only crossed the legal line when they used that monopoly to control prices and offerings in a third market where they do not have a monopoly, ( The IOS app market).
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the day MS had over 90% market share. If you had any computer that might have the ability to run MS products, you could be sued if you did not have a MS license. MS created a web framework in IE that developers used to create websites that would only run on IE.
Mos
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the monopoly?
The monopoly is on iOS app distribution.
Software is a commodity. Imagine if Apple demanded a 30% cut on every OSX program . What if tomorrow they changed the OSX license to say that you could only install OSX apps from the App Store?
Sure, a certain group of folks would jizz in their pants and it would be a victory for their purchased identity, but what about people without that particular disorder?
A world in which corporations have that much control over the personal property of peop
Re: (Score:2)
Typed on a tablet with autocorrect. What the fuck is sushi’s paradigm? Thanks Apple.
Oh well, I stand by it. I am uncomfortable with sushi’s paradigm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple does have a monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
At which point the iOS ecosystem would become infested with malware exactly the same way that the Android ecosystem has. The walled garden is a feature, not a bug.
Allow side loading of apps into iOS, and you'll have telephone scammers from "Apple Support" calling up people to walk them through the side loading process. Apple knows that, and that's why they'll never allow it to happen.
Re:Apple does have a monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
At which point the iOS ecosystem would become infested with malware exactly the same way that the Android ecosystem has. The walled garden is a feature, not a bug.
Allow side loading of apps into iOS, and you'll have telephone scammers from "Apple Support" calling up people to walk them through the side loading process. Apple knows that, and that's why they'll never allow it to happen.
This is a VERY valid point that is often overlooked (intentionally or not) and is one of the reasons why as a consumer I prefer the Apple ecosystem.
However, as a developer I'm a bit torn. On one hand, the percentage they retain is a bit high but on the other hand, how much would it cost me to host my own apps and provide a user friendly system for purchasing. Not to mention the reporting and app download statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the cost of selling across industries (net of payment processing fees). A 43% markup is a little on the high side (more comparable to brick and mortar retail), but doing the sales portion of the work warrants somewhere between a 25-33% markup. (20-25% Commission)
If you think you are deprived of money by Apple, raise your prices.
The legitimate complaints come in with much more expensive software, where Apple’s value proposition is closer to $0.30-1.50, but they are charging $9.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at this from Apple's point of view. Current system: collect 30% on everything. Allow sideloading: don't collect 30% on everything.
Why in the world would they want to "make this ALL go away"? It is a free money machine for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At which point the iOS ecosystem would become infested with malware exactly the same way that the Android ecosystem has.
The iOS ecosystem is already infested with malware. Apple has delivered malware from their special store in the past.
Allow side loading of apps into iOS, and you'll have telephone scammers from "Apple Support" calling up people to walk them through the side loading process. Apple knows that, and that's why they'll never allow it to happen.
Apple knows the level at which their users operate, and that they're dumb enough to fall for scams like that, I guess. If they were dumb enough to pay the Apple Tax, they're probably dumb enough to believe that Apple would call them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want "options", buy an Android phone, and side load apps to your heart's content. Apple plays a different game, and I for one very much appreciate it, especially for the sake of my elderly parents.
"Windows Support" scammers fool thousands of people into giving them remote access to their computers every day. If there is any way to disable the walled garden sh
Re: What point though (Score:2)
Allowing side loading would remove apples monopoly on iOS app distribution market.
Re: (Score:3)
Allowing side loading would remove apples monopoly on iOS app distribution market.
..and remove the 30% tax they collect on anything sold via an Apple app.
They have such a tight monopoly that you can't even tell users that Apple is collecting 30% [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3)