Apple Wins Victory as North Dakota Votes Down Bill That Would Regulate App Stores (cnbc.com) 92
The North Dakota state senate voted 36-11 on Tuesday not to pass a bill that would have required app stores to enable software developers to use their own payment processing software and avoid fees charged by Apple and Google. From a report: The vote is a victory for Apple, which says that the App Store is a core part of its product and that its tight control over its rules keeps iPhone users safe from malware and scams. North Dakota's bill is the first major U.S. state-level legislation to address the Apple and Google app stores, which take fees from app store sales up to 30%, including in-app purchases of digital items. If the state senate had passed it, it would still have been debated and voted on in the North Dakota house. The North Dakota bill targeted Apple's fees by requiring companies that make more than $10 million per year in the state through app stores -- essentially, just Apple and Google -- would be required to offer alternative payment processors for purchases through the app store, allowing developers to avoid Apple or Google's cut. It would only apply to companies based in North Dakota. Further reading, from last week: Apple Privacy Chief: North Dakota Bill 'Threatens To Destroy the iPhone As You Know It'
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney said: "The Coalition for App Fairness organized the outreach, lobbying, and developer participation. Can't take credit for it, but Epic is proud to be a part of it!"
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney said: "The Coalition for App Fairness organized the outreach, lobbying, and developer participation. Can't take credit for it, but Epic is proud to be a part of it!"
Avoided an asterisks (Score:2)
If they would have had enough votes to pass such a law, they may have ended up facing a situation where Google and Apple would have opted not to offer their App Stores in North Dakota.
Re: (Score:2)
If they would have had enough votes to pass such a law, they may have ended up facing a situation where Google and Apple would have opted not to offer their App Stores in North Dakota.
Exactly. And the courts know a lot of the results of this sort of thing. The app store is a service, where customers have a fair idea that their software isn't malware, and vetting it costs money. It seems pretty simple - if you don't like it, don't write for Apple.
Re: Avoided an asterisks (Score:2)
Apple wants to be able to refund customers and manage the payment terms, subscription terms, mediate when there are disputes, and subsidize the free content and apps. If the users agree with Apple, they will use their products. If they do not, they will not.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple wants to be able to
extract as much money as humanly possible out of their livestock.
There, FTFY.
Re: Avoided an asterisks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're forgetting the many documented cases of Apple threatening to remove (or refusing to approve) apps because the developers actually went through the effort of ensuring that all signups, payments, etc happened entirely outside of the app.
Re: (Score:2)
Same thing. If you don’t like Apple’s terms, go somewhere else. If you try to shenanigate your way around them, Apple has the right to kick you out.
Re: (Score:2)
Cellphones and regionally-entrenched utility services are not even close to the same thing.
Ditching Apple for another company is trivial, at worst.
Depends (Score:2)
This. It is their private property.
The AppStore service is Apple's private property.
Not the smartphone.
In theory, from the point of view of laws (both in US and EU) it's the private property of the user who bought it with their own money.
(But yeah, in practice, Apple is trying hard to make as close as possible to the smartphone being mere an Apple property that is merely lent out to the consumer)
There are alternatives
On Android? Yes.
There are very standard procedure that allow you to:
- sideload stuff using ADB
- install 3rd party app stores (e.g.: Aptoide [aptoide.com])
- instal
Re:Avoided an asterisks (Score:5, Informative)
The app store is a service, where customers have a fair idea that their software isn't malware
A huge proportion of apps are malware directly funded by data collection. Vendor run app stores themselves are a significant source of perverse market incentives that promote an everything must be free race to the bottom where legitimate outfits are squeezed into stalking/ads because the market has been conditioned into not paying for anything while sleazy outfits looking to make money fast in exchange for doing little to no real work are boosted by ease of entry.
and vetting it costs money
Apple is not vetting apps. They are doing basic mostly automated reviews for obvious issues. Turn around time is one to two days for most apps sent for review. It is not physically possible to provide any useful assurances to users in this time. Real code reviews cost thousands to millions.
It seems pretty simple - if you don't like it, don't write for Apple.
The problem with this line of argument is not writing for Apple denies you access to half of the US's smartphone wielding population. One corporations total freedom to create captive market is negatively infringing upon the freedoms of millions of developers. This is untenable and why I advocate for the universal destruction of these types of captive markets on anti-trust grounds. It is harmful to society to allow so much power to be wielded and aggregated into the hands of so few.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this line of argument is not writing for Apple denies you access to half of the US's smartphone wielding population. One corporations total freedom to create captive market is negatively infringing upon the freedoms of millions of developers. This is untenable and why I advocate for the universal destruction of these types of captive markets on anti-trust grounds. It is harmful to society to allow so much power to be wielded and aggregated into the hands of so few.
I believe that your argument means that the Android devices will and indeed presently have a superior ecosystem, with better and larger choice of software.
This will lead directly to Apple's demise, ,and the superior writers will write apps that will be better and more timely than Apple's, and there will be a monoculture which most programmers want and demand.
You should be celebrating, not anything else - you should be dead set against any law that forces Apple to open their ecosystem. The sooner they d
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I mean nothing against North Dakota but it ain't exactly driving Apple's fortune. Now if California pulled this kind of thing, might be different.
Next up (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's weird that some folks are suing to force Apple to provide something almost none of their customers want.
Re:Next up (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Outside of the Slashdot crowd and people who hate Apple, no one cares in least about this.
It's not as if Epic or any other companies who backed this bill have any intention of lowering their prices. They'd just pocket a larger percentage at Apple's expense. The end users would see zero benefit.
Re: (Score:3)
There are a lot of companies and individuals that sell apps and games that would be able to take the extra profit and actually survive instead of going out of business, be able to invest more into their next game, make a more niche game that wouldn't turn a profit under the current cut, etc. Those are all things that end up benefiting consumers.
And Epic actually did lower their prices for every other payment option but Apple's.
Re: (Score:3)
If you can't make a profit on the official app store, there's no way you're making a profit on a third party app store that gets you far far less exposure and potential users.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why would you get less exposure and potential users?
Because unofficial app stores are festering putrid malware cesspools. Nobody trusts them and nobody will pay for anything there.
My spouse has an app business. iPhone and iPad users are half her customers but 95% of her profits. I've tried to convince her to just dump Android completely. Supporting Android isn't worth her time.
Re: Next up (Score:1)
Yes the Amazon app store is so full of malware and nobody buys anything from it. Oh wait.
Re: (Score:1)
This is pathetic.
You cultists with mod points who read this- go fucking kill yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
iPhone and iPad users are half her customers but 95% of her profits.
Yes Apple has a monopoly the market for paid apps.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't one of them.
Any time you find yourself using a category as narrow as "Nobody" or as broad as "Everybody" stop yourself. Rethink your argument, because if you continue with it, there's a very good chance that all you're really going to show everyone is that you are a dumb fuck.
In particular:
Nobody trusts them and nobody will pay for anything there.
This isn't just false at first glance, it's demonstrably false with even a shred of effort.
My spouse has an app business. iPhone and iPad users are half her customers but 95% of her profits. I've tried to convince her to just dump Android completely. Supporting Android isn't worth her time.
This isn't
Re: (Score:2)
Shanghai, sometimes you manage to pull some rather intelligent and insightful comments out of your ass. This isn't one of them.
Well then, give us some citations to prove him wrong. All you've done is call him a dumb fuck and claim he's pulling shit out of his ass.
Or are you operating at your peak by gratuitous insults?
Re: (Score:2)
Or are you operating at your peak by gratuitous insults?
Oh I definitely am, just as you are operating at your peak stupidity.
Let's evaluate.
His claim:
Nobody trusts them and nobody will pay for anything there.
To disprove this steaming pile of horse shit, I merely need to show evidence of a single person who trusts them and pays.
You demanding me show evidence of that is just a standard losing argumentation tactic- trying to muddy the water by making them prove every piece of spaghetti you fling at the wall.
If you seriously, in good faith, doubt my assertion- say so, and then we'll address your stupidity in that depa
Re: (Score:3)
Because unofficial app stores are festering putrid malware cesspools. Nobody trusts them and nobody will pay for anything there.
Then how do you explain https://f-droid.org/ [f-droid.org] ? Oh, wait, this is an Apple-only discussion...
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, wait, this is an Apple-only discussion...
Indeed it is. I expect you to be moderated Troll or Flamebait any minute.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you get less exposure and potential users?
Because unofficial app stores are festering putrid malware cesspools. Nobody trusts them and nobody will pay for anything there.
My spouse has an app business. iPhone and iPad users are half her customers but 95% of her profits. I've tried to convince her to just dump Android completely. Supporting Android isn't worth her time.
The problem is that Android sells in large part by salespeople and others claiming that Apple junk is overpriced. So it follows that the android users are going to be more oriented toward lowest price. Apple users on the other hand are more willing to spend money because the cheapskates are a larger group using Android products.
And I suspect that most Android users could care less if their apps are malware as long as their stuff functions, so the unofficial app stores are just fine with them.
Re: (Score:2)
And your app would already be on every unofficial app store out there - it'll have been cracked and pirated and posted by some third party either offering it for free, or selling it at half your price.
Sure, some app stores may have scruples, but the "popular" third party app stores won't - free paid apps, what could be better?
Piracy is
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't just multibillion dollar companies making apps and games. There are a lot of companies and individuals that sell apps and games that would be able to take the extra profit and actually survive instead of going out of business, be able to invest more into their next game, make a more niche game that wouldn't turn a profit under the current cut, etc. Those are all things that end up benefiting consumers. And Epic actually did lower their prices for every other payment option but Apple's.
I don't get it. The world market in phones is dominated by Android. Why would Apple be putting people out of business - They are only a small player.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not as if Epic or any other companies who backed this bill have any intention of lowering their prices. They'd just pocket a larger percentage at Apple's expense. The end users would see zero benefit.
In the greater metro area around where I live, there's at least 12 stores that exist by selling music on a 72-year-old format [discogs.com]. Under your logic, all that profit should've just gone to the record companies, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Outside of the Slashdot crowd and people who hate Apple, no one cares in least about this.
They might not care or understand it, but the users certainly suffer from it. Just like we all suffer from closed source.
Re: Next up (Score:5, Funny)
A good example of that was internet explorer. The web went nowhere for nearly 7 years because of that unmoving turd. Most people you asked at the time didn't know there were other browsers, all they knew was "you click on the e to get the internet".
Re: (Score:1)
Parent got modded funny but should be insightful really
Re: (Score:2)
A good example of that was internet explorer. The web went nowhere for nearly 7 years because of that unmoving turd. Most people you asked at the time didn't know there were other browsers, all they knew was "you click on the e to get the internet".
So I take it that we have to cater to peopel who are ignorant. That's how we got where we are today. Reality show America.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Outside of the Slashdot crowd and people who hate Apple, no one cares in least about this.
They might not care or understand it, but the users certainly suffer from it. Just like we all suffer from closed source.
Explain how Apple has caused you suffering.
Re: (Score:2)
Me personally? That one's easy. There ridiculous, nonsensical backwards-compatibility policies have caused me no end of grief.
Re: (Score:2)
Me personally? That one's easy. There ridiculous, nonsensical backwards-compatibility policies have caused me no end of grief.
Did someone force you to write for Apple? That's the part I'm not getting. If a programmer hates Apple, there is no reason to ever write for them. Problem is solved. Write for Android or Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the part I'm not getting.
There's a lot you don't get, man. There's a lot you don't get.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the part I'm not getting.
There's a lot you don't get, man. There's a lot you don't get.
Well - presuming that you are much more intelligent than me, as you insinuate - Tell me why you are forced to write for Apple? Seems a simple enough question to me.
Smart fella like you surely can explain that to even an idjit. Or can't you?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually Apple would most likely resort to a forced subscription fee to use their app store. I wouldn't put it past Apple to retaliate either such as new rules that will piss off the app devs. Especially target the ones who used an alternative payment method. In the name of "user safety".
Google do that often with their chrome extension webstore. If you dare provide a useful extension that threaten a google service your app is gone faster than you can say monopoly. The same goes for google's android app stor
Re: (Score:2)
It's not as if Epic or any other companies who backed this bill
Epic didn't back this bill. They outright wrote it, gave it to professional lobbyists Odney Public Affairs who handed it directly to Kyle Davison who attempted to push it through completely unaltered.
Regardless of what you may think about Apple taking a 30% cut you should still say fuck everything about the way this bill was proposed.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Outside of the Slashdot crowd and people who hate Apple, no one cares in least about this.
Yea we've all been treated to these same "nobody cares" excuses almost universally invoked with no supporting evidence since the beginning of time itself. Still recall being shocked after decades of "nobody cares" by actual data produced from public polling on privacy issues surrounding the Snowden coverage and how radically it diverged from the constant droning of unsubstantiated "nobody cares" memes.
The bigger issue with "nobody cares" is it is often confused with ignorance and is itself mostly irrelevan
Re: (Score:1)
... people who hate Apple,....
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Next up (Score:5, Insightful)
"Seems like the same idea that businesses won't have to pay rent for their buildings because they shouldn't have to pay for things that reduce their profit."
Every business you know pays 30% of all revenue, straight off the top to the landlord? And if they don't like it they can just stop doing business because the customers aren't allowed to leave the store.
"But it's weird that some folks are suing to force Apple to provide something almost none of their customers want."
Really? Almost none of their customers want lower prices on non-apple services they are interested in using with their iphone? Maybe you just aren't asking them the right questions.
Plus there's a bit of a chicken-egg problem.
The app store restrictions are pretty much the only reason I won't purchase an iphone. But if you survey apple customers, you won't hear from me about it, because I'm not an apple customer... because of the app store restrictions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Seems like the same idea that businesses won't have to pay rent for their buildings because they shouldn't have to pay for things that reduce their profit."
Every business you know pays 30% of all revenue, straight off the top to the landlord?
Youre demand that my analogy uses a specific number is pretty irrelevant.
Would you agree that if you have a business, and you operate that business out of a building, that you would pay rent, yes?
And that this lawsuit demanded that Appkle and by extension Google, allow people to put their software on the store, presumabley vetterd out by Apple and or Google, and with alternative payment setups required, are getting free placement of their apps.
Free - no cost other than to Apple or Google. That is t
Re:Next up (Score:5, Insightful)
"Youre demand that my analogy uses a specific number is pretty irrelevant."
No it's very relevant. I negotiated my rent with my landlord. (And I do not have to deal with that landlord at all, i can set up shop in a different building and all my existing customers can still do business with me, depending where I go it may be less convenient (or perhaps more convenient), but at the very worst none of them have to abandon any other products they are using.
"And that this lawsuit demanded that Appkle [..], allow people to put their software on the store, presumabley vetterd out by Apple and or Google, and with alternative payment setups required, are getting free placement of their apps."
Ah, but that's missing some context. If they were allowed set up shop in a different store, and negotiate with a different landlord then I'd have a LOT more sympathy for apple telling them to get bent. As Apple is forcing them to deal with Apple I fully support their attempts to wring a better deal out of Apple.
" I have bought maybe three things from the App store, and one of them was for my regular Mac."
It sounds then like you are barely affected by what payment gateway is being used by the companies who sell paid apps and subscriptions to customers who buy them, since you don't buy or subscribe to them. Where exactly is your horse in this race?
"Not allowed to leave the store? Funny - there is this other playa, you might have heard of - Android."
Sure you are allowed, but its not remotely 'free' and costs far more than the average app or subscription ever would. In order for an apple iphone user to purchase an app outside the apple app store, they just have to buy a completely different phone, learn a new mobile operating system, setup new accounts, migrate their data, simply give up apps that aren't available in the other store, plus many users have purchased their smartphones on some sort of multi-year contract / payment plan so switching is even more difficult and expensive for them. As a vendor though, I'd still like to reach my customers wherever they are, and they likewise want to transact with me, but aren't necessarily going to uproot their entire mobile platform over it. So no, setting up a shop on android or selling an android apk downloads isn't going to help these customers. Fairly significant costs and barriers to customer mobility have been erected there.
"Apple is providing what their customers want - and for some weird reason, you are having a deep abiding butthurt over that."
You just proudly proclaimed you weren't really a customer. Sure you bought an apple phone. Big fucking deal. You aren't buying apps, and so you aren't affected by this. And if Apple's lock on the app store was broken, and other app stores opened up, and app vendors could choose which ones they wanted to sell through, and different stores had different arrangements with their vendors ... how does that ruin your life? Nobody will make you install any of them, or go into any of them, or buy anything from them. You can continue to choose to just buy from apple and only apple and deal only with people who only deal with apple, and live your apple life. Yet, you are the one acting butt hurt, about something that doesn't even affect you.
Me, on the other hand, I'm keenly interested because it actually does affect me, affects how I deal with my customers, affects what phone I will use myself, and where i will purchase apps myself. As it happens I do have an android, and have 4 installed app stores (google play, fdroid, humble bundle, and samsung) there are many others that I have never seen fit to use, and even the samsung one was preinstalled but I've never bought anything in it.
So tell me: how would apple being forced to allow people to install other app stores, or applications directly not from a store affect you negatively? You don't have to do those things, you could stay in the apple app store, you claim you only bought 2 mobile apps your whole life, so why do you care so much about what other people who are spending money on apps do to find more mutually suitable arrangements?
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
"Youre demand that my analogy uses a specific number is pretty irrelevant."
No it's very relevant. I negotiated my rent with my landlord. (And I do not have to deal with that landlord at all,
And who pray tell is forcing you to deal with Apple? - Look I get it this is slashdot and it's fashionable to hate Apple. But you don't like them - don't write for them.. Your hatred just hatred.
An d where do you get your thought process? I've been an Apple Customer since the toaster macs. I'm writing this on an iMac. I use computers as tools. Becaus eI also have Windows machines, Android and Linux conversions. Your jumping to conclusions is just weird. Anyhow - Do as you will, and have the day you des
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but that's missing some context. If they were allowed set up shop in a different store
They are allowed to setup shop in a different store. They just need to find their own platform. You seem to be fundamentally missing a critical point: NO ONE OWES YOU THEIR CUSTOMERS.
Nintendo isn't obligated to give you access to people playing the Switch. Sony isn't obligated to give you access to people playing the PS4. Microsoft isn't obligated to give you access to both users of the Microsoft Store. Tesla isn't obligated to put your software on their infotainment platform. Samsung isn't obligated to dis
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be fundamentally missing a critical point: NO ONE OWES YOU THEIR CUSTOMERS.
You seem to be fundamentally missing a critical point: THOSE CUSTOMERS ARE NOT APPLE'S PROPERTY, and neither are the devices they bought from Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they are. You are an Apple customer. You eyes and access to you when you use an Apple device is absolutely you being a property of Apple. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it any less reality.
Just like when you Walk into a Best Buy your eyes perusing their shelves are entirely owned by Best Buy. There is no one else involved that gives any rights to anyone other than Best Buy as to what you see on Best Buy's shelves. You don't get to complain about the fact that a customer walks into Best Buy s
Re: (Score:2)
" Remember that next time you walk in the supermarket: Someone paid a fee to have that product in front of you. If they don't pay that fee, that product is not offered to all the people standing around you."
That's sometimes the case when the vendor wants to promote a product or get better shelf positioning. But no that's not generally the case -- and in many cases stores deal with difficult vendors because that's a product customers want. And the customers would go somewhere else if they didn't carry it.
And stores are forced to compete with each other to have products people want to buy, and competitive pricing, in an environment that people want to buy them in. And customers can walk next door if your store d
Re: Next up (Score:2)
Based on their profit margins, that last point is quite indisputable, except if you're a shareholder.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if you take the Standard Slashdot stance that Apple is evil and overpriced,
Based on their profit margins, that last point is quite indisputable, except if you're a shareholder.
Have you made your plans to seize the means of production yet? /s
Profit is bad?
I'd posted this somewhere else before, but I'll do it again. Back in the early-mid 1990's, I had a part time video business. As usual there are various types of work - my favorite was the commercial stuff - promo pieces and the like. But ya need to take the wedding trade to make money, because with a full time job, you have to arrange the work, and weekends were when weddings happened.
So at first, I had some low prices t
Re: Next up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You were just one guy, any other person could take your part. And the same profits.
The point isn't about anything but serving an upscale market is often better than serving a market where cheapness is the metric.
Apple chooses to serve an upscale market, and just like my upscale customers, their customers are quite happy with them.
And Apple's profits are not obscene to anyone other than people who want to seize the means of production.
Re: Next up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, Apple chose (or created) their market very wisely. I never said they're profits are obscene, I just contend they are much bigger than they could be if there were more competition. You talk about means of production, but the discussion here is about services (digital app store), I consider there's less value in that because it's not an innovative sector, money goes around to create stronger lock-in, etc...
How am I locked in? I have Android and Mac and Windows and Linux. I primarily use Macs, because I am conversant in Unix, and when you have MacOS and iOS phones, they integrate seamlessly with many features. But with a bit of difficulty and loss of features I like, I could ditch my Apple products. But it would be a lot easier to ditch my Androids. Being able to work in a superior ecosystem and liking it is not lockin. It's using tool that you like.
Perhaps I look at computing devices differently. I want too
Re: Next up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a brick and motar store, then you're lucky if only 30% of revenue goes into keeping the doors open for customers to come in and buy something.
Re:Next up (Score:5, Informative)
Every business you know pays 30% of all revenue, straight off the top to the landlord?
To a landlord, no. To some 3rd party platform they pay for direct access to their customers, absolutely. Welcome to the real world. You can get your own customers or you can buy into an existing market. What you can't do is expect that market to be gifted to you.
Really? Almost none of their customers want lower prices
I'm sure all customers want that. But customers are smart enough to see through the corporate bullshit. Customers *DON'T* get the savings passed on to them, never have. Especially not through the companies involved here. Epic games (who wrote this law and handed it verbatim via a lobbyist to Davidson) infamously markets this as a benefit to consumers. So let's see how much the consumers are benefitting:
Control Ultimate Edition:
Steam: 29.99EUR
Epic Store: 29.99EUR, where's my savings? 12% vs 35% take (because Epic charge for UE4 engine when used on Steam).
Borderlands 3:
Steam: 59.95EUR (though currently on sale at 66% off)
Epic Store: 59.95EUR, where's my savings? 12% vs 30% take.
Cyberpunk 2077:
Steam: 59.95EUR
Epic Store: 59.95EUR, where's my savings? 12% vs 30% take.
So yes. I get zero benefit of these business to business transactions being billed at a different rate. I do however get the wonderful user friendly experience of yet another login in yet another service with yet another purchasing platform with yet another company that yet again fragments friends all the while providing fuck all in terms of functionality that the other platform offers.
The app store restrictions are pretty much the only reason I won't purchase an iphone.
And I bet you pay just as much for your apps on whatever phone you have. And even if those other app stores didn't charge 30% you'd still pay just as much.
Re: (Score:3)
But it's weird that some folks are suing to force Apple to provide something almost none of their customers want.
None of their customers want a web browser other than Safari, especially ones with web extensions? None of their customers want to be able to record their own calls? None of their customers want ANYTHING that Apple forbids?
I doubt it. Maybe you will eat a skunk's asshole if Apple told you to, but most people won't.
Re: (Score:1)
None of their customers want a web browser other than Safari, especially ones with web extensions? None of their customers want to be able to record their own calls? None of their customers want ANYTHING that Apple forbids? They just don't care. They're happy with the experience that Apple provides.
What is with this nonsense argument that the product must be perfect the way it is otherwise people wouldn't buy it? Windows must be the best desktop computer operating system because so many people buy it and since they buy it they must not want anything else and must not wish that it had features that it doesn't currently have. You really have no complaints about anything you've ever bought?
This position seems to be unique to Apple apologists. FWIW I use a lot of Apple products, in general they are superi
Re: Next up (Score:1)
No, your argument is reductio ad absurdum. Nobody said the product was or had to be perfect, it just has to be slightly better than the competition for the majority of people to take the largest market share.
There are always ways of improving, Apple and Android or Windows and Linux have shown that offering more choice and customization isnâ(TM)t necessarily a pathway to better products with larger market shares. And many studies have proven this across markets and products, offering less choice is ofte
Re: (Score:1)
No, your argument is reductio ad absurdum.
Rubbish, you stated "most Apple iPhone customers don't want a browser other than Safari. Extensions are irrelevant to them. If they did, they'd go somewhere else.", a moronic argument that most customers don't want something they don't have because they don't have it. Why do you claim to know what most customers don't want simply on the basis that they don't have it?
Remember how Apple didn't have wireless charging yet alternatives did? Why did they add it? By your logic their customers didn't want it. Wirel
A victory for Apple? (Score:2)
It would only apply to companies based in North Dakota
This bill wouldn't apply to Apple. In fact, this bill would apply to exactly zero companies.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the bill regulates App stores that sell more than $10M in North Dakota.
Tim's beef (Score:2)
Is that Apple is making too much money? What happens when someone asks why Epic gets to charge so much for games?
I have to ask whether Epic realizes that justification of envy can easily be used against them as well. They can't be too happy when someone starts asking difficult questions like why do they get to be so profitable?
State Mostly Populated by Livestock (Score:2)
Tim Cook to the Associated Press this morning: "We answer to states people can find on a map."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:State Mostly Populated by Livestock (Score:4, Funny)
Apple's made a lot of enemies lately (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm really pleased to see that bill being shot down as I see it as a victory for the privacy (r)evolution that's taking place right now.
Can you imagine what Facebook and Google would do if Bills like that one became common place law across, not just the USA, but the world?
Given the freedom of not having to submit Apps to a single App store, that moderates behaviour and empowers users with the choice of being tracked, access to bluetooth, sniffing the network, microphone, camera(s) etc etc they'd make their own "freedom" app stores where they'd be the worst possible versions of themselves.
It's not just Epic being a greedy bitch or the spooks pulling strings in the shadows to get into your phone it's a growing list of bad actors all trying to game the system back in their favour.
I'm hoping that once voters get accustomed to their new found powers over privacy it'll be a lot harder for legislators to remove them.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pleased that bill is being shot down for completely different reasons. This bill was written by Epic Games who gave it to professional lobbyists Odney Public Affairs who handed it directly to Kyle Davison who attempted to push it through verbatim.
We should not ever support a bill written by a company, much less one which attacks another company, written by a company who is currently trying to sue said other company.
Knocking down this bill is a win for the fundamental principles of separation of power be
TenCent behind it (Score:3)
Separate out the security evaluation service (Score:2)
It would make sense to require developers to pay a security screening fee for each app update, based on lines of code. I am assuming that Apple is doing automated malware testing before making an app update available on the app store. This service would be required no matter the app store, and submissions to the service could be made over an API.
Nothing new here (Score:2)
Since the dawn of time, everyone involved complains about prices. No supplier has ever been satisfied with their share of retail prices. No retailer has even been satisfied with their markup. No consumer has even been happy with the price they paid. One proof the free market may be working properly: no one is happy with their share of the revenue stream, but, every competent participant survives, and flourishes.
So, does Apple violate any present legal statute? If not, then either get new legistlation into p
And the cultists rejoice! (Score:1)