-
Posts
19 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Reputation Activity
-
Bennet reacted to Bombastinator in Apple considers transparency information as irrelevant and forbids info about their 30% cut
Going to have to unfollow this thread. It seems to be nothing but multiple endless circular arguments about what the word monopoly should mean in the eyes of whatever viewer.
-
Bennet reacted to Bombastinator in Apple considers transparency information as irrelevant and forbids info about their 30% cut
This seems to be becoming an argument of dueling ideologies. It’s been given to the court. We shall see what we shall see. Apparently the court is choosing to use information different than we have anyway. Whether she also has the information we do and is merely choosing to act on a different path is unknown.
-
Bennet got a reaction from thechinchinsong in Apple considers transparency information as irrelevant and forbids info about their 30% cut
And what about the reduced cut for Amazon with Prime Video?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-prime-video-app-store-special-treatment-fee-subscriptions
-
Bennet reacted to AlTech in Apple considers transparency information as irrelevant and forbids info about their 30% cut
The argument being made is the walled garden by it's existence is a monopoly.
The big one that comes to mind is IE being bundled with Windows. There was a major antitrust lawsuit and Microsoft lost.
In the EU Microsoft had to offer Windows with options to download different browsers from installation.
-
Bennet got a reaction from Haro in Apple considers transparency information as irrelevant and forbids info about their 30% cut
And what about the reduced cut for Amazon with Prime Video?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-prime-video-app-store-special-treatment-fee-subscriptions
-
Bennet got a reaction from Doobeedoo in Apple considers transparency information as irrelevant and forbids info about their 30% cut
And what about the reduced cut for Amazon with Prime Video?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-prime-video-app-store-special-treatment-fee-subscriptions
-
Bennet got a reaction from Vector0102 in Apple considers transparency information as irrelevant and forbids info about their 30% cut
And what about the reduced cut for Amazon with Prime Video?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-prime-video-app-store-special-treatment-fee-subscriptions
-
Bennet got a reaction from Trik'Stari in Apple considers transparency information as irrelevant and forbids info about their 30% cut
And what about the reduced cut for Amazon with Prime Video?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-prime-video-app-store-special-treatment-fee-subscriptions
-
Bennet reacted to Kisai in Apple considers transparency information as irrelevant and forbids info about their 30% cut
The way Tim Cook described it, is only customers acquired on the Apple device pay the commission. That makes perfect sense, especially if all other platforms are taking 30%.
The food apps, and Uber only use "Apple Pay" not in-app purchases. Apple can't QA a service that physically exists, only digital ones. So in those cases Apple only acts as a payment processor, and the food courier charges the restaurant the fee. Restaurants are also free to use their own delivery people with some apps.
Netflix, Microsoft Office 365, and such have IAP's for signing up, but they also get that reduction to 15% since their IAP's are subscriptions.
Which comes back to the problem with even making the distinctions which would be fairer if it was setup this way:
a) Apple downloaded (software, books, music,) (10%), Apple QA'd (15%), and Apple Payment (5%) where the software/media is downloaded by the store to the device.
b) Apple acquired customer, subscribed service (eg Netflix, Crunchyroll, xCloud, Stadia, Spotify , etc) 15% where the service is provided by the remote end, and nothing is downloaded by the app. Thus Apple has nothing to QA, it's done by the third party.
c) Apple Payment Alone (5)% (food couriers, limo services, etc charge their restaurant a 10% commission from the retail price)
d) Apple Purchases from an app (5%), but fulfillment by a third party (10% to third party), essentially the same as C, but Apple handles the commission to the third party.
What's important is that B is not downloading a binaries. So this is not a backdoor "third party store", rather only a front end to streaming services. If the "service" provides it's own individual purchases, then that falls under A, not B. Which is completely correct to do, because the purchase is made by the Apple customer, and that's why IAP's are justified to be QA checked by Apple. All you need is one malicious "store" pretend to be the Apple store, and it ruins it for everyone.
-
Bennet got a reaction from Beskamir in Apple considers transparency information as irrelevant and forbids info about their 30% cut
And what about the reduced cut for Amazon with Prime Video?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-prime-video-app-store-special-treatment-fee-subscriptions
-
Bennet reacted to HenrySalayne in Facebook follows Fortnite and blames Apple for hurting small businesses
Summary
Facebook is launching a new service on their platform. It allows businesses, creators educators and media publishers to host paid online events. Small businesses will receive 100% of the payments except for payments through Apple.
Quotes
My thoughts
It seems like another big company joined forces with Fortnite to fight the 30% Apple tax. Facebook makes it look like if they are fighting for the little guys. I wonder how this will turn out for Apple.
Edit: Facebook may try to get a foot in the door of Apple devices for their own payment service "Facebook Pay" and their announced cryptocurrency "Libra".
Sources
https://about.fb.com/news/2020/08/paid-online-events/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/facebook-says-apple-in-app-fees-hurt-businesses-during-covid/2020/08/14/2ce1cd80-de6f-11ea-b4f1-25b762cdbbf4_story.html
-
Bennet got a reaction from Dabombinable in Apple considers transparency information as irrelevant and forbids info about their 30% cut
And what about the reduced cut for Amazon with Prime Video?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-prime-video-app-store-special-treatment-fee-subscriptions
-
Bennet got a reaction from lewdicrous in Apple considers transparency information as irrelevant and forbids info about their 30% cut
And what about the reduced cut for Amazon with Prime Video?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-prime-video-app-store-special-treatment-fee-subscriptions
-
Bennet got a reaction from soldier_ph in Apple considers transparency information as irrelevant and forbids info about their 30% cut
Summary
In Facebook's new feature of paid online events (for small and medium sized businesses) they added information about Apple taking a 30% cut for in-app purchases. Apple considered this information irrelevant and blocked the update.
Quotes
Source: https://www.golem.de/news/facebook-apple-verbietet-hinweis-auf-app-store-gebuehr-2008-150530.html
My thoughts
So by now it is well know that Apple employs questionable practices, enforcing any purchases going through their in-app-purchases API giving them their 30% cut. So I'm not sure about Facebooks wording, but for me it seam like they only said there is a 30% cut and not necessarily how to bypass it, only being transparent were the money goes. But for Apple first claiming this is irrelevant and than saying irrelevant information are forbidden, sounds for me like they will happily take their cut, not wanting to amid this to their users. Pretending every thing is fine and there is noting to worry about... like it is embarrassing for them against the users?? If they could be at least open and transparent about their god damn practice regarding this... Wouldn't make every thing fine and ok but at least... honest... I guess. But I know this is not something such company like to do...
The icing on the cake is, Google would normally also take their 30% cut. But Facebook asked both to do with out the cut for this feature and Google agreed in this case...
Sources
https://www.golem.de/news/facebook-apple-verbietet-hinweis-auf-app-store-gebuehr-2008-150530.html
(also: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-apple-exclusive/exclusive-facebook-says-apple-rejected-its-attempt-to-tell-users-about-app-store-fees-idUSKBN25O042?il=0)
-
Bennet got a reaction from LAwLz in Apple considers transparency information as irrelevant and forbids info about their 30% cut
And what about the reduced cut for Amazon with Prime Video?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-prime-video-app-store-special-treatment-fee-subscriptions
-
Bennet got a reaction from LAwLz in Apple considers transparency information as irrelevant and forbids info about their 30% cut
Summary
In Facebook's new feature of paid online events (for small and medium sized businesses) they added information about Apple taking a 30% cut for in-app purchases. Apple considered this information irrelevant and blocked the update.
Quotes
Source: https://www.golem.de/news/facebook-apple-verbietet-hinweis-auf-app-store-gebuehr-2008-150530.html
My thoughts
So by now it is well know that Apple employs questionable practices, enforcing any purchases going through their in-app-purchases API giving them their 30% cut. So I'm not sure about Facebooks wording, but for me it seam like they only said there is a 30% cut and not necessarily how to bypass it, only being transparent were the money goes. But for Apple first claiming this is irrelevant and than saying irrelevant information are forbidden, sounds for me like they will happily take their cut, not wanting to amid this to their users. Pretending every thing is fine and there is noting to worry about... like it is embarrassing for them against the users?? If they could be at least open and transparent about their god damn practice regarding this... Wouldn't make every thing fine and ok but at least... honest... I guess. But I know this is not something such company like to do...
The icing on the cake is, Google would normally also take their 30% cut. But Facebook asked both to do with out the cut for this feature and Google agreed in this case...
Sources
https://www.golem.de/news/facebook-apple-verbietet-hinweis-auf-app-store-gebuehr-2008-150530.html
(also: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-apple-exclusive/exclusive-facebook-says-apple-rejected-its-attempt-to-tell-users-about-app-store-fees-idUSKBN25O042?il=0)
-
Bennet got a reaction from Blademaster91 in Apple considers transparency information as irrelevant and forbids info about their 30% cut
And what about the reduced cut for Amazon with Prime Video?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-prime-video-app-store-special-treatment-fee-subscriptions
-
Bennet got a reaction from Vishera in Apple considers transparency information as irrelevant and forbids info about their 30% cut
And what about the reduced cut for Amazon with Prime Video?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-prime-video-app-store-special-treatment-fee-subscriptions
-
Bennet got a reaction from Bombastinator in MagentaGaming: Telekom launches its own cloud gaming platform
Summary
Jet another cloud gaming service is popping up. The german internet provider "Telekom" starts it's own cloud service named MagentaGaming. Like most other services it will be available on Android, Windows and macOS.
Catalog of includes Games: https://magentagaming.com/de/spiele/
Quotes
Source: https://www.telekom.com/en/media/media-information/archive/magentagaming-telekom-launches-its-own-cloud-gaming-platform-606634
Source: https://www.heise.de/news/Cloud-Spieledienst-MagentaGaming-der-Telekom-startet-nach-laengerer-Beta-Phase-4878424.html
My thoughts
So yet another cloud gaming service? We will see how that works out. I don't think the services from the even larger players haven't taken of that good yet, but here we are with a german company trying to be one of the first.
The very limited game selecting could become a problem for them but again we will see.
I find it is quite interesting, that Telekom as an internet provider is starting it, offering zero-rating for mobile. This could be a great advantage for them to have control over the network and spare the users their precious data volume.
BUT this might not be interesting for everyone, as it seams to launch in Germany only. (The sources do not mention it, but as it is the "Deutsche Telekom" starting it, it is highly likly)
Sources
https://www.telekom.com/en/media/media-information/archive/magentagaming-telekom-launches-its-own-cloud-gaming-platform-606634
https://www.heise.de/news/Cloud-Spieledienst-MagentaGaming-der-Telekom-startet-nach-laengerer-Beta-Phase-4878424.html
https://magentagaming.com/de/spiele/