Apple under fire for their Idiotic decision to charge 27% for 3rd party payments

[darknessblade]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You could, but the fridge not only doesn't make up half of any significant market, but also no one is writing apps for it.  In the event that samsung has half the market share and 3rd party apps for iot devices such as fridges are in high demand and they did happen limit the sale of apps to their own store, then charge 30% for a simply in app purchase, then it would be exactly the same.    That's a lot of things that have to happen before it becomes the same thing.

 

I hope you can see why your example is not reflective of the actual problem.

The "Smart" fridges are also at least 10x as expensive as a normal fridge of the same size, and energy class, so as long as it is considered a Luxury product that only people have who want it and spend the money on it.

that complaint is not valid.

 

ONLY if every single fridge being sold would be a "Smart" fridge, then a case could be made.

But since "Smart" fridges only make up 0.0001% of the global fridge market, and even smaller within the EU, there is no case to be made.

 

Also the case of samsung having over 30% of the smart fridge market, would be at a point, where the EU has forced every IOT using "company" to use a few sets of, compatible IOT platforms, that are also cross compatible.

 

Since the EU wants a OPEN platform, that everyone can use, so you are not reliant on that 1 server that "fill company in" wants to shut down after 2 years of its release

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/internet-things-policy

 

[mr moose]

21 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

The "Smart" fridges are also at least 10x as expensive as a normal fridge of the same size, and energy class, so as long as it is considered a Luxury product that only people have who want it and spend the money on it.

that complaint is not valid.

 

ONLY if every single fridge being sold would be a "Smart" fridge, then a case could be made.

But since "Smart" fridges only make up 0.0001% of the global fridge market, and even smaller within the EU, there is no case to be made.

 

Also the case of samsung having over 30% of the smart fridge market, would be at a point, where the EU has forced every IOT using "company" to use a few sets of, compatible IOT platforms, that are also cross compatible.

 

Since the EU wants a OPEN platform, that everyone can use, so you are not reliant on that 1 server that "fill company in" wants to shut down after 2 years of its release

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/internet-things-policy

 

Even without considering what the EU are pushing for, it's simply not an equivalent example .  Like most of the arguments made in defense of apple, it is just another superficial rebuttal that doesn't address the actual problems being leveled against apple.

[darknessblade]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Even without considering what the EU are pushing for, it's simply not an equivalent example .  Like most of the arguments made in defense of apple, it is just another superficial rebuttal that doesn't address the actual problems being leveled against apple.

Exactly, People just don't realize what kind of power the EU has.

 

And are complaining of even the slightest change, to their glorious dictator.

 

The main reason they don't understand that, apple is ANTI-CONSUMER, is because they gotten used getting screwed over by apple to the point, of thinking its normal. Not knowing apple is actually violating the law.

--------

They just try to find any possible argument to give a reason, why apple should be allowed to violate the law.

------

And from what i can see every time i call em out on their BS, with solid proof of apple being anti-consumer, they do not give any counter argument against me. since they know i am right, and do not want to dig their grave deeper.

[HRD]

1 hour ago, darknessblade said:

The main reason they don't understand that, apple is ANTI-CONSUMER, is because they gotten used getting screwed over by apple to the point, of thinking its normal. Not knowing apple is actually violating the law.

you are framing it like we as consumers are having no option other than apple's iPhone. if apple is anti-consumer and its practices are harming me I can easily sell my iPhone and buy an android and maybe save some money in the process. what I think you are trying to say is that apple practices are anti developers which can be argued in both ways (apple practices are harmful and beneficial to developers)

[HRD]

On 2/17/2022 at 10:06 PM, pas008 said:

if you want security on 14 but forced to update to 15

topic here

Apple is the best when it comes to supporting older phones. all the phones running iOS 14 can be updated to iOS 15. that's why apple stopped the updates to iOS 14. just last September Apple released iOS 12.5.5 for older iPhones because they cannot to updated to the latest iOS version.

[RejZoR]

11 minutes ago, HRD said:

Apple is the best when it comes to supporting older phones. all the phones running iOS 14 can be updated to iOS 15. that's why apple stopped the updates to iOS 14. just last September Apple released iOS 12.5.5 for older iPhones because they cannot to updated to the latest iOS version.

I can't seem to find exact data how far back iOS 14 and thus iOS 15 goes? I know iPhone 6s from 2015 was eligible for iOS 15. Do you have any info on iPhone 5s? Is it stuck on iOS 13 or iOS 12 ? If it was eligible for iOS 14, then it would also get iOS 15, but I don't think that was the case.

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, darknessblade said:

Exactly, People just don't realize what kind of power the EU has.

 

And are complaining of even the slightest change, to their glorious dictator.

 

The main reason they don't understand that, apple is ANTI-CONSUMER, is because they gotten used getting screwed over by apple to the point, of thinking its normal. Not knowing apple is actually violating the law.

--------

They just try to find any possible argument to give a reason, why apple should be allowed to violate the law.

------

And from what i can see every time i call em out on their BS, with solid proof of apple being anti-consumer, they do not give any counter argument against me. since they know i am right, and do not want to dig their grave deeper.

Let's be honest here and say it how it is. This is clearly less of an anticonsumer issue as a anticompetitive issue. That 30% cut being taken has little effect on the consumer. This is all about app developers and has little to do with consumers. It honestly makes me laugh when epic trys to spin this as them caring about consumers when they simply want more money. It has 0 to do with some righteous cause and all to do with epic being salty that they got caught breaking tos and being kicked off the apple app store because they were being super greedy. 

[HRD]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

I can't seem to find exact data how far back iOS 14 and thus iOS 15 goes? I know iPhone 6s from 2015 was eligible for iOS 15. Do you have any info on iPhone 5s? Is it stuck on iOS 13 or iOS 12 ? If it was eligible for iOS 14, then it would also get iOS 15, but I don't think that was the case.

[RejZoR]

@HRD

Damn, Apple had better long term support in 2008 with iPhone 3G than most Android phones offer in 2022...

[mecarry30]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

You could, but the fridge not only doesn't make up half of any significant market, but also no one is writing apps for it.  In the event that samsung has half the market share and 3rd party apps for iot devices such as fridges are in high demand and they did happen limit the sale of apps to their own store, then charge 30% for a simply in app purchase, then it would be exactly the same.    That's a lot of things that have to happen before it becomes the same thing.

 

I hope you can see why your example is not reflective of the actual problem.

How about Xbox or Playstation then? 50% market share, only limited to their own stores, usually sold at a profit after initial loss, and even when selling from other distributors they take a cut - it would be like Apple taking a cut from third party payment systems, which I think is stupid. I could file a complaint for them, but not only would it not have much effect, it wouldn't really have any meaningful merit.

[Kisai]

40 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

@HRD

Damn, Apple had better long term support in 2008 with iPhone 3G than most Android phones offer in 2022...

And there's been NO IMPROVEMENT in Android life-span either.

 

Meanwhile, Apple is like "We'll support it as long as it doesn't make the phone too slow"

 

Which is the same with Microsoft. People whine-complain about being forced to upgrade the OS, but do realize that Microsoft used to come out with a new-but-barely-different-OS every 2 years. Between 1994 and 2001, Microsoft came out with Windows 95, 98, 98SE, and ME and also 2K. Where as NT 4.0 came out in 1996 and was supported officially until 2005. XP came out in 2002 and was supported officially until 2014, and in some cases 2019. 

 

MacOS? 10.4 worked on PPC macs and Intel macs, and if you had one of these 2006 32-bit Intel macs, you had until 10.6. If you had an Intel Mac with a 64-bit CPU (Machines that came with 10.6 and later) you could install OSX up to 10.14, depending on the machine. Current versions of OSX require a 2014 MacMini or better. Yes, you can install the latest OS on a 8 year old Mac.

 

In some ways I feel that people complaining about being "forced to upgrade" is a distraction from the fact that many devices become "slower" with OS updates and that might be why people hold back updates. I personally hold back updates on my iPhone until I'm home and have time to look at what's being updated. I'll update the OS when it's the weekend. I'll update all the stupid apps (which update stupidly frequent, in that 20-30 of them will want an update every week.) The day before I need them. This has only caught me off-guard with the Subway app which has twice needed an update while I've been standing in line at the restaurant, so I had to hold up the line for an extra 2 minutes while it updated.

 

The point being is that there are consequences to not updating, and while I'd be fine letting the phone update these things, there is no way to tell the phone to go "always keep this specific app up to date, because I need it daily" over "update this game only if I've played it in the last 30 days", because even on Windows, Steam will needlessly update games that I haven't played in months, or even years. I have to either uninstall them, or tell Steam to "stop updating this game automatically", which the Apple store doesn't do. For Apple it's an all-or-nothing, and if the machine or phone is turned off for an extensive amount of time, it will suddenly want to update everything if you tell it to update.

 

At any rate. Android wouldn't be such a poor platform to develop on if there was long term support for devices. It's such a crapshoot if any particular application will ever work on any specific device already, add into OS versions and potential JB OS's and you'd never develop for Android first. Develop for iOS , port the iOS version to the flagship Android phones, and then see what else is capable of running it, screw everyone else.

 

[RejZoR]

I just update to latest version no matter what. Have done so with Windows, Linux, Android and iOS (and WatchOS). I even update all BIOS to latest no matter what, always. On motherboards, laptops, graphic cards. Always have, probably always will.

[darknessblade]

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

That 30% cut being taken has little effect on the consumer. This is all about app developers and has little to do with consumers. 

Better take a look at prices from Services like Netflix, Spotify, HULU, and the rest.

 

And you will see that they are 30% higher on IOS devices than they are on other platforms. like their own website

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, darknessblade said:

Better take a look at prices from Services like Netflix, Spotify, HULU, and the rest.

 

And you will see that they are 30% higher on IOS devices than they are on other platforms. like their own website

As far as I know Netflix doesn't even do in app subscriptions. Also again you could easily subscribe to those services without doing so on your phone so idk what the problem is. Also you act like this isn't the exact same on Android in terms of cut. Also I am not even sure if they are more expensive as I believe Apple even had something in the tos about increasing the price exclusively for ios not being allowed. 

[darknessblade]

21 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

As far as I know Netflix doesn't even do in app subscriptions. Also again you could easily subscribe to those services without doing so on your phone so idk what the problem is. Also you act like this isn't the exact same on Android in terms of cut. Also I am not even sure if they are more expensive as I believe Apple even had something in the tos about increasing the price exclusively for ios not being allowed. 

On android its different, as they are allowed to link to their own website, so users save the 30%

 

https://9to5mac.com/2021/05/05/netflix-apple-in-app-purchase/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dbloom/2019/03/19/apple-netflix-reed-hastings-streaming-video-cannes-subscriptions/

https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/28/18159373/netflix-in-app-subscriptions-iphone-ipad-ios-apple

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/25097

 

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, mecarry30 said:

How about Xbox or Playstation then? 50% market share, only limited to their own stores, usually sold at a profit after initial loss, and even when selling from other distributors they take a cut - it would be like Apple taking a cut from third party payment systems, which I think is stupid. I could file a complaint for them, but not only would it not have much effect, it wouldn't really have any meaningful merit.

Yep, and we hate all that stuff too.  But you need to account for the entire life cycle of a product to determine when the profit actual becomes a profit and where it comes from.  

 

I don't like how the consoles do the same thing with the store, however I won't defend/support them as there is large difference between apple and consoles in that apple is profit all the way at the expense of a free market and consoles are a loss then maybe profit.  Then throw into the mix that consoles and mobiles are completely different end use products,  phones are everyday necessities for most users, they have replaced PC's for many people (this greatly effects how market power is leveraged).  Consoles are bought purely as a luxury item that is not necessary.       

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

As far as I know Netflix doesn't even do in app subscriptions. Also again you could easily subscribe to those services without doing so on your phone so idk what the problem is. Also you act like this isn't the exact same on Android in terms of cut. Also I am not even sure if they are more expensive as I believe Apple even had something in the tos about increasing the price exclusively for ios not being allowed. 

 

Last time I had a subscription service on ios it was 17% more expensive on ios than android (both using the in store sub services). 

[RejZoR]

Because lets all pretend you can't subscribe to services outside of apps at all... Netflix, Curiosity Stream, ProtonMail, pCloud... all subscribed outside of apps and being used on iOS. Had so for more than 3 years, so it's not a "recent" change.

[HenrySalayne]

21 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Because lets all pretend you can't subscribe to services outside of apps at all... Netflix, Curiosity Stream, ProtonMail, pCloud... all subscribed outside of apps and being used on iOS. Had so for more than 3 years, so it's not a "recent" change.

Good point! App developers can easily redirect their costumers to a web page so they can get a subscription without the 30% fee on top...

.

.

.

Wait a minute! 

[HRD]

32 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

Good point! App developers can easily redirect their costumers to a web page so they can get a subscription without the 30% fee on top...

.

.

.

Wait a minute! 

They can advertise that outside the app by sending emails or buying ads. They just can’t say that inside the app. Which is fair. You cannot force Walmart to advertise that the product is cheaper if they buy it directly from you but you can advertise that yourself outside of Walmart. Do you think it’s fair to force Walmart to advertise that the product is cheaper in Best Buy?? Or is it the consumer job to search for the best price and the competitor's job to advertise that they are selling the product for less

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, HRD said:

They can advertise that outside the app by sending emails or buying ads. They just can’t say that inside the app. Which is fair. You cannot force Walmart to advertise that the product is cheaper if they buy it directly from you but you can advertise that yourself outside of Walmart. Do you think it’s fair to force Walmart to advertise that the product is cheaper in Best Buy?? Or is it the consumer job to search for the best price and the competitor's job to advertise that they are selling the product for less

 

Inside a developers app is their realm, it's their product, their work, their software.  The entire concept that they are not allowed to point their customers to their own website is absurd.  This is not even remotely like forcing walmart to advertise cheaper prices for someone else's shop.   

[RejZoR]

Because typing "netflix" in Google is hard... If people can dig some god forsaken promo codes from fucking shadiest webpages one can imagine, making excuses "people don't know" in age when everyone fucking searches entire internet over to get lower prices is the lamest excuse I've ever heard.

[mr moose]

49 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Because typing "netflix" in Google is hard... If people can dig some god forsaken promo codes from fucking shadiest webpages one can imagine, making excuses "people don't know" in age when everyone fucking searches entire internet over to get lower prices is the lamest excuse I've ever heard.

So Apple is allowed to screw over app developers because people can use google?     We really are scraping the bottom of the barrel for a defense now.

[RejZoR]

Same could be said for people being pissy even when there are alternative means that cost you nothing to use. But muh whining over Apple.

[darknessblade]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

So Apple is allowed to screw over app developers because people can use google?     We really are scraping the bottom of the barrel for a defense now.

Don't you mean trying to find a grain of sugar in the ocean