4 ms·

That would really defeat the whole purpose... I'm sure this is not the intention of this law. However it is indeed possible that Apple would weasel such a requ

by _abox 5y ago

That would really defeat the whole purpose... I'm sure this is not the intention of this law. However it is indeed possible that Apple would weasel such a requirement through the loopholes, yes.

aaomidi 5y ago
The more they try to block this, the heavier the regulations are going to be on them. At some point Apple might see itself being split apart because of its constant and well documented abuse of it's status in the market.
- dmitrygr 5y ago
  Into what and what, exactly?
  - aaomidi 5y ago
    You could imagine the hardware manufacturing/os component of apple being split from the services part of apple.
- olliej 5y ago
  What market abuse? And what do you split up? Apple is a hardware company, all the software they write is purely to make the hardware they sell attractive to consumers.
  - spacemanmatt 5y ago
    > all the software they write is purely to make the hardware they sell attractive to consumers. This view of Apple as a pure-platform company does not comport with reality
  - emptysongglass 5y ago
    Apple is now a services company: https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/20/18273179/apple-icloud-itunes-app-store-music-services-businesses https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/20/18273179/apple-icloud-itu...
olliej 5y ago
Who should pay for the cost of development then? Apple has always been very clear, the store commission is for use of their IP. Any other store can undercut apple because they don’t have to pay any of the development costs for the platform. There is no weaseling, it is very simple: the commission covers the licensing. The alternative is saying that apple must develop software, give it away for free, then let random stores make a profit selling software that they contributed nothing to. It is exactly equivalent to the EU saying that a company should be free to use GPL software however they like, including selling at a profit, without providing the sources.

by _abox 5y ago

That would really defeat the whole purpose... I'm sure this is not the intention of this law. However it is indeed possible that Apple would weasel such a requirement through the loopholes, yes.

aaomidi 5y ago

The more they try to block this, the heavier the regulations are going to be on them. At some point Apple might see itself being split apart because of its constant and well documented abuse of it's status in the market.

dmitrygr 5y ago
Into what and what, exactly?
- aaomidi 5y ago
  You could imagine the hardware manufacturing/os component of apple being split from the services part of apple.
olliej 5y ago
What market abuse? And what do you split up? Apple is a hardware company, all the software they write is purely to make the hardware they sell attractive to consumers.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  > all the software they write is purely to make the hardware they sell attractive to consumers. This view of Apple as a pure-platform company does not comport with reality
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  Apple is now a services company: https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/20/18273179/apple-icloud-itunes-app-store-music-services-businesses https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/20/18273179/apple-icloud-itu...

olliej 5y ago

Who should pay for the cost of development then? Apple has always been very clear, the store commission is for use of their IP. Any other store can undercut apple because they don’t have to pay any of the development costs for the platform. There is no weaseling, it is very simple: the commission covers the licensing. The alternative is saying that apple must develop software, give it away for free, then let random stores make a profit selling software that they contributed nothing to. It is exactly equivalent to the EU saying that a company should be free to use GPL software however they like, including selling at a profit, without providing the sources.