The plot thickens!
Public owned means government run.
And I mentioned the 80s because it debuted in 1980 and was most popular in the 80s.
It was a proprietary service, like Bloomberg terminals today, which dominate that market and have full control over what users can access on - and there too, with its monopoly no one can demand Bloomberg open its service to additional software or services.
That’s not relevant to antitrust - after all Sony doesn’t make consoles only, and Apple doesn’t make iOS devices only. If an ice cream maker made IOS devices would it suddenly not be considered for antitrust?
This is not accurate - the console makers are supporting Epic, tacitly or in the care of Microsoft, explicitly.
Microsoft is clearly supporting Epic, so I don’t know why you could think they never will.
The point is that Epic is not going after console makers, which have the same (or more draconian) policies than Apple. And the console makers, which have monetary interests with Epic (Sony bought a $250 million stake, Nintendo and Microsoft license the gaming engine) are not opposing Epic in the slightest.
One one hand I agree that there is an inflection point (largely driven by wealthy companies trying to get a piece of the money Apple is garnering). On the other you have to do better than (a) “bunches” of a vocal minority alongside (b) silence.
- Github (one example from the “silence” fraction), see above
- Wordpress (part of the “bunch”), see above
- Manton Reece with Jason Snell’s remarkable quote “I can’t tell you how many developers I’ve talked to who have similar stories.”
- Microsoft
- iAWriter (when reading between the lines)
- list can be continued with similar reports by tech journalists of your choice…
I may be wrong. Or not.
There had been this game show for kids in German TV in my childhood with this nice saying:
“Ob Ihr wirklich richtig steht, seht Ihr, wenn das Licht angeht.”
Translated (unfortunately losing its melody and its charm):
“When the lights will be turned on, you will see, if you are standing in the right spot.”
I do not think that we will have to wait much longer until the lights are being turned on. Everybody seems to be coming out of the woodworks as we speak. Interesting times.
1 Like
As I said, you’re referring to a small, vocal group, and then depending on further support of your argument by the lack of complaints.
A small vocal group indicative of “bunches” of silent people, and now it’s “everyone”? That’s not only contradictory but the use of indistinct, imprecise and hazy descriptors doesn’t help. 
I appreciate the heads-up! Always nice to learn something new. 
1 Like
This is not how this worked and not really how France works, but I’m used to seeing you sticking to your guns, so I won’t distract you further with first-hand knowledge of having used the thing for years.
4 Likes
PTT, a government agency, ran Minitel starting when it was introduced in 1980 and until it was passed on to France Telecom in 1991 upon the split into FT & La Poste
As I said, not engaging, neither on this or the rest. Have a nice day.
4 Likes
I lived in Paris in 1989; I remember both the Minitel and how easy it was to use.
1 Like
This YouTube video (published a little over a week ago) is definitely worth the watch. It goes into detail about the hypocrisy and ridiculousness of Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney.
Apple is trying to be very generous right now, but I doubt that Epic Games will even remotely budge.
(…) I think that Apple has brought this scrutiny upon itself by failing to adapt to the times. When the App Store was formed, Apple was a much smaller company and the iPhone only had the beginnings of being a hit. Now Apple is a behemoth and the iPhone is one of the most popular products of our lifetimes, but sometimes it acts as if it’s a scrappy upstart that desperately needs to hold on to as much money and control as it possibly can. In 2008, its policies seemed straightforward and even innovative—and in 2020 those same policies seem cruel and tone-deaf and even greedy.
I really believe that Apple would prefer to stick with the status quo whenever possible. The wildcard here is an intervention from an external power—losing a lawsuit, facing new laws designed to curb its authority, or being forced to change policies in order to have access to certain markets. The results of such intervention are often unpredictable—and don’t always benefit the most important group of all, the users. (…)
So who am I rooting for in this case? I’m hoping that the judges, along with the legislators and regulators, don’t get distracted by the sight of two large, profitable companies squabbling in court and lose sight of the most important party in this case—the people who use these products every day.
The article in its entire length is absolutely worth the read.
1 Like
So, I’m in Sweden, and we DO have iOS apps that use their own payment schemes. One class of apps are the parking apps. No in-app purchase, no Apple Pay, money straight to the “parking provider” with (as far as I can understand) no cut at all to Apple for the transaction (because they don’t see the transaction). These apps also have sign-up and activiation included, you do it all from the phone. No need to exit and bypass via Safari either.
We can also buy local transit tickets and have them delivered to the phone, so this seems to be yet another example of rules being applied differently. Can’t see how these transactions differ in principle from buying a skin or power-up in a game though…
Not that I’m complaining, the user experience is very nice in these apps. If Apple DID insist on a 30% cut, I doubt very much the services would be viable.
1 Like
“Thousands of apps on the App Store approved by Apple accept direct payments, including commonly used apps like Amazon, Grubhub, Nike SNKRS, Best Buy, DoorDash, Fandango, McDonald’s, Uber, Lyft, and StubHub. We think all developers should be free to support direct payments in all apps.”
While it may be true that the companies mentioned above don’t have to pay the 30 percent transaction fee, there’s an important distinction to be made. Companies like DoorDash, McDonald’s, Uber, and Best Buy provide users with physical goods.
I think the assumption is that digital goods don’t have a per-item incremental cost, where physical goods do - so the two are handled differently.
Whether or not that makes sense in the real world is another discussion, but that’s the principle.
1 Like
It’s not a special class of app, nor does it have a special dispensation; it’s just like a store app or restaurant app, or any existing ticketing app. Apple charges the 30% for purchases of apps, content, functionality or services in an app e.g. purchasing new levels of a game, not your parking app payment.
I’m not airwhale, nor do I have a doubt about his POV.
The last two responses explained why there’s no special deal on the payment described, and why there are thousands of apps that similarly offer payments the same way, so I’d be interested to hear you explain why you still have the other POV.
Maybe take it up with the people who posted those ideas? They would know better than I do.