Everyone who publishes software that runs on iOS devices is an Apple customer, though. This isn’t the same thing as a browser — apps running on iOS devices consume APIs on the device, utilize Apple services, etc.
Also, when it comes to web apps, in most cases, the developers are also customers of the browser vendors -- from using browser developer tools and SDKs, for example, https://www.google.com/chrome/dev/ , https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/developer/ , and https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/?form=M... to name three. Safari’s dev tools etc. you get with your Apple Dev subscription.
And those browser vendors, like Apple, also provide developer training, developer support services, early access to upcoming product versions, opportunities to provide input into future product designs and features, etc.
In other words, this is not a problem, much less the “core problem”. This is normal industry practice. In fact, on some platforms, there are royalty fees due for the SDK runtime components that are required to run the software a third party developer provides. Just look at mainframes — you might buy XYZ Accounting system from them, and have to pay an additional annual license payment for the cobol runtime it requires.
That fact, by the way, is what the half a Euro per ‘download’ technology fee is about. Part of the DMA requires separation of the “app store fee” from the fee for using iOS services.
It’s also important to note, when people talk about the 30% app store fee as being high — the app store is essentially the same thing as a retail store. Back in the days when you bought software in a physical store, rather than downloading it, the margin at the retail level ranged between 30% and 50%. E.g., we would pay the distributor $25 and sell it for $49.99. The distributor in turn would buy the software in bulk from the manufacturer, for somewhere around $20-$22.
Software developers get a lot bigger share of what the consumer pays in the current model. Some, however, are greedier than others, and leverage governments to their advantage. Epic Games doesn’t want any competition - they want to be the sole retailer of Fortnite on all platforms so that they can raise the price to whatever they want.
You’re missing a key point by calling this a “competing app store”. That’s not what it would be. It would simply be Epic’s app store with Epic’s apps in it, the purpose being to maximize Epic’s revenue on Epic’s games. Apple, in case you haven’t noticed, isn’t a game company — they don’t compete with Epic. Microsoft does. Steam does. Apple doesn’t. In fact, given that Epic games haven’t been on iOS in ages, there’s literally zero competition even there.
It’s kind of silly to think that other companies that actually compete with Epic would choose to publish via the Epic store, since they’d just be giving money to their competitor. Either they’ll build their own stores or they’ll continue business as usual, using the device manufacturer’s stores.
To your other point, while a US court judgement is unlikely to have direct relevance to EU regulation, it does help establish a pattern of behavior on Epic’s part.
It’s also important to note that the provisions for establishing an alternative app store are designed to protect the consumer. Repeated violations of contractual agreements is clear evidence of a company’s untrustworthiness, and it would be irresponsible for Apple to do anything other than exercise the termination clause as a result..
In the case of books, the product with value is the content (the words), not the packaging (the pages of the book). Books are very recyclable, though.
The question, really, is what about clothes? Well, it turns out textiles are recyclable as well. That’s what happens to most clothing that’s donated to Goodwill etc. - if they don’t sell, and let’s face it, who wants most threadworn, out of style clothing?— then they’re shredded & recycled.
Not actually supported by the science, which shows that the misalignment with our circadian rhythms is the most important consideration.
Permanent standard time is the optimal scenario, and the one our bodies and minds are optimized ofor.
The article states that they get 2 years of free rent. In exchange, the property owner gets the use of the deposit money. From what I can tell, the scheme depends on property values going up, so that when one tenant leaves, the owner can get another tenant to put down a larger deposit, part of which they use to pay back the first tenant etc.
That’s exactly what’s at the core of the request — if it was some rich friends of SBF, maybe they’d be happy to gift him the money — but the requirement is that the invidividuals providing the sureity be sufficiently at arm’s length that they would be able to influence him not to flee - so that they could get their money back.
For all we know at this point, they could be co-conspirators.
I don’t think it’s really so much the hardware and software vendors as it is the music industry — and their very powerful lobbyists and lawyers. The tech companies have to play along with what the music industry wants — if they don’t, then they don’t get to have the top artists on their platform — and THAT is why Zune/Groove Music failed, not anyting tech related.
Offers etc. are almost never “employment contracts” — in fact, every one I’ve ever received points out that it is not a contract, and that the relationship is at-will.
There’s no difference between rescinding an offer, and terminating the at-will relationship one second into the first day - except a bit more notice.
At the end of the day, for a salaried employee, it's not a vacation day if you do any work -- and checking email IS work -- no matter how it's accounted for, most Microsoft FTEs never truly take a vacation day. So it's all just a matter of accounting anyway.
And those browser vendors, like Apple, also provide developer training, developer support services, early access to upcoming product versions, opportunities to provide input into future product designs and features, etc.
In other words, this is not a problem, much less the “core problem”. This is normal industry practice. In fact, on some platforms, there are royalty fees due for the SDK runtime components that are required to run the software a third party developer provides. Just look at mainframes — you might buy XYZ Accounting system from them, and have to pay an additional annual license payment for the cobol runtime it requires.
That fact, by the way, is what the half a Euro per ‘download’ technology fee is about. Part of the DMA requires separation of the “app store fee” from the fee for using iOS services.
It’s also important to note, when people talk about the 30% app store fee as being high — the app store is essentially the same thing as a retail store. Back in the days when you bought software in a physical store, rather than downloading it, the margin at the retail level ranged between 30% and 50%. E.g., we would pay the distributor $25 and sell it for $49.99. The distributor in turn would buy the software in bulk from the manufacturer, for somewhere around $20-$22.
Software developers get a lot bigger share of what the consumer pays in the current model. Some, however, are greedier than others, and leverage governments to their advantage. Epic Games doesn’t want any competition - they want to be the sole retailer of Fortnite on all platforms so that they can raise the price to whatever they want.