You are dodging the question, at what percentage of economic consumer activity taking place on smartphones do said devices become an essential good?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple VP Referred for Criminal Contempt After 'Outright Lies' in Epic Games Ruling
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A. Smartphones are a popular commodity, not a necessity… It would be like saying back in the day “x percentage of people own an mp3 player, so they must be an essential for living, so should be regulated to death!” Popularity of a category of products doesn’t = essential for living. That’s a logical fallacy…
B. Not all regulation is equal. Saying “they’re a necessity for living, so should be regulated” has no bearing on whether or not this kind of regulation is good regulation or not… So even if we assumed the extremely flawed premise that smartphones are a “necessity” (people have survived centuries without them, so obviously not), that doesn’t make all regulation of smartphones good.
C. It’s outside of the proper scope of government authority to dictate what percentages or fees companies can charge vendors for leasing their store space. The store owner gets to decide what percentages and fees they will charge for providing that service to vendors. If vendors don’t like the fees, they don’t have to lease space and sell in that store…
D. What this judge is trying to force on Apple is ridiculous if we just swap around brand names for some perspective on what’s going on. Target stocks other vendors products in their store and promotes those products, and in return, those vendors pay a commission on sales of those products in Target’s stores. What this judge is trying to enforce is tantamount to allowing those vendors to pull customers aside before checkout and have the customer pay them directly, cheating Target out of that commission. That’s exactly what will happen to Apple in this scenario. Apple spends the money to maintain the App Store, promote developers’ apps in the App Store, and provide greater accessibility and visibility to a large customer base. These developers would then pull customers aside before checkout and have the customer pay them directly, cheating Apple out of their commission. Apple has provided the services of leasing valuable App Store server space to them, promoting their app, making it more accessible to a wide customer base, and then these developers want to cheat Apple out of their justified commission for providing those services. This is not good business, nor is it fair. Developers should not feel entitled to Apple’s services for free. If they don’t like paying Apple for their services, then they should leave and go elsewhere. Government should not be forcing companies like Apple to provide store space to vendors for free without the ability to collect commissions because vendors can just skip past the checkout...
B. Not all regulation is equal. Saying “they’re a necessity for living, so should be regulated” has no bearing on whether or not this kind of regulation is good regulation or not… So even if we assumed the extremely flawed premise that smartphones are a “necessity” (people have survived centuries without them, so obviously not), that doesn’t make all regulation of smartphones good.
C. It’s outside of the proper scope of government authority to dictate what percentages or fees companies can charge vendors for leasing their store space. The store owner gets to decide what percentages and fees they will charge for providing that service to vendors. If vendors don’t like the fees, they don’t have to lease space and sell in that store…
D. What this judge is trying to force on Apple is ridiculous if we just swap around brand names for some perspective on what’s going on. Target stocks other vendors products in their store and promotes those products, and in return, those vendors pay a commission on sales of those products in Target’s stores. What this judge is trying to enforce is tantamount to allowing those vendors to pull customers aside before checkout and have the customer pay them directly, cheating Target out of that commission. That’s exactly what will happen to Apple in this scenario. Apple spends the money to maintain the App Store, promote developers’ apps in the App Store, and provide greater accessibility and visibility to a large customer base. These developers would then pull customers aside before checkout and have the customer pay them directly, cheating Apple out of their commission. Apple has provided the services of leasing valuable App Store server space to them, promoting their app, making it more accessible to a wide customer base, and then these developers want to cheat Apple out of their justified commission for providing those services. This is not good business, nor is it fair. Developers should not feel entitled to Apple’s services for free. If they don’t like paying Apple for their services, then they should leave and go elsewhere. Government should not be forcing companies like Apple to provide store space to vendors for free without the ability to collect commissions because vendors can just skip past the checkout...
I’m sure over 90% of people shop at grocery stores, but that doesn’t mean product vendors should be able to take customers aside before checkout and have customers pay them directly to skirt paying the store’s commission on sales…
Popularity ≠ importance.
A smartphone handles banking, it handles all my music, I have used it to buy furniture, handle business deals via email, etc...
A smartphone is worlds away from an mp3 player in terms of usefulness and importance to every day life.
Pretending otherwise is to ignore reality.
True, bad regulation could cause problems in the future.
If a store is a monopoly the government can step in and require that fees and rates be FRAND. The iOS App Store rates fail this test because they do not apply equally to all app categories. Apple also mixes and matches what the fees are supposedly covering depending on the day. Some days it's an IP license, some days it's app review and hosting costs... these things should be disentangled, I have issues with the CTF but I think it is at least has the potential to be a fair fee (if Apple didn't have the exemption for Apps that don't agree to the new terms - which the EU has already called them out on).
Apple actually was given a chance to set a reasonable rate/commission for their services, the reason it is now zero and not some reasonable rate is that Apple decided to put in place so many barriers to customer communication and added so many new obstacles that it was basically impossible for apps to link out to their websites.
The reason their fee for link-out is now zero is because Apple ignored a judges order and now they are facing a punitive response. Apple is being punished, they ignored a federal judges ruling and now they have no commission.
It is within the Judges prerogative on how to punish companies that ignore their rulings.
That isn't what is happening here, I am not in Apple's checkout line once I download the app.
Apple chose to allow free apps, this judicial decision is changing only the fact that those apps can now tell users how to sign up. Apple already let them on the store without paying for anything, Apple wasn't getting any payment before this decision, this decision lets devs communicate with their customers after they have already left Apple's store.
A. All of those tasks can be performed with other devices. And there are many different kinds of smartphones, Apple doesn’t own the entire smartphone market…
B. At least we can agree on that. I think this regulation is bad regulation which will cause obvious future issues and is outside of the proper scope of government…
C. Apple is not a monopoly, there are other options. Nobody is forced at gunpoint to buy an Apple product. Customers make choices that suite their preferences/needs. If those don’t align with Apple’s offerings, they should buy something else… So no, Apple is not a monopoly, not even close…
D. No, it’s because some judge is probably trying to enhance her career by playing hardball with a big company like Apple. The initial ruling was the problem before this made things even worse. With that first ruling, they were essentially told they have to allow customers to be pulled aside by vendors before checkout so the vendors can cheat them out of their commission, this ruling is just whining that Apple didn’t make their terms easy for vendors to cheat them out of their commission…
If I’m dodging the question then you are skipping over the obvious. That a “smartphone” is smaller tech than an arm laptop with a cellular modem and it’s the function not the form factor. Granted smaller is better but the functions exist and are made possible by the vast cellular network.
No, that isn’t what’s happening. Many apps have an initial “free download”, but then charge for functionality in that app. Apple is promoting these said apps, and providing them with hosting and access to their clientele, so they are perfectly within reason collecting a commission on these purchases. Apple basically has to provide the option to distribute apps for free, because there are many non-profits that distribute apps, and there are other types of apps that a purchase to use wouldn’t make sense for, like as you keep mentioning, banking apps. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to collect commissions from for-profit apps that use an initial free download, but then charge for access to app functionality. That would essentially leave Apple footing the bill to host thousands if not millions of “free” for-profit apps that bypass the checkout and cheat Apple out of the commissions they’re due…
After I download the app I have left Apples store. You brought up the grocery store analogy not me. Apple doesn't own me, I am not Apple's property, I am both Spotify's and Apple's customer. My relationship is not with Apple when I purchase a streaming subscription it is with Spotify.
As I have pointed out, the judge originally said Apple could charge what amounts to a referral fee for discovery within the store. It is Apple's fault that they cant even do that anymore because of how they chose to ignore the judge's previous rulings.
Why not banking apps? What APIs do banking apps avoid that Spotify uses that means they should be exempt from a commission on all transactions that occur within a banking app? Banking Apps also are provided with hosting and in your words "access to their clientele" so Apple should collect a commission on all banking transactions as well should they not?
Apple chose to foot the bill because it helped build their platform. They decided a very long time ago to already do this. Consider, Uber, Walmart, McDonalds, Amazon, etc... none of these apps pay apple for hosting. Apple is already perfectly happy to host thousands of free up front apps through which billions of dollars of transactions take place. I suspect the reason Apple doesn't charge a commission in any of these apps is because they know it would drive them out of the store if they tried. There is no justification for not charging some apps a fee and charging others.
Again, I ask, if everyone expects to buy a smartphone as an adult, and it is assumed that you will have one, at what point would that become essential?
Going back in time, at what point in time did electricity become essential? How many households and at what standard of living did electricity move from a luxury good to an essential service?
A telephone is essential. An iPhone is not essential is the correct answer. Popularity is not an indication of being essential. Sports cards, beany babies, pet rocks and tamagotchis were extremely popular. Were they essential because “everybody” bought them?
Our work’s economics functions on the cellular network. Not an iPhone. Being “essential” is a judgment call based on your circumstances. But that doesn’t mean it should be regulated.
They are a monopoly
To developers, Apple is a monopoly in all the ways that matter, if you want to be able to sell to all possible smartphone users you have no choice but to be on iOS. It doesn't matter that Android exists because if you don't sell on iOS you aren't selling to all possible customers. Most people don't have an android phone and an iPhone.
Customers can make choices, but developers don't have the same freedom. Spotify can't actually expect to reach their customers if they aren't on both platforms.
Again, I am not in Apple's store after I download the app.
If Apple wanted a referral fee they had that chance and blew it because, as the internal emails noted, they weren't trying to comply with the initial ruling.
Conflating referral fees, IP fees, and App Store hosting fees is part of the problem.
None of the items you listed are platforms that facilitate commerce so they are all red herrings.
Why are telephones essential? What criteria made you determine that they were essential? Why are letters not sufficient? People survived without the telephone for centuries, what features of the telephone mean that it is now essential?
I'll ask again, when in history, did electricity transition from a luxury good to an essential item and by what criteria did you make that determination.
A. But you’re still using a product licensed through Apple’s store. It would be like if I picked up a product at Walmart with “zero down payments”. When I do pay for the product (sending payments in the mail), Walmart will still receive their commission from that sale… If you buy an Xbox game in Target, you’re not purchasing the game in the Xbox store, but Xbox is still going to get their commission. Developers aren’t entitled to make iOS apps, Apple allows developers to create these apps and license them following their terms. Creating iOS apps isn’t a fundamental human right, just like creating Xbox games isn’t… And your relationship is with Apple when you purchase a Spotify streaming subscription in the Apple licensed app, because those are the terms Spotify agreed to when they published their app, and you’re using Apple’s platform to purchase that subscription. Apple is the one facilitating that transaction, just like if you bought a subscription for something at Walmart…
B. You keep making that claim without evidence, and it wasn’t the judge’s place to tell Apple what they can or can’t do with their store space and commissions they charge vendors who choose to lease their store space, so it doesn’t matter any way you cut it. This is government overreach. It’s Apple’s store, Apple’s platform, Apple should be free to lease their property as they see fit…
C. Banking apps don’t really qualify as “for-profit apps” the same way Spotify does. Sure, you can technically take loans, but that isn’t really an “in-app purchase” or subscription service… Apple provides separate terms for banking apps due to these factors…
D. So they should be required to foot the bill forever if they decide to generously foot the bill at one period of time? This makes zero sense. Apple is not required to foot the bill indefinitely for everyone, nor should they be expected to.
E. None of those apps are selling digital goods whose purchases are facilitated by Apple’s platform. Apps like Spotify are selling digital goods. Apps like Amazon, Uber, Walmart, etc. aren’t offering “in-app purchases”, you’re buying a physical item that isn’t an in-app feature or function. So you’re comparing apples to oranges.
In short, you’re grasping at straws, making apples and oranges comparisons, and ignoring that government should not be bullying companies into allowing vendors to cheat them out of their commissions…
I don’t need a smartphone to facilitate e-commerce. Almost each and every phone in 2025 whether they are or not they are smart have a web browser and use the cellular air waves. So if facilitating commerce is the lowest common definition a smartphone clearly isn’t essential.
I’ll ask rhetorically this time again as well why is an iPhone is so essential. It’s nice. The ecosystem is great. They are a joy to use. People make money from their stock. They do many functions. But if everybody threw away their iPhones tomorrow the world would go on.
A. Yeah, if you say Apple’s a monopoly that magically makes it so! 😂🤣. The fact is they are not a monopoly. No one is forced to buy Apple products including iPhones, and developers are not forced to write iOS apps. They are not a monopoly, especially since in many markets they don’t even own a majority share over competitors devices…
B. Quite honestly, that’s an absurd load of rubbish. That would be like saying that developers are forced to write apps for Linux because “if you don’t sell on Linux, then you aren’t selling to all possible customers”… That’s a logical fallacy. Businesses don’t have to sell to all possible customers, just the ones they need to be successful. In fact, it’s virtually impossible for any business to sell to “all possible customers”… The fact is, there are many apps that are only available on iOS and not Android, or only on Android and not iOS, or only on Linux, or only on Windows, or only on macOS, etc. No app developer is forced at gunpoint to write an app for every platform that exists. There are many apps that don’t have a Chromebook or iPad version, even though they’re popular options… So this claim is ridiculous on its face. Besides, there’s the option to use a web app like Xbox Game Pass does… Fully self-hosted and not benefiting from Apple’s hosting and services, so no commissions required…
C. And I’m not in Xbox’s store when I buy a Xbox game at Target, nor am I at Walmart’s store when I’m sending payments for a “zero down payments” product, but they would still get their cut for facilitating the transaction… You’re making a purchase in the Spotify iOS app thanks to Apple’s hosting and marketing for that app. If you go to Spotify’s web app through your browser and buy your subscription there, that’s different, because you’re going to Spotify’s storefront, and Spotify is the one facilitating the transaction. Apple collects a commission from the app, because it’s their platform facilitating the transaction, they have a right to require a commission.
D. Again, continuing to make that claim with zero evidence. But beyond that, as I’ve said before, it wasn’t the government’s place to try to tell Apple what kind of commissions they can collect from vendors leasing their store space in the first place. It’s far outside the scope of proper government authority. The initial ruling essentially is “you must allow venders to skirt the checkout and avoid paying you commissions when leasing your store space”, and this ruling essentially reads “we’re not happy you didn’t make it super duper easy for vendors to cheat you out of your commissions, and we’re going to create silly edicts like a petty tyrant to tell you how you need to run your store”…
You’re the one who’s doing the conflating, like the laughable claims that “Apple is a monopoly”, “smartphones are essential to living”, and pretending Apple should be okay with footing the bill for millions of apps to benefit from their services which require funding, development, and maintenance, all for vendors to cheat Apple out of commissions. You expect that a store should be forced to stock products for free without being able to collect commissions, which is ridiculous…
Yeah, everything you can do with a smartphone can also be done with a cellular laptop or tablet, smartphones are hardly “essential for living”. What a laughable claim. And the irony isn’t lost on me that he claims “smartphones are essential because x percentage of people use them, the data proves they’re essential”, and then goes on to tell me “popularity doesn’t equal importance”, which is the exact point I was making in the first place. Just because iPhones are popular doesn’t mean they’re “important” or “essential”…
Popularity + impact together are both why smartphones are becoming essential to full and equal participation in modern society.
You seem to believe that my admission that popularity alone when combined with my indications of smartphone usage are some kind of gotcha. It isn’t. It is the fact that an enormous amount of economic activity takes place on smartphones and that the economic activity affects almost everyone in the population.
The decisions of the smartphone makers impact the lives of almost every adult.
If iPhones went away tomorrow there would probably be millions of unemployed around the world and a huge amount of economic activity would vanish.
If something like the internet went away the world would go on too. This isn’t a good criteria for something being essential because we are a very adaptable species.
For someone who is so vehement on this topic you haven’t read the rulings (either of them) have you?
The first ruling many on here clearly pointed out that the judge allowed that Apple should be able to collect some commission, in the second ruling she was very mad about all the ways Apple tried to game the system and explicitly called it out that the reason they are prevented from collecting a commission now is because they tried to avoid complying.
I’m typing this on my phone and if you can’t be bothered to read the ruling I’ll just say go read Gruber on this recent ruling and the last one.
Define the difference between popularity and impact, because the only thing your claimed statistic would prove is popularity… I think you’re grasping at straws and pulling words out of a hat to create the illusion of a distinction in ideas, when in reality, your argument boils down to “smartphones are popular so that means they’re essential”. That’s at least all that your cited “evidence” supports…
You pretend that somehow smartphones are essential to living, but they aren’t. And as has been already pointed out, even if we assumed your false premise that smartphones are “essential”, it wouldn’t prove any of your subsequent claims. A. Apple is far from having a monopoly on smartphones. Many companies make smartphones. In many markets, Apple is far from having a majority market share. B. Not all regulation of an “essential” product would inherently be good. The regulation in question is bad regulation for several reasons, including that it falls outside of the scope of proper authority. C. Not everything “essential to living” should be regulated or needs to be regulated.
That’s your interpretation of the ruling, but it essentially boils down to government trying to tell a private business they aren’t allowed to prevent vendors from bypassing the checkout. This ruling whines and moans about how Apple didn’t supposedly do enough to make it easy enough for vendors to bypass the checkout. Your side of the debate wants to characterize it in a rosier way, but many others have read the rulings and come to the exact same conclusions I have…
And Gruber is a bad source. He likes to throw out claims he can’t prove and doesn’t know. He already proved to me that he likes to make false accusations and claims on past occasions…
You can claim that's my argument all you want but it isn't...
Smartphones are, like computers, a market on which competition between apps takes place, it is a place where commerce takes place within apps that facilitate things like ride sharing, ticketing, food delivery, etc... I recently went to a concert where there was no non-smartphone way to get your tickets, there just wasn't, you had to have a smartphone to attend.
The world is moving to a place where it is assumed that you have a smartphone. To deny this is to look at the shifting world and say it isn't happening, your claim seems to be that as long as alternatives and workarounds to smartphones exist that it doesn't matter that the default assumption in business, culture, and government is that everyone has one.
Humans are adaptable and could learn to live without almost any of modern life's amenities, that doesn't mean that those amenities don't define what it is to live in a modern society.
A: A monopoly in smartphones doesn't matter because consumers don't buy both Android and iOS. iOS and Android are separate markets from a developer perspective. The judge agreed with you on this, the EU disagreed with the US judge. I am inclined to believe the EU decision rather than the US one because software written for iOS doesn't run on Android and visa versa. Software isn't generic, it is platform dependent which is why you can't (as a developer) treat it as a generic market, it is the iOS market and the Android market from a developer perspective.
B. Agreed but I think that requiring Apple to have more FRAND like terms would be preferable to the current arbitrary terms.
C. If a government sees a market (iOS apps) is being stifled by behaviour of an entity which is doing everything it can to ensure it is always standing between the customer (iPhone purchaser) and the seller (developer) then the government will look at that for regulation.
The above doomsday scenario has already happened in Wall Street and society went on just fine. However if your food or water supply was compromised, or lost electrical power for an extended period of time etc, life wouldn’t be significantly altered.
there is no replacement for the internet, which as I’ve shown and you admitted is driven by cellular technology. There are ways to do smartphone things on other than smartphones, hence smartphones aren’t essential and other than the health and safety aspect no need for government to over regulate, which in the US they haven’t only applied existing law.