In-Q-Tel (IQT), formerly Peleus and In-Q-It, is an American not-for-profit venture capital firm based in Arlington, Virginia. It invests in high-tech companies to keep the Central Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in information technology in support of United States intelligence capability.[4]
The name "In-Q-Tel" is an intentional reference to Q, the fictional inventor who supplies technology to James Bond.[5]
No they don’t. Nobody records the serial numbers of each bill they receive and pass and who they got it from and gave it to, in a publicly accessible ledger.
The practices aren’t anti-competitive. That’s just it. This is all about a few other multi-billion dollar companies trying to take money for something they didn’t build.
It’s laughably naive to think this is about individual citizens voting for completion law.
Actually, a judge already found that at least some of Apple's practices were anti-competitive, and order them to stop.
So yes, in at least one trial, some of Apple's actions were declared anti-competitive.
> voting for completion law
This thread is actually literally about a law that was created. And more laws are being created right now, in south korea, the EU, and the USA, and those laws would require Apple to change more of it's behavior.
But also, as I mentioned before, a judge literally already found some of Apple's behavior to be illegally anti competitive.
Did you read the part where I said "So yes, in at least one trial, some of Apple's actions were declared anti-competitive."?
I didn't say "any" practices. I said some.
So yes, some of Apple's practices were anti-competitive.
Apple has to win on every single count, otherwise it is a loss compared to the status quo, because that is 1 less thing they are allowed to do.
So yes, Apple is at the stage where already "some" of it's practices have been declared anti-competitive. And more lawsuits and laws are happening or being drafted.
In fact, the Open Apps Market app just went through the senate committee yesterday, in a rare bipartisan 20 to 2 decision, which would force sideloading of alternate App stores, I believe.
If that law passes, it is game over for Apple on this subject.
If that passes, there is basically nothing Apple can do to prevent everyone from completely bypassing the 30% fee.
> So yes, Apple is at the stage where already "some" of it's practices have been declared anti-competitive
Yes, but that’s irrelevant. It doesn’t mean their practices have been declared as such in some general way. If you want to discuss the specifics of that case, by all means do so, otherwise it’s just dishonest to pretend they are relevant.
As for what passed the committee - it’s possible that may indeed allow people to bypass the 15% fee (please don’t lie about it being 30% - that is only for a small number of developers).
It will also have all kinds of damaging impacts that make life harder for smaller developers, so it’s not a win for anyone except some larger scammy operators.
In any case, a committee vote is a long way from legislation. It’s unlikely to pass judicial review even if it passes both houses of Congress, which is also unlikely.
Huh. It's almost like pressuring apple with legal action forced them to lower their fees. That's pretty nice. Sounds like we need to more of that.
> pretend they are relevant.
It is relevant because it supports my general point that every loss for apple, is one less thing that they can do, and that there are a bunch of ways that they are being attacked, on many fronts.
Apple has to win on everything, or it is a loss, compared to nothing happening.
> It’s unlikely to pass judicial review
People are not making any significant arguments that the law is illegal or unconstitutional. Laws aren't unconstitutional just because you don't like them.
These types of laws are attempting to be passed in lots of countries. So no, all of these laws everywhere, that lots of countries are trying to pass, are not all illegal.
> that make life harder for smaller developers
Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.
> People are not making any significant arguments that the law is illegal or unconstitutional. Laws aren't unconstitutional just because you don't like them.
Don’t be silly. The bill only passed committee last week. Arguments over constitutionality will come in due course.
> These types of laws are attempting to be passed in lots of countries. So no, all of these laws everywhere,
No they aren’t.
> that lots of countries are trying to pass, are not all illegal.
That remains to be seen.
> that make life harder for smaller developers
Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.
This simply isn’t true.
If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.
Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.
These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.
> Arguments over constitutionality will come in due course
Which means that you have absolutely no justification for the law being illegal. You just don't like it, and are reaching for whatever things that you can, without any justification.
> That remains to be seen.
This is code for "I have absolutely no good arguments, or any legal justification, for why it is illegal, I just want to assert that it is illegal because I don't like it!".
Because if you had good arguments you would have said them.
So I have no idea why you are making these strong claims that it is very unlikely that it will pass constitutional review, when your only justification is "that remains to be seen".
> No they aren’t.
Yes they are. Go look up the EU tech laws that they are attempting to pass. They include a similar provision, that would force other app stores on the platform.
You are pretty misinformed if you didn't know that there was a big EU tech law, that they are attempting to write and pass right now.
The points you were responding to are just rebuttals of your own claims of legal knowledge.
> This is code for "I have absolutely no good arguments, or any legal justification, for why it is illegal, I just want to assert that it is illegal because I don't like it!".
Saying my argument is something I didn’t write is just a dishonest and lazy move. What I wrote isn’t code for anything. You seem to be unable to handle my points as they were written.
You also didn’t respond to my rebuttal of your actual position. Let’s try again:
> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.
This simply isn’t true.
If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.
Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.
These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.
Since you are not quick on the uptake to figure out what I was saying, I will spell it out explicitly.
When I said it was a "code", I didn't literally mean that you were speaking in code, like some sort of cryptographic secret language. Instead I was making fun of you, for asserting that the laws were illegal, without any actual justification.
You originally stated "It’s unlikely to pass judicial review". And you just asserted it. With no justification.
And then later, when I pressed you on it, your only justification, for why you think these laws are illegal is "That remains to be seen.". Which isn't an argument for why the laws might be illegal.
I was assuming that when you said "It’s unlikely to pass judicial review", that you might actually have a reason for why you think the law is illegal, other than "That remains to be seen.". But I guess I was wrong on thinking that you had a reason.
You had no actual reason or justification, for why these laws could be illegal, even though there are multiple laws, attempting to be passed in all sorts of countries, such as the EU, which you were wrong about.
You just said it was illegal, and said we'll have to wait to find out, lol. Thats not a reason, because you don't have any.
I do expect that it won’t pass judicial review. However that is a discussion for another time. Remember the proposal hasn’t come before either house yet. Imagining the law is an instantaneous process seems misguided.
So you’ve now wasted comment after comment merely ‘making fun of’ that opinion without adding any substance. I assume that’s because you aren’t really sure of your position.
Perhaps this is just bluster to distract us from the fact that you didn’t respond to my rebuttal of your actual position. Let’s try again:
> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.
This simply isn’t true.
If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.
Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.
These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.
> I do expect that it won’t pass judicial review. However that is a discussion for another time.
So then you have asserted this, without any reason at all, which was my entire point. You have no reason or justification for thinking that the law is illegal. You just said "Its illegal, and I have no reason why I think that!".
And before you say it, when I said that Quote, I am not literally saying that you said those words, instead I am saying how you didn't give a reason, and just asserted that it was illegal, with no justification.
> So you’ve now wasted comment
When you make a completely unsubstantiated comment, with no justification, it is important to keep it on point, so that you don't just shrug your shoulders and ignore it. Because you have made multiple false statements, and then when I point out the false statements, you just ignore that.
You similarly disagreed with me, that there were other countries trying to pass similar laws, by just saying "no they aren't", when actually they are, and you can easily google these EU laws that people are writing.
When you keep on making completely false statements like that, it is important to point out, so that you are aware of how little you know about this topic.
>> I do expect that it won’t pass judicial review. However that is a discussion for another time.
> So then you have asserted this, without any reason at all, which was my entire point. You have no reason or justification for thinking that the law is illegal. You just said "Its illegal, and I have no reason why I think that!".
No I didn’t say it’s illegal. Where did I say that?
I said I expect that it won’t pass judicial review. That is what I expect.
> Because you have made multiple false statements, and then when I point out the false statements, you just ignore that.
You haven’t pointed out a single false statement. It seems like you’re just descending into outright lies now.
If you can quote a false statement I made rather that making one up, then I’ll reconsider that opinion.
It seems like you are are just lying to distract from the fact that you didn’t respond to my rebuttal of your actual position.
Let’s try again:
> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.
This simply isn’t true.
If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.
Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.
These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.
Ok, so expect that it will be declared illegal. As in, "it won’t pass judicial review". That is what I meant by that statement.
I am saying that you are claiming that " it won’t pass judicial review", but you didn't give a reason or justification for why that would be case.
> You haven’t pointed out a single false statement
The most obvious false statement, would be the one that I just quoted of you, in that post. Which would be when you said "no they aren't", in response to me, when I said that other countries were trying to pass similar laws.
A similar law, would be the EU laws that are being written right now. So that is the false statement. It would be how you were not aware of those similar EU laws.
> If you can quote a false statement
The quote is "No they aren't", in response to my statements about these EU laws. I literally quoted that in my previous post.
I’m not ‘claiming’ it won’t pass judicial review. I am stating an opinion. Do you understand that?
I don’t think the EU laws are similar. That is another opinion.
Neither of these statements are false. You may disagree with my opinions but it’s delusional to confuse opinion with fact.
You are lying when you say I’m making false statements. to distract from the fact that you didn’t respond to my rebuttal of your actual position.
Let’s try again:
> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.
This simply isn’t true.
If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.
Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.
These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.
So an opinion with absolutely no stated reason or justification. Thats my point. It is entirely unjustified, with no stated reason for it.
> I don’t think the EU laws are similar.
So then you are not aware of the EU laws being considered and written right now, that would force Apple and Google to allow competing app stores, and allow people to bypass the Apple fee.
That is the missing piece of information, that you do not have, that makes your statement false.
>So an opinion with absolutely no stated reason or justification. Thats my point. It is entirely unjustified, with no stated reason for it.
So you you knew it was an opinion and lied when you called it a false statement.
>> I don’t think the EU laws are similar.
>> So then you are not aware of the EU laws being considered and written right now, that would force Apple and Google to allow competing app stores, and allow people to bypass the Apple fee.
You are delusional if you think you know what I am or am not aware of.
> That is the missing piece of information, that you do not have,
As I say, you are delusional if you think you know whether I have that information or not.
> that makes your statement false.
No, it just makes it your opinion that the bills are similar, and my opinion that they are not.
This bizarre obsession is clearly just to distract from responding to my rebuttal of your actual position.
Let’s try again:
> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.
This simply isn’t true.
If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.
Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.
These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.
I don't make much of distinction between an opinion, and making a statement. I only went with that, because apparently calling it an "opinion" is important to you, for reasons that are a mystery.
I am happy to call it an "opinion" because my main point is not whether it is a statement, or an opinion, of which I don't care or make much of a distinction, my main point is that you still did not give any reason or justification for it.
> whether I have that information or not.
Well since I just mentioned it, I now know that you are aware that the EU is working on laws that allow alternative apps stores.
And if you are aware of it, then your statements, or opinions, or whatever you want to call them, are false, because that is a pretty clear similarity.
No, people are arguing this because they think the 15% represents good value compared to what you would have to do as an indie developer to support multiple stores and payment methods.
The problem is that people can easily be induced to install software that negates the benefit of Apple’s hardware. Apple can’t deliver their hardware benefits without also controlling the operating system.
> Apple can’t deliver their hardware benefits without also controlling the operating system.
Nobody is talking about loading something besides iOS on Apple mobile devices. The argument that "The OS is everything" failed over 20 years ago in US v Microsoft.
So you mean how WeChat and Alibaba do it, and are allowed to do so by the App Store. Then why hasn't Meta done that? Perhaps they don't care to? Not that the Facebook app isn't already hugely overstuffed.
Because Apple bent down for WeChat and Alibaba, but Apple won't do it for Facebook?
I'm 100% sure that if Facebook could have an iOS app store, they would start one. It's worth all the work for the improved tracking alone, as app download ads are a big part of Facebook's mobile revenue.
The GP is talking about Meta embedding its own app store within the Facebook app, not about Facebook creating its own iOS app store. An "internal" app store would still be subject to the same restrictions and security that the actual Apple App Store already has. I don't believe the mini-apps within WeChat or Alibaba's apps can flout those regulations, but it's China and those are big apps so who knows.
From a technical perspective, I'm not sure how hosting littler apps within your own app, which is already on the Apple App Store and subject to its review process and rules, would allow you access to improved tracking.
On the subject of a Meta third-party app store independent of Apple's control- yes, there is motivation there to do that, but I am dubious of how much of a threat that is to the end user because:
1. Apple still maintains control of iOS and can restrict invasive tracking from the OS level.
2. I'm not actually convinced that Meta, Google, Amazon, et al are really capable of executing successful alternative app stores. They would need to make it a sufficiently seamless and friction-free experience, and offer enough incentives for users to overcome having to sign up for yet another service just to use the apps they already have access to.
> The problem is that people can easily be induced to install software that negates the benefit of Apple’s hardware. Apple can’t deliver their hardware benefits without also controlling the operating system.
Apple is less concerned about this than profits.
They could make their hardware ecosystem more open, that's easy, but that wouldn't make them a significant amount of extra money, so why would they?
Again, even if that was true, and I believe you are conflating profits and revenue here, it has nothing to do with my comment, which was about Apple refusing to make the ecosystem more open because it wouldn’t bring any significant financial profit.
It is true. It’s not hard to check it. If you want to proceed with this line of discussion, you should do some googling rather than persisting with false claims.
"Apple CFO Luca Maestri said that Apple's install base of devices hit a new all-time high as well, which helps drive services growth."
"Cloud services, Apple Music , advertising, video, and payments saw all-time revenue records, while the App Store saw a new June quarter revenue record."
"Services brought in $17.5 billion during the quarter"
Why this isn’t about Apple, if they literally use their market power to destroy competition? They could have done tons of features to benefit users, but they implement those which damage competitors.
Which is false as Apple tracks you across apps without showing you this new prompt.
> That isn’t about Apple destroying anyone.
Could you elaborate on what are you implying here?
Are you saying Apple doesn’t damage anyone with this policy? It is obviously false.
Are you saying damaging competitors and building its own ads ecosystem is not Apple’s primary motivation here? It also seems false, as they build their own ad system, which tracks users.
> They could have done tons of features to benefit users, but they implement those which damage competitors.
Why does Facebook rely on unethical and shady business practices that harm users? Facebook is harming itself. And how is Facebook, in any meaningful way, a competitor to Apple? Apple's ad's business is PEANUTS.
Fully agree. If anything the choice that Apple is offering its users should be made law so it’s not just an “Apple thing”. If you want to track users you should have to ask them first, and if they say no that’s the end of it.
—-
In-Q-Tel (IQT), formerly Peleus and In-Q-It, is an American not-for-profit venture capital firm based in Arlington, Virginia. It invests in high-tech companies to keep the Central Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in information technology in support of United States intelligence capability.[4]
The name "In-Q-Tel" is an intentional reference to Q, the fictional inventor who supplies technology to James Bond.[5]