How they pay has nothing to do with building a secure "walled garden". Alternative pay systems and something less than the 30% cut should have happened before now. In addition, but related to the alternative payment system issue, is that Apple grabs 30% of sales on things bought with an App even if it has nothing to do with Apple, subscriptions, services, and such bought directly from a 3rd party, but using an App that once upon a time was loaded from the AppStore. This is abusive and I would expect the DOJ to come down hard on it.
And Apple has only themselves to blame.
To you it's one app that you "once upon a time" got from the AppStore; to Apple it might have been 7 major revisions, each with 13 minor updates, with on average 11 bugfix-updates… where every single one of those not only could have been an attempt to sneak something real bad into the AppStore, but that also gets autoupdated on people's devices.
And why can't developers charge for revisions and updates? Apple's rules. I've gotten multiple updates to LumaFusion, Procreate, Affinity Designer, and others that I would have been willing to pay for. But Apple set up the store so you buy once and then get updates free forever, which is ludicrous. Oh look now they want to push developers to a subscription model so they get their 30% every month even if the developer does nothing.. That's BS. I don't rent software and have abandoned packages that have gone to that. It's just a money grab and Apple is going to get nailed for it.
As I said at the start none of this has anything to do with running a secure walled garden
You're straight up delusional if you think that validating an app maybe 1000+ times during its lifetime, as well as pushing the update to millions of phones, doesn't cost anything at all for Apple.
Running a secure AppStore isn't something that happens just for free with just some person clicking a like/dislike-button once when a new app is first published.
Yes Apple deserves a cut, deserves to have their expenses covered and make a few bucks on top of it. But they are abusing their position and the DOJ is going to nail them for it. The problem is that the DOJ solution will likely screw everything up for everyone.
Am I the only developer that actually think we get value for the money we invest in App Store?
I remember what we used to spend on marketing etc before App Store, and that was ridiculously more than 15-30% …and we still didn’t reach a fragment of the customer base we do with Apple’s help today.
Advocates of this trendy movement simply haven’t thought things through, and probably have no/little experience of life without App Store.
How they pay has nothing to do with building a secure "walled garden". Alternative pay systems and something less than the 30% cut should have happened before now. In addition, but related to the alternative payment system issue, is that Apple grabs 30% of sales on things bought with an App even if it has nothing to do with Apple, subscriptions, services, and such bought directly from a 3rd party, but using an App that once upon a time was loaded from the AppStore. This is abusive and I would expect the DOJ to come down hard on it.
And Apple has only themselves to blame.
To you it's one app that you "once upon a time" got from the AppStore; to Apple it might have been 7 major revisions, each with 13 minor updates, with on average 11 bugfix-updates… where every single one of those not only could have been an attempt to sneak something real bad into the AppStore, but that also gets autoupdated on people's devices.
And why can't developers charge for revisions and updates? Apple's rules. I've gotten multiple updates to LumaFusion, Procreate, Affinity Designer, and others that I would have been willing to pay for. But Apple set up the store so you buy once and then get updates free forever, which is ludicrous. Oh look now they want to push developers to a subscription model so they get their 30% every month even if the developer does nothing.. That's BS. I don't rent software and have abandoned packages that have gone to that. It's just a money grab and Apple is going to get nailed for it.
As I said at the start none of this has anything to do with running a secure walled garden
You're straight up delusional if you think that validating an app maybe 1000+ times during its lifetime, as well as pushing the update to millions of phones, doesn't cost anything at all for Apple.
Running a secure AppStore isn't something that happens just for free with just some person clicking a like/dislike-button once when a new app is first published.
Yes Apple deserves a cut, deserves to have their expenses covered and make a few bucks on top of it. But they are abusing their position and the DOJ is going to nail them for it. The problem is that the DOJ solution will likely screw everything up for everyone.
How gracious of you, even letting them make a few bucks of profit.
You're going to have a stroke if you ever find out the markup in regular stores…
How they pay has nothing to do with building a secure "walled garden". Alternative pay systems and something less than the 30% cut should have happened before now. In addition, but related to the alternative payment system issue, is that Apple grabs 30% of sales on things bought with an App even if it has nothing to do with Apple, subscriptions, services, and such bought directly from a 3rd party, but using an App that once upon a time was loaded from the AppStore. This is abusive and I would expect the DOJ to come down hard on it.
And Apple has only themselves to blame.
Why should Apple allow these Apps to be In a store they setup for free? So if no 30 percent flat fee, maybe they should charge rent for being in the store monthly?
this is like you telling your landlord you feel like you should only pay half of the rent he wants. What will he do if you say that? Report you to collections and evict you!
If you want to use a rent analogy how about this. You rent a store front to run your business. But the landlord wants a cut of your sales. You sell more and they get a bigger slice. Oh but the landlord gets to tell you what upgrades you can charge for and what you have to give away for free. Oh and the landlord also gets a cut of your sales even if they come out of your home office and not the store front you are renting.
See how abusive this is?
Metaphors are a flawed means of supporting an argument. If you don’t like the rules of the landlord, rent elsewhere. There’s no “right” to sell through Apple’s App Store. In fact, there’s not even a “right” to own an iPhone.
Why is this a Justice Department issue? What laws have been broken? Who was robbed? Who was murdered?
Our formally independent Justice Department has become a politicized weapon to police the will of a few: reward their friends and punish their enemies. An American Gestapo.
(We have had systems and agencies in place for many decades to investigate and enforce monopolistic and anti-competitive practices -- and it does not involve the Justice Department).
On the one had fanboys are hue that Apple products are the best in the world and if you don’t like it you suck and on the other hand when you want to put an app on there that Apple does t like you should just leave and use the other platforms. At least have some integrity and take a principled stand on an issue. Apple’s actions against companies that compete against them should be examined for antitrust behavior. They could have done a lot to mitigate this and may even be cleared in the end but the bad publicity (think Hey type coverage every day as they are taken to court in EU, US etc.) It doesn’t matter that they made the iPhone just like it didn’t matter that Microsoft created the Windows operating system. The issue is that their apps are treated differently to those by other companies and they can seemingly reject any app at any time for any reason they want. To me, it was the threat of more bad press that Schiller created around Hey that forced them to cave before they got a deluge of coverage at the developer’s conference. It will only get worse from here if they keep up that attitude. They are the largest company in the world and the fact that developers fear saying anything incase Apple cuts them off shows their power and should at least be reviewed to see if this perceptions match the reality of their actions. Here’s hoping that the guy who oversaw the ebook ruling will come back and act as an arbitrator on behalf of developers. They would just live that! /s
On the one had fanboys are hue that Apple products are the best in the world and if you don’t like it you suck and on the other hand when you want to put an app on there that Apple does t like you should just leave and use the other platforms. At least have some integrity and take a principled stand on an issue. Apple’s actions against companies that compete against them should be examined for antitrust behavior. They could have done a lot to mitigate this and may even be cleared in the end but the bad publicity (think Hey type coverage every day as they are taken to court in EU, US etc.) It doesn’t matter that they made the iPhone just like it didn’t matter that Microsoft created the Windows operating system. The issue is that their apps are treated differently to those by other companies and they can seemingly reject any app at any time for any reason they want. To me, it was the threat of more bad press that Schiller created around Hey that forced them to cave before they got a deluge of coverage at the developer’s conference. It will only get worse from here if they keep up that attitude. They are the largest company in the world and the fact that developers fear saying anything incase Apple cuts them off shows their power and should at least be reviewed to see if this perceptions match the reality of their actions. Here’s hoping that the guy who oversaw the ebook ruling will come back and act as an arbitrator on behalf of developers. They would just live that! /s
Nope!
You're off base.
Equating Apple to Microsoft is a false equivalency: One is an open system. The other is a garden walled off for benefit of its customers.
If you want wide open to anybody and anything and are willing to take the associated risks then go with Microsoft.
If you want a stable, protected environment that you can trust then go with Apple.
And saying that they treat 3rd party apps differently than their own shows you do not know what you're talking about.
Apple insists on maintaining high standards -- most notable privacy -- in all that they do. And, that includes 3rd party apps.
How they pay has nothing to do with building a secure "walled garden". Alternative pay systems and something less than the 30% cut should have happened before now. In addition, but related to the alternative payment system issue, is that Apple grabs 30% of sales on things bought with an App even if it has nothing to do with Apple, subscriptions, services, and such bought directly from a 3rd party, but using an App that once upon a time was loaded from the AppStore. This is abusive and I would expect the DOJ to come down hard on it.
And Apple has only themselves to blame.
Why should Apple allow these Apps to be In a store they setup for free? So if no 30 percent flat fee, maybe they should charge rent for being in the store monthly?
this is like you telling your landlord you feel like you should only pay half of the rent he wants. What will he do if you say that? Report you to collections and evict you!
If you want to use a rent analogy how about this. You rent a store front to run your business. But the landlord wants a cut of your sales. You sell more and they get a bigger slice. Oh but the landlord gets to tell you what upgrades you can charge for and what you have to give away for free. Oh and the landlord also gets a cut of your sales even if they come out of your home office and not the store front you are renting.
See how abusive this is?
Stores in malls often pay the mall a cut of their sales. And yes, those malls get to say what you can or cannot sell which is spelled out in their lease terms, and can tell you what you can and cannot do with your space. Apple doesnt' get a cut if you sell outside of the app store, so that part is not applicable. But yep, just like a normal store otherwise.
Apple grabs 30% of sales on things bought with an App even if it has nothing to do with Apple, subscriptions, services, and such bought directly from a 3rd party, but using an App that once upon a time was loaded from the AppStore.
You know who they remind me of? Hollywood. Actors who get a share of the profits of movies they they didn't even put up money to film. But wait there's more! Actor's then get a cut of the profits of all toys sold that are based off of a character in the movie. The toy is just Indiana Jones which is a hypothetical character, yet Harrison Ford gets a cut! But wait there's more! If the movie studio wants to film a sequel using another actor wearing the same hat and clothes and whip, that's not allowed unless they pay Harrison Ford for that privilege! Hollywood is crazy.
All of these things are negotiated. If you can personally (usually with the help of a lawyer) negotiate a sweet deal to get yourself a cut of a hugely lucrative money stream, good for you. Hell yeah! Why would you deride anyone for cashing in on on an opportunity that comes their way? Have you never read the history of Microsoft regarding how it "beat" Digital Research in in the race to deliver an OS to IBM by taking advantage of a clueless Seattle Computer Products? Do you think Bill Gates feels any remorse for capitalizing on the deal that he made with SCP? No.
If you are in a business to make money, individually or in a corporate capacity, you'd better be in it to find ways to maximize whatever revenue opportunities come your way. Business isn't a benevolent endeavor that seeks to spread the wealth across everyone who wants to play the game. It's about winners and losers, and these actors that you are looking down upon are making sure that they come out of these deals as winners. If you were put in the same position you would be foolish to not do the same. It's not crazy, it's business.
Apple grabs 30% of sales on things bought with an App even if it has nothing to do with Apple, subscriptions, services, and such bought directly from a 3rd party, but using an App that once upon a time was loaded from the AppStore.
You know who they remind me of? Hollywood. Actors who get a share of the profits of movies they they didn't even put up money to film. But wait there's more! Actor's then get a cut of the profits of all toys sold that are based off of a character in the movie. The toy is just Indiana Jones which is a hypothetical character, yet Harrison Ford gets a cut! But wait there's more! If the movie studio wants to film a sequel using another actor wearing the same hat and clothes and whip, that's not allowed unless they pay Harrison Ford for that privilege! Hollywood is crazy.
All of these things are negotiated. If you can personally (usually with the help of a lawyer) negotiate a sweet deal to get yourself a cut of a hugely lucrative money stream, good for you. Hell yeah! Why would you deride anyone for cashing in on on an opportunity that comes their way? Have you never read the history of Microsoft regarding how it "beat" Digital Research in in the race to deliver an OS to IBM by taking advantage of a clueless Seattle Computer Products? Do you think Bill Gates feels any remorse for capitalizing on the deal that he made with SCP? No.
If you are in a business to make money, individually or in a corporate capacity, you'd better be in it to find ways to maximize whatever revenue opportunities come your way. Business isn't a benevolent endeavor that seeks to spread the wealth across everyone who wants to play the game. It's about winners and losers, and these actors that you are looking down upon are making sure that they come out of these deals as winners. If you were put in the same position you would be foolish to not do the same. It's not crazy, it's business.
That may be the reason that Bill Gates has become a prominent philanthropist: Remorse and guilt.
The same could be said for such industrial titans as Carnegie who did the same (but then Carnegie never did the bad stuff personally, he had his partner Frick do it and very likely felt bad even at the time.)
Comments
But they are abusing their position and the DOJ is going to nail them for it. The problem is that the DOJ solution will likely screw everything up for everyone.
I remember what we used to spend on marketing etc before App Store, and that was ridiculously more than 15-30% …and we still didn’t reach a fragment of the customer base we do with Apple’s help today.
Advocates of this trendy movement simply haven’t thought things through, and probably have no/little experience of life without App Store.
You're going to have a stroke if you ever find out the markup in regular stores…
If you are in a business to make money, individually or in a corporate capacity, you'd better be in it to find ways to maximize whatever revenue opportunities come your way. Business isn't a benevolent endeavor that seeks to spread the wealth across everyone who wants to play the game. It's about winners and losers, and these actors that you are looking down upon are making sure that they come out of these deals as winners. If you were put in the same position you would be foolish to not do the same. It's not crazy, it's business.