Apple absolutely changed the game for the better back when the AppStore was founded. It was pay to play and you needed a lot of upfront money and connections to be successful. Apple changed that and I’m grateful for it. My feelings are mixed today.
I agree with this. Some people seem to think that because Apple did a good job back in 2008, they get a free pass to continue doing the same, or whatever they like, for ever and ever. I don't think it works that way; we judge today's Apple on the standards of today, not those of over a decade ago.
Apple can do whatever it wants forever.
Don't like it? Invent a competitor and create your own innovative store from the ground up.
When a company you like does something you don’t like you can try to change their mind. These things are always a tug of war between shareholders, consumers, and developers. You don’t burn down the whole system to fix one problem.
Apple absolutely changed the game for the better back when the AppStore was founded. It was pay to play and you needed a lot of upfront money and connections to be successful. Apple changed that and I’m grateful for it. My feelings are mixed today.
I agree with this. Some people seem to think that because Apple did a good job back in 2008, they get a free pass to continue doing the same, or whatever they like, for ever and ever. I don't think it works that way; we judge today's Apple on the standards of today, not those of over a decade ago.
Apple can do whatever it wants forever.
Don't like it? Invent a competitor and create your own innovative store from the ground up.
It can't though. Not sure what your point even is if you're basing it on a clear and obvious falsehood.
Apple absolutely changed the game for the better back when the AppStore was founded. It was pay to play and you needed a lot of upfront money and connections to be successful. Apple changed that and I’m grateful for it. My feelings are mixed today.
I agree with this. Some people seem to think that because Apple did a good job back in 2008, they get a free pass to continue doing the same, or whatever they like, for ever and ever. I don't think it works that way; we judge today's Apple on the standards of today, not those of over a decade ago.
I disagree. You can’t suddenly decide that Apple’s huge investment and ongoing maintenance costs have now magically transformed into the public domain.
If Apple went belly up and closed up shop, including the App Store, do you think the government should step in and force Apple to maintain the App Store because it is some sort of public utility? If your answer is Yes then Apple should be granted the right to operate as a monopolistic public utility and be allocated taxpayers money to prop up their business, just like taxpayer subsidized power plants.
Everyone likes to talk about the free market and the rewards going to those who take on the big risks but ultimately prevail. But that’s just talk. Everyone’s actually looking for a handout and their piece of the pie that someone else paid for.
There is not a single developer who is forced to use the App Store. It’s a choice, opt-in model, business agreement, and the rules associated with opting in are put in place by the owners of the store. Those who opt-in are signing a business agreement with Apple. Don’t like dealing with Apple, Walmart, or Home Depot?No problem, seek out another store that has better terms or build your own, like Apple did. Running and crying to Big Brother is a losers game.
What are you talking about "public domain"? No one (that I'm aware of at least, maybe a crazy somewhere) is arguing that the app store is a public utility. The argument is that a development platform should be treated differently from an embedded application, and when a development platform reaches a critical mass then it has different obligations than when it's a startup disruptor. It's still relatively free market, just with different regulations on what is acceptable behaviour within that market.
Apple absolutely changed the game for the better back when the AppStore was founded. It was pay to play and you needed a lot of upfront money and connections to be successful. Apple changed that and I’m grateful for it. My feelings are mixed today.
I agree with this. Some people seem to think that because Apple did a good job back in 2008, they get a free pass to continue doing the same, or whatever they like, for ever and ever. I don't think it works that way; we judge today's Apple on the standards of today, not those of over a decade ago.
I disagree. You can’t suddenly decide that Apple’s huge investment and ongoing maintenance costs have now magically transformed into the public domain.
If Apple went belly up and closed up shop, including the App Store, do you think the government should step in and force Apple to maintain the App Store because it is some sort of public utility? If your answer is Yes then Apple should be granted the right to operate as a monopolistic public utility and be allocated taxpayers money to prop up their business, just like taxpayer subsidized power plants.
Everyone likes to talk about the free market and the rewards going to those who take on the big risks but ultimately prevail. But that’s just talk. Everyone’s actually looking for a handout and their piece of the pie that someone else paid for.
There is not a single developer who is forced to use the App Store. It’s a choice, opt-in model, business agreement, and the rules associated with opting in are put in place by the owners of the store. Those who opt-in are signing a business agreement with Apple. Don’t like dealing with Apple, Walmart, or Home Depot?No problem, seek out another store that has better terms or build your own, like Apple did. Running and crying to Big Brother is a losers game.
What are you talking about "public domain"? No one (that I'm aware of at least, maybe a crazy somewhere) is arguing that the app store is a public utility. The argument is that a development platform should be treated differently from an embedded application, and when a development platform reaches a critical mass then it has different obligations than when it's a startup disruptor. It's still relatively free market, just with different regulations on what is acceptable behaviour within that market.
Your assertions of what "should" apply, the associated "obligations," and the application of "regulations" are exactly things that are applied to a public utility or something that has entered the public domain, i.e., things that can no longer be totally governed by the creator and caretaker of the privately owned, proprietary system. I don't know what you mean by "critical mass" or who gets to determine what that constitutes that state or even why it is a factor in anything surrounding the topic in question.
Are you saying that once an individual or corporate entity achieves a certain level of success (determined by whom and on what measuring stick?) they are no longer free to control their own destiny and must somehow be "regulated" for the common (public domain) good? Likewise, there is nothing special about startups or disruptors, other than their high likelihood of failure if they don't find a way to cross the chasm from enthusiastic early adoption to widespread or mass appeal.
Everyone should have to play by the same set rules before and after they cross the chasm and achieve widespread appeal. Changing the rules after they cross the chasm would be a slap in the face and punishment for their success.
Speaking of measuring sticks, one of the biggest issues I have with the current attack on successful technology companies is that the attackers are using antiquated notions of magnitude and scale. Companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple enjoy the benefits of pervasive connectivity, global reach, and network effects that greatly amplify how quickly and how massively they can grow their customer base and generate revenue. These companies have made massive investments in infrastructure that allows them to exploit the markets that they operate within. Were people not paying attention when these same companies were building out their huge data centers and server farms and consuming every bit of the available power from specially sited power generation systems that rivaled the power needed by small cities? They were priming the pump for what they knew would be a way to produce exponential growth in the delivery of software and services to billions of paying customers worldwide. Their planning paid off big time and now we're questioning their motives and business models. Why?
Apple absolutely changed the game for the better back when the AppStore was founded. It was pay to play and you needed a lot of upfront money and connections to be successful. Apple changed that and I’m grateful for it. My feelings are mixed today.
I agree with this. Some people seem to think that because Apple did a good job back in 2008, they get a free pass to continue doing the same, or whatever they like, for ever and ever. I don't think it works that way; we judge today's Apple on the standards of today, not those of over a decade ago.
I disagree. You can’t suddenly decide that Apple’s huge investment and ongoing maintenance costs have now magically transformed into the public domain.
If Apple went belly up and closed up shop, including the App Store, do you think the government should step in and force Apple to maintain the App Store because it is some sort of public utility? If your answer is Yes then Apple should be granted the right to operate as a monopolistic public utility and be allocated taxpayers money to prop up their business, just like taxpayer subsidized power plants.
Everyone likes to talk about the free market and the rewards going to those who take on the big risks but ultimately prevail. But that’s just talk. Everyone’s actually looking for a handout and their piece of the pie that someone else paid for.
There is not a single developer who is forced to use the App Store. It’s a choice, opt-in model, business agreement, and the rules associated with opting in are put in place by the owners of the store. Those who opt-in are signing a business agreement with Apple. Don’t like dealing with Apple, Walmart, or Home Depot?No problem, seek out another store that has better terms or build your own, like Apple did. Running and crying to Big Brother is a losers game.
What are you talking about "public domain"? No one (that I'm aware of at least, maybe a crazy somewhere) is arguing that the app store is a public utility. The argument is that a development platform should be treated differently from an embedded application, and when a development platform reaches a critical mass then it has different obligations than when it's a startup disruptor. It's still relatively free market, just with different regulations on what is acceptable behaviour within that market.
Your assertions of what "should" apply, the associated "obligations," and the application of "regulations" are exactly things that are applied to a public utility or something that has entered the public domain, i.e., things that can no longer be totally governed by the creator and caretaker of the privately owned, proprietary system. I don't know what you mean by "critical mass" or who gets to determine what that constitutes that state or even why it is a factor in anything surrounding the topic in question.
Are you saying that once an individual or corporate entity achieves a certain level of success (determined by whom and on what measuring stick?) they are no longer free to control their own destiny and must somehow be "regulated" for the common (public domain) good? Likewise, there is nothing special about startups or disruptors, other than their high likelihood of failure if they don't find a way to cross the chasm from enthusiastic early adoption to widespread or mass appeal.
Everyone should have to play by the same set rules before and after they cross the chasm and achieve widespread appeal. Changing the rules after they cross the chasm would be a slap in the face and punishment for their success.
I guess you can believe all of this if you want, but it's not how it works.
Regulations and obligations apply to private companies as well as public utilities. Apple has to submit accounts, has to pay taxes, has to abide by employment laws, has to follow environmental regulatiopns. They're still privately owned.
Companies of certain size are treated different from smaller companies. Companies with more power are treated differently from companies without much power. This is often directly addressed in statute, with laws only applying to firms with more than a certain number of employees, or earning more than certain amount of revenue. Company law exists to ensure companies behave responsibly, and the need for that increases with the size and power of the company.
What's this fuss all about? There doesn't need to be an "app" for everything. The competition is called a "webpage". An amazing concept, and you can store hundreds or thousands of them on any device, easily searched for or auto-filled. Noted as an attendee of early Apple developer's conferences, non-OS vendor applications didn't even exist a dozen years ago. Further, webpages are good for non-profits and for-profits alike -- no antitrust issue here.
"One of the things we came up with is, we're going to treat all apps in the App Store the same - one set of rules for everybody, no special deals, no special terms, no special code, everything applies to all developers the same*" Schiller toldReuters.
*Except Apple. There is a lot of fuss being made about the 30% by Apple and the media, I don't really think that is the main gripe developers have. 30% isn't a wholly unreasonable share of revenue. It's the inconsistent interpretation and enforcement of the rules, and the arbitrary changing and adding of new rules when a dev does something innovative that Apple doesn't like. And a big one is that Apple wants a cut of anything virtual and doesn't even allow a link to it from their app. That's like having a product in a supermarket removed from the shelf because it has the web address on the carton where you can buy direct without the supermarket markup.
You have obviously never sold anything through a large retailer. Try going into Walmart with the scenario you described, i.e., putting a link of some kind on your product to let your end customers discover a way to bypass the retail store to obtain your product cheaper. Just try it as a fun little experiment. It is true that your will not be removed from the store shelves, only because you will never get your product on a shelf in their store.
It’s their store and everything that goes into it is controlled by them, up to and including requiring product vendors to stock the shelves where the vendor’s product sits, making sure the shelf space remains tidy and filled with inventory, and making sure everything is fresh (if applicable). And yes, they will scrutinize everything about the product labeling to make sure it contains all required information and meets the store’s business objectives. Oh, and they will often come back to you and require that you sell your product in their store within a certain price target, which may require you to find ways to cost reduce your product to fit within their expectations. The latter model is widely used in home improvement stores, which is why some products, say plumbing fixtures or lawn mowers, sold at certain home improvement stores are not identical to the “same” product sold at other stores.
Saying that the cost of something is unreasonable is an interesting opinion but is something that needs to be reconciled at the point that one voluntarily enters into a business agreement with someone else. Unless you’re locked in for a certain time period or minimum unit sales number per the upfront agreement (like Apple was with Samsung recently), you’re free to walk away at any time and take your business elsewhere. Yes, even if it means changing platforms.
That's not true. There are a lot of products sold at big box retailers that have their website on them where you can buy the product directly from the product company so they don't have to pay the retail commission.
"One of the things we came up with is, we're going to treat all apps in the App Store the same - one set of rules for everybody, no special deals, no special terms, no special code, everything applies to all developers the same*" Schiller toldReuters.
*Except Apple. There is a lot of fuss being made about the 30% by Apple and the media, I don't really think that is the main gripe developers have. 30% isn't a wholly unreasonable share of revenue. It's the inconsistent interpretation and enforcement of the rules, and the arbitrary changing and adding of new rules when a dev does something innovative that Apple doesn't like. And a big one is that Apple wants a cut of anything virtual and doesn't even allow a link to it from their app. That's like having a product in a supermarket removed from the shelf because it has the web address on the carton where you can buy direct without the supermarket markup.
You have obviously never sold anything through a large retailer. Try going into Walmart with the scenario you described, i.e., putting a link of some kind on your product to let your end customers discover a way to bypass the retail store to obtain your product cheaper. Just try it as a fun little experiment. It is true that your will not be removed from the store shelves, only because you will never get your product on a shelf in their store.
It’s their store and everything that goes into it is controlled by them, up to and including requiring product vendors to stock the shelves where the vendor’s product sits, making sure the shelf space remains tidy and filled with inventory, and making sure everything is fresh (if applicable). And yes, they will scrutinize everything about the product labeling to make sure it contains all required information and meets the store’s business objectives. Oh, and they will often come back to you and require that you sell your product in their store within a certain price target, which may require you to find ways to cost reduce your product to fit within their expectations. The latter model is widely used in home improvement stores, which is why some products, say plumbing fixtures or lawn mowers, sold at certain home improvement stores are not identical to the “same” product sold at other stores.
Saying that the cost of something is unreasonable is an interesting opinion but is something that needs to be reconciled at the point that one voluntarily enters into a business agreement with someone else. Unless you’re locked in for a certain time period or minimum unit sales number per the upfront agreement (like Apple was with Samsung recently), you’re free to walk away at any time and take your business elsewhere. Yes, even if it means changing platforms.
Well let's see here. My camera came from a retail store. The box has Sony.com on it, where you can buy the camera and any lenses without going through the retail store. So that's your argument entirely refuted in a few seconds.
I think you're about 15 years behind reality. The modification of a product for the retailer is generally pretty rare nowadays (in the UK at least) and is usually only food related products. The supermarkets even now often specify a percentage cut they want and perhaps a price they think the product should be sold at. However, grocery supermarkets aren't all of retail. My camera for example is on sale in exactly the same box for exactly the same price at the supermarket's tech section, in a camera shop, on Amazon, on Sony.com, and in a general electronics store. You may find identical cheap products rebranded for different stores, but these days it's extremely rare to find the same product modified for a specific store.
Either way, Apple's arbitrary changing of and interpretation of the rules is the issue, and due to the investment required to write an app, if you're turned down, with no alternative to the App Store - you're SOL. As a small dev company, you can't afford to rewrite everything for Android. It'd be like investing $10k in tooling for a product which will only be of use in say store X, because it will only work with their product. Your product is on sale in store X, selling reasonably well and all of a sudden store X says actually, we're making a version of your product and therefore putting ours out front and centre. And then soon after that they change the rules so that your product is crippled and only works half as well as the own brand one. You can't go to a competitor because you made your product to work work the one of store X. See where the issue is?
Comments
Are you saying that once an individual or corporate entity achieves a certain level of success (determined by whom and on what measuring stick?) they are no longer free to control their own destiny and must somehow be "regulated" for the common (public domain) good? Likewise, there is nothing special about startups or disruptors, other than their high likelihood of failure if they don't find a way to cross the chasm from enthusiastic early adoption to widespread or mass appeal.
Everyone should have to play by the same set rules before and after they cross the chasm and achieve widespread appeal. Changing the rules after they cross the chasm would be a slap in the face and punishment for their success.
Speaking of measuring sticks, one of the biggest issues I have with the current attack on successful technology companies is that the attackers are using antiquated notions of magnitude and scale. Companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple enjoy the benefits of pervasive connectivity, global reach, and network effects that greatly amplify how quickly and how massively they can grow their customer base and generate revenue. These companies have made massive investments in infrastructure that allows them to exploit the markets that they operate within. Were people not paying attention when these same companies were building out their huge data centers and server farms and consuming every bit of the available power from specially sited power generation systems that rivaled the power needed by small cities? They were priming the pump for what they knew would be a way to produce exponential growth in the delivery of software and services to billions of paying customers worldwide. Their planning paid off big time and now we're questioning their motives and business models. Why?
Regulations and obligations apply to private companies as well as public utilities. Apple has to submit accounts, has to pay taxes, has to abide by employment laws, has to follow environmental regulatiopns. They're still privately owned.
Companies of certain size are treated different from smaller companies. Companies with more power are treated differently from companies without much power. This is often directly addressed in statute, with laws only applying to firms with more than a certain number of employees, or earning more than certain amount of revenue. Company law exists to ensure companies behave responsibly, and the need for that increases with the size and power of the company.
An amazing concept, and you can store hundreds or thousands of them on any device, easily searched for or auto-filled.
Noted as an attendee of early Apple developer's conferences, non-OS vendor applications didn't even exist a dozen years ago.
Further, webpages are good for non-profits and for-profits alike -- no antitrust issue here.
I think you're about 15 years behind reality. The modification of a product for the retailer is generally pretty rare nowadays (in the UK at least) and is usually only food related products. The supermarkets even now often specify a percentage cut they want and perhaps a price they think the product should be sold at. However, grocery supermarkets aren't all of retail. My camera for example is on sale in exactly the same box for exactly the same price at the supermarket's tech section, in a camera shop, on Amazon, on Sony.com, and in a general electronics store. You may find identical cheap products rebranded for different stores, but these days it's extremely rare to find the same product modified for a specific store.
Either way, Apple's arbitrary changing of and interpretation of the rules is the issue, and due to the investment required to write an app, if you're turned down, with no alternative to the App Store - you're SOL. As a small dev company, you can't afford to rewrite everything for Android. It'd be like investing $10k in tooling for a product which will only be of use in say store X, because it will only work with their product. Your product is on sale in store X, selling reasonably well and all of a sudden store X says actually, we're making a version of your product and therefore putting ours out front and centre. And then soon after that they change the rules so that your product is crippled and only works half as well as the own brand one. You can't go to a competitor because you made your product to work work the one of store X. See where the issue is?
I didn't say the cost was unreasonable.