Apple created the App Store to assist developers. Now the developers want to bite the hand that feeds them. If it weren’t for Apple, developers wouldn’t have access to the worlds largest ecosystem. Apple should be able to charge whatever they want to charge, as long as everyone is charged equally. Apple should also be able to use their own payment systems in their App Store. There are lots of retailers that except MasterCard and Visa but not Discovery or Amex. You have to pay to play. If you don’t want to follow the rules, then don’t sign up.
Apple charging what it wants to charge isn't the issue that government agencies are looking at. That is completely irrelevant.
The issue revolves around whether Apple should be the only entity allowed to operate an App Store on iDevices.
That is a completely different angle.
Actually, it's not. Apple is being put together with Android (Google), and Windows (Microsoft) and therein lies the confusion that the folks in DC refuse to admit. Apple owns the OS and hardware. Android and Windows is pure software and requires cooperation with hardware vendors to make their product successful. It's why Microsoft got in trouble (and rightfully so) back in the 1990's and early 2000's when it was extorting computer makers and using its domination of Windows to tie the hands of manufacturers.
Apple doesn't have that problem. The iPhone is owned/operation/and maintained by Apple alone. You too know that. There is no way Apple is going to be forced to allow other stores not owned by Apple to run on its proprietary system. You can keep preaching that, but that doesn't mean anything.
I don't understand people like you. A developer with an iOS App is no different than a bread maker asking Costco for permission to sell its bread in their stores. It is EXACTLY the same thing. Developers are whining that they should be allowed to set up shop in front of Apple and sell their stuff to Apple's customers, bypassing Apple entirely. Lets see that bread-maker set up a booth in front of a Costco store's front door and see what happens.
I am not limiting my comments to the US situation. I am not even saying I think that aspect is wrong or right (although I do think Apple will be found to be abusing its position).
My take revolves around the fact that users are not specifically informed that Apple is the sole Gatekeeper to iOS apps and that true competition for apps (at an App Store level) does not exist.
I think Apple will fall foul to this and especially within the EU.
The point is not so much if the current economic setup is right or wrong but that consumers are not made explicitly aware of this and that competition is impeded on the device.
I don't understand people like you. A developer with an iOS App is no different than a bread maker asking Costco for permission to sell its bread in their stores. It is EXACTLY the same thing. Developers are whining that they should be allowed to set up shop in front of Apple and sell their stuff to Apple's customers, bypassing Apple entirely. Lets see that bread-maker set up a booth in front of a Costco store's front door and see what happens.
I don't understand why you think a program written specifically for iOS is in any way similar to bread that can be sold in any shop. The baker can go to a different shop and sell the exact same thing, or they can sell it themselves for anyone to eat. Devs can't sell iOS apps to be "consumed" without the permission of Apple, they can't just sell the exact same product on a different platform either. Devs have to completely rewrite their app to run on Android, it's not a simple upload to the Play Store and done.
I don't understand people like you. A developer with an iOS App is no different than a bread maker asking Costco for permission to sell its bread in their stores. It is EXACTLY the same thing. Developers are whining that they should be allowed to set up shop in front of Apple and sell their stuff to Apple's customers, bypassing Apple entirely. Lets see that bread-maker set up a booth in front of a Costco store's front door and see what happens.
A Costco customer isn’t locked in to only buying bread from CostCo.
A bread maker can sell bread to any number of other retailers other than CostCo. CostCo have practically limited shelf space.
There are many significant differences. I’m sure you can see them.
I don't understand people like you. A developer with an iOS App is no different than a bread maker asking Costco for permission to sell its bread in their stores. It is EXACTLY the same thing. Developers are whining that they should be allowed to set up shop in front of Apple and sell their stuff to Apple's customers, bypassing Apple entirely. Lets see that bread-maker set up a booth in front of a Costco store's front door and see what happens.
A Costco customer isn’t locked in to only buying bread from CostCo.
A bread maker can sell bread to any number of other retailers other than CostCo. CostCo have practically limited shelf space.
There are many significant differences. I’m sure you can see them.
Your points are valid, kind of. But the difference of opinion here is that some people think that Apple has a monopoly on app stores, and some people recognize Android and other platforms as "the competition." The latter is more sensible, largely because Apple has no legal obligation to have a Third Party App Store in the first place, and never did when the iPhone first came out. And my opinion is that Apple should shut down this App Store in any jurisdiction which tries to take control over its policies. Nobody can force Apple to sell a product that it doesn't want to.
P.S. A Costco customer is indeed locked into buying bread only from Costco if that's what Costco decides to do.
I don't understand people like you. A developer with an iOS App is no different than a bread maker asking Costco for permission to sell its bread in their stores. It is EXACTLY the same thing. Developers are whining that they should be allowed to set up shop in front of Apple and sell their stuff to Apple's customers, bypassing Apple entirely. Lets see that bread-maker set up a booth in front of a Costco store's front door and see what happens.
A Costco customer isn’t locked in to only buying bread from CostCo.
A bread maker can sell bread to any number of other retailers other than CostCo. CostCo have practically limited shelf space.
There are many significant differences. I’m sure you can see them.
Your points are valid, kind of. But the difference of opinion here is that some people think that Apple has a monopoly on app stores, and some people recognize Android and other platforms as "the competition."
P.S. A Costco customer is indeed locked into buying bread only from Costco if that's what Costco decides to do.
But they aren't "the competition" without spending several hundred+ dollars on a new phone, and then spending more hundreds re-buying all the software you've got on iOS. Plus any iOS accessories would need to be replaced, a HomePod would become a brick. If there was no cost to switching then you'd have a point, but when barrier for entry to the competition is so high, it's not really competition.
Costco can't lock customers into buying bread just at Costco. A Costco customer can use a different store and buy bread there - albeit not Costco bread, just as Apple apps wouldn't be on a different platform - and it costs them exactly nothing to use a different store instead. It would be like Costco making all white bread (iOS apps) available only in Costco, and enforcing the use of a specific ingredient (Swift) only available for use with bread to be sold in Costco, preventing sale elsewhere. The baker would have to reformulate their bread (rewrite their app) to sell it elsewhere.
People here keep negating that barrier to entry for both the developers and Apple's customers, when that's significant for both parties.
I don’t really support or oppose the 30% myself, but I’m I’m sure if Apple didn’t have such a massive cash pile people wouldn’t complain so much. A $1.5tn company with $190bn cash on hand looks pretty petty defending a 30% cut against devs making a few thousand dollars a year from their app.
Apple is almost guaranteed to lose the antitrust suits somewhere in the world, so they’re going to have to either change their cut, change the App Store rules, allow third party stores, or drop out of the jurisdiction where they lose the antitrust suit. It would be better to capitulate now and for Apple to decide on the compromises, than having them court decided and forced, plus the negative publicity.
“...I’m sure if Apple didn’t have such a massive cash pile people wouldn’t complain so much.”
What does having a “massive cash pile” have to do with anything? Do you complain every time someone makes a profit on a voluntary transaction? Do you complain when your taxes are taken from you involuntarily by the government?
I don't understand people like you. A developer with an iOS App is no different than a bread maker asking Costco for permission to sell its bread in their stores. It is EXACTLY the same thing. Developers are whining that they should be allowed to set up shop in front of Apple and sell their stuff to Apple's customers, bypassing Apple entirely. Lets see that bread-maker set up a booth in front of a Costco store's front door and see what happens.
A Costco customer isn’t locked in to only buying bread from CostCo.
A bread maker can sell bread to any number of other retailers other than CostCo. CostCo have practically limited shelf space.
There are many significant differences. I’m sure you can see them.
Your points are valid, kind of. But the difference of opinion here is that some people think that Apple has a monopoly on app stores, and some people recognize Android and other platforms as "the competition."
P.S. A Costco customer is indeed locked into buying bread only from Costco if that's what Costco decides to do.
But they aren't "the competition" without spending several hundred+ dollars on a new phone, and then spending more hundreds re-buying all the software you've got on iOS. Plus any iOS accessories would need to be replaced, a HomePod would become a brick. If there was no cost to switching then you'd have a point, but when barrier for entry to the competition is so high, it's not really competition.
Costco can't lock customers into buying bread just at Costco. A Costco customer can use a different store and buy bread there - albeit not Costco bread, just as Apple apps wouldn't be on a different platform - and it costs them exactly nothing to use a different store instead. It would be like Costco making all white bread (iOS apps) available only in Costco, and enforcing the use of a specific ingredient (Swift) only available for use with bread to be sold in Costco, preventing sale elsewhere. The baker would have to reformulate their bread (rewrite their app) to sell it elsewhere.
People here keep negating that barrier to entry for both the developers and Apple's customers, when that's significant for both parties.
Your argument is a valiant attempt to make a case, but it's weak. Bottom line, which you aren't discussing: Apple has no obligation to sell anyone else's software on its store. You can't make em. Nothing you can do can force Apple to provide a service (the Apple App Store) if Apple doesn't want to. Apple's normal profit on its iPhones is about 30%, and you want Apple's profit on software sales to be what, 5%? Apple isn't a charity for entitled people. Why should you or anyone else get to dictate what Apple's profit level is? Let the market decide, if you support capitalism.
Whiny developers that have issues with the 30% are more than welcome to go to another platform. Please. Just go. Apple did all the work to create an ecosystem and marketplace so freeloaders like you could spend time to make your product.
Disclaimer: I'm a developer too and have zero issue with the 30%. Why? Because I remember the days of boxed software and all the overhead required to find buyers to buy it, and stores in which to carry it. That was WAY more than 30% that Apple charges for doing everything.
Take a hike.
I would like some of these whiners to come up with a business plan for a new App Store platform. They will say "well Apple is a big company with billions in the bank" so then, Apple should take hard earned money to spend it so developers can reap all the rewards? Or, they should take it from other divisions budgets so those divisions can fail? These whiners are so absolutely clueless.
Whiny developers that have issues with the 30% are more than welcome to go to another platform. Please. Just go. Apple did all the work to create an ecosystem and marketplace so freeloaders like you could spend time to make your product.
Disclaimer: I'm a developer too and have zero issue with the 30%. Why? Because I remember the days of boxed software and all the overhead required to find buyers to buy it, and stores in which to carry it. That was WAY more than 30% that Apple charges for doing everything.
Take a hike.
I would like some of these whiners to come up with a business plan for a new App Store platform. They will say "well Apple is a big company with billions in the bank" so then, Apple should take hard earned money to spend it so developers can reap all the rewards? Or, they should take it from other divisions budgets so those divisions can fail? These whiners are so absolutely clueless.
I agree. The real problem is that millions of anti-capitalist whiners elect whining lawmakers who might try to pass laws outlawing Apple's profit. If the whiners had been around during Henry Ford's timeframe they would have broken Ford Motor Corp up too. The same thing could have happened with John D Rockefeller. Oh, wait, the whiners did break up Rockefeller's Standard Oil. History may repeat itself. But always remember, Rockefeller's evil monopoly actually brought the price of kerosene DOWN by 80%. Just like Apple has brought down the markup of software distribution by about 70% from 100% markup down to 30% markup.
I don’t really support or oppose the 30% myself, but I’m I’m sure if Apple didn’t have such a massive cash pile people wouldn’t complain so much. A $1.5tn company with $190bn cash on hand looks pretty petty defending a 30% cut against devs making a few thousand dollars a year from their app.
Apple is almost guaranteed to lose the antitrust suits somewhere in the world, so they’re going to have to either change their cut, change the App Store rules, allow third party stores, or drop out of the jurisdiction where they lose the antitrust suit. It would be better to capitulate now and for Apple to decide on the compromises, than having them court decided and forced, plus the negative publicity.
“...I’m sure if Apple didn’t have such a massive cash pile people wouldn’t complain so much.”
What does having a “massive cash pile” have to do with anything? Do you complain every time someone makes a profit on a voluntary transaction? Do you complain when your taxes are taken from you involuntarily by the government?
For one it makes Apple a big target for lawsuits and the like, because they know Apple can pay it, and secondly it is easier for governments to claim Apple is so awash with money they don't need the 30% cut. There is a difference between making a profit, and having more money in the bank than the entire GDP of many small countries. That incredible success catches the ire of many - as I have stated before, I don't really have an issue with Apple's 30% cut, but many others in positions of power see that as possibly anticompetitive.
I don't understand people like you. A developer with an iOS App is no different than a bread maker asking Costco for permission to sell its bread in their stores. It is EXACTLY the same thing. Developers are whining that they should be allowed to set up shop in front of Apple and sell their stuff to Apple's customers, bypassing Apple entirely. Lets see that bread-maker set up a booth in front of a Costco store's front door and see what happens.
A Costco customer isn’t locked in to only buying bread from CostCo.
A bread maker can sell bread to any number of other retailers other than CostCo. CostCo have practically limited shelf space.
There are many significant differences. I’m sure you can see them.
Your points are valid, kind of. But the difference of opinion here is that some people think that Apple has a monopoly on app stores, and some people recognize Android and other platforms as "the competition."
P.S. A Costco customer is indeed locked into buying bread only from Costco if that's what Costco decides to do.
But they aren't "the competition" without spending several hundred+ dollars on a new phone, and then spending more hundreds re-buying all the software you've got on iOS. Plus any iOS accessories would need to be replaced, a HomePod would become a brick. If there was no cost to switching then you'd have a point, but when barrier for entry to the competition is so high, it's not really competition.
Costco can't lock customers into buying bread just at Costco. A Costco customer can use a different store and buy bread there - albeit not Costco bread, just as Apple apps wouldn't be on a different platform - and it costs them exactly nothing to use a different store instead. It would be like Costco making all white bread (iOS apps) available only in Costco, and enforcing the use of a specific ingredient (Swift) only available for use with bread to be sold in Costco, preventing sale elsewhere. The baker would have to reformulate their bread (rewrite their app) to sell it elsewhere.
People here keep negating that barrier to entry for both the developers and Apple's customers, when that's significant for both parties.
Your argument is a valiant attempt to make a case, but it's weak. Bottom line, which you aren't discussing: Apple has no obligation to sell anyone else's software on its store. You can't make em. Nothing you can do can force Apple to provide a service (the Apple App Store) if Apple doesn't want to. Apple's normal profit on its iPhones is about 30%, and you want Apple's profit on software sales to be what, 5%? Apple isn't a charity for entitled people. Why should you or anyone else get to dictate what Apple's profit level is? Let the market decide, if you support capitalism.
Absolutely it cannot, and I never claimed that it should - but getting a refusal right now has no alternative for the developer. You're going off on a different matter, we are talking about the App Store itself, not the percentage cut Apple gets. Either way, the market can't decide the cut because there is no competition in the market on iOS. There is no alternative source for iOS apps to drive the commission down. Capitalism is private enterprise, where someone could set up an alternative store. But of course it's not capitalist because Apple won't allow that. In fact any creative interpretation of the rules (a very capitalist concept) is immediately stomped on by Apple. So in fact the Apple's control over iOS is closer to communism, where there is just one source of apps. You're only allowed to sell your product if the state authorises it, in a state owned shop, but part of the sale (decided by the state) must always go to the state. And until recently, you were not allowed to challenge the rules either, just like communism.
You are correct that nothing I can do can force Apple to provide a service it doesn't want to. But regulators can force it, and regulators can force Apple to allow unfettered access to my own device. It's my device, and with it I shall do as I please. But Apple is placing barriers to this, as if it's actually their device and not mine - we don't license the device from Apple, its our own.
If I want to install something Apple doesn't approve of, and as long as I agree to a wavier regarding privacy, malware etc, who is Apple to refuse that? And as I said, that developer then cannot sell that same software elsewhere, because it's specific to iOS. That is where the competition is essentially non-existent, and where Apple will likely lose. You can argue all day long that the App Store isn't anticompetitive, but there are what 5 countries now investigating them, so there has to be some merit to it no matter what your opinion on it is.
Also Apple's phone profit is nearer 40%, it used to be more, but the ballooning R&D budget under Cook has reduced that somewhat.
Whiny developers that have issues with the 30% are more than welcome to go to another platform. Please. Just go. Apple did all the work to create an ecosystem and marketplace so freeloaders like you could spend time to make your product.
Disclaimer: I'm a developer too and have zero issue with the 30%. Why? Because I remember the days of boxed software and all the overhead required to find buyers to buy it, and stores in which to carry it. That was WAY more than 30% that Apple charges for doing everything.
GREEEEEEAAAT POINT. To me, there seems to be a conspiracy theory; that people want to see Apple fail. JMO.
Yeah, nobody could ever prove this, but I think at least some of it has to do with the co-founder. Guy wasn’t an [actual] engineer, wasn’t a “business type”; dropped out of a non-Ivey-league institution and built the world’s most kickass tech company and showed the world what’s up and made it look fucking easy.
Well, its like people have animosity towards apple for not licensing their technology to any one, and keeping every thing under one umbrella. Its like they seem like apple is being stingy. Other people and companies want to make Money off apple but they won't want them grow?.
Steve jones once said, "People seem to think in order for apple to succeed, Microsoft has too fail." No, In order for apple to succeed, apple has to do a better job" Well, apple did a better job. Now look at apple now. Apple maid history, on August 2nd of 2019. Apple became the first US Trillion Dollar Company. Then, on August 19, 202, Apple became the First US Two Trillion Dollar company. More Valuable then Dell, HPQ, HPE and IBM Combine. Am I wrong with my statements?
I don't understand people like you. A developer with an iOS App is no different than a bread maker asking Costco for permission to sell its bread in their stores. It is EXACTLY the same thing. Developers are whining that they should be allowed to set up shop in front of Apple and sell their stuff to Apple's customers, bypassing Apple entirely. Lets see that bread-maker set up a booth in front of a Costco store's front door and see what happens.
A Costco customer isn’t locked in to only buying bread from CostCo.
A bread maker can sell bread to any number of other retailers other than CostCo. CostCo have practically limited shelf space.
There are many significant differences. I’m sure you can see them.
Your points are valid, kind of. But the difference of opinion here is that some people think that Apple has a monopoly on app stores, and some people recognize Android and other platforms as "the competition."
P.S. A Costco customer is indeed locked into buying bread only from Costco if that's what Costco decides to do.
But they aren't "the competition" without spending several hundred+ dollars on a new phone, and then spending more hundreds re-buying all the software you've got on iOS. Plus any iOS accessories would need to be replaced, a HomePod would become a brick. If there was no cost to switching then you'd have a point, but when barrier for entry to the competition is so high, it's not really competition.
Costco can't lock customers into buying bread just at Costco. A Costco customer can use a different store and buy bread there - albeit not Costco bread, just as Apple apps wouldn't be on a different platform - and it costs them exactly nothing to use a different store instead. It would be like Costco making all white bread (iOS apps) available only in Costco, and enforcing the use of a specific ingredient (Swift) only available for use with bread to be sold in Costco, preventing sale elsewhere. The baker would have to reformulate their bread (rewrite their app) to sell it elsewhere.
People here keep negating that barrier to entry for both the developers and Apple's customers, when that's significant for both parties.
Your argument is a valiant attempt to make a case, but it's weak. Bottom line, which you aren't discussing: Apple has no obligation to sell anyone else's software on its store. You can't make em. Nothing you can do can force Apple to provide a service (the Apple App Store) if Apple doesn't want to. Apple's normal profit on its iPhones is about 30%, and you want Apple's profit on software sales to be what, 5%? Apple isn't a charity for entitled people. Why should you or anyone else get to dictate what Apple's profit level is? Let the market decide, if you support capitalism.
Absolutely it cannot, and I never claimed that it should - but getting a refusal right now has no alternative for the developer. You're going off on a different matter, we are talking about the App Store itself, not the percentage cut Apple gets. Either way, the market can't decide the cut because there is no competition in the market on iOS. There is no alternative source for iOS apps to drive the commission down. Capitalism is private enterprise, where someone could set up an alternative store. But of course it's not capitalist because Apple won't allow that. In fact any creative interpretation of the rules (a very capitalist concept) is immediately stomped on by Apple. So in fact the Apple's control over iOS is closer to communism, where there is just one source of apps. You're only allowed to sell your product if the state authorises it, in a state owned shop, but part of the sale (decided by the state) must always go to the state. And until recently, you were not allowed to challenge the rules either, just like communism.
You are correct that nothing I can do can force Apple to provide a service it doesn't want to. But regulators can force it, and regulators can force Apple to allow unfettered access to my own device. It's my device, and with it I shall do as I please. But Apple is placing barriers to this, as if it's actually their device and not mine - we don't license the device from Apple, its our own.
If I want to install something Apple doesn't approve of, and as long as I agree to a wavier regarding privacy, malware etc, who is Apple to refuse that? And as I said, that developer then cannot sell that same software elsewhere, because it's specific to iOS. That is where the competition is essentially non-existent, and where Apple will likely lose. You can argue all day long that the App Store isn't anticompetitive, but there are what 5 countries now investigating them, so there has to be some merit to it no matter what your opinion on it is.
Also Apple's phone profit is nearer 40%, it used to be more, but the ballooning R&D budget under Cook has reduced that somewhat.
I don't know where to start. There are so many things wrong in your post. I'll try to be brief and summarize why you are wrong. But I'll also say that I support you if you want to get control over your iPhone by installing Android (or Linux, or anything you want) on it. That way you can install "anything you want, with unfettered access." Sure, I'll help you with that request. Apple already does this with its PCs, you can install other OSs on Macs. I'm sure with a little public pressure Apple would let you install Android on iPhones. But that's not what you (or companies like Epic) want. You want someone to completely rewrite the license agreement for Apple's iOS. But you didn't say who should rewrite it and you didn't say which of the 500 rules in the current license agreement you want discarded. I would estimate you want all the iOS rules discarded. You want iOS to use the Android license agreement. Then just use Android. Don't try to force Apple to use the Android license agreement. The license agreement is part of the iOS experience. Without it, it's not iOS any more. It's just an unsafe, useless Android OS. Why don't you just get an Android phone if you want the Android experience?
Let me ask you a question. If there was another App Store on iOS, how would Apple recover its costs for all the development tools it currently distributes for free to developers? Do you want Apple to be able to charge the same 30% on all App Store from other companies? Or is your goal to get Apple to lose money?
Let me ask another question. If there was another App Store on iOS, how would Apple enforce its many existing rules, like no pornography? Would Apple still have to vet software offered on other companies App Stores? Or do you want all restrictions removed on software?
I've been arguing for months on these forums that if any regulators, including those in foreign countries, decide to try to manage the App Store rules, or any other service it sells, then Apple should simply remove the App Store from those countries. Apple will do fine without an App Store. Nobody can force Apple to sell any software, especially third party software, over the internet, period.
Apple wrote iOS. They have no obligation to provide any features that you want, including features that let you run whatever you want. As it is now, you can get about 99% of what you want. Do you think Tesla needs to let you replace it's Autopilot software with your own self-driving software? After all, you own the Tesla, right? You should have unfettered access to the software it runs. Are you consistent on this point?
I’ve been reading a couple of articles about those who fiercely defend a company or brand no matter the situation. It’s been proven many times over that those types of people suffer from low self-esteem. That’s probably why I don’t care about situations like the ones mentioned in the article. I’ll just be glad they find a quick and friendly solution to the problem.
I’ve been reading a couple of articles about those who fiercely defend a company or brand no matter the situation. It’s been proven many times over that those types of people suffer from low self-esteem. That’s probably why I don’t care about situations like the ones mentioned in the article. I’ll just be glad they find a quick and friendly solution to the problem.
You expect everyone to believe you even though you don't back up your own statements. Cite the articles and we'll read them. Cite the proof that you allude to and we'll read it. Try to contribute to the conversation and you might actually make a difference. Have some confidence in yourself!
I’ve been reading a couple of articles about those who fiercely defend a company or brand no matter the situation. It’s been proven many times over that those types of people suffer from low self-esteem. That’s probably why I don’t care about situations like the ones mentioned in the article. I’ll just be glad they find a quick and friendly solution to the problem.
You expect everyone to believe you even though you don't back up your own statements. Cite the articles and we'll read them. Cite the proof that you allude to and we'll read it. Try to contribute to the conversation and you might actually make a difference. Have some confidence in yourself!
It would be better if you did your own research. Have fun finding the articles. Here’s a tease...
I don’t really support or oppose the 30% myself, but I’m I’m sure if Apple didn’t have such a massive cash pile people wouldn’t complain so much. A $1.5tn company with $190bn cash on hand looks pretty petty defending a 30% cut against devs making a few thousand dollars a year from their app.
Apple is almost guaranteed to lose the antitrust suits somewhere in the world, so they’re going to have to either change their cut, change the App Store rules, allow third party stores, or drop out of the jurisdiction where they lose the antitrust suit. It would be better to capitulate now and for Apple to decide on the compromises, than having them court decided and forced, plus the negative publicity.
I think you’re headed in the right direction and I’d propose this change which would probably earn Apple enough good will to get the Wealth Redistribution people in DC to go after Amazon and Google (who deserve it): for devs makes very little (maybe under $500 or $1000/yr), 5%. Keep 30% for everyone else (sorry Epic! Go pound sand). It’s still $99/yr to place your apps; Apple wouldn’t lose much.
I’ve been reading a couple of articles about those who fiercely defend a company or brand no matter the situation. It’s been proven many times over that those types of people suffer from low self-esteem. That’s probably why I don’t care about situations like the ones mentioned in the article. I’ll just be glad they find a quick and friendly solution to the problem.
You expect everyone to believe you even though you don't back up your own statements. Cite the articles and we'll read them. Cite the proof that you allude to and we'll read it. Try to contribute to the conversation and you might actually make a difference. Have some confidence in yourself!
It would be better if you did your own research. Have fun finding the articles. Here’s a tease...
That was interesting. According to that study, people with low self esteem do defend their favourite brands. But what you said was that people who defend their brands have low self esteem. You actually reversed the results of the study! The study showed A->B but you said it claims B->A. Whoops! The study did not say B-> A at all. Thanks for making my case!
I don’t really support or oppose the 30% myself, but I’m I’m sure if Apple didn’t have such a massive cash pile people wouldn’t complain so much. A $1.5tn company with $190bn cash on hand looks pretty petty defending a 30% cut against devs making a few thousand dollars a year from their app.
Apple is almost guaranteed to lose the antitrust suits somewhere in the world, so they’re going to have to either change their cut, change the App Store rules, allow third party stores, or drop out of the jurisdiction where they lose the antitrust suit. It would be better to capitulate now and for Apple to decide on the compromises, than having them court decided and forced, plus the negative publicity.
I think you’re headed in the right direction and I’d propose this change which would probably earn Apple enough good will to get the Wealth Redistribution people in DC to go after Amazon and Google (who deserve it): for devs makes very little (maybe under $500 or $1000/yr), 5%. Keep 30% for everyone else (sorry Epic! Go pound sand). It’s still $99/yr to place your apps; Apple wouldn’t lose much.
At least you are trying to come up with a compromise. That idea might work. I won't object. But there's really no need for Apple to do anything. I'd prefer Apple showing how much it has brought DOWN the cost of selling software even with its 30% cut. Remember, Rockefeller's Standard Oil brought down the price of kerosene by 80% but the Wealth Redistribution people in DC still broke Standard Oil into separate companies. Apparently an 80% price reduction wasn't good enough for DC.
Comments
My take revolves around the fact that users are not specifically informed that Apple is the sole Gatekeeper to iOS apps and that true competition for apps (at an App Store level) does not exist.
I think Apple will fall foul to this and especially within the EU.
The point is not so much if the current economic setup is right or wrong but that consumers are not made explicitly aware of this and that competition is impeded on the device.
CostCo have practically limited shelf space.
There are many significant differences. I’m sure you can see them.
P.S. A Costco customer is indeed locked into buying bread only from Costco if that's what Costco decides to do.
Costco can't lock customers into buying bread just at Costco. A Costco customer can use a different store and buy bread there - albeit not Costco bread, just as Apple apps wouldn't be on a different platform - and it costs them exactly nothing to use a different store instead. It would be like Costco making all white bread (iOS apps) available only in Costco, and enforcing the use of a specific ingredient (Swift) only available for use with bread to be sold in Costco, preventing sale elsewhere. The baker would have to reformulate their bread (rewrite their app) to sell it elsewhere.
People here keep negating that barrier to entry for both the developers and Apple's customers, when that's significant for both parties.
What does having a “massive cash pile” have to do with anything? Do you complain every time someone makes a profit on a voluntary transaction? Do you complain when your taxes are taken from you involuntarily by the government?
It took me 15 minutes to write this. It could have been less if I hadn't tried to get "Spotify" in there.
Upon reflection I think the second stanza should have been written in first person tense, but what's done is done.
Absolutely it cannot, and I never claimed that it should - but getting a refusal right now has no alternative for the developer. You're going off on a different matter, we are talking about the App Store itself, not the percentage cut Apple gets. Either way, the market can't decide the cut because there is no competition in the market on iOS. There is no alternative source for iOS apps to drive the commission down. Capitalism is private enterprise, where someone could set up an alternative store. But of course it's not capitalist because Apple won't allow that. In fact any creative interpretation of the rules (a very capitalist concept) is immediately stomped on by Apple. So in fact the Apple's control over iOS is closer to communism, where there is just one source of apps. You're only allowed to sell your product if the state authorises it, in a state owned shop, but part of the sale (decided by the state) must always go to the state. And until recently, you were not allowed to challenge the rules either, just like communism.
You are correct that nothing I can do can force Apple to provide a service it doesn't want to. But regulators can force it, and regulators can force Apple to allow unfettered access to my own device. It's my device, and with it I shall do as I please. But Apple is placing barriers to this, as if it's actually their device and not mine - we don't license the device from Apple, its our own.
If I want to install something Apple doesn't approve of, and as long as I agree to a wavier regarding privacy, malware etc, who is Apple to refuse that? And as I said, that developer then cannot sell that same software elsewhere, because it's specific to iOS. That is where the competition is essentially non-existent, and where Apple will likely lose. You can argue all day long that the App Store isn't anticompetitive, but there are what 5 countries now investigating them, so there has to be some merit to it no matter what your opinion on it is.
Also Apple's phone profit is nearer 40%, it used to be more, but the ballooning R&D budget under Cook has reduced that somewhat.
Steve jones once said, "People seem to think in order for apple to succeed, Microsoft has too fail." No, In order for apple to succeed, apple has to do a better job" Well, apple did a better job. Now look at apple now. Apple maid history, on August 2nd of 2019. Apple became the first US Trillion Dollar Company. Then, on August 19, 202, Apple became the First US Two Trillion Dollar company. More Valuable then Dell, HPQ, HPE and IBM Combine. Am I wrong with my statements?
Let me ask you a question. If there was another App Store on iOS, how would Apple recover its costs for all the development tools it currently distributes for free to developers? Do you want Apple to be able to charge the same 30% on all App Store from other companies? Or is your goal to get Apple to lose money?
Let me ask another question. If there was another App Store on iOS, how would Apple enforce its many existing rules, like no pornography? Would Apple still have to vet software offered on other companies App Stores? Or do you want all restrictions removed on software?
I've been arguing for months on these forums that if any regulators, including those in foreign countries, decide to try to manage the App Store rules, or any other service it sells, then Apple should simply remove the App Store from those countries. Apple will do fine without an App Store. Nobody can force Apple to sell any software, especially third party software, over the internet, period.
Apple wrote iOS. They have no obligation to provide any features that you want, including features that let you run whatever you want. As it is now, you can get about 99% of what you want. Do you think Tesla needs to let you replace it's Autopilot software with your own self-driving software? After all, you own the Tesla, right? You should have unfettered access to the software it runs. Are you consistent on this point?
You actually reversed the results of the study! The study showed A->B but you said it claims B->A. Whoops! The study did not say B-> A at all. Thanks for making my case!
At least you are trying to come up with a compromise. That idea might work. I won't object. But there's really no need for Apple to do anything. I'd prefer Apple showing how much it has brought DOWN the cost of selling software even with its 30% cut. Remember, Rockefeller's Standard Oil brought down the price of kerosene by 80% but the Wealth Redistribution people in DC still broke Standard Oil into separate companies. Apparently an 80% price reduction wasn't good enough for DC.