Let me put it plain and simple for all. It’s Apple Shareholders’ Store and Platform.
Shareholder expect the management to generate profits. Since Apple owns the store, they do not have to let anyone else in their store which exist to generate profit from their platform. Just because they are better at generating “ginormous” amounts of cash, that by itself does not give anyone the “RIGHT” to be in their store.
I have not seen a single developer or anyone else spend a single penny when it comes to paying for Apple’s various yearly development, legal, contractors, patent, and employees cost. These costs are not cheap and shareholders expect the management to recover these costs.
Apple unlike most companies give a lot of other people and companies a free ride in respect to above listed cost. With that said helping the little guy/gal out is a good thing to do. But letting a million plus dollar corporations ride for free “ain’t” a thing I am prepared to forgive as an Apple shareholder.
The current 15 to 30 per cent is a bargain to what should be a higher rate for using Apple “privately owned” platform and gaining access to the platform customers. The last time I checked I do not think Macy’s has ever given Nordstrom equal access to its stores, customers or products. Nor has either one of them let someone display or sell a product in their stores for just 15 to 30 percent or for FREE!
Not seen a single developer spend a single penny on Apple's cost? What do you think the 30% Apple takes is for? Are you suggesting that in addition to the 30% (now 15% in some cases) that developers should make additional contributions? Perhaps they should hold a YouTube telethon to raise money for the charity that is the Apple App Store?
If you don't think there's profit built into the 15% - 30% you're crazy and you really have no idea how much money some of these apps really make...Candy Crush alone could support all of Apple's costs and more than likely still make them a profit.
Do you really think Candy Crush alone could cover the cost of what Apple spends let say in a single quarter to employ people and systems used to update the various iOS frameworks, server farms used to host the store and system software along with the various quality control and security related cost? I think not! The 15 to 30 per cent most likely just breaks even or loses money.
Be careful what you ask for because Apple could go back to charging for every single software upgrade and charging ten of tens of thousand dollars for access to its developer tools and customers. Epic, EA, Adobe and other developers with big pockets would love this because it would keep the small guy out of the game and leave only the big boys to fleece and serve the flock.
The various regulators can moan and groan all they want but when it comes to presenting a valid evidentiary antitrust case before a court of law they better have more evidence than the fact that Apple makes the most profit, has the better hardware/software systems that customers TRUST and are willing to pay a premium price to access.
You got one thing right Apple “ain’t“ a charity. It is a “private” business entity that is ENTITLED to run its business for a profit within the various legal frameworks and customs as it see fit.
Let me provide an example of why your statement is wrong. Microsoft makes a platform, Windows. It is theirs. No one else's. Microsoft tried to stop Netscape using their platform. Regulators told Microsoft that was illegal and forced MS to allow Netscape to operate freely on their platform. There were platforms other than Windows at the time, but Microsoft still lost the case and had to allow Netscape access to their platform. The end. Does that help your understanding?
Wrong. You're partaking into revisionist history.
In order for Windows to work, it needs cooperation from hardware companies to make the hardware. Microsoft/Windows would never have survived back then if the manufacturers decided to use Linux, BeOS, etc..
What got Microsoft in hot water back in the 90's and 2000's was that it was forcing/bullying hardware manufacturers - companies not owned by Microsoft - on how they are to sell hardware with (or without) Windows installed.
Computer makers often had agreements with other companies (i.e. Netscape, Norton, Symantec, etc..) to pre-install their software and get paid for it. Microsoft was threatening to deny windows licenses to these manufacturers if they didn't adhere to its demands. Microsoft was also forcing PC makers to pay Microsoft for licenses on PC's that didn't even have Windows installed! Windows was the life-blood for many computer manufacturers and Microsoft knew that.
[snip twaddle]
Well that's funny because interpretation of historical legal cases is exactly how US and most other countries' law systems work. But apparently it doesn't apply to Apple because you say so. Right. I agree their licensing terms got them into hot water, but that was in addition to the technical barriers MS were using against Netscape. Here's a summary of the case, and would you look at that, one of the contentious points was "technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java". See? "and users". Upsy daisy.
Apple is threatening to deny a developer license to developers who don't meet their demands. How is that different to MS denying a Windows license to manufacturers who don't meet their demands? This has now changed, but Apple was forcing companies to sell products at the same price outside their store as they were selling them for in the app with IAPs, even if the majority of sales happened outside the app! Apple isn't the gold standard citizen you love to think it is. It used to be pretty close, but since they've become so profit driven that's gone out the window, as it always does when companies that start with morals find that they get in the way of profit.
Let me put it plain and simple for all. It’s Apple Shareholders’ Store and Platform.
Shareholder expect the management to generate profits. Since Apple owns the store, they do not have to let anyone else in their store which exist to generate profit from their platform. Just because they are better at generating “ginormous” amounts of cash, that by itself does not give anyone the “RIGHT” to be in their store.
Let me put it plain and simple for you: regulators can step in to stop perceived abuse of markets by large players, no matter who owns the company or its components.
Shareholders do expect profits, but they also expect that whilst the long-term prospects of the company are not damaged due to generation of the profits in the short term. By getting to a point where regulators have begun investigations, Cook had set Apple up for short term gain but long term pain. And that pain has now arrived. Profit doesn't have to be Apple's sole objective, it certainly wasn't in the Jobs era, and Apple doesn't *have* to kowtow to shareholders. In fact Jobs famously said if you make great products the profit will come, he pretty much ignored profit and shareholders over making great products. Cook is totally different in that regard, he's almost solely profit-driven, he's all about the share price. Due to the primary objective of most companies to produce maximum profit, regulators are there to ensure abuse of the market doesn't happen.
I have not seen a single developer or anyone else spend a single penny when it comes to paying for Apple’s various yearly development, legal, contractors, patent, and employees cost. These costs are not cheap and shareholders expect the management to recover these costs.
Apple unlike most companies give a lot of other people and companies a free ride in respect to above listed cost. With that said helping the little guy/gal out is a good thing to do. But letting a million plus dollar corporations ride for free “ain’t” a thing I am prepared to forgive as an Apple shareholder.
The current 15 to 30 per cent is a bargain to what should be a higher rate for using Apple “privately owned” platform and gaining access to the platform customers. The last time I checked I do not think Macy’s has ever given Nordstrom equal access to its stores, customers or products. Nor has either one of them let someone display or sell a product in their stores for just 15 to 30 percent or for FREE!
Oh I didn't realise Macs were free. The £99 developer fee doesn't exist and the 15/30% cut doesn't exist? Damn well all those regulators must have it wrong and Apple are giving everyone a free ride. Well.
All I can say is I'm glad you aren't running Apple. You really think the iPhone would have the success it has now if they didn't have the huge variety of third party apps?
$99 is a give away. Non-profits do not even have to pay the fee. The vast majority of apps in the store are FREE. The only ones that seem to be complaining are the one charging for apps. I have yet to heard of a free app developer complain of being “sherlocked” by Apple. Why do people in this time and age seem to think they are entitled to use the work or property of others for free?
Just like in the real world, you do not have the right to let your dog crap on another person property. You also do not have the right to move into a store and set up your business without permission, without paying rent and obeying the rules as set by the property owner.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
No.
Let me break it down for you. Apple makes a platform. It is theirs. No one elses. They can provide other people access to that platform (or not) and dictate the terms. Dont like the terms? Then move along. There are other platforms. The end.
No need to break anything down.
The truth is that until investigations are finalised and a decision is made, nobody can possibly know which way things will swing.
However, 'yes' I am right in stating that the exclusive nature and limits on competition are the root cause at play here (which include terms, percentage cuts etc).
I have speculated on just one part of a complex issue and explained why Apple might fall foul to EU regulations.
Your 'absolute' 'the end' stance on this would not mean much if Apple is found to be limiting competition.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
I think know what you mean by "root issue," although you didn't define it. If Apple's overall App Store requirements are rejected by the court, as I infer you want to see, then I sure hope Apple declares the App Store to be a "money losing venture" and completely removes its "third party App Store" from iOS. I think that would be great for Apple's profits because it means that Apple has exclusive rights to sell software for iOS. So for that reason, I'd be somewhat happy if Apple lost in court.
The root issue is if Apple limits competition and also abuses its position.
That is to be determined. As things stand I feel the EU could rule against Apple but it's still up in the air. One possible outcome could be for Apple to be required to make customers aware (before purchase and in simple terms) that purchasing iOS devices with the App Store, requires tacit acceptance that Apple will have sole control of App Store management and fees.
Not dissimilar to the cookie situation in the EU.
That's not the "root" issue with the App Store. That's just the guise. The real root is and always will be about who's getting paid. No one is interested in whether it's better for the consumer (it has been proven that the App Store works and most user don't have an issue with it). Apple is the single app distribution point for iOS apps, so everyone is "forced" to pay Apple's toll. Apple can solve part of that not by allowing for another App Store on iOS, but by allowing for side-loading of apps direct from a developer's website. Where the developer is free to use any payment system they want. But you can believe Apple still won't allow website App Stores either.
Lowering the fee for smaller developers is a good start. Allowing for side-loading will be next.
The EU has proven consistently and for many years that it absolutely is interested in what is better for consumers. That is utterly beyond question.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
I think know what you mean by "root issue," although you didn't define it. If Apple's overall App Store requirements are rejected by the court, as I infer you want to see, then I sure hope Apple declares the App Store to be a "money losing venture" and completely removes its "third party App Store" from iOS. I think that would be great for Apple's profits because it means that Apple has exclusive rights to sell software for iOS. So for that reason, I'd be somewhat happy if Apple lost in court.
The root issue is if Apple limits competition and also abuses its position.
That is to be determined. As things stand I feel the EU could rule against Apple but it's still up in the air. One possible outcome could be for Apple to be required to make customers aware (before purchase and in simple terms) that purchasing iOS devices with the App Store, requires tacit acceptance that Apple will have sole control of App Store management and fees.
Not dissimilar to the cookie situation in the EU.
That's not the "root" issue with the App Store. That's just the guise. The real root is and always will be about who's getting paid. No one is interested in whether it's better for the consumer (it has been proven that the App Store works and most user don't have an issue with it). Apple is the single app distribution point for iOS apps, so everyone is "forced" to pay Apple's toll. Apple can solve part of that not by allowing for another App Store on iOS, but by allowing for side-loading of apps direct from a developer's website. Where the developer is free to use any payment system they want. But you can believe Apple still won't allow website App Stores either.
Lowering the fee for smaller developers is a good start. Allowing for side-loading will be next.
Allowing side-loading of apps is the worst possible "solution." That's not "better for the consumer." I choose iOS devices in part because they are relatively secure and stable. Allowing for side-loading opens the door for anything to be loaded on an iOS device, and would be a huge degradation of security. If you want that, get an Android device. Don't take away my choice to have a device with a secure OS.
Um. Ok. Not exactly sure how turning on an option to allow side loading on my iPhone affects the security of your iPhone? Would you care to explain?
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
I think know what you mean by "root issue," although you didn't define it. If Apple's overall App Store requirements are rejected by the court, as I infer you want to see, then I sure hope Apple declares the App Store to be a "money losing venture" and completely removes its "third party App Store" from iOS. I think that would be great for Apple's profits because it means that Apple has exclusive rights to sell software for iOS. So for that reason, I'd be somewhat happy if Apple lost in court.
The root issue is if Apple limits competition and also abuses its position.
That is to be determined. As things stand I feel the EU could rule against Apple but it's still up in the air. One possible outcome could be for Apple to be required to make customers aware (before purchase and in simple terms) that purchasing iOS devices with the App Store, requires tacit acceptance that Apple will have sole control of App Store management and fees.
Not dissimilar to the cookie situation in the EU.
That's not the "root" issue with the App Store. That's just the guise. The real root is and always will be about who's getting paid. No one is interested in whether it's better for the consumer (it has been proven that the App Store works and most user don't have an issue with it). Apple is the single app distribution point for iOS apps, so everyone is "forced" to pay Apple's toll. Apple can solve part of that not by allowing for another App Store on iOS, but by allowing for side-loading of apps direct from a developer's website. Where the developer is free to use any payment system they want. But you can believe Apple still won't allow website App Stores either.
Lowering the fee for smaller developers is a good start. Allowing for side-loading will be next.
The EU has proven consistently and for many years that it absolutely is interested in what is better for consumers. That is utterly beyond question.
Sorry, I should've clarified... I was speaking from a whining developer point of view. Those who shout, "Think of the children!" when it's really about self interest.
Well that's funny because interpretation of historical legal cases is exactly how US and most other countries' law systems work. But apparently it doesn't apply to Apple because you say so. Right. I agree their licensing terms got them into hot water, but that was in addition to the technical barriers MS were using against Netscape. Here's a summary of the case, and would you look at that, one of the contentious points was "technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java". See? "and users". Upsy daisy.
Apple is threatening to deny a developer license to developers who don't meet their demands. How is that different to MS denying a Windows license to manufacturers who don't meet their demands? This has now changed, but Apple was forcing companies to sell products at the same price outside their store as they were selling them for in the app with IAPs, even if the majority of sales happened outside the app! Apple isn't the gold standard citizen you love to think it is. It used to be pretty close, but since they've become so profit driven that's gone out the window, as it always does when companies that start with morals find that they get in the way of profit.
Oh yes... it's funny that you're still trying to twist it to suit your agenda. My original statement still stands.
Again.. Microsoft was bullying PC manufacturers - hardware makers - to not include Netscape. Microsoft had zero business ordering hardware makers what they can and can't do with their products.
Microsoft was forcing PC vendors to pay Microsoft a windows license fee for PC's NOT having Windows installed. It is not the same situation with Apple. Apple does not do business with PC vendors to make PC's to run iOS, or MacOS.
Apple owns the entire widget, exactly like how Microsoft owns the Xbox widget (oh the irony). Exactly how Sony owns the Playstation widget. If you - the App developer - wants to showcase your wares on any of these platforms, you have to pay for the privilege. Why is that concept difficult to grasp? If I - a developer - didn't want to abide by it, I take my app elsewhere, and adios muchacho.
Yes, I'm defending Apple. I'd also defend Microsoft's ability to charge 30% for Xbox Live. I'd defend Costco for demanding that it has the sole right to sell products in its stores and not be forced to allow outside competitors to set up shop in Costco's parking lot and sell the same item.
Do you think Microsoft would get into any kind of antitrust trouble had it bundled IE and excluded Netscape today in its Surface laptops at purchase? No. Why? Because it OWNS the hardware/widget.
Well that's funny because interpretation of historical legal cases is exactly how US and most other countries' law systems work. But apparently it doesn't apply to Apple because you say so. Right. I agree their licensing terms got them into hot water, but that was in addition to the technical barriers MS were using against Netscape. Here's a summary of the case, and would you look at that, one of the contentious points was "technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java". See? "and users". Upsy daisy.
Apple is threatening to deny a developer license to developers who don't meet their demands. How is that different to MS denying a Windows license to manufacturers who don't meet their demands? This has now changed, but Apple was forcing companies to sell products at the same price outside their store as they were selling them for in the app with IAPs, even if the majority of sales happened outside the app! Apple isn't the gold standard citizen you love to think it is. It used to be pretty close, but since they've become so profit driven that's gone out the window, as it always does when companies that start with morals find that they get in the way of profit.
Oh yes... it's funny that you're still trying to twist it to suit your agenda. My original statement still stands.
Again.. Microsoft was bullying PC manufacturers - hardware makers - to not include Netscape. Microsoft had zero business ordering hardware makers what they can and can't do with their products.
Microsoft was forcing PC vendors to pay Microsoft a windows license fee for PC's NOT having Windows installed. It is not the same situation with Apple. Apple does not do business with PC vendors to make PC's to run iOS, or MacOS.
Apple owns the entire widget, exactly like how Microsoft owns the Xbox widget (oh the irony). Exactly how Sony owns the Playstation widget. If you - the App developer - wants to showcase your wares on any of these platforms, you have to pay for the privilege. Why is that concept difficult to grasp? If I - a developer - didn't want to abide by it, I take my app elsewhere, and adios muchacho.
Yes, I'm defending Apple. I'd also defend Microsoft's ability to charge 30% for Xbox Live. I'd defend Costco for demanding that it has the sole right to sell products in its stores and not be forced to allow outside competitors to set up shop in Costco's parking lot and sell the same item.
Do you think Microsoft would get into any kind of antitrust trouble had it bundled IE and excluded Netscape today in its Surface laptops at purchase? No. Why? Because it OWNS the hardware/widget.
Making sense yet?
You're the one twisting it to your obsessively pro-Apple agenda. I'm pro-Apple, but I'm not blinkered. I can see reality when it's staring me in the face.
So then Apple has no business ordering their users what they can and can't do with their products. We *own* the phone, we can do with it whatever we please, who is Apple to tell us to do otherwise? No, Apple/MS/Sony don't own the entire "widget". Apple/Sony/MS owns the software, not the device itself. You keep going on about MS forcing PC vendors to pay MS a license even without Windows, whilst this was very true and idiotic of MS, it is irrelevant to this discussion. It was another of several parts of the lawsuit that caused MS to lose, MS trying to stop Netscape being one of the parts of that same suit.
And again you are wrong - a customer can buy a DVD /Blu-ray/whatever with a game on to play on the Playstation or Xbox, so developers have an alternative route and customers don't have to buy through the store. No such luck with the App Store.
Your analogy with Costco falls down at the first hurdle. Excepting exclusivity agreements, Costco is rarely the sole outlet for a particular vendor's product. The vendor can go to Walmart and sell exactly the same product with no further development. Vendors don't have to redesign a product from the ground up to change to a different outlet. An app vendor can't just take the same binary, nor can they just recompile it unless they use horrible third-party APIs that give a terrible UX, and then use it on Android. They have to spend hundreds or thousands of hours rewriting their software.
MS would get in serious trouble if they were found to be trying to stop Netscape/Google/Mozilla from operating on their platform, just like they did in the 90's - whether it be their own hardware or not.
Let me put it plain and simple for all. It’s Apple Shareholders’ Store and Platform.
Shareholder expect the management to generate profits. Since Apple owns the store, they do not have to let anyone else in their store which exist to generate profit from their platform. Just because they are better at generating “ginormous” amounts of cash, that by itself does not give anyone the “RIGHT” to be in their store.
Let me put it plain and simple for you: regulators can step in to stop perceived abuse of markets by large players, no matter who owns the company or its components.
Shareholders do expect profits, but they also expect that whilst the long-term prospects of the company are not damaged due to generation of the profits in the short term. By getting to a point where regulators have begun investigations, Cook had set Apple up for short term gain but long term pain. And that pain has now arrived. Profit doesn't have to be Apple's sole objective, it certainly wasn't in the Jobs era, and Apple doesn't *have* to kowtow to shareholders. In fact Jobs famously said if you make great products the profit will come, he pretty much ignored profit and shareholders over making great products. Cook is totally different in that regard, he's almost solely profit-driven, he's all about the share price. Due to the primary objective of most companies to produce maximum profit, regulators are there to ensure abuse of the market doesn't happen.
I have not seen a single developer or anyone else spend a single penny when it comes to paying for Apple’s various yearly development, legal, contractors, patent, and employees cost. These costs are not cheap and shareholders expect the management to recover these costs.
Apple unlike most companies give a lot of other people and companies a free ride in respect to above listed cost. With that said helping the little guy/gal out is a good thing to do. But letting a million plus dollar corporations ride for free “ain’t” a thing I am prepared to forgive as an Apple shareholder.
The current 15 to 30 per cent is a bargain to what should be a higher rate for using Apple “privately owned” platform and gaining access to the platform customers. The last time I checked I do not think Macy’s has ever given Nordstrom equal access to its stores, customers or products. Nor has either one of them let someone display or sell a product in their stores for just 15 to 30 percent or for FREE!
Oh I didn't realise Macs were free. The £99 developer fee doesn't exist and the 15/30% cut doesn't exist? Damn well all those regulators must have it wrong and Apple are giving everyone a free ride. Well.
All I can say is I'm glad you aren't running Apple. You really think the iPhone would have the success it has now if they didn't have the huge variety of third party apps?
$99 is a give away. Non-profits do not even have to pay the fee. The vast majority of apps in the store are FREE. The only ones that seem to be complaining are the one charging for apps. I have yet to heard of a free app developer complain of being “sherlocked” by Apple. Why do people in this time and age seem to think they are entitled to use the work or property of others for free?
Just like in the real world, you do not have the right to let your dog crap on another person property. You also do not have the right to move into a store and set up your business without permission, without paying rent and obeying the rules as set by the property owner.
Probably because the free ones are mostly ad-supported where Apple gets zero cut, but still pays the hosting/reviewing/tool/platform development costs. Why is it fair for those who make money through ads to get a free ride, and those who make money through the customers directly don't get a free ride?
Don't take away MY freedom to select a secure, restricted, moderated app store and operating system. I want my freedom, and you are trying to take it away from me by removing my CHOICE to choose a moderated app store.
I am curious to understand your logic when you make the statements bolded above. Why do you think you would lose the ability to use Apple's secure/restricted/moderated app store IF alternate App stores are allowed by Apple in iPhones/iPads? You can "choose" to NOT install any of those alternate App stores, right? I am not clear what exactly is that you would be losing when the choice would still be yours to make - which App store(s) to use for downloading the Apps for your iPhone/iPad.
If I have the option to "choose" not to install a third party app store, then YOU ALSO HAVE THE OPTION to choose not to buy an iPhone and use Android instead. Why does this choice only apply to me and not to you? How can you not see this double standard that you are creating? Why do you get to impose your rules for software on me and on Apple?
I choose to buy from a company that curates its software. You want software everywhere to be uncurated. You already have Android for that. Why are you trying to force competitors of Android to follow the Android model? Why do you want Apple to plagiarize the Android license agreement? What makes you so special that you can enforce your rules of business on other companies in a free market? Why do you hate competition? Why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate choice? Why don't you go live in North Korea if you hate choice and competition and capitalism and freedom and security so much?
These arguments have been going on for months. Are you just trolling me? Do you actually believe this? If so, you got me. I never realized anyone could believe that companies and customers are not allowed to do business the way they both want to.
Do you think that if there are 3rd party apps store, Apple will close theirs? If not, you will be free to keep using their App Store, with all of it's benefits. I don't see what's the issue.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
I think know what you mean by "root issue," although you didn't define it. If Apple's overall App Store requirements are rejected by the court, as I infer you want to see, then I sure hope Apple declares the App Store to be a "money losing venture" and completely removes its "third party App Store" from iOS. I think that would be great for Apple's profits because it means that Apple has exclusive rights to sell software for iOS. So for that reason, I'd be somewhat happy if Apple lost in court.
The root issue is if Apple limits competition and also abuses its position.
That is to be determined. As things stand I feel the EU could rule against Apple but it's still up in the air. One possible outcome could be for Apple to be required to make customers aware (before purchase and in simple terms) that purchasing iOS devices with the App Store, requires tacit acceptance that Apple will have sole control of App Store management and fees.
Not dissimilar to the cookie situation in the EU.
That's not the "root" issue with the App Store. That's just the guise. The real root is and always will be about who's getting paid. No one is interested in whether it's better for the consumer (it has been proven that the App Store works and most user don't have an issue with it). Apple is the single app distribution point for iOS apps, so everyone is "forced" to pay Apple's toll. Apple can solve part of that not by allowing for another App Store on iOS, but by allowing for side-loading of apps direct from a developer's website. Where the developer is free to use any payment system they want. But you can believe Apple still won't allow website App Stores either.
Lowering the fee for smaller developers is a good start. Allowing for side-loading will be next.
Allowing side-loading of apps is the worst possible "solution." That's not "better for the consumer." I choose iOS devices in part because they are relatively secure and stable. Allowing for side-loading opens the door for anything to be loaded on an iOS device, and would be a huge degradation of security. If you want that, get an Android device. Don't take away my choice to have a device with a secure OS.
Um. Ok. Not exactly sure how turning on an option to allow side loading on my iPhone affects the security of your iPhone? Would you care to explain?
All app developers would flock to any app store that has no restrictions on what the app can do. They would leave the Apple App store and exist only on permissive stores that let them steal user data and send it back to their HQ. Popular apps like Facebook would be the first to leave the Apple App store and then do everything malicious that Facebook is well known for doing. Are you really naive or are you just pretending to be so?
By keeping only a single App Store on iOS, Apple is able to enforce rules that keep us safe and our data secure.
And again you are wrong - a customer can buy a DVD /Blu-ray/whatever with a game on to play on the Playstation or Xbox, so developers have an alternative route and customers don't have to buy through the store. No such luck with the App Store.
Kinda. Not just anyone could produce software for the consoles, even the CDs. The consoles require dev kits to test on which cost thousands of dollars, then they must be certified before they would run. It isn’t like Billy Joe does some programming, burn a cd and can sell it. Sure the CD could be resold from a store like Costco.
Even now, there is registration cost, and you must pay part of your profits back. You also must have your software approved by Microsoft and it still must follow Microsoft’s policies.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
I think know what you mean by "root issue," although you didn't define it. If Apple's overall App Store requirements are rejected by the court, as I infer you want to see, then I sure hope Apple declares the App Store to be a "money losing venture" and completely removes its "third party App Store" from iOS. I think that would be great for Apple's profits because it means that Apple has exclusive rights to sell software for iOS. So for that reason, I'd be somewhat happy if Apple lost in court.
The root issue is if Apple limits competition and also abuses its position.
That is to be determined. As things stand I feel the EU could rule against Apple but it's still up in the air. One possible outcome could be for Apple to be required to make customers aware (before purchase and in simple terms) that purchasing iOS devices with the App Store, requires tacit acceptance that Apple will have sole control of App Store management and fees.
Not dissimilar to the cookie situation in the EU.
That's not the "root" issue with the App Store. That's just the guise. The real root is and always will be about who's getting paid. No one is interested in whether it's better for the consumer (it has been proven that the App Store works and most user don't have an issue with it). Apple is the single app distribution point for iOS apps, so everyone is "forced" to pay Apple's toll. Apple can solve part of that not by allowing for another App Store on iOS, but by allowing for side-loading of apps direct from a developer's website. Where the developer is free to use any payment system they want. But you can believe Apple still won't allow website App Stores either.
Lowering the fee for smaller developers is a good start. Allowing for side-loading will be next.
Allowing side-loading of apps is the worst possible "solution." That's not "better for the consumer." I choose iOS devices in part because they are relatively secure and stable. Allowing for side-loading opens the door for anything to be loaded on an iOS device, and would be a huge degradation of security. If you want that, get an Android device. Don't take away my choice to have a device with a secure OS.
Um. Ok. Not exactly sure how turning on an option to allow side loading on my iPhone affects the security of your iPhone? Would you care to explain?
All app developers would flock to any app store that has no restrictions on what the app can do. They would leave the Apple App store and exist only on permissive stores that let them steal user data and send it back to their HQ. Popular apps like Facebook would be the first to leave the Apple App store and then do everything malicious that Facebook is well known for doing. Are you really naive or are you just pretending to be so?
By keeping only a single App Store on iOS, Apple is able to enforce rules that keep us safe and our data secure.
There would be no way for potentially malicious apps to avoid the privacy and access warnings that exist now, so people would still be made aware.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
I think know what you mean by "root issue," although you didn't define it. If Apple's overall App Store requirements are rejected by the court, as I infer you want to see, then I sure hope Apple declares the App Store to be a "money losing venture" and completely removes its "third party App Store" from iOS. I think that would be great for Apple's profits because it means that Apple has exclusive rights to sell software for iOS. So for that reason, I'd be somewhat happy if Apple lost in court.
The root issue is if Apple limits competition and also abuses its position.
That is to be determined. As things stand I feel the EU could rule against Apple but it's still up in the air. One possible outcome could be for Apple to be required to make customers aware (before purchase and in simple terms) that purchasing iOS devices with the App Store, requires tacit acceptance that Apple will have sole control of App Store management and fees.
Not dissimilar to the cookie situation in the EU.
That's not the "root" issue with the App Store. That's just the guise. The real root is and always will be about who's getting paid. No one is interested in whether it's better for the consumer (it has been proven that the App Store works and most user don't have an issue with it). Apple is the single app distribution point for iOS apps, so everyone is "forced" to pay Apple's toll. Apple can solve part of that not by allowing for another App Store on iOS, but by allowing for side-loading of apps direct from a developer's website. Where the developer is free to use any payment system they want. But you can believe Apple still won't allow website App Stores either.
Lowering the fee for smaller developers is a good start. Allowing for side-loading will be next.
Allowing side-loading of apps is the worst possible "solution." That's not "better for the consumer." I choose iOS devices in part because they are relatively secure and stable. Allowing for side-loading opens the door for anything to be loaded on an iOS device, and would be a huge degradation of security. If you want that, get an Android device. Don't take away my choice to have a device with a secure OS.
Um. Ok. Not exactly sure how turning on an option to allow side loading on my iPhone affects the security of your iPhone? Would you care to explain?
All app developers would flock to any app store that has no restrictions on what the app can do. They would leave the Apple App store and exist only on permissive stores that let them steal user data and send it back to their HQ. Popular apps like Facebook would be the first to leave the Apple App store and then do everything malicious that Facebook is well known for doing. Are you really naive or are you just pretending to be so?
By keeping only a single App Store on iOS, Apple is able to enforce rules that keep us safe and our data secure.
I don't think that would happen, considering that you said "Apple users want a curated environment with all 500 rules in the Apple App Store License Agreement." If Apple customers support the Apple app store as you said, developers will see the benefit of publishing their apps in the Apple app store. On the contrary, if 3rd party app stores do a better job, then Apple will have to improve their Store to attract the developers and customers. I suppose that's a good thing, right?
BTW, the problems you mention, like stealing user data and malicious Facebook apps won't affect you, since you will be using Apple App Store, right? It looks like you won't miss anything if there are 3rd party stores for iOS / iPadOS devices.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
I think know what you mean by "root issue," although you didn't define it. If Apple's overall App Store requirements are rejected by the court, as I infer you want to see, then I sure hope Apple declares the App Store to be a "money losing venture" and completely removes its "third party App Store" from iOS. I think that would be great for Apple's profits because it means that Apple has exclusive rights to sell software for iOS. So for that reason, I'd be somewhat happy if Apple lost in court.
The root issue is if Apple limits competition and also abuses its position.
That is to be determined. As things stand I feel the EU could rule against Apple but it's still up in the air. One possible outcome could be for Apple to be required to make customers aware (before purchase and in simple terms) that purchasing iOS devices with the App Store, requires tacit acceptance that Apple will have sole control of App Store management and fees.
Not dissimilar to the cookie situation in the EU.
That's not the "root" issue with the App Store. That's just the guise. The real root is and always will be about who's getting paid. No one is interested in whether it's better for the consumer (it has been proven that the App Store works and most user don't have an issue with it). Apple is the single app distribution point for iOS apps, so everyone is "forced" to pay Apple's toll. Apple can solve part of that not by allowing for another App Store on iOS, but by allowing for side-loading of apps direct from a developer's website. Where the developer is free to use any payment system they want. But you can believe Apple still won't allow website App Stores either.
Lowering the fee for smaller developers is a good start. Allowing for side-loading will be next.
Allowing side-loading of apps is the worst possible "solution." That's not "better for the consumer." I choose iOS devices in part because they are relatively secure and stable. Allowing for side-loading opens the door for anything to be loaded on an iOS device, and would be a huge degradation of security. If you want that, get an Android device. Don't take away my choice to have a device with a secure OS.
Um. Ok. Not exactly sure how turning on an option to allow side loading on my iPhone affects the security of your iPhone? Would you care to explain?
All app developers would flock to any app store that has no restrictions on what the app can do. They would leave the Apple App store and exist only on permissive stores that let them steal user data and send it back to their HQ. Popular apps like Facebook would be the first to leave the Apple App store and then do everything malicious that Facebook is well known for doing. Are you really naive or are you just pretending to be so?
By keeping only a single App Store on iOS, Apple is able to enforce rules that keep us safe and our data secure.
I don't think that would happen, considering that you said "Apple users want a curated environment with all 500 rules in the Apple App Store License Agreement." If Apple customers support the Apple app store as you said, developers will see the benefit of publishing their apps in the Apple app store. On the contrary, if 3rd party app stores do a better job, then Apple will have to improve their Store to attract the developers and customers. I suppose that's a good thing, right?
BTW, the problems you mention, like stealing user data and malicious Facebook apps won't affect you, since you will be using Apple App Store, right? It looks like you won't miss anything if there are 3rd party stores for iOS / iPadOS devices.
I presume you agree with my prediction that most or all developers will move to an unrestricted stores and sell software that violates our privacy and security. But you are missing my point: nobody has the right to force Apple to allow dangerous apps on their platform. I don't care if you want dangerous apps... that's irrelevant. I don't care if 1% of the apps will still be safe to use... that's irrelevant. Stop raising these red herrings. The only relevant factor, which you and your ilk don't ever address, is that nobody can force a vendor and a customer to buy and sell products that they don't want to buy or sell. Especially when those products are more secure and protect privacy better than existing alternatives. You've got your Steam Store and your other uncurated stores already. Stop trying to force everyone else to follow that model. Stop taking away the freedom of Apple to create secure platforms and my freedom to choose secure platforms. It's quite tiring when people ignore this point.
elijahg said: There would be no way for potentially malicious apps to avoid the privacy and access warnings that exist now, so people would still be made aware.
How would iOS know which warnings to give if the app was never submitted to Apple's vetting process? Do you think iOS reads the app's binary and figure out what warnings to give the user? That would be pretty impressive technology. I thought the warnings came through the App Store application and vetting process. Remember, these apps don't even have to be compiled with xCode for other app stores. All the processes and rules are out the window.
Something I don’t understand when I read comments on threads like these is this: if third-party app stores were available for iOS how would I or my phone be harmed by someone else installing an app on their phone from a third-party store if I only used the App Store? Put another way, how would allowing third-party stores compromise the privacy and security of my device if I chose to never use any apps from a third-party store?
@22july2013, do you really believe that developers will leave the App Store if people like you and others refused to do business with a third-party store? Developers will post their apps where they can earn money. If the customers are going to the App Store, that’s where the apps will be. No?
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
There’s always that one guy that finds the negative in everything. In this case that one guy can’t even conjure up a reason or articulate the mysterious “root issue.”
I've mentioned it countless times in the past. My position hasn't changed.
In fact that root issue was outlined in the very same paragraph you are quoting :
"That there is only one App Store on Apple devices."
The thought that Apple does not have the right to THEIR OWN software on THEIR OWN invention is beyond dumb.
Comments
Be careful what you ask for because Apple could go back to charging for every single software upgrade and charging ten of tens of thousand dollars for access to its developer tools and customers. Epic, EA, Adobe and other developers with big pockets would love this because it would keep the small guy out of the game and leave only the big boys to fleece and serve the flock.
The various regulators can moan and groan all they want but when it comes to presenting a valid evidentiary antitrust case before a court of law they better have more evidence than the fact that Apple makes the most profit, has the better hardware/software systems that customers TRUST and are willing to pay a premium price to access.
You got one thing right Apple “ain’t“ a charity. It is a “private” business entity that is ENTITLED to run its business for a profit within the various legal frameworks and customs as it see fit.
Apple is threatening to deny a developer license to developers who don't meet their demands. How is that different to MS denying a Windows license to manufacturers who don't meet their demands? This has now changed, but Apple was forcing companies to sell products at the same price outside their store as they were selling them for in the app with IAPs, even if the majority of sales happened outside the app! Apple isn't the gold standard citizen you love to think it is. It used to be pretty close, but since they've become so profit driven that's gone out the window, as it always does when companies that start with morals find that they get in the way of profit.
Just like in the real world, you do not have the right to let your dog crap on another person property. You also do not have the right to move into a store and set up your business without permission, without paying rent and obeying the rules as set by the property owner.
The truth is that until investigations are finalised and a decision is made, nobody can possibly know which way things will swing.
However, 'yes' I am right in stating that the exclusive nature and limits on competition are the root cause at play here (which include terms, percentage cuts etc).
I have speculated on just one part of a complex issue and explained why Apple might fall foul to EU regulations.
Your 'absolute' 'the end'
stance on this would not mean much if Apple is found to be limiting competition.
Um. Ok. Not exactly sure how turning on an option to allow side loading on my iPhone affects the security of your iPhone? Would you care to explain?
Sorry, I should've clarified... I was speaking from a whining developer point of view. Those who shout, "Think of the children!" when it's really about self interest.
So then Apple has no business ordering their users what they can and can't do with their products. We *own* the phone, we can do with it whatever we please, who is Apple to tell us to do otherwise? No, Apple/MS/Sony don't own the entire "widget". Apple/Sony/MS owns the software, not the device itself. You keep going on about MS forcing PC vendors to pay MS a license even without Windows, whilst this was very true and idiotic of MS, it is irrelevant to this discussion. It was another of several parts of the lawsuit that caused MS to lose, MS trying to stop Netscape being one of the parts of that same suit.
And again you are wrong - a customer can buy a DVD /Blu-ray/whatever with a game on to play on the Playstation or Xbox, so developers have an alternative route and customers don't have to buy through the store. No such luck with the App Store.
Your analogy with Costco falls down at the first hurdle. Excepting exclusivity agreements, Costco is rarely the sole outlet for a particular vendor's product. The vendor can go to Walmart and sell exactly the same product with no further development. Vendors don't have to redesign a product from the ground up to change to a different outlet. An app vendor can't just take the same binary, nor can they just recompile it unless they use horrible third-party APIs that give a terrible UX, and then use it on Android. They have to spend hundreds or thousands of hours rewriting their software.
MS would get in serious trouble if they were found to be trying to stop Netscape/Google/Mozilla from operating on their platform, just like they did in the 90's - whether it be their own hardware or not.
Taken off your blinkers yet?
By keeping only a single App Store on iOS, Apple is able to enforce rules that keep us safe and our data secure.
BTW, the problems you mention, like stealing user data and malicious Facebook apps won't affect you, since you will be using Apple App Store, right? It looks like you won't miss anything if there are 3rd party stores for iOS / iPadOS devices.
How would iOS know which warnings to give if the app was never submitted to Apple's vetting process? Do you think iOS reads the app's binary and figure out what warnings to give the user? That would be pretty impressive technology. I thought the warnings came through the App Store application and vetting process. Remember, these apps don't even have to be compiled with xCode for other app stores. All the processes and rules are out the window.
@22july2013, do you really believe that developers will leave the App Store if people like you and others refused to do business with a third-party store? Developers will post their apps where they can earn money. If the customers are going to the App Store, that’s where the apps will be. No?
The thought that Apple does not have the right to THEIR OWN software on THEIR OWN invention is beyond dumb.