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.
That is competition. You, as the user would be able to choose. Choice is also important. And it's important for developers too.
I'm not so sure that Facebook would remove its app from the App Store if many users didn't download it from alternatives but it's possible. Would it be a loss though? It's a free app and extremely popular. Surely Apple would win by having to use less bandwidth in distributing it.
You have to remember that an iPhone without third party apps would be a fairly weak platform. Apple needs those apps. The app developers don't actually need the App Store.
Yes, they use it because their apps get some more exposure but perhaps they would choose to abandon it if they had the option.
Then Apple would have to ask itself 'why are we losing developers?' and correct any failings.
The issue is that Apple chose to eradicate that possibility by simply not allowing competition in the first place (rightly or wrongly - the courts might actually decide that one)
Apple has slashed the 30% cut in some cases after previously defending it. A lot of people here defended the 30% too, claiming that running the store was very expensive. Well, 15% is a huge cut and I doubt they are losing money on it. Perhaps Apple should be forced to spin off the App Store as an independent financial entity and then we would see how profitable the operation is. After all, AFAIK, Apple has never provided any information on that but does regularly sound off on how much it pays to developers. I very much doubt that it is barely breaking even.
Something has changed though and it isn't a case of Apple Christmas spirit. My guess is that Apple sat down and said 'it looks like we won't come out of this one unscathed' and decided to reduce its cut to 15% in some cases as a preemptive move to potential PR issue.
What will actually happen with regards to its legal situation is a mystery but I think they don't see a rosy path ahead.
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.
Facebook is on the Google Play store, despite other Android app stores existing. Hell, Facebook is still on iOS, despite Android existing. Apps will stay on the App Store because it's the best route to customers.
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.
I have not idea how developers will react. Maybe they'll continue to use the Apple App Store because, as you said, most customer want the curated experience it offers.
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.
If the government decides something is illegal in how the Apple app store works, they have the right and can force Apple to make changes. No one is taking away Apple the right to create a secure platform, even if 3rd party stores arrive to iOS and iPadOS. IMO, the Apple apps store will always be there as the best option for users and developers. And you still have the right to use what you and many people consider the safest app store.
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?
Adding a back door to the OS is an added vulnerability, even for those who intend to keep it closed.
If you want that option built in, buy an Android phone. You already have a choice. Don’t take away my choice to own a more secure device.
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.
That is exactly how it works, and if you knew more about the process you'd know that any time an app tries to use a location/notification/media/other restricted API, iOS pops up a message. No "reading of the binary" required. If you think that's "pretty impressive technology" have you seen the M1?
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.
Apple invented Macs. Does that mean they have some kind of right to prevent all but software they approve running on Macs too?
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?
Adding a back door to the OS is an added vulnerability, even for those who intend to keep it closed.
If you want that option built in, buy an Android phone. You already have a choice. Don’t take away my choice to own a more secure device.
You obviously don't understand the definition of back door. You also seemed to conveniently miss my question as to why iOS isn't riddled with malware due to the fact that iOS already allows sideloading of apps, and the process of sideloading has yet to be exploited. Bit of a catastrophe for your argument right there. You are in fact already using a device that according to you, is less secure. Damn, better bin that iPhone!
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?
Adding a back door to the OS is an added vulnerability, even for those who intend to keep it closed.
If you want that option built in, buy an Android phone. You already have a choice. Don’t take away my choice to own a more secure device.
You obviously don't understand the definition of back door. You also seemed to conveniently miss my question as to why iOS isn't riddled with malware due to the fact that iOS already allows sideloading of apps, and the process of sideloading has yet to be exploited. Bit of a catastrophe for your argument right there. You are in fact already using a device that according to you, is less secure. Damn, better bin that iPhone!
I didn't miss it. I said it's not a serious question.
Please enlighten me. You say iOS already allows side loading of apps. Please clearly describe what you mean by that. What side loading does Apple actually allow and how is that accomplished?
Next, please explain, if side loading is already allowed, why are people insisting that Apple needs to allow side loading of apps? Instead of coming at me, shouldn't you be offering those folks some convenient links and instructions on how they can already do the thing they want to do? Are they asking for something different than what you say is already allowed, and if so, what is the difference?
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?
Adding a back door to the OS is an added vulnerability, even for those who intend to keep it closed.
If you want that option built in, buy an Android phone. You already have a choice. Don’t take away my choice to own a more secure device.
You obviously don't understand the definition of back door. You also seemed to conveniently miss my question as to why iOS isn't riddled with malware due to the fact that iOS already allows sideloading of apps, and the process of sideloading has yet to be exploited. Bit of a catastrophe for your argument right there. You are in fact already using a device that according to you, is less secure. Damn, better bin that iPhone!
I didn't miss it. I said it's not a serious question.
Please enlighten me. You say iOS already allows side loading of apps. Please clearly describe what you mean by that. What side loading does Apple actually allow and how is that accomplished?
Next, please explain, if side loading is already allowed, why are people insisting that Apple needs to allow side loading of apps? Instead of coming at me, shouldn't you be offering those folks some convenient links and instructions on how they can already do the thing they want to do? Are they asking for something different than what you say is already allowed, and if so, what is the difference?
It is a rather serious question, since your whole argument hinges on malware, claiming Apple shouldn't allow sideloading because iOS would end up less secure, except they already do, and it isn't. So now that's cleared up, I ask again, why is it iOS isn't riddled with malware as you claim it would be since sideloading is, in fact, allowed?
Further than the above link, why should I do their (and your) research for them/you? I already know sideloading exists, perhaps you should have checked prior to making other claims. There are no third party app stores that can be side-loaded however, for several certificate based reasons that I won't go into here, but you can do your research, since it's you claiming sideloading is not allowed and will reduce security, not me. I didn't know that people were insisting Apple allowed sideloading, you're the first to mention it and incorrectly state that it's not allowed. People want a third party App Store, that is not the same as sideloading.
Oh - and why is it you think you should have a right to take away the choice of others to have an iPhone with a third party app sore (or sideloading), so you can have things your way instead?
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?
Adding a back door to the OS is an added vulnerability, even for those who intend to keep it closed.
If you want that option built in, buy an Android phone. You already have a choice. Don’t take away my choice to own a more secure device.
You obviously don't understand the definition of back door. You also seemed to conveniently miss my question as to why iOS isn't riddled with malware due to the fact that iOS already allows sideloading of apps, and the process of sideloading has yet to be exploited. Bit of a catastrophe for your argument right there. You are in fact already using a device that according to you, is less secure. Damn, better bin that iPhone!
I didn't miss it. I said it's not a serious question.
Please enlighten me. You say iOS already allows side loading of apps. Please clearly describe what you mean by that. What side loading does Apple actually allow and how is that accomplished?
Next, please explain, if side loading is already allowed, why are people insisting that Apple needs to allow side loading of apps? Instead of coming at me, shouldn't you be offering those folks some convenient links and instructions on how they can already do the thing they want to do? Are they asking for something different than what you say is already allowed, and if so, what is the difference?
It is a rather serious question, since your whole argument hinges on malware, claiming Apple shouldn't allow sideloading because iOS would end up less secure, except they already do, and it isn't. So now that's cleared up, I ask again, why is it iOS isn't riddled with malware as you claim it would be since sideloading is, in fact, allowed?
Further than the above link, why should I do their (and your) research for them/you? I already know sideloading exists, perhaps you should have checked prior to making other claims. There are no third party app stores that can be side-loaded however, for several certificate based reasons that I won't go into here, but you can do your research, since it's you claiming sideloading is not allowed and will reduce security, not me. I didn't know that people were insisting Apple allowed sideloading, you're the first to mention it and incorrectly state that it's not allowed. People want a third party App Store, that is not the same as sideloading.
Oh - and why is it you think you should have a right to take away the choice of others to have an iPhone with a third party app sore (or sideloading), so you can have things your way instead?
Ah, altstore. Right. That's what I thought you were on about. I just wanted you to say it.
So for altstore, in order to side load apps, it requires the user to actively carry out a convoluted, multi-step process (that abuses the Apple developer program) involving both their iOS device and a separate computer running iTunes, culminating in the bone-crushingly stupid step of handing over their AppleID and password to a third party, essentially giving whoever runs and/or hacks into altstore the keys to everything that user has to do with Apple. I mean, seriously. This is a really, really dumb thing to do. If you do this, whatever untested bloatware or malware you load onto your device is the least of your worries, because you've already given away the keys to the kingdom.
So sure, that process requires so much actively moronic participation from the individual user to carry it out, that it represents a very low vulnerability for everyone else who isn't stupid enough to do all that.
What everyone else is talking about here is the suggestion that Apple enable all that without the convoluted process, either by allowing the user to toggle a permission to allow side loading, or by Apple simply making that ability the default. If Apple did that, it would create a highly vulnerable back door into iOS, because loading malicious software would be way too simple, either by tricking users to unwittingly toggle the permission, or worse, by automating the process through some sort of exploit.
So as I've said, a lot of people choose iOS because of its security, including not having a vulnerability like easy side loading (without actively doing all the insanely stupid stuff required to enable altstore). By wanting Apple to continue to operate as they do, I'm not taking away anyone else's choice. They can choose Android if they want those abilities and vulnerabilities to be built into their 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 don't think Apple is positioning this as any solution - or even olive branch or whatever else - to that "root issue".
As you say Apple can charge whatever they want on their App Store and they've done so. And with this change they continue to do so. And their reasons are for helping small businesses, among other things, make use of and contribute to their platform. As at least two analysts have projected, it won't hurt Apple's bottom line because by encouraging more small business and startup developers it will only grow the platform, among other reasons.
So yeah, I doubt anyone at Apple is expecting this is really going to help them in the Epic and other battles about App Store exclusivity. There are other (good) arguments for Apple for that one.**
----
(**Not that this thread is about that but if it might interest anyone, my take -- shared by at least some others -- on that "core issue" is: I think Apple's best arguments come back to user experience. I for one very much appreciate the single source of all Apps for iOS devices, and I wish it was the same on the Mac. Epic's argument about wanting to do business directly with Epic's customers fails, because Apple isn't stopping them doing that. Epic is welcome to do business with Epic's customers: Through their own website etc. -- but on Apple's platform they're Apple's customers not Epic's. I don't but my son plays Fortnite. As far as I'm concerned he's Apple's customer not Epic's. Epic's customer is Apple. I drink Aquafina water but I'm not Aquafina's customer. I'm Target's customer. And I want to keep it that way - with everything I get and use via Target, and with everything I get and use on Apple's platform. And Apple knows that, and I appreciate Apple doing everything they legally and morally can to try to keep it that way).
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.
Great for Apple? Hardly if what they claim about services revenue is true. Great for consumers if Apple is the only source of add-on functions and features? Not at all.
Why would you be cheering for the massive corporation to become even more massive? I doubt it would be an incentive for them to be more consumer responsive.
"Why would you be cheering for the massive corporation to become even more massive?" - we're not cheering for them to become more massive as if that's the core goal. We're cheering for Apple to continue taking care of their customers the way they do. Becoming more massive is just a convenient side effect of them doing that particularly well.
Your repeated claims that Apple is not consumer friendly or consumer responsive because they're "the only source" ignore the fact that nearly all Apple's "consumers" -- customers -- PREFER the exclusivity. I don't WANT to be Epic's customer or anyone else's customer (any more than I want to be Aquafina's customer -- I don't). I'm Apple's customer only (and Target's customer) and I want to keep it that way.
Meanwhile, "Apple is the only source of add-on functions and features" is BS. The millions and millions of third party developers are the SOURCE of the add-on functions and features. Apple is the sole DISTRIBUTOR, among other things. They curate and funnel everything that is delivered by others on their platform to ensure that their platform isn't degraded (according to their principles and philosophies) by anything delivered on it.
You'll argue that the "according to their principles and philosophies" part is arrogant etc. but that's BS too. It's their platform, and so it's their right to position and mould their platform as they see fit. The market -- the customers -- can then decide, and purchase or not purchase Apple's products, if they agree with Apple's principles and philosophies.
Yours and others insistence on forcing Apple to allow anything goes on their platform will TAKE AWAY from my desire and choice to use a platform that is secure, walled, exclusive, etc. I CHOOSE Apple BECAUSE of those qualities, not despite them. The market, and you, has/have other choices (Samsung, LG, and all the other smartphone makers -- some of which are very good) for the people that don't like Apple's philosophies and principles.
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 is by far the best solution.
Don't take away my choice to deal with a company that has all this exclusivity (by forcing that company not to have the exclusivity any more).
The only way that exclusivity can harm people is (a) if they don't want it but they're unaware of it when they make the purchase and/or (b) if that exclusivity is the only option on the market (because every company operates that way, or because that one company is the only company in the market -- neither of which is true). Since (b) is not the case, (a) is the only possible harm, and the solution is to ensure people are acutely aware of it before committing to the purchase.
I don't see how that can't be a perfectly acceptable solution for the vast majority of the market (self-serving free-loader-wannabes like Tim Sweeney excepted).
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.
To be honest, this is an appealing point of the Apple ecosystem. I don’t want to have to install multiple store apps. I don’t want to have to give my credit card to other app stores, some of probably questionable quality. I don’t want to have to figure out which App Store to to go to check for updates. I don’t want to have to search through multiple app stores (or worse each app individually) to figure out what subscriptions I have. The single store brings a lot of advantages that I don’t want to give up and probably more I’m forgetting to list. I think people get too concerned about only cost and don’t see the chaos multiple stores could bring. The idea that costs would go down I don’t think is a sure thing either. it just means money going into different pockets, not less money. Apple spend a lot of money developing the chips and other technology in the phones. They spend a ton of money on the compiler and developer tools. They spend money developing the APIs the developers use. They aren’t going to just open this to other stores completely bypassing Apple. if it’s mandated, the stores are going to have to pay Apple something.
Some great points here. Especially the ones about the APIs and developer tools Apple provides.
iOS devices themselves are not entirely closed/walled/etc. Web apps are a thing - and what you can do in a web app is constantly getting closer and closer to what you can do with native apps. Apple doesn't pro-actively block anything (that I'm aware of) from running in the web browser. Porn, subscription cloud based games, whatever you like.
Apple just blocks some native apps, and those are things that use APPLE's proprietary APIs, etc. By this argument it's not just Apple's platform, but it's Apple's tools. Sure, those native tools and APIs provide more functionality, but THAT stuff (the stuff that native apps can do that web apps can't) are all Apple owned IP and technology.
Why shouldn't they have every right to control what people use their tools for on their OS (sure you own the phone but Apple owns the OS) - for the benefit of those of their customers who appreciate that and don't want that taken away - while still allowing "anything goes" on the parts of their platform that are open and don't use their proprietary IP, APIs and tools - the web, among other things?
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.
I think you completely missed the point of what he's saying. His English is a little challenged - perhaps it's not his first language - and how he's expressed himself is a little confusing. But dude, read between the lines a bit. Do you seriously think he was ignoring the App Store commissions?
People make stupid comparisons like Apple shouldn't charge 30% for payment processing when VISA etc. only charge 3-5%. glennh's point is: No one contributes DIRECTLY to all those other costs of Apple's. And that's not even referring to the costs Apple has incurred building their enormous customer base that they deliver on a platter to all the developers. (If you know anything about building a business, on average about a third of any business's cost is finding and keeping customers). He's defending Apple's App Store commissions. The 15-30% need to exist to cover all those costs that no one contributes directly to, not just eg. "payment processing".
This is where Sweeney and his "App Fairness coalition" are all wannabe free-loaders.
I'm sure the Apple-haters will come out of the woodwork again, today. Bear in mind that even 30% is a lot less than the 100% markup that was always the case when selling software in boxes in retail outlets.
Where you are wrong:
1. Users of other platforms have as much right to criticize Apple as Apple fans do in criticizing not only competitors like Microsoft, Google and Samsung but longterm partners like Intel whose CPUs are still going to be in the vast majority of Mac models available for least a year and which you same Apple fans still want people to buy to prevent the Mac market share from cratering.
2. Plenty of these so-called "Apple-haters" regularly buy Apple products. Including myself. I hold my Macs to the same standards that I hold the Android, ChromeOS, Windows and Linux devices that I use: I praise the things that I like about them and criticize the things that I do not. So do "Apple haters."
3. The 100% markup thing was Apple public relations. Good grief, I take what every corporation that is trying to sell me something - as well as every politician that is trying to get me to vote for them - with a grain of salt, even the companies whose products I like and consistently buy and the politicians that I generally support. Look, by the time the app store was created and certainly by the time it became large and influential enough to be considered its own marketplace with a billion consumers, buying software on CDs was long dead. Good grief, some companies had even stopped manufacturing computers with CDs by then! People were downloading Microsoft Office, video games, programming IDEs, video and audio editing software, operating system updates etc. over the Internet by then. The software CD/DVD sections were gathering dust. Do you know what the #1 casual video game entity was 10-15 years ago before iPhones and iPads - and yes Android devices - came along and killed them off? PopCap Games. So huge that EA bought them. While they - and their competitor BigFish Games - would send you a CD if you asked them for one, their entire business model was download based. What Tim Cook went to Congress and claimed was the software distribution model before home Internet usage by local telephone and cable companies - as opposed to junk like AOL - became widespread.
Where you are wrong:
1. 22july2013 didn't say anything about the Apple-haters not having any right to criticize Apple.
2. So? How does that in any way show something wrong in 22july2013's comment?
3. So? None of that makes the 100% markup statement false. Before Apple (mostly) invented this App Store model, distribution costs for developers was a lot more like 80% to distributor, 20% to developer not the other way around that it is now (15/85 or 30/70). Apple created a system that delivered a lot more back to the developer. That doesn't mean Apple's distribution costs are negligible, just because they're not physical like they were before. Apple still has distribution - and marketing - costs. Apple delivers their entire customer base on a platter to developers, and that (a) costs Apple something and (b) has value, to any business that makes use of those customers, that Apple deserves to charge for.
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?
OMG seriously?
Your claims about Tim Cook being solely profit-driven are ridiculous and baseless.
It could be argued that Microsoft was solely profit-driven. They made relative crap and used their market dominance to force the vast majority of the industry into their exclusivity. It worked, for a while but didn't last. That was definitely a short term gain and long term loss which is why they have lost that dominance.
Apple has done and is doing nothing of the kind.
Your stuff about Jobs is correct - he pursued the product not profits. And not market share either. A large part of what he was talking about is "we don't make junk" -- referring to the bargain basement $200 laptops etc. Apple didn't, and still doesn't, compete in those markets because they didn't and still don't care about market share.
But do you really think that just because Jobs didn't pursue profits first means he didn't care about profits or the shareholders? Jobs point was yes, he cares about profits but not at the expense of building the best products and experiences - not for everyone, but for the market he was targeting. He simply believed that building the best products and experiences - for the market he was targeting - would bring the profits. And he was right.
And I see nothing in Tim's version of Apple that's changed that. If you do, then let's hear it. Otherwise your claims are just BS. Just because Apple's share price has sky-rocketed under Tim, doesn't mean that was his focus at the expense of product and experience.
Has Tim's Apple made some mistakes? Absolutely. So did Jobs' Apple - Antennagate, MobileMe, iPod HiFi, and plenty of others.
Does Tim's Apple make the best products and experiences for everyone? No. And neither did Jobs' Apple. But for the market it's targeting Tim's Apple delivers on products and experiences as good as Jobs' did, and then some. And both versions of the company have broken profit and financial records because of it.
Comments
I'm not so sure that Facebook would remove its app from the App Store if many users didn't download it from alternatives but it's possible. Would it be a loss though? It's a free app and extremely popular. Surely Apple would win by having to use less bandwidth in distributing it.
You have to remember that an iPhone without third party apps would be a fairly weak platform. Apple needs those apps. The app developers don't actually need the App Store.
Yes, they use it because their apps get some more exposure but perhaps they would choose to abandon it if they had the option.
Then Apple would have to ask itself 'why are we losing developers?' and correct any failings.
The issue is that Apple chose to eradicate that possibility by simply not allowing competition in the first place (rightly or wrongly - the courts might actually decide that one)
Apple has slashed the 30% cut in some cases after previously defending it. A lot of people here defended the 30% too, claiming that running the store was very expensive. Well, 15% is a huge cut and I doubt they are losing money on it. Perhaps Apple should be forced to spin off the App Store as an independent financial entity and then we would see how profitable the operation is. After all, AFAIK, Apple has never provided any information on that but does regularly sound off on how much it pays to developers. I very much doubt that it is barely breaking even.
Something has changed though and it isn't a case of Apple Christmas spirit. My guess is that Apple sat down and said 'it looks like we won't come out of this one unscathed' and decided to reduce its cut to 15% in some cases as a preemptive move to potential PR issue.
What will actually happen with regards to its legal situation is a mystery but I think they don't see a rosy path ahead.
If the government decides something is illegal in how the Apple app store works, they have the right and can force Apple to make changes. No one is taking away Apple the right to create a secure platform, even if 3rd party stores arrive to iOS and iPadOS. IMO, the Apple apps store will always be there as the best option for users and developers. And you still have the right to use what you and many people consider the safest app store.
Apple invented Macs. Does that mean they have some kind of right to prevent all but software they approve running on Macs too?
Please enlighten me. You say iOS already allows side loading of apps. Please clearly describe what you mean by that. What side loading does Apple actually allow and how is that accomplished?
Next, please explain, if side loading is already allowed, why are people insisting that Apple needs to allow side loading of apps? Instead of coming at me, shouldn't you be offering those folks some convenient links and instructions on how they can already do the thing they want to do? Are they asking for something different than what you say is already allowed, and if so, what is the difference?
Here you go: https://jilaxzone.com/2020/04/20/complete-guide-how-to-sideload-any-app-game-into-iphone-ipad-works-with-latest-ios-no-jailbreak-is-required/
Further than the above link, why should I do their (and your) research for them/you? I already know sideloading exists, perhaps you should have checked prior to making other claims. There are no third party app stores that can be side-loaded however, for several certificate based reasons that I won't go into here, but you can do your research, since it's you claiming sideloading is not allowed and will reduce security, not me. I didn't know that people were insisting Apple allowed sideloading, you're the first to mention it and incorrectly state that it's not allowed. People want a third party App Store, that is not the same as sideloading.
Oh - and why is it you think you should have a right to take away the choice of others to have an iPhone with a third party app sore (or sideloading), so you can have things your way instead?
So for altstore, in order to side load apps, it requires the user to actively carry out a convoluted, multi-step process (that abuses the Apple developer program) involving both their iOS device and a separate computer running iTunes, culminating in the bone-crushingly stupid step of handing over their AppleID and password to a third party, essentially giving whoever runs and/or hacks into altstore the keys to everything that user has to do with Apple. I mean, seriously. This is a really, really dumb thing to do. If you do this, whatever untested bloatware or malware you load onto your device is the least of your worries, because you've already given away the keys to the kingdom.
So sure, that process requires so much actively moronic participation from the individual user to carry it out, that it represents a very low vulnerability for everyone else who isn't stupid enough to do all that.
What everyone else is talking about here is the suggestion that Apple enable all that without the convoluted process, either by allowing the user to toggle a permission to allow side loading, or by Apple simply making that ability the default. If Apple did that, it would create a highly vulnerable back door into iOS, because loading malicious software would be way too simple, either by tricking users to unwittingly toggle the permission, or worse, by automating the process through some sort of exploit.
So as I've said, a lot of people choose iOS because of its security, including not having a vulnerability like easy side loading (without actively doing all the insanely stupid stuff required to enable altstore). By wanting Apple to continue to operate as they do, I'm not taking away anyone else's choice. They can choose Android if they want those abilities and vulnerabilities to be built into their devices.
As you say Apple can charge whatever they want on their App Store and they've done so. And with this change they continue to do so. And their reasons are for helping small businesses, among other things, make use of and contribute to their platform. As at least two analysts have projected, it won't hurt Apple's bottom line because by encouraging more small business and startup developers it will only grow the platform, among other reasons.
So yeah, I doubt anyone at Apple is expecting this is really going to help them in the Epic and other battles about App Store exclusivity. There are other (good) arguments for Apple for that one.**
----
(**Not that this thread is about that but if it might interest anyone, my take -- shared by at least some others -- on that "core issue" is: I think Apple's best arguments come back to user experience. I for one very much appreciate the single source of all Apps for iOS devices, and I wish it was the same on the Mac. Epic's argument about wanting to do business directly with Epic's customers fails, because Apple isn't stopping them doing that. Epic is welcome to do business with Epic's customers: Through their own website etc. -- but on Apple's platform they're Apple's customers not Epic's. I don't but my son plays Fortnite. As far as I'm concerned he's Apple's customer not Epic's. Epic's customer is Apple. I drink Aquafina water but I'm not Aquafina's customer. I'm Target's customer. And I want to keep it that way - with everything I get and use via Target, and with everything I get and use on Apple's platform. And Apple knows that, and I appreciate Apple doing everything they legally and morally can to try to keep it that way).
Your repeated claims that Apple is not consumer friendly or consumer responsive because they're "the only source" ignore the fact that nearly all Apple's "consumers" -- customers -- PREFER the exclusivity. I don't WANT to be Epic's customer or anyone else's customer (any more than I want to be Aquafina's customer -- I don't). I'm Apple's customer only (and Target's customer) and I want to keep it that way.
Meanwhile, "Apple is the only source of add-on functions and features" is BS. The millions and millions of third party developers are the SOURCE of the add-on functions and features. Apple is the sole DISTRIBUTOR, among other things. They curate and funnel everything that is delivered by others on their platform to ensure that their platform isn't degraded (according to their principles and philosophies) by anything delivered on it.
You'll argue that the "according to their principles and philosophies" part is arrogant etc. but that's BS too. It's their platform, and so it's their right to position and mould their platform as they see fit. The market -- the customers -- can then decide, and purchase or not purchase Apple's products, if they agree with Apple's principles and philosophies.
Yours and others insistence on forcing Apple to allow anything goes on their platform will TAKE AWAY from my desire and choice to use a platform that is secure, walled, exclusive, etc. I CHOOSE Apple BECAUSE of those qualities, not despite them. The market, and you, has/have other choices (Samsung, LG, and all the other smartphone makers -- some of which are very good) for the people that don't like Apple's philosophies and principles.
Stop trying to take away my choice.
That is by far the best solution.
Don't take away my choice to deal with a company that has all this exclusivity (by forcing that company not to have the exclusivity any more).
The only way that exclusivity can harm people is (a) if they don't want it but they're unaware of it when they make the purchase and/or (b) if that exclusivity is the only option on the market (because every company operates that way, or because that one company is the only company in the market -- neither of which is true). Since (b) is not the case, (a) is the only possible harm, and the solution is to ensure people are acutely aware of it before committing to the purchase.
I don't see how that can't be a perfectly acceptable solution for the vast majority of the market (self-serving free-loader-wannabes like Tim Sweeney excepted).
Some great points here. Especially the ones about the APIs and developer tools Apple provides.
iOS devices themselves are not entirely closed/walled/etc. Web apps are a thing - and what you can do in a web app is constantly getting closer and closer to what you can do with native apps. Apple doesn't pro-actively block anything (that I'm aware of) from running in the web browser. Porn, subscription cloud based games, whatever you like.
Apple just blocks some native apps, and those are things that use APPLE's proprietary APIs, etc. By this argument it's not just Apple's platform, but it's Apple's tools. Sure, those native tools and APIs provide more functionality, but THAT stuff (the stuff that native apps can do that web apps can't) are all Apple owned IP and technology.
Why shouldn't they have every right to control what people use their tools for on their OS (sure you own the phone but Apple owns the OS) - for the benefit of those of their customers who appreciate that and don't want that taken away - while still allowing "anything goes" on the parts of their platform that are open and don't use their proprietary IP, APIs and tools - the web, among other things?
I think you completely missed the point of what he's saying. His English is a little challenged - perhaps it's not his first language - and how he's expressed himself is a little confusing. But dude, read between the lines a bit. Do you seriously think he was ignoring the App Store commissions?
People make stupid comparisons like Apple shouldn't charge 30% for payment processing when VISA etc. only charge 3-5%. glennh's point is: No one contributes DIRECTLY to all those other costs of Apple's. And that's not even referring to the costs Apple has incurred building their enormous customer base that they deliver on a platter to all the developers. (If you know anything about building a business, on average about a third of any business's cost is finding and keeping customers). He's defending Apple's App Store commissions. The 15-30% need to exist to cover all those costs that no one contributes directly to, not just eg. "payment processing".
This is where Sweeney and his "App Fairness coalition" are all wannabe free-loaders.
1. 22july2013 didn't say anything about the Apple-haters not having any right to criticize Apple.
2. So? How does that in any way show something wrong in 22july2013's comment?
3. So? None of that makes the 100% markup statement false. Before Apple (mostly) invented this App Store model, distribution costs for developers was a lot more like 80% to distributor, 20% to developer not the other way around that it is now (15/85 or 30/70). Apple created a system that delivered a lot more back to the developer. That doesn't mean Apple's distribution costs are negligible, just because they're not physical like they were before. Apple still has distribution - and marketing - costs. Apple delivers their entire customer base on a platter to developers, and that (a) costs Apple something and (b) has value, to any business that makes use of those customers, that Apple deserves to charge for.
So... umm... what's your point?
OMG seriously?
Your claims about Tim Cook being solely profit-driven are ridiculous and baseless.
It could be argued that Microsoft was solely profit-driven. They made relative crap and used their market dominance to force the vast majority of the industry into their exclusivity. It worked, for a while but didn't last. That was definitely a short term gain and long term loss which is why they have lost that dominance.
Apple has done and is doing nothing of the kind.
Your stuff about Jobs is correct - he pursued the product not profits. And not market share either. A large part of what he was talking about is "we don't make junk" -- referring to the bargain basement $200 laptops etc. Apple didn't, and still doesn't, compete in those markets because they didn't and still don't care about market share.
But do you really think that just because Jobs didn't pursue profits first means he didn't care about profits or the shareholders? Jobs point was yes, he cares about profits but not at the expense of building the best products and experiences - not for everyone, but for the market he was targeting. He simply believed that building the best products and experiences - for the market he was targeting - would bring the profits. And he was right.
And I see nothing in Tim's version of Apple that's changed that. If you do, then let's hear it. Otherwise your claims are just BS. Just because Apple's share price has sky-rocketed under Tim, doesn't mean that was his focus at the expense of product and experience.
Has Tim's Apple made some mistakes? Absolutely. So did Jobs' Apple - Antennagate, MobileMe, iPod HiFi, and plenty of others.
Does Tim's Apple make the best products and experiences for everyone? No. And neither did Jobs' Apple. But for the market it's targeting Tim's Apple delivers on products and experiences as good as Jobs' did, and then some. And both versions of the company have broken profit and financial records because of it.