Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge. As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.
But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.
You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.
Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store.
It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.
Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month.
I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d
Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers.
We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business.
It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform.
This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily.
It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product.
As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.
You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.
I agree with Dewne. The tools are great value - as tools.
Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere.
Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations.
That is not word salad. It's fact based context.
They do not have a monopoly on "commissions" and it's been shown that Spotify uses Apple's tools and don't pay nearly their fair share. These actions will end up hurting all developers because Apple will simply find a different way to get compensated for building the tools that make their SW great.
In the EU they won't have a monopoly on commissions but up until now they have. Not only that, they did not offer better terms until they were pushed to do so.
Spotify has nothing to do with Apple's developer tools pricing, and never will, because spotify is just one app developer out of thousands or hundreds of thousands.
'Fair share' is a curious claim.
Has Apple paid its fair share of taxes around the world? Tim Cook says Apple has values. Not only that. He says Apple pays every cent of taxes it owes. It's only when you wade through the complaints and paperwork that you realise that Apple was actually deciding for itself what to make available for taxation and in one famous case that amounted to 0.005% for one year (according to an EU investigation). Then you browse through the Paradise Papers and Apple’s name pops up more than it should with its external representitives seeking shadowy places to move money to where oversight is less stringent.
I think Apple has had more than its fair share of just about everything when it comes to collecting money.
Is it fair for those trying to make money from their apps to have to 'subsidise' those who don't have to pay more than their subscriptions? Or should prices go up for those who offer apps for free? Or is Apple doing all the subsidising itself? How can we know? Is that fair? Or does $99 cover the cost of everything involved.
Hasn't Apple already had its 'fair share' for years by simply not allowing any other stores to even exist while taking a cut out of every paid app? It does not matter if it's 5% or 50%. The commission percentage is irrelevant to that debate if Apple is the only one getting the commission because Apple itself determined competition should not exist.
Isn't it trying to keep its grip on those commissions, even now, by not allowing competition to exist in places like the US? Is that fair?
It definitely looks like enough authorities think it's unfair.
UK, EU, Japan, South Korea have pretty much made it clear that things need to change. Each one might go about that in a different way but I doubt any of them would use 'fair' to describe any of Apple's practices where competition isn't even allowed.
Has Apple abused its dominant position? A lot of authorities seem to think so. What does the DoJ think?
And don't think this is an 'everybody against poor Apple' thing because it's not.
In your mind, when did Apple iOS become "public domain" or "open source" or deemed a "public utility"? The last I checked, Apple iOS is still Apple copyrighted IP. And copyright laws in the US and the EU, grant the owners of copyrighted works the exclusive right to monetize them. So of course Apple have the right to collect a commission on every app that depends on their IP, that is iOS. But what gives others the right to open a store in iOS, sell iOS apps and collect a commission .... without compensating Apple for the for-profit use of iOS?
Taylor Swift is one of the richest musician/songwriter today. Can anyone use any of her copyrighted works to profit from, without compensating Swift or at least get her permission? Of course not. It doesn't matter that Swift is a billionaire and also make tons of money selling her image to advertisers and have her own product lines. It does not diminish the copyright rights she have on her musical works. Nor require her to give away her music for free.
So it doesn't matter if Apple were to allow (or forced to allow) third party app stores. They still have the right to charge others for the for-profit use of their IP. Can you set up a kiosk in the middle of a shopping mall to sell your handcrafted items, without paying the owner of the mall rent and/ or a percentage of your gross sales? Don't the property owner have the right to charge something for the space your kiosk is occupying in their mall? Shouldn't the mall owners be compensated for the expense of attracting shoppers to the mall, so you have a steady stream of customers to sell your items to? Shouldn't the mall owners have the right to limit what you can sell, on their property? What if the owner don't want you selling adult DVD's, or counterfeit purses or items that competes with vendors paying rent for retail store fronts in the mall? Do the mall owner have the rights to control what is being sold on his property?
So why do you think Apple should allow third party app stores to sell apps that runs on iOS, in an app store that uses iOS, to customers that Apple spent lots of money on in attracting them to buy iPhones (or other Apple devices), without being able to collect a commission to compensated for the use of the IP Apple spent billions on developing? Can you demand to set up a "store" inside Spotify Music app, to sell your digital downloaded music to Spotify customers and not compensate Spotify for the use of their IP? Do developers have the right to use Epic Games IP to create their own virtual goods for Fortnight and then demand that the government force Epic Games to allow other stores inside their Fortnite game because the Epic Fortnite Store have no competition and is charging too much for the virtual goods in their game?
There is no such thing as a "monopoly" on commission. Monopolies exist in defined "markets" and commissions are not a "market", by any definition where one could have a "monopoly" that can be use in anti-trust cases. Just because Apple is granted the exclusive right to collect a commission for the for-profit use of their IP, it doesn't mean that Apple have a "monopoly" on commission. That's as nonsensical as saying ....... Walmart have a "monopoly" on the markup of every item they sell in their Walmart Stores. Or, the landlord of an apartment building have a "monopoly" on the rent collected from the tenants in the building. You seem to just want to throw in the word "monopoly" when talking about Apple, without the least bit of understanding about what a "monopoly" is, just to make it appear that Apple do have a "monopoly" in something.
BTW- As far as i know, Apple has paid all the taxes that they are legally required to pay. If you have a problem with whether it was their "fair share", then take it up with your government about changing the tax laws. So far, the EU General Courts have agreed that Ireland did nothing illegal by charging Apple a tax rate that they thought was "fair". Even though the EU Commission is crying that Apple ....... "didn't pay their fair share"..... in taxes.
The free Spotify App on iOS is about one of the top ten downloaded apps from the Apple App Store. An yet Spotify is paying Apple nothing for having their app on hundreds of millions of Apple devices. Is Spotify paying their "fair share" for the use of Apple IP? Yes, because Apple App Store policies allows for this. So long as Spotify abide by the rules, it's fair. And no less fair than when Apple abide by the tax laws, no matter how some might cry ......Apple is not paying their "fair share".
Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge. As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.
But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.
You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.
Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store.
It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.
Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month.
I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d
Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers.
We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business.
It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform.
This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily.
It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product.
As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.
You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.
I agree with Dewne. The tools are great value - as tools.
Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere.
Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations.
That is not word salad. It's fact based context.
They do not have a monopoly on "commissions" and it's been shown that Spotify uses Apple's tools and don't pay nearly their fair share. These actions will end up hurting all developers because Apple will simply find a different way to get compensated for building the tools that make their SW great.
In the EU they won't have a monopoly on commissions but up until now they have. Not only that, they did not offer better terms until they were pushed to do so.
Spotify has nothing to do with Apple's developer tools pricing, and never will, because spotify is just one app developer out of thousands or hundreds of thousands.
'Fair share' is a curious claim.
Has Apple paid its fair share of taxes around the world? Tim Cook says Apple has values. Not only that. He says Apple pays every cent of taxes it owes. It's only when you wade through the complaints and paperwork that you realise that Apple was actually deciding for itself what to make available for taxation and in one famous case that amounted to 0.005% for one year (according to an EU investigation). Then you browse through the Paradise Papers and Apple’s name pops up more than it should with its external representitives seeking shadowy places to move money to where oversight is less stringent.
I think Apple has had more than its fair share of just about everything when it comes to collecting money.
Is it fair for those trying to make money from their apps to have to 'subsidise' those who don't have to pay more than their subscriptions? Or should prices go up for those who offer apps for free? Or is Apple doing all the subsidising itself? How can we know? Is that fair? Or does $99 cover the cost of everything involved.
Hasn't Apple already had its 'fair share' for years by simply not allowing any other stores to even exist while taking a cut out of every paid app? It does not matter if it's 5% or 50%. The commission percentage is irrelevant to that debate if Apple is the only one getting the commission because Apple itself determined competition should not exist.
Isn't it trying to keep its grip on those commissions, even now, by not allowing competition to exist in places like the US? Is that fair?
It definitely looks like enough authorities think it's unfair.
UK, EU, Japan, South Korea have pretty much made it clear that things need to change. Each one might go about that in a different way but I doubt any of them would use 'fair' to describe any of Apple's practices where competition isn't even allowed.
Has Apple abused its dominant position? A lot of authorities seem to think so. What does the DoJ think?
And don't think this is an 'everybody against poor Apple' thing because it's not.
In your mind, when did Apple iOS become "public domain" or "open source" or deemed a "public utility"? The last I checked, Apple iOS is still Apple copyrighted IP. And copyright laws in the US and the EU, grant the owners of copyrighted works the exclusive right to monetize them. So of course Apple have the right to collect a commission on every app that depends on their IP, that is iOS. But what gives others the right to open a store in iOS, sell iOS apps and collect a commission .... without compensating Apple for the for-profit use of iOS?
Taylor Swift is one of the richest musician/songwriter today. Can anyone use any of her copyrighted works to profit from, without compensating Swift or at least get her permission? Of course not. It doesn't matter that Swift is a billionaire and also make tons of money selling her image to advertisers and have her own product lines. It does not diminish the copyright rights she have on her musical works. Nor require her to give away her music for free.
So it doesn't matter if Apple were to allow (or forced to allow) third party app stores. They still have the right to charge others for the for-profit use of their IP. Can you set up a kiosk in the middle of a shopping mall to sell your handcrafted items, without paying the owner of the mall rent and/ or a percentage of your gross sales? Don't the property owner have the right to charge something for the space your kiosk is occupying in their mall? Shouldn't the mall owners be compensated for the expense of attracting shoppers to the mall, so you have a steady stream of customers to sell your items to? Shouldn't the mall owners have the right to limit what you can sell, on their property? What if the owner don't want you selling adult DVD's, or counterfeit purses or items that competes with vendors paying rent for retail store fronts in the mall? Do the mall owner have the rights to control what is being sold on his property?
So why do you think Apple should allow third party app stores to sell apps that runs on iOS, in an app store that uses iOS, to customers that Apple spent lots of money on in attracting them to buy iPhones (or other Apple devices), without being able to collect a commission to compensated for the use of the IP Apple spent billions on developing? Can you demand to set up a "store" inside Spotify Music app, to sell your digital downloaded music to Spotify customers and not compensate Spotify for the use of their IP? Do developers have the right to use Epic Games IP to create their own virtual goods for Fortnight and then demand that the government force Epic Games to allow other stores inside their Fortnite game because the Epic Fortnite Store have no competition and is charging too much for the virtual goods in their game?
There is no such thing as a "monopoly" on commission. Monopolies exist in defined "markets" and commissions are not a "market", by any definition where one could have a "monopoly" that can be use in anti-trust cases. Just because Apple is granted the exclusive right to collect a commission for the for-profit use of their IP, it doesn't mean that Apple have a "monopoly" on commission. That's as nonsensical as saying ....... Walmart have a "monopoly" on the markup of every item they sell in their Walmart Stores. Or, the landlord of an apartment building have a "monopoly" on the rent collected from the tenants in the building. You seem to just want to throw in the word "monopoly" when talking about Apple, without the least bit of understanding about what a "monopoly" is, just to make it appear that Apple do have a "monopoly" in something.
BTW- As far as i know, Apple has paid all the taxes that they are legally required to pay. If you have a problem with whether it was their "fair share", then take it up with your government about changing the tax laws. So far, the EU General Courts have agreed that Ireland did nothing illegal by charging Apple a tax rate that they thought was "fair". Even though the EU Commission is crying that Apple ....... "didn't pay their fair share"..... in taxes.
The free Spotify App on iOS is about one of the top ten downloaded apps from the Apple App Store. An yet Spotify is paying Apple nothing for having their app on hundreds of millions of Apple devices. Is Spotify paying their "fair share" for the use of Apple IP? Yes, because Apple App Store policies allows for this. So long as Spotify abide by the rules, it's fair. And no less fair than when Apple abide by the tax laws, no matter how some might cry ......Apple is not paying their "fair share".
Download numbers that I'm sure leads to the increase of revenue Spotify get from advertising in their free ad supported music streaming tier.
You need to re-read what I wrote and re-evaluate things.
Haven't you been following the news? We're talking about changes that are required as a result of investigations that have concluded and new requirements resulting from legislative changes.
Why do you think that, in my mind, Apple is public domain?
"BTW- As far as i know, Apple has paid all the taxes that they are legally required to pay. If you have a problem with whether it was their "fair share", then take it up with your government about changing the tax laws. So far, the EU General Courts have agreed that Ireland did nothing illegal by charging Apple a tax rate that they thought was "fair". Even though the EU Commission is crying that Apple ....... "didn't pay their fair share"..... in taxes. "
'Sofar'. Ah! Obviously you had to put that because the case is far from over but why are you side-stepping the crux of the matter?
If Apple has those 'values' that Tim Cook proclaimed so vigorously when this case hit the news, what exactly are they?
Does .005% fit into those values?
Maybe Tim should actually take a step forward and answer that head on.
I'm sure all iPhone users would like to have that answer.
And like I said, Apple claims it pays every cent due. The problem is that, according EU investigations, it is deciding for itself what to be made available for taxation in the first place. Values?
How many of Apple's competitors are able to do that? Can we ask Tim about that too, because as far as I know, no one has had the option (or balls?) to give him some Hard Talk and get clear answers on what Apple’s values are.
Why do Apple representatives pop up in the Paradise Papers?
Then Apple tries to justify the IP side of things by claiming its a 'US' thing? Is that ignoring all the Apple research going on outside the US? Or the fact that, even within Cupertino, a lot of that IP was created by non-US individuals?
Ago yes! The law! But what of the 'values'?
IMO, that is wanting to have your cake and eat it.
But on the IP side of things, did you even read what I said about that? My points on the subscription situation?
Copyright and IP really aren't at issue here. After all, many of the investigations have already concluded, and fallen against Apple. That is because there have been violations. I haven't seen copyright mentioned at all. Am I missing something?
You don't like that. I get it. But why not pass your observations on to Apple's legal team? Surely it's an open and shut case!
Apple has had its fair share for years simply because it took so long for it to blip onto the radar. Tim has laughed all the way to the bank.
In your mind, when did Apple iOS become "public domain" or "open source" or deemed a "public utility"? The last I checked, Apple iOS is still Apple copyrighted IP.
Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with the matter here. Nobody is asking to use Apple's code or software or taking it and modifying it.
Apple is in a position where they are ubiquitous enough that they are, by European law, required to behave accordingly. The standard applied here is not @davidw 's own perception or gut feeling (especially since @davidw does not, apparently, distinguish between antitrust law and copyright law, WTF), nor AppleInsider's weird mix of "reporting" and editorialising, but actual European law.
In your mind, when did Apple iOS become "public domain" or "open source" or deemed a "public utility"? The last I checked, Apple iOS is still Apple copyrighted IP.
Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with the matter here. Nobody is asking to use Apple's code or software or taking it and modifying it.
Apple is in a position where they are ubiquitous enough that they are, by European law, required to behave accordingly. The standard applied here is not @davidw 's own perception or gut feeling (especially since @davidw does not, apparently, distinguish between antitrust law and copyright law, WTF), nor AppleInsider's weird mix of "reporting" and editorialising, but actual European law.
Yes it does. Copyright is one of the ways to prove ownership of IP. Patent and Trademark are the other ways. Owners of IP have exclusive monetization rights. Whether the IP is in the form of music, art, photograph, design, patents, trademark or in this case .... computer software. Just like musicians/songwriters have the exclusive monetization of their copyrighted music and photographers have the exclusion to monetize the photos they take and authors the books the write, Apple have the exclusive rights to monetize the software they create. The same IP laws that protects Epic Games from others trying to monetize their copyrighted IP .... Fortnite.
Computer software is protected by copyright laws and patent laws. The trouble with most countries copyright laws is that they were written before the invention of computers. Rather than to rewrite and modernize copyrights laws, they just kind of shoehorned in computer software protection in there along with recordings, art, literature, photographs, etc..
In your mind, when did Apple iOS become "public domain" or "open source" or deemed a "public utility"? The last I checked, Apple iOS is still Apple copyrighted IP.
Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with the matter here. Nobody is asking to use Apple's code or software or taking it and modifying it.
Apple is in a position where they are ubiquitous enough that they are, by European law, required to behave accordingly. The standard applied here is not @davidw 's own perception or gut feeling (especially since @davidw does not, apparently, distinguish between antitrust law and copyright law, WTF), nor AppleInsider's weird mix of "reporting" and editorialising, but actual European law.
Yes it does. Copyright is one of the ways to prove ownership of IP. Patent and Trademark are the other ways. Owners of IP have exclusive monetization rights. Whether the IP is in the form of music, art, photograph, design, patents, trademark or in this case .... computer software. Just like musicians/songwriters have the exclusive monetization of their copyrighted music and photographers have the exclusion to monetize the photos they take and authors the books the write, Apple have the exclusive rights to monetize the software they create. The same IP laws that protects Epic Games from others trying to monetize their copyrighted IP .... Fortnite.
I follow the argument that Apple have the right to monetise their infrastructure any way they please. I disagree, because nobody should have the unfettered ability to monetise anything any way they please. We need laws to protect us from sociopaths.
What I do not follow is the application of "intellectual property" rights to that. If road regulations mean that you need to design your automobile in particular ways to allow for certain things, then yes, of course those regulations are affecting how you can design, so they're affecting the way you can formulate and apply your intellectual property.
That doesn't make copyright in any way relevant to the fact that you can't monetise a car design that doesn't follow local spec.
Cybertruck will never drive in Europe because it can't ever be made street-legal without a total redesign, but that really isn't a copyright issue.
Comments
Haven't you been following the news? We're talking about changes that are required as a result of investigations that have concluded and new requirements resulting from legislative changes.
Why do you think that, in my mind, Apple is public domain?
"BTW- As far as i know, Apple has paid all the taxes that they are legally required to pay. If you have a problem with whether it was their "fair share", then take it up with your government about changing the tax laws. So far, the EU General Courts have agreed that Ireland did nothing illegal by charging Apple a tax rate that they thought was "fair". Even though the EU Commission is crying that Apple ....... "didn't pay their fair share"..... in taxes. "
'So far'. Ah! Obviously you had to put that because the case is far from over but why are you side-stepping the crux of the matter?
If Apple has those 'values' that Tim Cook proclaimed so vigorously when this case hit the news, what exactly are they?
Does .005% fit into those values?
Maybe Tim should actually take a step forward and answer that head on.
I'm sure all iPhone users would like to have that answer.
And like I said, Apple claims it pays every cent due. The problem is that, according EU investigations, it is deciding for itself what to be made available for taxation in the first place. Values?
How many of Apple's competitors are able to do that? Can we ask Tim about that too, because as far as I know, no one has had the option (or balls?) to give him some Hard Talk and get clear answers on what Apple’s values are.
Why do Apple representatives pop up in the Paradise Papers?
Then Apple tries to justify the IP side of things by claiming its a 'US' thing? Is that ignoring all the Apple research going on outside the US? Or the fact that, even within Cupertino, a lot of that IP was created by non-US individuals?
Ago yes! The law! But what of the 'values'?
IMO, that is wanting to have your cake and eat it.
But on the IP side of things, did you even read what I said about that? My points on the subscription situation?
Copyright and IP really aren't at issue here. After all, many of the investigations have already concluded, and fallen against Apple. That is because there have been violations. I haven't seen copyright mentioned at all. Am I missing something?
You don't like that. I get it. But why not pass your observations on to Apple's legal team? Surely it's an open and shut case!
Apple has had its fair share for years simply because it took so long for it to blip onto the radar. Tim has laughed all the way to the bank.
I follow the argument that Apple have the right to monetise their infrastructure any way they please. I disagree, because nobody should have the unfettered ability to monetise anything any way they please. We need laws to protect us from sociopaths.
That doesn't make copyright in any way relevant to the fact that you can't monetise a car design that doesn't follow local spec.
Cybertruck will never drive in Europe because it can't ever be made street-legal without a total redesign, but that really isn't a copyright issue.