Just because Karl Benz invented the automobile doesn't mean he gets a cut of every toll road.
Saying Apple deserves a 30% cut of all digital goods because they built the platform is like saying a mall owner deserves a percentage of everything sold in every store, forever, even after the store builds its own loyal customer base and no longer relies on foot traffic.
Sure, Apple built the “mall” - the App Store - and they deserve fair rent for access and discovery. But when Apple blocks tenants from even telling customers that cheaper options exist outside the mall, or forces them to use Apple’s own checkout system, it stops being about fair business and becomes about control.
The real issue isn’t whether Apple should earn money - they already do, handsomely. It’s that they’ve positioned themselves as landlord, tax authority, and competitor all at once. Epic’s win doesn’t mean developers escape costs - it just means they can finally choose how to run their businesses. That’s not freeloading. That’s competition.
And let’s be honest: a free economy isn’t absolute. It needs guardrails. When two companies are the app economy, protecting free markets requires regulation - not just to stop abuse, but to keep the system open for the next generation of creators.
Let's see how this Apple-as-mall-owner metaphor works.
Suppose I own a mall. It's a beautiful facility in a great location with massive foot traffic. I write into the lease agreement that every tenant has to pay me a percentage of gross sales (interestingly, I charge nothing else; so if you don't do any business or give away your products and services for free, you don't pay me a dime. You sign a lease under those terms; you might have preferred a flat monthly rent, but after weighing the costs and benefits you decide it's worth it.
Then you decide to get "clever" and tell customers that they can pay for purchases by going to your website instead of paying in-person. Maybe you even give them a discount for going that route. So far so good.
Then you tell me, your landlord, that those payments thru your site don't count as part of gross revenue.
Who's the bad actor in this scenario?
I didn't propose this metaphor, but I fail to see how it makes Apple the bad guy.
A really bad look for Apple and a sign that they have lost their moral compass.
Based on your objections, it's not at all clear when Apple had a moral compass that you would approve of. Steve Jobs defended Apple's financial interests even more aggressively than the current leadership.
In the end Apple will charge for their infrastructure morality has nothing to do with it, AT&T still gets paid for my iPhone connection to their system....
Just because Karl Benz invented the automobile doesn't mean he gets a cut of every toll road.
Saying Apple deserves a 30% cut of all digital goods because they built the platform is like saying a mall owner deserves a percentage of everything sold in every store, forever, even after the store builds its own loyal customer base and no longer relies on foot traffic.
Sure, Apple built the “mall” - the App Store - and they deserve fair rent for access and discovery. But when Apple blocks tenants from even telling customers that cheaper options exist outside the mall, or forces them to use Apple’s own checkout system, it stops being about fair business and becomes about control.
The real issue isn’t whether Apple should earn money - they already do, handsomely. It’s that they’ve positioned themselves as landlord, tax authority, and competitor all at once. Epic’s win doesn’t mean developers escape costs - it just means they can finally choose how to run their businesses. That’s not freeloading. That’s competition.
And let’s be honest: a free economy isn’t absolute. It needs guardrails. When two companies are the app economy, protecting free markets requires regulation - not just to stop abuse, but to keep the system open for the next generation of creators.
Let's see how this Apple-as-mall-owner metaphor works.
Suppose I own a mall. It's a beautiful facility in a great location with massive foot traffic. I write into the lease agreement that every tenant has to pay me a percentage of gross sales (interestingly, I charge nothing else; so if you don't do any business or give away your products and services for free, you don't pay me a dime. You sign a lease under those terms; you might have preferred a flat monthly rent, but after weighing the costs and benefits you decide it's worth it.
Then you decide to get "clever" and tell customers that they can pay for purchases by going to your website instead of paying in-person. Maybe you even give them a discount for going that route. So far so good.
Then you tell me, your landlord, that those payments thru your site don't count as part of gross revenue.
Who's the bad actor in this scenario?
I didn't propose this metaphor, but I fail to see how it makes Apple the bad guy.
I completely agree! How is Apple (or for that matter, any other creator) supposed to monetize their platform? You are asking them to provide a “free of charge” platform (which it would essentially become) if left to the devices of the likes of the Fortnite creators of the world. I also find it interesting that their platform also charges other creators a fee for providing a platform for their space. How magnanimous of them! Can we at least be honest here? It’s all about money. Just follow the money!
Apple should stop selling smart phones (ie, phones which run other people's software) and just sell feature phones. Apple's software is good, and it's enough for me.
Video game consoles: 30% commission on sales in 1st party digital store + no 3rd party digital stores + 30% commission on discs sold in 3rd party retail. That business model has never been ruled to have supracompetitive rates by a U.S. court and it predates the iPhone and App Store. Epic has tried to argue that model is "okay" because console makers don't make as much profit on hardware as Apple. But that argument is not legally based. There is no law that states specific levels of profit allowed for a company that sells a closed system.
Video game consoles: 30% commission on sales in 1st party digital store + no 3rd party digital stores + 30% commission on discs sold in 3rd party retail. That business model has never been ruled to have supracompetitive rates by a U.S. court and it predates the iPhone and App Store. Epic has tried to argue that model is "okay" because console makers don't make as much profit on hardware as Apple. But that argument is not legally based. There is no law that states specific levels of profit allowed for a company that sells a closed system.
Antitrust laws are specifically targeted at large markets. You would have to compare the size of the console market to the size of the Apple and Google phone app markets whether or not there is a an antitrust market argument against the console makers.
A really bad look for Apple and a sign that they have lost their moral compass.
Based on your objections, it's not at all clear when Apple had a moral compass that you would approve of. Steve Jobs defended Apple's financial interests even more aggressively than the current leadership.
Steve certainly believed in making profit, he was a good capitalist and would not shy away from charging high margins.
I'm not sure if you have read any of the witness statements, judges comments or evidence of this trial. Phil clearly struck a tone of understanding that developers are customers too, that they should be offered a good experience and they are needed.
The other Apple execs obfuscated, some were clearly caught out lying about dates and knowledge of events, and were all pushing Tim Cook to be as greedy as possible.
A friend of mine runs his own web design business and also, as a side business, is a co-owner of a small app development business. It's not just the onerous fees that he chafes under, rather most of the process of submitting and maintaining of an app is a lesson in frustration. Furthermore, his ability to interact with customers is terrible. He can't even do something simple, like issue a refund. Rather, he has to get the customer to submit a request to Apple, which takes 24-48 hours to be answered.
He's been stuck in bureaucratic loops, with no way to speak directly with a manager, over seemingly random denials of apps due to unwritten rules, etc.
I say again, developers are Apple's customers too. More importantly, apps are the lifeblood of iOS. Apple should look after them more and bend them over financially a lot less.
Video game consoles: 30% commission on sales in 1st party digital store + no 3rd party digital stores + 30% commission on discs sold in 3rd party retail. That business model has never been ruled to have supracompetitive rates by a U.S. court and it predates the iPhone and App Store. Epic has tried to argue that model is "okay" because console makers don't make as much profit on hardware as Apple. But that argument is not legally based. There is no law that states specific levels of profit allowed for a company that sells a closed system.
Antitrust laws are specifically targeted at large markets. You would have to compare the size of the console market to the size of the Apple and Google phone app markets whether or not there is a an antitrust market argument against the console makers.
Not true. Per Google "Yes, antitrust laws apply to small markets. While antitrust laws are often associated with large corporations and mergers, they also apply to businesses operating in smaller markets. These laws aim to promote fair competition and prevent anti-competitive practices, regardless of the size of the market."
What’s gonna be sad for the average developer going forward is that Xcode (and all those other tools) will not be cheap/free anymore all those developer tools that Apple has given away will over time will start to cost real money up front a la like the good old days you know those two grand software developer packs.
The big companies never cared about the small fry developer (as portrayed Sweeney Todd) its like saying, Elon cares he doesn’t refer to the way Adobe is behaving now with their new subscription plan, what is funny is all of the software companies who think they’re gonna have a subscription here and a subscription there similar to the way all those tv/video/movie production houses, cable internet/channels (including Apple) thought there was a pot of gold with endless subscriptions but there is a finite limitation for the average person/family.
The mark/customer doesn’t have a source of endless monetary resources to have 20 monthly subscriptions going at the same time, we may be headed back to the good old days where you bought something upfront once and that’s it, I have four subscriptions, Netflix, PBS, Apple and BritBox that’s it and there will be no more than that how many do you have? And that number is across all content mediums, video, music, software yep-that’s it just four….
I seem to recall before the App Store days that I would pay $500 a year to get access to the new developer tools.
Just because Karl Benz invented the automobile doesn't mean he gets a cut of every toll road.
Saying Apple deserves a 30% cut of all digital goods because they built the platform is like saying a mall owner deserves a percentage of everything sold in every store, forever, even after the store builds its own loyal customer base and no longer relies on foot traffic.
Sure, Apple built the “mall” - the App Store - and they deserve fair rent for access and discovery. But when Apple blocks tenants from even telling customers that cheaper options exist outside the mall, or forces them to use Apple’s own checkout system, it stops being about fair business and becomes about control.
The real issue isn’t whether Apple should earn money - they already do, handsomely. It’s that they’ve positioned themselves as landlord, tax authority, and competitor all at once. Epic’s win doesn’t mean developers escape costs - it just means they can finally choose how to run their businesses. That’s not freeloading. That’s competition.
And let’s be honest: a free economy isn’t absolute. It needs guardrails. When two companies are the app economy, protecting free markets requires regulation - not just to stop abuse, but to keep the system open for the next generation of creators.
Those complaining developers would not be developers if there was no Apple App Store. They should be bowing down doing homage to Apple whenever someone buys their app.
Just because Karl Benz invented the automobile doesn't mean he gets a cut of every toll road.
Saying Apple deserves a 30% cut of all digital goods because they built the platform is like saying a mall owner deserves a percentage of everything sold in every store, forever, even after the store builds its own loyal customer base and no longer relies on foot traffic.
Sure, Apple built the “mall” - the App Store - and they deserve fair rent for access and discovery. But when Apple blocks tenants from even telling customers that cheaper options exist outside the mall, or forces them to use Apple’s own checkout system, it stops being about fair business and becomes about control.
The real issue isn’t whether Apple should earn money - they already do, handsomely. It’s that they’ve positioned themselves as landlord, tax authority, and competitor all at once. Epic’s win doesn’t mean developers escape costs - it just means they can finally choose how to run their businesses. That’s not freeloading. That’s competition.
And let’s be honest: a free economy isn’t absolute. It needs guardrails. When two companies are the app economy, protecting free markets requires regulation - not just to stop abuse, but to keep the system open for the next generation of creators.
Those complaining developers would not be developers if there was no Apple App Store. They should be bowing down doing homage to Apple whenever someone buys their app.
And the iPhone would not be the mega smash hit that it has been without developers. At the end of the day it is a partnership, and yes, sometimes partnerships involve money from one party to another.
But Apple should respect the development community, who also happen to be customers of Apple as well, far more than they do.
Just because Karl Benz invented the automobile doesn't mean he gets a cut of every toll road.
Saying Apple deserves a 30% cut of all digital goods because they built the platform is like saying a mall owner deserves a percentage of everything sold in every store, forever, even after the store builds its own loyal customer base and no longer relies on foot traffic.
Sure, Apple built the “mall” - the App Store - and they deserve fair rent for access and discovery. But when Apple blocks tenants from even telling customers that cheaper options exist outside the mall, or forces them to use Apple’s own checkout system, it stops being about fair business and becomes about control.
The real issue isn’t whether Apple should earn money - they already do, handsomely. It’s that they’ve positioned themselves as landlord, tax authority, and competitor all at once. Epic’s win doesn’t mean developers escape costs - it just means they can finally choose how to run their businesses. That’s not freeloading. That’s competition.
And let’s be honest: a free economy isn’t absolute. It needs guardrails. When two companies are the app economy, protecting free markets requires regulation - not just to stop abuse, but to keep the system open for the next generation of creators.
Those complaining developers would not be developers if there was no Apple App Store. They should be bowing down doing homage to Apple whenever someone buys their app.
I can't imagine even wanting an app from a developer who wouldn't want to be in the app store. Like buying stuff from a folding table on a street corner in the city.
Comments
Suppose I own a mall. It's a beautiful facility in a great location with massive foot traffic. I write into the lease agreement that every tenant has to pay me a percentage of gross sales (interestingly, I charge nothing else; so if you don't do any business or give away your products and services for free, you don't pay me a dime. You sign a lease under those terms; you might have preferred a flat monthly rent, but after weighing the costs and benefits you decide it's worth it.
Then you decide to get "clever" and tell customers that they can pay for purchases by going to your website instead of paying in-person. Maybe you even give them a discount for going that route. So far so good.
Then you tell me, your landlord, that those payments thru your site don't count as part of gross revenue.
Who's the bad actor in this scenario?
I didn't propose this metaphor, but I fail to see how it makes Apple the bad guy.
I'm not sure if you have read any of the witness statements, judges comments or evidence of this trial. Phil clearly struck a tone of understanding that developers are customers too, that they should be offered a good experience and they are needed.
A friend of mine runs his own web design business and also, as a side business, is a co-owner of a small app development business. It's not just the onerous fees that he chafes under, rather most of the process of submitting and maintaining of an app is a lesson in frustration. Furthermore, his ability to interact with customers is terrible. He can't even do something simple, like issue a refund. Rather, he has to get the customer to submit a request to Apple, which takes 24-48 hours to be answered.
I say again, developers are Apple's customers too. More importantly, apps are the lifeblood of iOS. Apple should look after them more and bend them over financially a lot less.
But Apple should respect the development community, who also happen to be customers of Apple as well, far more than they do.
I can't imagine even wanting an app from a developer who wouldn't want to be in the app store. Like buying stuff from a folding table on a street corner in the city.
i played it a couple times years ago and never again.