As I mentioned in another thread, there’s nothing illegal about having a monopoly (in the US). Abusing monopoly power is where corporations run into trouble.
Even if it can be proven that the App Store has a monopoly, which I think will be difficult for obvious reasons, how is Apple abusing that power?
By taking a 30% cut and not allowing other means of app distribution. Apple should ask for a fixed amount for a fixed set of ‘services’ needed to run the store. As I mentioned before, apps can be signed by Apple (after some sanity and virus checks) and distributed via any digital means. App developers can put the apps on their home page (or whatever) and pay apple a few cents for signing only and skip the hosting fees. This adds the benefit of even better visibility for the app because Google can find it directly.
After some sanity and virus checks? Who would be doing the checks? Do they get paid for services? A few cents? Apple shod charge a fixed fee regardless if the app has 100000 lines or 5 million lines of code? Apple isn’t a charity.
These cases make me super annoyed. Is Walmart or Amazon for that matter required to make my product or service available and promote it in their stores for me for free. The both have products and services they created and sell. Of course not. It would be stupid for me to expect that since they are for profit entities. There are a multitude of benefits for developers to be on iOS. Many times Apple was forced to create a product because what is available was subpar or lacked consistent support for their platform. Especially in cases where a partner turn on them to become a competitor and holds features back from the product Apple helped them create. Google Maps and Microsoft Office are perfect examples of this. Then all of a sudden, they want to jump back to developing. I use Apple Maps consistently and have seen it improve immensely. Google had the head start for Mobile Maps because of the data they got from the IPhone. The more we use it the better it gets.
You just proved the whole case. You have a choice of Walmart or Costco, etc. with iOS the developer has NO choice.
This reminds of the “logic” Psystar tried to use to illegally make Mac clones.
These cases make me super annoyed. Is Walmart or Amazon for that matter required to make my product or service available and promote it in their stores for me for free. The both have products and services they created and sell. Of course not. It would be stupid for me to expect that since they are for profit entities. There are a multitude of benefits for developers to be on iOS. Many times Apple was forced to create a product because what is available was subpar or lacked consistent support for their platform. Especially in cases where a partner turn on them to become a competitor and holds features back from the product Apple helped them create. Google Maps and Microsoft Office are perfect examples of this. Then all of a sudden, they want to jump back to developing. I use Apple Maps consistently and have seen it improve immensely. Google had the head start for Mobile Maps because of the data they got from the IPhone. The more we use it the better it gets.
You just proved the whole case. You have a choice of Walmart or Costco, etc. with iOS the developer has NO choice.
Sorry but I always bring up the case of Psystar. Psystar was a computer manufacturer that decided on its own that Apple held monopoly power over the Macintosh computer hardware because Apple would not license Mac clones to be built and sold. Since the Macintosh was manufactured solely by Apple that meant Apple was a monopoly in their opinion. So Psystar started building and selling Mac clones with macOS pre-installed on its own. Of course that reasoning didn’t end well for Psystar and Apple killed them without mercy and hung the corpse in the public square for all to see. But the idea that a corporation can be a monopoly within its own sphere has stuck with some, in my opinion, illogical minds. When automobile manufacturers began designing integrated entertainment systems that made it all but impossible for third party electronics manufacturers (Alpine, JVC, Blaupunkt, etc.) to retrofit their equipment those manufacturers cried foul. Nothing came of their claims. Auto manufacturers were not forced to standardize their dashboards to accommodate third party systems and integrate with the cars software.
ralphie said:with iOS the developer has NO choice.
They have the choice of not developing any apps for iOS. Nobody ever forced anybody to make any iOS apps.
The app store is a monopoly. Remember when Windows was forced to offer explorer as an option? well consumers wants options. The ios app store should be given as an option not as the only app store available.
Every middleman, distributor has to charge for their services. One may think 30% is too high but that doesn’t make it illegal nor should it.
Apple makes the developer set the price. That’s little difference from, say Macy’s, marking up the price of their items from their suppliers.
You know, realtors get commissions as a percent of home price.
Yup, and having sold and distributed my products in national retail I can assure you the distributors and retailer take/add more than 30% of my wholesale cost to them. Furniture is usually 100% markup.
When you buy a product from a retailer you pay the markup once, you do not keep paying every year
Apple is no Monopoly. For one thing Apple only has about 20% of the Global market. Apple created the iPhone. Apple created and opened the App store. You know what's not fair, all the FREE apps that APple gets ZERO from!!! Because 30% of $0 is $0.
It's Apple's hardware and so Apple can do with it what they want. By the way, Google and Amazon also charge the same 30%. Which is still cheaper then what software used to cost when you had to pay for it in a store and get it on a disc in a Box. Where the cut was 50% or more.
Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo control their own App store. Also ALL software allowed to run on those systems are controlled by them. If you don't like how Apple does things, you are free to leave and go use Android. No one is holding a gun to your head to Develop software for iOS or to use a iOS device. Which by the way is a Luxury item.
Being a closed system greatly protects iOS users from all kinds of threats. I'm not sure how mucxh cheaper you think software is going to be if there was some other store. FREE is FREE. if this is about Spotify and their 30% fee to Apple, They can do as Amazon and Netflix have done. Don't allow signup's on iOS devices, or in the app. Do that directly at their site. Now once again Apple is getting screwed because millions of people are downloading that free app, and doing it over and over again as updates get pushed out. I think people are smart enough to figure out how to go to a site directly and sign up, which that can do in Safari on their iOS device. Apple is getting nothing from Amazon or Netflix anymore.
ralphie said:with iOS the developer has NO choice.
They have the choice of not developing any apps for iOS. Nobody ever forced anybody to make any iOS apps.
The app store is a monopoly. Remember when Windows was forced to offer explorer as an option? well consumers wants options. The ios app store should be given as an option not as the only app store available.
Opera, Chrome, etc. Apple allows 3rd party apps to be sold on the App Store. Your analogy is flawed.
Every middleman, distributor has to charge for their services. One may think 30% is too high but that doesn’t make it illegal nor should it.
Apple makes the developer set the price. That’s little difference from, say Macy’s, marking up the price of their items from their suppliers.
You know, realtors get commissions as a percent of home price.
Yup, and having sold and distributed my products in national retail I can assure you the distributors and retailer take/add more than 30% of my wholesale cost to them. Furniture is usually 100% markup.
When you buy a product from a retailer you pay the markup once, you do not keep paying every year
When you buy a product app from a retailer the App Store you pay the markup price once, you do not keep paying every year.
These cases make me super annoyed. Is Walmart or Amazon for that matter required to make my product or service available and promote it in their stores for me for free. The both have products and services they created and sell. Of course not. It would be stupid for me to expect that since they are for profit entities. There are a multitude of benefits for developers to be on iOS. Many times Apple was forced to create a product because what is available was subpar or lacked consistent support for their platform. Especially in cases where a partner turn on them to become a competitor and holds features back from the product Apple helped them create. Google Maps and Microsoft Office are perfect examples of this. Then all of a sudden, they want to jump back to developing. I use Apple Maps consistently and have seen it improve immensely. Google had the head start for Mobile Maps because of the data they got from the IPhone. The more we use it the better it gets.
You just proved the whole case. You have a choice of Walmart or Costco, etc. with iOS the developer has NO choice.
Not sure if iKnockoff slave or 12-year-old flexing his marketing smarts.
These cases make me super annoyed. Is Walmart or Amazon for that matter required to make my product or service available and promote it in their stores for me for free. The both have products and services they created and sell. Of course not. It would be stupid for me to expect that since they are for profit entities. There are a multitude of benefits for developers to be on iOS. Many times Apple was forced to create a product because what is available was subpar or lacked consistent support for their platform. Especially in cases where a partner turn on them to become a competitor and holds features back from the product Apple helped them create. Google Maps and Microsoft Office are perfect examples of this. Then all of a sudden, they want to jump back to developing. I use Apple Maps consistently and have seen it improve immensely. Google had the head start for Mobile Maps because of the data they got from the IPhone. The more we use it the better it gets.
This is worse. It's like crying that Wall-Mart won't ket you build a store in their stores, or that you can't have a yard sale in their parking lot for free.
As I mentioned in another thread, there’s nothing illegal about having a monopoly (in the US). Abusing monopoly power is where corporations run into trouble.
Even if it can be proven that the App Store has a monopoly, which I think will be difficult for obvious reasons, how is Apple abusing that power?
By taking a 30% cut and not allowing other means of app distribution. Apple should ask for a fixed amount for a fixed set of ‘services’ needed to run the store. As I mentioned before, apps can be signed by Apple (after some sanity and virus checks) and distributed via any digital means. App developers can put the apps on their home page (or whatever) and pay apple a few cents for signing only and skip the hosting fees. This adds the benefit of even better visibility for the app because Google can find it directly.
After some sanity and virus checks? Who would be doing the checks? Do they get paid for services? A few cents? Apple shod charge a fixed fee regardless if the app has 100000 lines or 5 million lines of code? Apple isn’t a charity.
plus you can google iOS apps now.
Beat me to it. He wants Apple to do all the work for "a few cents". And who do you think will be the victim of mass anti-Apple propaganda when one of these 3rd party Apps is malware/spyware? Genius.
ralphie said:with iOS the developer has NO choice.
They have the choice of not developing any apps for iOS. Nobody ever forced anybody to make any iOS apps.
The app store is a monopoly. Remember when Windows was forced to offer explorer as an option? well consumers wants options. The ios app store should be given as an option not as the only app store available.
Revisionists history now?
Microsoft - a software company - was forcing all its HARDWARE partners to install Windows on their machines, and paying license fees for machines that did not have Windows installed, even machines with no OS installed. Microsoft also demanded from their hardware partners that IE be the default browser, or disallow other browsers from being pre-installed.
The big difference is that Apple owns both the hardware OS. Perfectly acceptable for Apple to dictate the terms for its device.
You're resolution is what is all ready going on with Android. So developers DO have a choice. Just not the choice you like, yet feel you are entitled to have on someone else's widget???
You know there is no money on Android, so best to go over there to Apple and complain about not having the "choice" and security-issues on iOS? Give us a break.
You just proved the whole case. You have a choice of Walmart or Costco, etc. with iOS the developer has NO choice.
Nope. Good thing you’re not a lawyer ...
Can you buy Walmart brand stuff at Costco? No you can’t. Does that mean Costco is a monopoly? No it doesn’t.
Apple is akin to the owner of a mall. Anyone who wants to sell products at that store — even direct competitors like Google, Microsoft, and so forth — can sell wares there. All they have to do is obey the rules they agreed to. Like a mall, Apple charges a fee for their use of the infrastructure and facilities. In point of fact, 30 percent is very low compared to most other real-world retail, and generally doesn’t include as much stuff as a mall provides for store owners, and some things (like second-year subscriptions) are actually well less than 30 percent.
You could perhaps make the argument (to a very uneducated judge) that the iOS App Store constitutes a monopoly — but even the dumbest judge on the bench would not agree that they are abusing that monopoly unless you can prove that Apple is kicking out app developers for capricious or vengeful reasons, and more than Starbucks is abusing their monopoly on Starbucks coffee by refusing to sell a competitor’s brand of coffee.
You’ve also conveniently forgotten that not every town has both a Walmart AND a Costco (or similar big-box store), giving Walmart in that town an effective monopoly. Guess what? Not illegal.
ralphie said:with iOS the developer has NO choice.
They have the choice of not developing any apps for iOS. Nobody ever forced anybody to make any iOS apps.
The app store is a monopoly. Remember when Windows was forced to offer explorer as an option? well consumers wants options. The ios app store should be given as an option not as the only app store available.
Apple users do not have Android brains, and Apple users do not want an open app store, which will result in chaos, viruses, malware and tons of garbage, as has already been proven by the mess called Android.
I use Apple's app store precisely because it is closed and it keeps most of the riff raff out. Apple users value security. There are plenty of other options available for those who do not.
@“We're confident we will prevail when the facts are presented and that the App Store is not a monopoly by any metric."
Well, we’ve seen that sort of bravado over the Qualcomm modem lawsuit, children making unauthorized in-app purchases lawsuit, the iBooks lawsuit, etc. and we know how those turned out.
Believe I'll just take a ‘wait & see’ on this one.
ralphie said:with iOS the developer has NO choice.
They have the choice of not developing any apps for iOS. Nobody ever forced anybody to make any iOS apps.
The app store is a monopoly. Remember when Windows was forced to offer explorer as an option? well consumers wants options. The ios app store should be given as an option not as the only app store available.
Windows had 96% of the PC market. Android is “winning” the smartphone market. Stark difference.
ralphie said:with iOS the developer has NO choice.
They have the choice of not developing any apps for iOS. Nobody ever forced anybody to make any iOS apps.
The app store is a monopoly. Remember when Windows was forced to offer explorer as an option? well consumers wants options. The ios app store should be given as an option not as the only app store available.
Apple users do not have Android brains, and Apple users do not want an open app store, which will result in chaos, viruses, malware and tons of garbage, as has already been proven by the mess called Android.
I use Apple's app store precisely because it is closed and it keeps most of the riff raff out. Apple users value security. There are plenty of other options available for those who do not.
Sorry but you sound fucking retarded @bold, since whatever you do on your device will never affect the next persons’.
Anyways, bring on the options. There’s a couple of apps that I love (but Apple doesn’t allow) and would like to have installed on my iPhone without having to re-download every time Apple decides to screw with the certificates.
There are three possible results: (1) Apple can maintain the status quo: in which case I stick with Apple and its App Store; (2) Apple must allow competing app stores: in which case I stick with Apple and its App Store; and (3) Apple must (or decides to) terminate its app store: in which case I stick with Apple and its built-in apps. So to quote the guy from Vertical Limit: "So any way you look at it, I'm in [with Apple]."
Actually I just realized my whole post here, all three points, is a play on the words from that guy in Vertical Limit. Use google to find: <Vertical Limit Script> then scroll down to the first occurrence of "So any way" then start reading about 3 lines back. I think that's why my subconscious recalled that movie quote here. Amazing how the brain works.
Sorry but you sound fucking retarded @bold, since whatever you do on your device will never affect the next persons’.
Anyways, bring on the options. There’s a couple of apps that I love (but Apple doesn’t allow) and would like to have installed on my iPhone without having to re-download every time Apple decides to screw with the certificates.
Go jailbreak your device if you want. I don't even know if that's still a thing anymore, but it doesn't really matter to me.
Your wish is never going to happen. Apple is never going to allow it.
Pretty difficult to claim that an across the board % fee is monopolistic behaviour when that fee can be dodged entirely by setting the app price to 0 and instead requiring an externally sought payment. (I.E. Possessing your own customers.) It's also not monopolistic to require an annual subscription fee for participation in the developer programme and its curation process. Furthermore it's incredibly difficult to claim a monopoly on an ecosystem of ones own making, especially when that platform is not the largest in the market, choice is abundant and there has been no significant change or malicious behaviour in the operator.
Finally, developers work with apple, and apple puts the app into the store - there is no way for a developer to access the store directly, however Apple still allows developers to control the price of their app. Which is different from a typical marketplace where the store would set the price in line with market demand. (E.g. Uber.)
Let's show how ridiculous this sounds by continuing the Uber comparison. This would be like consumers wanting access to Uber drivers because they like how Uber requires drivers to keep a safe and tidy car. But not via Uber's system, or giving Uber their revenue share for creating the platform and running the service. Even though they could go take a regular taxi or alternative ride-hailing service.
ralphie said:with iOS the developer has NO choice.
They have the choice of not developing any apps for iOS. Nobody ever forced anybody to make any iOS apps.
Being a developer of apps, and de facto I don't have a choice. E.g for large npo's I am developing a voting app for their general assembly. I can only sell the app if all members of the npo can vote, meaning I need both an iOS and an Android version. If I had only an Android version I would have zero sales, If I had only an iOS version I would have zero sales. So basically the Apple eco system as such does not bring new customers, but economically seen, I must make my app available on iOS
ralphie said:with iOS the developer has NO choice.
They have the choice of not developing any apps for iOS. Nobody ever forced anybody to make any iOS apps.
Being a developer of apps, and de facto I don't have a choice. E.g for large npo's I am developing a voting app for their general assembly. I can only sell the app if all members can vote, meaning I need both an iOS and an Android version. If I had only an Android version I would have zero sales, If I had only an iOS version I would have zero sales. So basically the Apple eco system as such does not bring new customers, but economically seen, I must make my app available on iOS
We’ll then... better get to that coding then! Why should your business problems be Apple’s problem?Nice try though to pin it on them though.
ralphie said:with iOS the developer has NO choice.
They have the choice of not developing any apps for iOS. Nobody ever forced anybody to make any iOS apps.
The app store is a monopoly. Remember when Windows was forced to offer explorer as an option? well consumers wants options. The ios app store should be given as an option not as the only app store available.
Apple users do not have Android brains, and Apple users do not want an open app store, which will result in chaos, viruses, malware and tons of garbage, as has already been proven by the mess called Android.
I use Apple's app store precisely because it is closed and it keeps most of the riff raff out. Apple users value security. There are plenty of other options available for those who do not.
You put yourself on dodgy ground when you start claiming that you know what other Apple users want and then use that as a basis for your argument.
In this particular case, it is not about what users want. It is about Apple's supposed harming of competition.
As an Apple user you can't speak for me. I would like an alternative App Store if only for competitive reasons. From there, everybody can make their own decisions.
There is nothing to suggest an alternative app store could not compete with Apple. If that is the case, app store competition could bring the 30% down, there would likely be more offer on the store and store imposed restrictions could be different.
Comments
plus you can google iOS apps now.
Opera, Chrome, etc. Apple allows 3rd party apps to be sold on the App Store. Your analogy is flawed.
When you buy a product app from a retailer the App Store you pay the markup price once, you do not keep paying every year.
Same shit.
Not sure if iKnockoff slave or 12-year-old flexing his marketing smarts.
This is worse. It's like crying that Wall-Mart won't ket you build a store in their stores, or that you can't have a yard sale in their parking lot for free.
Beat me to it. He wants Apple to do all the work for "a few cents". And who do you think will be the victim of mass anti-Apple propaganda when one of these 3rd party Apps is malware/spyware? Genius.
Can you buy Walmart brand stuff at Costco? No you can’t. Does that mean Costco is a monopoly? No it doesn’t.
Apple is akin to the owner of a mall. Anyone who wants to sell products at that store — even direct competitors like Google, Microsoft, and so forth — can sell wares there. All they have to do is obey the rules they agreed to. Like a mall, Apple charges a fee for their use of the infrastructure and facilities. In point of fact, 30 percent is very low compared to most other real-world retail, and generally doesn’t include as much stuff as a mall provides for store owners, and some things (like second-year subscriptions) are actually well less than 30 percent.
You could perhaps make the argument (to a very uneducated judge) that the iOS App Store constitutes a monopoly — but even the dumbest judge on the bench would not agree that they are abusing that monopoly unless you can prove that Apple is kicking out app developers for capricious or vengeful reasons, and more than Starbucks is abusing their monopoly on Starbucks coffee by refusing to sell a competitor’s brand of coffee.
You’ve also conveniently forgotten that not every town has both a Walmart AND a Costco (or similar big-box store), giving Walmart in that town an effective monopoly. Guess what? Not illegal.
I use Apple's app store precisely because it is closed and it keeps most of the riff raff out. Apple users value security. There are plenty of other options available for those who do not.
Well, we’ve seen that sort of bravado over the Qualcomm modem lawsuit, children making unauthorized in-app purchases lawsuit, the iBooks lawsuit, etc. and we know how those turned out.
Believe I'll just take a ‘wait & see’ on this one.
Anyways, bring on the options. There’s a couple of apps that I love (but Apple doesn’t allow) and would like to have installed on my iPhone without having to re-download every time Apple decides to screw with the certificates.
Actually I just realized my whole post here, all three points, is a play on the words from that guy in Vertical Limit. Use google to find: <Vertical Limit Script> then scroll down to the first occurrence of "So any way" then start reading about 3 lines back. I think that's why my subconscious recalled that movie quote here. Amazing how the brain works.
Your wish is never going to happen. Apple is never going to allow it.
Finally, developers work with apple, and apple puts the app into the store - there is no way for a developer to access the store directly, however Apple still allows developers to control the price of their app. Which is different from a typical marketplace where the store would set the price in line with market demand. (E.g. Uber.)
Let's show how ridiculous this sounds by continuing the Uber comparison. This would be like consumers wanting access to Uber drivers because they like how Uber requires drivers to keep a safe and tidy car. But not via Uber's system, or giving Uber their revenue share for creating the platform and running the service. Even though they could go take a regular taxi or alternative ride-hailing service.
In this particular case, it is not about what users want. It is about Apple's supposed harming of competition.
As an Apple user you can't speak for me. I would like an alternative App Store if only for competitive reasons. From there, everybody can make their own decisions.
There is nothing to suggest an alternative app store could not compete with Apple. If that is the case, app store competition could bring the 30% down, there would likely be more offer on the store and store imposed restrictions could be different.