Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.
Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.
That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride? I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers. What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.
Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains. There is only one App Store. If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B. There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem. That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.
There's no point in trying to be reasonable with Ikrupp. He doesn't understand the subtlety in things like this and always jumps to the furthest possible conclusion; even if the OP didn't intend what Ikrupp has assumed whatsoever.
Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.
That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride? I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers. What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.
Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains. There is only one App Store. If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B. There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem. That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.
LOL. So by you argument the manufacturer has a choice to sell at store B with 10% fee, and is by doing this entitled to sell in Store A with the same fee?
It looks like you think so. Because you demand to sell in Apple’s Store/ecosystem by grocery Store B rules. Why do you think so that grocery store A should allow grocery store B to sell on its land?
Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.
That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride? I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers. What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.
Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains. There is only one App Store. If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B. There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem. That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.
LOL. So by you argument the manufacturer has a choice to sell at store B with 10% fee, and is by doing this entitled to sell in Store A with the same fee?
It looks like you think so. Because you demand to sell in Apple’s Store/ecosystem by grocery Store B rules. Why do you think so that grocery store A should allow grocery store B to sell on its land?
No. That is an example of competition. The manufacturer goes to store B and shuns store A, who ends up losing out because of their higher fees. But with iOS, there is one store.
Imagine spending thousands of hours and tends of thousands of dollars creating, designing and refining a product which will only fit in slots in store A's shelves, and requires, say, flour to work. You go to store A and say "here is my product, please place it on your shelf". Store A then says hmm, no, we don't like that your product has a website address on wherein you might get flour cheaper than you can here, you have to sell your flour here and give us 30% of your revenue. So then you are stuffed if you still want to make money on the flour. You can't go to store B because their slots are different, you would have to spend tens of thousands again redesigning your product from the ground up to fit. Does that metaphor make it easier to understand why Apple's ecosystem could be seen as a monopoly?
Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.
That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride? I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers. What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.
Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains. There is only one App Store. If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B. There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem. That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.
LOL. So by you argument the manufacturer has a choice to sell at store B with 10% fee, and is by doing this entitled to sell in Store A with the same fee?
It looks like you think so. Because you demand to sell in Apple’s Store/ecosystem by grocery Store B rules. Why do you think so that grocery store A should allow grocery store B to sell on its land?
Not my argument at all. I did not say that Store A should meet Store B pricing. It was an example of competition. If you don't like Store A terms, you have Store B (and C, D, E and F) to choose from. There is no competition in the Apple app distribution system.
Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.
That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride? I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers. What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.
Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains. There is only one App Store. If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B. There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem. That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.
LOL. So by you argument the manufacturer has a choice to sell at store B with 10% fee, and is by doing this entitled to sell in Store A with the same fee?
It looks like you think so. Because you demand to sell in Apple’s Store/ecosystem by grocery Store B rules. Why do you think so that grocery store A should allow grocery store B to sell on its land?
No. That is an example of competition. The manufacturer goes to store B and shuns store A, who ends up losing out because of their higher fees. But with iOS, there is one store.
Imagine spending thousands of hours and tends of thousands of dollars creating, designing and refining a product which will only fit in slots in store A's shelves, and requires, say, flour to work. You go to store A and say "here is my product, please place it on your shelf". Store A then says hmm, no, we don't like that your product has a website address on wherein you might get flour cheaper than you can here, you have to sell your flour here and give us 30% of your revenue. So then you are stuffed if you still want to make money on the flour. You can't go to store B because their slots are different, you would have to spend tens of thousands again redesigning your product from the ground up to fit. Does that metaphor make it easier to understand why Apple's ecosystem could be seen as a monopoly?
"Because of the market power that Apple has, it is charging exorbitant rents — highway robbery, basically — bullying people to pay 30 percent or denying access to their market," Cicilline said. "It's crushing small developers who simply can't survive with those kinds of payments. If there were real competition in this marketplace, this wouldn't happen."
Lol. Market power of less than 15% in smartphones and less than 10% in computers. Hahaha. Market power... I can’t understand how such a company with such a small market share can be investigated for antitrust. They are the minority of the market. They should be getting the support for competing with the ‘big’ players on the market, who has much more users and owns the market.
The monopoly is within the Apple ecosystem itself moreso than the market as a whole. If you've written an app in Swift, and Apple changes how it interprets (or even changes the wording) of their rules you're SOL. The only option is to rewrite your app from the ground up for Android.
There is nonsuch thing as a 'monopoly within' an ecosystem. That's complete bullshit and you are apparently one of the ones who want iOS tp become Android. Therein lies the bullshit as you are perfectly free to leave the 'monopoly' you so despise. You are in no way locked in to that ecosystem. You are there by choice. Ma Bell was a monopoly because if you wanted a telephone you had one and one place only to go. There are hundreds of smartphone manufacturers to choose from in a myriad of colors, styles, features, and dozens of cell service providers to subscribe to. But YOU decided to do business with Apple. Why?
Blah blah "bullshit" blah blah attack person rather than argument blah blah "bullshit" blah.
That's all I read when you post, as you're one of the ones who would defend Apple to the ends of the Earth, even if they dropped a bomb on every user who didn't update you'd defend them. As usual you didn't have an answer as to why it's fine to force devs to rewrite their app from the ground up because Apple says they don't like their app. And in any case, we'll see soon whether the law in the US and in the EU thinks there is a monopoly, and of course if Apple is found to be monopolistic you'll disagree with that too, shouting at the lawmakers and calling them idiots.
Just like Bell, if you want an app on iOS you have just one place to go. If a developer has written an app in Swift, they have just one place to go. Apple disallows apps that are similar to built-in ones. That's anticompetitive. You're forced to use Safari, because Apple won't allow you to change the default app used to open http links. Why can't you see that lock in is the the same thing as Bell's? Well - you can, just you defend Apple's every last action like any reasonable discussion that's not 100% pro-Apple somehow personally damages you. And in any case you are locked in to a certain extent, when you have invested money in apps and devices that are useless with Android (HomePod for example). The stickiness of Apple's ecosystem is well known. But when that's not convenient you just say it's not a thing when that's patently false.
Just attacking the argument: your understanding of monopoly is wrong. Since you base all your argument on a wrong understanding, your whole comment is wrong.
"Because of the market power that Apple has, it is charging exorbitant rents — highway robbery, basically — bullying people to pay 30 percent or denying access to their market," Cicilline said. "It's crushing small developers who simply can't survive with those kinds of payments. If there were real competition in this marketplace, this wouldn't happen."
Lol. Market power of less than 15% in smartphones and less than 10% in computers. Hahaha. Market power... I can’t understand how such a company with such a small market share can be investigated for antitrust. They are the minority of the market. They should be getting the support for competing with the ‘big’ players on the market, who has much more users and owns the market.
The monopoly is within the Apple ecosystem itself moreso than the market as a whole. If you've written an app in Swift, and Apple changes how it interprets (or even changes the wording) of their rules you're SOL. The only option is to rewrite your app from the ground up for Android.
There is nonsuch thing as a 'monopoly within' an ecosystem. That's complete bullshit and you are apparently one of the ones who want iOS tp become Android. Therein lies the bullshit as you are perfectly free to leave the 'monopoly' you so despise. You are in no way locked in to that ecosystem. You are there by choice. Ma Bell was a monopoly because if you wanted a telephone you had one and one place only to go. There are hundreds of smartphone manufacturers to choose from in a myriad of colors, styles, features, and dozens of cell service providers to subscribe to. But YOU decided to do business with Apple. Why?
Blah blah "bullshit" blah blah attack person rather than argument blah blah "bullshit" blah.
That's all I read when you post, as you're one of the ones who would defend Apple to the ends of the Earth, even if they dropped a bomb on every user who didn't update you'd defend them. As usual you didn't have an answer as to why it's fine to force devs to rewrite their app from the ground up because Apple says they don't like their app. And in any case, we'll see soon whether the law in the US and in the EU thinks there is a monopoly, and of course if Apple is found to be monopolistic you'll disagree with that too, shouting at the lawmakers and calling them idiots.
Just like Bell, if you want an app on iOS you have just one place to go. If a developer has written an app in Swift, they have just one place to go. Apple disallows apps that are similar to built-in ones. That's anticompetitive. You're forced to use Safari, because Apple won't allow you to change the default app used to open http links. Why can't you see that lock in is the the same thing as Bell's? Well - you can, just you defend Apple's every last action like any reasonable discussion that's not 100% pro-Apple somehow personally damages you. And in any case you are locked in to a certain extent, when you have invested money in apps and devices that are useless with Android (HomePod for example). The stickiness of Apple's ecosystem is well known. But when that's not convenient you just say it's not a thing when that's patently false.
Just attacking the argument: your understanding of monopoly is wrong. Since you base all your argument on a wrong understanding, your whole comment is wrong.
So stop your ‘blah blah bullshit’.
Apple is not a monopoly.
My understanding is fine, you're misunderstanding, which is proven by you thinking this is about Apple being a monopoly. No one said Apple was a monopoly, which is where Microsoft's original antitrust lawsuit is different to Apple's, and where Brad Smith's comparison falls flat. Apple isn't a monopoly, macOS isn't a monopoly, iOS isn't a monopoly. The App Store on iOS may be a monopoly. Either way as others have stated, you don't have to be a monopoly to be convicted of monopolistic practises.
Apple could offer a "pro mode" for iOS which would allow users to take more risk and do more things on the platform. One of the things users could do is to install third party app stores. This would be good for professional users that need to get work done without Apple's restrictions. It would usher in a lot of really great ideas that cannot currently be implemented on the platform. The best of those could end up as officially supported features on the safe version of iOS.
Some popular games have modes that allow for extreme modding and hacks of the games. Users of those versions can only use specific servers so that users who choose to play by the rules are not affected. This greatly reduced cheating on the main servers while still allowing users to be as creative as they want on the hack servers. Apple could learn a valuable lesson here.
So Microsoft thinks the situation is worse than what they were doing.
A reminder: Microsoft was charging computer makers a Windows license fee for every computer they sold … whether Windows was installed on the machine or not.
Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.
That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride? I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers. What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.
Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains. There is only one App Store. If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B. There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem. That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.
It’s not like comparing two grocery stores, it’s like comparing selling the goods yourself on a market stall as opposed to selling it through a distributor who takes care of marketing, excess stock losses, payment management, distibution and quality control of your product for you. All of which costs.
What about Microsofts Xbox? There's only one store on there, why can't I buy software from someone else on my Xbox?
I buy XBOX games from Amazon and Best Buy. There is also Walmart, Target, and hundreds of other places. Where can you get iPhone apps but the App Store?
Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.
That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride? I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers. What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.
Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains. There is only one App Store. If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B. There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem. That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.
It’s not like comparing two grocery stores, it’s like comparing selling the goods yourself on a market stall as opposed to selling it through a distributor who takes care of marketing, excess stock losses, payment management, distibution and quality control of your product for you. All of which costs.
That's another analogy that works, except there isn't a "market stall" available for iPhone apps as an alternative to a distributor (Apple). If there were other ways to market and sell iPhone apps, that creates competition and lower fees as developers search for the lowest cost to distribute their app.
Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.
That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride? I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers. What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.
Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains. There is only one App Store. If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B. There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem. That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.
LOL. So by you argument the manufacturer has a choice to sell at store B with 10% fee, and is by doing this entitled to sell in Store A with the same fee?
It looks like you think so. Because you demand to sell in Apple’s Store/ecosystem by grocery Store B rules. Why do you think so that grocery store A should allow grocery store B to sell on its land?
No. That is an example of competition. The manufacturer goes to store B and shuns store A, who ends up losing out because of their higher fees. But with iOS, there is one store.
Imagine spending thousands of hours and tends of thousands of dollars creating, designing and refining a product which will only fit in slots in store A's shelves, and requires, say, flour to work. You go to store A and say "here is my product, please place it on your shelf". Store A then says hmm, no, we don't like that your product has a website address on wherein you might get flour cheaper than you can here, you have to sell your flour here and give us 30% of your revenue. So then you are stuffed if you still want to make money on the flour. You can't go to store B because their slots are different, you would have to spend tens of thousands again redesigning your product from the ground up to fit. Does that metaphor make it easier to understand why Apple's ecosystem could be seen as a monopoly?
You know the app company can make app for android or windows. No one force them to make app for iOS.
For the supermarket argument. It is like a company want to sell their products in Whole Food shelf but don’t want to pay a dime. They can sell somewhere else, but they argue that this is the place I want to sell and I don’t care how much you pay to build it and maintain it. This is pretty much Spotify.
Soon they will sue amazon and eBay with the same argument.
Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.
That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride? I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers. What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.
Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains. There is only one App Store. If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B. There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem. That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.
LOL. So by you argument the manufacturer has a choice to sell at store B with 10% fee, and is by doing this entitled to sell in Store A with the same fee?
It looks like you think so. Because you demand to sell in Apple’s Store/ecosystem by grocery Store B rules. Why do you think so that grocery store A should allow grocery store B to sell on its land?
No. That is an example of competition. The manufacturer goes to store B and shuns store A, who ends up losing out because of their higher fees. But with iOS, there is one store.
Imagine spending thousands of hours and tends of thousands of dollars creating, designing and refining a product which will only fit in slots in store A's shelves, and requires, say, flour to work. You go to store A and say "here is my product, please place it on your shelf". Store A then says hmm, no, we don't like that your product has a website address on wherein you might get flour cheaper than you can here, you have to sell your flour here and give us 30% of your revenue. So then you are stuffed if you still want to make money on the flour. You can't go to store B because their slots are different, you would have to spend tens of thousands again redesigning your product from the ground up to fit. Does that metaphor make it easier to understand why Apple's ecosystem could be seen as a monopoly?
Precisely what I was stating.
Poppycock. If you spend "thousands of hours and [tens] of thousands of dollars", then you better have a business plan that makes a profit in the first place, including the costs of doing business. That's called a "red herring" argument.
You enter the Apple App Store fully aware that you'll pay 30% for the first year and 15% thereafter. It doesn't somehow "sneak up on you".
Not sure how a company can violate antitrust laws over something which only affects the company’s own market and further when that market isn’t the majority in the larger market...
And Cicilline saying "It's crushing small developers who simply can't survive with those kinds of payments...” is beyond ridiculous and points to a clear agenda that has nothing to do with truth or law.
Charging small developers 30%, like everyone else, is not crushing. Apple is not dictating how much a developer can charge for their products. If a developer needs a return of $3 on their product, and Apple takes $1 of that, the developer need only charge $4.30, not just $3 to get their needed $3 in return.
Any developer who doesn't get this simple math shouldn't be in business in the first place.
Comments
Imagine spending thousands of hours and tends of thousands of dollars creating, designing and refining a product which will only fit in slots in store A's shelves, and requires, say, flour to work. You go to store A and say "here is my product, please place it on your shelf". Store A then says hmm, no, we don't like that your product has a website address on wherein you might get flour cheaper than you can here, you have to sell your flour here and give us 30% of your revenue. So then you are stuffed if you still want to make money on the flour. You can't go to store B because their slots are different, you would have to spend tens of thousands again redesigning your product from the ground up to fit. Does that metaphor make it easier to understand why Apple's ecosystem could be seen as a monopoly?
Just attacking the argument: your understanding of monopoly is wrong. Since you base all your argument on a wrong understanding, your whole comment is wrong.
Some popular games have modes that allow for extreme modding and hacks of the games. Users of those versions can only use specific servers so that users who choose to play by the rules are not affected. This greatly reduced cheating on the main servers while still allowing users to be as creative as they want on the hack servers. Apple could learn a valuable lesson here.
Soon they will sue amazon and eBay with the same argument.
You enter the Apple App Store fully aware that you'll pay 30% for the first year and 15% thereafter. It doesn't somehow "sneak up on you".
Doh.
Any developer who doesn't get this simple math shouldn't be in business in the first place.