Cook denied that certain larger developers are favored over others.
If Amazon didn't have to pay a 30% cut in its first year on the app store, then that sounds a lot like favouring a larger developer over a smaller one.
Amazon is not a 'developer' in the same way IMHO. Nor is Microsoft, Netflix and so on. They are part of a different business model in the same way Apple has corporate accounts, educational accounts, business accounts, and consumer accounts.
Unbelievable -- is everyone in here an Apple shareholder?
There's no other possible explanation for people begging on their knees to be restricted of their freedom to install any apps they please on their own device, paid for by them.
OT but IMHO, anyone that reads AI regularly that is not an Apple share holder is certainly missing out and not paying attention.
It seems that the loudest complaints come from those who want to violate Apple technical policies -- particularly those about privacy.
The parental control apps sited here were prime offenders: Apple aggressively protects their users by protecting their privacy. Letting some app developers (like these parental control apps that are essentially spyware) violate that privacy under the presumed privacy umbrella of Apple does a disservice to both Apple and its customers.
Cook denied that certain larger developers are favored over others.
If Amazon didn't have to pay a 30% cut in its first year on the app store, then that sounds a lot like favouring a larger developer over a smaller one.
However, if Apple feels that a certain service or app adds value to their platform, why shouldn’t they cut them a break and give them a discount ? Apple has in the past outright bought some of these developers because they thought their app or service was valuable.
Unbelievable -- is everyone in here an Apple shareholder?
There's no other possible explanation for people begging on their knees to be restricted of their freedom to install any apps they please on their own device, paid for by them.
Umm there is no such thing as “freedom” to install whatever you want on any device you want. It is and always has been up to the maker of that device to decide what features it comes with and how that feature set can be extended/expanded.
A great example of this is the “Classic” iPod... The only thing anyone could install were iPod games from the iTunes Store.
So if you buy a device from Apple and assume you can install apps from anywhere, that’s your fault for making an assumption. If you do not like that fact, you can return the device. Developers who enter into agreement with Apple know the terms Of the Developer Agreement.
I’m an iOS developer and I’ve worked for a bunch of companies. It’s not a level playing field. For example, one company (of about 6-8 devs) suspiciously always won 3+ tickets in the WWDC ticket lottery.
It’s a tough market for developers who don’t have tens of millions of investment or an intimate relationship with Apple. Ultimately smartphones, tablets and computers are nothing without good quality apps. The relationship between Apple and app developers is mutually beneficial when the relationship works.
The developers are riding the Apple horse. They expect Apple to provide the saddle, bridle, saddle blanket, feed, grooming and vet care - - while they expect to ride for a very small ticket price.
And the funniest thing is: nobody is forcing them to ride this horse, themselves are willing to....
Unbelievable -- is everyone in here an Apple shareholder?
There's no other possible explanation for people begging on their knees to be restricted of their freedom to install any apps they please on their own device, paid for by them.
I can only speak for myself, but when I got my first iPhone, a 4s, I had a pretty good idea of what I was getting into, which is a package deal of sorts. I knew the App Store was an integral part of the iPhone, love it or leave it. If there was app that I absolutely needed that I could not obtain through the App Store but was available on the Android platform, I would consider switching to that platform or carrying multiple phones, which I'd been doing for years anyway because I never used my work phone for personal business.
Freedom? Yes, I exercised my freedom of choice and selected the product that best fit my needs and budget. There's nothing theoretical or philosophical behind my product choices, it's all about finding the best fit and doing a little upfront research to get a handle on what each choice offers. If I discovered after the fact that I had made the wrong choice, that having the "Any" app on my phone was a make or break requirement, I would switch. Why keep using a tool that doesn't fit your needs? Staying on the Apple platform and being miserable about it is a choice and the remedy for it is completely in your own hands.
What these whiners cannot or will not understand is: Rules is rules -- and they are there for a reason: To protect Apple's customers from bad things like these spyware apps.
Cook denied that certain larger developers are favored over others.
If Amazon didn't have to pay a 30% cut in its first year on the app store, then that sounds a lot like favouring a larger developer over a smaller one.
I don't take issue with that when you take into consideration the terms fo the agreement.
Amazon Prime Video (which is what I gather this deal was about) provided a feed of their entire content library to the Apple TV service as a condition of obtaining a 15% fee rather than 30%. If I recall from the keynote that this service was originally announced no pricing was announced or implied and so the "deal" sits outside of the general 30% App Store terms.
Effectively, Apple was prepared to pay (or rebate) Amazon 50% of the 30% fee in the first year to get the Amazon Prime Video content on their TV service. What developer can claim a volume of content like that as a negotiation point? On a financial point, I'll bet that in Apple's accounts, Amazon's fee was accrued at 30% with the 50% rebate in the associated rebates line, in much the same way as happens across almost every business.
Without a doubt Apple’s legal department knew the App Store would eventually face an anti-trust suit. Undoubtedly they have options in mind to resolve this but the simplest is to offer payment tier options - continue with the 30% fees or payment based on revenue generated each month that the developer makes from the app. This is how shopping malls structure their rents.
Mall owners collect a base rent for space in the mall (that they built which created the draw for consumers to come and shop in one central location). The mall owner then collects quarterly/monthly fees based on store revenues generated - all sales based on the fact the retailer is generating business from the location and marketing of the mall itself.
The app developers for the most part haven’t thought far enough ahead to realize that lower fees will not be the result of their whining, but a more traditional rent payment system which will cost them more of their revenue than the current 30% arrangement. And all completely legal and tested in the marketplace for the last 70 years.
Apple collects WiFi information from every user of iOS along with location information without their express permission so it can build a massive database of WiFi hotspots that Apple uses (among other things) for location tracking. That's great but no part of that last sentence is possible for a third party developer. Level playing field, my ass!
You simply cannot create your own platform to sell iOS software outside AppStore without jailbreaking.
And is true that all developers are not (and cannot) be treated equal.
Something will probably change in the next two years, some outside developers have fair points on this topic.
The whole idea of creating your own platform is the ideal you're free to create your own hardware, operating system, and software delivery ecosystem. No one is requiring you have to play in the Apple sandbox. Remember Steve and Steve created the first Apple computer in their parents garage. And everything thing else is history. Oh I forgot it's lots of hard work, there are ups and downs and lots of failures before someone figured out the solution everyone wants. There is no guarantees and everyone is out to see you fail.
And is true that all developers are not (and cannot) be treated equal.
That does appear to be true, though a friend disagrees with me. His argument is that developers are treated equal because Apple will happily negotiate terms with any developer; its just that the larger ones have a better chance of success. For me personally, that doesn't work as an argument.
I’m curious why that argument doesn’t work for you. Maybe it’s not exactly the same but I see it as similar to making business purchases at the Apple Store. Apple offers discounts on hardware for businesses but to get that discount the business needs to spend a certain amount of money. If my small business only buys a MacBook Air this year I don’t qualify for any discount. However, we buy 10 MacBook Airs this year we will get a discount, and if we buy 100 MacBook Airs we’ll get an even larger discount. To me this App Store “unfairness” is akin to the one-person shop complaining that their sole business purchase for the year doesn’t qualify for the same discount that IBM gets when IBM buys thousands of computers a year. Instead of thinking in terms of dollars spent I think of it as “users attracted”. Does the Hey app bring as many people to iOS as Netflix or Prime video? My guess is no. But when Hey does, they can expect a volume discount.
Explain to me why you think its fair for you to get the same discount as someone who is spending 10x what you're spending. It's not like buying gas which is true consumer commodity if you buy 10 gallons of gas you pay the same price as the person buying 100 gallons for his motor home. There are things that everyone pays the same price and there are things that price is based on not only what you buy today but what you'll buy in the future. Then there are markets where everyone pays different price, you ever been to flee-market.
There's no other possible explanation for people begging on their knees to be restricted of their freedom to install any apps they please on their own device, paid for by them.
From one perspective, the "freedom" to install whatever I want sounds great. But one has only to look as far as the other platform to see all of the drawbacks that come with that "freedom". The basic problem is that--unfortunately--too many developers can't be trusted. Ad-ware, mal-ware, location tracking, clipboard snooping... all come from the ability to install anything from anywhere
Finally, IMHO side-loading would in all likelihood mean less money for developers, since that's the primary mechanism by which paid apps and games are ripped off (excuse me, shared) by people too cheap to spend a buck or two for an app.
There's no other possible explanation for people begging on their knees to be restricted of their freedom to install any apps they please on their own device, paid for by them.
From one perspective, the "freedom" to install whatever I want sounds great. But one has only to look as far as the other platform to see all of the drawbacks that come with that "freedom". The basic problem is that--unfortunately--too many developers can't be trusted. Ad-ware, mal-ware, location tracking, clipboard snooping... all come from the ability to install anything from anywhere
.....
T R U E !
And that's what everybody here seems to be missing! The App Store is much more than a market place where people set up stalls and sell things. It is an environment where it is made safe for the customer to browse and shop and know that they are protected. Not only is it a safe environment but, if there is a problem, the customer can always contact Apple to make it right.
A few years ago I remember some vendors were cheating on their age ratings. When complaints were issued,Apple made them fix it.
Unbelievable -- is everyone in here an Apple shareholder?
There's no other possible explanation for people begging on their knees to be restricted of their freedom to install any apps they please on their own device, paid for by them.
Or perhaps we’re not dumb enough to believe choice means freedom. Someone’s got a little defiance problem, growing up helps.
Comments
OT but IMHO, anyone that reads AI regularly that is not an Apple share holder is certainly missing out and not paying attention.
However, if Apple feels that a certain service or app adds value to their platform, why shouldn’t they cut them a break and give them a discount ? Apple has in the past outright bought some of these developers because they thought their app or service was valuable.
Umm there is no such thing as “freedom” to install whatever you want on any device you want. It is and always has been up to the maker of that device to decide what features it comes with and how that feature set can be extended/expanded.
A great example of this is the “Classic” iPod... The only thing anyone could install were iPod games from the iTunes Store.
So if you buy a device from Apple and assume you can install apps from anywhere, that’s your fault for making an assumption. If you do not like that fact, you can return the device. Developers who enter into agreement with Apple know the terms Of the Developer Agreement.
It’s a tough market for developers who don’t have tens of millions of investment or an intimate relationship with Apple. Ultimately smartphones, tablets and computers are nothing without good quality apps. The relationship between Apple and app developers is mutually beneficial when the relationship works.
Freedom? Yes, I exercised my freedom of choice and selected the product that best fit my needs and budget. There's nothing theoretical or philosophical behind my product choices, it's all about finding the best fit and doing a little upfront research to get a handle on what each choice offers. If I discovered after the fact that I had made the wrong choice, that having the "Any" app on my phone was a make or break requirement, I would switch. Why keep using a tool that doesn't fit your needs? Staying on the Apple platform and being miserable about it is a choice and the remedy for it is completely in your own hands.
Rules is rules -- and they are there for a reason: To protect Apple's customers from bad things like these spyware apps.
Amazon Prime Video (which is what I gather this deal was about) provided a feed of their entire content library to the Apple TV service as a condition of obtaining a 15% fee rather than 30%. If I recall from the keynote that this service was originally announced no pricing was announced or implied and so the "deal" sits outside of the general 30% App Store terms.
Effectively, Apple was prepared to pay (or rebate) Amazon 50% of the 30% fee in the first year to get the Amazon Prime Video content on their TV service. What developer can claim a volume of content like that as a negotiation point? On a financial point, I'll bet that in Apple's accounts, Amazon's fee was accrued at 30% with the 50% rebate in the associated rebates line, in much the same way as happens across almost every business.
From one perspective, the "freedom" to install whatever I want sounds great. But one has only to look as far as the other platform to see all of the drawbacks that come with that "freedom". The basic problem is that--unfortunately--too many developers can't be trusted. Ad-ware, mal-ware, location tracking, clipboard snooping... all come from the ability to install anything from anywhere
Finally, IMHO side-loading would in all likelihood mean less money for developers, since that's the primary mechanism by which paid apps and games are ripped off (excuse me, shared) by people too cheap to spend a buck or two for an app.
The App Store is much more than a market place where people set up stalls and sell things. It is an environment where it is made safe for the customer to browse and shop and know that they are protected. Not only is it a safe environment but, if there is a problem, the customer can always contact Apple to make it right.
A few years ago I remember some vendors were cheating on their age ratings. When complaints were issued,Apple made them fix it.
But, that policing does not come free.