This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
I think know what you mean by "root issue," although you didn't define it. If Apple's overall App Store requirements are rejected by the court, as I infer you want to see, then I sure hope Apple declares the App Store to be a "money losing venture" and completely removes its "third party App Store" from iOS. I think that would be great for Apple's profits because it means that Apple has exclusive rights to sell software for iOS.
Great for Apple? Hardly if what they claim about services revenue is true. Great for consumers if Apple is the only source of add-on functions and features? Not at all.
Why would you be cheering for the massive corporation to become even more massive? I doubt it would be an incentive for them to be more consumer responsive.
Well, you are cheering for Google every damned chance you get. Hypocrite?
I may have 1000 posts, but my memory isn't good enough to remember what posters said previously. I see your memory is not impaired.
If you don’t want Apple’s arrangement, get an Android device. Forcing Apple to accommodate third-party app stores or a complete software free-for-all model would actually remove choice from the marketplace for users who prefer Apple’s current business model.
Well said. The sad thing is there are people who actually want Apple to overhaul their App Store agreement, but not a single one of them has ever answered my questions about which particular conditions in the App Store agreement they want revoked. Basically, they want the App Store rules completely replaced with Google's rules. But they refuse to admit that. They simply won't answer questions that I've put to them over and over since the Epic case was launched. When someone refuses to answer direct, simple questions, that's when you know they are wrong.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
I think know what you mean by "root issue," although you didn't define it. If Apple's overall App Store requirements are rejected by the court, as I infer you want to see, then I sure hope Apple declares the App Store to be a "money losing venture" and completely removes its "third party App Store" from iOS. I think that would be great for Apple's profits because it means that Apple has exclusive rights to sell software for iOS. So for that reason, I'd be somewhat happy if Apple lost in court.
The root issue is if Apple limits competition and also abuses its position.
Apple has no obligation to have a third party app store at all. Right? Do you agree? And I can't figure out how OPENING its platform to third party apps is somehow LIMITING competition. How do you argue that? I just don't understand how you could possibly think that. Enlighten me.
Whether it has or doesn't have an obligation might not be of consequence. This will have to be decided.
What is clear IMO is that by not allowing any other App Store on iOS devices, Apple does limit competition. Is that legal? We'll have to wait and see.
It might be that expressly and explicitly informing customers prior to purchase could be enough.
When Spanish banks were dragged up to the EU courts because of so called floor clauses in mortgage contracts the causes themselves were not actually deemed illegal. However, it was determined that customers should have been made fully aware of them prior to signing the contracts. And when I say fully aware, I mean that their simple presence in the contract or having a public notary reading them prior to signing was not enough. The clauses had to be explained in very clear terms and be fully understood to the level of an average person with a basic education. Most banks couldn't demonstrate this and ended up returning billions to customers.
It might turn out (I have no idea) that Apple's situation is entirely legal but, just like with the Spanish banks, customers should be made fully aware of the App Store situation.
Of course if that were the case I very much doubt that Apple would continue as it is.
Personally, my feeling is that Apple will have problems as a result of the EU investigations. In other juristictions I wouldn't like to go out on a limb.
I'm sure the Apple-haters will come out of the woodwork again, today. Bear in mind that even 30% is a lot less than the 100% markup that was always the case when selling software in boxes in retail outlets.
Where you are wrong:
1. Users of other platforms have as much right to criticize Apple as Apple fans do in criticizing not only competitors like Microsoft, Google and Samsung but longterm partners like Intel whose CPUs are still going to be in the vast majority of Mac models available for least a year and which you same Apple fans still want people to buy to prevent the Mac market share from cratering.
2. Plenty of these so-called "Apple-haters" regularly buy Apple products. Including myself. I hold my Macs to the same standards that I hold the Android, ChromeOS, Windows and Linux devices that I use: I praise the things that I like about them and criticize the things that I do not. So do "Apple haters."
3. The 100% markup thing was Apple public relations. Good grief, I take what every corporation that is trying to sell me something - as well as every politician that is trying to get me to vote for them - with a grain of salt, even the companies whose products I like and consistently buy and the politicians that I generally support. Look, by the time the app store was created and certainly by the time it became large and influential enough to be considered its own marketplace with a billion consumers, buying software on CDs was long dead. Good grief, some companies had even stopped manufacturing computers with CDs by then! People were downloading Microsoft Office, video games, programming IDEs, video and audio editing software, operating system updates etc. over the Internet by then. The software CD/DVD sections were gathering dust. Do you know what the #1 casual video game entity was 10-15 years ago before iPhones and iPads - and yes Android devices - came along and killed them off? PopCap Games. So huge that EA bought them. While they - and their competitor BigFish Games - would send you a CD if you asked them for one, their entire business model was download based. What Tim Cook went to Congress and claimed was the software distribution model before home Internet usage by local telephone and cable companies - as opposed to junk like AOL - became widespread.
Let me put it plain and simple for all. It’s Apple Shareholders’ Store and Platform.
Shareholder expect the management to generate profits. Since Apple owns the store, they do not have to let anyone else in their store which exist to generate profit from their platform. Just because they are better at generating “ginormous” amounts of cash, that by itself does not give anyone the “RIGHT” to be in their store.
Let me put it plain and simple for you: regulators can step in to stop perceived abuse of markets by large players, no matter who owns the company or its components.
Shareholders do expect profits, but they also expect that whilst the long-term prospects of the company are not damaged due to generation of the profits in the short term. By getting to a point where regulators have begun investigations, Cook had set Apple up for short term gain but long term pain. And that pain has now arrived. Profit doesn't have to be Apple's sole objective, it certainly wasn't in the Jobs era, and Apple doesn't *have* to kowtow to shareholders. In fact Jobs famously said if you make great products the profit will come, he pretty much ignored profit and shareholders over making great products. Cook is totally different in that regard, he's almost solely profit-driven, he's all about the share price. Due to the primary objective of most companies to produce maximum profit, regulators are there to ensure abuse of the market doesn't happen.
I have not seen a single developer or anyone else spend a single penny when it comes to paying for Apple’s various yearly development, legal, contractors, patent, and employees cost. These costs are not cheap and shareholders expect the management to recover these costs.
Apple unlike most companies give a lot of other people and companies a free ride in respect to above listed cost. With that said helping the little guy/gal out is a good thing to do. But letting a million plus dollar corporations ride for free “ain’t” a thing I am prepared to forgive as an Apple shareholder.
The current 15 to 30 per cent is a bargain to what should be a higher rate for using Apple “privately owned” platform and gaining access to the platform customers. The last time I checked I do not think Macy’s has ever given Nordstrom equal access to its stores, customers or products. Nor has either one of them let someone display or sell a product in their stores for just 15 to 30 percent or for FREE!
Oh I didn't realise Macs were free. The £99 developer fee doesn't exist and the 15/30% cut doesn't exist? Damn well all those regulators must have it wrong and Apple are giving everyone a free ride. Well.
All I can say is I'm glad you aren't running Apple. You really think the iPhone would have the success it has now if they didn't have the huge variety of third party apps?
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
I think know what you mean by "root issue," although you didn't define it. If Apple's overall App Store requirements are rejected by the court, as I infer you want to see, then I sure hope Apple declares the App Store to be a "money losing venture" and completely removes its "third party App Store" from iOS. I think that would be great for Apple's profits because it means that Apple has exclusive rights to sell software for iOS.
Great for Apple? Hardly if what they claim about services revenue is true. Great for consumers if Apple is the only source of add-on functions and features? Not at all.
Why would you be cheering for the massive corporation to become even more massive? I doubt it would be an incentive for them to be more consumer responsive.
I noticed you cut out the last sentence I wrote, which is partly your answer. Why did you edit out the key point? I said "I would be somewhat happy if Apple lost in court." That is an explicit admission that I wouldn't be entirely happy. And the reason for that is that I don't actually want our privileges for writing and purchasing software removed. I'm just pointing out to the idiots out there that removing these privileges is not in their interest. I'm trying to show the negative consequences of their line of thought.
And in any case, what's evil about cheering for a big corporation to become bigger if I was doing that? Are corporations evil in your opinion? Why do you object to growing profits for Apple or any corporation? I know nothing about you, other than you have 22k posts. Are you opposed to capitalism?
Continuing off-topic for one post I firmly believe that consumers and tech in general benefits more from several smaller players all competing with innovations rather than 5 large ones buying up and absorbing any potential competition or intriguing developments. It's like the old business school example of the 80MPG carburetor and who would benefit more from buying the company producing it. Turns out to be the oil companies in order to keep it off the market and their gas prices high for as long as possible.
This is a very good move. 30% made sense when things were getting started and had to be built from the ground up. It’s up and running now, and 15% is more appropriate. This will help a lot of small developers.Epic of course wouldn't make the cut, so even better.
Now to end Apple’s commission on sales that don’t go through their store.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
I think know what you mean by "root issue," although you didn't define it. If Apple's overall App Store requirements are rejected by the court, as I infer you want to see, then I sure hope Apple declares the App Store to be a "money losing venture" and completely removes its "third party App Store" from iOS. I think that would be great for Apple's profits because it means that Apple has exclusive rights to sell software for iOS.
Great for Apple? Hardly if what they claim about services revenue is true. Great for consumers if Apple is the only source of add-on functions and features? Not at all.
Why would you be cheering for the massive corporation to become even more massive? I doubt it would be an incentive for them to be more consumer responsive.
Well, you are cheering for Google every damned chance you get. Hypocrite?
I may have 1000 posts, but my memory isn't good enough to remember what posters said previously. I see your memory is not impaired.
20K pro-google posts hard to miss.
LOL... You don't really pay attention to my posts so those little FUD bits you drop don't matter, nor would if it were true (it's not) make the specific argument I made invalid.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
There’s always that one guy that finds the negative in everything. In this case that one guy can’t even conjure up a reason or articulate the mysterious “root issue.”
This is a good move - I hope it will not be compensated by higher prices for Apple Search Ads (that many developers use to get their apps found). It would be definitely good if Apple would specify their income from the App Store and Search Ads in the quarterly results!
Developers bid for search ad placement so your post makes zero sense. The only way that ad pricing could go up is if another developer bids higher.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
There’s always that one guy that finds the negative in everything. In this case that one guy can’t even conjure up a reason or articulate the mysterious “root issue.”
I've mentioned it countless times in the past. My position hasn't changed.
In fact that root issue was outlined in the very same paragraph you are quoting :
"That there is only one App Store on Apple devices."
I prefer only the one place to go for trusted apps so Apple can spend its time on making a safe, secure and private quality ecosystem. Anyone advocating for a second source of apps hasn’t come up with a reasoned objective argument as to why that would be good.
This is a very good move. 30% made sense when things were getting started and had to be built from the ground up. It’s up and running now, and 15% is more appropriate. This will help a lot of small developers.Epic of course wouldn't make the cut, so even better.
Now to end Apple’s commission on sales that don’t go through their store.
What “commission on sales that don’t go through their store” are you referring to?
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
There’s always that one guy that finds the negative in everything. In this case that one guy can’t even conjure up a reason or articulate the mysterious “root issue.”
I've mentioned it countless times in the past. My position hasn't changed.
In fact that root issue was outlined in the very same paragraph you are quoting :
"That there is only one App Store on Apple devices."
I'm not one of those people that sees the single Apple app store as a problem, rather a beneficial feature, but of course, Apple will have the legal option of limiting liability of any iPhones connected to any other App Stores.
avon b7 said: "That there is only one App Store on Apple devices."
That's true, but it's also true that prices for apps and in-app purchases on the App Store aren't generally higher than on non-Apple devices that allow more than one store. When people talk about what device to buy, it's typically framed as a hardware feature comparison versus hardware price or an OS feature comparison, not one platform having cheaper software than the other.
Good move by Apple, and not unexpected considering their previous changes.
This won't have any effect on the antitrust cases since Apple is 100% in the right already. It's more like a little bonus to small developers, and takes away one of Epics claims (lies, actually) that their lawsuit is about helping small developers. It's all about greed, which is why Epic will lose spectacularly.
This is a very good move. 30% made sense when things were getting started and had to be built from the ground up. It’s up and running now, and 15% is more appropriate. This will help a lot of small developers.Epic of course wouldn't make the cut, so even better.
Now to end Apple’s commission on sales that don’t go through their store.
What “commission on sales that don’t go through their store” are you referring to?
You get the app from the app store, but then subscribe, purchase, rent something from the company who made the app. Ex; Netflix though there are many others. The sale does not go through Apple. Apple has no say over the content. Apple does not develop or produce any of the content or products. Apple does not host or stream any of the data. Apple has no tie at all to any later business transactions. Yet by virtue of hosting a few hundred mb of data sometimes years before Apple claims a cut of all later profits. That’s just wrong. Ive compared it to Toyota or Ford claiming a third of what you take as an Uber driver just because you bought one of their cars years before.
This is a very good move. 30% made sense when things were getting started and had to be built from the ground up. It’s up and running now, and 15% is more appropriate. This will help a lot of small developers.Epic of course wouldn't make the cut, so even better.
Now to end Apple’s commission on sales that don’t go through their store.
What “commission on sales that don’t go through their store” are you referring to?
You get the app from the app store, but then subscribe, purchase, rent something from the company who made the app. Ex; Netflix though there are many others. The sale does not go through Apple. Apple has no say over the content. Apple does not develop or produce any of the content or products. Apple does not host or stream any of the data. Apple has no tie at all to any later business transactions. Yet by virtue of hosting a few hundred mb of data sometimes years before Apple claims a cut of all later profits. That’s just wrong. Ive compared it to Toyota or Ford claiming a third of what you take as an Uber driver just because you bought one of their cars years before.
Uh, that already happens. Netflix and Spotify (for example) don't even have in-App purchases and completely bypass The App Store. This is allowed under App Store guidelines. You can also price your in-App purchases higher than direct if you wish, so the final amount ends up being the same (this is another policy Apple has changed where previously Apple required the in-App price and the outside price to be the same).
The only people whining about this are those who are trying to find a loophole to avoid paying fees on purchases for something used in the App itself by calling themselves a "content subscription".
This is a good move - I hope it will not be compensated by higher prices for Apple Search Ads (that many developers use to get their apps found). It would be definitely good if Apple would specify their income from the App Store and Search Ads in the quarterly results!
Developers bid for search ad placement so your post makes zero sense. The only way that ad pricing could go up is if another developer bids higher.
I am not so sure about this, I think the current algorithm will prevent a developer who set an unrealistic high bid from completely owning a keyword. So how search results are divided to developers may not completely bound to the bid and the algorithm can be tuned for different objectives.
Comments
What is clear IMO is that by not allowing any other App Store on iOS devices, Apple does limit competition. Is that legal? We'll have to wait and see.
It might be that expressly and explicitly informing customers prior to purchase could be enough.
When Spanish banks were dragged up to the EU courts because of so called floor clauses in mortgage contracts the causes themselves were not actually deemed illegal. However, it was determined that customers should have been made fully aware of them prior to signing the contracts. And when I say fully aware, I mean that their simple presence in the contract or having a public notary reading them prior to signing was not enough. The clauses had to be explained in very clear terms and be fully understood to the level of an average person with a basic education. Most banks couldn't demonstrate this and ended up returning billions to customers.
It might turn out (I have no idea) that Apple's situation is entirely legal but, just like with the Spanish banks, customers should be made fully aware of the App Store situation.
Of course if that were the case I very much doubt that Apple would continue as it is.
Personally, my feeling is that Apple will have problems as a result of the EU investigations. In other juristictions I wouldn't like to go out on a limb.
1. Users of other platforms have as much right to criticize Apple as Apple fans do in criticizing not only competitors like Microsoft, Google and Samsung but longterm partners like Intel whose CPUs are still going to be in the vast majority of Mac models available for least a year and which you same Apple fans still want people to buy to prevent the Mac market share from cratering.
2. Plenty of these so-called "Apple-haters" regularly buy Apple products. Including myself. I hold my Macs to the same standards that I hold the Android, ChromeOS, Windows and Linux devices that I use: I praise the things that I like about them and criticize the things that I do not. So do "Apple haters."
3. The 100% markup thing was Apple public relations. Good grief, I take what every corporation that is trying to sell me something - as well as every politician that is trying to get me to vote for them - with a grain of salt, even the companies whose products I like and consistently buy and the politicians that I generally support. Look, by the time the app store was created and certainly by the time it became large and influential enough to be considered its own marketplace with a billion consumers, buying software on CDs was long dead. Good grief, some companies had even stopped manufacturing computers with CDs by then! People were downloading Microsoft Office, video games, programming IDEs, video and audio editing software, operating system updates etc. over the Internet by then. The software CD/DVD sections were gathering dust. Do you know what the #1 casual video game entity was 10-15 years ago before iPhones and iPads - and yes Android devices - came along and killed them off? PopCap Games. So huge that EA bought them. While they - and their competitor BigFish Games - would send you a CD if you asked them for one, their entire business model was download based. What Tim Cook went to Congress and claimed was the software distribution model before home Internet usage by local telephone and cable companies - as opposed to junk like AOL - became widespread.
Let me put it plain and simple for you: regulators can step in to stop perceived abuse of markets by large players, no matter who owns the company or its components.
Shareholders do expect profits, but they also expect that whilst the long-term prospects of the company are not damaged due to generation of the profits in the short term. By getting to a point where regulators have begun investigations, Cook had set Apple up for short term gain but long term pain. And that pain has now arrived. Profit doesn't have to be Apple's sole objective, it certainly wasn't in the Jobs era, and Apple doesn't *have* to kowtow to shareholders. In fact Jobs famously said if you make great products the profit will come, he pretty much ignored profit and shareholders over making great products. Cook is totally different in that regard, he's almost solely profit-driven, he's all about the share price. Due to the primary objective of most companies to produce maximum profit, regulators are there to ensure abuse of the market doesn't happen.
Oh I didn't realise Macs were free. The £99 developer fee doesn't exist and the 15/30% cut doesn't exist? Damn well all those regulators must have it wrong and Apple are giving everyone a free ride. Well.
All I can say is I'm glad you aren't running Apple. You really think the iPhone would have the success it has now if they didn't have the huge variety of third party apps?
This is a very good move. 30% made sense when things were getting started and had to be built from the ground up. It’s up and running now, and 15% is more appropriate. This will help a lot of small developers.Epic of course wouldn't make the cut, so even better.
Now to end Apple’s commission on sales that don’t go through their store.
You don't really pay attention to my posts so those little FUD bits you drop don't matter, nor would if it were true (it's not) make the specific argument I made invalid.
Developers bid for search ad placement so your post makes zero sense. The only way that ad pricing could go up is if another developer bids higher.
In fact that root issue was outlined in the very same paragraph you are quoting :
"That there is only one App Store on Apple devices."
This won't have any effect on the antitrust cases since Apple is 100% in the right already. It's more like a little bonus to small developers, and takes away one of Epics claims (lies, actually) that their lawsuit is about helping small developers. It's all about greed, which is why Epic will lose spectacularly.
Uh, that already happens. Netflix and Spotify (for example) don't even have in-App purchases and completely bypass The App Store. This is allowed under App Store guidelines. You can also price your in-App purchases higher than direct if you wish, so the final amount ends up being the same (this is another policy Apple has changed where previously Apple required the in-App price and the outside price to be the same).
The only people whining about this are those who are trying to find a loophole to avoid paying fees on purchases for something used in the App itself by calling themselves a "content subscription".