State Reps. Regina Cobb and Leo Biasiucci, the co-sponsors of the legislation, wrote in an op-ed that the bill would end the "monopoly" that Apple and Google have on their respective mobile ecosystems.
"The legislation would allow web developers to accept payments for their apps without going through Apple or Google's app stores, bypassing the app tax and reducing the cost for consumers without compromising security or safety," the representatives wrote.
Web developers? They can't even get the concepts right in their media statement.
When do they get to work to end the "monopoly" that McDonald's & Burger King have over their respective menus & food vendors? Currently sushi vendors are prohibited from selling to consumers in these establishments by the iron fist of corporate gatekeepers.
Another issue: Apple
pretends in ads that iPads are computers, so the customer perception is that
iPads are computers, like any other computer. I and millions of others buy a
computer to do whatever we want with it. It is not Apple’s decision to tell me
what to run on a device which they are advertising as a computer. That simple is it.
If you don't know what you're buying, maybe you shouldn't buy it? Accept responsibility for the choices you make.
Apple has their own store because it costs them $ to vet apps and run the store. They do not charge for free apps, but they do take a cut of in-app purchases to pay for the store. What right does Arizona have to tell a company that they have to allow the free app, and then not take a cut of the in-app purchase?
This argument is
invalid. Apple does not vet an App each time someone make a purchase, Apple
vets an App initially and at subsequent updates.
Have you ever heard that airlines pay percentages of each ticket to Boeing or Airbus? Have you ever heard of taxi
companies sharing their profits with the car manufacturer? They pay for the car
and for maintenance, but do not pay a percentage of each ride's fees to the car
manufacturer.
Apple does not share
the loss of the App developers, so Apple should also not share their profits.
Apple should just invoice the developer for the App store.
Apple is not doing a
favour to developers by providing the App Store: it help Apple to sell more
devices. Isn't that superior App Store not the argument of many Apple fans for buying Apple devices? The superior aspect is not the user interface of the App Store, it is the collection of its Apps.
And yet shopping malls you know those places where people go to buy things, do in fact base rent paid on the revenue generated by individual stores.
I'm probably on your side on this argument, but your statement needs a little correction. The malls that I know about charge tenants based on the average sales across the entire mall, not the revenue generated by individual stores. And because of this, stores end up paying more rent if an Apple Store moves in. While that sounds like a bad thing, an Apple Store also doubles (or triples) the foot traffic in a mall, so the increased rent tends to be offset by more customers.
If you think about it, it kinda makes sense. Total sales is a reflection of the value of a square foot of mall space. How else would you define the value of a square foot of space apart from how much that space in that mall sells per unit time? It's completely logical. It also implies that the mall owners require the mall tenants to inform them how much they sell each year. It's probably a requirement of the lease to report this data.
The logic here is that a mall owner has an incentive to gets an Apple Store to move in as it would lead to more foot traffic for all the stores in the mall and more foot traffic leads to more sales and more sales leads to more rent collected, once a store passes a certain amount of gross sales.
It would be unfair for a store in the mall selling products with a low profit margin, that don't attract Apple Store shoppers, to have to pay rent based on how much revenue the Apple Store generates for the mall owner.
The value of a square foot of mall space before it's rented out is only based on foot traffic and the type of customers the mall attracts. The dollar value per square foot can not be determine before the retailer moves in. Two stores with the same square footage but one sells a lot of high profit margin products while the other sells enough low profit margin product to stay in business, would have two different dollar value per square foot. Yet both are the same square footage and in the same mall. The dollar amount of a square foot can only be determined after the retailer moves in and begins to sell stuff. It is not based on how much an Apple Store makes per square foot of mall space. The more rent collected from stores with a high dollar value per square foot, is from the percent of the gross profit that store has to pay, in addition to the rent.
The article you cited spoke mostly about percentages and minimums, neither of which are being argued here. The point under discussion is whether the square footage is based on the mall's average value or the individual store's. Either way, the results are quite similar, because if an Apple Store moves into a mall, everyone's sales go up because of increased foot traffic. So if you feel that you won this argument, feel free. Either way, the value per square foot still depends on whether the mall contains an Apple store or not.
The agreement you cited is not a mandatory formula for all malls in America. Some of them use the formula I described, which is based on the mall's average sales per square foot of the mall as a whole. It will work out quite similarly in either case.
I don’t see why Apole cannot refuse to sell Epic products just like any restaurant can refuse service to anyone. More lawsuits coming
Apple is not obligated to sell any app just like Walmart cannot be required to sell a product. I’d just cut out Epic now. No one will miss their apps.
Good luck with that!
First of all, there
will be a class lawsuit instantly. Many people would argue that they
bought their iOS device also because of Epic’s game.
Another issue: Apple
pretends in ads that iPads are computers, so the customer perception is that
iPads are computers, like any other computer. I and millions of others buy a
computer to do whatever we want with it. It is not Apple’s decision to tell me
what to run on a device which they are advertising as a computer. That simple is it.
If you felt that way, why don't you sue Apple right now for not allowing apps that show violence, or porn, or smoking? There are a billion iOS devices and not a single person is suing over this yet? Is that because they are all stupid or because they would lose the case? You have to answer that. Have you tried suing Walmart for not selling tobacco or porn in their stores? It's their store. It's not your store. Did you read your iOS license agreement when you accepted its terms?
Just because you imagine that you have full control over the operating system does not mean that you do. Your imagination has nothing to do with it.
Apple could remove any app from their store just because they don't like the app. They don't even need a reason. But Apple is very generous by giving reasons in its Guidelines and following the rules fairly and evenly. Apple is an angel and you are talking like they are a devil.
Sorry, but your Walmart example it is not worth to be answered.
Apple could remove any app from their store just because they don't like the app. They don't even need a reason.
Aha, so company A is specialized
in developing iOS Apps and the living of several people depends on that
company.
You are seriously
saying Apple could simply remove the apps from the company A just because Apple
does not like the app? If you want to be taken seriously in a discussion,
please first come up with some serious arguments.
I feel completely victorious when my opponent's only responses are "your statements are unworthy to be answered."
Your comment about "Company A" makes no sense. Are you trying to say that Apple has no right to "refuse wages" of anyone who wants to put an app on the store? how on earth do you come to that conclusion?
You fail to understand that in case of App Store you have no other choice but using Apple's payment system. But airlines can sell their tickets through whatever channel they want and if they decide to use a 3rd party channel, they are hapy to pay for it. But they are not forced to sell the tickets through Airbus or Boeing.
But airlines own the plane, whereas you as an end user do not own the operating system or the online services that Apple runs. How do you explain that difference?
If Apple took a percentage of app sales, but not a percentage of in-app sales, then why wouldn't all apps convert to free apps and take all their money from in-app sales?
Most apps that have in-app purchases have free initial downloads. That means that Apple would get zero revenue for hosting the app, promotion services and paying vendors for bandwidth and delivery mechanisms around the world.
How is that even fair?
There are several ways Apple can respond:
1) drop the app completely 2) block downloads of the specific application from the App Store if you’re in Arizona - or require different versions 3) charge app developers a huge premium for shelf-space on the App Store if they bypass Apple for in-app purchases
A monopoly isn’t illegal but it can act in ways that are anti-competitive, which is illegal. I don’t see where that bar is met here. 30% (or 15% in some cases) of app revenue is not exorbitant or excessive. Nor can the government force Apple to support its competitors.
Imagine you had a software store and the developer of a hot app asked you, at your cost, to display boxes of their app. You had to constantly stock the shelves and store the boxes in the warehouse. But the boxes were given away for free. And then people who took the box home could go online and buy full versions and options of the software and you get nothing.
How long would you put up with that?
I don’t know who sponsored the bill but whoever did doesn’t understand business or value for services.
There are several ways Apple can respond: 2) block downloads of the specific application from the App Store if you’re in Arizona - or require different versions
I'm glad someone other than myself has suggested that Apple can withdraw services from a jurisdiction. I've been arguing this for roughly a year, and this is the first time I've seen anyone agree with me that this is even an option. Of course it's an option. In fact, it's already an existing solution because Apple already withholds online services from certain countries in the world, and not only countries subjected to US sanctions, but also countries of Apple's own choosing.
Apple has their own store because it costs them $ to vet apps and run the store. They do not charge for free apps, but they do take a cut of in-app purchases to pay for the store. What right does Arizona have to tell a company that they have to allow the free app, and then not take a cut of the in-app purchase?
Have you ever heard that airlines pay percentages of each ticket to Boeing or Airbus? Have you ever heard of taxi
companies sharing their profits with the car manufacturer? They pay for the car
and for maintenance, but do not pay a percentage of each ride's fees to the car
manufacturer.
Very bad analogy. Neither Boeing or Airbus maintains the airports where the airlines operate and sell tickets. The auto manufacturers of the taxi are not ones that are driving customers into taking a taxi. And In case you don't know, the app developers ARE NOT the ones that bought the iDevice and maintains it. Like an airline buying planes from Boeing or a taxi company buying cars from Ford. The person that bought the iDevice are not the ones that Apple are charging a percentage of, when they buy an app or make in-app purchases. The developers are charged and has to pay Apple a percentage of their sales. It's up to the developers to charge the device owners to make up for it.
Just like how the airlines have to pay the cities where they operate, a percentage of each ticket, in the form of an airport tax on every airline ticket sold. The cities own, maintains and set guidelines for the airports where airlines operates and make money (or at least try to make money.). And they pass the cost on to their flying customers. Just like how Apple owns, maintains and set guidelines for iOS on iDevices. Where developers operates and make money. And then passes the cost to iDevice customers. Here, Apple is the city owned airport and the airlines are the developers. Apple is not like Boeing or Airbus.
If you drive for a taxi company, you have to pay the taxi company a percentage of your fare. It can be as much as 40%. The taxi company own and maintains the taxi you are driving. They set the rules. They also pay for the taxi permit or medallion to operate that taxi. You want access to the taxi company car, permit or medallion, customers calling in for a taxi and advertising, you have to pay a percentage of your fare. And the percentage you have to pay is built into the fare you charge your customers. Here, the taxi company is like Apple and the taxi drivers driving for a taxi company, are like the developers. Apple is not like the auto manufacturer of the taxi.
And if you drive a taxi and want to pick up passengers at a city own airport, you have to pay the city a fee for that privilege of accessing customers at their airport. Just like how developers have to pay Apple, Google, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, for the privilege of accessing customers at their "airports".
My analogy is the perfect one actually. I hoped it would be clear what the actual argument is but it seems that you need an extra explanation.
You fail to understand that in case of App Store you have no other choice but using Apple's payment system. But airlines can sell their tickets through whatever channel they want and if they decide to use a 3rd party channel, they are hapy to pay for it. But they are not forced to sell the tickets through Airbus or Boeing.
And the bill in question is exactly about this. Actually every discussion about the App Store and the Apple tax is about being forced to go through Apple. Apple is behaving as acting as a ruthless pi mp, whether you like it or not.
So if that is the case, then Epic should not have a problem with Apple still charging them a "tax", even if Epic were allowed to set you their own payment system in iOS. Epic won't have to go through iTunes but still have to pay a percentage of their sale to Apple, like how stores in malls has to pay a percentage of their gross sales to the mall owner and they can use any payment method they want. You actually think that? Apple could say that only 3% of the 30% "tax" they charge go towards processing the sale. The other 27% % is for maintaining iOS and the iDevice and keeping them secure so that Epic can access iOS customers to sell apps, without compromising their security of the security of their iDevice. Would you be happy with that? You think Sweeney would all of sudden claim victory because Epic can now process their own in-app payments and save 3% on the Apple "tax".
No where in this bill does it state that Apple can not still charge Epic a "tax", for accessing iOS users. It only states that Epic should be allowed to process their own in-app payments and not have to go through Apple iTunes.
This is not about the Apple only having one way for developers to collect payment. This is about Epic wanting access to iOS customers and not wanting to pay Apple anything for that privilege. Not even for the free app they have in iOS. If they were to process their own in-app payments, they would be able to keep all of it away from Apple and there would be no way for Apple to get their percentage. If they try, Epic will go the route that Apple has a "monopoly" with their App Store and is abusing that "monopoly" by forcing developers to pay them for accessing customers that uses iDevices.
If that is what you think the issue is, then why do Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo get to only have one payment system in their game console stores? Why do AmazonMarketPlace sellers have to go through Amazon checkout for all their sales? Why aren't you calling Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo "a ruthless pi mp" for operating exactly the type of stores in their X-Box, PlayStation and Switch, as Apple do in their iDevices. Because some BS bill written by Epic lobbyist, for clueless politicians, say the game consoles are different? What difference would it make if games consoles are different, when developers only having one payment system is the real issue?
Let me ask you this. If you were to try to sell something on consignment in an antique store or a pawn shop, where the owner of the shop will get a commission if one of their customers buy your item, do you get to bitch about how the person that bought your item can only pay using the shop owner payment system? You would rather the buyer pay you directly, so you don't have to pay the shop owner the commission for what you think is only for ..... processing the payment. You think the shop owner would be acting like "a ruthless pi mp"?
BTW- if a "pi mp" lets his girls keep 70% of what they make, that doesn't come close to being "ruthless", specially for a "pi mp". Or maybe you also don't understand how a "pi mp" operates.
So, if this passes, developers can cut Apple out completely from their revenue stream? Do these developers get to be in the App Store and pay absolutely no compensation to Apple for providing the platform on which to hawk their wares? If that’s the case then why would Apple continue to support the App Store since they get no income from it? What would happen if Apple were to simply shut down the App Store, allow sideloading, and let developers fend for themselves in terms of setting up their own stores, their own payment platforms, and their own advertising?
Are App Stores on their way out and we return to the 1980s when developers were on their own in selling their wares? It sure seems like it.
Adding on to this. What if Apple stopped developing Xcode. Or charge for it. Would developers then need to rely on third party tools to create apps. It’s a big box of unknowns.
Apple's response to this might be to change its developer licensing agreements to explicitly separate fees for processing payments from fees for using Apple's IP. As it is those things, and others, are effectively covered by the 30% or 15%. But Apple could say something like... you have the right to use our IP under these conditions but if you sell iOS apps or sell digital goods through iOS apps then you have to pay us 25% of the revenue generated from that monetization of our IP. If we process payments for you we will charge you an additional 5%.
States might be able to require Apple to allow other payment systems in some circumstances. But they wouldn't be able to tell Apple that it can't do more or less what I described above. States are effectively preempted by federal law when it comes to copyright issues. Generally speaking they can't, e.g., prohibit companies from exercising their copyrights in ways which are allowed by federal law - e.g., by applying a licensing fee as a condition of using their IP in certain ways.
The Hell with that. If developers want to process their own payments, then Apple should charge them more than a 30% commission, like 35%, to use Apple's IP. After all. it will cost Apple more in accounting work to collect their commission and the cost to make the changes to the App Store/ iOS that would allow for this, without compromising security. So far, none of these bills have clearly stated that Apple can not still charge a commission form developers that are making money on iOS. Or that Apple must lower their commission rate, if developers were to process their own payments. Just because developers can process their own payments, if they chose to, it doesn't mean that Apple is saving anything by giving them that choice.
As the last couple of posts have indicated, Apple has plenty of trump cards up its sleeve that it can play. And the "ace of trump" will be to shut down the app store, but they have other trump cards that can also be played to win the trick.
Comments
When do they get to work to end the "monopoly" that McDonald's & Burger King have over their respective menus & food vendors? Currently sushi vendors are prohibited from selling to consumers in these establishments by the iron fist of corporate gatekeepers.
Just read the bolded part. They own the ecosystems. It's their product. It's their decision on how to manage it.
The agreement you cited is not a mandatory formula for all malls in America. Some of them use the formula I described, which is based on the mall's average sales per square foot of the mall as a whole. It will work out quite similarly in either case.
I feel completely victorious when my opponent's only responses are "your statements are unworthy to be answered."
Your comment about "Company A" makes no sense. Are you trying to say that Apple has no right to "refuse wages" of anyone who wants to put an app on the store? how on earth do you come to that conclusion?
How is that even fair?
There are several ways Apple can respond:
1) drop the app completely
2) block downloads of the specific application from the App Store if you’re in Arizona - or require different versions
3) charge app developers a huge premium for shelf-space on the App Store if they bypass Apple for in-app purchases
A monopoly isn’t illegal but it can act in ways that are anti-competitive, which is illegal. I don’t see where that bar is met here. 30% (or 15% in some cases) of app revenue is not exorbitant or excessive. Nor can the government force Apple to support its competitors.
Imagine you had a software store and the developer of a hot app asked you, at your cost, to display boxes of their app. You had to constantly stock the shelves and store the boxes in the warehouse. But the boxes were given away for free. And then people who took the box home could go online and buy full versions and options of the software and you get nothing.
How long would you put up with that?
I don’t know who sponsored the bill but whoever did doesn’t understand business or value for services.
No where in this bill does it state that Apple can not still charge Epic a "tax", for accessing iOS users. It only states that Epic should be allowed to process their own in-app payments and not have to go through Apple iTunes.
This is not about the Apple only having one way for developers to collect payment. This is about Epic wanting access to iOS customers and not wanting to pay Apple anything for that privilege. Not even for the free app they have in iOS. If they were to process their own in-app payments, they would be able to keep all of it away from Apple and there would be no way for Apple to get their percentage. If they try, Epic will go the route that Apple has a "monopoly" with their App Store and is abusing that "monopoly" by forcing developers to pay them for accessing customers that uses iDevices.
If that is what you think the issue is, then why do Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo get to only have one payment system in their game console stores? Why do AmazonMarketPlace sellers have to go through Amazon checkout for all their sales? Why aren't you calling Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo "a ruthless pi mp" for operating exactly the type of stores in their X-Box, PlayStation and Switch, as Apple do in their iDevices. Because some BS bill written by Epic lobbyist, for clueless politicians, say the game consoles are different? What difference would it make if games consoles are different, when developers only having one payment system is the real issue?
Let me ask you this. If you were to try to sell something on consignment in an antique store or a pawn shop, where the owner of the shop will get a commission if one of their customers buy your item, do you get to bitch about how the person that bought your item can only pay using the shop owner payment system? You would rather the buyer pay you directly, so you don't have to pay the shop owner the commission for what you think is only for ..... processing the payment. You think the shop owner would be acting like "a ruthless pi mp"?
BTW- if a "pi mp" lets his girls keep 70% of what they make, that doesn't come close to being "ruthless", specially for a "pi mp". Or maybe you also don't understand how a "pi mp" operates.