Apple quietly buying app ads that funnel users to the App Store, developers claim [u]

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36
    I think the developers missed the very first section of the developer guidelines (Paid applications agreement):

    1.1 You hereby appoint Apple and Apple Subsidiaries (collectively “Apple”) as: (i) Your agent for the marketing and delivery of the Licensed Applications

    Apple really can’t win….one minute their commission is too expensive and nothing more than a credit card surcharge….next minute Apple is doing too much by advertising and directing users to their apps.

    Are developers really that naive to think that Apple would provide advertising that directs users to a webpage vs the corresponding App Store page?
    watto_cobracoolfactor
  • Reply 22 of 36
    crowley said:
    georgie01 said:
    It amazes me to see more and more developers who feel entitled to have their app on the App Store with free distribution, investing very little money for Apple’s developer program (which used to be far more costly with far less benefits) and zero investment to be on the App Store. Many of them weren’t even in meaningful existence as developers prior to Apple’s work.
    It amazes me that I don't see more users who feel entitled to run any apps they want on the devices they own. You are missing out on so many amazing apps that can never exist because they don't follow the rules Apple created only to benefit themselves. For example, having Steam running games in a virtual machine would be great to have on iOS.
    I absolutely love playing Steam games in a virtual machine on my Android device!

    ... oh wait, that's not actually a thing.

    Everything is amazing when your imagination isn't constrained by reality.
    I run Parallels on my M1 Mac mini and run Steam in Windows 11. The M1 is in the current iPad Pro and the A14 in the iPhone 13 Pro is only slightly slower. So yes, as a matter of fact, it is actually a thing. Android phones likely don't do it because A: There is no VM that can run Windows 10 currently for Android. And B: Android CPUs are quite a bit slower than the M1.
    However they are working on it. Not sure where this project stands currently.
    https://www.xda-developers.com/developers-port-windows-10-on-arm-to-the-samsung-galaxy-s8-and-other-snapdragon-835-powered-phones/
    edited November 2021 maximaraPShimi
  • Reply 23 of 36
    georgie01 said:
    It amazes me to see more and more developers who feel entitled to have their app on the App Store with free distribution, investing very little money for Apple’s developer program (which used to be far more costly with far less benefits) and zero investment to be on the App Store. Many of them weren’t even in meaningful existence as developers prior to Apple’s work.
    It amazes me that I don't see more users who feel entitled to run any apps they want on the devices they own. You are missing out on so many amazing apps that can never exist because they don't follow the rules Apple created only to benefit themselves. For example, having Steam running games in a virtual machine would be great to have on iOS.
    No people are missing out on so many amazing apps because programmers don't write programs for MacOS/iOS but rather Windows/Android.  It has nothing to do with Apple's 15%/30% fee as people program for consoles (Playstation, Xbox, and Nintendo) which have a far larger market than PCs which charge 30%.

    The reality is programmers write programs for the largest market and at 16.7% (iOS) and 6.86 (MacOS) many figure it just isn't worth the extra effort.  Heck, there are console titles that aren't even made for Windows because the market for them on that platform is considered the extra effort.
    edited November 2021 williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 36
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,535member
    maximara said:
    mejsric said:
    These developers should be happy that Apple Developer Program annual fee is only 99 USD. 
    Renting space on stores/malls is very expensive.
    A friend of mine ran a little shops you see in the middle of indoor malls (about the size of a walk-in closet) back in the early 1990s.  He was paying $1000/month.
    Did your friend have to ask permission from the mall every time he wanted to sell a new product in his store?
    How much you want to bet that the mall owners has every right to restrict what can be sold from a booth they allow to operate inside their mall? It would be in the rent/lease  agreement. And what also can be in the rent/lease agreement, is a percentage of the gross receipt. 

    These aren't really "stores". They are just little kiosk or countertops, set up in the middle of the walk way, outside the stores. The mall owner has every right to see that the products sold in these booths do not directly compete with the stores in the mall. Otherwise, store owners would complain, as these booths might be drawing away mall customers from their stores, because they operate with a lower overhead, selling to the same mall customers.

    That's why you don't see a booth selling Nike shoes, in front of a FootLocker. Or a booth selling the same Fossil watches, sold in the jewelry store right next to it. If a booth in front of a Game Stop was set up to sell custom printed tee-shirts and the operator started to sell video games, the mall owner could stop that. Usually these booths are restricted to products and services that are not readily available in any of the stores in the mall.  

    A mall owner has every right to not allow the sale of such products as legalized marijuana or e-cigarettes or allow a tattoo parlor or adult book store, in their mall. Even if some of their customers might be interesting in such products or services. But if customers shopping at the mall can't find a store that sells what they are looking for, can they sue and force the mall owner to allow a store that does?  

    The bottom line is that the mall owner can very well restrict what can be sold from that booth because the booth is operating on the mall owner property and selling to the mall owner customers.  The mall owner can be said to have a "monopoly" on the customers that shop at the mall and "monopolistic power" on who can operate a store in the mall and place limits on what they can sell. But it's not the "monopoly" and "monopolistic power"  that can be subject to anti-trust laws under the Sherman Act.  Otherwise every mall owner could be sued for having a "monopoly"  in a "market", that consist only of their own mall customers and "monopolistic power" on who can operate a store, on their own mall property.  

    And if you can understand this much, you would know why the Judge in the Epic vs Apple case, ruled that Apple can not have a monopoly (with iOS) or monopolistic power (with the Apple app Store), that falls under anti-trust laws, if the "relevant market" is narrowed down to a single brand.  

    https://www.lit-antitrust.shearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Finds-That-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Technology-Platform
    edited November 2021 williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 36
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,535member
    Beats said:
    They’re bit*hing that Apple may be advertising for them?!?!


    W T F!!!???

    If I was a small developer* I’d love for Apple to develop for me!! I’d let them take 50% of the damn revenue! I’d bend over and let Tim rape me for those free ads!

    *I know these are big developers. I’m just further proving how entitled and ungrateful they’ve become.
    OK how would Apple react if someone placed ads for Apple apps on the App Store that directed people to some other web site which had legal tools to jailbreak iPhones?
    Maybe this is how Apple is reacting to developers placing ads (and soon being able to do so in their apps) directing Apple customers to pay over the internet on the developer  own website, instead of with their iTunes account in iOS, for the sole purpose of not having to pay Apple a  commission for the use of Apple IP and access to Apple iDevice customers. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 36
    georgie01 said:
    It amazes me to see more and more developers who feel entitled to have their app on the App Store with free distribution, investing very little money for Apple’s developer program (which used to be far more costly with far less benefits) and zero investment to be on the App Store. Many of them weren’t even in meaningful existence as developers prior to Apple’s work.
    Yeah right, like everything you have on your computer was downloaded from the Apple App Store /s If not you are one big hypocritical db.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 27 of 36
    carthusia said:
    Everyone loves capitalism until it hurts their bottom line.
    Everyone loves everything good until they don’t. 

    What’s confusing here is that Apple is actually paying for them exposure to help developers MAKE money. Win-win. And supposedly some (maybe Sweeney’s poker buddies) are actually complaining. It makes zero sense. 




    williamlondoncoolfactorDogperson
  • Reply 28 of 36
    I can confirm that Apple recently did a mass email that featured one of my apps, so Apple *IS* promoting developers' apps. My brother forwarded the email to me and asked if I'd paid Apple for it. Nope. I'm very happy about it -- free advertising. Any developer complaining about free advertising is crazy. If they don't want to be in the App Store, get out of the App Store.
    williamlondoncoolfactorDogperson
  • Reply 29 of 36
    maximara said:
    The reality is programmers write programs for the largest market and at 16.7% (iOS) and 6.86 (MacOS) many figure it just isn't worth the extra effort.  Heck, there are console titles that aren't even made for Windows because the market for them on that platform is considered the extra effort.
    Pretty sure developers choose platforms based on profits, not market share. If game devs only chased market share, they would just write for Android. Recent WSJ analysis says Apple earns more money from gaming than Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo combined.
  • Reply 30 of 36
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,471member
    maximara said:
    mejsric said:
    These developers should be happy that Apple Developer Program annual fee is only 99 USD. 
    Renting space on stores/malls is very expensive.
    A friend of mine ran a little shops you see in the middle of indoor malls (about the size of a walk-in closet) back in the early 1990s.  He was paying $1000/month.
    Did your friend have to ask permission from the mall every time he wanted to sell a new product in his store?
    Those were the terms of the lease…but I will tell you as one who has a lease for a store…part of that lease limits what the owner can allow into the strip mall.  I bet that individual did have restrictions on what could be sold in their little shop and that is normal in mall type environments.
    edited November 2021 Dogperson
  • Reply 31 of 36
    maximara said:
    georgie01 said:
    It amazes me to see more and more developers who feel entitled to have their app on the App Store with free distribution, investing very little money for Apple’s developer program (which used to be far more costly with far less benefits) and zero investment to be on the App Store. Many of them weren’t even in meaningful existence as developers prior to Apple’s work.
    It amazes me that I don't see more users who feel entitled to run any apps they want on the devices they own. You are missing out on so many amazing apps that can never exist because they don't follow the rules Apple created only to benefit themselves. For example, having Steam running games in a virtual machine would be great to have on iOS.
    No people are missing out on so many amazing apps because programmers don't write programs for MacOS/iOS but rather Windows/Android.  It has nothing to do with Apple's 15%/30% fee as people program for consoles (Playstation, Xbox, and Nintendo) which have a far larger market than PCs which charge 30%.

    The reality is programmers write programs for the largest market and at 16.7% (iOS) and 6.86 (MacOS) many figure it just isn't worth the extra effort.  Heck, there are console titles that aren't even made for Windows because the market for them on that platform is considered the extra effort.
    Trust me, the iOS market is plenty big enough to attract developers (I am one of them). The reason you are not seeing the same kind of apps on iOS that you do on Windows has nothing to do with market size or physical capabilities of the devices. It is entirely due to the restrictions Apple places on developers and users. Most of the rules are actually to prevent you the user from doing things that Apple does not want you to do. There are programming tools that allow cross platform development. Microsoft even has one of these built into the free version of their development platform. There is even a version of it that runs on the Mac. The only barrier to entry is Apple itself.
  • Reply 32 of 36
    mejsric said:
    These developers should be happy that Apple Developer Program annual fee is only 99 USD. 
    Renting space on stores/malls is very expensive.

    Exactly.

    I have a _very small_ retail space for my Asian grocery store. Just renting the space itself is $1700/month. Then there's insurance, security, electricity, internet, phone service and advertising. And that's all without having anything on the shelves. To have a store that people want to walk into you, then you need to spend $3000+ for product every 6 weeks.

    Developers of apps get ALL of this for free from Apple. Their only responsibiliy is spending the time needed to create a quality app that people want to use and pay for ... with money or time.
    williamlondonDogperson
  • Reply 33 of 36
    georgie01 said:
    It amazes me to see more and more developers who feel entitled to have their app on the App Store with free distribution, investing very little money for Apple’s developer program (which used to be far more costly with far less benefits) and zero investment to be on the App Store. Many of them weren’t even in meaningful existence as developers prior to Apple’s work.
    It amazes me that I don't see more users who feel entitled to run any apps they want on the devices they own. You are missing out on so many amazing apps that can never exist because they don't follow the rules Apple created only to benefit themselves. For example, having Steam running games in a virtual machine would be great to have on iOS.

    It's important to not confuse freedom with entitlement. Freedom can exist within boundaries, much like freedom within a country's borders.

    There is a real cost behind the platforms that Apple has built, maintains, supports and continues to evolve every year. Just because other platform developers (Microsoft, Google's Android, etc.) may have chosen a differrent approach does not invalidate Apple's chosen path. Rules are quite often in place to maintain some level of consistency and protection for users (sometimes even from themselves), and it's easy to spin that as Apple being some kind of self-serving evil corporation, just to serve one's personal viewpoint.

    Apple's platform has its own borders, for good reason.
    williamlondonDogperson
  • Reply 34 of 36

    Some developers told the publication that the ads could be hurting their businesses because of the 15% to 30% cut that Apple takes of app and in-app purchases.

    Read on AppleInsider
    Baloney.  Without that 15-30% cut that Apple takes, they wouldn't have a business in the first place.  This complaint amounts to "the people who enabled me to actually have a business are mean because they want a share of the profit they helped make."

    Horse puckey.
  • Reply 35 of 36
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,606member
    I bought a thunderbolt hub from CalDigit. When I did a search, several ads came up for Amazon, NewEgg, B&H, etc. The dock was the same price at B&H vs CalDigit so I chose to buy directly from CalDigit, but I didn't hear them complaining that B&H was paying to have their site come up on the internet search. How is this any different?
  • Reply 36 of 36
    MplsP said:
    I bought a thunderbolt hub from CalDigit. When I did a search, several ads came up for Amazon, NewEgg, B&H, etc. The dock was the same price at B&H vs CalDigit so I chose to buy directly from CalDigit, but I didn't hear them complaining that B&H was paying to have their site come up on the internet search. How is this any different?
    Interesting point. Perhaps the question becomes - what wholesale price does CalDigit sell their units to Amazon & Co. for? If it's 40% of the sale price then absolutely, but if it is say 85% then not really. It depends.

    My point is - I think the real issue is that developers are pricing their products too low, so their profit margin is razor thin, which is why they get bent out of shape that people buy the product via the App store instead of their direct sale store on their own website - they are losing more profit margins.
    This is what causes some devs to then go the subscription route - charge more that way, because when they increase the buy price customers look at another app that is cheaper, and buy that instead.

    If every dev was to raise their pricing to slightly more sane levels, then I think this whole debate would probably disappear.
    edited November 2021
Sign In or Register to comment.