Apple defeats developers seeking $200 billion over App Store 'tyrannical greed'

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 29
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,416member
    sflocal said:
    Developers nowadays that grew up with the "everything is free on the internet" mentality expect Apple to do all the work in obtaining/keeping loyal Apple customers and maintaining a huge app-store infrastructure and provide all that for free.
    This is exactly the genie in the bottle that companies like Google & Facebook let out by making software & services free and using advertising to pay for them.  This essentially devalued software as a product, to the point where no one feels that software is worth paying for anymore.  App developers are now at the mercy of this, and instead of seeing the root cause, they point the finger at Apple for taking a cut.
    williamlondondewmewatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 22 of 29
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,504member
    auxio said:
    sdw2001 said:

    I do think requiring Apple to allow third party, out-of-app payments is the right thing to do.  Apple shouldn't be able to interfere in any other business transactions between the customer and a developer.  As recently confirmed, Apple will argue they should still get their cut of any App-related transaction.
    The problem is that app developers will most certainly take advantage of this by making the app free to get on the app store, then use an out-of-app payment system to get any sort of functionality from it (basically move the entire app payment out of the App Store).

    That can be avoided by just incorporating a transaction authorization API. This still requires the authorization to go through Apple's App Store before a purchase can be made.

    Many developers get around this already by offering subscriptions to software and services directly on their websites. And offer up a free app on the App Store to access it. There's nothing wrong with that and Apple cared just enough that they disallowed developers from funneling users to their site from within the app. Although I think that's one of the issues that Apple "lost" in the Epic lawsuit.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 29
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,014member
    sflocal said:
    I remember the days of having to buy boxed software at stores like Fry's and CompUSA, or hope to go to some obscure website in the early days to purchase and by software and hope by credit card info did not get stolen.  What were the overhead figures for a developer back then?

    Nowadays, as a developer myself, I am embarrassed and ashamed for these so-called "developers" complaining about Apple.  Apple created a hugely successful App Store, giving the developer access to countless of customers, not dealing with any of the overhead headaches that old-school developers and companies had to deal with, and all they ask is a CHEAP 15-30% cut.  That is CHUMP CHANGE considering what they do.

    Developers nowadays that grew up with the "everything is free on the internet" mentality expect Apple to do all the work in obtaining/keeping loyal Apple customers and maintaining a huge app-store infrastructure and provide all that for free.

    Shame on you "developers".  As a developer myself... F**K you.
    It's never been a better time to be a software developer than it is today. Yeah, the size and complexity of the profession is massive compared to what it used to be, but the quality of the tools, the languages, toolkits, production and release scaffolding that companies like Apple make available to everyone in their community, not just those with very deep pockets, is quite impressive. There is so much infrastructure stuff available simply to use, or immediately consume, without having to build everything yourself. Hopefully all this stuff that unburdens developers results in them having more time to really hone their craft and specialize in areas that pique their interests and personal goals.

    While I think that the "everything free on the internet" contributes a bit to the problem we're dealing with, I believe a bigger problem is that too many people can't handle failure in an adult fashion, or at least the way adults used to handle failure, before we had so many high profile adults demonstrating the many ways to handle failure extremely poorly and destructively. At no point in the timeline of this lawsuit did the plaintiffs consider the fact that their rejected apps simply were not good enough or didn't deserve to be in the App Store based on the lack of merit of the apps. The whole notion that they or some collective party of rejected developers that they are part of had somehow "banked" $200 billion in credit with Apple for unrewarded work that they had done under the umbrella of a $99/year Apple Developer subscription is beyond ridiculous.

    Subscribing to Apple's developer program guarantees absolutely nothing. It gives you access to tools and services needed to get you into Apple's distribution channel. But you still have to build and deliver an app that is good enough and meets Apple minimum standards just to get into the store. Once you're in the store, your app has to meet the expectations of buyers. There are no guarantees. Your app may lay there in the store like a dead carp, even as "nearly identical" apps that you think are not as good as yours sell like crazy. You try, you fail, and if you learn from your failures, you move on and try again ... or I suppose you go after Apple for $200 billion dollars because you've decided not to learn anymore.
    watto_cobraDetnatorjony0
  • Reply 24 of 29
    developers seeking $200 billion over App Store 'tyrannical greed'
    The irony
    I'll see your 'tyrannical greed' and raise you 'delusional greed'!
    watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 25 of 29
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,342member
    auxio said:
    sdw2001 said:

    I do think requiring Apple to allow third party, out-of-app payments is the right thing to do.  Apple shouldn't be able to interfere in any other business transactions between the customer and a developer.  As recently confirmed, Apple will argue they should still get their cut of any App-related transaction.
    The problem is that app developers will most certainly take advantage of this by making the app free to get on the app store, then use an out-of-app payment system to get any sort of functionality from it (basically move the entire app payment out of the App Store).
    Easily remedied with an App Store rule that apps need to be functional on download; that additional purchases can only add additional functionality, not be required for any functionality.  With an exception for subscription services.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 29
    Did y'all even read the article?

    First off, the competing app the plaintiff was talking about was undoubtedly the free UK NHS COVID tracking app that was NHS's second attempt to create a COVID app that worked - their first attempt bypassed the Apple/Google framework and failed spectacularly - and the second attempt used the Apple/Google framework and worked as intended.

    "About one month after rejecting [our] app, Apple permitted several employees at a London teaching hospital to distribute a COVID app on the App Store that functioned nearly identically to Coronavirus Reporter," continues the filing. "That competing app obtained the so-called first mover advantage, and is currently used by five million individuals daily."

    Apple's guidelines on COVID apps plainly stated that only government bodies - or possibly large institutions - could produce such an app to keep private developers from taking advantage of the panicked and tracking individuals and using their intimate data; heck, the Apple/Google framework is specifically designed to keep intimate location data out of everyone's hands (which is why NHS first tried to go it alone because they wanted that data) and only monitors contacts.

    First off, the app is free. Since there was no money involved, the plaintiff (who was probably counting on charging panicked purchasers a per seat fee during those earlier days of the pandemic) couldn't sue for lost revenue (since they'd look like the greedy SOBs they are accusing Apple of being), so instead they're suing for all the annual developer fees paid by every developer since Apple opened up the app store to developers.

    Say what?

    This whole legal theory is like a plot line out of Alice in Wonderland - and the greedy SOBs who were planning take advantage of panicked potential pandemic victims in this scheme should be publicly condemned.

    I swear the litigation against Apple is becoming more and more bizarre. By becoming the worlds most valuable company, Apple has clearly become the darling target of every crackpot or government politico hoping to make a name for themselves.
    edited December 2021 dewmewatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 27 of 29
    mac_dog said:
    crowley said:
    I'm not decided either way on the issue, I think Apple play a pretty mean hand and could do with a bit of a slap on the wrist…

    Talk about fan fiction. In what sector of Global corporate business is it illegal (requiring ANY form of correction or discipline) to be “mean.” The logic is astounding. 
    There's a rather significant semantic difference between being "mean" and "playing a mean hand".
    roundaboutnowwatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 28 of 29
    dws-2dws-2 Posts: 276member
    There's nothing wrong with what Apple is doing, at least in a capitalist culture. Once a company get too big and gets too much pricing power, then it's the government's job to step in and even the playing field. Apple is functioning correctly; the government is not.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 29
    sflocal said:
    I remember the days of having to buy boxed software at stores like Fry's and CompUSA, or hope to go to some obscure website in the early days to purchase and by software and hope by credit card info did not get stolen.  What were the overhead figures for a developer back then?

    Nowadays, as a developer myself, I am embarrassed and ashamed for these so-called "developers" complaining about Apple.  Apple created a hugely successful App Store, giving the developer access to countless of customers, not dealing with any of the overhead headaches that old-school developers and companies had to deal with, and all they ask is a CHEAP 15-30% cut.  That is CHUMP CHANGE considering what they do.

    Developers nowadays that grew up with the "everything is free on the internet" mentality expect Apple to do all the work in obtaining/keeping loyal Apple customers and maintaining a huge app-store infrastructure and provide all that for free.

    Shame on you "developers".  As a developer myself... F**K you.

    This x1000. Developers used to keep 15-30%, now they keep 70-85% yet still complain. Makes me think they’re all kids who’ve only recently started developing and gave no idea what it used to be like.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.