Apple is not a digital gatekeeper, they are a product company, like Nintendo.
Apple operates an Appstore and that is the reason it is designated as a gatekeeper and hence will be subject to provisions of DMA. Same is the case with Google, due to its Playstore. EU lawmakers are not stupid.
DSA, on the other hand will be more stringent on Google and Facebook, apart from others, but Apple is not exempt either. Apple currently identifies customers through a unique ID that is persistent across apps, which is not allowed under DSA. Bye Bye Apple's advantage that it got for itself by implementing ATT that not only advatnged itself, but also disadvantaged other third-party advertisers. That will vanish.
Apple is not a digital gatekeeper, they are a product company, like Nintendo.
Apple operates an Appstore and that is the reason it is designated as a gatekeeper and hence will be subject to provisions of DMA. Same is the case with Google, due to its Playstore. EU lawmakers are not stupid.
DSA, on the other hand will be more stringent on Google and Facebook, apart from others, but Apple is not exempt either. Apple currently identifies customers through a unique ID that is persistent across apps, which is not allowed under DSA. Bye Bye Apple's advantage that it got for itself by implementing ATT that not only advatnged itself, but also disadvantaged other third-party advertisers. That will vanish.
Samsung operates an app store. So do LG, Huawei, Sony and Nintendo. Epic Games operate an app store for PC's. Steam is one of the largest app store for games for a PC.
As for Apple ATT. It seems the EU likes the idea and wished it was more effective in protecting consumers from third parties gathering their personal data. The EU is more concern about consumers being misled about how effective Apple ATT is in protecting their personal data from third party advertisers, than any disadvantage it cause to third party advertisers.
>Now European lawmakers want to apply Apple’s idea across all major online platforms—a definition that includes online marketplaces, app stores, and social media platforms—and force them to display simple options when people first visit a website. On January 20, a majority of MEPs voted in favor of an amendment to the Digital Services Act (DSA), which stated that refusing consent for ad tracking should be no more difficult or time-consuming than providing it.<
Apple is not a digital gatekeeper, they are a product company, like Nintendo.
Apple actually meets the definition of digital gatekeeper and while it is also a hardware company, that hardware is 100% dependent on software which is tied to its services.
Nintendo would probably qualify as a digital gatekeeper, but the law is written to target Apple and exempt Nintendo by specifying a requirement of 10,000 yearly "business users" in the EU.
Microsoft certainly qualifies, but perhaps the Xbox is exempted somehow.
avon b7 said: Take away the 3rd party software element from an iPhone, or a phone from any other manufacturer, and it will not be successful.
Take away the OS and the hardware and 3rd party development won't exist. There's no chicken/egg dynamic for iOS/iPhone. Apple had to put the R&D into iOS and the iPhone first. If Apple had screwed up the execution of either of those then customers and developers would have looked elsewhere. The original iPhone was a radical product relative to the rest of the market at the time. It was closer to desktop/laptop functionality than what developers were accustomed to with smartphones. Obviously there would have been very few developers anticipating that type of product at all in 2007.
But none of that changes what I said.
No matter how good the hardware/OS, if third party apps aren't there, the phone won't be successful. Apple isn't going to serve up a first party app to handle everyone's banking needs. No bank would allow it.
Take the hardware away and people will migrate to the web/G network. Most people's daily key apps are web/G dependent anyway. As 5G IoT becomes ubiquitous and 'distributed' systems become more widespread, the role of the 'phone' will be lessened.
Actual on device tasks are probably better suited to laptops/tablets anyway.
Where do you really want to edit that video you just recorded?
Or on your AR/VR/XR glasses? Now there's a thought!
Ditto reading and replying to social media and the like. I can imagine plenty of situations where having the equivalent of a large screen projected before my eyes would be preferable to squinting at a phone screen.
Quit making it sound as though developers are developing apps for iOS and Android out of the goodness of their hearts, just to see that Google and Apple are successful. It's making you sound silly. More consumers are using smartphones than computers. There are many more consumers that don't own a computer than don't own a smartphone. And many more that have not bought a new computer in years. There are many more consumers that will stop using their computers because they can edit their videos on the smartphone, than there ever be smartphone users that will get rid of their smartphones because they don't want to edit their videos on a small screen. Twice as many consumers are surfing the internet on their smartphone than a computer. Remember people saying Google (with their search engine), have nothing to worry about because ..... who wants to surf the internet on a small screen? Well, it's a good thing Google didn't listen to those people and invested heavy on mobile search. Developing for smartphones is where the money is now, in the resent past and in the future. Developers are not going to abandon developing for smartphones. There's a reason by PC sale (including laptops) are declining. Though there have been a resent increase due to more people working from home.
Developers are developing for the apps stores because they want to make money. It's a capitalism at work. The bottom line is that developers would not be developing for iOS or Android, if they did not some how benefit from it. Not even the developers of free apps. Developers are not stupid. They are not a charity organizations.
Apple don't need to provide the likes of banking apps to their customers, it's the banks that will want to provide banking apps to their customers. And banks are not developers making money with their apps. They are in it for their customers satisfaction and must compete with other banks that do provide banking apps. Banks with banking apps are more likely to attract accounts. So banks will hire developers to develop their banking apps. Apple sees these apps as a benefit for their customers and have no problem not charging the banks for hosting their free apps.
And since the likes of banks will also provide their Android users the same free apps, their apps do not make the iPhone any more attractive to consumers, than an Android phone with the same apps. And this is true for nearly all third party apps that are available on both platforms. Why is the iPhone widely more popular and successful than most other Android phones, when both of them practically have the same third party apps, if third party apps are what makes the iPhone a success? If Apple wants to make their hardware more attractive to buyers, they need to develop their own first party apps and services. Apps and services that are not available on Android. Apple Music is one of them. So is the Apple Watch. iMessage another. For free, Pages, Numbers and Keynotes (iWorks), Photos, are others. It's nothing but capitalism and competition at work. Apple having an app store with practically the same third party apps as on the Google Play Store on Android, offers Apple zero advantage of their hardware being more successful that Android devices. Apple don't have to worry about providing a free Facebook app to their iDevice customers, Facebook would be stupid to not provide a free app to their social network customers, on any platform. So would all the other social network platforms.
When the app store first appeared, developers saw an opportunity to keep 70% of the sales vs the 20% from selling their software through retail channels. Ask any old time software developers here about how much it cost to sell their software through stores like CompUSA, BestBuy, Walmart, Target, Fry's, etc.. They would consider themselves lucky if they got to keep just 20% of the sale price of their software.
When the app stores came along, they eliminated 2 middlemen for the smaller developers. The publisher and the distributer. Thus developers got to keep 70%, instead of 20%. So getting to keep 70% was seen as more than "fair" by all the developers that flocked to the app stores. What's even more "fair" was that they got to set the price of their apps and they only had to pay a commission based on actual sales. There was no left over inventory to get rid of. Unlike having to pay a publisher and distributor, even if you ended up selling nothing. Developers also got easy access to customers from all over the World. There is nothing "unfair" about app stores platform owners charging developers a 15/30% commission. Except for the greed of developers like Epic and Spotify.
The original iPhone sold 6M in the first year at $499 or $599, unsubsidized and with a 2 year cellular contract from ATT. At the time, one could have gotten a high end Nokia, Samsung or Motorola for $99, subsidized, with a 2 year plan. Ballmer had every right to be skeptical about the iPhone success. Developers did not make the first iPhone a success. The first iPhone did not include an app store and it was still highly successful by all account. And the second iPhone sold over a 1M in the first weekend, even though there was only about 700 apps in the app store at the time. Apple biggest gain in iPhone sales didn't happen because of developers. It happened when carriers began subsidizing the iPhone at $200, (with a 2 year contract). That increase of sales drove more developers to develop for the iPhone.
Apple and Google created an ecosystem that greatly benefited themselves, their customers and developers, from the start. Neither Apple or Google are forcing developers to develop for their platforms. They are developing on their own free will, driven by the opportunity to make a lot more money, than from selling software through retail channels. If the developer did not benefit at all from their apps being in the app stores, they would be the first to leave and neither Apple or Google will or can, stop them.
Apple and Google had no problem what so ever with kicking Epic Fornite out of their app stores, even though Apple 30% commission generated for Apple, over $100M in a year. Epic was making over $25M a month from just Fortnite on iOS. Until Sweeney gave all that up just to show the World how greedy some developers can be. Who would have thunk that Epic could make so much money from gamers that wanted to play games on a small screen. Yet, just 7% of Fortnite players playing on iOS, generated over $1B for Epic in about a year. So don't underestimate how much developers can make from just a small percentage of their customers using smartphones. Just 5% of smartphone users amount to over 30M customers.
You need to educate yourself on what it was like to be a developer for phones, before Apple introduced the iPhone and a year later, the Apple App Store, before claiming how unfair it was for Apple to charge a 30% commission to developers for developing for iPhones and how lucky Apple was to have them develop for iPhones anyway. Plus developers could not develop for iPhones without Apple developing and offering at a very reasonable cost, the SDK that allowed them to do so.
The app ecosystem that consist of platform owners, consumers and developers, is not a case of a"parasitic" ecosystem but a case of "mutualism". Everyone in the ecosystem are benefitting and wants to see all the others benefitting. Well, everyone except you and the EU. Both you and the EU seems to think the platform owners are parasites that are taking advantage of the consumers and developers. One of these days, the platform owners are going to go home and take their ball with them. Leaving the consumers and developers standing around playing patty-cakes with each other.
avon b7 said: Take away the 3rd party software element from an iPhone, or a phone from any other manufacturer, and it will not be successful.
Take away the OS and the hardware and 3rd party development won't exist. There's no chicken/egg dynamic for iOS/iPhone. Apple had to put the R&D into iOS and the iPhone first. If Apple had screwed up the execution of either of those then customers and developers would have looked elsewhere. The original iPhone was a radical product relative to the rest of the market at the time. It was closer to desktop/laptop functionality than what developers were accustomed to with smartphones. Obviously there would have been very few developers anticipating that type of product at all in 2007.
But none of that changes what I said.
No matter how good the hardware/OS, if third party apps aren't there, the phone won't be successful. Apple isn't going to serve up a first party app to handle everyone's banking needs. No bank would allow it.
Take the hardware away and people will migrate to the web/G network. Most people's daily key apps are web/G dependent anyway. As 5G IoT becomes ubiquitous and 'distributed' systems become more widespread, the role of the 'phone' will be lessened.
Actual on device tasks are probably better suited to laptops/tablets anyway.
Where do you really want to edit that video you just recorded?
Or on your AR/VR/XR glasses? Now there's a thought!
Ditto reading and replying to social media and the like. I can imagine plenty of situations where having the equivalent of a large screen projected before my eyes would be preferable to squinting at a phone screen.
Quit making it sound as though developers are developing apps for iOS and Android out of the goodness of their hearts, just to see that Google and Apple are successful. It's making you sound silly. More consumers are using smartphones than computers. There are many more consumers that don't own a computer than don't own a smartphone. And many more that have not bought a new computer in years. There are many more consumers that will stop using their computers because they can edit their videos on the smartphone, than there ever be smartphone users that will get rid of their smartphones because they don't want to edit their videos on a small screen. Twice as many consumers are surfing the internet on their smartphone than a computer. Remember people saying Google (with their search engine), have nothing to worry about because ..... who wants to surf the internet on a small screen? Well, it's a good thing Google didn't listen to those people and invested heavy on mobile search. Developing for smartphones is where the money is now, in the resent past and in the future. Developers are not going to abandon developing for smartphones. There's a reason by PC sale (including laptops) are declining. Though there have been a resent increase due to more people working from home.
Developers are developing for the apps stores because they want to make money. It's a capitalism at work. The bottom line is that developers would not be developing for iOS or Android, if they did not some how benefit from it. Not even the developers of free apps. Developers are not stupid. They are not a charity organizations.
Apple don't need to provide the likes of banking apps to their customers, it's the banks that will want to provide banking apps to their customers. And banks are not developers making money with their apps. They are in it for their customers satisfaction and must compete with other banks that do provide banking apps. Banks with banking apps are more likely to attract accounts. So banks will hire developers to develop their banking apps. Apple sees these apps as a benefit for their customers and have no problem not charging the banks for hosting their free apps.
And since the likes of banks will also provide their Android users the same free apps, their apps do not make the iPhone any more attractive to consumers, than an Android phone with the same apps. And this is true for nearly all third party apps that are available on both platforms. Why is the iPhone widely more popular and successful than most other Android phones, when both of them practically have the same third party apps, if third party apps are what makes the iPhone a success? If Apple wants to make their hardware more attractive to buyers, they need to develop their own first party apps and services. Apps and services that are not available on Android. Apple Music is one of them. So is the Apple Watch. iMessage another. For free, Pages, Numbers and Keynotes (iWorks), Photos, are others. It's nothing but capitalism and competition at work. Apple having an app store with practically the same third party apps as on the Google Play Store on Android, offers Apple zero advantage of their hardware being more successful that Android devices. Apple don't have to worry about providing a free Facebook app to their iDevice customers, Facebook would be stupid to not provide a free app to their social network customers, on any platform. So would all the other social network platforms.
When the app store first appeared, developers saw an opportunity to keep 70% of the sales vs the 20% from selling their software through retail channels. Ask any old time software developers here about how much it cost to sell their software through stores like CompUSA, BestBuy, Walmart, Target, Fry's, etc.. They would consider themselves lucky if they got to keep just 20% of the sale price of their software.
When the app stores came along, they eliminated 2 middlemen for the smaller developers. The publisher and the distributer. Thus developers got to keep 70%, instead of 20%. So getting to keep 70% was seen as more than "fair" by all the developers that flocked to the app stores. What's even more "fair" was that they got to set the price of their apps and they only had to pay a commission based on actual sales. There was no left over inventory to get rid of. Unlike having to pay a publisher and distributor, even if you ended up selling nothing. Developers also got easy access to customers from all over the World. There is nothing "unfair" about app stores platform owners charging developers a 15/30% commission. Except for the greed of developers like Epic and Spotify.
The original iPhone sold 6M in the first year at $499 or $599, unsubsidized and with a 2 year cellular contract from ATT. At the time, one could have gotten a high end Nokia, Samsung or Motorola for $99, subsidized, with a 2 year plan. Ballmer had every right to be skeptical about the iPhone success. Developers did not make the first iPhone a success. The first iPhone did not include an app store and it was still highly successful by all account. And the second iPhone sold over a 1M in the first weekend, even though there was only about 700 apps in the app store at the time. Apple biggest gain in iPhone sales didn't happen because of developers. It happened when carriers began subsidizing the iPhone at $200, (with a 2 year contract). That increase of sales drove more developers to develop for the iPhone.
Apple and Google created an ecosystem that greatly benefited themselves, their customers and developers, from the start. Neither Apple or Google are forcing developers to develop for their platforms. They are developing on their own free will, driven by the opportunity to make a lot more money, than from selling software through retail channels. If the developer did not benefit at all from their apps being in the app stores, they would be the first to leave and neither Apple or Google will or can, stop them.
Apple and Google had no problem what so ever with kicking Epic Fornite out of their app stores, even though Apple 30% commission generated for Apple, over $100M in a year. Epic was making over $25M a month from just Fortnite on iOS. Until Sweeney gave all that up just to show the World how greedy some developers can be. Who would have thunk that Epic could make so much money from gamers that wanted to play games on a small screen. Yet, just 7% of Fortnite players playing on iOS, generated over $1B for Epic in about a year. So don't underestimate how much developers can make from just a small percentage of their customers using smartphones. Just 5% of smartphone users amount to over 30M customers.
You need to educate yourself on what it was like to be a developer for phones, before Apple introduced the iPhone and a year later, the Apple App Store, before claiming how unfair it was for Apple to charge a 30% commission to developers for developing for iPhones and how lucky Apple was to have them develop for iPhones anyway. Plus developers could not develop for iPhones without Apple developing and offering at a very reasonable cost, the SDK that allowed them to do so.
The app ecosystem that consist of platform owners, consumers and developers, is not a case of a"parasitic" ecosystem but a case of "mutualism". Everyone in the ecosystem are benefitting and wants to see all the others benefitting. Well, everyone except you and the EU. Both you and the EU seems to think the platform owners are parasites that are taking advantage of the consumers and developers. One of these days, the platform owners are going to go home and take their ball with them. Leaving the consumers and developers standing around playing patty-cakes with each other.
You really should re-read what I wrote because not even a ten gazillion word essay will change it.
iPhone depends on third party software.
Without it, satisfaction levels and sales would tank.
There is absolutely no doubt about it.
Not just iPhone. Any modern smartphone in the digital age.
You are obviously not seeing the forest for the trees. Or you are being deliberately obtuse.
avon b7 said: Take away the 3rd party software element from an iPhone, or a phone from any other manufacturer, and it will not be successful.
Take away the OS and the hardware and 3rd party development won't exist. There's no chicken/egg dynamic for iOS/iPhone. Apple had to put the R&D into iOS and the iPhone first. If Apple had screwed up the execution of either of those then customers and developers would have looked elsewhere. The original iPhone was a radical product relative to the rest of the market at the time. It was closer to desktop/laptop functionality than what developers were accustomed to with smartphones. Obviously there would have been very few developers anticipating that type of product at all in 2007.
But none of that changes what I said.
No matter how good the hardware/OS, if third party apps aren't there, the phone won't be successful. Apple isn't going to serve up a first party app to handle everyone's banking needs. No bank would allow it.
Take the hardware away and people will migrate to the web/G network. Most people's daily key apps are web/G dependent anyway. As 5G IoT becomes ubiquitous and 'distributed' systems become more widespread, the role of the 'phone' will be lessened.
Actual on device tasks are probably better suited to laptops/tablets anyway.
Where do you really want to edit that video you just recorded?
Or on your AR/VR/XR glasses? Now there's a thought!
Ditto reading and replying to social media and the like. I can imagine plenty of situations where having the equivalent of a large screen projected before my eyes would be preferable to squinting at a phone screen.
Quit making it sound as though developers are developing apps for iOS and Android out of the goodness of their hearts, just to see that Google and Apple are successful. It's making you sound silly. More consumers are using smartphones than computers. There are many more consumers that don't own a computer than don't own a smartphone. And many more that have not bought a new computer in years. There are many more consumers that will stop using their computers because they can edit their videos on the smartphone, than there ever be smartphone users that will get rid of their smartphones because they don't want to edit their videos on a small screen. Twice as many consumers are surfing the internet on their smartphone than a computer. Remember people saying Google (with their search engine), have nothing to worry about because ..... who wants to surf the internet on a small screen? Well, it's a good thing Google didn't listen to those people and invested heavy on mobile search. Developing for smartphones is where the money is now, in the resent past and in the future. Developers are not going to abandon developing for smartphones. There's a reason by PC sale (including laptops) are declining. Though there have been a resent increase due to more people working from home.
Developers are developing for the apps stores because they want to make money. It's a capitalism at work. The bottom line is that developers would not be developing for iOS or Android, if they did not some how benefit from it. Not even the developers of free apps. Developers are not stupid. They are not a charity organizations.
Apple don't need to provide the likes of banking apps to their customers, it's the banks that will want to provide banking apps to their customers. And banks are not developers making money with their apps. They are in it for their customers satisfaction and must compete with other banks that do provide banking apps. Banks with banking apps are more likely to attract accounts. So banks will hire developers to develop their banking apps. Apple sees these apps as a benefit for their customers and have no problem not charging the banks for hosting their free apps.
And since the likes of banks will also provide their Android users the same free apps, their apps do not make the iPhone any more attractive to consumers, than an Android phone with the same apps. And this is true for nearly all third party apps that are available on both platforms. Why is the iPhone widely more popular and successful than most other Android phones, when both of them practically have the same third party apps, if third party apps are what makes the iPhone a success? If Apple wants to make their hardware more attractive to buyers, they need to develop their own first party apps and services. Apps and services that are not available on Android. Apple Music is one of them. So is the Apple Watch. iMessage another. For free, Pages, Numbers and Keynotes (iWorks), Photos, are others. It's nothing but capitalism and competition at work. Apple having an app store with practically the same third party apps as on the Google Play Store on Android, offers Apple zero advantage of their hardware being more successful that Android devices. Apple don't have to worry about providing a free Facebook app to their iDevice customers, Facebook would be stupid to not provide a free app to their social network customers, on any platform. So would all the other social network platforms.
When the app store first appeared, developers saw an opportunity to keep 70% of the sales vs the 20% from selling their software through retail channels. Ask any old time software developers here about how much it cost to sell their software through stores like CompUSA, BestBuy, Walmart, Target, Fry's, etc.. They would consider themselves lucky if they got to keep just 20% of the sale price of their software.
When the app stores came along, they eliminated 2 middlemen for the smaller developers. The publisher and the distributer. Thus developers got to keep 70%, instead of 20%. So getting to keep 70% was seen as more than "fair" by all the developers that flocked to the app stores. What's even more "fair" was that they got to set the price of their apps and they only had to pay a commission based on actual sales. There was no left over inventory to get rid of. Unlike having to pay a publisher and distributor, even if you ended up selling nothing. Developers also got easy access to customers from all over the World. There is nothing "unfair" about app stores platform owners charging developers a 15/30% commission. Except for the greed of developers like Epic and Spotify.
The original iPhone sold 6M in the first year at $499 or $599, unsubsidized and with a 2 year cellular contract from ATT. At the time, one could have gotten a high end Nokia, Samsung or Motorola for $99, subsidized, with a 2 year plan. Ballmer had every right to be skeptical about the iPhone success. Developers did not make the first iPhone a success. The first iPhone did not include an app store and it was still highly successful by all account. And the second iPhone sold over a 1M in the first weekend, even though there was only about 700 apps in the app store at the time. Apple biggest gain in iPhone sales didn't happen because of developers. It happened when carriers began subsidizing the iPhone at $200, (with a 2 year contract). That increase of sales drove more developers to develop for the iPhone.
Apple and Google created an ecosystem that greatly benefited themselves, their customers and developers, from the start. Neither Apple or Google are forcing developers to develop for their platforms. They are developing on their own free will, driven by the opportunity to make a lot more money, than from selling software through retail channels. If the developer did not benefit at all from their apps being in the app stores, they would be the first to leave and neither Apple or Google will or can, stop them.
Apple and Google had no problem what so ever with kicking Epic Fornite out of their app stores, even though Apple 30% commission generated for Apple, over $100M in a year. Epic was making over $25M a month from just Fortnite on iOS. Until Sweeney gave all that up just to show the World how greedy some developers can be. Who would have thunk that Epic could make so much money from gamers that wanted to play games on a small screen. Yet, just 7% of Fortnite players playing on iOS, generated over $1B for Epic in about a year. So don't underestimate how much developers can make from just a small percentage of their customers using smartphones. Just 5% of smartphone users amount to over 30M customers.
You need to educate yourself on what it was like to be a developer for phones, before Apple introduced the iPhone and a year later, the Apple App Store, before claiming how unfair it was for Apple to charge a 30% commission to developers for developing for iPhones and how lucky Apple was to have them develop for iPhones anyway. Plus developers could not develop for iPhones without Apple developing and offering at a very reasonable cost, the SDK that allowed them to do so.
The app ecosystem that consist of platform owners, consumers and developers, is not a case of a"parasitic" ecosystem but a case of "mutualism". Everyone in the ecosystem are benefitting and wants to see all the others benefitting. Well, everyone except you and the EU. Both you and the EU seems to think the platform owners are parasites that are taking advantage of the consumers and developers. One of these days, the platform owners are going to go home and take their ball with them. Leaving the consumers and developers standing around playing patty-cakes with each other.
You really should re-read what I wrote because not even a ten gazillion word essay will change it.
iPhone depends on third party software.
Without it, satisfaction levels and sales would tank.
There is absolutely no doubt about it.
Not just iPhone. Any modern smartphone in the digital age.
You are obviously not seeing the forest for the trees. Or you are being deliberately obtuse.
avon b7 said: Take away the 3rd party software element from an iPhone, or a phone from any other manufacturer, and it will not be successful.
Take away the OS and the hardware and 3rd party development won't exist. There's no chicken/egg dynamic for iOS/iPhone. Apple had to put the R&D into iOS and the iPhone first. If Apple had screwed up the execution of either of those then customers and developers would have looked elsewhere. The original iPhone was a radical product relative to the rest of the market at the time. It was closer to desktop/laptop functionality than what developers were accustomed to with smartphones. Obviously there would have been very few developers anticipating that type of product at all in 2007.
But none of that changes what I said.
No matter how good the hardware/OS, if third party apps aren't there, the phone won't be successful. Apple isn't going to serve up a first party app to handle everyone's banking needs. No bank would allow it.
Take the hardware away and people will migrate to the web/G network. Most people's daily key apps are web/G dependent anyway. As 5G IoT becomes ubiquitous and 'distributed' systems become more widespread, the role of the 'phone' will be lessened.
Actual on device tasks are probably better suited to laptops/tablets anyway.
Where do you really want to edit that video you just recorded?
Or on your AR/VR/XR glasses? Now there's a thought!
Ditto reading and replying to social media and the like. I can imagine plenty of situations where having the equivalent of a large screen projected before my eyes would be preferable to squinting at a phone screen.
Quit making it sound as though developers are developing apps for iOS and Android out of the goodness of their hearts, just to see that Google and Apple are successful. It's making you sound silly. More consumers are using smartphones than computers. There are many more consumers that don't own a computer than don't own a smartphone. And many more that have not bought a new computer in years. There are many more consumers that will stop using their computers because they can edit their videos on the smartphone, than there ever be smartphone users that will get rid of their smartphones because they don't want to edit their videos on a small screen. Twice as many consumers are surfing the internet on their smartphone than a computer. Remember people saying Google (with their search engine), have nothing to worry about because ..... who wants to surf the internet on a small screen? Well, it's a good thing Google didn't listen to those people and invested heavy on mobile search. Developing for smartphones is where the money is now, in the resent past and in the future. Developers are not going to abandon developing for smartphones. There's a reason by PC sale (including laptops) are declining. Though there have been a resent increase due to more people working from home.
Developers are developing for the apps stores because they want to make money. It's a capitalism at work. The bottom line is that developers would not be developing for iOS or Android, if they did not some how benefit from it. Not even the developers of free apps. Developers are not stupid. They are not a charity organizations.
Apple don't need to provide the likes of banking apps to their customers, it's the banks that will want to provide banking apps to their customers. And banks are not developers making money with their apps. They are in it for their customers satisfaction and must compete with other banks that do provide banking apps. Banks with banking apps are more likely to attract accounts. So banks will hire developers to develop their banking apps. Apple sees these apps as a benefit for their customers and have no problem not charging the banks for hosting their free apps.
And since the likes of banks will also provide their Android users the same free apps, their apps do not make the iPhone any more attractive to consumers, than an Android phone with the same apps. And this is true for nearly all third party apps that are available on both platforms. Why is the iPhone widely more popular and successful than most other Android phones, when both of them practically have the same third party apps, if third party apps are what makes the iPhone a success? If Apple wants to make their hardware more attractive to buyers, they need to develop their own first party apps and services. Apps and services that are not available on Android. Apple Music is one of them. So is the Apple Watch. iMessage another. For free, Pages, Numbers and Keynotes (iWorks), Photos, are others. It's nothing but capitalism and competition at work. Apple having an app store with practically the same third party apps as on the Google Play Store on Android, offers Apple zero advantage of their hardware being more successful that Android devices. Apple don't have to worry about providing a free Facebook app to their iDevice customers, Facebook would be stupid to not provide a free app to their social network customers, on any platform. So would all the other social network platforms.
When the app store first appeared, developers saw an opportunity to keep 70% of the sales vs the 20% from selling their software through retail channels. Ask any old time software developers here about how much it cost to sell their software through stores like CompUSA, BestBuy, Walmart, Target, Fry's, etc.. They would consider themselves lucky if they got to keep just 20% of the sale price of their software.
When the app stores came along, they eliminated 2 middlemen for the smaller developers. The publisher and the distributer. Thus developers got to keep 70%, instead of 20%. So getting to keep 70% was seen as more than "fair" by all the developers that flocked to the app stores. What's even more "fair" was that they got to set the price of their apps and they only had to pay a commission based on actual sales. There was no left over inventory to get rid of. Unlike having to pay a publisher and distributor, even if you ended up selling nothing. Developers also got easy access to customers from all over the World. There is nothing "unfair" about app stores platform owners charging developers a 15/30% commission. Except for the greed of developers like Epic and Spotify.
The original iPhone sold 6M in the first year at $499 or $599, unsubsidized and with a 2 year cellular contract from ATT. At the time, one could have gotten a high end Nokia, Samsung or Motorola for $99, subsidized, with a 2 year plan. Ballmer had every right to be skeptical about the iPhone success. Developers did not make the first iPhone a success. The first iPhone did not include an app store and it was still highly successful by all account. And the second iPhone sold over a 1M in the first weekend, even though there was only about 700 apps in the app store at the time. Apple biggest gain in iPhone sales didn't happen because of developers. It happened when carriers began subsidizing the iPhone at $200, (with a 2 year contract). That increase of sales drove more developers to develop for the iPhone.
Apple and Google created an ecosystem that greatly benefited themselves, their customers and developers, from the start. Neither Apple or Google are forcing developers to develop for their platforms. They are developing on their own free will, driven by the opportunity to make a lot more money, than from selling software through retail channels. If the developer did not benefit at all from their apps being in the app stores, they would be the first to leave and neither Apple or Google will or can, stop them.
Apple and Google had no problem what so ever with kicking Epic Fornite out of their app stores, even though Apple 30% commission generated for Apple, over $100M in a year. Epic was making over $25M a month from just Fortnite on iOS. Until Sweeney gave all that up just to show the World how greedy some developers can be. Who would have thunk that Epic could make so much money from gamers that wanted to play games on a small screen. Yet, just 7% of Fortnite players playing on iOS, generated over $1B for Epic in about a year. So don't underestimate how much developers can make from just a small percentage of their customers using smartphones. Just 5% of smartphone users amount to over 30M customers.
You need to educate yourself on what it was like to be a developer for phones, before Apple introduced the iPhone and a year later, the Apple App Store, before claiming how unfair it was for Apple to charge a 30% commission to developers for developing for iPhones and how lucky Apple was to have them develop for iPhones anyway. Plus developers could not develop for iPhones without Apple developing and offering at a very reasonable cost, the SDK that allowed them to do so.
The app ecosystem that consist of platform owners, consumers and developers, is not a case of a"parasitic" ecosystem but a case of "mutualism". Everyone in the ecosystem are benefitting and wants to see all the others benefitting. Well, everyone except you and the EU. Both you and the EU seems to think the platform owners are parasites that are taking advantage of the consumers and developers. One of these days, the platform owners are going to go home and take their ball with them. Leaving the consumers and developers standing around playing patty-cakes with each other.
You really should re-read what I wrote because not even a ten gazillion word essay will change it.
iPhone depends on third party software.
Without it, satisfaction levels and sales would tank.
There is absolutely no doubt about it.
Not just iPhone. Any modern smartphone in the digital age.
You are obviously not seeing the forest for the trees. Or you are being deliberately obtuse.
The U.S. continues to get further and further behind in consumer protection areas. The only benefit the U.S. sees from this type of thing is that the E.U. Is big enough to influence manufacturing across the board and change practices by Apple (and other companies too) to include the U.S. markets a opposed to creating 2 separate markets… use the USB-C standard type of decision as an example, where we will now see that standard they are mandating in the E.U. will also be implemented in the U.S. - and thats a good thing… but the U.S. gov’t and its enforcement of such things is absolutely pathetic…
avon b7 said: iPhone depends on third party software.
And third party iOS developers depend on consumers buying an iPhone with iOS installed. That's always going to be the first part of the sales process.
No. Consumers will follow the apps. Remove the apps from the equation and the hardware proposal loses steam - fast.
The consumer is a constant. An iPhone isn't because it depends on consumers and consumers ultimately run with the apps - wherever they may be.
An iPhone with third party app deficiency is an iPhone with a problem.
However, it's market driven. No one app will ever change anything.
Uhm, your thesis is profoundly, if not fatally, flawed.
Consumers first choose the iPhone, for any number of reasons, over Android OS devices, including the convenience of Apple retail and online stores, and Apple support, not to mention Apple's ecosystem. That some billion plus iPhone users do so is not just random consumption, but largely repeated again and again based on satisfaction.
After the initial sale, most iPhone users make good use of Apple's suite of apps without wholesale third party replacement, and when they do replace, or customize their apps, they are quite satisfied, for the most part, with Apple's App Store.
Interestingly, Apple is providing the curated choice of apps, and the security, that is key to the overall satisfaction with iPhone. That the EU hasn't been able to compete in consumer technology is due more to the loose framework of the EU, and a culture, that seems to prioritize a level playing field for corporations, over the consumer benefit brought by investment and innovation. That works great for infrastructure, like telecom, but not so much for consumer products, which is perhaps why the U.S. is the driving force behind so many technologies that the consumer uses.
avon b7 said: iPhone depends on third party software.
And third party iOS developers depend on consumers buying an iPhone with iOS installed. That's always going to be the first part of the sales process.
No. Consumers will follow the apps. Remove the apps from the equation and the hardware proposal loses steam - fast.
The consumer is a constant. An iPhone isn't because it depends on consumers and consumers ultimately run with the apps - wherever they may be.
An iPhone with third party app deficiency is an iPhone with a problem.
However, it's market driven. No one app will ever change anything.
Uhm, your thesis is profoundly, if not fatally, flawed.
Consumers first choose the iPhone, for any number of reasons, over Android OS devices, including the convenience of Apple retail and online stores, and Apple support, not to mention Apple's ecosystem. That some billion plus iPhone users do so is not just random consumption, but largely repeated again and again based on satisfaction.
After the initial sale, most iPhone users make good use of Apple's suite of apps without wholesale third party replacement, and when they do replace, or customize their apps, they are quite satisfied, for the most part, with Apple's App Store.
Interestingly, Apple is providing the curated choice of apps, and the security, that is key to the overall satisfaction with iPhone. That the EU hasn't been able to compete in consumer technology is due more to the loose framework of the EU, and a culture, that seems to prioritize a level playing field for corporations, over the consumer benefit brought by investment and innovation. That works great for infrastructure, like telecom, but not so much for consumer products, which is perhaps why the U.S. is the driving force behind so many technologies that the consumer uses.
Apple can only curate the apps that are presented. Take that away and the proposal isn't viable.
The 'ecosystem' is primarily apps on iPhones (any phone). No apps. No go.
The rest isn't compelling without apps.
The initial sale you speak of is always app dependent.
Simple example. Remove GMS apps, Meta Apps and digital age essentials (banking, health, government...) and watch your user base dry up fast.
No amount of 'ecosystem' could turn the tide and that is a sign of how much power these companies have accumulated.
avon b7 said: iPhone depends on third party software.
And third party iOS developers depend on consumers buying an iPhone with iOS installed. That's always going to be the first part of the sales process.
No. Consumers will follow the apps. Remove the apps from the equation and the hardware proposal loses steam - fast.
The consumer is a constant. An iPhone isn't because it depends on consumers and consumers ultimately run with the apps - wherever they may be.
An iPhone with third party app deficiency is an iPhone with a problem.
However, it's market driven. No one app will ever change anything.
Uhm, your thesis is profoundly, if not fatally, flawed.
Consumers first choose the iPhone, for any number of reasons, over Android OS devices, including the convenience of Apple retail and online stores, and Apple support, not to mention Apple's ecosystem. That some billion plus iPhone users do so is not just random consumption, but largely repeated again and again based on satisfaction.
After the initial sale, most iPhone users make good use of Apple's suite of apps without wholesale third party replacement, and when they do replace, or customize their apps, they are quite satisfied, for the most part, with Apple's App Store.
Interestingly, Apple is providing the curated choice of apps, and the security, that is key to the overall satisfaction with iPhone. That the EU hasn't been able to compete in consumer technology is due more to the loose framework of the EU, and a culture, that seems to prioritize a level playing field for corporations, over the consumer benefit brought by investment and innovation. That works great for infrastructure, like telecom, but not so much for consumer products, which is perhaps why the U.S. is the driving force behind so many technologies that the consumer uses.
Apple can only curate the apps that are presented. Take that away and the proposal isn't viable.
The 'ecosystem' is primarily apps on iPhones (any phone). No apps. No go.
The rest isn't compelling without apps.
The initial sale you speak of is always app dependent.
Simple example. Remove GMS apps, Meta Apps and digital age essentials (banking, health, government...) and watch your user base dry up fast.
No amount of 'ecosystem' could turn the tide and that is a sign of how much power these companies have accumulated.
What apps will be "taken away", because that isn't what the EU is attempting to do.
At worst, Apple will only have to provide 3rd party store(s), collected data to competitors, and have to allow other companies to access iMessage. None of that will have much impact on Apple, or iPhone sales. Most users will continue to prefer Apple's suite of apps and Apple's app store, for the simply reason that it works well.
Given that you aren't, for the most part anyway, and Apple user, and certainly not an iPhone user, this won't have any effect on you either.
avon b7 said: Apple actually meets the definition of digital gatekeeper and while it is also a hardware company, that hardware is 100% dependent on software which is tied to its services.
You keep trying to push the idea that Apple's success is entirely dependent on 3rd party software development but that is obviously a superficial take. Apple's 1st party operating system, 1st party hardware, 1st party processors and 1st party brick/mortar stores all have a reputation for high quality/high levels of customer satisfaction. That satisfaction helps drive platform sales AND developer interest in app development for the platform. The companies that have more generic off-the-shelf approaches are not equally successful despite the fact that they also have 3rd party app development.
avon b7 said: Apple actually meets the definition of digital gatekeeper and while it is also a hardware company, that hardware is 100% dependent on software which is tied to its services.
You keep trying to push the idea that Apple's success is entirely dependent on 3rd party software development but that is obviously a superficial take. Apple's 1st party operating system, 1st party hardware, 1st party processors and 1st party brick/mortar stores all have a reputation for high quality/high levels of customer satisfaction. That satisfaction helps drive platform sales AND developer interest in app development for the platform. The companies that have more generic off-the-shelf approaches are not equally successful despite the fact that they also have 3rd party app development.
Modern mobile digital devices are entirely dependent on 3rd party software. In that aspect, platform 'satisfaction' is irrelevant.
Take away the 3rd party software element from an iPhone, or a phone from any other manufacturer, and it will not be successful.
Satisfaction will always play second fiddle to app development because without those apps you simply would not buy the phone and with that, any chance of satisfaction goes out the window.
Look at the Mac. Same satisfaction you would argue, but when key software went AWOL, users had little option but to switch to another platform.
Your purchasing needs will always override any satisfaction requirement, not least because part of your satisfaction is directly tied to the availability of platform software.
Some third party software is beneficial but not critical if the Apple store (ecosystem) was only one thousand apps (programs) the number of iPhones, Mac’s, iPads, and Apple Watches sold would be the same, aside from the OS itself the only critical must have programs are email, web browser and a message program.
When i was evaluating options for my smartphone purchase about 10 years ago - Windows Phone Vs Android phone was my first decision point (iPhones were out of my budget). Guess what settled the issue for me? "Availability of apps in the respective app stores". With so much progress in the last 10 years, it is beyond SILLY to suggest that "Availability of 3rd party Apps" do NOT matter. Take out App Store - iPhone is useless to most of the people who buy them. Take out Google Play Store - Android phones are useless to most of the people who buy them (which is why Huawei is having a hard time selling the phones in rest of the world without Google Play Store). Very small percentage (I would assume it is <1%) of smartphone using population can live with just 1st party apps on both ecosystems (iOS and Android). For the vast majority of smartphone buyers - Availability of App/Play store would be a make/break decision point.
avon b7 said: The initial sale you speak of is always app dependent.
The "always" part is obviously not true and I'm sure you know it. What does the tech press constantly emphasize in terms of hardware? Upgrades to performance. It's not unusual at all for consumers to buy new hardware specifically for improved performance. Haven't you noticed how much emphasis there currently is on the camera lens assembly in smartphones these days? People could buy a new phone simply to get better photo/video performance.And what does the tech press constantly emphasize in terms of the operating system? Upgrades to features and functionality. Some of those OS features/functions might require new hardware.
muthuk_vanalingam said: With so much progress in the last 10 years, it is beyond SILLY to suggest that "Availability of 3rd party Apps" do NOT matter. Take out App Store - iPhone is useless to most of the people who buy them. Take out Google Play Store - Android phones are useless to most of the people who buy them (which is why Huawei is having a hard time selling the phones in rest of the world without Google Play Store).
Nobody is arguing that 3rd party apps don't matter. My own argument is that Apple's 1st party contributions are what make the app market possible. Apple introduced developers and consumers to the iPhone/iOS and then continued to improve the iPhone/iOS on an annual basis. If Apple had stopped with iPhone 4 and iOS 4, what do you think would have happened to the app market? Would you expect it to be just as robust as it is today with iPhone 13 and iOS 15? Or would it have slowly died out? Avon B7 appears to be trying to argue that it would be the former and not the latter.
avon b7 said: Apple actually meets the definition of digital gatekeeper and while it is also a hardware company, that hardware is 100% dependent on software which is tied to its services.
You keep trying to push the idea that Apple's success is entirely dependent on 3rd party software development but that is obviously a superficial take. Apple's 1st party operating system, 1st party hardware, 1st party processors and 1st party brick/mortar stores all have a reputation for high quality/high levels of customer satisfaction. That satisfaction helps drive platform sales AND developer interest in app development for the platform. The companies that have more generic off-the-shelf approaches are not equally successful despite the fact that they also have 3rd party app development.
avon b7 said: Apple actually meets the definition of digital gatekeeper and while it is also a hardware company, that hardware is 100% dependent on software which is tied to its services.
You keep trying to push the idea that Apple's success is entirely dependent on 3rd party software development but that is obviously a superficial take. Apple's 1st party operating system, 1st party hardware, 1st party processors and 1st party brick/mortar stores all have a reputation for high quality/high levels of customer satisfaction. That satisfaction helps drive platform sales AND developer interest in app development for the platform. The companies that have more generic off-the-shelf approaches are not equally successful despite the fact that they also have 3rd party app development.
Modern mobile digital devices are entirely dependent on 3rd party software. In that aspect, platform 'satisfaction' is irrelevant.
Take away the 3rd party software element from an iPhone, or a phone from any other manufacturer, and it will not be successful.
Satisfaction will always play second fiddle to app development because without those apps you simply would not buy the phone and with that, any chance of satisfaction goes out the window.
Look at the Mac. Same satisfaction you would argue, but when key software went AWOL, users had little option but to switch to another platform.
Your purchasing needs will always override any satisfaction requirement, not least because part of your satisfaction is directly tied to the availability of platform software.
Some third party software is beneficial but not critical if the Apple store (ecosystem) was only one thousand apps (programs) the number of iPhones, Mac’s, iPads, and Apple Watches sold would be the same, aside from the OS itself the only critical must have programs are email, web browser and a message program.
When i was evaluating options for my smartphone purchase about 10 years ago - Windows Phone Vs Android phone was my first decision point (iPhones were out of my budget). Guess what settled the issue for me? "Availability of apps in the respective app stores". With so much progress in the last 10 years, it is beyond SILLY to suggest that "Availability of 3rd party Apps" do NOT matter. Take out App Store - iPhone is useless to most of the people who buy them. Take out Google Play Store - Android phones are useless to most of the people who buy them (which is why Huawei is having a hard time selling the phones in rest of the world without Google Play Store). Very small percentage (I would assume it is <1%) of smartphone using population can live with just 1st party apps on both ecosystems (iOS and Android). For the vast majority of smartphone buyers - Availability of App/Play store would be a make/break decision point.
"availability of apps" is the straw man in your and avon b7's argument. I'm haven't seen anything wrt to the EU banning 3rd party apps, merely an attempt to level the playing field by forcing Apple to allow 3rd party app stores. Even with that, I don't think that 3rd party stores will ever match the popularity of Apple's app store. Either way, the doom and gloom is gaslighting bullshit.
avon b7 said: iPhone depends on third party software.
And third party iOS developers depend on consumers buying an iPhone with iOS installed. That's always going to be the first part of the sales process.
No. Consumers will follow the apps. Remove the apps from the equation and the hardware proposal loses steam - fast.
The consumer is a constant. An iPhone isn't because it depends on consumers and consumers ultimately run with the apps - wherever they may be.
An iPhone with third party app deficiency is an iPhone with a problem.
However, it's market driven. No one app will ever change anything.
Uhm, your thesis is profoundly, if not fatally, flawed.
Consumers first choose the iPhone, for any number of reasons, over Android OS devices, including the convenience of Apple retail and online stores, and Apple support, not to mention Apple's ecosystem. That some billion plus iPhone users do so is not just random consumption, but largely repeated again and again based on satisfaction.
After the initial sale, most iPhone users make good use of Apple's suite of apps without wholesale third party replacement, and when they do replace, or customize their apps, they are quite satisfied, for the most part, with Apple's App Store.
Interestingly, Apple is providing the curated choice of apps, and the security, that is key to the overall satisfaction with iPhone. That the EU hasn't been able to compete in consumer technology is due more to the loose framework of the EU, and a culture, that seems to prioritize a level playing field for corporations, over the consumer benefit brought by investment and innovation. That works great for infrastructure, like telecom, but not so much for consumer products, which is perhaps why the U.S. is the driving force behind so many technologies that the consumer uses.
Apple can only curate the apps that are presented. Take that away and the proposal isn't viable.
The 'ecosystem' is primarily apps on iPhones (any phone). No apps. No go.
The rest isn't compelling without apps.
The initial sale you speak of is always app dependent.
Simple example. Remove GMS apps, Meta Apps and digital age essentials (banking, health, government...) and watch your user base dry up fast.
No amount of 'ecosystem' could turn the tide and that is a sign of how much power these companies have accumulated.
What apps will be "taken away", because that isn't what the EU is attempting to do.
At worst, Apple will only have to provide 3rd party store(s), collected data to competitors, and have to allow other companies to access iMessage. None of that will have much impact on Apple, or iPhone sales. Most users will continue to prefer Apple's suite of apps and Apple's app store, for the simply reason that it works well.
Given that you aren't, for the most part anyway, and Apple user, and certainly not an iPhone user, this won't have any effect on you either.
Once again, you clearly haven't read through the thread.
That's a first step because your reply doesn't make sense.
No apps will be 'taken away'.
Read the previous posts that I was replying to and you will see the context.
avon b7 said: The initial sale you speak of is always app dependent.
The "always" part is obviously not true and I'm sure you know it. What does the tech press constantly emphasize in terms of hardware? Upgrades to performance. It's not unusual at all for consumers to buy new hardware specifically for improved performance. Haven't you noticed how much emphasis there currently is on the camera lens assembly in smartphones these days? People could buy a new phone simply to get better photo/video performance.And what does the tech press constantly emphasize in terms of the operating system? Upgrades to features and functionality. Some of those OS features/functions might require new hardware.
Of course! But we are starting from a perspective of app availability being a given. Nothing changes.
Take those apps away though, and no amount of megaghardware will get the sale.
Your purchase decision is driven by app availability.
Comments
DSA, on the other hand will be more stringent on Google and Facebook, apart from others, but Apple is not exempt either. Apple currently identifies customers through a unique ID that is persistent across apps, which is not allowed under DSA. Bye Bye Apple's advantage that it got for itself by implementing ATT that not only advatnged itself, but also disadvantaged other third-party advertisers. That will vanish.
As for Apple ATT. It seems the EU likes the idea and wished it was more effective in protecting consumers from third parties gathering their personal data. The EU is more concern about consumers being misled about how effective Apple ATT is in protecting their personal data from third party advertisers, than any disadvantage it cause to third party advertisers.
https://www.wired.com/story/eu-digital-services-act-apple/
>Now European lawmakers want to apply Apple’s idea across all major online platforms—a definition that includes online marketplaces, app stores, and social media platforms—and force them to display simple options when people first visit a website. On January 20, a majority of MEPs voted in favor of an amendment to the Digital Services Act (DSA), which stated that refusing consent for ad tracking should be no more difficult or time-consuming than providing it.<
Microsoft certainly qualifies, but perhaps the Xbox is exempted somehow.
Quit making it sound as though developers are developing apps for iOS and Android out of the goodness of their hearts, just to see that Google and Apple are successful. It's making you sound silly. More consumers are using smartphones than computers. There are many more consumers that don't own a computer than don't own a smartphone. And many more that have not bought a new computer in years. There are many more consumers that will stop using their computers because they can edit their videos on the smartphone, than there ever be smartphone users that will get rid of their smartphones because they don't want to edit their videos on a small screen. Twice as many consumers are surfing the internet on their smartphone than a computer. Remember people saying Google (with their search engine), have nothing to worry about because ..... who wants to surf the internet on a small screen? Well, it's a good thing Google didn't listen to those people and invested heavy on mobile search. Developing for smartphones is where the money is now, in the resent past and in the future. Developers are not going to abandon developing for smartphones. There's a reason by PC sale (including laptops) are declining. Though there have been a resent increase due to more people working from home.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/11/pandemic-boom-in-pc-sales-is-over.html
Developers are developing for the apps stores because they want to make money. It's a capitalism at work. The bottom line is that developers would not be developing for iOS or Android, if they did not some how benefit from it. Not even the developers of free apps. Developers are not stupid. They are not a charity organizations.
Apple don't need to provide the likes of banking apps to their customers, it's the banks that will want to provide banking apps to their customers. And banks are not developers making money with their apps. They are in it for their customers satisfaction and must compete with other banks that do provide banking apps. Banks with banking apps are more likely to attract accounts. So banks will hire developers to develop their banking apps. Apple sees these apps as a benefit for their customers and have no problem not charging the banks for hosting their free apps.
And since the likes of banks will also provide their Android users the same free apps, their apps do not make the iPhone any more attractive to consumers, than an Android phone with the same apps. And this is true for nearly all third party apps that are available on both platforms. Why is the iPhone widely more popular and successful than most other Android phones, when both of them practically have the same third party apps, if third party apps are what makes the iPhone a success? If Apple wants to make their hardware more attractive to buyers, they need to develop their own first party apps and services. Apps and services that are not available on Android. Apple Music is one of them. So is the Apple Watch. iMessage another. For free, Pages, Numbers and Keynotes (iWorks), Photos, are others. It's nothing but capitalism and competition at work. Apple having an app store with practically the same third party apps as on the Google Play Store on Android, offers Apple zero advantage of their hardware being more successful that Android devices. Apple don't have to worry about providing a free Facebook app to their iDevice customers, Facebook would be stupid to not provide a free app to their social network customers, on any platform. So would all the other social network platforms.
When the app store first appeared, developers saw an opportunity to keep 70% of the sales vs the 20% from selling their software through retail channels. Ask any old time software developers here about how much it cost to sell their software through stores like CompUSA, BestBuy, Walmart, Target, Fry's, etc.. They would consider themselves lucky if they got to keep just 20% of the sale price of their software.
When the app stores came along, they eliminated 2 middlemen for the smaller developers. The publisher and the distributer. Thus developers got to keep 70%, instead of 20%. So getting to keep 70% was seen as more than "fair" by all the developers that flocked to the app stores. What's even more "fair" was that they got to set the price of their apps and they only had to pay a commission based on actual sales. There was no left over inventory to get rid of. Unlike having to pay a publisher and distributor, even if you ended up selling nothing. Developers also got easy access to customers from all over the World. There is nothing "unfair" about app stores platform owners charging developers a 15/30% commission. Except for the greed of developers like Epic and Spotify.
The original iPhone sold 6M in the first year at $499 or $599, unsubsidized and with a 2 year cellular contract from ATT. At the time, one could have gotten a high end Nokia, Samsung or Motorola for $99, subsidized, with a 2 year plan. Ballmer had every right to be skeptical about the iPhone success. Developers did not make the first iPhone a success. The first iPhone did not include an app store and it was still highly successful by all account. And the second iPhone sold over a 1M in the first weekend, even though there was only about 700 apps in the app store at the time. Apple biggest gain in iPhone sales didn't happen because of developers. It happened when carriers began subsidizing the iPhone at $200, (with a 2 year contract). That increase of sales drove more developers to develop for the iPhone.
Apple and Google created an ecosystem that greatly benefited themselves, their customers and developers, from the start. Neither Apple or Google are forcing developers to develop for their platforms. They are developing on their own free will, driven by the opportunity to make a lot more money, than from selling software through retail channels. If the developer did not benefit at all from their apps being in the app stores, they would be the first to leave and neither Apple or Google will or can, stop them.
Apple and Google had no problem what so ever with kicking Epic Fornite out of their app stores, even though Apple 30% commission generated for Apple, over $100M in a year. Epic was making over $25M a month from just Fortnite on iOS. Until Sweeney gave all that up just to show the World how greedy some developers can be. Who would have thunk that Epic could make so much money from gamers that wanted to play games on a small screen. Yet, just 7% of Fortnite players playing on iOS, generated over $1B for Epic in about a year. So don't underestimate how much developers can make from just a small percentage of their customers using smartphones. Just 5% of smartphone users amount to over 30M customers.
You need to educate yourself on what it was like to be a developer for phones, before Apple introduced the iPhone and a year later, the Apple App Store, before claiming how unfair it was for Apple to charge a 30% commission to developers for developing for iPhones and how lucky Apple was to have them develop for iPhones anyway. Plus developers could not develop for iPhones without Apple developing and offering at a very reasonable cost, the SDK that allowed them to do so.
https://www.larvalabs.com/blog/2017-10-24-15-1/app-development-before-the-iphone
and while you're at it, educate yourself on what it was like for developers to have to sell software through retail channels, before app stores.
https://successfulsoftware.net/2008/04/21/selling-your-software-in-retail-stores-all-that-glitters-is-not-gold/
The app ecosystem that consist of platform owners, consumers and developers, is not a case of a"parasitic" ecosystem but a case of "mutualism". Everyone in the ecosystem are benefitting and wants to see all the others benefitting. Well, everyone except you and the EU. Both you and the EU seems to think the platform owners are parasites that are taking advantage of the consumers and developers. One of these days, the platform owners are going to go home and take their ball with them. Leaving the consumers and developers standing around playing patty-cakes with each other.
iPhone depends on third party software.
Without it, satisfaction levels and sales would tank.
There is absolutely no doubt about it.
Not just iPhone. Any modern smartphone in the digital age.
You are obviously not seeing the forest for the trees. Or you are being deliberately obtuse.
The consumer is a constant. An iPhone isn't because it depends on consumers and consumers ultimately run with the apps - wherever they may be.
An iPhone with third party app deficiency is an iPhone with a problem.
However, it's market driven. No one app will ever change anything.
Consumers first choose the iPhone, for any number of reasons, over Android OS devices, including the convenience of Apple retail and online stores, and Apple support, not to mention Apple's ecosystem. That some billion plus iPhone users do so is not just random consumption, but largely repeated again and again based on satisfaction.
After the initial sale, most iPhone users make good use of Apple's suite of apps without wholesale third party replacement, and when they do replace, or customize their apps, they are quite satisfied, for the most part, with Apple's App Store.
Interestingly, Apple is providing the curated choice of apps, and the security, that is key to the overall satisfaction with iPhone. That the EU hasn't been able to compete in consumer technology is due more to the loose framework of the EU, and a culture, that seems to prioritize a level playing field for corporations, over the consumer benefit brought by investment and innovation. That works great for infrastructure, like telecom, but not so much for consumer products, which is perhaps why the U.S. is the driving force behind so many technologies that the consumer uses.
The 'ecosystem' is primarily apps on iPhones (any phone). No apps. No go.
The rest isn't compelling without apps.
The initial sale you speak of is always app dependent.
Simple example. Remove GMS apps, Meta Apps and digital age essentials (banking, health, government...) and watch your user base dry up fast.
No amount of 'ecosystem' could turn the tide and that is a sign of how much power these companies have accumulated.
At worst, Apple will only have to provide 3rd party store(s), collected data to competitors, and have to allow other companies to access iMessage. None of that will have much impact on Apple, or iPhone sales. Most users will continue to prefer Apple's suite of apps and Apple's app store, for the simply reason that it works well.
Given that you aren't, for the most part anyway, and Apple user, and certainly not an iPhone user, this won't have any effect on you either.
That's a first step because your reply doesn't make sense.
No apps will be 'taken away'.
Read the previous posts that I was replying to and you will see the context.
Take those apps away though, and no amount of megaghardware will get the sale.
Your purchase decision is driven by app availability.