Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge. As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.
But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.
You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.
Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store.
It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.
Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month.
I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d
Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers.
We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business.
It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform.
This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily.
It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product.
Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge. As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.
But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.
You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.
Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store.
It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.
Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month.
I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d
Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers.
We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business.
It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform.
This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily.
It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product.
As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.
You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.
Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge. As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.
But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.
You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.
Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store.
It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.
Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month.
I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d
Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers.
We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business.
It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform.
This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily.
It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product.
As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.
You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.
I agree with Dewne. The tools are great value - as tools.
Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere.
Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations.
Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge. As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.
But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.
You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.
Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store.
It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.
Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month.
I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d
Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers.
We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business.
It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform.
This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily.
It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product.
As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.
You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.
I agree with Dewne. The tools are great value - as tools.
Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere.
Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations.
That is not word salad. It's fact based context.
They do not have a monopoly on "commissions" and it's been shown that Spotify uses Apple's tools and don't pay nearly their fair share. These actions will end up hurting all developers because Apple will simply find a different way to get compensated for building the tools that make their SW great.
Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge. As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.
But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.
You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.
Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store.
It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.
Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month.
I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d
Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers.
We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business.
It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform.
This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily.
It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product.
As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.
You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.
I agree with Dewne. The tools are great value - as tools.
Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere.
Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations.
That is not word salad. It's fact based context.
They do not have a monopoly on "commissions" and it's been shown that Spotify uses Apple's tools and don't pay nearly their fair share. These actions will end up hurting all developers because Apple will simply find a different way to get compensated for building the tools that make their SW great.
In the EU they won't have a monopoly on commissions but up until now they have. Not only that, they did not offer better terms until they were pushed to do so.
Spotify has nothing to do with Apple's developer tools pricing, and never will, because spotify is just one app developer out of thousands or hundreds of thousands.
'Fair share' is a curious claim.
Has Apple paid its fair share of taxes around the world? Tim Cook says Apple has values. Not only that. He says Apple pays every cent of taxes it owes. It's only when you wade through the complaints and paperwork that you realise that Apple was actually deciding for itself what to make available for taxation and in one famous case that amounted to 0.005% for one year (according to an EU investigation). Then you browse through the Paradise Papers and Apple’s name pops up more than it should with its external representitives seeking shadowy places to move money to where oversight is less stringent.
I think Apple has had more than its fair share of just about everything when it comes to collecting money.
Is it fair for those trying to make money from their apps to have to 'subsidise' those who don't have to pay more than their subscriptions? Or should prices go up for those who offer apps for free? Or is Apple doing all the subsidising itself? How can we know? Is that fair? Or does $99 cover the cost of everything involved.
Hasn't Apple already had its 'fair share' for years by simply not allowing any other stores to even exist while taking a cut out of every paid app? It does not matter if it's 5% or 50%. The commission percentage is irrelevant to that debate if Apple is the only one getting the commission because Apple itself determined competition should not exist.
Isn't it trying to keep its grip on those commissions, even now, by not allowing competition to exist in places like the US? Is that fair?
It definitely looks like enough authorities think it's unfair.
UK, EU, Japan, South Korea have pretty much made it clear that things need to change. Each one might go about that in a different way but I doubt any of them would use 'fair' to describe any of Apple's practices where competition isn't even allowed.
Has Apple abused its dominant position? A lot of authorities seem to think so. What does the DoJ think?
And don't think this is an 'everybody against poor Apple' thing because it's not.
Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge. As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.
But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.
You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.
Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store.
It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.
Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month.
I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d
Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers.
We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business.
It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform.
This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily.
It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product.
As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.
You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.
I agree with Dewne. The tools are great value - as tools.
Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere.
Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations.
That is not word salad. It's fact based context.
They do not have a monopoly on "commissions" and it's been shown that Spotify uses Apple's tools and don't pay nearly their fair share. These actions will end up hurting all developers because Apple will simply find a different way to get compensated for building the tools that make their SW great.
Hasn't Apple already had its 'fair share' for years by simply not allowing any other stores to even exist while taking a cut out of every paid app? It does not matter if it's 5% or 50%. The commission percentage is irrelevant to that debate if Apple is the only one getting the commission because Apple itself determined competition should not exist.
It's not possible for Apple to prevent competition due to the fact that app developers are the ones that choose which platforms to develop for and not Apple. Haven't you ever noticed that the apps available for the iPhone aren't necessarily available for iPad/ATV/Vision Pro? Those are single store platforms too and yet somehow Apple's anticompetitive powers don't seem to translate into forcing developers to support them.
Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge. As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.
But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.
You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.
Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store.
It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.
Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month.
I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d
Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers.
We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business.
It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform.
This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily.
It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product.
As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.
You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.
I agree with Dewne. The tools are great value - as tools.
Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere.
Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations.
That is not word salad. It's fact based context.
They do not have a monopoly on "commissions" and it's been shown that Spotify uses Apple's tools and don't pay nearly their fair share. These actions will end up hurting all developers because Apple will simply find a different way to get compensated for building the tools that make their SW great.
Hasn't Apple already had its 'fair share' for years by simply not allowing any other stores to even exist while taking a cut out of every paid app? It does not matter if it's 5% or 50%. The commission percentage is irrelevant to that debate if Apple is the only one getting the commission because Apple itself determined competition should not exist.
It's not possible for Apple to prevent competition due to the fact that app developers are the ones that choose which platforms to develop for and not Apple. Haven't you ever noticed that the apps available for the iPhone aren't necessarily available for iPad/ATV/Vision Pro? Those are single store platforms too and yet somehow Apple's anticompetitive powers don't seem to translate into forcing developers to support them.
Apple prevents competition by literally not allowing competing stores to exist.
That is enough to demonstrate consumer harm and is undeniable IMO. Apple does not allow consumer choice in App Stores unless a law obliges them to do so. It matters not that multiple Apple stores exist.
As the world has moved into a digital era, a platform 'duopoly' has emerged which needs new laws to regulate. That is why the DMA/DSA were created.
To look at things from a different perspective, if ten independent platforms existed and mergers and takeovers were proposed to reduce those to two in 2024, it would never ever get regulatory approval. Too much influence in two few hands leads to abuse of dominant position. That is what we are seeing.
While I don't support the idea of platform break ups I can see why some people think it's a reasonable proposal.
Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge. As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.
But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.
You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.
Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store.
It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.
Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month.
I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d
Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers.
We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business.
It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform.
This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily.
It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product.
As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.
You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.
I agree with Dewne. The tools are great value - as tools.
Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere.
Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations.
That is not word salad. It's fact based context.
They do not have a monopoly on "commissions" and it's been shown that Spotify uses Apple's tools and don't pay nearly their fair share. These actions will end up hurting all developers because Apple will simply find a different way to get compensated for building the tools that make their SW great.
Hasn't Apple already had its 'fair share' for years by simply not allowing any other stores to even exist while taking a cut out of every paid app? It does not matter if it's 5% or 50%. The commission percentage is irrelevant to that debate if Apple is the only one getting the commission because Apple itself determined competition should not exist.
It's not possible for Apple to prevent competition due to the fact that app developers are the ones that choose which platforms to develop for and not Apple. Haven't you ever noticed that the apps available for the iPhone aren't necessarily available for iPad/ATV/Vision Pro? Those are single store platforms too and yet somehow Apple's anticompetitive powers don't seem to translate into forcing developers to support them.
Apple prevents competition by literally not allowing competing stores to exist.
That is enough to demonstrate consumer harm and is undeniable IMO. Apple does not allow consumer choice in App Stores unless a law obliges them to do so. It matters not that multiple Apple stores exist.
As the world has moved into a digital era, a platform 'duopoly' has emerged which needs new laws to regulate. That is why the DMA/DSA were created.
To look at things from a different perspective, if ten independent platforms existed and mergers and takeovers were proposed to reduce those to two in 2024, it would never ever get regulatory approval. Too much influence in two few hands leads to abuse of dominant position. That is what we are seeing.
While I don't support the idea of platform break ups I can see why some people think it's a reasonable proposal.
Betcha that consumers won't see a fraction of the saving. That will all be pocketed by developers, who are driving this legislation.
This is all about developers saving the cost of customer acquisition, and a tiny slice of the transaction costs.
Savvy consumers will stick with the Apple store; it's safe and secure.
"Vestager stressed that she is not involved in the US DOJ case. But she did have a better answer than the most recent proponent of breaking up Apple's non-existent monopoly, Senator Elizabeth Warren.
"I think what we see is that there are indeed very different and very separate markets when it comes to smartphones," said Vestager, "and [a] very high end, very expensive phone is not in the same market as a very, you know, affordable, cheaper phone."
----
LOL...Vestager's "better answer" is parroting the DOJ approach to its lawsuit, i.e., claiming Apple's monopoly is in a pricing segment of the market and not the overall market.
"Spotify doesn't pay 30% for all customers it holds, and not even close to a majority of them. That 30% applies to the first year of a maintained subscription, and it pays 15% on subscribers that it has held for over a year."
----
There's no mystery about Spotify and 30% commissions. Their own timetoplayfair web site states that they only used IAP on iOS for two years out of the fifteen that they've offered the app on the App Store. So they were only subject to Apple's commission for two years. It is a FACT that Spotify's preferred method for customer payments for subscriptions on iOS was to have them pay on the internet and entirely avoid Apple's commission.
It's undeniable that leaders trying their best to "create a fair market" don't know what the hell they are doing or understand the software industry. Spotify has dominance on all platforms, so what do they need even more assistance on the Apple platform? Quite puzzled by this in the first place.
We should also recognize what Apple has done for its developer community in terms of turning over languages like Swift to the open source community. This has allowed Swift as a language standard to grow much more quickly and over a broader range of contributors than it would have done had Apple kept it proprietary to their own developer community.
I know that Swift isn’t the first time a company released something they paid to develop to the public. What impressed me was the fact that they did so very early in the language’s evolution and didn’t pull any fast moves to bind adoptees to Apple’s whim. Other companies have typically done similar things only after they’ve amassed a large number of adopters and gotten their developers ahead of the pack. They also didn’t move to standardize it under a standards body that has less industry clout than OSI, like Microsoft did with ECMA.
Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge. As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.
But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.
You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.
Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store.
It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.
Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month.
I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d
Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers.
We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business.
It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform.
This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily.
It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product.
As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.
You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.
I agree with Dewne. The tools are great value - as tools.
Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere.
Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations.
That is not word salad. It's fact based context.
They do not have a monopoly on "commissions" and it's been shown that Spotify uses Apple's tools and don't pay nearly their fair share. These actions will end up hurting all developers because Apple will simply find a different way to get compensated for building the tools that make their SW great.
Hasn't Apple already had its 'fair share' for years by simply not allowing any other stores to even exist while taking a cut out of every paid app? It does not matter if it's 5% or 50%. The commission percentage is irrelevant to that debate if Apple is the only one getting the commission because Apple itself determined competition should not exist.
It's not possible for Apple to prevent competition due to the fact that app developers are the ones that choose which platforms to develop for and not Apple. Haven't you ever noticed that the apps available for the iPhone aren't necessarily available for iPad/ATV/Vision Pro? Those are single store platforms too and yet somehow Apple's anticompetitive powers don't seem to translate into forcing developers to support them.
Apple prevents competition by literally not allowing competing stores to exist.
That is enough to demonstrate consumer harm and is undeniable IMO. Apple does not allow consumer choice in App Stores unless a law obliges them to do so. It matters not that multiple Apple stores exist.
As the world has moved into a digital era, a platform 'duopoly' has emerged which needs new laws to regulate. That is why the DMA/DSA were created.
To look at things from a different perspective, if ten independent platforms existed and mergers and takeovers were proposed to reduce those to two in 2024, it would never ever get regulatory approval. Too much influence in two few hands leads to abuse of dominant position. That is what we are seeing.
While I don't support the idea of platform break ups I can see why some people think it's a reasonable proposal.
Interestingly enough, when AT&T was broken up into the regional Baby Bells, the market was on the cusp of change to mobile, and a few of the Baby Bells were ultimately reincorporated into the AT&T of today, which continues as the fourth largest mobile operator in the world, behind China Mobile, Verizon Communications, and Comcast.
Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge. As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.
But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.
You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.
Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store.
It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.
Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month.
I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d
Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers.
We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business.
It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform.
This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily.
It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product.
As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.
You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.
I agree with Dewne. The tools are great value - as tools.
Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere.
Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations.
That is not word salad. It's fact based context.
They do not have a monopoly on "commissions" and it's been shown that Spotify uses Apple's tools and don't pay nearly their fair share. These actions will end up hurting all developers because Apple will simply find a different way to get compensated for building the tools that make their SW great.
Hasn't Apple already had its 'fair share' for years by simply not allowing any other stores to even exist while taking a cut out of every paid app? It does not matter if it's 5% or 50%. The commission percentage is irrelevant to that debate if Apple is the only one getting the commission because Apple itself determined competition should not exist.
It's not possible for Apple to prevent competition due to the fact that app developers are the ones that choose which platforms to develop for and not Apple. Haven't you ever noticed that the apps available for the iPhone aren't necessarily available for iPad/ATV/Vision Pro? Those are single store platforms too and yet somehow Apple's anticompetitive powers don't seem to translate into forcing developers to support them.
Apple prevents competition by literally not allowing competing stores to exist.
That is enough to demonstrate consumer harm and is undeniable IMO. Apple does not allow consumer choice in App Stores unless a law obliges them to do so. It matters not that multiple Apple stores exist.
As the world has moved into a digital era, a platform 'duopoly' has emerged which needs new laws to regulate. That is why the DMA/DSA were created.
To look at things from a different perspective, if ten independent platforms existed and mergers and takeovers were proposed to reduce those to two in 2024, it would never ever get regulatory approval. Too much influence in two few hands leads to abuse of dominant position. That is what we are seeing.
While I don't support the idea of platform break ups I can see why some people think it's a reasonable proposal.
Interestingly enough, when AT&T was broken up into the regional Baby Bells, the market was on the cusp of change to mobile, and a few of the Baby Bells were ultimately reincorporated into the AT&T of today, which continues as the fourth largest mobile operator in the world, behind China Mobile, Verizon Communications, and Comcast.
John Oliver did a story on McKinsey management consulting. McKinsey was the professional evaluator for AT&T in the 1980s to determine how many cell phones there would be by 2000. They estimated 900k. This persuaded AT&T to pull out of the cellular market at the time. The actual number was around 740 million. LOL
Isn’t Apple’s gross margin >40%? I paid $1500 for my phone and the amount I paid includes what I think is a very fair subsidy for the cost of running and maintaining Apple’s App Store! I absolutely do not think Apple has the right to censor app developers (and make me pay more for apps) with their anti-steering policies.
Isn’t Apple’s gross margin >40%? I paid $1500 for my phone and the amount I paid includes what I think is a very fair subsidy for the cost of running and maintaining Apple’s App Store! I absolutely do not think Apple has the right to censor app developers (and make me pay more for apps) with their anti-steering policies.
Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge. As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.
But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.
You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.
Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store.
It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.
Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month.
I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d
Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers.
We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business.
It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform.
This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily.
It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product.
As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.
You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.
I agree with Dewne. The tools are great value - as tools.
Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere.
Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations.
That is not word salad. It's fact based context.
They do not have a monopoly on "commissions" and it's been shown that Spotify uses Apple's tools and don't pay nearly their fair share. These actions will end up hurting all developers because Apple will simply find a different way to get compensated for building the tools that make their SW great.
Hasn't Apple already had its 'fair share' for years by simply not allowing any other stores to even exist while taking a cut out of every paid app? It does not matter if it's 5% or 50%. The commission percentage is irrelevant to that debate if Apple is the only one getting the commission because Apple itself determined competition should not exist.
It's not possible for Apple to prevent competition due to the fact that app developers are the ones that choose which platforms to develop for and not Apple. Haven't you ever noticed that the apps available for the iPhone aren't necessarily available for iPad/ATV/Vision Pro? Those are single store platforms too and yet somehow Apple's anticompetitive powers don't seem to translate into forcing developers to support them.
Apple prevents competition by literally not allowing competing stores to exist.
That is enough to demonstrate consumer harm and is undeniable IMO. Apple does not allow consumer choice in App Stores unless a law obliges them to do so. It matters not that multiple Apple stores exist.
As the world has moved into a digital era, a platform 'duopoly' has emerged which needs new laws to regulate. That is why the DMA/DSA were created.
To look at things from a different perspective, if ten independent platforms existed and mergers and takeovers were proposed to reduce those to two in 2024, it would never ever get regulatory approval. Too much influence in two few hands leads to abuse of dominant position. That is what we are seeing.
While I don't support the idea of platform break ups I can see why some people think it's a reasonable proposal.
Interestingly enough, when AT&T was broken up into the regional Baby Bells, the market was on the cusp of change to mobile, and a few of the Baby Bells were ultimately reincorporated into the AT&T of today, which continues as the fourth largest mobile operator in the world, behind China Mobile, Verizon Communications, and Comcast.
This sounded weird to me, and sure enough: It's hogwash.
The top 10 is populated by 3 different Chinese networks, two Indian, América Móvil from Mexico, South African MTN, UK's Vodafone, Spanish Telefónica, and Orange (France Télécom). The latter three are EU-wide providers.
#11 is Vodafone India, and then comes AT&T Inc. at #12.
Verizon is at #19, and Comcast isn't even in the top 30.
"The European Union suspects Big Tech firms are avoiding their responsibilities to the publc"
I'm guessing that is relative to gatekeeper status and all that implies. That is something that Spotify doesn't have so its dominance is less of an issue.
It does have Gatekeeper Status, though — except the victims are the musicians, and not corporations.
It is all but impossible to be an active creative musician and not go through Spotify.
Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge. As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.
But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.
You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.
Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store.
It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.
Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month.
I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d
Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers.
We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business.
It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform.
This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily.
It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product.
As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.
You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.
I agree with Dewne. The tools are great value - as tools.
Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere.
Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations.
That is not word salad. It's fact based context.
They do not have a monopoly on "commissions" and it's been shown that Spotify uses Apple's tools and don't pay nearly their fair share. These actions will end up hurting all developers because Apple will simply find a different way to get compensated for building the tools that make their SW great.
Hasn't Apple already had its 'fair share' for years by simply not allowing any other stores to even exist while taking a cut out of every paid app? It does not matter if it's 5% or 50%. The commission percentage is irrelevant to that debate if Apple is the only one getting the commission because Apple itself determined competition should not exist.
It's not possible for Apple to prevent competition due to the fact that app developers are the ones that choose which platforms to develop for and not Apple. Haven't you ever noticed that the apps available for the iPhone aren't necessarily available for iPad/ATV/Vision Pro? Those are single store platforms too and yet somehow Apple's anticompetitive powers don't seem to translate into forcing developers to support them.
Apple prevents competition by literally not allowing competing stores to exist.
That is enough to demonstrate consumer harm and is undeniable IMO. Apple does not allow consumer choice in App Stores unless a law obliges them to do so. It matters not that multiple Apple stores exist.
As the world has moved into a digital era, a platform 'duopoly' has emerged which needs new laws to regulate. That is why the DMA/DSA were created.
To look at things from a different perspective, if ten independent platforms existed and mergers and takeovers were proposed to reduce those to two in 2024, it would never ever get regulatory approval. Too much influence in two few hands leads to abuse of dominant position. That is what we are seeing.
While I don't support the idea of platform break ups I can see why some people think it's a reasonable proposal.
Interestingly enough, when AT&T was broken up into the regional Baby Bells, the market was on the cusp of change to mobile, and a few of the Baby Bells were ultimately reincorporated into the AT&T of today, which continues as the fourth largest mobile operator in the world, behind China Mobile, Verizon Communications, and Comcast.
This sounded weird to me, and sure enough: It's hogwash.
The top 10 is populated by 3 different Chinese networks, two Indian, América Móvil from Mexico, South African MTN, UK's Vodafone, Spanish Telefónica, and Orange (France Télécom). The latter three are EU-wide providers.
#11 is Vodafone India, and then comes AT&T Inc. at #12.
Verizon is at #19, and Comcast isn't even in the top 30.
Once Apple is forced to allow normal software installation on iDevices, I won't care what they charge. As far as I'm concerned, they can charge 99% on their app store, and I wish they would, it would encourage developers to pull their apps off of it and distribute from their own websites.
But since Apple still doesn't let us install software normally, I'm looking forward to the EU punishing them.
You really have no clue as to how the selling of anything works. With your logic Walmart would not be permitted to apply their overhead costs (taxes, insurance, rent/mortgages, compliance, employees, travel, maintenance, training, etc.) to their items. If Walmart can buy a bike for $50 they should have to sell it for $50, which would at a loss.
Apple will win as the software tools to create an App are not free and $99 is a token amount that assumes they will make money off of the App Store.
It is safe to assume if Apple added a setting to block 3rd party app stores the vast majority of users would select it. The EU is catering to a bunch of grifters with Spotify being the largest. Were I Apple I would drop the price of Apple Music to $0 and choke Spotify out of business.
Apple’s $99 per year fee for developers is the deal of the century for anyone who has done professional software development on Windows. I recall spending north of $1500 USD for individual MSDN professional versions. The lowest subscription price for MSDN professional is around $45 USD per user per month. Enterprise subscriptions are $250 USD per user per month.
I’ve always felt that Apple priced its developer plans and App Store fees to allow individual and small independent software d
Apple needs developers for success in its major revenue drivers.
We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business.
It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform.
This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily.
It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product.
As usual, you start off saying obvious and then move onto word salad. Dewme's point is salient. Access to those tools are inexpensive. The problem with the game Spotify (and Fortnight) s playing is that they'll eventually end up paying more than they are now if Apple changes how the IDE is accessed.
You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.
I agree with Dewne. The tools are great value - as tools.
Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere.
Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations.
That is not word salad. It's fact based context.
They do not have a monopoly on "commissions" and it's been shown that Spotify uses Apple's tools and don't pay nearly their fair share. These actions will end up hurting all developers because Apple will simply find a different way to get compensated for building the tools that make their SW great.
Hasn't Apple already had its 'fair share' for years by simply not allowing any other stores to even exist while taking a cut out of every paid app? It does not matter if it's 5% or 50%. The commission percentage is irrelevant to that debate if Apple is the only one getting the commission because Apple itself determined competition should not exist.
It's not possible for Apple to prevent competition due to the fact that app developers are the ones that choose which platforms to develop for and not Apple. Haven't you ever noticed that the apps available for the iPhone aren't necessarily available for iPad/ATV/Vision Pro? Those are single store platforms too and yet somehow Apple's anticompetitive powers don't seem to translate into forcing developers to support them.
Apple prevents competition by literally not allowing competing stores to exist.
That is enough to demonstrate consumer harm and is undeniable IMO. Apple does not allow consumer choice in App Stores unless a law obliges them to do so. It matters not that multiple Apple stores exist.
As the world has moved into a digital era, a platform 'duopoly' has emerged which needs new laws to regulate. That is why the DMA/DSA were created.
To look at things from a different perspective, if ten independent platforms existed and mergers and takeovers were proposed to reduce those to two in 2024, it would never ever get regulatory approval. Too much influence in two few hands leads to abuse of dominant position. That is what we are seeing.
While I don't support the idea of platform break ups I can see why some people think it's a reasonable proposal.
Interestingly enough, when AT&T was broken up into the regional Baby Bells, the market was on the cusp of change to mobile, and a few of the Baby Bells were ultimately reincorporated into the AT&T of today, which continues as the fourth largest mobile operator in the world, behind China Mobile, Verizon Communications, and Comcast.
This sounded weird to me, and sure enough: It's hogwash.
The top 10 is populated by 3 different Chinese networks, two Indian, América Móvil from Mexico, South African MTN, UK's Vodafone, Spanish Telefónica, and Orange (France Télécom). The latter three are EU-wide providers.
#11 is Vodafone India, and then comes AT&T Inc. at #12.
Verizon is at #19, and Comcast isn't even in the top 30.
This is a list of the world's thirty largest terrestrial mobile phone network operators measured by number of subscriptions
I admit that I assumed you meant subscriber base in your post, but upon re-reading it does make more sense to assume company valuation since that's the metric that most closely coincides with why AT&T had to be broken up.
Comments
We know, from the billions it has paid out to those developers who charge for their apps, that it's a profitable business.
It's definitely a good deal from a software development perspective but charging for the actual cost of development would definitely deter developers from writing apps for the platform.
This is similar to major OS upgrades that used to be around $129 but then it made more sense for them to be offered for free and increase the amount of people moving up to the latest OS release which developers can then target more easily.
It makes business sense to keep the fees low although I suppose they could even be offered free and still be 'profitable' as a revenue driver and through commissions of the final product.
You may not realize this,, but it used to cost a lot more to be a just a Mac app developer. I think it was around $250 per year and your revenue options were much limited due to much fewer OSes and users to build for.
Obviously that can only be achieved if those same tools are generating revenues elsewhere.
Where those revenues are generated is through commissions and Apple has had monopoly control over those and only modified them under regulatory threat or obligations.
That is not word salad. It's fact based context.
Spotify has nothing to do with Apple's developer tools pricing, and never will, because spotify is just one app developer out of thousands or hundreds of thousands.
'Fair share' is a curious claim.
Has Apple paid its fair share of taxes around the world? Tim Cook says Apple has values. Not only that. He says Apple pays every cent of taxes it owes. It's only when you wade through the complaints and paperwork that you realise that Apple was actually deciding for itself what to make available for taxation and in one famous case that amounted to 0.005% for one year (according to an EU investigation). Then you browse through the Paradise Papers and Apple’s name pops up more than it should with its external representitives seeking shadowy places to move money to where oversight is less stringent.
I think Apple has had more than its fair share of just about everything when it comes to collecting money.
Is it fair for those trying to make money from their apps to have to 'subsidise' those who don't have to pay more than their subscriptions? Or should prices go up for those who offer apps for free? Or is Apple doing all the subsidising itself? How can we know? Is that fair? Or does $99 cover the cost of everything involved.
Hasn't Apple already had its 'fair share' for years by simply not allowing any other stores to even exist while taking a cut out of every paid app? It does not matter if it's 5% or 50%. The commission percentage is irrelevant to that debate if Apple is the only one getting the commission because Apple itself determined competition should not exist.
Isn't it trying to keep its grip on those commissions, even now, by not allowing competition to exist in places like the US? Is that fair?
It definitely looks like enough authorities think it's unfair.
UK, EU, Japan, South Korea have pretty much made it clear that things need to change. Each one might go about that in a different way but I doubt any of them would use 'fair' to describe any of Apple's practices where competition isn't even allowed.
Has Apple abused its dominant position? A lot of authorities seem to think so. What does the DoJ think?
And don't think this is an 'everybody against poor Apple' thing because it's not.
That is enough to demonstrate consumer harm and is undeniable IMO. Apple does not allow consumer choice in App Stores unless a law obliges them to do so. It matters not that multiple Apple stores exist.
As the world has moved into a digital era, a platform 'duopoly' has emerged which needs new laws to regulate. That is why the DMA/DSA were created.
To look at things from a different perspective, if ten independent platforms existed and mergers and takeovers were proposed to reduce those to two in 2024, it would never ever get regulatory approval. Too much influence in two few hands leads to abuse of dominant position. That is what we are seeing.
While I don't support the idea of platform break ups I can see why some people think it's a reasonable proposal.
This is all about developers saving the cost of customer acquisition, and a tiny slice of the transaction costs.
Savvy consumers will stick with the Apple store; it's safe and secure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiOUojVd6xQ
The top 10 is populated by 3 different Chinese networks, two Indian, América Móvil from Mexico, South African MTN, UK's Vodafone, Spanish Telefónica, and Orange (France Télécom). The latter three are EU-wide providers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mobile_network_operators
It is all but impossible to be an active creative musician and not go through Spotify.
https://companiesmarketcap.com/telecommunication/largest-telecommunication-companies-by-market-cap/
Your list is based on subscriptions;
The link I provided is pretty granular in its ability to let you rank by about a dozen metrics.