john gibson

GeorgeBMac said:

john gibson said:

mylovino said:

Apple has simplified software development and consumption in so many ways, and all the developers and customers both benefit from the large customer base Apple has created with their entire ecosystem, if at the end a judge is not balancing out cost versus benefits in light of the underlying economic system, it would be a really strange result. I lived through the evolution of development environments, remember times when licensing an IDE was a really expensive exercise and software distribution required high production and distribution costs, it is really bizarre that Epic tries to further increase their margin by challenging the „partner“ which adds the whole ecosystem they benefit from with billions of dollar.

...
Imagine if other stores tried to implement the same rules the App Store has and it becomes clear how outrageous some of the policies are.  Tim Cook used the strawman argument:

....

You mean like if i set up a fresh produce stand in a Krogers -- and then complained that their policies weren't fair to me?

Not sure if you were trying to make the point for me or if it just a happy accident choosing Kroger as the answer to your questions is absolutely yes.  The Kroger grocery chain has engaged in some egregious business practices over the past several years.  Suppliers rightfully complained.  Courts and state governments got involved and Kroger had to make some changes in the way they do business.  The difference is there aren't a lot of Kroger fans running around defending Krogers behavior.

Rayz2016 said:

Apple is doing nothing NOTHING to stop him communicating directly to his customers. That is not his problem. His problem is that under Apple's system, he cannot frame his pricing in a more favourable light.

They most certainly are...  Schiller suggested in his e-mail one of the options is to raise the price on Apple customers to cover the IAP fee.  

Can they communicate directly to their customers that they could save 30% by cancelling via the AppStore and signing up through the website?  No, they are banned from directly communicating that crucial information that would benefit the end user.  

If Apple wants to go all out rent-seeking mode they should be consistent.  It's ridiculous that I can download Salesforce Inbox and they present a sign in screen with no way to IAP a Salesforce license and no way to do anything other than stare at the login screen.  But that and hundreds of apps like that are allowed.  Apparently those apps are allowed based on some unwritten rule that if they consider it app an IT dept my purchase then the app gets a free pass to avoid IAP.

This type of capricious and arbitrary enforcement of rules might be perfectly acceptable for a company that faces lots of competition.  But as Apple is part of a duopoly and they own 2/3rd of the mobile app market they are going to be the next company to land in the EU crosshairs.  And if the political winds in the US change to where an administration wants to go after Apple, the Schiller suggestion that Hey raise prices on Apple customers is like a smoking gun example of a company abusing it's power to raise prices on consumers.

Kind of sad when governmental officials who have made it to positions as high as governor have so little (none?) knowledge of something as core to this country as the First Amendment.  

jungmark said:
I don’t think it’ll be good for customers in the short term or Devs in the long term. 

Customers like convenience. Many aren’t going to navigate to a website, sign in, add CC info, submit payment. Wait for the funds to process then go back to the app and determine if the app updated with the payment. 

Devs are going to realize the pains of processing CC, secure user logins and have it sync up to the apps. Plus they’ll see less customers buy in-app stuff. 

Devs already use services like Stripe which in many ways is superior to Apple's offering.  We have an analagous situation on the Mac.  Many do opt for the simplicity of using Apple IAP and many more realize it isn't.  

For an app that is cheap the Apple offering will be preferred by many.  It's where you get to products/services that have nothing to do with iOS where the developer is incurring all the costs that they won't want to incur 30% for a service (payment processing) that they can get for ~3% elsewhere.  

Then there are products like eBooks and Comics which are impossible to offer on iOS.  This ruling makes those potentially available to consumers which will be a huge improvement for users.  As most already have an Amazon account there is nothing inconvienent about it.  For other products/services, you don't hear too many issues with people engaging in eCommerce for physical products from the iPhones so I don't think the entering payment details is too much of an issue especially since with services like Stripe developers could even offer Apple Pay.

AppleZulu said:

Which is why they'll likely end up coming up with fee structure changes to recapture what's lost. I'd look for something that makes life much easier if developers stick with the existing App Store payment structure. 

Or maybe accept the fact that something like a 65% margin on the AppStore instead of a ~75%.