tmay

avon b7 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said:

Xed said:

avon b7 said:

Xed said:

avon b7 said:

dewme said:

jimh2 said:

VictorMortimer said:

Apple's 30% is highway robbery.

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. 

nubus said:

foregoneconclusion said:

nubus said:

The surcharge isn't 30%. Apple is taking 30% making the Apple Tax / surcharge 43%. 

Spotify only used IAP on the App Store for two years. Please refer to Spotify's timetoplayfair web site for the facts. They've never allowed customers to pay via the App Store the other thirteen years. 

How does your comment relate to calculating surcharges? To modify... it is a 43% surcharge on app prices / a 30% tax on developers.

ctt_zh said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

paisleydisco said:

Okay. Now go after supermarkets and retail stores that charge 30% and more for products to be placed in store. 

Developers knew the price of admission and now are crying. GTFO. 

Yes. Developers knew the price of admission. We all do. The question is if that constitutes abuse of dominant position. That we can't know until the process is over. 

That "dominate position" was the fertile ground that grew those developers businesses. Now those same developers want to avoid any payments at all to Apple. 

That doesn't really look like a viable synergy, but then again, this is the EU we are talking about, an aging and brittle political and economic structure. I'll probably live long enough to see the EU disintegrate, and then, back to continuous warfare.

Lovely.

The UK isn't in the EU...

The EU won't disintegrate any time soon. And there certainly won't be continuous warfare, despite the deep passion for it in some quarters outside of the EU...  

avon b7 said:

paisleydisco said:

Okay. Now go after supermarkets and retail stores that charge 30% and more for products to be placed in store. 

Developers knew the price of admission and now are crying. GTFO. 

Yes. Developers knew the price of admission. We all do. The question is if that constitutes abuse of dominant position. That we can't know until the process is over.