IreneW

danox said:

john gibson said:

22july2013 said:

john gibson said:

If Apple was forced to compete for payment processing and as a result were only making as much as say Stripe was instead of 30% that would surely be a short term hit but all the additional commerce they would earn by digital content that can't be sold on iOS today would make up a good chunk of that. 

You are living under a myth that Apple's 30% fee is a payment processing fee, which is clear because you compared Apple to Stripe which is nothing but a payment processor. On the contrary, there are billions of dollars in expenses that Apple has which Stripe doesn't have. Do you realize that? For example, Apple makes development tools that are free to obtain and use.

Do you want Apple to start charging for all those free services when it loses its 30% exclusive fee? Here are a few examples:

• Do you want Apple to add a $1 processing fee for every "free" app that's available on the App Store?
• Do you want Apple to charge developers for its free tools such as Swift and xCode?
• Do you want Apple to charge each developer for each free API that is used by any app that they develop?
• Do you want Apple to charge end users each time their app accesses one of the currently free iCloud servers?
• Do you want Apple to charge developers a processing each time there is an update to their app?

All these free services, and dozens more, are funded through that 30% cut. If you want to reduce that 30% cut to 3%, then tell me where Apple will raise the prices to cover the $60 billion per year loss. Frankly, I don't mind if Apple choses to eliminate the 30% fee and start charging everywhere else.

It is a payment processing fee for digital content.  As I've said, I'm fine with the higher commission for apps and anything else that relies on the platform like games.  And stop pretending like the App Store is being run at or close to break even making extracting 30% from both apps and digital content is somehow required for the platform to survive.  We don't know the exact number but best estimates are close to a 70% margin for the App Store so any argument that 30% is required for the App Store to thrive is nonsensical.  

The difference between how to treat digital content and apps should be self-evident but if you don't see the difference take an example of digital content and think through what Apple says it provides for the 30% and tell me how it applies.  They don't provide discovery - individual eBook titles aren't advertised, searchable SKUs in the App Store.  Apple doesn't provide storage - unlike apps the developer handles that.  Apple doesn't provide distribution - unlike apps the developer handles that.  They don't provide the developer tools to create the digital content file.  So tell me, for an eBook, other than payment processing what specifically does that 30% cover?

To address your questions - no, I don't think a processing fee is needed for free apps.  But a question the judge had is a good one.  Using the eBook example again - why is the provider of the eBook subsidizing billion dollar corporations like Facebook?  

Apple does charge developers.  $99 a year.

As for APIs and iCloud - no I don't think developers should pay for that - there is no need for Apple to double dip.  Those kinds of services are more than covered by the 30-40% margins on iOS hardware devices no different than how they are on Macs which do just fine with alternatives to using the App Store and paying 30%.

If the end result was Apple lost the 30% on digital content and consumers getting a much better result led to their margins on the App Store going from 70% to say 40-50% why would you consider that a bad outcome?

The actual cost per developer for all the goodies Apple provides is probably closer to 2 to 3 thousand dollars per year on the open market and not the stupidly low 99 dollars per year. All those place holder Apps within the AppStore would be gone if Apple charged the true rate.

thedba said:

GeorgeBMac said:

thedba said:

GeorgeBMac said:

lkrupp said:

Rayz2016 said:

This happens every five years. 

They announce that they’re going to break with the past, release something that points to a legacy-free future. 

Then a chap from marketing reminds them that if they do that, then they’re going to have to build market share from scratch. 

And then the whole idea gets binned … for another five years. 

Microsoft is trapped in a legacy hellhole they cannot escape. As time marches on Windows gets ever more bloated because of this captivity. Apple has the luxury of just telling the legacy luddites to fuck off. Every Apple blog and every Apple discussion forum is loaded with outraged users livid because their legacy hardware and software no longer perform. The dropping of 32bit compatibility is just one example. Microsoft could never do that. Apple simply tells the legacy crowd too bad, so sad. The kicker is all those outraged legacy types stay with the platform anyway.

That may be one of the reasons why MacOS is an "also ran".

Support for older hardware is one of the strengths Windows has.   We saw that with WIndows 7 as well as with IE:  Microsoft wanted to move on but its users, particularly corporate users had too much invested in those so called "legacy systems".  Currently the 14 year old Thinkpad I use for financial work is running Windows 8.1.  But, when I get a break from yard work and tutoring my grandson, I plan to stick in an SSD and upgrade it Windows 10.   Why not?  It runs fine, the upgrade will cost almost nothing and will stop me from having to sink money into a new machine for a few more years.

Another example is COBOL, the business language the proliferated in 30-40 years ago.  Today many businesses still run on business critical systems developed with it.  

The truth is:  while hardware can continue to move forward, it is the software that businesses rely on and where the investment lies.  They aren't going to walk away from that investment quickly or easily.  And, in some cases, like COBOL, they can't.  The resources to replace it aren't available.

See my reply to "crowley" about legacy software and security holes. 

While many businesses may still run COBOL programs, I'm pretty certain that IBM has upgraded their mainframe hardware and OS, is it still called 360?
I'm also pretty certain that the COBOL compiler of old (70's, 80's) isn't the same as the COBOL compiler of today which runs on much more modern architecture.

Think of SQL Server 7 meant to run on Windows NT systems and  SQL Server 2019 meant to run on todays's modern systems. 
At a most basic level they're just DBMS's but I can assure you, they're quite different.  

As an IT person I can tell you it is irresponsible of IT departments hanging on to older versions of their software. 
But often we do get trumped by accountants and budgets and we find ourselves scrambling to make massive upgrades from SQL Server 2008 --> 2019 or Oracle 10g --> 19c.  And the more bean counters wait, the more it costs. 

 

Yeh, I get the "newer is better" stuff.

But, those old systems were built like battleships to be solid, reliable and to dependably get the the job done.  And many of them still do.  It's not about "accountants".  It's about executives who want systems that "just work" -- year, after year, after year....
And, in a mission critical system, that trumps "new" -- even if it is "better".

And, your example of going from a crappy DBS to another crappy DBS shows you likely have likely never seen a quality application system.

What is crappy about SQL Server or Oracle DBMS’s? Or are you one of those mainframe is king DB2 guys?
Also keeping up with modern versions of OS’s and software isn’t just change for the sake of change. 

It’s also about security. 

Would you recommend to your users to stick to with the old 32 bit versions of their software because they still work?
Would you recommend that they stick with Windows NT? Lotus Notes? 

ericthehalfbee said:

gatorguy said:

ericthehalfbee said:

jsug9 said:

When I was at school (Peru - 2015), we had a basic app development course, our teacher said that in two years the Play Store revenues will surpass App Store so if we wanted to develop an app our focus should be Android. I laugh every time I remember that. 

That’s not so bad.

Eric Schmidt of Google predicted the same thing in Dec 2011, and even gave a timeline of 6 months for it to happen. His reasoning was that developers go where the market share is, and that was Android.

He was half right. The market share comment was correct, but he forgot to qualify it. Developers go to the platform that has the highest market share of “flagship customers”. You’re not going to make money trying to sell Apps to people buying $50 disposable phones, which comprises the majority of Android devices. When you look at flagships, the iPhone easily has the largest share of the market.

Only one of those stats covers (essentially) an entire app ecosystem's revenues, Apple's of course. 

It was claimed a couple years ago that the total app revenue derived from Android when including the Chinese where Google Play is not available had exceeded those from the App Store.  FWIW the Chinese spend on apps is approaching half of all worldwide revenues and most of it flowing to developers. In total as a group they may very likely make more from Android than iOS. Neither Google nor Apple is suffering when it comes to their app stores, but Google Play accounts for only a major sub-market of total Android app revenues and not its entirety.  Even here in the West there are other app stores catering to Android developers besides Google Play. 

Folks here like to point out apple's to oranges comparisons and this is yet another of them. Using the source report to make claims comparing two specific app stores is perfectly proper. Using it to extend claims about the two major app platforms in total it is not. 

 Edit: A now year and a half old article discussing how important Chinese app spend is. 
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/china-accounted-for-40-percent-of-global-spending-on-apps-report.html

Still posting this bullshit after I explained it to you (in great detail) last time? I’ll sum up, since maybe my last explanation was too complex for you:

There are only two major platforms - iOS on The App Store and Android on Google Play. That’s it.

Those third party stores don’t count for numerous reasons, the main one being they are typically carrier-locked stores. The Apps on these stores are designed to keep you with that store. Not only do you not see Google Play Apps in these stores, but most Apps from popular developers don’t even bother to put their Apps in them either (that is, if outside developers are even allowed). Likewise, Apps in these stores never make it to iOS or Android because they are designed for their specific community (cattier, country, state).


The only reason people try to add up this unrelated revenue is because they can’t stand the fact that The App Store massively outperforms Google Play, despite having about half the users.

Anilu_777 said:

The big question is why weren’t other tech companies asked to appear? Without them it’s just grandstanding.