PERockwell

22july2013 said:

It's possible that we're on the same general side of the argument, but I have to call out errors, even if the person I'm arguing with is on my side.

PERockwell said:

Apple can't drop free apps. It would hurt the independent small developer community.

On the contrary, Apple has every right to do things that "hurt the community." For example, it could shut down the entire App Store or stop selling iPhones. Those things would certainly hurt the community but there isn't a single person on earth that can force Apple to provide an App Store or sell iPhones. Apple can also charge developers of free apps a fixed fee just to get their App application processed. They can also charge developers of free apps a monthly fee for keeping their app onto the App Store. I could go on with additional fees to cover additional services that Apple provides free app developers. There is nothing wrong at all with charging people for the services you provide, even if that "hurts them." I get the impression that you think Apple OWES developers of free apps a no-cost place on the App Store. That's wrong. Apple is subsidizing free app developers with the money they take in from big app developers, like Epic. Is subsidization illegal? Do you really want Apple to be forced to charge developers of free apps in order to be compensated for their services?

Agreed and we are on the same side of the argument. I do not think Apple "owes" a no-cost place on the App Store. I believe they do it out of mutual convenience to developers to grow both developer revenue and Apple services and hardware revenue. And it's seemed to work pretty well until some greedy publishers think they don't owe Apple anything any more and forgot who made this all possible.

Epic - your moral high ground is eroded when your business model is based on in-game add-ons that people have to purchase to continue play - one might call it feeding an addiction that you created with your "free game". (witness a local story in my neighborhood where a kid purchased $10,000+ of in-game add-ons billed to his mom's Apple ID".

But with the uproar against "big tech", Apple must navigate these waters so that they don't appear "monopolisitc/anti-competive" and at the same time don't kill the platform for users and developers.  Politicians and the courts don't necessarily see the big picture outside of "big guy bad, little guy good".

Any attempt by Apple to drop free apps would be viewed by regulators as anti-competitive, since the App Store is currently the only way to get apps onto the iOS ecosystem.

This is just another hilarious statement. Apple has no obligation to provide free services for free app developers. None whatsoever. It is not anti-competitive to charge app developers a fixed fee just for the privilege of getting onto the App Store since Apple is providing services for that fee. If Apple charged every developer $99 for any single app that goes on the App Store, even free apps, I think that would be of great help to consumers because it would stop all the pure junk apps that appear on the App Store. I've had to browse through dozens of totally useless apps "with no ratings" just to get to apps that people have used and that I might want.

Again, we do agree, but the precedent has been set to allow free apps with the developer's $99 subscription. I fear that any change to that policy would create an uproar that dwarfs what Epic et. al. are trying to do.

22july2013 said:

What is your estimate as to the revenue drop Apple will suffer if this proposal is adopted?

I'm sure there would be a big drop in App Store revenue. In-App purchases for content seem to be a preferred way of monetizing a product these days.

dewme said:

I just think these lazy, self entitled POS entities like Epic are playing Apple for a rube and trying to bully Apple through the employment of lobbyists who know how to tweak these clueless and bought and paid-for politicians to do their bidding for them. Arming lobbyists with bags of cash and support from mobs of whiners and fakers is a whole lot cheaper than investing in R&D and doing the hard work required to create, grow, and foster an ecosystem that has broad appeal and staying power. 

I don't think it's lazy. It's a calculated attack on Apple to improve revenues at what's perceived to be little or no extra cost. In their minds, if you could make 30% more by cutting out the middleman, they should probably be looking at it.  This smells though like a blackmailing attempt - to reduce the 30% cut under the threat of anti-trust because they think that Apple doesn't have any alternatives. For example:

• Apple can't drop free apps. It would hurt the independent small developer community.
• Any attempt by Apple to drop free apps would be viewed by regulators as anti-competitive, since the App Store is currently the only way to get apps onto the iOS ecosystem.

I'm waiting for the "lower pricing to the consumer by getting rid of the App Store tax" argument to pop up. You can bet that if Epic et.al. win this there will not be a magical 30% reduction in their pricing of the content...

One would hope that legislators would see through the charade of what they're being asked to do, but I have little faith that they will take the time to think through the situation and will make their decision on pure emotion about what "sounds good for the public benefit".

Free apps with in-app purchases are really the problem here.

How about a compromise - You, Mr./Ms Developer can offer your own in-app purchases but...

• Apps that use non-Apple in-app purchases can not be offered for free or for some ridiculously low price.  It must be purchased from the App Store at some amount to cover the cost of Apple distributing your application.  I don't know what that amount is so let's say $5 is a good starting point. (that's the equivalent of a $15-ish app).
• Apple keeps 100% of the purchase price of the app. You're keeping 100% (or more than 70%) of the in-app revenue which is where you've decided your business model is going to make you money. So why should you expect Apple to pay you for something you're not paying them for now. 
• You may not use Apple's in-app purchase infrastructure as an option. You must provide your own in-app purchase infrastructure and customer service. Don't come crying to Apple about issues with in-app purchases.
• If you want to use Apple's in-app purchase mechanism, you can offer a free app, and Apple will take a commission on the in-app purchase like it does today.

I don’t  personally agree with a lot that the EU does, but one area they are clearly leading us is in rights for individual privacy.  It is long overdue for the US to pass a GDPR-like law that forces companies to declare what they are doing with your data, who they are sharing it with, and give you the right to correct and delete that data. I would expect those companies to lobby hard against it, though, as it puts up a big roadblock for their business model. 

Why can’t Apple have its cake and eat it too?

• an ARM-based Mac (MacBook or MacBook Air). Caters to the general user especially if the use of Apple built CPUs lowers the price. 
• an ‘eMate’ like super iPadOS based notebook in a MacBook Air type form factor, acting as an extension of the iOS ecosystem Also could potentially compete with Chromebooks in education if done right. 
• Continue the Intel based Mac (MacBook Pro or Mac Pro) to cater to those who need x86 virtualization, Windows boot, businesses, etc. 

I have no expectations or desire to bloat macOS with an x86 emulator for ARM like Rosetta and whatever has to be done in the OS to support it. Emulation or traslation between instruction sets is still involved and is still a trade off as there’s not a 1:1 match between the two ISAs. If you think about it unless these ARM processors are double or triple the speed of Intel, the emulated code will likely be slower than on x86. If you have both types of processors available, then give the user a choice of which you want to buy depending on your needs.