Detnator
About
- Username
- Detnator
- Joined
- Visits
- 44
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 620
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 287
Reactions
-
Apple wants 27% commission for Dutch apps using third-party payments
Omg. The fact that you think Apple does “literally nothing at all” is as laughable as all you other posts.darkvader said:So instead of charging 30% for payment processing, Apple wants 27% for doing literally nothing at all.“Literally” no-one even remotely in their right minds, not even Sweeney, thinks Apple does “nothing at all”.DarkVader, why are you here?
-
Microsoft says that if Apple isn't stopped now, its antitrust behavior will just get worse...
All good points.ericthehalfbee said:Two words to destroy this gatekeeper bullshit:
PWA
Porn
You can access iOS and Android devices via the web and completely cut out Apple/Google. Either through PWAs or even just websites. You don’t need to be in The App Store or Google Play for the majority of tasks people do.
Now some idiot is going to say that PWA/web isn’t good enough. To that I say look at the porn industry. They are locked out of App stores so they rely on the web. And if there’s one thing the porn industry does well it’s to make sure their content is available to the widest possible audience. Which means cramming as much functionality as possible into web pages. Maybe those whiners should try to innovate (like the porn industry).
There are some things you can’t do on a PWA, but they are good for a great many things.
Let me add, despite how good web apps are, native apps are still better in many ways, and there's a good reason for that. 150,000 APIs.... that Apple provides, (along with payment process, hosting, vetting, curation, delivery, and access to Apple's customers, etc.) all for the meager price of $8/month ($99/year) + 15% commission on sales. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
Or... if you're jumping up and down in court saying all those APIs and services aren't worth $8/month +15% commission on sales, then no worries. You have a choice. Don't buy those services, and provide your customers web apps and pay Apple nothing. Web apps can even have Home Screen icons, so getting into them is as easy as any other app.
Looks to me like developers have plenty of choice. For Epic, Spotify, etc. I don't get what the problem is.
-
Microsoft says that if Apple isn't stopped now, its antitrust behavior will just get worse...
"I paid for my iPhone, I should be able to do anything I want on it. How dare this company try to prohibit me from directly installing potentially dangerous apps on it when I'm an adult and can take responsibility for my own safety. I'm suing."AppleZulu said:
1) There's a term for exactly what you've described: Jail-break. A jail-broken iPhone allows for all the side-loading, etc, but voids its relationship with Apple and Apple support. This already exists in the messy, unsanctioned fashion that such an arrangement warrants.OutdoorAppDeveloper said:I don't like the language here or the company making the statement. Apple does not need to be stopped. It just needs a behavior modification. Apple should not only respect the privacy of their customers, it should respect their freedom to make their own decisions about the apps they can run. Warn them and then allow them to side load any app they want with some important restrictions and limitations. For example, when side loading is enabled the phone is wiped and access to the traditional App Store and iCloud is disabled. You can run anything you want but you are on your own. It would be perfect for that older iPhone languishing at the bottom of a draw somewhere.
2) Expecting that Apple should instead sanction that practice is to expect them to sanction an unsupported, janky iPhone that ruins their reputation based on core practices that ensure reliability and security.
The difference between #1 and #2 is one of expectations. If you jailbreak your iPhone under scenario #1 and the whole thing crashes, should you complain to Apple about it, Apple will say Sorry, mate. We told you not to do that and did not provide you with a means to do that, so your bad decision is your own mess. If you jailbreak your iPhone under scenario #2, where Apple was forced to provide a jailbreak toggle, no matter how blunt the warning is on that toggle, there will be people who loudly demand Apple be held responsible to fix their mess because Apple included the toggle to allow them to jailbreak their iPhone.
For the same reason, your local zoo does not provide a gate into the tiger exhibit, secured only with a sign saying tigers may kill you, enter at your own peril. You may believe that your zoo ticket means you should have access to any part of the park, but the zoo doesn't agree with you and is not going to sanction it. If you scale the fence to get into the tiger enclosure anyway, when the tiger tears your arm off, it's going to be crystal clear that you were not sanctioned by the zoo to be in the tiger exhibit having your arm torn off.
"I paid for my zoo ticket, I should be able to go anywhere in the zoo I like. How dare these zookeepers try to prohibit me from directly interacting with the potentially dangerous animals, when I'm an adult and can take responsibility for my own safety. I'm suing".
Awesome analogy. Best explanation I've heard for this particular topic, ever, I think. Great job coming up with that, and thanks for sharing it.
-
Microsoft says that if Apple isn't stopped now, its antitrust behavior will just get worse...
So why isn’t Netflix’s solution acceptable for Spotify?brian.on.android said:
Spotify doesn't need Apple's IAP infrastructure and shouldn't be forced to pay for it.foregoneconclusion said:
Spotify completely misrepresented its own financial position to the EU. They spent a lot of time complaining about Apple's 30% commission, then their own financial records showed that less than 1% of their iOS subscribers were subject to Apple's commission AND that the commission they were subject to was 15%, not 30%.brian.on.android said: And yet Spotify is making a case that there IS a problem. https://www.androidauthority.com/spotify-vs-apple-eu-1222451/
99% of their subscription business on iOS didn't involve Apple making a cent. That hardly seems unreasonable.
Netflix agreed. That's why they pulled support for IAP.
Apple incurs a cost running the App Store. 15% really doesn’t seem unreasonable. If Spotify was allowed to have other payment services they’d pay someone else 5%. So 10% for hosting, delivery, etc…? It easily costs Apple that much to provide that service to Spotify, and ALSO to provide that service to themselves. That article arguing that Apple is at an advantage because it doesn’t have to pay 15% to itself is where the flaw is. It DOES. Indirectly. Otherwise that argument assumes there is zero cost to Apple for the payment processing, hosting, delivery, and everything else that comes with the App Store. Apple Music pays Apple for those services. Just because it’s internal accounting doesn’t mean the costs for all that is zero. Sheesh.Just because the EU says Apple has to provide its services to Spotify for free doesn’t mean it’s right. There’s a lot of stuff the EU just doesn’t understand about business.Spotify can find their own customers and sign them up on the web, for free. And then get all Apple’s hosting, delivery, etc. for free as well. Or they can have Apple’s access to customers and use Apple’s much more convenient (which is why they want it) in-app payment and other services. And pay Apple for those services and those customers. Why should they get all of that for free?Perhaps Apple should just charge Spotify a flat hosting and delivery fee — for EVERY download, including the ones that Spotify doesn’t pay Apple anything for now, because they sign up on the web. I’m sure that will be cheaper for Spotify. Not.And perhaps Apple should charge a much higher price for the customers that discover Spotify entirely through the App Store - These are APPLE’s customers being handed to Spotify, NOT Spotify’s customers.Or… Maybe Spotify can just kill the native app and offer their service in a web app. Oh wait. Web apps suck compared to native apps. Hmmm. Why’s that? Maybe native apps are better because of the 150,000 API’s that Apple provides to achieve that, effectively for free. Don’t try to tell me the $99 per year covers that. That’s $8 a month. About the price of ONE Spotify subscription. You really think that covers the $billions Apple has poured into those API’s the last 20+ years? No.So either use the APIs to give your users a better experience - and pay Apple for it. Or don’t, and provide a web app, and pay Apple nothing.Regardless, this article is about Microsoft criticizing Apple’s hosting and billing system (in the case of a game app - Fortnite) that is virtually identical to Microsoft’s hosting and billing system on the only platform Microsoft provides for that same game. They’re fools. If Epic ever wins this case who do you think they’ll go after next? If they get their gaming store, alternate payments, etc on iOS what’s going to stop them going after the same thing on Xbox, PlayStation, et. al. Nothing. How Microsoft can not see that is ludicrous.
-
Epic claims App Store antitrust trial judge made too many legal mistakes in her ruling
His primary failure, and one he will never get around unless this country goes to hell, is trying to define the iOS app ecosystem as a market in itself.As has been said countless times here and elsewhere by many, Apple has as many issues as a “monopoly” on its own store and products as Toyota has with its “monopoly” on Camrys = none.
Judge Gonzales was pretty clear about Epic’s failure to address that and as far as I can tell it’s the crux of the whole case. Why any of this even got heard beyond “No, Sweeney, you can’t dictate Apple’s rules with Apple’s products” is beyond me.Maybe Apple should have two options:
Option 1: everything as it is, $99/year plus follow the rules and pay commission on sales for your use of their API’s.
Option 2: Use Apple’s store for free, after paying a few billion $ per year for use of their API’s.
Of course there’s a third option. Build apps without using any of Apple’s API’s and pay Apple nothing. They’re called web apps. And yes they suck compared to native apps. Native apps are much better because… guess why…? Native apps have all the benefits of Apple’s API’s.Sigh.
