darkpaw

Beats said:

darkpaw said:

...
If Apple Music is only $2/month why should I, as a consumer, be forced to pay $10/month? Why don't Spotify compete at $2/month? Or $1.49, or $0, and then everyone will use them! Because Spotify would quickly go out of business. Apple is able to charge only $2/month because the total cost of all the services in the bundle still provides them with profit, making it a profitable option. Spotify cannot drop their price because they need it as it is. This just smacks of Spotify's management being d!cks.

Spotify does do $0 a month which hurts Apple and artists. Except Apple isn't crying about it.

I meant $0 completely. No ads.

Whut? Apple reducing the prices of their services by bundling them together "will cause irreparable harm to the developer community"?! How?

If I already have those services, how can saving me $25 a month hurt other developers? If anything, it means Apple are willingly taking $25 less from me each month, and leaves me $25 extra to spend with other developers.

I guess what they're trying to say is that if I don't currently have Apple Music, but I do have 2TB iCloud storage and News+ and Apple Arcade etc., then I might be in the market for a music subscription service, and if Apple Music is only an extra $2/month then I'd be more likely to go for that as part of the Apple One bundle than Spotify at $10/month. Fair enough, but that seems to be an argument to race to the bottom.

If Apple Music is only $2/month why should I, as a consumer, be forced to pay $10/month? Why don't Spotify compete at $2/month? Or $1.49, or $0, and then everyone will use them! Because Spotify would quickly go out of business. Apple is able to charge only $2/month because the total cost of all the services in the bundle still provides them with profit, making it a profitable option. Spotify cannot drop their price because they need it as it is. This just smacks of Spotify's management being d!cks.

Holy hell, it's difficult to read this story.

If you had X then Y happened unless you had Z in which case A*B-(4/C) would happen unless there was a goat in the country in which you were born. Jeez.

People keep grumbling about the 30% that Apple take, but I bet if it had always been 10% people would still grumble.

What percentage would everyone like Apple to charge? And at what point can Apple step in and say, "Hey, hold on a freakin' second! It's extremely expensive to run data centres, to employ people to review apps, to employ people to code the development tools those apps are written with, and to keep on top of security threats etc. to make the platform safe for our customers."? 5%? 2%?

Who are these people to KNOW exactly what it costs Apple to run the App Stores? They probably think the entire 30% is pure profit. It's not (and I can know that for sure, because those items I listed above aren't free).

Who else charges 30%? Practically everyone, so why is everyone grumbling at Apple?

Can I put a game on the Epic store? If so, what cut do they take, and does it only cover their costs?

Sometimes, people in government really get on my t*ts.

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

About time. They are our devices, we should be able to run whatever we want on them including a competing app store. If Apple thinks 30% is fair then it can try competing with app stores where the cut is 10% and see how well it does. What if a $10 app cost only $8 on another app store? How many customers would stick with Apple then?

Okay, let's go with that suggestion. So, developers can create their own App Store using Apple's SDK? Why do they have free access to the investment in the SDK and the developer tools? I guess all the downloads and bandwidth for downloading those apps through a different store will be paid for by that App Store? And they'll be able to cope with and finance millions of downloads of free apps they don't earn anything from? Apple can handle this as they have multiple sources of income. The App Store - for all we know - makes a loss, but is propped up by the sales of hardware. Do third-party stores have that backing?

Apple would then have to support the installation of apps from other stores, which means giving away information to third-parties on how their installation tech works. Every time Apple makes a change to their installation code, they'd have to tell all these other stores, or those stores wouldn't work properly. Imagine having ten different App Stores on your iPhone and when you install the next version of iOS, you're back to the original one until those other App Stores figure out how to implement the changes. Great consumer experience.

Let's ignore the fact that those other App Stores won't necessarily be as cautious or thorough as Apple (you may like this), but they might let apps get through that steal your information, or steal the money out of your bank (I doubt any bank would release their app on a non-Apple App Store, which is another reason for not doing it). And what about apps that mess up iOS. Why does Apple have to provide staff and facilities in their retail stores to cope with the problems these consumers have? "Not my App Store, not my problem"? Again, great consumer experience.

I'll stick with the current situation with the one App Store that works for everyone.