Apple Not Yet Pulling Apps, Helping Developers Meet In-App Guidelines

[SactoGuy18]

Like I said earlier, Apple may make an exception to Amazon for one reason: the possibility that Amazon could sue Apple under the exclusive dealing arrangement clause in the 1914 Clayton Antitrust Act. Apple does not to be sued because that means going through a "discovery" process, and that could dig up some very unsavory business practices of Apple that could lead to additional legal action against the company.

 

[gkpm]

Like I said earlier, Apple may make an exception to Amazon for one reason: the possibility that Amazon could sue Apple under the exclusive dealing arrangement clause in the 1914 Clayton Antitrust Act. Apple does not to be sued because that means going through a "discovery" process, and that could dig up some very unsavory business practices of Apple that could lead to additional legal action against the company.

You should guest blog for that other guy, what's his name, Florian Mueller.

 

[cmaier]

Like I said earlier, Apple may make an exception to Amazon for one reason: the possibility that Amazon could sue Apple under the exclusive dealing arrangement clause in the 1914 Clayton Antitrust Act. Apple does not to be sued because that means going through a "discovery" process, and that could dig up some very unsavory business practices of Apple that could lead to additional legal action against the company.

No matter how many times you spout it, it's still nonsense.

 

[manu chao]

For example, when the iPad first came out, there were like 10 apps available for it, and one of those was NetFlix... And that was one of the reasons I stood in line at Best Buy on launch day to buy it.

Your process of remembering things seems to be highly biased by the point you are trying to make (if it is a process of remembering things and not just plucking numbers out of thin air):

"Alongside the iPad launch on Saturday was the launch of a several thousand new iPad apps with many more coming."
https://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/05/ipad-apps-things-square-sketchbook-pro-warpgate-magic-piano/

 

[bsolar]

Your process of remembering things seems to be highly biased by the point you are trying to make (if it is a process of remembering things and not just plucking numbers out of thin air):

"Alongside the iPad launch on Saturday was the launch of a several thousand new iPad apps with many more coming."
https://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/05/ipad-apps-things-square-sketchbook-pro-warpgate-magic-piano/

The point is not the actual number of apps available, but this particular Netflix App and the "role" it had in the sale.

Apple says "every sale you do in an iOS app is thanks to our platform, so you own us 30% of the transaction". Netflix could pretty well argue "this customer was interested in Netflix independently from iOS. Without our app in iOS he would most likely still be our customer, but with a different device. It's us driving your sales and not the other way around".

Both positions make sense and basically every customer might fall in one or the other case, or anywhere in between.

 

[manu chao]

The point is not the actual number of apps available, but this particular Netflix App and the "role" it had in the sale.

See, your point was that the Netflix app was one of the main reasons for you to buy the iPad and to underline the importance that single app had for you (and implying also very likely for others), you exaggerate massively the paucity of apps (and thus the importance a single app had).

Is convincing others of the importance of your point so important that playing fast and loose with the facts is allowed?

 

[JAT]

These new rules were not made specifically to pressure Amazon or Netflix because Apple as similar offerings (iBooks, iTunes). It is Apple´s way of testing if they can get away with getting a share of the revenue stream generated on their platform.

No, neither. It is their way of making sure they get compensated for the cost of the store. Same as the 30% on straight-up app purchases.

The zero fee alternative offered by so many MacRumors economists would mean that every developer would make their apps free with no functionality. Which could then be purchased via IAP, bypassing any fee whatsoever to Apple, causing Apple to eat all costs of the store, even though they sell very little in it themselves.* Apparently, they decided the best solution was to include IAP purchases in their 30%, which does seem like an obvious solution. (esp considering antitrust issues, which makes all these comments rather hilarious) See, they aren't morons. If anyone else recalls, there was no store at first, Apple started it up by popular demand. A particular aspect of their business where SJ was proved 100% wrong, and changed his mind. But they are going to run it like any other store. Walmart makes money, BestBuy makes money...they know how to run a store. Apple seems to be doing ok, also.

I'd like to hear someone's 3rd option, since everybody knows so much.


* side point: this would likely mean the eventual end of the store, too. I wouldn't want to purchase my apps that way, it would become tiresome and I'd leave/jailbreak/whatever.

 

[divad1978]

I'd like to hear someone's 3rd option, since everybody knows so much.

Apple allows apps to be installed directly from developers websites so they don't need the Apple App Store however users that do so have to set a setting in the phone acknowledging no support for any issues on the phone while it is on and apps not downloaded from the official store are installed.

Developers pay significantly more money to access a special developer kit that allows them to install their apps directly onto customer phones. They have to license this each year.

Developers that continue to use the App Store play by Apple IAP rules while companies like Netflix can opt out and rely on their own platforms for subscriptions and distribution of their app.

I will finally because a happy loyal Apple customer.

 

[*LTD*]

I'd like to hear someone's 3rd option, since everybody knows so much.

Well you've heard a bona fide legal opinion, for free I might add. We all have in this thread.

That should have been the end of it.

 

[Oletros]

No, neither. It is their way of making sure they get compensated for the cost of the store. Same as the 30% on straight-up app purchases.

The zero fee alternative offered by so many MacRumors economists would mean that every developer would make their apps free with no functionality. Which could then be purchased via IAP, bypassing any fee whatsoever to Apple, causing Apple to eat all costs of the store, even though they sell very little in it themselves.*

Which costs are passing to Apple? Free apps with ads are passing fees to Apple?

 

[RalfTheDog]

The law suit they would bring is an Anti trust lawsuit in more than likely both a US court and an EU court. Remember EU courts would be a lot easier for Amazon to win in that in the US. The fact that Amazon has a chance of winning a case like that in the US tells us that they have a really good chances in Europe of pulling it off.
If Apple allowed side loading or 3rd party App stores for the iPhone Apple would have a case but Apple is the gate keeper and changed the rules on them and it is a case Apple has a good chances of losing in one of those places and could easily have fines in the billions.
The entire reason Apple back down on DRM for music years ago is the writing was on the wall for them to get nailed in court on it and Apple removed the DRM knowing if they didn't they would of been forced to licenses out fairplay so they removed it to buy them a lot more time or even eliminated the possibility of them having to do it.

No court in any country will tell any company that they are required to provide free service to their competition and provide in under terms dictated by that competition. "You must give us all free cars, you must also paint all your cars pink (Not just the ones you give us). While you are at it, give us free gas for life." Remember, Amazon is not paying anything for Kindle to be distributed on iOS.

Apple had been fighting DRM from day one. The MPAA demanded Apple put DRM in their music. The DRM did not go away until Apple had the market clout to tell the MP where to shove their AA.

Which costs are passing to Apple? Free apps with ads are passing fees to Apple?

You don't think it costs big money to run the App store? Server farms and bandwidth are not cheep.

 

[divad1978]

No court in any country will tell any company that they are required to provide free service to their competition and provide in under terms dictated by that competition.

I'd agree but Apple is forcing developers to use the App Store when there is no need for it. Every other OS there is allows developers to deliver content through their own means.

You don't think it costs big money to run the App store? Server farms and bandwidth are not cheep.

So the solution is simple. Don't force developers to use the App Store and let them provide for the cost of bandwidth to deliver their own applications and in app purchases.

Developers that can't afford to do that can put their apps in the App Store and comply by Apple's rules which in my opinion would be fair. Currently it is not fair to force developers to use their delivery method.

 

[RalfTheDog]

I'd agree but Apple is forcing developers to use the App Store when there is no need for it. Every other OS there is allows developers to deliver content through their own means.



So the solution is simple. Don't force developers to use the App Store and let them provide for the cost of bandwidth to deliver their own applications and in app purchases.

Developers that can't afford to do that can put their apps in the App Store and comply by Apple's rules which in my opinion would be fair. Currently it is not fair to force developers to use their delivery method.

The solution is, if you don't like Apple's TOS, write for a different platform. Don't force Apple to give it's product away for free to it's competition. What if Apple required Amazon to offer iBooks on the Kindle and to provide that service for free (even if the downloads were coming from Apple's servers?)

 

[hans1972]

No, neither. It is their way of making sure they get compensated for the cost of the store. Same as the 30% on straight-up app purchases.

Apple is already making a small profit on the stores they have. IAP have existed for quite some time and it has not really created a large exodus from app purchases to IAP.

The original new rules which also tried to control the prices outside the Apple store seems to me to indicate that at least one of their reasons was to get a cut of the revenue generated by free riders like the Kindle app.

Apple would be foolish not to try to get a cut of everything happening on the iOS platform.

 

[RalfTheDog]

Amazon is trying to use their monopoly of online book stores to force Apple to provide services to them at below cost. Apple should take Amazon to court on anti trust grounds.

As Amazon is trying to move into the tablet/applications market with the Kindle, they are using one monopoly to provide unfair advantage in another market.

 

[bsolar]

See, your point was that the Netflix app was one of the main reasons for you to buy the iPad and to underline the importance that single app had for you (and implying also very likely for others), you exaggerate massively the paucity of apps (and thus the importance a single app had).

Is convincing others of the importance of your point so important that playing fast and loose with the facts is allowed?

I couldn't care less about the Netflix app, I was just giving you my interpretation of another user's argument which I thought you misunderstood.

Talking about myself, before buying my iPhone I did check that the Kindle App was availabe. This is not "massively exaggerating" anything, it's just what I did. Obviously I did buy the iPhone not only because the Kindle App was available, but it being available was a pretty good reason, and it not being availabe would have been a pretty good reason to buy a different device.

 

[cmaier]

I couldn't care less about the Netflix app, I was just giving you my interpretation of another user's argument which I thought you misunderstood.

Talking about myself, before buying my iPhone I did check that the Kindle App was availabe. This is not "massively exaggerating" anything, it's just what I did. Obviously I did buy the iPhone not only because the Kindle App was available, but it being available was a pretty good reason, and it not being availabe would have been a pretty good reason to buy a different device.

Great. So amazon should start setting demands for apple while threatening to pull the app.

Won't happen. The reason it won't happen is amazon needs apple more than apple needs amazon.

 

[hans1972]

I'd agree but Apple is forcing developers to use the App Store when there is no need for it. Every other OS there is allows developers to deliver content through their own means.

There are two good reasons for the App Store:
1. You don´t trust developers
2. You don´t want the developers to have control

You want the developers to be kings when on the iOS platform they are considered unprincipled prostitutes that will accept and do anything as long as the payment is good enough.

Why do you want the iOS platform to be just like Android or Windows? Diversity is good.

Currently it is not fair to force developers to use their delivery method.

One of the big problems with Windows, OS X, Android etc. is that the developers have to much control and to much power. One of the great things about iOS is that it treats developers as third-rate citizens.

You don´t buy into Apple and iOS unless you trust Apple to make a lot of decisions for you. And Apple can only control the platform if they remove that control and power from the developers.

 

[KnightWRX]

You don't think it costs big money to run the App store? Server farms and bandwidth are not cheep.

They are paid for by the 99$ yearly developer fees and the 30% of the purchase price of apps.

IAP is only a payment processor, and doesn't quite use as much ressources as you hint it does.

 

[RalfTheDog]

They are paid for by the 99$ yearly developer fees and the 30% of the purchase price of apps.

IAP is only a payment processor, and doesn't quite use as much ressources as you hint it does.

$99 does not go very far. It is only a fraction of the cost of running the application vetting process (They have real humans look at the apps). 30% of a free app is 0.

 

[roadbloc]

Amazon is trying to use their monopoly of online book stores to force Apple to provide services to them at below cost. Apple should take Amazon to court on anti trust grounds.

As Amazon is trying to move into the tablet/applications market with the Kindle, they are using one monopoly to provide unfair advantage in another market.

And Apple aren't?

 

[KnightWRX]

$99 does not go very far. It is only a fraction of the cost of running the application vetting process (They have real humans look at the apps). 30% of a free app is 0.

So you're suggesting the App Store was not bringing in money before the introduction of IAP ? Because it was according the Apple's financial earning. Are you suggesting they lied ?

 

[RalfTheDog]

So you're suggesting the App Store was not bringing in money before the introduction of IAP ? Because it was according the Apple's financial earning. Are you suggesting they lied ?

Apple was making no money from free applications. They allowed and continue to allow free applications because they feel it creates value for the iOS user. All Apple is saying is, Give something away for free and we will not charge you. Charge for your product or service and we want a cut if you sell it on the App Store.

It is not complicated. Give it away for free and Apple does not charge. Sell it or use it to sell other stuff and Apple wants a cut. You have the choice of following Apples rules on Apples platform or you can move to a platform with rules you like better.

 

[divad1978]

There are two good reasons for the App Store:
1. You don´t trust developers
2. You don´t want the developers to have control

You want the developers to be kings when on the iOS platform they are considered unprincipled prostitutes that will accept and do anything as long as the payment is good enough.

Why do you want the iOS platform to be just like Android or Windows? Diversity is good.




One of the big problems with Windows, OS X, Android etc. is that the developers have to much control and to much power. One of the great things about iOS is that it treats developers as third-rate citizens.

You don´t buy into Apple and iOS unless you trust Apple to make a lot of decisions for you. And Apple can only control the platform if they remove that control and power from the developers.

I don't trust Apple to make the right decisions. Censorship should be an obvious reason which they have proven to censor apps due to pressure. I wouldn't give the government control to decide what can be sold and what can't why would I trust Apple to do it?

It seems there are a lot of people that think people shouldn't be allowed to make money without Apple getting a cut when in fact the App store is what drives the hardware sells of their phone to begin with. They are getting a cut. I guess everyone here that supports Apple in this would also agree that the ISPs should be allowed to restrict amazon.com and other websites as well and demand 30% of their sells since amazon is getting to make billions of dollars of their backbone network?

You see a problem with Windows, OS X and Android however I don't. I've been using Windows since 3.1 and the openness of the system has been it's greatest attribute. It allows anyone to just start developing apps and getting them to potential customers without having to go have a middle man and that is how it should be. If an app is bad then it won't be successful. If an app is good then it will be and more and more people will find out about it.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple was making no money from free applications.

Except 99$/year per developer.

They allowed and continue to allow free applications because they feel it creates value for the iOS user.

Yes, indeed they do, for 99$/year.

All Apple is saying is, Give something away for free and we will not charge you. Charge for your product or service and we want a cut if you sell it on the App Store.

Except IAP is not selling on the App Store, no app store infrastructure is used beyond payment processing. And if you don't use IAP for processing payment for purchases made through your app, you're not even using App Store infrastructure at all.

Why would Apple be entitled to money then ?

It is not complicated. Give it away for free and Apple does not charge. Sell it or use it to sell other stuff and Apple wants a cut. You have the choice of following Apples rules on Apples platform or you can move to a platform with rules you like better.

Yet Apple themselves relaxed the rules. Seems to me they admitted they went too far. This is simply Apple trying to see how far they can go and get away with it. This is an hostile attitude towards the people that built the eco-system, and it the end, it could hurt this eco-system, and us end-users in the process.

Apple should let IAP stand on its own merit. If it provides enough value to justify the 30% cut they want it to have to simply process payments, then people will use it. If it doesn't, they'll need to adjust.

Thus are the laws of market.