Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple owns the platform, you can not have a monopoly of your own platform that you create and maintain.

Sure you can - Microsoft got in trouble for exactly that in 2001. Only difference is that Microsoft monopolized web access on Windows, whereas Apple today monopolizes software access. Not exactly the same, but goes to show that you can have a monopoly on your own platform that you create and maintain.
 
You have to blind (figuratively) or a stockholder of Apple or Google to not see that both companies absolutely dominate the app ecosystem.
Others are welcomed to start their own. Blackberry couldn’t keep up, and they got out. At some point they were dominating the corporate world. Microsoft had that chance too but they blew it. But they snoozed and lose to Apple. Then Google emerged with Android phones.
There’s no room for the weak. But there’s room for others to create something and dominate.
But to reach that level they will really need to put the effort.
The market is not closed for new Mobile operating systems and devices. But don’t expect that those companies that are already on the top will step down to make room for the newcomers.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
It’s not a monopoly or duopoly in the legal sense. People just claim that.
And then other companies will join and it will be a oligopoly (3 or more), and people will still cry about…
“Oh my Gosh! there are 10 companies dominating the market, I can’t stand it!”.

People, grow out of it! Focus on something more productive than whining about monopolies, duopolies, oligopolies and so on…
 
Sure you can - Microsoft got in trouble for exactly that in 2001. Only difference is that Microsoft monopolized web access on Windows, whereas Apple today monopolizes software access. Not exactly the same, but goes to show that you can have a monopoly on your own platform that you create and maintain.
Expect MS was a monopoly
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
You really don't believe it will be a massive hit? I think it will never approach Apple's size, but I believe that the EU is right on this issue,
I believe the EU is wrong.
Apple is making up security stuff
Imo they aren’t.
as they have GREED in mind;
They have their good name to protect.
small/medium businesses should be protected by these massive corporations.
Lest it be forgotten unlike air, food, finances or water an iPhone is not a living necessity.
I normally don't care for Epic and what they have done deliberately going against Apple's App Store and developer rules, however someone has to take a stand and stop bullies
Bullies? So companies that run their business counter to your opinion are bullies?
even if it's a much smaller bully than the original bully - in this case AAPL - Tim's greed job should be coming to an end.
Hint: Tim’s job is not going anywhere he doesn’t want it to.
And to change topic, I want a CEO who cares about the future not right now how much money he/she can make.
Okay. Maybe you can marshal the troops and lead an investor revolution. Good luck.
 
If developing a commercially viable mobile operating system is no big deal, why are there only two in the EU?
There's a lot you can do to stifle competition when you have a couple trillion lying around. "Commercially viable" is a copout term when the two who own the market can just eat or trample any company that could challenge them in the future. Both Android and iOS are mature, the development costs are not as big as they were when they were young. But they are cash cows and both companies will use all their power to milk every cent from them as long as the EU lets them. We all know the US legislators don't have enough motivation to fight corporate overreach, there's no money in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
The alternative iOS app store had charged a €1.50 plus tax annual subscription, in order to cover Apple's Core Technology Fee (CTF). Apple's terms for alternative app marketplaces requires developers to pay the CTF for each annual app installation.
The CTF was €0.50. So, they charged €0.50 to cover the CTF. And I guess, they charged another €1.00 to cover… the blank spaces in their pockets?
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
Apple's CTF is effectively a road tax. There's nothing wrong with charging it; its just their fine print for doing so is deliberately obtuse and they do so for free apps which is plain wrong.
The CTF didn’t exist before the DMA. And, yes, I agree with you that the DMA is just plain wrong, but for now, it’s the law of the land.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
Still absolutely preposterous Apple feels 'entitled' to a fee for software to run on hardware customers PAY for. Imagine having to pay a royalty to Microsoft for every executable you run or distribute on Windows. It's crazy!
Exactly that! I hope the EU makes an example of Apple with a hefty fine so that they don't try this again in the future. F* around and find out.
 
Still absolutely preposterous Apple feels 'entitled' to a fee for software to run on hardware customers PAY for. Imagine having to pay a royalty to Microsoft for every executable you run or distribute on Windows. It's crazy!
Absolutely preposterous the above sentiment as well. That people feel entitled enough to decry that apple isn’t entitled to anything.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
There's a lot you can do to stifle competition when you have a couple trillion lying around. "Commercially viable" is a copout term when the two who own the market can just eat or trample any company that could challenge them in the future.

We all watched this happen with Windows Phone, too. Part of the reasons it failed is because Google would not bring their massively popular software to the platform.

I dunno about ya'll, but I'm not switching to a phone that doesn't have a YouTube app.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: gusmula
Since when is the iPhone (or iPad) a console? Apple has certainly never marketed them that way.
If I am not mistaken, the 30% App Store cut was actually inspired by companies like Nintendo, who were already charging a similar commission at the time. It's not unreasonable to assume that at the time, Steve Jobs viewed the iPhone as more of a closed ecosystem along the lines of gaming consoles (where he could market security, safety and convenience as key selling points), rather than the "anything goes" open nature of the PC, which at the time was also rife with viruses and malware.
 
Still absolutely preposterous Apple feels 'entitled' to a fee for software to run on hardware customers PAY for. Imagine having to pay a royalty to Microsoft for every executable you run or distribute on Windows. It's crazy!

  1. Customer installs AltStore and downloads a malicious app.
  2. Device is compromised.
  3. Customer contacts Apple Support and blames Apple for an "insecure" system. Time is spent trying to help the customer resolve this.
Apple does incur costs that are not covered by a one-time purchase of the hardware. Those apps are utilizing Apple-developed and -maintained frameworks year over year. Who covers that cost?

It's a catch-22. Consumers (us) demand "innovation" from Apple year after yeaer. Apple invests heavily into that, and we expect to get those benefits for free? No... that investment needs to be covered by ongoing revenues well past the device purchase.

Apple used to charge for macOS upgrades each year, but moved to a "free" upgrade in 2013, with the cost being covered through other revenue streams. It's not really a free upgrade. We pay the cost through our app purchases and subscription fees.

It was October 22, 2013 when Apple released OS X 10.9: "Mavericks" and made the operating system "free". This aligned it more closely with their iOS business model, but came with the lack of ongoing revenue to fully support it.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
I see people always trot out the tired security angle for alt stores despite apples abysmal record. Has there been coverage on this site over the patron shakedown yet? Love Apple’s take: nice business you got there, shame if something happened to it.
 
I just bought a license yesterday. It felt like I was scammed since there is nothing interesting to found there AT ALL. I apparently subscribed for a yearly subscription without any option to cancel it - it gives me an error.

It just sucks in this current state, just wasting time.
They were already charging well over the CTF fee. Now that they’ve lined their pockets with that, plus Patreon plus Epic, they’re not going to refund the folks that paid.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
This is exactly what I was thinking. Dude is so far up his own a&& that he is spending extra capital just to spite Apple. He's actively taking measures to put leaks in the ship to spite the captain of a different ship.
Spite is to hurt, annoy, or offend. Apple says AltStore PAL has to pay the CTF. The CTF is getting paid (by Epic).

Apple’s not hurt as, well, they’re getting their money.
They’re not annoyed ‘cause, well, they’re getting their money.
And they’re not offended as, well, they’re getting their money.

With Apple, it’s all about the money. And, as long as it’s passed to them in the amounts requested based on the rules that have been defined, they’re good.
 
  1. Customer installs AltStore and downloads a malicious app.
  2. Device is compromised.
  3. Customer contacts Apple Support and blames Apple for an "insecure" system. Time is spent trying to help the customer resolve this.
Apple does incur costs that are not covered by a one-time purchase of the hardware. Those apps are utilizing Apple-developed and -maintained frameworks year over year. Who covers that cost?

It's a catch-22. Consumers (us) demand "innovation" from Apple year after yeaer. Apple invests heavily into that, and we expect to get those benefits for free? No... that investment needs to be covered by ongoing revenues well past the device purchase.

Apple used to charge for macOS upgrades each year, but moved to a "free" upgrade in 2013, with the cost being covered through other revenue streams. It's not really a free upgrade. We pay the cost through our app purchases and subscription fees.

It was October 22, 2013 when Apple released OS X 10.9: "Mavericks" and made the operating system "free". This aligned it more closely with their iOS business model, but came with the lack of ongoing revenue to fully support it.
Apple sell empty glass and metal shells that run the operating systems we align with. You don’t buy an iPhone as much as iOS itself. Said device comes with X years worth of updates included in the upfront cost.

Apple are entitled to their cut of App Store sales because they provide the infrastructure to enable those businesses in the first place as well as hosting, API security, SDKs and so on.

But one does not bankroll the other.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
You've stumbled onto the solution: app developers just need to develop their own OS (easy according to you) and then subsidize the cost by selling their own hardware (also easy according to you).
Yeah, it’s super easy. Barely an inconvenience. Apple’s built a customer base that is willing to and comfortable with spending money via digital transactions with millions of credit card accounts willingly entered into the system over years and years. I’m sure these VERY talented and “I don’t need Apple’s help” developers should be able to copy that success in like… 4 weeks?

That is, of course, a conservative estimate. As there’s nothing special about what Apple has accomplished, it’s likely more like 4 days.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.