Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Antitrust Committee Chairman Calls App Store Fees 'Highway Robbery'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Certainly in Europe they aren't.
Precisely because they are regulated, capped and anti-trust action hits them very hard if they creep up.
MasterCard Loses EU Court Case Over Interchange Card Fees
Europe's top court backed a decision by the European Commission to ban cross-border fees set by MasterCard on the grounds that they harmed competition.
www.wsj.com
It was never required to use Visual Studio to develop software for MS Windows. Many developers were buying it but that was because it was (and still is) by far the best IDE.
Nobody is arguing that Apple services are not worth it for all developers. Many casual developers might be just fine with them. However, for many (perhaps most) developers with reasonable volume of sales, App Store policies and fees are an undesirable overhead. As i see it, the reasonable solution to accommodate different types of developers as well as users would be for government to mandate that platform owners (this includes Google) can't maintain a monopoly on the app distribution. This would allow other companies to open alternative app stores (thus letting market to set the proper price for this type of services). It would also allow the developers who have the infrastructure for distributing their own apps do so if they prefer it this way.
Yep, would be challenged and would take years, if any to come through. Government has been known to overstep it's boundaries and lose. Of course sometimes it wins.
Alternatively and in the meantime, the devs could conform to the rules of the app store. Unless the courts make a determination against Apple, nothing (or little) is likely to change.
Why do people have to politicize almost everything these days? 80% of what you said isn’t relevant to the discussion but just some kind of political agenda you want heard.
It’s a business that’s turning profits just like any other business would. Now do I think it’d help developers if they lowered their cut? Yes, absolutely!
I don’t know Google’s cut from the Play Store apps but 25% is standard if you’re running a business.
Why exactly do they deserve it. Devs have made a lot of money off Apple and seem like they want to make a lot more without having to pay for it all to be hosted and delivered to users. I do not buy iOS because of apps I use it because I like it and it is fairly secure. Also allowing apps to be side loaded will pose a whole other problem of Apple being forced to support users if something goes wrong because they are not informed enough to choose apps that are not malicious in nature. Devs can offer other payments options and in the age of the internet no one should be able to claim ignorance.
And you agreed to Apple's terms and conditions when you first turned your device on.
Listen, I think the pricing model myself borders on usury. That said, it is what it is.
Does that mean I'm against actions like this forcing Apple's hand? Dog no! I'd love to see then change it and get more money back to the developers, even if it's asliding scale (e.g. first 500 are free per developer, next 1,000 at 10% etc.)
The absolute last thing I want to see is a method to sideload apps.
I had that with my old Android device and now realize what a two edged sword that really was.
The market actually does have a say. They said "yes" back in 2008 when Apple announced the App Store (and the 30% fee btw, it's almost like everyone forgot they announced the fee on day one) and developers scrambled to have their apps on this amazing new device. If 30% was too much, developers wouldn't have agreed to develop apps for iOS. If Apple had announced they were charging 50% or 75%, you would have seen a lot less apps and Apple would have lowered their fees quickly, maybe even to... 30%... hey! Like the credit card analogy, developers can choose not to develop apps for iOS. Ever seen an app that was only for Android? Yeah, me too, that's cuz of something called the free market. You should look it up.
This is no like its new... Apple's always has subscription based in the apps, like for last few years.. What's the committee's problem? Can't they till the difference between that and not everyone does this?
If it's anti-competitive, why are people happy with it?
If it's anti-competitive, why are people happy with it?
I do not understand how someone in this position could be this stupid.
Doesn’t Android have 4x the market share as iOS? Wouldn’t this be considered “real” competition?
Unless he’s referring to the App Store itself. But wait — doesn’t Apple update their OS every year and create new tools for developers to take advantage of both new hardware and software? Does he think this happens out of thin air? He clearly does not know what he is talking about. He is looking at the 30% with no knowledge of how it all works — the history, the costs involved for Apple, and how their commission compares to the market leader.
This case will go before the Supreme Court, eventually, and it will die an embarrassing death.
Doesn’t Android have 4x the market share as iOS? Wouldn’t this be considered “real” competition?
Unless he’s referring to the App Store itself. But wait — doesn’t Apple update their OS every year and create new tools for developers to take advantage of both new hardware and software? Does he think this happens out of thin air? He clearly does not know what he is talking about. He is looking at the 30% with no knowledge of how it all works — the history, the costs involved for Apple, and how their commission compares to the market leader.
This case will go before the Supreme Court, eventually, and it will die an embarrassing death.
I'm not sure you'll find many, if any, developers who are "happy" with the current status quo of 30%.
Add for how genpop feels - unsure if many outside a small group of folk even know this is how it goes on.
Right, but my point was in hind-sight it’s not always the best for all parties.😬
So it was ok in 2008, and now all of a sudden it's not? Obviously all developers would be happy with 0% but that's not the point. Seems if they were truly unhappy with the business deal, they wouldn't continue it. Yet they do. Sort of like people who buy something they claim is "overpriced" - well, if it were truly "overpriced," then you wouldn't have bought it. Your agreement to purchase proves you think it's worth the price, despite what you say. As they say, actions speak louder than words.
I have had MR posters say, people may be buying Apple not because it’s the best, but it’s the best of the worst. Go figure that type of thinking.
Where studs I say any of that? I simply pointed out that you'd be hard pushed to find any developers who were ever happy with Apple taking a 30% cut.
Accepting, sure - and probably begrudgingly so. But "happy"?
No. Not happy. That's all.
Words matter. Happy is not the same as accepting.
Yes, words matter, but as you know, language is also quite fluid. I often hear "happy" used in sort of a neutral sense to mean quite the same thing as "accepting" or "satisfied." Now, if the word "ecstatic" or "overjoyed" were used, that would be a lot clearer. And again, obviously anyone would be that kind of "happy" with anything that is lower than the status quo, whether it was 10%, 20%, or 30%. I think 30% is not unfair or out of the ordinary, based on what I've seen. And in any case, it's a voluntary business relationship, so obviously developers think it's worth it by their actions of continuing to develop their apps and pay. They may say otherwise, but until they put actions to their words, it's just hot air.
I find it both hilarious and tragic that the chair of the Anti-trust committee considers Apple's app store "highway robbery" but does not say the same about oil companies, banking, finance, insurance, health insurance, etc.
I'm as critical of Apple as anyone, and think it a company dedicated to providing consumers the least for the most, but at least it has competition that is as financially secure as Apple is.
I'm as critical of Apple as anyone, and think it a company dedicated to providing consumers the least for the most, but at least it has competition that is as financially secure as Apple is.
And I would really have no way of knowing for sure what you had in mind by using those, and people use quotation marks for various things, including (wrongly) emphasis. But anyway, I think we've both clarified what we each mean by it now
So you believe that the EU should step in to make sure that developers should make sure there are no monopolies? That there are no anti-competitive practices? That the Devs have the option to use their own infrastructure and not be bound by the platforms rules? You believe the EU should do all of that?
The same EU that is insisting that the UK sign up to a "Level Playing Field" as part of Brexit. A level playing field that would protect the EU member states by not allowing the UK to compete with it or try to entice businesses to come to the UK by undercutting the EU on things like Corporation Tax. The same EU that essentially wants to force a non-member state to agree to "price-fixing" and anti-competitive behaviour? THAT EU?
[automerge]1592684217[/automerge]
I don't think you understand how taxes work! Taxes are calculated as a percentage of gross amount which is deducted to give the net (after tax amount). So if you earn $100 and get taxed 40%...that means you deduct 40% leaving you $60. The fact that the $40 you lose is 66.6% of the $60 you retain doesn't mean you have been taxed 66.6%...to suggest that it does it utterly absurd and I hope to God you have a good accountant!!!
[automerge]1592684443[/automerge]
I would use it to receive email and read them whenever I next check my email! I have a letter box in my front door. I haven't blocked it up just because I don't get notified that something has been posted through it if I am out...I simply find out when I get home!!
It is quite sad to me that people cannot imagine a world where they world instantly notified the second something happened. It must be mind-boggling to them that humans ever crawled out of the swamp without being told what to do and how to do it!
Humans survived, and prospered, and even invented the technology that formed the basis of these insidious devices that people crave information from, without being notified of something the second it happens. If you are waiting for something that crucial, then check regularly. If it isn't life or death, or business critical, then check your email once an hour and see what's there when you do!
Last edited:
The key here is that a lone developer should have the choice. If they feel they can handle it — honestly, most probably can — the only thing stopping them is Apple making the choice for them.
[automerge]1592687799[/automerge]
Hey, now, Apple’s been doing that with their own Mail app since iOS 13.
Maybe the developer can put the app anywhere they want. Just has to be downloaded through the app store. (Quite the contentious topic, isn't it?)
I've never noticed the lack of notifications from mail on ios 13.Hey, now, Apple’s been doing that with their own Mail app since iOS 13.
We’ll see how “good” Apple thinks it is when Phil Schiller’s suggestion of charging more for an IAP option comes up in an antitrust matter. That’s basically a tacit admission that Apple’s use of its monopoly position in iOS software distribution to force developers to use IAP for digital goods/services harms consumers.
Astounding that he was stupid enough to say it on his own, but even more astounding that they didn’t run him through a lawyer before letting him talk to media.
We will see is correct. It may not go the way you think, although who can predict the future of such things.