App Store Developers in South Korea Can Now Use Alternative Payment Providers

[rafark]

You are conflating the cost to developers as a product and the development process for these tools. Many popular open source tools and frameworks are often supported through big institutions, foundations, or donations, e.g. Swift (Apple), React (FB), Node (OpenJS Foundation), npm (Github/MS) etc. Yes they are made available for free, but that doesn't mean there was no development cost.

Of course there are big open source projects supported by big companies, but there’s still no upfront cost to end developers so they do “come free”.

And there are lots of (high-quality) OS projects designed & developed by independent devs. I’ve used and contributed to plenty of them.

But good point, the fact that most if not all of the largest tech companies contribute to open source means Apple can absolutely afford to develop & maintain the APIs for their own products especially if that means a healthier and more attractive ecosystem and products.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple sold phones perfectly fine without an app store and developers

Contrary to popular narrative, they did not.

And they never sold iPhones without an App Store against Android devices with an App Store.

 

[mrochester]

Contrary to popular narrative, they did not.

And they never sold iPhones without an App Store against Android devices with an App Store.

Yeah developers and consumers demanded an App Store almost immediately and we got one the following year.

 

[AppliedMicro]

demanded an App Store

I wouldn't say they necessarily demanded an app store run by Apple.
But they did demand (native) apps.

 

[mrochester]

I wouldn't say they necessarily demanded an app store run by Apple.
But they did demand (native) apps.

We got both! I don’t know why we didn’t just stick with web apps.

 

[somnolentsurfer]

I totally agree, Apple should get a cut in that case if you’re using Apple for the entire process. If I was a small Indy developer, I would 100% use the Apple payment method so I wouldn’t have to deal with that overhead.

But for large developers that manage the relationship themselves across multiple platforms, using Apple for payment processing should just be an option.

But Apple’s business model from the start was that the small number of large developers would subsidise the overwhelming majority of small ones. It’s how they were able to offer free apps in the first place. The problem now is that large developers want to give their apps away for free using Apple’s distribution network, and then rake in the profits through subscriptions and microtransactions. It’s perfectly fair that apps distributed on Apple’s store pay to be there, and taking a cut of sales that add or expand the app, or are required for it’s core functionality, seems a reasonable way to do that.

Given that, the real question is whether or not Apple should be allowed to maintain a monopoly on app distribution. Should developers who don’t want to pay Apple’s share be allowed to run rival distribution networks? For (large) developers it may well be better. For the vast majority of consumers, I still think it would be worse.

 

[somnolentsurfer]

We got both! I don’t know why we didn’t just stick with web apps.

Have you tried to get anything done on ChromeOS? That’s why.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The problem now is that large developers want to give their apps away for free using Apple’s distribution network, and then rake in the profits through subscriptions and microtransactions

Many of them would be quite happy to host their apps on their own website - just as it has been done for decades in software sales for desktop OS.

Not only by "large" developers but by smaller ones as well!

For the vast majority of consumers, I still think it would be worse.

I don't think so. For the reason alone that it would allow business models and functionality that Apple currently prohibits.

Imagine customers could manage their Spotify and Netflix subscriptions in-app and Kindle readers could buy books directly from the Kindle app. That would benefit a vast number of consumers in a very everyday, practical way.

 

[mrochester]

Many of them would be quite happy to host their apps on their own website - just as it has been done for decades in software sales for desktop OS.

Not only by "large" developers but by smaller ones as well!

I don't think so. For the reason alone that it would allow business models and functionality that Apple currently prohibits.

Imagine customers could manage their Spotify and Netflix subscriptions in-app and Kindle readers could buy books directly from the Kindle app. That would benefit a vast number of consumers in a very everyday, practical way.

Spotify, Netflix and Kindle could offer all of that now. They just choose not to because they don’t want to pay a commission to Apple.

 

[AppliedMicro]

They could - but they don't. If they could host their apps on their own sites, I bet they would.

They just choose not to because they don’t want to pay a commission to Apple.

As long as Apple charges the about the same for a 1st-year subscription as Netflix' or Spotify's entire gross margin (20-40%) for basically doing nothing, that choice is very understandable.

 

[mrochester]

They could - but they don't. If they could host their apps on their own sites, I bet they would.

As long as Apple charges the about the same for a 1st-year subscription as Netflix' or Spotify's entire gross margin (20-40%) for basically doing nothing, that choice is very understandable.

Absolutely if it cost them nothing they’d do it! But that’s their decision. They could increase the price if they want to offer their customers the convenience of subscribing in app or buying kindle books in app to cover the commission.

 

[I7guy]

They could - but they don't. If they could host their apps on their own sites, I bet they would.

As long as Apple charges the about the same for a 1st-year subscription as Netflix' or Spotify's entire gross margin (20-40%) for basically doing nothing, that choice is very understandable.

Sure who wouldn’t want access to apples customers but not pay apple a Cent.

 

[GoodTimeNotALongTime]

And since Steve Jobs passed away, they released just crap.

That share price is looking pretty good for a company that ‘released just crap’ LOL. Sounds like somebody is upset that they weren’t smart enough to buy stock

 

[djphat2000]

Sounds like you are no longer arguing that they shouldn't get a cut; just haggling over how much.

This is exactly what some folks are arguing. They somehow eliminate the fact that all physical stores get a cut of everything they sell within that store. Items they brand (store brand), and items they do not (3rd party).
That often the cut is higher than 30%. But they negate that by saying "it's a physical store with people in it, their costs are higher. Apple's costs are lower cause it's just some servers in a data center and that must cost way less to operate than the 30% they charge. They don't really do anything past the first transaction, why should they make that much money off the developers product".

With the trouble here being, governments tend to "not" get involved with pricing. So long as you didn't "raise" prices for no other reason than you can. As in, "what can you (the consumer/developer) do about it. We control it end to end, so if we want to raise it from 30% to 50% for no other reason than we "can". We will, and are".
Which is not the case with either Google or Apple. Both have "lowered" that price over time. With full acknowledgment that those that pay the 30% are subsidizing the cost for those that don't charge anything at all. And keep the store profitable to keep it going. There are carve outs for those that don't charge anything for the app (Free). Those that you can subscribe to without using Apple/Google IAP (Netflix). Those that sell physical goods (Uber, Amazon etc). Those that make less than $1 million annually (15% instead of 30%). Game subscription services (AKA streaming or Apple Arcade). You need to also provide those games individually (for purchase, as Apple does with Apple Arcade games) if you want to bundle it in a streaming service. OR you can just bypass the store entirely and stream it via a WEB APP, for free by the way including IAP's (if you have those in the games).

Then they will say, "well just allow 3rd party stores and side loading. You don't have to do it if you don't want to".
To which many of us say "That will alter the way iOS works for all of us. Enabling more options to break in than currently exist today. If you want that feature. Then by an Android device. They allow for that, and provide many different device options. Including more expensive, and or less expensive than Apple. With practically all the same software/apps too. Please leave my device alone. I don't want to play in the rain and mud outside of my walled garden. I'm happy here, thanks!".

 

[djphat2000]

I totally agree, Apple should get a cut in that case if you’re using Apple for the entire process. If I was a small Indy developer, I would 100% use the Apple payment method so I wouldn’t have to deal with that overhead.

But for large developers that manage the relationship themselves across multiple platforms, using Apple for payment processing should just be an option.

I think it’s a good first step that Apple allows developers to direct users to a website now.

I would have argued in favor of Apple allowing developers to contact customers (OUTSIDE THE STORE and APPS) before hand as well. There was no good reason for them to prevent developer communication to the customer via Email, social media, TV ads, etc. However, I never would agree to a developer using their app to directly communicate with the customer to purchase anything else outside the Appstore.

No different than say any manufacture that sells a product in say a Target or Best Buy. They would not have an advertisement that shows the consumer they can purchase this same product directly for less or from another store for less.

 

[Wildkraut]

That share price is looking pretty good for a company that ‘released just crap’ LOL. Sounds like somebody is upset that they weren’t smart enough to buy stock

The current share worths nothing for a company at long term, except for current shareholders and their current CEO‘s wallet.

No, I’m not badly in need of Apple shares nor looking for exorbitant unhealthy income grow. If i could wish me something it would be days with more than 24h and stay young for longer.

Anyway, I find it funny that people tends to define the health of a company by looking at it’s „current“ share price, that’s exactly what Steve Jobs never did and was strictly against. For a 3 trillion dollar company Apple is just releasing crap.

Just look at Palm, Blackberry, HTC, IBM, Motorola, Nokia, Windows Phone, etc. how quick things can go down the river, when growing share becomes the top priority.
The next hyped company will knock on the door soon, and if Apple don’t make an U turn they will go down the river, too.

Well, Tim Cook won’t become poor for sure, but he f‘ing up Apple at long term for personal short term success, instead for caring of Apples future.

Can’t innovate anymore my ass?
Yep they can’t, they are mainly recycling old stuff over and over again, just like the companies i named before, and this will break their neck.

The day their earnings break away, their decadent life style will also devour away their money in a blink of an eye.

 

[I7guy]

The current share worths nothing for a company at long term, except for current shareholders and their current CEO‘s wallet.

No, I’m not badly in need of Apple shares nor looking for exorbitant unhealthy income grow. If i could wish me something it would be days with more than 24h and stay young for longer.

Anyway, I find it funny that people tends to define the health of a company by looking at it’s „current“ share price, that’s exactly what Steve Jobs never did and was strictly against. For a 3 trillion dollar company Apple is just releasing crap.

Just look at Palm, Blackberry, HTC, IBM, Motorola, Nokia, Windows Phone, etc. how quick things can go down the river, when growing share becomes the top priority.
The next hyped company will knock on the door soon, and if Apple don’t make an U turn they will go down the river, too.

Well, Tim Cook won’t become poor for sure, but he f‘ing up Apple at long term for personal short term success, instead for caring of Apples future.

Can’t innovate anymore my ass?
Yep they can’t, they are mainly recycling old stuff over and over again, just like the companies i named before, and this will break their neck.

The day their earnings break away, their decadent life style will devour away their money in a blink of an eye.

Or not.

 

[mrochester]

The current share worths nothing for a company at long term, except for current shareholders and their current CEO‘s wallet.

No, I’m not badly in need of Apple shares nor looking for exorbitant unhealthy income grow. If i could wish me something it would be days with more than 24h and stay young for longer.

Anyway, I find it funny that people tends to define the health of a company by looking at it’s „current“ share price, that’s exactly what Steve Jobs never did and was strictly against. For a 3 trillion dollar company Apple is just releasing crap.

Just look at Palm, Blackberry, HTC, IBM, Motorola, Nokia, Windows Phone, etc. how quick things can go down the river, when growing share becomes the top priority.
The next hyped company will knock on the door soon, and if Apple don’t make an U turn they will go down the river, too.

Well, Tim Cook won’t become poor for sure, but he f‘ing up Apple at long term for personal short term success, instead for caring of Apples future.

Can’t innovate anymore my ass?
Yep they can’t, they are mainly recycling old stuff over and over again, just like the companies i named before, and this will break their neck.

The day their earnings break away, their decadent life style will also devour away their money in a blink of an eye.

Apple is doomed, doomed!

 

[Wildkraut]

Apple is doomed, doomed!

Well, it will take a bit of time for this mammoth to die out, but yes if they continue acting short sighted like that, they are. I say max. 20-30 years and they will join the cemetery of silicon valley, perhaps even sooner.

 

[mrochester]

Well, it will take a bit of time for this mammoth to die out, but yes if they continue acting short sighted like that, they are. I say max. 20-30 years and they will join the cemetery of silicon valley, perhaps even sooner.

What’s your prediction for google, Microsoft, meta etc?

 

[szw-mapple fan]

Of course there are big open source projects supported by big companies, but there’s still no upfront cost to end developers so they do “come free”.

And there are lots of (high-quality) OS projects designed & developed by independent devs. I’ve used and contributed to plenty of them.

But good point, the fact that most if not all of the largest tech companies contribute to open source means Apple can absolutely afford to develop & maintain the APIs for their own products especially if that means a healthier and more attractive ecosystem and products.

Totally agree with your points, just pointing out that some of these big companies’ OS projects are not necessarily coming completely from a sense of altruism. While Apple (and other large companies) can certainly afford to open source a lot of things they often only do it when they are trying to attract more developers (who would have otherwise not chosen to adopt some of these tools and APIs). The iOS platform and App Store is clearly a case where developers are still flocking to it despite the dev fee and the 30% cut. I’m not saying Apple isn’t being a little greedy here but this is a case where that extra encouragement is less than necessary.

 

[Abazigal]

Well, it will take a bit of time for this mammoth to die out, but yes if they continue acting short sighted like that, they are. I say max. 20-30 years and they will join the cemetery of silicon valley, perhaps even sooner.

Have you ever entertained the possibility that Apple’s current financial success is the result of them releasing products that do genuinely offer a great user experience to consumers (who in turn vote with their wallets?). While there are people (both here and elsewhere) who love to find fault and complain about anything and everything Apple, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Apple is on the wrong path here.

It just means that there are certain markets that Apple is either unable or unwilling to serve, and that is perfectly all right. There are a ton of restaurants I don’t patronise for one reason or another. It doesn’t mean they are doing something wrong or that they are doomed, because the world is a lot of bigger than any one person here. It just means that I don’t find the food they offer particularly appetising, and again, it could very much be just me and my picky taste buds, not them.

I don’t think Apple is being short-sighted at all. They know who their target audience is, maybe you simply aren’t one of them any more. You are free to vote with your wallet, as are the billion+ other Apple users around the world; just don’t be upset when the outcome is nothing like what you envisioned.

The two are not mutually exclusive here.

 

[djphat2000]

The current share worths nothing for a company at long term, except for current shareholders and their current CEO‘s wallet.

OK, so for a while now it has been doing pretty well. Fixed it.

No, I’m not badly in need of Apple shares nor looking for exorbitant unhealthy income grow. If i could wish me something it would be days with more than 24h and stay young for longer.

I for one am happy you are financially stable and mainly wish you had more time in the day to enjoy life.

Anyway, I find it funny that people tends to define the health of a company by looking at it’s „current“ share price, that’s exactly what Steve Jobs never did and was strictly against. For a 3 trillion dollar company Apple is just releasing crap.

He had to. Otherwise you get the boot. And it was more long term. Steve grew the company, if he did not do so. He would have been fired. Tim Cook is still growing the company. If he did not, he would have gotten the boot.
You have to look at the overall state of the company. Are they growing? Where are they not, and where are they doing well in? Are they still innovating? ETC..

If they just released crap, they wouldn't grow. People would stop buying what they sold (because it's crap) and they would fail. it wouldn't be overnight, and most likely they would fire the current CEO and many members of the team. Look for or promote internally new people to lead the company back to growth. How do you think John Scully ran the company during and after Steve Jobs? Jobs, as great as he was was not perfect. He could be right and wrong. Thankfully, he was mostly right for Apple.

Just look at Palm, Blackberry, HTC, IBM, Motorola, Nokia, Windows Phone, etc. how quick things can go down the river, when growing share becomes the top priority.
The next hyped company will knock on the door soon, and if Apple don’t make an U turn they will go down the river, too.

I'm still waiting for the next big over hyped company to come along and provide some competition to keep the governments (I mean people) of the world happy.

Well, Tim Cook won’t become poor for sure, but he f‘ing up Apple at long term for personal short term success, instead for caring of Apples future.

Right. I'm pretty sure the iWatch alone is worth having Tim Cook as CEO of Apple. Second and even bigger reason is the M (SOC) series processors. Long term, they control their own destiny with these chips. Not to mention darn near everyone I meet has an iWatch.

Can’t innovate anymore my ass?
Yep they can’t, they are mainly recycling old stuff over and over again, just like the companies i named before, and this will break their neck.

i have the nMP. And "IF" we had M series chips back then, well. We would have the Mac Studio sooner I guess.
I don't often agree with Linus Tech

but in this instance, I do.

The day their earnings break away, their decadent life style will also devour away their money in a blink of an eye.

It will take awhile before that happens. And it will not be that fast once it does.
But feel free to hang out and wait for it. You will most likely gain some more hours in the day before it does, but yeah go for it.

 

[djphat2000]

Well, it will take a bit of time for this mammoth to die out, but yes if they continue acting short sighted like that, they are. I say max. 20-30 years and they will join the cemetery of silicon valley, perhaps even sooner.

Well, that's like 40 to 50+ years longer than most people gave them back in the 90's so.