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.
App Store Fee Cut Attracts Criticism From Major Developers Like Spotify and Epic
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple is singled out since there is no alternative to get software on your device, whereas with Sony, MS etc, one can source software, even second-hand elsewhere, and if a bricks & mortar shops wants to sell at a lower cost, they can. On Android, if you prepared for some hastle you can get your software from numerous "app" stores as well as going directly from the developer. Maybe, everyone chargers 30% because Apple does, maybe Android phones sell for a $1000 because Apple sells their phones for that. It is conjecture on my part, but I truly believe some of the Android manufacturers thought "bingo" when the first $1000 was launched. I believe many of the accessory providers for Apple devices must think all their Christmas's come at once, when they see what Apple launch at.
For all we know, Spotify might be running a far better ship than Apple, a much more efficient business for all we know; their problem is they have all their costs, but then they add another 30% on for Apple.
They don't have to pay apple a dime. You can subscribe to spotify directly through spotify.com I always have. If you subscribe to spotify through the app on android guess what? Google takes a 30% cut as well. It's no different.
Do you own a Samsung TV. There is no alternative to get software on your TV either. I'm sure other devices are like this as well. With Apple there is also no alternative to putting an operating system on your device, unless you can be very clever and side-step Apple proprietary mechanisms. Do you think Google wants it's android customers side-stepping the app store, they don't like it either.
All of this goes into the thought of, is the Apple ecosystem really right for a particular individual? Only the individual can make that choice.
You can't get your software on an xbox/playstation without going through Microsoft/sony. You have to pay those licensing fees. Any xbox or playstation game, whether digital or physical, no matter where it's sold, has paid a fee to them.
Now, sure, you can side load on android. But you lose out on google advertising, hosting, payment processing and so on. If you want those things then you put your app on the play store and you pay the same fee apple is charging.
So the question is should you be allowed to bypass the store and side load your apps on ios? Well you can't on smart TV's, or on boxes from cable/satellite, roku or car stereos and the list goes on and on. Nobody is required to let you install whatever you want on whatever you want.
Is that like saying I want to be able to use your devices and the entire ecosystem you built for my app but I don't want to pay your for access to all that? Is that any different than gaming consoles? As you said they take a loss on hardware, at least initially, for that very large ecosystem they've built at a loss. But they don't allow you to install your own software on them. They require you to pay a fee for access to that. Is that really any different?
Last edited:
I was supportive with the whole Hey situation before, but the Twitter thread of its CTO it's just delusional. In the span of a few tweets he claims that Apple is charging $150,000 of a developer making $1M/year 'just for credit card processing' and that Apple is a monopoly regardless of its market because 'If you want to run a relevant software business, yes you do [have to sell on Apple's platform]. 90% of HEY users use Apple products. Apple has captured the vast majority of "people who spend money on software" customers in the US. There's no road to competing with the likes of Gmail if you're not on iOS.'
Which basically concedes that Apple has built an ecosystem in which people feel safe and compelled to pay for apps so much that other platforms are basically irrelevant (revenue-wise) despite having similar or greater market share. Which apparently has *zero* added value to him since Apple's cut is just for "credit card processing". Delusional.
And that comparison to Gladiator's Commodus FFS.
Which basically concedes that Apple has built an ecosystem in which people feel safe and compelled to pay for apps so much that other platforms are basically irrelevant (revenue-wise) despite having similar or greater market share. Which apparently has *zero* added value to him since Apple's cut is just for "credit card processing". Delusional.
And that comparison to Gladiator's Commodus FFS.
When I saw the Small Business announcement- I knew right away someone would be unhappy.
And from working in retail - the million dollar limit seems fair. If you make a product people want to buy or subscribe to and tend to it, you will have the growth needed year over year to easily cover the transition back to 30% and still make more money per than the one year as a Small business.
And from working in retail - the million dollar limit seems fair. If you make a product people want to buy or subscribe to and tend to it, you will have the growth needed year over year to easily cover the transition back to 30% and still make more money per than the one year as a Small business.
No, no, no. You want a much more progressive tax system than that (like we have in Australia)
- You pay NO tax on earnings up to $18k
- 19% on everything between $18k -> $45k
- 32.5% on earnings between $45k -> $120k
- 37% on earnings between $120k -> $180k
- 45% on earnings above $180k
It’s fair, stops excessive greed, lifts up the lower wage earners and helps pay for the things we love - public healthcare, infrastructure, transport, etc.
It’s just such a shame that there is a vocal minority in the USA that thinks this is socialism... and Australia isn’t unique here: lots of countries do this.
(a) Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability to foreign trade
(1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.
Whether what Apple is doing is unfair is for regulators and courts to decide, but let's not feign ignorance that antitrust laws aren't a thing just because nobody lists the exact statute.
Samsung's TV business isn't part of a duopoly as Apple and Google are with regards to smartphone OS and app stores.
Yeah all those laws they need to make capitalism survive without eating itself.
Exactly.
We're talking about the world's largest music streaming service and one of the world's largest video game studios. They both have their own stores with their own payment systems.
So I don't know why they even bother dealing with Apple's IAP program and the rules that accompany it.
If people want to subscribe to Spotify or buy Epic V-Bucks... they'll figure it out... even if Apple doesn't allow linking to their websites from inside the app.
Again... these are major companies. They're popular. Surely people know how to access them from their websites or whatever.
Sounds like what we already have in the US. I prefer the flat tax idea myself.
Criticism from Spotify and Epic ooooooh.... bloody hell id call that a compliment. Epic’s practices since Epic store and Spotify being, well Spotify, bugger those two
If nothing else, the continued complaints serve to validate the suspicion that this was always about money for Epic (and maybe Spotify too), and not what was represented, which was their focus on the customer. Let's say Apple cuts the fee to 15% for developers above $1MM in revenue. Does anyone reasonably believe that Epic drops their prices? Or do you instead suspect that they then pocket the difference?
And that competition exists in Android.
iOS and its walled garden is exactly like the internal stores on a game console. I cannot realistically expect to buy a game on my Switch and be able to play it on my PS5. So if I want to buy a Switch game I have to play it on a Switch. I'm not sure why so many people think smart devices should, or even would be different.
You're right, in there is no competition to Samsung's app store, except to buy another TV brand, basically a monopoly. Similar to apple and google...except, for example the netflix app is available on a number of devices...but it's limited as to how the app can be downloaded.
And that in and of itself makes Samsung not a monopoly or duopoly. Samsung is unable to unfairly impact the entire TV marketplace because they don't have the power or market position to do so. App developers can develop for and consumers can buy from: Sony, LG, TCL, Vizio, Hisense, Toshiba, amongst others. Conversely, consumers and developers only have Apple and Google to choose from for smartphone OS and app store. Decisions by either company have a huge impact of the entire smartphone marketplace and they certainly have the power and position to act in an unfair and anti-competitive manner. As you can see at the link below, unlike the smartphone OS and app store market, the TV market is very diverse. The biggest player is Samsung with less than 20% of the market.
Samsung leads global TV market for 14th straight year
Chinese TV makers are making inroads
www.flatpanelshd.com
If it applied to Apple, they'd already be buried for it.(a) Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability to foreign trade
(1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.
Whether what Apple is doing is unfair is for regulators and courts to decide, but let's not feign ignorance that antitrust laws aren't a thing just because nobody lists the exact statute.