App Store VP Departs as Apple Prepares for Organizational Changes

[wbeasley]

Good god no, why would you want that? Then employees are constantly trying to "one up" sales. As an example, if an Air is perfect for customer X then the employee is wasting time trying to pressure the customer into a Pro for the commission. Furthermore, just like in car sales, the concept of being "up" will creep into the culture as employees jockey for opportunities. They might also judge customers and bypass accessory folks looking for those that "appear" to be looking for systems.



I believe that Apple retail employees are regarded as having a pretty good package already compared to other retail positions. I would argue that a slow week of customers can cut into your pay while luck of the draw benefitted a coworker. In theory it all averages out but I prefer a base/bonus plan over base commission. Bonuses can be paid based on overall store performance or an employees rating with customers, etc.



I agree 100% and never have been a fan of the commission structure for the reasons listed above. What you could do is offer something for add-on sales like AC+ or cases, etc. The kinds of things that savvy shoppers buy outside of the Apple store as not to pay the "Apple Tax" on expensive accessories.

go stand and watch in a store that uses commission to motivate staff...

i watched a salesman upsell to some old people a computer that was well over specced for what they told him they needed. same guys also managed give $50 off a $3000 tv to another older couple. if they'd done their homework, a before the price was a $1000 less. I know it's buyer beware, but commission sales people are motivated to maximize their income not your needs.

 

[NOATAK]

so this outside team just do it for free? LOL

I have no idea what you're talking about. Which outside team? It doesn't need any team from Apple for apps outside the App Store, they have nothing to do with them.

The DMA just states that Apple needs to open up its ecosystem and allow other stores besides their own. This store has absolutely nothing to do with Apple. They do not have to carry out any BS approval processes for apps of alternative stores. The store does not belong to them, they do not determine which apps are allowed in and they have absolutely no right to charge a fee for it. Apple can wall off its own App Store as much as it wants, but what gives them the right to dictate which apps are allowed into other stores and which are not?

All they have to do here is open up their operating system so that other stores can exist and function in a similar way to their own store. And they certainly have no right to charge for that, especially not based on the number of downloads of an app from the alternative store. The only fee they are entitled to is for the provision of their iOS app development tools, for which developers already pay an annual fee.

 

[mrochester]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Which outside team? It doesn't need any team from Apple for apps outside the App Store, they have nothing to do with them.

The DMA just states that Apple needs to open up its ecosystem and allow other stores besides their own. This store has absolutely nothing to do with Apple. They do not have to carry out any BS approval processes for apps of alternative stores. The store does not belong to them, they do not determine which apps are allowed in and they have absolutely no right to charge a fee for it. Apple can wall off its own App Store as much as it wants, but what gives them the right to dictate which apps are allowed into other stores and which are not?

All they have to do here is open up their operating system so that other stores can exist and function in a similar way to their own store. And they certainly have no right to charge for that, especially not based on the number of downloads of an app from the alternative store. The only fee they are entitled to is for the provision of their iOS app development tools, for which developers already pay an annual fee.

And that is exactly the contention.

Apple does not think it should have to open its own operating system that way. Apple believes competitors should create their own OS and App Store (which ironically would be better for consumers as then there’d be more competition).

 

[Manzanito]

Ah, another thread to have the same discussion, great! 😊

 

[NOATAK]

And that is exactly the contention.

Apple does not think it should have to open its own operating system that way. Apple believes competitors should create their own OS and App Store (which ironically would be better for consumers as then there’d be more competition).

Well, I know that Apple is thinking that way. But all the whining won't help them. The bottom line is that they have to abide by the laws of the country in which they operate. I mean, Apple doesn't make that much of a fuss in China and abides by the laws there, so why throw a tantrum for the EU? Japan and the UK will follow soon, it's inevitable for Apple to allow apps outside the App Store whether they want or not. Their complicated solutions with ridiculous fees have so far only resulted in a handful of apps being available outside the App Store.

Apple could set a good example here and make its own cluttered mess of an App Store attractive again so that users don't even think about looking elsewhere. But instead they decided to behave like an offended child stomping their feet.

 

[mrochester]

Well, I know that Apple is thinking that way. But all the whining won't help them. The bottom line is that they have to abide by the laws of the country in which they operate. I mean, Apple doesn't make that much of a fuss in China and abides by the laws there, so why throw a tantrum for the EU? Japan and the UK will follow soon, it's inevitable for Apple to allow apps outside the App Store whether they want or not. Their complicated solutions with ridiculous fees have so far only resulted in a handful of apps being available outside the App Store.

Apple could set a good example here and make its own cluttered mess of an App Store attractive again so that users don't even think about looking elsewhere. But instead they decided to behave like an offended child stomping their feet.

In China you don’t have the right to protest what the government tells you to do. In democratic regions the judiciary is separate from government precisely so that you can complain and seek recourse when you believe the government has enacted illegal legislation. Be thankful that places exist where Apple can challenge those laws.

Again, Apple doesn’t believe the fees are ridiculous. As far as Apple are concerned, any app that tries to generate revenue through iOS owes Apple a fee of some description, whether that be a flat fee or a revenue share. Apple will also continue to challenge the assumption that they shouldn’t collect that fee.

Some people believe that iOS should operate like Windows, but that isn’t the business model that Apple has chosen. Only a law banning that business model would prevent Apple from operating that way, but you can be sure it would be dragged through the courts as a restraint on trade and tortuous interference in Apple’s business operations and revenue generation activities.

A ban on that business model would also have much wider implications as it’s very widely used.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

And still the double standards continue...

If Microsoft are charging for in app purchases, no matter what the amount currently is (and changeable anytime MS deems they want to - up or down) then why are they not coping flak on here? Just "Apple is Evil" to the usual gang of EU supporters...

… because you can sell windows software inside the store and outside the store for zero fee.

While you cab even choose to have a great deal or sell outside for free.

iOS doesn’t have ur

 

[Sophisticatednut]

so this outside team just do it for free? LOL

Nah, just fire them. They serve no purpose.

 

[wbeasley]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Which outside team? It doesn't need any team from Apple for apps outside the App Store, they have nothing to do with them.

The DMA just states that Apple needs to open up its ecosystem and allow other stores besides their own. This store has absolutely nothing to do with Apple. They do not have to carry out any BS approval processes for apps of alternative stores. The store does not belong to them, they do not determine which apps are allowed in and they have absolutely no right to charge a fee for it. Apple can wall off its own App Store as much as it wants, but what gives them the right to dictate which apps are allowed into other stores and which are not?

All they have to do here is open up their operating system so that other stores can exist and function in a similar way to their own store. And they certainly have no right to charge for that, especially not based on the number of downloads of an app from the alternative store. The only fee they are entitled to is for the provision of their iOS app development tools, for which developers already pay an annual fee.

but you want it split off and no charges... so free...

who pays for that to work?

 

[wbeasley]

… because you can sell windows software inside the store and outside the store for zero fee.

While you cab even choose to have a great deal or sell outside for free.

iOS doesn’t have ur

i'm talking Playstation... noone seems to have an issue with Sony and 30% in this forum (except there actually is Class Action case being started according to some search results).

But it's only Apple that's evil with in app purchases on here...

 

[NOATAK]

but you want it split off and no charges... so free...

who pays for that to work?

Since when do companies get paid for making their products compliant with the law? The point is Apple doesn't deserve any money for allowing apps outside of their App Store. It isn't their job to take over the distribution and review of alternative app stores and their apps and therefore doesn't generate any costs for them. No one has asked Apple to set up an internal team with paid employees for this, the respective third-party stores will do that on their own.

Apple can of course continue to give bogus reasons to delay the whole thing, but in the end the price will be even higher.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

i'm talking Playstation... noone seems to have an issue with Sony and 30% in this forum (except there actually is Class Action case being started according to some search results).

But it's only Apple that's evil with in app purchases on here...

In your comment you talked about windows.

But yea let’s hold hands and change Sony as well. This is the Apple forum and not the Sony forum.

And most people aren’t likely to be Sony customers here, I’m not one, but I’m a Microsoft and Apple user

 

[CHUNKNORRIS]

Tim Cook should GTFO, too. Zero creativity, passion or drive. The Apple Magic is gone. He lived off the fumes of the incredible Steve Jobs and now all we get are price hikes, less privacy and a stupid "action button" that only the "journalists" who get free Crapple gear seem to like. I think Elon Musk would be fantastic.

 

[surferfb]

The DMA just states that Apple needs to open up its ecosystem and allow other stores besides their own.

The DMA states significantly more than that. Just as one example, it also says that Apple can't offer core OS features in the EU without giving competitors who ask for it the same access to build a competing feature. Which is why the EU is no longer getting all of Apple's features at the same time as everyone else.

They do not have to carry out any BS approval processes for apps of alternative stores. The store does not belong to them, they do not determine which apps are allowed in and they have absolutely no right to charge a fee for it.

The DMA also says that Apple gets to carry out approval processes to ensure safety and security. True, they can't regulate content of Apps in the App Store, but they are certainly allowed to (and will continue to) make sure Apps don't, to quote the DMA, "endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper". So, Apple can't block a porn app featuring Disney cartoons for either the porn part or the stealing Disney's Intellectual Property part (congrats EU!), but if said app uses a private API or also has malware in it, Apple can block it.

All they have to do here is open up their operating system so that other stores can exist and function in a similar way to their own store. And they certainly have no right to charge for that, especially not based on the number of downloads of an app from the alternative store.

Why, in your opinion, does Apple "certainly have no right to charge" for other companies use of its intellectual property (i.e., iOS)?

The only fee they are entitled to is for the provision of their iOS app development tools, for which developers already pay an annual fee.

Can you please point me to the language in the DMA that states Apple is only allowed to charge for their development tools, and not for the use of their intellectual property?

 

[NOATAK]

The DMA states significantly more than that. Just as one example, it also says that Apple can't offer core OS features in the EU without giving competitors who ask for it the same access to build a competing feature. Which is why the EU is no longer getting all of Apple's features at the same time as everyone else.


The DMA also says that Apple gets to carry out approval processes to ensure safety and security. True, they can't regulate content of Apps in the App Store, but they are certainly allowed to (and will continue to) make sure Apps don't, to quote the DMA, "endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper". So, Apple can't block a porn app featuring Disney cartoons for either the porn part or the stealing Disney's Intellectual Property part (congrats EU!), but if said app uses a private API or also has malware in it, Apple can block it.


Why, in your opinion, does Apple "certainly have no right to charge" for other companies use of its intellectual property (i.e., iOS)?


Can you please point me to the language in the DMA that states Apple is only allowed to charge for their development tools, and not for the use of their intellectual property?

Apple has the right to charge for using its intellectual property, like iOS, but that right isn't unlimited. When it clashes with public interests like fair competition, innovation, or consumer choice, it should be regulated. The DMA wants to ensure that Apple doesn't misuse their power to block competition or take advantage of developers and consumers.

What use is an alternative App Store if Apple alone still decides which apps can and cannot be used on iOS? That does not enable more competition ... Same goes for the financial aspect: If Apple keeps piling on fees, what’s the incentive for developers to even bother using other stores?

I’m not saying Apple doesn't deserve to make money from iOS, they absolutely do. But it's unreasonable for Apple to charge fees on something that doesn't directly involve them, like downloads from other stores. What gives Apple the right to impose fees on transactions that happen outside their ecosystem? They shouldn't even be tracking how many times an app is downloaded from a different app store.

 

[surferfb]

I’m not saying Apple doesn't deserve to make money from iOS, they absolutely do. But it's unreasonable for Apple to charge fees on something that doesn't directly involve them, like downloads from other stores. What gives Apple the right to impose fees on transactions that happen outside their ecosystem? They shouldn't even be tracking how many times an app is downloaded from a different app store.

They're not imposing fees on the transaction, they're imposing fees on the developer who is using Apple's property (iOS).

I'd say charging a 50 cent licensing fee per download for apps to use Apple's IP is perfectly reasonable. Apple created and maintains iOS (including creating the APIs that allow developers' apps to function), AND created a market of affluent customers who are willing to spend money on software.

 

[mrochester]

Since when do companies get paid for making their products compliant with the law? The point is Apple doesn't deserve any money for allowing apps outside of their App Store. It isn't their job to take over the distribution and review of alternative app stores and their apps and therefore doesn't generate any costs for them. No one has asked Apple to set up an internal team with paid employees for this, the respective third-party stores will do that on their own.

Apple can of course continue to give bogus reasons to delay the whole thing, but in the end the price will be even higher.

Apple believes they are entitled to a payment for any app that attempts to make money on iOS. It’s for law makers to say that they aren’t.

 

[NOATAK]

I'd say charging a 50 cent licensing fee per download for apps to use Apple's IP is perfectly reasonable. Apple created and maintains iOS (including creating the APIs that allow developers' apps to function), AND created a market of affluent customers who are willing to spend money on software.

I disagree. These fees only kick in if a developer dares to offer their app outside the App Store, which feels like a rip-off and borderline blackmail. But hey, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

 

[mrochester]

I disagree. These fees only kick in if a developer dares to offer their app outside the App Store, which feels like a rip-off and borderline blackmail. But hey, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

Developers inside the App Store pay a rev share. Developers outside the App Store pay a different set of fees.

 

[Real Old Skool]

Apple has the right to charge for using its intellectual property, like iOS, but that right isn't unlimited. When it clashes with public interests like fair competition, innovation, or consumer choice, it should be regulated. The DMA wants to ensure that Apple doesn't misuse their power to block competition or take advantage of developers and consumers.

It's my phone and I should be able to do whatever I like with it, apple-approved or otherwise.

Easy solution.

1) Sell your iPhone to recover some of your costs, then
2) purchase an Android-powered smartphone.

You'll be happy.

Simple, really.

 

[mrochester]

Easy solution.

1) Sell your iPhone to recover some of your costs, then 2) purchase an Android-powered smartphone.

You'll be happy.

Simple, really.

I think what people mean by ‘I should be able to do what I like with my phone‘ is ‘I want Apple to change their OS so that I can install whatever I like, from wherever I want’. The trouble is thats not what Apple wants to do, and as it’s their product, what they say goes.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Easy solution.

1) Sell your iPhone to recover some of your costs, then
2) purchase an Android-powered smartphone.

You'll be happy.

Simple, really.

No. I am not borrowing or renting or leasing my iPhone. It's my property, and I should be able to use my personal property as I wish.

How about Apple gives the end-user freedom instead of telling them to go elsewhere? Your suggestion is a just a lazy cop-out.

 

[Real Old Skool]

It's going to benefit many companies - and many of them aren't European ones.

How are the registered iPhone app developers NOT benefiting, under the current Apple app development process, in your estimation?

 

[Real Old Skool]

No. I am not borrowing or renting or leasing my iPhone. It's my property, and I should be able to use my personal property as I wish.

How about Apple gives the end-user freedom instead of telling them to go elsewhere? Your suggestion is a just a lazy cop-out.

You made an incorrect and personally incompatible purchase of a smartphone communication device.

And, now you know that fact. The iPhone does not fulfill your desires or needs.

Nothing was hidden from you regarding this personal incompatibility quotient prior to your purchase choice.

To resolve this issue, you should purchase an Android-powered smartphone for your communication needs.

Really. Simple.

 

[mrochester]

No. I am not borrowing or renting or leasing my iPhone. It's my property, and I should be able to use my personal property as I wish.

How about Apple gives the end-user freedom instead of telling them to go elsewhere? Your suggestion is a just a lazy cop-out.

I’d love to be able to buy an alternative to iOS that works like iOS. Google should be forced to close source Android and properly control it so that I can get a product that does what I want.

It sounds really silly doesn’t it?