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.
Apple Allegedly Buys Ads for Subscription-Based Apps to Collect More Commission [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There as just been a trial where this argument was rejected.
Also fairness doesn't really enter into it. We're talking about business disputes between commercial entities like Apple and developers. I don't care who ends up with my money as long as I get what I want.
I don't agree with this either. A developer should be allowed to enter into an exclusive agreement with another party with all kinds of requirements like no higher prices other places, or not allowed to sell at other places at all.
There should be almost complete freedom in contracts between commercial entities.
Never said there wasn't a legal loophole. Just because it's leagal doesn't make it right. Does it really seem that much to ask Apple to not spend money on ads that developers don't them to run?
Never mind that Apple legally has the right to continue to do so but does it seem morally right?
You talking the epic lawsuit? There are other countries that are finding Apple guilty of being a Monopoly/anti trust. It's gone both ways and it's far from over in the US as well.
Yeah, I think the pricing models should mirror those in other sectors, like Walmart, target, Amazon, etc. I was mentioning earlier. I don't see why it should be different. So, I think I agree with what you're saying.
It’s not a loophole, it’s a contract. If a developer doesn’t like the terms, they don’t need to sign. I never put my photos on Flickr because the EULA said they could be used in promotional material for the site— if I signed up, I’d have no room to complain if they were used that way.
Anyway, much of this is moot if you pop out of this thread for a moment and catch up on the updates.
Why yes, I would complain. This exact thing happened to me and I had my bank reverse the deposit. I didn't know what was going on, but wanted to avoid trouble and liability.
Last edited:
Home Depot advertises GE appliances and Dewalt power tools. Netflix advertises shows and movies by other studios. Advertising or promoting products or brands, that bring sales to your “store”, is now “shady”— That is pretty comical.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion...but I have to say that my business is actually doing pretty well! And to perhaps clarify why I think it's a good deal...
Every customer acquired by advertising has a cost. As others have pointed out, these devs are probably already advertising and getting customers. So how much do they have to spend in advertising to get one new customer? I obviously don't know what that number is, but in today's world where consumers seem to be much more "savvy" and aware, it's not just going to be a simple (and therefore cheap) process. My argument is simply that what Apple is doing is acquiring new customers for these devs at a cost of 30%...and with no initial outlay on the part of the dev.
If some people would rather not have it...that's fine...I get that. But I have people who are "marketing" my business for me all the time...word of mouth...and they bring me in a decent amount of work that work...and I pay them a commission (finders fee if you will) for every job they bring me. They don't ask my permission to recommend me...they just understand that they know people that I don't know and they can recommences me to people that I would not have access to otherwise...well...not without spending god only knows how much on advertising. It's not an uncommon practice, at least not in my industry.
But hey, perhaps my industry in uncommon in that respect, or perhaps I am just not caught up in some perceived moral struggle...perhaps I just focus on the effect rather than the cause...
OK...perhaps I was too loose with my definition...how about if somebody you knew...somebody who you had some kind of relationship with (personal...business...whatever...somebody you had regular dealings with) decided to help you out by offering you a "gift" of $1000...you would turn that down unless you had given your express consent?
This is extremely short-sighted capitalism, though.
Because of their profit maximization, Apple has lost a ton of good will and governments around the world are preparing to regulate the bejesus out of the App Store.
This will end up costing Apple a lot more than whatever money they made in the App Store in the long run.
I feel that more could be done, but I am not sure if Apple ought to be the one to do it.
We are now in the age of abundance, where content is plentiful and the issue many people face now isn’t that there isn’t anything to watch or buy, but that there is now too much content to watch that people don’t know what to choose, or the good ones get buried beneath a mountain of other mediocre apps.
The solution to this, I feel, is more curation. For example, Apple Music has custom playlists with new songs waiting for me every week. Youtube surfaces content they think I might be interested in based on my watch history. I am subscribed to the weekly Macstories newsletter, which recommends useful apps that I otherwise may never have heard of (and I have purchased quite a number these ways). Youtubers like DailyTekk and Christopher Lawley do a fairly good job of recommending useful apps to me as well.
In this context, I have no qualms about Apple taking on a more editorial role and surfacing good apps that I may benefit from, even if it means being accused of playing “favourites” (since highlighting an app naturally gives it more visibility over the competition). And if people go on to purchase the app or subscribe to it, it just goes to show that they find it useful. I also enjoy reading their articles from time to time, though I wish Apple would surface more indie apps like Nudget or Lookup, rather than the mass appeal ones like Genshin Impact or Disney+.
I just feel Apple doesn’t go far enough.
I am trying to understand how "company wants to get people to purchase product" is a scary story but this is tech-hate America we're talking about so who knows.
That's true in the same way that I don't use Siri, but when I buy an iPhone I'm subsidizing all the customers who do. I do download tons of podcasts and other customers are subsidizing that. I think this is normal and unremarkable; what I'm questioning is the idea that app hosting is a special service that requires separate compensation, which is one of the underlying assumptions of your arguments.
And if it does make sense to charge separately for this service, I don't think the current payment model is the only way to do it. Last time I looked, Apple provides 5 GB of free iCloud storage and you can pay for more. How many lawsuits has that arrangement inspired? Probably none because it makes sense. For the App Store, it's 30% commission, unless you make under $1MM, but 15% for subscriptions, but not in the first year, but 0% if the subscriptions are paid outside the app, but some developers aren't allowed to do that, but some are, and if you ask Apple for clarification they'll refuse to comment.... It's weirdly complicated and doesn't bear any direct relationship to the services provided.
Whether they included the App Store among all their other "subsidized" services or switched to a sensible payment structure, I know Apple could come up with something better.
Depends. If the "gift" has strings attached (whether explicitly or implicitly), then yes I would return it.