Apple CEO Tim Cook Comments on 'Hey' App Controversy and Apple's App Store Policies

[MacRumors]

Apple CEO Tim Cook was, as expected, questioned about Apple's App Store policies during today's antitrust hearing with the U.S. House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee. Cook primarily stuck to the talking points provided in his opening statement [PDF], but he did have some extra color to add.

Cook was specifically questioned about email app "Hey" from Basecamp, which was at the center of a huge controversy earlier this year after Apple approved the app and then threatened to remove it from the App Store because Hey was skirting Apple's in-app purchase rules.

At issue was the fact that the "Hey" app was non-functional for customers unless they subscribed to the $99 per year Hey email service outside of the App Store. Hey did not want to give Apple a 30 percent cut of profits, while Apple claimed that it did not want an app that "doesn't work" on the App Store. Hey at the time opened to a blank screen asking users to log in.

When asked about the inconsistency over the approval of the app and the subsequent controversy, Cook didn't have much to say other than pointing out that the issue was resolved and that the App Store provides a lot of value for developers.

Hey is in the App Store today and we're happy that they're there. I believe they have a version of their product for free so they're not paying anything on that. I would also say that the 15 or 30 percent is for lots of different services, compilers, programming languages, APIs, etc. [...]

It's an economic miracle that the App Store allows a person in their basement to start a company and serve 170 countries in the world. I believe it's the highest job creator in the last decade.

Cook went on to explain that Apple does sometimes make mistakes given the volume of apps that are examined each week. "I'm sure we made errors," said Cook. "We get 100,000 apps submitted a week and there are 1.7 million apps in the App Store."

Cook was asked if Apple's 15 to 30 percent cut that it takes from apps squeezes out the next generation of App makers and whether it's unjust, and Cook said no.

No, I don't think so. There are a lot of apps on the store and a lot of people are making a very good living.

There were questions on whether Apple was "extracting" commissions from apps that have had to change their business models in response to the pandemic like Airbnb and ClassPass, (as outlined here) and whether this was pandemic profiteering.

Cook said Apple would "never do that." He went on to explain that if something has moved to a digital service that does not follow the App Store rules, that it does need to go through the App Store. "In the cases I'm aware of, we're working with the developers," he said.

As for educational apps, Cook said that Apple will not make efforts to monetize apps that students adopt as they transition to learning digitally.

We're proud of what we've done in education. We're serving that market in a significant way. We will work with people who move from a physical to virtual world because of the pandemic.

When asked about limiting copy cat apps and whether those rules apply to Apple, Cook said that he was not familiar with what was being asked, but Apple is subjected to the same rules as other app developers. The Congressman questioning him, Joe Neguse, said that Apple's App Store rules allow Apple to use any data collected by developers to create clone apps while also preventing these kind of apps from developers.

Cook said that he was not familiar with that, and that he'd follow up with the Congressman's office. He did, however, say that Apple would "never steal somebody's IP."

Cook's full testimony can be watched on YouTube as the U.S. House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee livestreamed the proceedings.

Article Link: Apple CEO Tim Cook Comments on 'Hey' App Controversy and Apple's App Store Policies

 

[macmyworld]

Sounds like an interview with Al Capone. Protection for pay.

Love the App Store, but 30% is too much. Especially when some apps get around it.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Hey's issue with the App Store was overblown. They got their 15 minutes of fame. Apple has had a net loss by reviewing and hosting Basecamp and Hey apps, yet for some reason they're still complaining.

Glad it's over.

 

[AxiomaticRubric]

That last bit was rather dishonest. Of course Apple has taken concepts from existing apps and then made their own app based on said concepts. It's called being Sherlocked. Of course, I'm not really (ler)Shocked that Tim would deny it.

 

[SteveJUAE]

They would have to keep Tim in the chair for around 3 years that's the usual response time for Apple admitting something is wrong

 

[ader42]

Sounds like an interview with Al Capone. Protection for pay.
Love the App Store, but 30% is too much. Especially when some apps get around it.

As a developer, I disagree.

I bet Apple makes zero profit at best directly from the 30%. Having teams of developers creating the next version of iOS, the next version of Xcode, etc. costs a lot.

Have you seen how poor the developer tools are for Android development? Google also charges 30% and I bet they do make significant profit from it.

Maybe Apple should just formally ring-fence the app-store income and categorically use it only for app-store upkeep and enhancement with any surplus (if there ever is any) used in part for the good causes that Apple supports. This way if they are forced to reduce the percentage, the people that force it will be seen to be reducing the funds that go to good causes. Just thinking it might be better for Apple to be ahead of the curve on this one.

 

[sinoka56]

As a developer, I disagree.

I bet Apple makes zero profit at best directly from the 30%. Having teams of developers creating the next version of iOS, the next version of Xcode, etc. costs a lot.

Have you seen how poor the developer tools are for Android development? Google also charges 30% and I bet they do make significant profit from it.

Maybe Apple should just formally ring-fence the app-store income and categorically use it only for app-store upkeep and enhancement with any surplus (if there ever is any) used in part for the good causes that Apple supports. This way if they are forced to reduce the percentage, the people that force it will be seen to be reducing the funds that go to good causes. Just thinking it might be better for Apple to be ahead of the curve on this one.

Apple also charges a $99 per year while Google a one time $25 so you better get your money's worth.

 

[cygy2k]

The people complaining about the 30% have clearly never tried selling goods or services anywhere as that is the going kickback for almost every professional marketplace in any industry. From eBooks to App Stores to old school consignment shops - they provide the service, you provide the goods, they keep a portion. It’s not anticompetitive, it’s the very definition of capitalism.

 

[ader42]

Apple also charges a $99 per year while Google a one time $25 so you better get your money's worth.

Just owning an iPhone over an Android gives me more than £99 value each year lol

 

[q64ceo]

Hulu doesn't provide free videos anymore. You have to pay in order to use the Hulu app. But they're still on the Appstore and they are not being threatened for removal. Same thing goes for Netflix, and HBO Now.

The difference between those companies and the producers of Hey is that those companies are large and popular. Hey is made by a small time software company.

 

[ader42]

For the record, I do think it was a mistake that Apple didn't allow the "non-functional without login" version in the app store. Plenty of apps work like this.

 

[The Cappy]

"Pandemic profiteering"? Seems to me that you have to change your business practices to specifically take advantage of a crisis in order to be a profiteer. The only change Apple made in the face of the pandemic was to financially support a bunch of groups. I may not be president of Tim Cook's fan club, but seriously, give the guy credit.
[automerge]1596066926[/automerge]

Hulu doesn't provide free videos anymore. You have to pay in order to use the Hulu app. But they're still on the Appstore and they are not being threatened for removal. Same thing goes for Netflix, and HBO Now.

The difference between those companies and the producers of Hey is that those companies are large and popular. Hey is made by a small time software company.

But Hulu and Netflix both exist solely to consume video content. Whether or not you think consumption apps were worthy of their own classification, your "difference between" Hey and Hulu is laughable.

 

[atomic.flip]

As a developer, I disagree.

I bet Apple makes zero profit at best directly from the 30%. Having teams of developers creating the next version of iOS, the next version of Xcode, etc. costs a lot.

Have you seen how poor the developer tools are for Android development? Google also charges 30% and I bet they do make significant profit from it.

Maybe Apple should just formally ring-fence the app-store income and categorically use it only for app-store upkeep and enhancement with any surplus (if there ever is any) used in part for the good causes that Apple supports. This way if they are forced to reduce the percentage, the people that force it will be seen to be reducing the funds that go to good causes. Just thinking it might be better for Apple to be ahead of the curve on this one.

What on earth?!?! Honestly, I can believe you are a developer but I struggle to imagine you’re an independent business owner or a business developer / manager.

The cost of maintenance of the AppStore is infinitesimal compared to the revenue it generates. And just where do you think that revenue comes from? App sales, subscriptions and in-app purchases. 30% is nearly one third of the gross revenue generated by any one app. And that is frankly too high. It’s always been too high and the carriers (AT&T, Verizon etc.) would do the same with their own AppStores back in the day.

There are a few things at issue and one of them is that there is no real alternative to the AppStore for Apple iOS devices. It’s a walled garden. And since Apple provides no ability for a smaller entity to negotiate rates then it’s quite a monopoly. Or rather the correct legal term would be a matter of “detrimental reliance”.

Sadly, in the tech sector (as it relates to software) when it’s not open source it’s managed the same way across the board.

I don’t have the energy to comment further on this today but that revenue share needs to be down in the teens and no greater. Or at minimum Apple needs to stop charging app developers an annual fee just to get advanced access to the SDKs and to publish on the store front.

 

[macjunk(ie)]

As a developer, I disagree.

I bet Apple makes zero profit at best directly from the 30%. Having teams of developers creating the next version of iOS, the next version of Xcode, etc. costs a lot.

Have you seen how poor the developer tools are for Android development? Google also charges 30% and I bet they do make significant profit from it.

Maybe Apple should just formally ring-fence the app-store income and categorically use it only for app-store upkeep and enhancement with any surplus (if there ever is any) used in part for the good causes that Apple supports. This way if they are forced to reduce the percentage, the people that force it will be seen to be reducing the funds that go to good causes. Just thinking it might be better for Apple to be ahead of the curve on this one.

SMH.
So you think Apple is doing the devs a favor by developing the next version of iOS, XCode etc? Of course it costs a lot...but they should not be looking to reimburse those costs through App store fees...rather sell hardware (which they are doing very well)

Xcode, iOS are all tools that Apple uses to attract devs to the platform so that they develop for the platform, enabling Apple to sell even more devices. And don't forget Apple charges 99 per year already but they still deem it fit to charge 30% of whatever your app makes. If Apple did not develop iOS or XCode, there would be no apps developed by devs and people would flock to Android cause Android phones are suddenly more useful.

So yeah...Apple is only helping themselves with iOS, XCode etc. No need to pretend they are doing a favor.

So Apple gives you Xcode, iOS and a bunch of frameworks. What devs do with it is completely their ingenuity and their effort. Apple can and should charge for Xcode, iOS, payment processing etc but what they are doing is leeching of devs' ingenuity like a parasite. Suppose somebody conceives an app that cures cancer using totally out of the world innovation, does Apple then have a right to reap the fruits of somebody else's labor?

If they are so confident in their logic, let them try doing the same to their Mac OS...whatever, whoever builds apps for the Mac platform, owe Apple cash cause they are using the OS frameworks....

Just infuriating to me on how entitled Apple feels to somebody else's hardwork. Parasites!

 

[damphoose]

Tim is just so much better at this than the rest. Zuckerberg is probably the worse. He can't help it. (I mean he founded Facebook because he was terrible in live social situations now he has to appear in live social situations).
Pichai isn't great either. Bezos was ok. He has to be the most careful because Amazon has a lot of populist hate.

 

[kc9hzn]

Airbnb is a weird example to use about “pandemic profiteering”, as I’m pretty sure Apple doesn’t get any money from Airbnb other than whatever annual developer fees or developer technical support fees Airbnb pays (likely less than $1000 per year, which means I probably paid Airbnb’s developer fees last year on my own!). The 30% cut applies to digital goods and services (ebooks, IAP, subscriptions, that sort of thing). As far as I know, Apple doesn’t actually get any cut from apps that sell physical goods and services (like Uber, Grubhub, Airbnb, or Amazon’s Amazon Shopping app).
[automerge]1596072824[/automerge]

For the record, I do think it was a mistake that Apple didn't allow the "non-functional without login" version in the app store. Plenty of apps work like this.

Hey was a weird edge case, anyway. Most of the service type apps that expect you to log in are established enterprise-y apps (think professional cloud storage or something like that) that can legitimately expect you to have an existing (perhaps employer provided?) account. But Hey was a brand new service, and I guess it didn’t even have a free trial period when it launched and only added the two week trial after the fact? That strikes me as fishy (and honestly makes me wary of Basecamp, and I seem to remember them being fairly straightforward and trustworthy 10 years ago). I kinda think they deliberately raised a stink for the free publicity, as I know I wouldn’t have heard of them were it not for the controversy. I mean, who’s really looking for a new email service? Email is rather commoditized and mature, after all.

 

[bb9]

Apple CEO Tim Cook was, as expected, questioned about Apple's App Store policies during today's antitrust hearing with the U.S. House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee. Cook primarily stuck to the talking points provided in his opening statement [PDF], but he did have some extra color to add.

Cook was specifically questioned about email app "Hey" from Basecamp, which was at the center of a huge controversy earlier this year after Apple approved the app and then threatened to remove it from the App Store because Hey was skirting Apple's in-app purchase rules.

At issue was the fact that the "Hey" app was non-functional for customers unless they subscribed to the $99 per year Hey email service outside of the App Store. Hey did not want to give Apple a 30 percent cut of profits, while Apple claimed that it did not want an app that "doesn't work" on the App Store. Hey at the time opened to a blank screen asking users to log in.

When asked about the inconsistency over the approval of the app and the subsequent controversy, Cook didn't have much to say other than pointing out that the issue was resolved and that the App Store provides a lot of value for developers.Cook went on to explain that Apple does sometimes make mistakes given the volume of apps that are examined each week. "I'm sure we made errors," said Cook. "We get 100,000 apps submitted a week and there are 1.7 million apps in the App Store."

Cook was asked if Apple's 15 to 30 percent cut that it takes from apps squeezes out the next generation of App makers and whether it's unjust, and Cook said no.There were questions on whether Apple was "extracting" commissions from apps that have had to change their business models in response to the pandemic like Airbnb and ClassPass, (as outlined here) and whether this was pandemic profiteering.

Cook said Apple would "never do that." He went on to explain that if something has moved to a digital service that does not follow the App Store rules, that it does need to go through the App Store. "In the cases I'm aware of, we're working with the developers," he said.

As for educational apps, Cook said that Apple will not make efforts to monetize apps that students adopt as they transition to learning digitally.When asked about limiting copy cat apps and whether those rules apply to Apple, Cook said that he was not familiar with what was being asked, but Apple is subjected to the same rules as other app developers. The Congressman questioning him, Joe Neguse, said that Apple's App Store rules allow Apple to use any data collected by developers to create clone apps while also preventing these kind of apps from developers.

Cook said that he was not familiar with that, and that he'd follow up with the Congressman's office. He did, however, say that Apple would "never steal somebody's IP."

Cook's full testimony can be watched on YouTube as the U.S. House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee livestreamed the proceedings.

Article Link: Apple CEO Tim Cook Comments on 'Hey' App Controversy and Apple's App Store Policies

I would simply not use the “HEY” email app or ny apps from that maker.

 

[yyy]

Have you seen how poor the developer tools are for Android development?

Not poor at all, and I actually got to experiment with app development for both iOS and Android (mostly as a student). Android Studio is built on JetBrains' IntelliJ IDEA software which is amazing (one of the best IDEs I've ever used, if not the best). Granted, it's just a limited version of IntelliJ IDEA, while Xcode which is a full-fledged IDE, but I've been very disappointed by Xcode.

Xcode is a mediocre IDE, with some good features and some annoying behaviors. Specifically, Xcode's Auto-Layout feature which is an exercise in frustration - very unintuitive. Also, Swift (Apple's newest programming language) is so much more confusing and less popular than Java (which Android uses). I guess they've tried to achieve too much with Swift and ended up with a big mess.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Suppose somebody conceives an app that cures cancer using totally out of the world innovation, does Apple then have a right to reap the fruits of somebody else's labor?

Absolutely not! Especially if that app doesn’t use any of an Apple device’s RAM, CPU, GPU, deployed to Apple’s App Store or any of all that. I mean, if this app is not running on an iOS device, why does Apple deserve anything? It would probably run much better on a non-mobile device anyway.

 

[macjunk(ie)]

Absolutely not! Especially if that app doesn’t use any of an Apple device’s RAM, CPU, GPU, deployed to Apple’s App Store or any of all that. I mean, if this app is not running on an iOS device, why does Apple deserve anything? It would probably run much better on a non-mobile device anyway.

right. So, devs owe a percentage of their revenues to Intel and AMD.. cause you know apps run on their processors... You owe your builder a share of your revenue.. cause you know.. you build your stuff in the room the builder built...

 

[An-apple-a-day]

What on earth?!?! Honestly, I can believe you are a developer but I struggle to imagine you’re an independent business owner or a business developer / manager.

The cost of maintenance of the AppStore is infinitesimal compared to the revenue it generates. And just where do you think that revenue comes from? App sales, subscriptions and in-app purchases. 30% is nearly one third of the gross revenue generated by any one app. And that is frankly too high. It’s always been too high and the carriers (AT&T, Verizon etc.) would do the same with their own AppStores back in the day.

There are a few things at issue and one of them is that there is no real alternative to the AppStore for Apple iOS devices. It’s a walled garden. And since Apple provides no ability for a smaller entity to negotiate rates then it’s quite a monopoly. Or rather the correct legal term would be a matter of “detrimental reliance”.

Sadly, in the tech sector (as it relates to software) when it’s not open source it’s managed the same way across the board.

I don’t have the energy to comment further on this today but that revenue share needs to be down in the teens and no greater. Or at minimum Apple needs to stop charging app developers an annual fee just to get advanced access to the SDKs and to publish on the store front.

Imagine a modern Lexus, with its dozens of computers respectively controlling dozens of subsystems: engine performance, climate control, moonroof, power seats w/memory, accident avoidance safety features, advanced ALB and traction control, etc. Lexus sells its vehicles with only the built-in software/firmware. There is no marketplace for third party "applications" for Lexus vehicles. But now imagine if such a marketplace did exist. Lexus would clearly be within their legal right to have stringent app review and acceptance rules and could reasonably demand a 30% take for exposure on a "Lexus App Store" and effortless deployment to, potentially, millions of customers' Lexus vehicles. It would be in Lexus's interest to absolutely ensure continued safety, consistent user experience, and customer satisfaction without compromise when third party apps are utilized. If a customer were not satisfied with any particular Lexus app, he/she could choose another or do without and accept standard, as-delivered Lexus functionality. If such a customer, current or prospective, is still not satisfied with the "apps" or the platform as a whole, he/she would be free to choose an alternative vehicle. If third-party Lexus "app" developers were dissatisfied with a 30% slice being snatched from their revenue pie, or if they were bent out of shape when Lexus introduced their own software/firmware that rendered their third party "app" redundant, such developers would be free to abandon the Lexus platform. Assuming none of the their IP were actually stolen by Lexus (overall high-level concepts and features are generally fair game, though, even if that assertion must ultimately withstand testing in court), it would be foolish for developers to not see the potential for direct competition with the product vendor (Lexus) at the outset.

Apple would be within their legal right to sell their devices with only a set of built-in, Apple-authored apps. But instead they have wisely chosen to offer a marketplace for developers to promote their third-party apps and to potentially have them effortlessly installed on millions of devices, thereby enhancing the usefulness and value of those Apple products. If some developers are dissatisfied with the revenue sharing arrangement or with the obvious potential of direct competition with Apple, they are free to abandon the platform and engage in development for a different platform. If Apple customers are not satisfied with app choices in general, they are free to purchase alternative products.

Apple is free to offer whatever app marketplace(s) they deem fit, or no app marketplaces at all. Apple is free to enforce that only authorized apps acquired from their official marketplace(s) will be supported on their target devices to ensure security, privacy, consistent user experience, and customer satisfaction without compromise. Apple should be obligated to make clear (particularly for non-Mac platforms) that the consumer is not free to install any software from any unapproved source without risking loss of product support and/or warranty coverage. This is no different than Lexus forbidding unauthorized firmware/software installations (which would be considered tampering).

There is no monopoly here. Apple is not stifling competition. Consumers have multiple vendor and product choices across the entire product lines where Apple competes. But the notion of "consumer choice" needs to apply to the devices/platforms as a whole, rather than focussing on the curated marketplace(s) from which their software (apps) are acquired. And that, I predict, is what will end up having to be tested in court in the next few years.

 

[macjunk(ie)]

Imagine a modern Lexus, with its dozens of computers respectively controlling dozens of subsystems: engine performance, climate control, moonroof, power seats w/memory, accident avoidance safety features, advanced ALB and traction control, etc. Lexus sells its vehicles with only the built-in software/firmware. There is no marketplace for third party "applications" for Lexus vehicles. But now imagine if such a marketplace did exist. Lexus would clearly be within their legal right to have stringent app review and acceptance rules and could reasonably demand a 30% take for exposure on a "Lexus App Store" and effortless deployment to, potentially, millions of customers' Lexus vehicles. It would be in Lexus's interest to absolutely ensure continued safety, consistent user experience, and customer satisfaction without compromise when third party apps are utilized. If a customer were not satisfied with any particular Lexus app, he/she could choose another or do without and accept standard, as-delivered Lexus functionality. If such a customer, current or prospective, is still not satisfied with the "apps" or the platform as a whole, he/she would be free to choose an alternative vehicle. If third-party Lexus "app" developers were dissatisfied with a 30% slice being snatched from their revenue pie, or if they were bent out of shape when Lexus introduced their own software/firmware that rendered their third party "app" redundant, such developers would be free to abandon the Lexus platform. Assuming none of the their IP were actually stolen by Lexus (overall high-level concepts and features are generally fair game, though, even if that assertion must ultimately withstand testing in court), it would be foolish for developers to not see the potential for direct competition with the product vendor (Lexus) at the outset.

Apple would be within their legal right to sell their devices with only a set of built-in, Apple-authored apps. But instead they have wisely chosen to offer a marketplace for developers to promote their third-party apps and to potentially have them effortlessly installed on millions of devices, thereby enhancing the usefulness and value of those Apple products. If some developers are dissatisfied with the revenue sharing arrangement or with the obvious potential of direct competition with Apple, they are free to abandon the platform and engage in development for a different platform. If Apple customers are not satisfied with app choices in general, they are free to purchase alternative products.

Apple is free to offer whatever app marketplace(s) they deem fit, or no app marketplaces at all. Apple is free to enforce that only authorized apps acquired from their official marketplace(s) will be supported on their target devices to ensure security, privacy, consistent user experience, and customer satisfaction without compromise. Apple should be obligated to make clear (particularly for non-Mac platforms) that the consumer is not free to install any software from any unapproved source without risking loss of product support and/or warranty coverage. This is no different than Lexus forbidding unauthorized firmware/software installations (which would be considered tampering).

There is no monopoly here. Apple is not stifling competition. Consumers have multiple vendor and product choices across the entire product lines where Apple competes. But the notion of "consumer choice" needs to apply to the devices/platforms as a whole, rather than focussing on the curated marketplace(s) from which their software (apps) are acquired. And that, I predict, is what will end up having to be tested in court in the next few years.

Lexus/Toyota is nowhere close to being a monopoly. Apple and Android, for good or bad, unfortunately are. Totally different arguments. If there were dozen ecosystems today, Apple charging 30% would not be an issue

 

[amartinez1660]

The people complaining about the 30% have clearly never tried selling goods or services anywhere as that is the going kickback for almost every professional marketplace in any industry. From eBooks to App Stores to old school consignment shops - they provide the service, you provide the goods, they keep a portion. It’s not anticompetitive, it’s the very definition of capitalism.

As expressed in some other threads, as high or higher than 50% for brick and mortar retail stores and even 60%+ for books!
I now also wonder, who has numbers for music record labels? At least back in the CDs days? You get the whole chain: label, retail store and also a “manager”? Don’t know if it is all grouped and handled by the label but all those people will want to get a cut.
[automerge]1596080759[/automerge]

As a developer, I disagree.

I bet Apple makes zero profit at best directly from the 30%. Having teams of developers creating the next version of iOS, the next version of Xcode, etc. costs a lot.

Have you seen how poor the developer tools are for Android development? Google also charges 30% and I bet they do make significant profit from it.

Maybe Apple should just formally ring-fence the app-store income and categorically use it only for app-store upkeep and enhancement with any surplus (if there ever is any) used in part for the good causes that Apple supports. This way if they are forced to reduce the percentage, the people that force it will be seen to be reducing the funds that go to good causes. Just thinking it might be better for Apple to be ahead of the curve on this one.

That’s quite the tactic, nobody would want to taint their hands by going against the sources of a good cause.

On the main note, I have been paying the yearly dev fee just to be able to build and test on devices from mostly Unity endeavors.

But honestly, lately taking a fair look at the tools, support and technology offered, I don’t find the $8.333 dollars a month for the dev account and the 30% for apps launched (world wide, multi devices) unfair at all. XCode for dev, Instruments for memory, cpu, graphics profiling (works on all devices and Macs), what they have done with Swift (SwiftUI ), Metal, etc etc etc is very well worth it in my opinion. And I find the entry barriers kept in check and so well documented with best practices... want to try AR? well look at the best docs of all: ARKit sample templates. Or WWDC videos about it, etc

But I’m biased, I accept that maybe I’m just a blind fanatic.

 

[An-apple-a-day]

Lexus/Toyota is nowhere close to being a monopoly. Apple and Android, for good or bad, unfortunately are. Totally different arguments. If there were dozen ecosystems today, Apple charging 30% would not be an issue

Nonsense. Apple is a corporation, whereas Android is an OS developed by a consortium commercially sponsored by Google. Neither Apple nor Google is a monopoly.

Also, 30% is very fair. I would like to see Apple's commission for subscriptions dropped somewhat, though.

 

[ksec]

I think the Apple Spin have on App Store, is that Customer are effectively paying 30% for their purchase to use iOS. Where iOS upgrade are provided for free, compared to Windows ( Old days ) or other Software which requires you to purchase an upgrade.
[automerge]1596083659[/automerge]

As a developer, I disagree.

I bet Apple makes zero profit at best directly from the 30%. Having teams of developers creating the next version of iOS, the next version of Xcode, etc. costs a lot.

Have you seen how poor the developer tools are for Android development? Google also charges 30% and I bet they do make significant profit from it.

Maybe Apple should just formally ring-fence the app-store income and categorically use it only for app-store upkeep and enhancement with any surplus (if there ever is any) used in part for the good causes that Apple supports. This way if they are forced to reduce the percentage, the people that force it will be seen to be reducing the funds that go to good causes. Just thinking it might be better for Apple to be ahead of the curve on this one.

Apple absolutely make huge "Net" profits from their App Store even if you include those cost. For reference Apple already paid $10 / devices to Apple Services for its OS and Map. That is not a small sum considering the volume Apple is driving these days. And let's not forget you are already paying $99 per year for its 23M Apple Developer.

And the Android counterpart has more to do with Google's culture and competence rather than income or revenue. ( I never felt they care much about quality on anything )

That said, I dont have a problem with 30% cut, I have a problem with some of the rules that needs to be reviewed. ( And it seems they are opened to it )