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 CEO Tim Cook: 'We Want to Get Every App We Can on the Store, Not Keep Them Off'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes I 100% agree. If this happens, we will essentially have an Adobe App Store, Microsoft App Store, Battle.Net App Store, Origin App Store, and many other app stores.
Also, let's keep in mind that most politicians and lawyers do not understand how technology works. Hello FBI wanting a backdoor in iPhones. This is going to turn out VERY badly tomorrow.
Look, i never said it was good or bad but it's obvious if there is a chance to get money Apple will jump on that chance. It's not like it is even a new thing, it happened when Job's was there the first time, second time and after his death. The Apple premium doesn't apply to just when you buy Apple hardware, it's true on anything they do if they can whether services, software, hardware, or cost of being an iPhone developer.
They should be looking at Windows 10S, where you cna only download apps from Microsoft store.
You do realize that this is mostly an industry standard right? Apple isn't the only one out there with the 30%. Think of Steam, though that was changed when Epic came around. Think about Xbox and Playstation. Think about Amazon.
[automerge]1595995339[/automerge]
They should be spending more time focusing on more important monopolies and actual anti-competitive behavior. Like Spectrum. I only have access to Spectrum internet. Google was supposed to come to my area, and Spectrum had a big fit about it.
You may not be aware, but Samsung, Huawei, amazon, and a few others run their own app stores even though they are all Android OEMs. While they don’t account for a huge portion of the market, they show that it’s still possible to have very viable alternatives even if you run Android.
Yeah of course it’s not like I can just easily get on another smartphone platform.
You can maybe make a case that Google’s cut might be anticompetitive since they have such a big share of the global market, but forcing Apple to allow other app sources makes no sense.
If Apple added the Background Sync API to Safari and Safari iOS, the app store would be... less. There are certainly use cases for native development. Silly guess, with absolutely no statistical backing: I bet 80% of apps could be converted to PWAs. I've built little PWA games for daughter: "Unicorn, Dress Me Up", "Calvin" a fancy doorknob trying to get home ( we made this after discovering fancy doorknobs are a thing ) and many more.
You don't know what you're talking about. This is NOT a matter of Choice. It is a matter of Buy-In. And there are a complex host of questions that comes into play when a person has to make decisions about whether or not that buy-in is worth their time and effort. Do I think that maybe Apple could lower the cost of this buy-in? Sure that would be great, but at the same time I notice time and again how much people undervalue to what lengths Apple goes to in creating the support needed to make deployment and sustainability of these apps possible - it is no joke.
Ars did an excellent detailed analysis of this topic not long ago - I urge you read it; https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...-war-with-apple-and-why-neither-one-is-right/
Last edited by a moderator:
That's what anti-trust laws are for. It's the government's job to investigate and decide if Apple is abusing its power and as a result stifling competition and acting in an anti-competitive manner, then it deserves whatever punishment comes its way. If not, then Apple gets to go on as it always has. But make no mistake, tomorrow's hearing is a pivotal moment in Apple's history. If this goes bad for Apple, heads may roll.
Of course I realize it is a standard,that's why I phrased it in both a humorous and sarcastical way.... I don't even think 30 percent is high when it comes to single app purchases or in app purchases, it's only until they take their other tactics like not allowing the app link to signing up a subscription outside of Apples wall. Now that's them just being greedy. They are already getting money just to have the App on the store so it's a steady stream for Apple and Apple gets a cut off App's that are a one time buy ore include in app purchases and this can easily compensate for them not getting a cut of another's app that has a subscription since there is no effort to be done on Apple's side for a App using subscription other than hosting the app in the store which they were already being fairly compensated for. Apple just want's it's cake and eat it too.
Imagine if Apple TV+ came out for xbox and playstation which you can download apps only from their store, like iOS and them saying they were going to take a thirty percent cut of the subscription cost because Microsoft and Sony were the ones hosting Apple's Software...... Neither Hulu, Netflix or Disney+ get a cut of the subscribtion when i download and sign up for it on on my xBoX app store which is the only place to get them and don't even require a 100 dollar fee per year against the devs.
That's the problem, it's not clear that they apply to everyone. I don't want to restate everything from the similar thread, but their handling of Spotify, Netflix, the Hey app, and my own apps have been inconsistent. The changes in payment rules in particular haven't had any apparent connection to changes in the technology.
The unwritten rules in particular are unsettling, and they suggest Apple is bending things at will. None of the payment/subscription rules being brought up here or in articles about this issue are actually stated anywhere on Apple's site, as far as I can tell. But glad to be proven wrong if anyone can find the exception for "reader" apps.
How do you properly enforce that? Its VERY easy to have a website link to a valid page during app review, but you can change the DNS later and point it to some hacker website. Its not because Apple is greedy, its security.
I agree with this. With respect to consumer apps, I always felt PWA's were a bigger threat to the App Store than anything the government can do. Unless, of course, the government requires Apple to make PWA's a first-class citizen on Apple's devices as native apps. The ironic part is, is that Steve Jobs was gung-ho on web apps a year before the App Store & native apps came along.
thats the whole thing, neither Microsoft or Sony ask for a percent of the subscription through their app stores and we get the same security. Apple asks for a percentage of the subscription to allow them to allow getting subscriptions securely through the app, and believe me, it's not the security you are paying for.
It's a smart business move if you are trying to bring in all the income you can, but it has absolutely nothing to do with security and being better for the customers.
Why on earth would you want to gimp what your computer can do?
What App Stores? Are you referring to Xbox and Playstation? As I said before, you cannot download software online for these consoles so there is no security concern.
I download netflix and hulu on the xbox app store and can sinup up for a subscribtion through the app and microsoft doesn't take a cut of it. Now if I tried downloading Netflix through the iOS store and signed up for a subscription Apple takes 30% of that and not just once, EVERY time my subscription renews. In what world does that make sense?
Failure to add features to SKAdNetwork and have *zero* replacement for an advertising ID if users opt out (even just to attribute impressions and installs) is going to force a lot of app developers out of business. Their services simply cannot function under an IAP or subscription model. I'm a privacy advocate, and believe no random advertiser should be able to tell "who you are" but an advertiser should be able to see if you saw their ad, your clicks, etc. Opting out in iOS 14 means they get none of that, unless they want to break Apple's TOS.
I'm not talking about games, I'm talking about that awesome little tip calculator you have. Or that great day planner. The ones with the little banner ads, or the occasional interstitial video. The ads are there to make up for the people who wouldn't/can't pay and their eCPMs are about to fall off a cliff.
It's abundantly clear Apple wants ad-supported apps off the App Store. They just can't make it a policy, so they're going to starve them to death instead.
Netflix and a few other subscription apps do not have in-app subscriptions in them. Apple gives them a pass because they arbitrarily class them as "reader" apps. Which is dumb.
I'm not talking about games, I'm talking about that awesome little tip calculator you have. Or that great day planner. The ones with the little banner ads, or the occasional interstitial video. The ads are there to make up for the people who wouldn't/can't pay and their eCPMs are about to fall off a cliff.
It's abundantly clear Apple wants ad-supported apps off the App Store. They just can't make it a policy, so they're going to starve them to death instead.
Netflix and a few other subscription apps do not have in-app subscriptions in them. Apple gives them a pass because they arbitrarily class them as "reader" apps. Which is dumb.
It's been a while since I used those on console, but I am pretty sure that go through Netflix and Hulu billing. On Apple, they go through iTunes Billing. And wasn't it set to 15% for subscriptions?
I see this as just another attempt to break open iOS. If the App Store is framed as a monopoly then Apple could be forced to allow any software, from any source, to be installed without review.
This allows governments a way in to unlocking everyones phone. Russia has already passed laws on this.
iOS becomes no better than Windows, Governments just shrug their shoulders and say "pay for virus protection software. It was good enough for Microsoft's OS" and leave Apple to figure out how to deal with the mess they make for everyone.
[automerge]1595998047[/automerge]
I fully expect it to do so at some point. It's proven to be successful for preventing trojan software on iOS. I find myself now reluctant to install anything on my Mac unless it comes from the Mac App store where I know it has been reviewed.
This allows governments a way in to unlocking everyones phone. Russia has already passed laws on this.
iOS becomes no better than Windows, Governments just shrug their shoulders and say "pay for virus protection software. It was good enough for Microsoft's OS" and leave Apple to figure out how to deal with the mess they make for everyone.
[automerge]1595998047[/automerge]
I fully expect it to do so at some point. It's proven to be successful for preventing trojan software on iOS. I find myself now reluctant to install anything on my Mac unless it comes from the Mac App store where I know it has been reviewed.
It will be very critical to force this type of change on Apple, but not require Xbox and Playstation to allow any games from any source to be installed without Microsoft/Sony review too.
Of course this will not happen because only Apple will be a target. But if this does change, Xbox and Playstation should also be changed.
The Ars article is good, but misses a few key points IMHO.
1. The legal definition of monopoly for software services and platforms was set by Intel v Intergraph in the Ninth Circuit some 15+ years ago, and was referenced in the antitrust filings against Microsoft soon thereafter. The Court there ruled that an x86 customer that bought Intel CPUs was therefore bound to software that was Intel-compatible. Other CPU instruction sets, and their binaries, can’t run on Intel x86 architectures. Therefore, the court reasoned, end-users with Intel processors were subject to an Intel monopoly and by virtue of a network effect, the monopoly of Software Developers that made software that conformed with Intel’s x86 instruction set.
iOS end-users have a single store to acquire software from; it is run by Apple, and Apple sets all the rules. An iOS user has no choice but to submit to the systems and regulations of AppStore behavior Apple chooses to impose upon developers, including choice of apps to support and content choices and payment methods permitted. When the regulation of the store tends to benefit the store owner unfairly (by using network effects of hardware and software compatibility to force end-users to enrich Apple, devoid of competition), it is anti-trust prima facie.
2. There are a wealth of other similar 30% systems in the world — from Amazon to PlayStation to Xbox and so on. Even Target and Wal-Mart qualify, but have physical goods to contend with. Ars cannot, for the life of me, show me that an app store has higher costs of unit economics than a physically-stocked store, but Target and Wal-Mart only take around 20%. While I appreciate the cost and energy and innovative prowess required to conceive of iPhone and the AppStore, Apple is prohibited from tying software to hardware and limiting consumer choice in a way that in the majority of cases benefits themselves. A store is a store, whether physical or virtual, and many UCC rules about products and conformity and fitness and merchantability still apply. I have no issue with Apple charging a fair percentage for the use of the store and transacting fees and BOBO (billing on behalf of), and more. I do have an issue where AppReview cannot forge a clear and convincing method for when 30% applies and when it does not and that such rules change over time; more damningly, that app developers may not build competing apps to Apple’s own.
3. Lastly, I wish Ars had compared the iOS / Android state of the market in the US with the state of the market in China, where iOS is far from dominant and there is no Google presence. Android in China has *flourished* with (what feels like) hundreds of app stores in competition with each other for app developer attention. This has resulted in far more choice, price competition, deeper app compatibility with various Android OS builds, with app stores working in concert with carriers for billing, customer service, and deployment issues.
I think buy-in is very good for any consumer to perform, caveat emptor. BUT: I caution that software network effects are HARD for anyone, let alone your average consumer, to fully understand and think through. How would a consumer know that an app like Hey could be developed, made available, and offered for sale at a price 30% higher than if Apple permitted a web-store transaction to effectuate payment? They wouldn’t, unless they read gobs of news articles. It’s the volume of information that your average consumer has to digest to make truly informed choices that prevents consumers from the kind of buy-in I would want them to have. As a result, I think consumers are harmed when there’s a lack of transparency and more so when coupled to a lack of competition.
My $0.02.
Last edited: