Except Apple created a category just for them so they don’t have to give Apple any of their revenue stream. Of course doing this doesn’t help Apple’s argument that they rightfully deserve a cut of 3rd party developers revenue streams.
Or just allow developers to offer their own payment options along side Apple’s IAP. Then customers can choose whether they want to pay 30% or 15% more to have Apple manage their purchases/subscriptions.
What you are arguing is that the existing competition is enough to prevent antitrust legislation to even apply.
So I take it your complaint is that others charge the same fees? Those are easily confirmed, so your snark is off target. Should everyone charge these fees? That’s a valid point, but to presume someone does a marketing study somehow misleads is way off. A bit like saying a study which says 100 degrees is hot can’t be right because an air conditioning manufacturer paid for it
Except you are missing the lion in the room. Firms like Spotify do use their own networks for payment and bypass Apple altogether. Any firm that wishes to can establish accounts outside Apple and simply have their apps downloaded from the App Store with a sign on from their own site. No fees to Apple involved
It's an argument and Apple will probably use it, I guess, still I think it hold a sufficient part of the market something like 45% in the US and over 50% if you consider only mid and end high en phones -more for tablets- that i hope lawmakers will do something about it.
This is only possible for "reader" apps, since Apple made up an arbitrary category for them with special rules. If your app is not merely a "reader" app, Apple mandates the use of their in-app payment system even if you provide your own external and independent payment network on your own site.
And one should point out that this “reader” category just happens to mostly apply to apps where Apple is a direct competitor. If you don’t compete with an Apple service you‘re SOL.
No, even if Apple guaranteed every developer $100,000 just for putting an app on the app store, there would be those developers asking why doesn’t Apple make it $200,000?
And, if you slice it differently and only consider phones named iPhone, it’s 100% of that market!!!! MONOPOLY!!! /s
Friction is added in acquiring subscribers as the options to a developer in direct competition with Apple (the “reader apps” exception, basically) are as follows:
Monopolies can and, in some cases, should be defined narrowly. Say, for example, a developer has a finished iOS app that Apple simply will not accept in the App Store for one reason or another. They can’t take that app and just sell it on Android — it won’t work; they have to start from scratch on an app for a non-iOS platform (well, except Macs, I suppose, but not every iOS app should be a Mac app). The argument for defining Apple as having a monopoly on iOS software distribution is pretty straightforward.
It’s not a monopoly, as the long list of digital marketplaces demonstrate. iPhones are a minority of phone sales. Thus nothing Apple does could be monopolistic by definition.
What about on the tablet market? Apple as 64,34% in the US according to one source. Microsoft had 80% in the days it what convicted but that's not a hard figure and it was a lot more open on Microsoft's 80% then on iPad's 64% if you understand my drift.
I disagree. If Apple were the only platform for apps what you say might be true, but given their are non-iOS platform's Apple's treatment is irrelevant since developers have other options.
MS was convicted because it used it's OS market share to force IE on machines, a conviction that was overturned on appeal.
It's simply the developer's tough luck for betting on the wrong horse. There were plenty of alternatives, they just failed to chose wisely and deserve to fail.
Given apps on the Mac App store are usually the same price if bought directly, consumers are not likely to see a price cut; developers will just enjoy the extra money.
