That’s up to the individual to decide.
[automerge]1592451506[/automerge]
Sure you can.
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 Faces New EU Antitrust Complaint Over 30% App Store Commission Rate
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
[automerge]1592451506[/automerge]
I see it more as Apple being a state and the developers being citizens who are expected to pay their taxes to help pay for infrastructure and amenities.
Generally, the more you earn, the more you are taxed. Sure, there will be those who don’t disclose their earns or attempt to evade taxes (of which Apple themselves is no stranger to), but generally, I think we can agree that everyone has a role to play here in paying for the upkeep of the App Store.
And if Apple can be condemned for paying the absolute minimum amount of tax they have to, I am not sure why developers are being celebrated for essentially try to skirt around App Store rules and leverage the platform that Apple has painstakingly built up from scratch while giving nothing back in return.
And if you don’t like the rules and level of taxation in your country, well, emigration (to android) is always an option. Just that the grass may not always be greener on the other side.
There is, of course, always the option of revolution and protests, which I suppose the Americans are no stranger to as well.
And here we are.
Apple doesn't leave it up to the individual to decide. They decide for both sides.
No you can't.
Yeah no. That's a clearly false analogy, and the mental gymnastics required to come up with it almost qualifies you for the Olympic Games.
No, it's not an option. You're maliciously conflating the issue as if you have access to the same customer by developing for a different platform. The developer doesn't choose what platform the customer is on, and so long as that's the case, your "emigration" argument doesn't hold water.
What if I as the customer claim to be okay with this arrangement? That what you think may be good for the developer may not be the case for the customer?
What if I said that I am fine with all developers having to go through the App Store because that means they (and by extension, their apps) have to subject to their rules and regulations? While sometimes onerous on the developer, have undeniably helped make the App Store that much safer and more secure for the end user? What if I specifically want Apple to act as the intermediary between customer and developer?
You may want to be able to sell software directly from a website and keep 100% of the proceeds. I may want the convenience and security of being able to manage my app downloads and updates from one central location, and actually prefer managing my payments via iTunes then having my credit card info proliferate amongst so many different vendors.
Maybe a developer can’t be bothered to implement sign-in-with-Apple, which is a feature that is highly beneficial to the customer while offering little value to the developer. That’s why we need someone like Apple to force them to implement said feature for the benefit of the end user.
Maybe this all does suck for the developer, and perhaps that’s why I find I am not quite able to fully emphasise with your plight. Because Apple’s App Store has been so great for me to use as a customer, precisely because of all the rules and restrictions they impose on you, the developer.
Perhaps if our roles were reversed and I were a developer by trade, I would be singing a different tune as I watched 30% of my earnings vanish into thin air just like that. But you all kinda already knew that going in, didn’t you?
If you're perfectly fine with being treated like a toddler who can't be trusted to make decisions for yourself by a trillion dollar company which does not have your best interests in mind, well have at it. But don't you dare try to speak for every other iPhone user (which happens to include me).
I'd say I'm both a customer and developer myself and don't care what you want.
Fine. Then only buy your apps via iTunes. I don't care. But don't try telling me that because you want it that way that I have to tolerate it that way too.
It's actually just as beneficial to both, since identity infrastructure is just annoying to build. Regardless though, Apple introduced it because centralising user data with Apple is incredibly valuable to them. As a customer, and a developer, I say with absolution that we do not need Apple to force them to implement said feature for the benefit of Apple.
It actually sucks for me, the customer, as well. Since Apple limits the kinds of apps I can get and how they work.
When push comes to shove any for profit company has it's own interests in mind and if that coincides with our interest that is a fortuitous circumstance. Eventually a company's interest will diverge so far from the interests of enough of it's customer base that they no longer purchase from the company hurting the company's profit. This may be due to the company's own actions or inaction in the face of competition in the market.
Apple sell their devices and have no obligation to entertain any third party content on the device. That's how it all started: the way of running "apps" on the device was to build web apps. I remember the Financial Times had an amazing iPhone "app" implemented fully as a web app running on the device. Apple set up their own walled garden, set up their rules for getting onto the device and have legendarily inconsistently enforced those rules (not to mention changing interpretation or outright changing the rules). Ultimately though they sell a device and they have no obligation to open it up. Apple are well within their rights to sell it how they want and to enforce their own restrictions. If we don't like those restrictions then we have a choice in smart phone operating systems and we can pick another one. We can implement web apps to complete what we want as well. Is it as good as using the development platform, native code and SDK's that Apple provide? Well I guess we found our value add.
I can wish that these companies do everything I want of them but I also acknowledge that even if they mysteriously read my post on the MacRumors forum, it's unlikely to sway their direction. I personally begrudge the departure of Dashboard from the Mac, I really wish they'd put it back but I know they're not going to do it and no matter what I post here saying they're wrong won't change it. I think some of what they do is short sighted, particularly the recent moves to make even more of a grab at the subscription space. However Apple built the platform and gets to define the rules for their devices. I can wish that Apple built something for me but sooner or later one has to accept that you aren't the target market for a company any more.
Apple sell their devices and have no obligation to entertain any third party content on the device. That's how it all started: the way of running "apps" on the device was to build web apps. I remember the Financial Times had an amazing iPhone "app" implemented fully as a web app running on the device. Apple set up their own walled garden, set up their rules for getting onto the device and have legendarily inconsistently enforced those rules (not to mention changing interpretation or outright changing the rules). Ultimately though they sell a device and they have no obligation to open it up. Apple are well within their rights to sell it how they want and to enforce their own restrictions. If we don't like those restrictions then we have a choice in smart phone operating systems and we can pick another one. We can implement web apps to complete what we want as well. Is it as good as using the development platform, native code and SDK's that Apple provide? Well I guess we found our value add.
I can wish that these companies do everything I want of them but I also acknowledge that even if they mysteriously read my post on the MacRumors forum, it's unlikely to sway their direction. I personally begrudge the departure of Dashboard from the Mac, I really wish they'd put it back but I know they're not going to do it and no matter what I post here saying they're wrong won't change it. I think some of what they do is short sighted, particularly the recent moves to make even more of a grab at the subscription space. However Apple built the platform and gets to define the rules for their devices. I can wish that Apple built something for me but sooner or later one has to accept that you aren't the target market for a company any more.
I am willing to bet that the majority of iphone users are iphone users mainly due to the nature of the iOS App Store, which has made it both exceedingly easy and safe to purchase and download new apps. This in turn increases their propensity to purchase additional apps.
At the same time, piracy is less of an issue precisely because it’s so difficult to side load apps, which in turn means more people paying for apps.
Sure, some users may prefer that the App Store be more open, but I believe they are more the exception than the norm. Not saying your needs don’t matter, but it’s ridiculous to think that Apple should compromise the safety of the majority just to cater to the demands of a vocal few.
And personally, neither would I care what you want, but...(see my next point below)
Do you see why I like the Apple ecosystem? As a customer, I know the developer has to use iTunes billing (which I prefer), regardless of whether you or any other developer out there likes it or not.
I still want to see said feature on as many iOS apps and websites as possible though.
At the end of the day, I personally still value Apple’s tight control of third party app distribution as a guard against most malware and a protection of privacy. Even if the price is that certain apps are not available on iOS or have limited functionality, I find it a worthwhile trade-off overall.
So the key takeaway here is that you think you have the right to speak on behalf of every iOS user and claim that lockin is good for everyone because you like it. How arrogant.
If the individual doesn't seen enough value, they won't use it. Ergo, it's up to the individual.
Sure you can.
...
[/QUOTE]
[automerge]1592483996[/automerge]
Because you are not fine with the arrangement, doesn't mean it's not the overall best arrangement for the majority of the Apple customer base, as Apple sees it. And contrary to the accounting whizzes on the forum attempting to dissect Apples earning on the app store, this, imo, is less about money and more about a better environment for Apple customers as Apple sees it.
Last edited:
No, it's not up to the individual. It takes either wilful ignorance or stupidity to claim otherwise.
No you can't
It's objectively not the best environment for the customer base when a trillion dollar company which doesn't give a crap about anything other than staying a trillion dollar company decides for them. How "Apple" sees it is irrelevant. It's not the best arrangement for the customers. It's absolutely all about the money for Apple, no matter how all you fanboys try to spin it.
We're talking about the same company that thought the butterfly keyboard was acceptable and provided the only solution of buying a brand spanking new 2019 Macbook that didn't have a fundamentally flawed by design keyboard to fix it.
Ok, my opinion says otherwise.
I don't agree.
This is just your opinion. How you see it is not relevant. You don't want apple controlling your experience, there are alternatives. A trillion dollar company is going to do what it thinks best for the majority of it's customer base...not one poster on an anonymous internet forum.
It's not always about the money no matter how the perennial critics, armchair ceos/cfos try to spin it otherwise.
I have seen a few of your posts talking about the "mental gymnastics" required by others to reach their conclusions...but then I read this and I have to say...you are certainly pretty good on the mat yourself!
You clearly say that you, as a developer, "don't care" what one of your potential customers wants...and then complain that Apple doesn't care about what the Devs (its customers) want. One rule for you and another for Apple it seems...
[automerge]1592498689[/automerge]
I agree with you...and as an ex-musician...it's just the same in the music industry...10% would be a major WIN!
Are attorney’s next? 🤔
[automerge]1596110081[/automerge]
You’re right!
None of this stuff you have to buy, nor develop for.
Last edited:
We could go back to 20 years ago when, in order to get your software to the consumer you had to:
Find a publisher, find retail stores to sell your software, which was often a simple word processor or a pack of card games; then to make any money, you had to sell your software for $50 - $60 and you might make 20% - 30%. All the time, your customer base is who ever is in the store and happens to see your software.
Instead, Apple takes 30% and you can sell your software for a fraction of the in-store retail price, plus you don’t have to pay to host your software on a server. This time your customer base anyone with an iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Apple Watch, Mac, etc.
I’d choose 30% any day of the week.