You can forget about family sharing if payment processing goes anywhere apart from going through Apple.
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 Facing $1 Billion UK Antitrust Lawsuit Over App Store Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
...but its Apples digital mall, they could just shut it down if they wanted to.
There's rent and rules for being tenant - percentage of sales being one, don't sue the mall.
There's rent and rules for being tenant - percentage of sales being one, don't sue the mall.
What kind of idiot does it take to believe that Apple has a monopoly on app distribution on iPad and iPhone. Doesn't make any sense... Does google have a monopoly on searching with google search, or should google maybe add the duck duck go search bar underneath its own as well. Does xBox have a monopoly on games that work on xBox and that are sold on the xBox game store? Same for Playstation? I don't understand how one can force a company to not charge developers for access to the network of 1 BILLION active devices across the whole world. Literally shoot me in the head if a reasonable and logical argument can be made there. Also if you can, then what about the fact that due to convenience, Stores across the western world (US, Canada, EU) are pretty much forced to accept plastic which costs more for them due to paying the card company a charge on each transaction versus cash which doesn't come with that charge.
Why aren’t they investigating Amazon which takes 50%! It makes Apple’s fee structure look absolutely inexpensive in comparison. 💸
This exactly, I literally don't get how people do not understand that. Or do they think that the stores in the mall just chill and don't have to pay for the location?
What is your point? Apple created an Uber popular device that both developers and customers flocked to. Both could have chosen other options, but no they didn't. 20/20 hindsight is nice but it's just that.It could also be said that if it weren't for 3rd party app developers, the iPhone might not have become the success that it is today.
Remember that Steve Jobs didn't think 3rd party apps were right for Apple and the iPhone.
Steve Jobs resisted third-party apps on iPhone, biography reveals
Stuart Dredge: CEO was initially reluctant to allow non-Apple apps but was swayed by lobbying from execs and board memberswww.theguardian.com
Walter Isaacson's authorised biography of former Apple CEO Steve Jobs explains that Jobs was initially unconvinced that apps would benefit Apple or its iOS platform.
"When it first came out in early 2007, there were no apps you could buy from outside developers, and Jobs initially resisted allowing them," writes Isaacson. "He didn't want outsiders to create applications for the iPhone that could mess it up, infect it with viruses, or pollute its integrity."
Hence no external apps for the first iPhone. However, the book explains that behind the scenes, Apple board member Art Levinson and SVP of worldwide product marketing Phil Schiller were pressing Jobs to change his mind.
"I called him a half dozen times to lobby for the potential of the apps," says Levinson, while Schiller adds that "I couldn't imagine that we would create something as powerful as the iPhone and not empower developers to make lots of apps. I knew customers would love them."
100% Cheaper? So you mean free? Premium apps free? You can download apps from the internet on your Mac... do you see premium apps like Flexbits Calendar or Cardhopper being free? No? What about Keycue, Pixelmator, Photomator, Default Folder X, Lingon X, Hazel, AudioHijack, etc etc? No none of those apps are 100% cheaper. Instead there are subscriptions like Setapp which give you access to premium apps but no you'll NEVER have complete ownership of any of them, even if you have subscribed to Setapp for years and maybe after 10 years when you've paid over 1000$ in subscription fees to them none of those apps you will have used will belong to you.
Apple is the target of a $1 billion lawsuit saying they are abusing a dominant position by charging a 15% to 30% fee on in-app sales in the App Store.
What are the possible outcomes?
Do the developers simply want the percentage to be lower? But keep all the things consumers like about the built-in App Store?
Or do they want additional 3rd-party app stores to be allowed on the platform?
Or sideloading real apps from a website? (instead of pinned webapps)
We always hear about problems developers have with the App Store. But I'm wondering what the solutions will be to fix those problems.
What are the possible outcomes?
Do the developers simply want the percentage to be lower? But keep all the things consumers like about the built-in App Store?
Or do they want additional 3rd-party app stores to be allowed on the platform?
Or sideloading real apps from a website? (instead of pinned webapps)
We always hear about problems developers have with the App Store. But I'm wondering what the solutions will be to fix those problems.
They’re not obliged to develop apps for Apple - other operating systems are available.
If 30% is too much, develop somewhere else that charges less? The fact that Devs still create apps for the Appstore suggests that they are making good money out of it.
I prefer a single App Store. I trust Apple to vet these apps for malware before I let developers police themselves. If side loading is the solution then developers should be required to offer their app on both and let the consumer decide where they want to install it from.
In the end, for this to succeed it will have to determine that the Apple AppStore is a monopoly and the % was abusive or that Apple was not right to assign any value for the use of its IP and access to store. The US court system has already determined that Apple was not a monopoly in that regard. UK law may be different, but I doubt it will be that different. Especially since the UK market share Apple has with iOS is about 5% lower than in the US.
I don't believe app developers are saying they want to keep 100% of the sales. Rather, they are asking for something a bit more fair.
I mean, does it cost Apple any more to handle the sale of CyberTuner that sells for $999.99 vs the Procreate Pocket app which sells for $5.99? At a 30% cut, Apple gets $300 from each CyberTuner app sale while each Procreate app sale gives Apple $1.80. Does it cost Apple 16,566% more to handle each CyberTuner app sale vs each Procreate Pocket sale?
Apple targeted in App Store antitrust damages suit that's seeking $1BN+ for UK developers | TechCrunch
A class-action damages claim is being brought against Apple on behalf of UK-based developers over its "anticompetitive" 30% fee on in-app sales.
techcrunch.com
Apple is accused of abuse of dominant position, not monopoly. Monopoly is not bad per se. It becomes bad when a company takes advantage of it.
“Those who know, do. Those that understand, teach.” - Aristotle
"The appeal to authority fallacy trumps all." - daabido
Me too.
And I'm sure developers also like the simplicity and convenience of the built-in App Store.
But developers made complaints and filed lawsuits. They want something to change.
So lower fees then? Would that make them happy?
Like I said... I just wanna know where this is gonna go. It's Tuesday and there's another App Store lawsuit. I just want it to be fixed!
If it werent for those developers you’d be on android right now and ios would be like Blackberry
Probbaly not. When Apple reduced fees for small developers did they drop prices or merely pocket the windfall?
Sure. Right now, beyond a developer account, time and some hardware there is no up front costs for marketing an app. If it fails, yo are out a lot less than if you had to pay for marketting, storage, downloads, etc. It really lowered the bar for app development. I suspect developers would find it a lot harder to start or stay in business if they had to upfront the money for things Apple covers with its cut. They are likely to find out instead of getting 70% of sales they are getting 30%, if they are lucky.
As others have pointed out, alternative app stores are not likely to be cheaper or offer the same reach and breadth of services Apple does.
Of course. I suspect they'd find that pirating their apps just got a lot easier for many non-technical users and be forced to go to subscriptions to try to make money.
What is fair? Is it fair that Apple doesn't get a cut if the app doesn't sell or is free? If apps are allowed to be free but collect subscription fees outside of the IAP process and not give Apple a cut? That Apple gives small developers a break on the fees?
The value of a service does not depend on the cost of delivering it.
Dis it take Cybertune's developer 16,566% longer to develop it than Procreates?
15% & 30% is entirely reasonable for the reason you mention: “The fact that Devs still create apps for the Appstore suggests that they are making good money out of it.” When software was sold as CDs in boxes at retail stores developers would make 30% of the sales price if they’re lucky. 50+% would go to the store, then there were manufacturing costs, distribution, advertising, printing, design and more.
All of which were upfront costs before a sale was made, putting the developer's capital at risk.
Every app developer pay's Apple a yearly fee for using the app store and tools provide to develop apps and use the store and that should be enough for Apple but it isn't, they want more money and they way they do it is by only allowing one payment system if the dev's want to use in-app purchases in their app and that payment system is owned and run by Apple. Instead of including usage of Apple's payment system as part of the yearly app store fee, Apple worked out they could make bundles of money if they charge a percentage every time their payment system is used and what better way to make sure their payment system is the only one used? to write it in the sign up contract (Terms and Conditions) that only Apples payment system is allowed and no one else.
It still beggars belief how Apple is still allowed to get away with this. Shopping malls charge a yearly rent fee for individual shop owners to sell there goods in the mall. Market stall providers charge a yearly rent fee for stall holders to use a stall so they can sell their goods in the market. Neither the shopping mall or the market stall providers charge a fee for every sale made by individual shop or stall holder, so why should Apple be allowed run a system where not only do they get a yearly fee from every dev but also charge a fee for using a payment system devs have no choice but to use because Apple prevents other payments systems from being used. If shopping malls are not allowed to charge a fee on every purchase made from the shops within their mall, why is Apple allowed to charge a fee on all purchases made within their store?
It still beggars belief how Apple is still allowed to get away with this. Shopping malls charge a yearly rent fee for individual shop owners to sell there goods in the mall. Market stall providers charge a yearly rent fee for stall holders to use a stall so they can sell their goods in the market. Neither the shopping mall or the market stall providers charge a fee for every sale made by individual shop or stall holder, so why should Apple be allowed run a system where not only do they get a yearly fee from every dev but also charge a fee for using a payment system devs have no choice but to use because Apple prevents other payments systems from being used. If shopping malls are not allowed to charge a fee on every purchase made from the shops within their mall, why is Apple allowed to charge a fee on all purchases made within their store?
The problem is not that Apple charges 30% in their store. The problem is the monopoly. If YOU pay a lot of money for your iPhone, you should be able to install on it what you want from whatever source you choose.
Imagine a car manufacturer would tell you where you can drive with your car an where not. And if you used your car as a taxi, the manufacturer would demand 30% of the money you make with it.
That one billion is peanuts. If those fees were against competition laws, Apple should pay back every Cent they made with those fees over the years.
Imagine a car manufacturer would tell you where you can drive with your car an where not. And if you used your car as a taxi, the manufacturer would demand 30% of the money you make with it.
That one billion is peanuts. If those fees were against competition laws, Apple should pay back every Cent they made with those fees over the years.