Big difference between starting open and closing it up vs starting off with a closed platform.
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 Loses UK Antitrust Lawsuit Over App Store Fees, Faces £1.5 Billion in Damages
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Big difference between starting open and closing it up vs starting off with a closed platform.
PS4 had a full web browser. My PS5 lets me download apps like Netflix, Hulu, Apple TV, Prime, and Disney+. These aren’t games, they’re general-purpose media apps.
The only reason the PS5 doesn’t have a full browser right now is because Sony chooses to block it, not because it’s technically impossible. If regulators forced the platform open, we’d see one overnight.
So pretending consoles are “purely gaming devices” while iPhones are “general-purpose” is a distinction built entirely on policy, not capability. The hardware and software can do it. It’s the "gatekeeper" (to borrow a madeup term) that decides what you’re allowed to install on your PS5. The only difference is Sony makes close to 100% of its revenue from PlayStation software sales of games, and Apple only makes 70% of its App Store revenue from software sales of games.
So open Sony up!
What does "but can it make phone calls" have to do with opening a platform up? lmao that's a serious reach in trying to make a distinction.
For the longest time, iPad couldn't make native phone calls. Does that mean iPhone should be open but iPad remains closed? If you're talking about any call then all major game consoles today have "phone calls".
For the longest time, iPad couldn't make native phone calls. Does that mean iPhone should be open but iPad remains closed? If you're talking about any call then all major game consoles today have "phone calls".
Perhaps you would also be a billionaire today if you had realized all along what you get from Apple in return for them keeping a third of your income.
Namely, nothing.
You pay 30% to be allowed to use a platform.
You have to use it; there is no alternative if you want to reach 30 to 70% of your target audience, depending on the country.
And you're grateful to pay an access tax?
I think there is a lot of confusion here. As an analogy it’s like someone listing a product on Amazon and is charged a certain percentage and another percentage on using ONLY Amazon pay service so in total 30% (as in Apple’s AppStore case).
So to list or host the product and the seller can ONLY USE Amazon’s pay system for a total of 30% fees to Amazon. Now if the seller says I don’t mind paying a listing fee but I can find a better rate for transactions and Amazon says nope it’s either our way or the highway. Now the seller has to offer up its product for a higher price to make up for Amazon’s cut or go elsewhere. Considering Amazon has a large footprint globally the seller has little recourse to just swallow the terms which is anticompetitive.
Apple (and US) is getting isolated more & more...
Feel free to use that ignore button if my posts are no longer entertaining you!
Boggles my mind some people are even trying to make a comparison to game consoles.
Which is used for communication, commerce, navigation, and many other daily life essentials?
Is Sony selling 200M+ units of PS4 annually like Apple sells iPhone?
While Apple has made changes to the access tax after litigation the question is what is the true cost of that access tax considering the late Steve Jobs wanted free apps on the AppStore to promote its usage and app developers already pay an annual fee. So what is the access or listing fee, should it be 1-10%, should the dev tools membership not cover it either partially or completely. What is the right answer considering apps were be encouraged to be offered for free if not 99 cents. If Apple can host many free or sub $1 apps on the AppStore it indicates that the cost to operate this is not being transparent.
Developers were forced into using Apple's in-app purchase system and had no alternative to paying up to a 30 percent commission during that time period. The excessive fees ultimately led to higher prices for consumers.
No alternative? They could sell on Android couldn't they? Google charges the same initial 30% however so not sure how it would be excessive if everyone seems to be charging that initial rate (it goes down a lot after certain conditions are met). What percent is considered not excessive? Apple has broken down how much they truly provide in value. And companies like Epic say the number should be 0. Aka all the value and services and trust apple provides should cost them 0. Yet clearly companies find selling to Apple customers valuable than say side loading on android.
If with side loading on iPhones, Apple provides value and thus charges for that specific value. But Apple has not wanted to do that, because when people get apps that cause issues for their device, and customer is upset, the customer will complain about "apple" and not think their battery life is low because of some particular app they previously side loaded. Or any other countless issues that could arise.
Apple has been in the wrong I believe on several specific items, but this overall doesn't make sense to me. But I'm sure it will work it way, and it continues to be enough of an issue for companies like Apple and Google then could make the decision to pull out of certain markets such as the UK as the nuclear option.
No alternative? They could sell on Android couldn't they? Google charges the same initial 30% however so not sure how it would be excessive if everyone seems to be charging that initial rate (it goes down a lot after certain conditions are met). What percent is considered not excessive? Apple has broken down how much they truly provide in value. And companies like Epic say the number should be 0. Aka all the value and services and trust apple provides should cost them 0. Yet clearly companies find selling to Apple customers valuable than say side loading on android.
If with side loading on iPhones, Apple provides value and thus charges for that specific value. But Apple has not wanted to do that, because when people get apps that cause issues for their device, and customer is upset, the customer will complain about "apple" and not think their battery life is low because of some particular app they previously side loaded. Or any other countless issues that could arise.
Apple has been in the wrong I believe on several specific items, but this overall doesn't make sense to me. But I'm sure it will work it way, and it continues to be enough of an issue for companies like Apple and Google then could make the decision to pull out of certain markets such as the UK as the nuclear option.
Oh boy. Let’s play the ‘defend the trillion dollar corporation’ game.
How would you like to pay for that purchase Sir/Maam, hold on let me take out my Nintendo Switch. Why does your store not offer Nintendo Pay? I don’t know Sir/Maam you have to ask Nintendo that question. 😝
Apple could have avoided all of this if they reduced their commission like Phil Schiller suggested back in 2011.
I don't even know how to respond to such nonsense.
This is on par with people who are convinced that the earth is flat. I don't know where to start refuting this Niveau.
Perhaps with the blatant lie that Sony would charge a 100% fee?
For those who apparently can't do math: that would mean that the game developers wouldn't get a single cent from the sales.
And especially for you: Sony doesn't charge any fees at all for developers to offer games for the PS5.
Besides, what's with this misuse of the word "gatekeeper"?
So far, Sony has not been known to block games or apps because they contradict the company's moral values. Only Apple has done that so far.
And how many developers do you know who have to develop games for the PS5 because there is practically no alternative?
That's right, none. That's because there is fierce competition from Xbox, computers, smartphones, the internet, and Nintendo.
But hey, who cares about facts, right?
Something that PS Vita did already?
communication: https://blog.playstation.com/2012/04/24/ps-vita-gets-skype-video-and-voice-calling-today/
commerce: https://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/psvita/browser/index.html
navigation: https://manuals.playstation.net/document/gb/psvita/maps/screens.html
Not true
I could care less what happens on game consoles. Go after them and break them up or whatever …
It’s a completely different category of device and situation and not really relevant to this discussion.
There it is. There's always someone who finds a way to make it about Trump or politics. It's a sickness.
Apple has money and everyone wants their cut of it 
.
.That's not what he's saying.
Comparing an open OS like Android and the PlayStore to iOS AppStore with a lot of restrictions indicates to me how weak your understanding is of the matter. To make the situation worse there is nothing stopping Apple or others from offering different fees to developers but I believe you can use external payment methods on the PlayStore.
And, disgustingly, Apple is leaning in to their support of the regime.
How that is not conflicting for some of my friends here I do not understand.
Exactly. I’m a developer and I know it costs an absolute **** ton of money to run an App Store. The fees Apple charges isn’t much at all especially concerning what it used to cost to host an app before app stores showed up.
Google, Steam, Nintendo, Sony, etc all charge 30%. Apple is 30% if you make over a million, otherwise it’s only 15%.