Monopolies are lame. Apple should welcome competition to App distribution but make their own App Store so great that there is no reason go anywhere else.
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
Some people tie being a fan of a company so deeply into their identity that they perceive any "attack" against the company as an attack against them.
Which is also called as the Stockholm Syndrome.
So many of the big ones is taking a 30% cut. 30.00% is a nice round figure that indicate no competition. Not 29.99 like in the supermarket. Everyone points at 30% and all points at each other and use that as an argument. This is not a functional market economy that behaves like this.
I don't thnk anyone has really said Apple is unique in this, if that makes you feel better?
The core distinction with Sony is that they sell the consoles at a loss, and they offer certain consoles with the ability to have a disc drive so you can buy games outside of this system. Microsoft, assuming you are talking about the Microsoft store, gives 95% for purchases directly referred by someone, or 85% if the customer found them through their store. For the Xbox store, this is the 30% cut, with the same distinction as Sony has.
For Nintendo, their argument would be that you can buy games outside of the store.
Whether you believe these distinctions is up to you, but there are some specific reasons why they are different.
I would suspect either way that this would be used to create cases for others to go after the 3 you mentioned of course.
Until someone fights that 10% is too much. Who gets to decide 30% is too much? Should we also force…FORCE NVIDIA to NOT sell $2,000 graphics cards? That is an “unfair” price.
This counter argument changes the context. This is t for the end user, it’s all about developer fees. And selling physical media STILL requires you to pay fees to Sony and Microsoft and Nintendo.
Banking and apps required for work DO NOT have to worry about the 30% fee. I never once paid for my banking app or have it have micro transactions.
This counter argument makes no sense either. “App Store must be open or 5% because banking and apps required to live. “
What app do you have to pay for in order to live?
I mean, if you read the thread plenty of people have said “it’s fine when consoles do it, but not iOS”. You just did as well!
“PS5 sells at a loss” hasn’t been true in years (the disc drive version never sold at a loss, and the digital-only one hit breakeven after like six months). Nintendo hasn’t ever sold consoles at a loss. And buying a physical copy in a store still results in Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo getting a 30% cut. Would Epic be ok giving Apple a 30% cut if someone buys something in the Epic store? I don’t think so. Why doesn't Epic go after consoles? Why just Apple?
And it’s a ridiculous, completely artificial distinction anyway. If Apple started selling iPhones at a loss that wouldn’t suddenly magically entitle them to keep a 15-30% cut in the minds of those who think the industry standard commission is somehow outrageous. And the same thing if Apple sold a “alternate store edition” that cost $100 more like Sony did with the disc drive version. Can you imagine if Apple did that? Charge more to install software from elsewhere? MacRumors would explode and the EU would probably send Tim Cook to The Hague.
The only reason for the difference is “because I say so.” Anything else is just retconning an excuse to explain why it’s somehow bad only when Apple does it. Given that 70% of App Store revenue is for games, it seems entirely reasonable that commissions for the app store match rules for other game distribution services. And when looked it that way, the 15% Apple charges 95% of developers is a much better deal than any of these competing services.
It's an illusion. Like buying a Frappuccino from a casino coffee shop that says "we sell Starbucks coffee". Starbucks is still in control and still making money from selling you a Frappuccino through this coffee shop.
You do realize that CD Keys is a gray market where they take keys from regions where products are cheaper and sell it to you, correct? All you're doing is stealing money from the developer, essentially.
If you're advocating for developers to make less money so that you can have cheaper apps, I'll hard disagree with you there.
I didn't. I was giving examples of how people feel and why they make the distinctions. I made no attempt to pass along my own opinion on the matter. If you think I did, that was not my intention.
Never accused of anyone "saying" Apple is unique. But the actions sure show otherwise. Apple is the target, despite other companies have long been doing it way before Apple and making tons of money.
You're assuming that nothing else is bought after the console purchase when in reality, in order to use the console, people almost always:
- buy at least one game where Sony makes 20-30% of the revenue.
- buy at least one controller for couch multiplayer games.
- purchase a subscription to play any multiplayer game online.
I am unaware of anyone who has bought a Playstation to play games where that person has not paid for any game, not paid for any controller, and not paid for any subscription. I am very much aware of plenty of people who has never paid a single cent after the iPhone purchase for the lifetime of the device.
And the Nintendo Switch 1 was never sold at a loss, so at the very least you must agree Switch 1 is very much similar.
Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo still makes a cut from sales of new games outside of the system.
And you're completely ignoring digital only systems. Surely you must agree that at least digital only systems would be treated the same as Apple's systems.
Good then Apple’s lawyers should argue this point, but I suspect it will be dismissed.
As I said, this was just giving examples of why people feel they are different from Apple. I was never giving my own opinion on this.
I also never said that Nintendo sold consoles at a loss, I specifically stated that Microsoft and Sony did, although as you point out that isn't the case these days.
I'm aware of why people feel it's different. I'm giving reasons why their points aren't really valid.
However, those paying 30% are making a million plus a year, so it's not like they aren't getting value for teh money; most developers only pay 15% and suspect it would be hard for tehm to find a similar deal with alll the ancillary services Apple covers with that 15%. It's not just downloading and hosting, but tax law compliance, currency conversion, etc.
To that point, skimming the ruling, it appears the court, in its infinite wisdom, has determined that 17.5% is an appropriate commission. So Apple is being more generous than they need to be with small developers. Hope "greedy Tim Cook" doesn't see that, if MacRumors forum posters are right, he'll raise the price!
Does not matter, my point still stand. Game consoles and their media ARE a different market to Apple and the iPhone App Store. The day I can go into a brick and meter store to buy their apps second hand, or get cheaper deals on their apps on other websites will be the day that is wrong.
Please explain where I can walk into a brick and mortar store and buy a game for my digital only PS5 that avoids paying Sony anything.
It is nothing like the others. There 2.2 billion active iOS devices, while Sony’s lifetime PS4 and PS5 sales are 200 million devices combined; aka there are at 2 billion fewer PlayStation consoles in use than iOS…
Microsoft would face the same problems if they forced all Windows programs through the App Store. There are fewer Windows PCs than iPhones, but they are at least in a similar ballpark; unlike the child’s playground that is consoles.
As the game market consolidates, I expect we probably will see action there too, but it’s literally an order of magnitude less important. None of this is complicated.
The Play Store is the only app store that ships with basically every android phone. They have monopoly control over the Android market even if other app stores do exist.
Furthermore, Google Play Services is a monopoly fully controlled by Google. Any phone without it (and outside of China) is effectively DOA. They have been shown in court to leverage Play Services to a) ensure their app store is installed by default and that some competing stores are not similarly installed.
Competition to the Play Store exists, but it’s far from free and open, and isn’t significant enough to introduce competitive pressure toward lower fees. Much like Macs existing has never prevented Windows PCs from being a monopoly… questions actually have answers if you investigate them instead of just asking.
If they can sell games for 50% of the cost in some regions, then they can sell it for the same cheap price in expensive regions.
They will even make more money if they have a smaller selling point considering the close to zero marginal cost increase for any copy sold. And it’s hilarious to call it steeling if you pay for it fair and square.
Having a friend in the region buy it for you, using a VPN, fly there or just some online store is no different in any meaningful way.