It is "profit" now because the infrastructure that warrants that kind of payment has been built. Google didn't pay that when the iPhone was first created and people questioned its success.
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 Ordered to Change App Store in Europe Again
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The market from almost 20 years ago has little no to no bearing on today.
So you recognize that there are other options since "every other computing platform" operates this way. That's step 1. Step 2 is to go and use those platforms and stop complaining.
I use Linux desktops a lot and so I totally support OSes with no real rules. So it is my understanding that your opinion is that Apple should not be able to have their own business model? Apps on iOS are not web apps, and no all SDKs are not free to developers. I fully support Apple being forced to allow developers to advertise payment outside of the App Store, but I also support Apple being able to require all apps be compatible with their payment system and that Apple be allowed to communicate the advantages of paying with it. And, if Apple's payment system is used, Apple should get to charge their fee. I as a user gain a lot by being able to pay through Apple and letting them take their cut. I frankly do not trust every payment service except for a very few, and Apple's is at the top of that list.
I fully agree that hardware and services are what attract users, but without the apps users will not buy the hardware. And I have used Android, iOS apps are far better than Android apps when developers take full advantage of what Apple provides.
How about... like they do it for macOS, or how Google and Microsoft do it with Android and Windows respectively? My brother in christ, you're already paying them to use their platform in the first place. That already is their monetization. If that isn't enough, then how about they just raise their prices. If they don't see a return on investment from developing the tools for developers to built for their platform, why don't they stop? What's that? "The platform would become unusable and every user would go to a platform that does provide developer tools"? Well then, I guess that's your return on investment right there.
This is a great point. Times like this the walled garden can feel pretty small. And this is where they are trying to get the Mac to go as an OS. I am getting to the point where I have to choose between smug Apple (where things are kind of getting worse also in terms of software and hardware) and AI-laden Windows where I have to disable all this stuff in the OS (at least I can) and use alternatives to MS Office.
It's kind of lose-lose at this point.
Keep in mind there is no greater monopoly than government.
Right in line with the objectives of a for profit company then. 👍
Our president should instruct congress to devise equivalent “gatekeeper” over regulations that target eu companies.
Apple has become boring, lazy, arrogant and complacent under Tim Cook.
Instead of forcing iPhone users to use the AppStore they should highlight the reasons why iPhone users might chose to use the official AppStore.
Forcing users to do anything will inevitably lead to resentment.
Instead of forcing iPhone users to use the AppStore they should highlight the reasons why iPhone users might chose to use the official AppStore.
Forcing users to do anything will inevitably lead to resentment.
If third party developers didn't support iOS, then no one would buy iPhones... Apple makes money by getting developers to write and support applications on their platform. Apple pretending they are the ones doing other companies a favor and they should have to pay for it is so arrogant.
Except for cases (like utilities) when it makes no sense for for there to be a market, then it makes sense to have regulation. It would cost everyone a lot more if there were a bunch of electric companies owning and putting up power lines to your home for you to pick your provider. Same with cable, water, etc. Operating systems aren't any different. It would cost everyone more time and money to have tens or hundreds of different Platforms/OSs to choose from. How many companies would support that many with native applications??
Its why MS Windows, and to a much lesser extent macOS have reigned on the Desktop forever. Most companies don't bother to support Linux, etc. Its why Windows Phone no longer exists, most companies didn't want to bother supporting a third mobile OS when Android and iOS already existed.
Couldn't agree more, especially as a small time independent developer who started out in the 90's when we didn't have 'app stores'.
Paying a nominal fee and having access to all the build tools, SDK's, performance and optimisation tooling, analytics, help forums, not to mention being able to distribute worldwide and not have to worry about payment platforms, currencies, load balanced distribution, etc. It's just worth it, people complaining now are either:
a. Too young to remember what it was like before.
b. Large companies, like Epic, who have the scale to adapt and make huge profits on such a move and know that people like me will need to use their services to sell apps. Its pure and simple greed, yet they make out they are trying to make things 'fairer' for people like me.
As for 'sideloading', this is a huge can of worms from a legal point of view. Apple do not have a monopoly in the smart phone market, no matter what some EU officials might try to suggest. They can say they have a monopoly in the Apple ecosystem but thats like saying Nintendo have a monopoly in the Nintendo market. If Apple are going to be required to open their devices to sideloading then surely the same must happen for other devices like games consoles.
The comment you're replying to was highly offensive and should be removed by MR mods.
Saying that, Apple is not ignoring the law. The EU simply does not like how Apple is implementing changes. In other words, it is possible Apple is completely in line with the law but the EU doesn't like how Apple followed the law. This is somewhat the letter versus the spirit of the law but it can simply be just different interpretations of what the law says and allows.
I'm not saying Apple is following the law. Apple's implementations might be illegal. However, Apple is not ignoring the law and might even be following it. We at least can recognize that the EU gets to make the law and interpret/enforce the law. Just as a business might not follow a law, the EU might not interpret or enforce a law in line with the actual text of the law. I'm not going to judge either way in this case.
This is about the App Store policy. There are other brands besides Apple and other OSes. Europeans should use those
So use Google and Microsoft products. Problem solved.
What's that? User claims they don't have choices, but rants about how the other choices do it?
Source? Keep in mind that the EU is only part of Apple's European segment (Europe, Africa, India, and the Middle East). I'd imagine that China and Asia and maybe even the rest of of their European segment is bigger.
That said, they're not pulling out of the EU.
It’s interesting that Jobs called it sideloading when they introduced the App Store with iTunes. (2:15)
The Amiga was worth it though.
i DO find it hilarious with this argument apple did and surprisingly child like:
5.3.4.3.2. Apple’s argument: page 45
(200)..
Apple also argues that it is for the Commission to provide an
indication of what might be an appropriate fee for the acquisition of users through
the download of a free app. According to Apple, the Commission has not clarified
what constitutes an appropriate benchmark for determining a possible remuneration
for the initial acquisition. Apple argues that it was entitled to receive guidance on
relevant benchmarks before the compliance deadlin...
(203) ...Apple further argues that it does not charge a fee “for the conclusion of contracts”,
“for steering”, “for steered transactions” or “for the conclusion of contracts for
steered transactions”, but rather charges fees for the “significant value and services
it provides to app developers”...
And subsequently EU just slaps back that they have no obligation to tell apple what fee they can take, but apple must actualy show why the take it xD
Plus that the statment of "significant value" dosn't mean they provide any value and again actualy need to demonstrate this
5.3.4.3.3. The Commission’s assessment of Apple’s arguments
age 47
5.3.4.3.2. Apple’s argument: page 45
(200)..
Apple also argues that it is for the Commission to provide an
indication of what might be an appropriate fee for the acquisition of users through
the download of a free app. According to Apple, the Commission has not clarified
what constitutes an appropriate benchmark for determining a possible remuneration
for the initial acquisition. Apple argues that it was entitled to receive guidance on
relevant benchmarks before the compliance deadlin...
(203) ...Apple further argues that it does not charge a fee “for the conclusion of contracts”,
“for steering”, “for steered transactions” or “for the conclusion of contracts for
steered transactions”, but rather charges fees for the “significant value and services
it provides to app developers”...
And subsequently EU just slaps back that they have no obligation to tell apple what fee they can take, but apple must actualy show why the take it xD
Plus that the statment of "significant value" dosn't mean they provide any value and again actualy need to demonstrate this
5.3.4.3.3. The Commission’s assessment of Apple’s arguments
age 47well to both of you... they do all throughout the document. such as apples CTF, installing apps of your choice, preventing you as a user from conducting a contract with external service providers of your choice
Ever wonder where all this "fine" monies go? Possibly lining a few folks personal pockets comes to mind. These amounts have not been chump change.
I would guess EU political folks are just as corrupt as our US versions.
There is a golden goose and they want some golden eggs.....
EU has spent zero dollars developing the Apple hardware, Apple software and Apple stores. They seem to lack nor have created any thing competitive to Apple's work. So they want it for free.
So, in my opinion, naturally they have their freeloader mentality as most of Europe has been protected by our military presence on their continent at virtually no cost to them since the end of WW II.
I would guess EU political folks are just as corrupt as our US versions.
There is a golden goose and they want some golden eggs.....
EU has spent zero dollars developing the Apple hardware, Apple software and Apple stores. They seem to lack nor have created any thing competitive to Apple's work. So they want it for free.
So, in my opinion, naturally they have their freeloader mentality as most of Europe has been protected by our military presence on their continent at virtually no cost to them since the end of WW II.
Apple has long monetized their investment and support through hardware sales. WWDC was a huge conference long before the iPhone because Apple understood it was developers that made the Mac possible at all and thanked them at every opportunity they could. Now they just see developer contributions as another opportunity for services revenue growth.
Apple could operate the App Store as a loss leader and they’d still be the biggest winner from hosting it. Without third party apps, Apple wouldn’t be selling hundreds of millions of iPhones annually, and they’d have to hire a lot more people to develop software to replace just a fraction of the ecosystem.
If revenue was distributed based on contributions to generate said revenue, not only would the App Store be a loss leader, but developers would be getting a cut of Apples hardware sales too.
Of course no one is saying that should happen, but Apple should just fully comply with law instead of minimally complying while telling lawmakers that their interpretation of their own law is incorrect. That clearly doesn’t end well.
Apple does not have a 45% profit margin on devices. Apple's overall gross margin for the most recent quarter was about 45%. Products had a 36% gross margin. Services are about 70-75% (that high of a services gross profit margin is not unique to Apple -- for example, Microsoft is mostly services and has a whole company gross profit margin of 70% but that includes some products/hardware as well). Apple's net profit margins are about 25%.
In light of this, what you're saying is that Apple should raise prices of products to match that 45% profit margin (or continue to figure out ways to squeeze out more margins (lower trade-in values, higher upgrade costs, supply line efficiencies), and increase sales of its services to fight against the drop in services revenue that would come from "giving away" all SDKs.
