So you agree that there is no need for someone to control the entire retail marketplace for software in order to get paid for the APIs included in the operating system that they already charge money for. Good to hear.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Protests Call for Third-Party App Stores and Lower Platform Fees in Japan
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually I never claimed the larger number of apps is a result of greater competition. I was simply disproving your assertion that Android doesn’t have a larger selection. Which it does. Significantly. Meanwhile you have yet to provide evidence for anything you’re claiming.
Once again, you are claiming they need to show it in a way you want. Have you looked into what these claims are based on?
Then on top of that you want others to do the work to prove / disprove your claim.
I didn't say "larger" selection. I said "better" selection. And as I pointed out, it's more typical for apps to ONLY release on iOS or release FIRST on iOS than it is the other way around. Plus, iOS users spend MORE on apps than Android users despite Android having a larger install base and a larger number of apps in the store.
To help me understand your viewpoint, can you define what you mean by "better selection"?
I don't recall you specifying a "better" selection. And wouldn't a "better" selection simply overlap with quality then? Even the word "better" itself is an inherently qualitative word. Your four questions were on data for pricing, quality, selection, and satisfaction. Quality and your chosen definition for 'selection' would appear to share significant overlap. Usually when people say a "better" selection they mean larger, particularly when they call out quality as an additional separate metric.
Last edited:
I wasn’t going to reply at all until I read this… macOS is not the same as iOS/iPadOS. iDevices are made to be utilities or extensions of a computer, not a replacement (though many do).
I’m a developer, I’m happy it’s only 100$ a year (apple could certainly charge more for all the services they provide) and I’m fine with apple taking a 15-30% cut of my sales. It’s their platform and their distribution methods… their store. It would cost me much more than the 100$ + 15% to run all that myself… heck my own website is horrible but at least I can just point people to the App Store to buy my app. Anyway I’ve rambled enough.
App selection that provides a significant advantage to consumers versus another OS.
According to who?
Apple really wants you to think the iPad Pro is a computer
It’s new to see Apple take this angle in its marketing materials
www.theverge.com
One giant reason: infrastructure costs. You think all those data servers and services are free?
But the Netherlands fined apple for not allowing 3rd party payment systems for “dating” apps ?
Why shouldn't it be up to the device makers on what they should support or not support?
If Google starts allowing for 3rd party app stores, go there. Apple loses share and maybe it makes them want to support 3rd party app stores too.
I don't get this knee jerk reaction to whine to government to force companies to add features (especially non-essential) to their own devices.
If Google starts allowing for 3rd party app stores, go there. Apple loses share and maybe it makes them want to support 3rd party app stores too.
I don't get this knee jerk reaction to whine to government to force companies to add features (especially non-essential) to their own devices.
If Apple wants to account for that, fine, but not as a flat massive cut of all revenues
That's incredibly unjustified and overreaching
Nobody is asking for "support" beyond how things are on macOS -- Apple are insisting on getting in the way.
(they also charge $99/year to devs by the way -- nothing here is "free")
Some of us like fair and competitive markets that aren't subject to the whims of two enormous and powerful companies.
Not to mention.. is it really a "market" when they aren't fair and competitive?
lol
Seems like a market in name only
The mobile store section runs from page 93 to 100 and the mobile OS section runs from 100 to 106.
Generally speaking, it's not focused on consumer related issues beyond claiming that there are "high costs to switching" for mobile users and that mobile users don't often switch between platforms. Personally, I would question the "high costs to switching" part since phones are not generally more expensive than desktops/laptops and the software involved with mobile is definitely cheaper. Like I've mentioned, they don't try to do any comparisons for standard consumer issues like price, quality, selection and satisfaction.
They also don't really praise Google/Android as being any better than Apple/iOS when it comes to the mobile stores or operating systems. The report includes this section:
"Similarly, the ability for consumers to sideload apps—installing apps without using an app store—does not discipline the dominance of Apple and Google in the mobile app store market. Apple does not permit users to sideload apps on iOS devices, and few consumers have the technical savvy to “jailbreak” an iOS device to sideload apps.514 Google does permit sideloading on Android devices, but developers find that given the option, consumers prefer to install apps from app stores and few opt for sideloading.515 Google has created significant friction for sideloading apps to Android devices. One developer explained to Subcommittee staff that sideloading entails a complicated twenty-step process, and users encounter multiple security warnings designed to discourage sideloading.516 Additionally, software developers that have left the Play Store to distribute software to Android users via sideloading have experienced precipitous declines in downloads and revenue and report problems updating their apps.517
Thus, the option for sideloading apps on mobile devices does not discipline the market power of dominant app stores."
It’s a smaller market. The number of total sold PS5 since launch is less than 20 million units. Apple sells 20 million iPhones a month.
The thing is your scenario is stupidly impossible. A switch can’t physically run a PS5 game even if you tried. Not even a million dollar compute can run the simplest PlayStation game.
It’s like saying why can’t I run my car on bacon grease and frying oil? Or we should force cars to run on different fuels.
Yeah, I pay $99/year for my apps to remain on the App Store. I don't see the issue with that.
Desktops and mobile devices are quite a bit different and are coming from two different worlds.
I'm fine if Apple wants to open up which app stores we can use, but to force them by threat of fine or exclusion if they don't comply? Seems a tad bit fascist.