I can’t be INSIDE McDonalds and expect Burger King food. I need to leave McDonald’s (get rid of iPhone in this case) and drive miles away to Burger King (get Android in this case).
Apple is not preventing me from doing this.
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
Apple is not preventing me from doing this.
Then keep it over on the Android side. I don’t want it here, if I did, I would have an Android phone and a Windows PC as my main compute devices, but I don’t. I have all the freedom I need with my Mac and I own a Windows PC and a laptop. It’s ideological as much as anything. All these Android phones and Windows PCs and yet people have to try and come in and crap on my side of the street. Go away.
And again, I have the option of second hand sales, of which Nintendo gets zilch. Opening up iOS isn't about making Apple get nothing but rather giving us the option.
And again, the zealotry of people defending a company that actively exploits their loyalty remains amusing.
IMO, that's an accurate take on it. A lot of the proposed regulatory changes tend to gloss over the consumer angle.
No you can’t…almost all shops charge the exact $59.99 for a brand new game when it comes out and for sometime afterwards.
Yes, but the point is I have the option of buying the game at a reduced cost in future. Games Industry OEMs don't have a monopoly on game sales on their platforms. E3 2013 put paid to that idea.
Nothing forces you to do anything. If an app gets pulled from the App Store and is only provided elsewhere....either download it elsewhere, or don't download it.
And stop acting like there is some problem with installing software from the internet. The entire world has thrived on it for decades.
I'm not saying these were great phones; just that the smartphone market existed before the iPhone. Plus they were a lot smarter than the 3310's of the day.
Surely you don't expect me to believe that you don't understand the different implications of those two things, do you?
Just from a switching cost perspective, this analogy makes no sense at all. One of those things costs nothing, the other costs $1000+ every time a customer does it.
For a restaurant analogy to actually work, you'd have to dream up some kind of scenario where someone buying a Big Mac would somehow be physically prevented from entering a Burger King any time over the next several years. Such a scenario would be completely ridiculous because no such scenario would exist (and anything McDonalds would do to make such a scenario happen would undoubtedly be highly illegal).
Alright guys. Let's figure this out.
Right now the only way to build and sell an iOS app is to pay the $99/year developer fee for APIs and other resources, and Apple keeps 15% or 30% from each sale as a commission.
The reason Apple did this is because it made it low-risk for basically anyone to become an iOS developer... in exchange for a percentage of the sales in the App Store.
So what happens if you want to sell an app somewhere else?
The developer is still using those same APIs and other resources, right? Do you think it should still be just $99 for all that?
No. Developer fees would have to increase. Massively.
So how about this:
Apple creates two tracks. One is just like it is today with a low $99 developer fee and Apple taking a percentage of each sale.
And the other is for large developers. $1,000,000 a month developer fee. And that's it. No further charge per sale.
Sound good?
Because here's the issue. Developers want to use Apple's APIs and other resources... and they want to make money from the billion iPhone users. It's obviously a lucrative market.
But they don't want to pay ANY fees.
Well that ain't gonna fly. Sorry.
Apple will need to get paid. We just need to figure out how in this new sideloading and alternative store era.
Last edited:
Seriously? Well compare Apple Music against Spotify. Why should Apple Music profit from a 30% gain that Spotify has to pay. How would you solve it? So either Spotify doesn‘t need to pay anything like Apple Music, or the EU has to split Apple into Apple Hardware Inc and Apple Music Inc. This would also create equal conditions. Splitting companies is a well suited tool when it comes to fighting anti competitive behaviour.
Same is true for Apples IAP - why isn’t a company like Paypal allowed to offer a competing IAP service? Or why isn‘t my SNP IAP service i created allowed, too? I mean SNP would completely change the way we pay. Why is Apple allowed to block innovation? (If you wonder - SNP stands for SuperNaturalPayment System).
Sometimes things turn out to be very easy and sometimes people don‘t understand it, just bevause they don‘t want to understand it. But this is the way our markets and our economy works.
Last edited:
I expect this is one of those situations you'll just have to find a way to get over, because it's surely coming in some places, if not all. I've lost track at this point of all the places legislation is being drafted and considered. Like I said on the first page, it might be easier to keep a list of where this stuff isn't happening now.
Bonzibuddy? Recent LEGIT case is VideoCopilot breach that injected malware in their installers.
How did Apple manage this with macOS for decades? Does the Mac have a $1,000,000 dev fee?Alright guys. Let's figure this out.
Right now the only way to build and sell an iOS app is to pay the $99/year developer fee for APIs and other resources, and Apple keeps 15% or 30% from each sale as a commission.
The reason Apple did this is because it made it low-risk for basically anyone to become an iOS developer... in exchange for a percentage of the sales in the App Store.
So what happens if you want to sell an app somewhere else?
The developer is still using those same APIs and other resources, right? Do you think it should still be just $99 for all that?
No. Developer fees would have to increase. Massively.
So how about this:
Apple creates two tracks. One is just like it is today with a low $99 developer fee and Apple taking a percentage of each sale.
And the other is for large developers. $1,000,000 a month developer fee. And that's it. No further charge per sale.
Sound good?
Because here's the issue. Developers want to use Apple's APIs and other resources... and they want to make money from the billion iPhone users.
But they don't want to pay ANY fees.
Well that ain't gonna fly. Sorry.
Not many as far as I can tell. So I guess most devs won't be leaving the iOS App Store as you fear, should Apple be forced to allow sideloading.
You do know that developers can pay Apple $99 a year and develop Mac apps that pay no fees to Apple...right?Alright guys. Let's figure this out.
Right now the only way to build and sell an iOS app is to pay the $99/year developer fee for APIs and other resources, and Apple keeps 15% or 30% from each sale as a commission.
The reason Apple did this is because it made it low-risk for basically anyone to become an iOS developer... in exchange for a percentage of the sales in the App Store.
So what happens if you want to sell an app somewhere else?
The developer is still using those same APIs and other resources, right? Do you think it should still be just $99 for all that?
No. Developer fees would have to increase. Massively.
So how about this:
Apple creates two tracks. One is just like it is today with a low $99 developer fee and Apple taking a percentage of each sale.
And the other is for large developers. $1,000,000 a month developer fee. And that's it. No further charge per sale.
Sound good?
Because here's the issue. Developers want to use Apple's APIs and other resources... and they want to make money from the billion iPhone users.
But they don't want to pay ANY fees.
Well that ain't gonna fly. Sorry.
The point was that Apple didn't create the smartphone market; it existed before they became top dog. Heck, Jobs even illustrated other smartphones in the initial presentation (and rightly ridiculed them because they weren't exactly great devices)
The exception here is Palm. Apple and Google haven't had an original OS idea between them for the better part of a decade. They've spent all their time picking clean first the corpse of Palm's WebOS and later Windows Phone.
It's not about taking Apple's success away from them but rather ensuring they don't get complacent. You only have to look at the complete lack of anything interesting happening to the Apple Watch for the last 5 years to see what a lack of competition does to a market leader.
And what you will seemingly never understand is that minor and rare incidents like this are not reason enough not to do it.
Bingo....so why is this SUCH A BIG PROBLEM where we need legislation on Apple and APPLE only?
Second hand sales of games is dependent on physical media of which ALL software companies have been actively trying to completely eliminate for as long as it has been feasible to stop second hand sales.
Second hand sales of old video games isn’t even remotely germane to the idea of third party app stores. Without physical media, there is no second hand market. Good grief, this isn’t a flea market or a bazaar.
To be clear, I’m no zealot, but I also know what I like and the absurd idiocy of all these calls for third party app stores isn’t what I or the majority of consumers want. I want my iPhone and iOS to work and work seamlessly and easily and intuitively. Apple cannot get that right as it is with the relentless annual release schedule. The last thing I want is people who want to tear apart the current ecosystem to insert third party app stores. Don’t drag the Windows tinkerer, Android sideloading mentality over here, I don’t have the time or patience for it and I don’t want it being a distraction to Apple. They already need to get bugs fixed in all three major OS’s, fix the app review process to get all the cruft, crap and scam apps that have gotten by app review and make thing work better without worrying about pandering to idiot politicians who could not care less about consumers than they are about getting a handout from lobbyists to stop considering this legislation, which is what this is all about at the end of the day. People getting their beaks wet.
Surely you don't expect me to believe that governments should make it mandatory to have EVERY SINGLE PRODUCT in existence equal to each other to not have people do their own research before buying something. Apple has always been locked down since day one. You are not "locked in" and "prevented" from using Android.
This is like me buying a $4,000 Windows PC and wanting legislation because I cannot run Final Cut Pro on it. Its my fault I did not do my research and I needed a MAC vs a Windows system.
It costs more than $1,000 to fix that mistake I just made in my example! Do research before you buy products.
Wrong. Apple is forcing everyone to use their infrastructure... they don't have to do that.
Yep. I guess people here think $99/year covers IT ALL?Alright guys. Let's figure this out.
Right now the only way to build and sell an iOS app is to pay the $99/year developer fee for APIs and other resources, and Apple keeps 15% or 30% from each sale as a commission.
The reason Apple did this is because it made it low-risk for basically anyone to become an iOS developer... in exchange for a percentage of the sales in the App Store.
So what happens if you want to sell an app somewhere else?
The developer is still using those same APIs and other resources, right? Do you think it should still be just $99 for all that?
No. Developer fees would have to increase. Massively.
So how about this:
Apple creates two tracks. One is just like it is today with a low $99 developer fee and Apple taking a percentage of each sale.
And the other is for large developers. $1,000,000 a month developer fee. And that's it. No further charge per sale.
Sound good?
Because here's the issue. Developers want to use Apple's APIs and other resources... and they want to make money from the billion iPhone users. It's obviously a lucrative market.
But they don't want to pay ANY fees.
Well that ain't gonna fly. Sorry.
Apple will need to get paid. We just need to figure out how in this new sideloading and alternative store era.