Apple Protests Call for Third-Party App Stores and Lower Platform Fees in Japan

[vipergts2207]

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).

Someone put it quite well a few pages back when talking about the console analogy. Most markets offer a relatively easy ability to cross-shop. I might shop at Walmart today (not!) and Target tomorrow. I might eat at Taco Bell today and Wendy's tomorrow. There are near zero barriers to doing these things. Conversely with smartphones, there is almost no cross-shopping done with any kind of relevant frequency. Someone probably expects to use a smartphone for between 1 and 5 years depending upon how into tech you are. Even after those long ownership periods there can be not insignificant costs associated with switching that can make someone choose not to, even if they would otherwise be inclined to do so.

 

[Ethosik]

And what you will seemingly never understand is that minor and rare incidents like this are not reason enough not to do it.

You don't work in IT do you? I have dealt with a lot of clients in just the last few years alone that have ransomware attacks. Sorry for wanting my iPhone to have more security applied to it than my desktops.

 

[gnipgnop]

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?

Spotify was lying about that. 99% of their subscribers on iOS are paying via the internet and aren't subject to the commission. That came out as part of the discovery process in Spotify's EU complaint against Apple.

 

[Ethosik]

Someone put it quite well a few pages back when talking about the console analogy. Most markets offer a relatively easy ability to cross-shop. I might shop at Walmart today (not!) and Target tomorrow. I might eat at Taco Bell today and Wendy's tomorrow. There are near zero barriers to doing these things. Conversely with smartphones, there is almost no cross-shopping done with any kind of relevant frequency. Someone probably expects to use a smartphone for between 1 and 5 years depending upon how into tech you are. Even after those long ownership periods there can be not insignificant costs associated with switching that can make someone choose not to, even if they would otherwise be inclined to do so.

Then advocate for more places to "shop" (meaning more than Android and Apple....not stores on each phone). Provide tax benefits or offer incentives/assistance to Microsoft or anyone wanting to start a competing product. Regulating the heck out of two massive companies does not fix the main problem - big tech. We need MORE companies involved, not extremely regulated 1 or 2 companies.

I don't like that its just Android and Apple. This doesn't solve the main issue.

 

[Michael Scrip]

How did Apple manage this with macOS for decades? Does the Mac have a $1,000,000 dev fee?

You do know that developers can pay Apple $99 a year and develop Mac apps that pay no fees to Apple... right?

Fair points.

So do you think Apple will just abandon iOS commissions completely and only get collect $99/year?

I doubt it.

What do you think should happen?

I made a suggestion. But I haven't heard any other suggestions.

Your turn.

But you cannot say that $99/year should cover everything. That's off the table.

 

[vipergts2207]

Bingo....so why is this SUCH A BIG PROBLEM where we need legislation on Apple and APPLE only?

Are you under the impression they're going to write Apple specifically into the legislation and not make it apply to the tech industry at large?

 

[jameslmoser]

Honestly that was just a stupid marketing take.

I don't think it was... Apple would like nothing more than for most people to buy iPads instead of Macs because the have more control and power to make third party apps pay them. They don't have that on the mac, and they would love to do that, but if they did the reaction would have been these regulations and it would have been swift!

Don't forget how badly neglected Macs were for some time because they were so focused on iOS, iPhones and iPads!

I actually wonder if these laws pass, requiring third party app stores, etc... if all of a sudden you would be able to run macOS on the ipad.... or ipadOS would become much more like macOS instead of the opposite which seems to be happening.

 

[gnipgnop]

Even after those long ownership periods there can be not insignificant costs associated with switching that can make someone choose not to, even if they would otherwise be inclined to do so.

It isn't really believable that mobile devices would have a higher switching cost than desktops/laptops or even consoles due to how cheap the apps are relative to those other platforms. That's one of the claims that the U.S. Congress report makes that is pretty flimsy.

 

[jakey rolling]

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 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.

I mean, this has literally been the case with operating systems for pretty much ever.

The idea of providing APIs is so that third party developers can make your operating system useful. The last time any major operating system manufacturer charged exorbitant fees for an SDK was when IBM sold OS/2 developer kits for thousands of dollars. History tells the story of how well that worked.

Making OS APIs available should absolutely be well covered in Apple's $99 licensing fee (or, if they want, they can charge a similar fee as MS charges for VS Pro or VS Enterprise - though even there is an Apple-to-oranges comparison, since VS does far, far more than Xcode does).

App store APIs are completely out of scope of this conversation, since those APIs are only needed to interface apps with Apple's App store. Since those developers who are using third-party app stores no longer need access to those APIs, they shouldn't have to pay for access to those APIs.

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?

As long as Apple no longer artificially ties developers into having to use their development tools and APIs, Apple can go ahead and charge whatever they want to.

 

[Macative]

Why do people always bring gaming consoles into this? They need to wait their turn.
For now it is businesses like Apple/Google/etc that are being looked at.

They bring them up because there is no one complaining that they can't develop their own playstation games and sell them on their own website.

Does Walmart restrict you from shopping at other stores?

They don't, because walmart doesn't own you. Apple does however own iOS. You might own some aluminum and glass (assuming your phone is paid off - odds are, its not), but you don't own iOS, you have a very limited license to use it. So while Walmart can't tell you not to shop elsewhere, Apple can tell you what you can do with iOS.

 

[Ethosik]

Are you under the impression they're going to write Apple specifically into the legislation and not make it apply to the tech industry at large?

But if nobody does it when the option allows in Android (Apple is the only one NOT doing this now so this part of it only applies to Apple), why is it SUCH a big deal?

 

[Macative]

Fair points.

So do you think Apple will just abandon iOS commissions completely and only get collect $99/year?

I doubt it.

What do you think should happen?

I made a suggestion. But I haven't heard any other suggestions.

Your turn.

But you cannot say that $99/year should cover everything. That's off the table.

Well, no, nothing is off the table. Because Apple is going to wait until this is forced on them, instead of heading it off in advance by coming up with their own appropriate solution, one that would benefit them in some way. Once they are forced to do it, they won't be ALLOWED to do the kinds of things you suggest.

Also, according to Apple, this isn't about App Store revenue, so any move that suggests otherwise would be laughed out of town.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Then advocate for more places to "shop" (meaning more than Android and Apple....not stores on each phone). Provide tax benefits or offer incentives/assistance to Microsoft or anyone wanting to start a competing product. Regulating the heck out of two massive companies does not fix the main problem - big tech. We need MORE companies involved, not extremely regulated 1 or 2 companies.

I don't like that its just Android and Apple. This doesn't solve the main issue.

We had multiple platforms over a decade ago.

Blackberry, Symbian, Palm, Windows Mobile, Windows Phone, etc.

The problem is... Google and Apple made phones that were just too darn enticing that people stopped buying those other phones and started buying Android and iPhones instead.

And here we are today.

I don't think there is any amount of regulation that will introduce a third, or even fourth, platform.

We might be stuck with Android and iPhone.

So knowing that... what else can we do to fix whatever problems people think we have today?

 

[jameslmoser]

Yep. I guess people here think $99/year covers IT ALL?

Nothing about the proposed regulations is saying that if a developer chooses to use Apple's Store, payment options, etc, that Apple can't keep charging what they are charging. Apple Charges that $99 to developers even if they don't have an app! What is that covering????

 

[Macative]

You don't work in IT do you? I have dealt with a lot of clients in just the last few years alone that have ransomware attacks. Sorry for wanting my iPhone to have more security applied to it than my desktops.

Worked in it for 20 years. You're being dramatic.

 

[vipergts2207]

Then advocate for more places to "shop" (meaning more than Android and Apple....not stores on each phone). Provide tax benefits or offer incentives/assistance to Microsoft or anyone wanting to start a competing product. Regulating the heck out of two massive companies does not fix the main problem - big tech. We need MORE companies involved, not extremely regulated 1 or 2 companies.

I don't like that its just Android and Apple. This doesn't solve the main issue.

The market has shown they aren't willing to support more than two major OS's. This is no different than how PC's have been for decades. And why would I want to throw an extraordinary amount of taxpayer money at propping up a failed mobile OS when we could simply have the government put some common sense regulations in place? Not to mention the second the government starts throwing billions of dollars at MS (or whoever) to artificially create competition, Apple and Google will be in courts screaming foul. Just look at the NASA/SpaceX/Blue Origin lawsuit as an example.

 

[Michael Scrip]

As long as Apple no longer artificially ties developers into having to use their development tools and APIs, Apple can go ahead and charge whatever they want to.

If you aren't using Apple's APIs... are you even building an iOS app?

 

[dk001]

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.

Nice laying out of your thoughts but has nothing to do with what I wrote. btw - don't agree with it

My prior scenario.
I'm a dev. I build an ... Android emulator cool. Cool.
Apple says - no way! Not in the App Store! Not allowed.
So I sell this in a 3rd party store or from my own website.
Why does Apple deserve anything from this?

As for the API's, Apple currently allows only what it wants to allow. I can't use any core API's that are Apple only nor can I build my own (non-Public API's). I pay for the access to what Apple allows today. If I am not using anything else why do I need to pay additional fees?

 

[jameslmoser]

We had multiple platforms over a decade ago.

Blackberry, Symbian, Palm, Windows Mobile, Windows Phone, etc.

The problem is... Google and Apple made phones that were just too darn enticing that people stopped buying those other phones and started buying Android and iPhones instead.

And here we are today.

I don't think there is any amount of regulation that will introduce a third, or even fourth, platform.

We might be stuck with Android and iPhone.

So knowing that... what else can we do to fix whatever problems people think we have today?

Ans it was precisely that consolidation that made it possible to have all these third party application developers to provide apps to everyone by supporting the two platforms that made up the entire market. Kind of like Windows/macOS.

People who keep saying third party developers "can make their own OS/phone" need to get a clue.

And Apple and Google need to stop acting like they are god's gift to the developers and realize it is a combined effort to make these platforms successful.

 

[vipergts2207]

Fair points.

So do you think Apple will just abandon iOS commissions completely and only get collect $99/year?

I doubt it.

What do you think should happen?

I made a suggestion. But I haven't heard any other suggestions.

Your turn.

But you cannot say that $99/year should cover everything. That's off the table.

Apple is going to have to realize that their cash cow of skimming off the top from everyone else will likely be going away. If they want to boost their bottom line they'll have to go back to developing new and innovative products. Their AR/VR product seems to be taking forever, maybe they could focus on that.

 

[Ethosik]

Nothing about the proposed regulations is saying that if a developer chooses to use Apple's Store, payment options, etc, that Apple can't keep charging what they are charging. Apple Charges that $99 to developers even if they don't have an app! What is that covering????

Um what? I am a developer and not spending $99 a year.

 

[jakey rolling]

It isn't really believable that mobile devices would have a higher switching cost than desktops/laptops or even consoles due to how cheap the apps are relative to those other platforms. That's one of the claims that the U.S. Congress report makes that is pretty flimsy.

Switching costs involve much more than just the monetary cost of apps. There can be a lot of data involved in just moving from one platform to the other. Not to mention other purchases, such as DRM-protected media that only works on one platform.

 

[Macative]

Sideloading is eventually going to happen, and will be forced upon Apple.

The reason why: Apple abused its power with the App Store. If Apple had been fair, if they had not made special exceptions for companies they have deals with, if they hadn't selectively enforced rules, if they hadn't been heavy handed with censorship and their owns ideas about what you should be looking at...they would have been left alone.

 

[dk001]

Bonzibuddy? Recent LEGIT case is VideoCopilot breach that injected malware in their installers.

It amazes me how some can take rare events and present them as common security issues.

 

[Ethosik]

Worked in it for 20 years. You're being dramatic.

Really now?

I have dozens of recent attacks and exploits that have come out so I wont blow up this thread linking every single issue I ran into the last two or three years alone.

Malware Statistics & Trends Report | AV-TEST

Provides visualizations of malware statistics that have happened in the last year, 2 years, 5 years, and 10 year time period.

www.av-test.org

Hmm maybe the classic desktop model is not as malware proof as people claim.