Apple Pushes Back Against India's New Digital Market Regulations

[turbineseaplane]

@ProbablyDylan

Well said -- people seem to miss this

If you are in the software space, you usually have no choice (to be viable) but to address both major platforms.

 

[vipergts2207]

No, but if my app is my business, I effectively have to address iPhone customers.

My choice is to be taken advantage of by Apple, or simply not participate in that market segment. I want to serve as many customers as I can, which means I don't actually have a choice.

But you do have a choice, see. Your potentially tiny company can either kowtow to the demands of the world's second largest corporation or you can choose to hamper your business to the point of potential ruin by ignoring a huge chunk of the market. Those are technically choices. But golly gee, I'm absolutely befuddled as to why regulators are finally taking a dim view of such "choices".

/s

 

[Supermallet]

That's cute. Tell that to the EU Mafia who seemingly invent new "violations" every other week to fine Apple & others over. Apple is under zero obligation to do anything for anyone who aren't their customers. That whole RCS crap being a prime example. Had Apple a CEO with a spine they might have told the EU & Green Bubble whiners to pound sand.

If they want to do business in a country (or across a continent as is the case with the EU), then yeah, they DO have an obligation to entities who aren't their customers, in this case governments.

The faux-libertarian keyboard warriors on here are so disconnected from anything resembling reality, it's hilarious.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The faux-libertarian keyboard warriors on here are so disconnected from anything resembling reality, it's hilarious.

Not to mention -- why would anyone want to live in a world where corporate interests are above those of all actual people and by the extension governments elected by those people?

All one has to do is look at who that serves and what their interests are to see how undesirable that is

IMO - we are already flying too close to the sun on that sort of reality

A corporation is supposed to be a business structure, not some deity we are all subservient to

 

[Aoligei]

Well let’s see some regulation that ensures that there are more mobile operating systems and ecosystems on the market then to solve that ‘problem’.

Apple wouldn’t be so big if there were more OSes and ecosystems competing with them.

It take more than a company to develop a OS. Developing OS is easy part, making it usable and have necessary app is the hard part.

We have essentially duopoly on the mobile OS market, it is not healthy and both Google and Apple have too much market power.

I am all for third OS option, but if you are open to government regulation that force all apps except written for iOS and Android work on new OS, then it might work.

In other word, you asking is unrealistic.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

We have essentially duopoly on the mobile OS market, it is not healthy and both Google and Apple have too much market power.

Man, I'd love it if Windows Phone could make a comeback. WP 8.1 was such a well put together smartphone OS. Looked incredible, felt good to use, and ran great even on absolutely garbage-tier hardware.

 

[BaldiMac]

It take more than a company to develop a OS. Developing OS is easy part, making it usable and have necessary app is the hard part.

We have essentially duopoly on the mobile OS market, it is not healthy and both Google and Apple have too much market power.

I am all for third OS option, but if you are open to government regulation that force all apps except written for iOS and Android work on new OS, then it might work.

In other word, you asking is unrealistic.

The problems you describe only exist because Google entered into anticompetitive agreements with all of their horizontal competitors except Apple. If you want a realistic third option, then end the collusion. You'll see various forks of android with lots of options pushed by each manufacturer. No more duopoly.

 

[lartola]

if people think that side loading apps will reduce price then they are naive, consumers won't benefit from this.
businesses will benefit from this.
in google play store people can pay for subscription using Spotify account bypassing google play store.
so if customers pay using Spotify account bypass google play store, would it be cheaper for consumers ?

But not in the appstore, until now there’s been no way to bypass it. Without apple in the middle, subscription prices in the apple ecosystem will be a bit lower because devs won’t have to give apple a cut anymore. That’s why they were begging for sideloading. Of the only two companies whose software runs on all the world’s phones and tablets, apple has always been the most restrictive.

 

[I7guy]

No, but if my app is my business, I effectively have to address iPhone customers.

It’s all opt in.

My choice is to be taken advantage of by Apple, or simply not participate in that market segment. I want to serve as many customers as I can, which means I don't actually have a choice.

Then you find another platform. Apple at least for now in most of the world is not obliged to change its business model to suit your requirements.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

It’s all opt in.

Then you find another platform. Apple at least for now in most of the world is not obliged to change its business model to suit your requirements.

You're failing to acknowledge the fact that Apple's business model (at least as far as the App Store is concerned) is exploitative.

It's a government's duty to address exploitative businesses in the interests of their people. India is rapidly becoming a hub for software development, so they need to act in the interests of those developers.

To summarize; Apple runs an exploitative business.

 

[BaldiMac]

Without apple in the middle, subscription prices in the apple ecosystem will be a bit lower because devs won’t have to give apple a cut anymore.

Not necessarily. Pricing for subscriptions is about maximizing revenue. Why would you decrease your revenue just because your costs came down?

 

[Supermallet]

Not to mention -- why would anyone want to live in a world where corporate interests are above those of all actual people and by the extension governments elected by those people?

All one has to do is look at who that serves and what their interests are to see how undesirable that is

IMO - we are already flying too close to the sun on that sort of reality

A corporation is supposed to be a business structure, not some deity we are all subservient to

The wealthy have done an incredible job convincing the middle class especially that their interests are aligned. The level of worship we see of corporations and ultra wealthy figures like Elon Musk show just how much brainwashing is blasted at us on a daily basis.

 

[vipergts2207]

It’s all opt in.

Then you find another platform. Apple at least for now in most of the world is not obliged to change its business model to suit your requirements.

This appears to be on track to become smaller and smaller.

Not necessarily. Pricing for subscriptions is about maximizing revenue. Why would you decrease your revenue just because your costs came down?

Because you believe that the increased revenue from a larger number of subscribers will be more than the lost revenue of a price reduction. Pretty simple really.

 

[BaldiMac]

Because you believe that the increased revenue from a larger number of subscribers will be more than the lost revenue of a price reduction. Pretty simple really.

Not at all. You missed the point there. If you could increase revenue by decreasing prices, that you should do that regardless of whether or not you pay Apple a commission.

 

[I7guy]

You're failing to acknowledge the fact that Apple's business model (at least as far as the App Store is concerned) is exploitative.

I disagree. You are not forced by law to engage with apple in any way shape or form.

It's a government's duty to address exploitative businesses in the interests of their people. India is rapidly becoming a hub for software development, so they need to act in the interests of those developers.

Exploitative is a hyperbolic word that requires “proof”.

To summarize; Apple runs an exploitative business.

No it doesn’t.

 

[I7guy]

This appears to be on track to become smaller and smaller.

We will all probably be dead by the time this occurs.

Because you believe that the increased revenue from a larger number of subscribers will be more than the lost revenue of a price reduction. Pretty simple really.

 

[The_Gream]

I totally agree!

The problem remains all the people (many of whom are IN government at this point) indoctrinated with the mantra of "only the market"....blah blah blah

Loads of corporate brainwashing has done us in

I still come across people who think Trickle Down Economics is actually a thing that works..
"I'm like ... umm.. we have the data my friend. You need to update your views from 40 years ago"

I love reading the new articles about how some businesses take care of their employees: not always in pay but in other ways. Paying for an employee’s child’s wedding or school etc. I think the term is Pay it forward and the ROI is always through the roof.
The “love” of money is the route of all evil.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

I disagree. You are not forced by law to engage with apple in any way shape or form.

I agree with you. I'm not forced by law to engage with Apple. I'm forced by market pressures to engage with Apple. Just like Apple is driven to their exploitative measures.

Exploitative is a hyperbolic word that requires “proof”.

Exploitative, Adjective; taking unfair or unethical advantage of a person, group, or situation for the purpose of profit, comfort, or advancement.

Apple takes an unfair advantage of developers via their monopolization of software distribution on iOS. If I want to make an App, I have no choice but to distribute it through their store. If I want to offer in-app purchases, or charge upfront for the App, I have to do it through their store. Basically - I would not be allowed to collect money from My customer in My software without giving Apple a cut. If I refuse, Apple cuts me off from My customer.

This is exploitative by any metric. I'd love to hear your thoughts on why this is ethical or just.

 

[vipergts2207]

Not at all. You missed the point there. If you could increase revenue by decreasing prices, that you should do that regardless of whether or not you pay Apple a commission.

Let's look at a theoretical pricing scenario.

Now let's plot the company's net income against the subscription cost in paradigms where Apple takes a cut and where they do not get a cut.

In the paradigm where Apple gets a cut, the developer makes the most money at a subscription price of about $9.25. In the paradigm where Apple does not get a cut, the developer makes the most money at a subscription price of about $8.25 per month.

And this is before we even talk about the developer being able to invest the additional money that they no longer have to give Apple back into their own business, improving their product, which is good for consumers as well.

 

[vipergts2207]

We will all probably be dead by the time this occurs.

Maybe you're much older than I am then. Especially considering the quick succession we're seeing of India following the EU. Let's not forget those are the second and fourth biggest consumer markets in the world. Not every country/market will have to enact new regulations before the cost to Apple of maintaining two different ways of doing things exceeds the cost of simply running everything the same way everywhere, even in places they are not required to.

 

[BaldiMac]

Let's look at a theoretical pricing scenario.

View attachment 2383644

Now let's plot the company's net income against the subscription cost in paradigms where Apple takes a cut and where they do not get a cut.

View attachment 2383645
In the paradigm where Apple gets a cut, the developer makes the most money at a subscription price of about $9.25. In the paradigm where Apple does not get a cut, the developer makes the most money at a subscription price of about $8.25 per month.

Hence, my qualification of "not necessarily." The point at which you surpass fixed costs is certainly a factor.

 

[vipergts2207]

Hence, my qualification of "not necessarily." The point at which you surpass fixed costs is certainly a factor.

Ok. I was simply answering your question of "why would you decrease your revenue just because your costs came down?" There is certainly potential for consumers to see cheaper prices from devs if Apple is no longer able to force them into giving them 30% of their revenue.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Thus, they instead budged and begrudgingly accepted the new rules.

I wouldn’t call it “acceptance” though.

In other words this bill has been written by the owners of scam call centers who have stolen billions of dollars and bribed police and politicians.

And gun control laws have been written by criminals.

Then companies or government should create a competition. I’m sure any operating system or hardware would be garbage, just like every other government service out there.

No reason to. Profit-seeking companies are better at doing it, innovating and optimising.
That said, markets will only bear a certain number of operating systems that developers and consumers will gravitate to. And that number is likely between one and five (similar to the number of wireless carriers in most markets/jurisdictions) regionally and globally.

That's cute. Tell that to the EU Mafia who seemingly invent new "violations" every other week to fine Apple & others over.

There’s no inventing of new violations. If anyone is inventing stuff here, it’s Apple getting creative at new ways to ignore or circumvent the law and its intended effect.

Apple is under zero obligation to do anything for anyone who aren't their customers

Wrong. The European DMA, for example, does impose obligations on thrm.

Had Apple a CEO with a spine they might have told the EU & Green Bubble whiners to pound sand.

If they had a spine, they would do the right thing for third party developers and consumers that complies with legislation - and work and focus on building better products.

It was a huge mistake they didn't push back against the EU.

They did and do push back. But there’s only so much they can push back against new legislation- once it’s been passed.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Then it’s no longer a ‘walled garden’.

It hasn’t been a walled garden all along.
You either trust third parties or you don’t.
Such “toggle switch” has existed for over a decade:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/118254

Exactly, a back door has been opened, and those who don’t want it can’t choose to not have it.

You’ve been able to install unapproved/unvetted apps from third-party developers for many years.
The walls have had “back doors” all along.

If you don’t like the risk, don’t do it - that’s consumer choice.

Having more than two OSes and ecosystems to choose from increases choice for consumers.

While I agree on having another OS or two, no one wants a fifth, sixth or seventh.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Pricing for subscriptions is about maximizing revenue. Why would you decrease your revenue just because your costs came down?

👉 Competition and low marginal costs on additional sales.

Simple as that.
And the reason why Apple are so bent on shutting out competition from their platform.

You are not forced by law to engage with apple in any way shape or form.

Developers aren’t forced as a matter of law - but (often) don‘t have a choice as a matter of fact.