Yes, why wouldn't they? They are competitors, aren't they? Regardless of how much they like or dislike App Store rules. Of course, I am sure they would love to profit from the platform and not pay a penny.
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 Says App Store 'Welcomes Competition' Following Criticism From Spotify and Others
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, why wouldn't they? They are competitors, aren't they? Regardless of how much they like or dislike App Store rules. Of course, I am sure they would love to profit from the platform and not pay a penny.
Yeah, that sounds better. I also got the impression that new apps were being approved too (not minor bug fixes). It still sounds high given the 60% approval rate though... idk
Would you say that about software on macOS as well? If Apple walled off macOS tomorrow and made it so the only software you could install was through the Mac App Store, how well do you think that would be received?
That case doesn't have anything to do with this issue. That case involved activity by Apple and the major book publishers where they got together agreed to a model that controlled prices for ebooks. Such anti-trust activity has been illegal anti-trust activity for decades since the passage of the Sherman anti-trust act.
Apple allows competition?
Cool, cool.
Please show me where in the settings I can set competing apps to be the default when handling external links. I would love to use Gmail, Chrome, and Waze as my default email, browser, and traffic map apps.
Cool, cool.
Please show me where in the settings I can set competing apps to be the default when handling external links. I would love to use Gmail, Chrome, and Waze as my default email, browser, and traffic map apps.
It would go down terribly but they are not the same as the history of the platform has to be taken into context. MacOS has always been open, iOS has always been closed.
Likewise neither AW or iPhone has a headphone jack. The removal of the jack on iPhone started a war, but no one is bothered by the lack of one on AW because of the history of the device is taken into context, ie it never had one in the first place.
What's the issue with scrolling through a Spotify playlist? Short of being able to re-order a list on the fly, it seems pretty similar to Apple music.
I stay behind Apple. There are two questions. Apple does not allow alternative way for getting Apps. And most of us want that only one secure place. Not secondary.
Other question where I am not sure how to judge is case of Apple Music v. Spotify where those two services compete in highly competitive market. One solution that could silence critics that came to my mind right now is when Apple would same cut it get from Spotify gave to humanitarian purposes.
Other question where I am not sure how to judge is case of Apple Music v. Spotify where those two services compete in highly competitive market. One solution that could silence critics that came to my mind right now is when Apple would same cut it get from Spotify gave to humanitarian purposes.
Free to download but then with in-app purchases, which of course Apple gets 30% of, since Apple prohibits those apps from not only collecting revenue outside Apple's ecosystem but even prohibits the apps from providing a URL for externally signing up for their services.
I have a really simple solution to the complaints. Return to making apps prioritized on function instead of on looking a certain slick/polished way. Bam, instant problem solved and a much higher barrier for others to “improve (fix) the original.”
Then I may consider native map, music, and podcast apps again.
How does the App Store have the best Apps? Monopolies usually provide subpar service for high prices.
I don't have to because it's already been done - it's called the internet.
What do you expect Apple to say "We ****ing hate competition, now piss off?".
Their actions are what is important, their words are less so.
Their actions are what is important, their words are less so.
No it isn't.
The internet is just a medium, but you still need hardware, software and firmware to use it. If you want to sell via the internet, you'll also need a URL (which comes with fees), ongoing web developers (which comes with fees), someone to process payments (which comes with fees), advertising (which comes with fees) and a distribution medium (which comes with fees).
And then you also have to take a hit when it comes to fraud too. Oh, and don't forget piracy.
Microsoft made similar arguments but was still hit by the antitrust suit. The cases are not directly comparable but there is precedence for suits to go against Apple.
The issue isn’t Apple's ability to have rules and charge fees in their store. It is the inability for other stores (or side-loading) to exist.
Google Play enjoys a near monopoly on Android, and yet they allow other stores and side-loading which provide for consumer choice.
If this was allowed, companies like Netflix, Spotify, Amazon would all have more full featured apps that they distribute directly.
Google Play enjoys a near monopoly on Android, and yet they allow other stores and side-loading which provide for consumer choice.
If this was allowed, companies like Netflix, Spotify, Amazon would all have more full featured apps that they distribute directly.
What hardware, software, and firmware are you talking about?
$10/month for a website, and a single downloadable package file containing my app, just like is available via APKs on Android.
It's not that complicated. When Apple built their store, they built their model around charging a commission for the sale of digital goods. It would have been unworkable, not financially feasible and insane to think that they anyone would be able to build a model where they charged a commission for every good or service that anyone used an app for. Steve Jobs wasn't insane.
You are free to build such an business and market it to companies. Good luck.
You are also free to argue to companies around the world that they can't sell their own products in their own stores because they have an advantage. Legally, at least in America, we don't prevent such common sense activity by businesses, and I'm sure Amazon, Microsoft, Walmart, Starbucks, Target, Google, etc., would find your suggestion that they not use their platforms to benefit their own products and services an interesting idea.
There do exist numbers in between zero pennies and 30% of your revenue.
How about Apple get to charge the same percentage for App Store sales as they pay in government taxes.
This is a great point. If Apple allowed other means of downloading and installing apps on iOS devices, would the App Store fall to a similar fate as the Mac App Store? I think that it would.
I am a developer with a published app on the App Store. The app makes money using a subscription model at $3.99 per month. Essentially, I pay Apple $1.20 per customer per month. For what, exactly? From a technical standpoint, not much. Hosting and serving the app binary code, and billing. Web servers are dirt cheap, and most software billing systems range from 5-10% of the transaction. Those two are the necessary components to develop software that generates revenue. Apple provides some other nice, albeit unnecessary, services such as app analytics (can be had for free). Advertising costs extra $$ in the App Store as well, so it's not like that's even included. But we can still advertise elsewhere and link the user to the App Store.
Personally, if there was a way for iOS users to install apps from outside the App Store, I would investigate if it would be cheaper to host and serve my app and implement a different billing system. I can guarantee that it would be cheaper than 30%, and I probably wouldn't use the App Store. And I wouldn't have to pay the annual $100 Apple Developer fee.
Apple has an app distribution monopoly on iOS through the App Store. You can't get apps any other way. Since Apple makes iOS and iOS devices, maybe this is ok. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure. However, the fact that you are forced to use Apple's in app billing system (your app will be rejected if you try to link to an external billing system) is a bit ludicrous. I guess the $100 Apple Developer fee isn't enough to cover Apple's cost of running the App Store.
For subscription models, Apple does reduce the 30% to 15% after a year. But a lot of apps use consumable purchases like buying extras in games, and those will always be 30%.
I suspect the "hundreds of human experts" are subject to squalid working conditions... Imagine all the ugly code they have to look at. It must be traumatizing. Someone should do an investigative piece on this.
Pedantic. I'm obviously talking about Apps that are 100% free, as in no further in-App purchases. I even listed several for you. Does Google Maps have in-App purchases? Gmail? Chrome? What about FaceBook? Twitter? Firefox? Opera?
As for the second goal, Apple says the App Store "welcomes competition":Apple includes many examples of third-party apps that compete with its own apps, such as Spotify versus Apple Music and Google Maps versus Apple Maps.
Article Link: Apple Says App Store 'Welcomes Competition' Following Criticism From Spotify and Others
While they may "welcome competition" and show alternate apps to do the same things as built-in ones, you still can't set a third-party app to be the default for any of that. Nor can third party apps completely replace built-in maps for some functionality (like actual carrier text messages to your phone number, or phone calls.) Yes, you can do "alternate", like Google Voice or Skype, but those don't replace the functionality of the built-in app, they provide an alternate.