I could say the same thing about the EU's trampling of Apple's property rights.
"Let Apple and its users have a closed ecosystem if they want a closed ecosystem, buy an Android device and stop clutching your pearls"
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 It Doesn't Approve of EU Porn App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"Let Apple and its users have a closed ecosystem if they want a closed ecosystem, buy an Android device and stop clutching your pearls"
Alternative stores aren't needed on Android because you can just install apps directly from the maker as APKs.
Apple has a material impact on the worldwide marketplace for apps. We know this.
Multiple major app vendors have explicitly said that they ban access to adult content on the basis that they have to ban it for Apple and it's impossible to run two different moderation regimes, and so Apple's censorship affects everyone even if they don't purchase any Apple devices.
Pft lol. I've seen all kinds of trashy people using iphones if that's what you're worried about. The latest pro max model is usually like the nissan altima of smartphones.
I agree there's more Apple could do in this area. The sad fact is I've seen so many people ignore the lower option in this screen of the set up process.
Good one. Loved it. It’s like giving someone their own medicine.
Problem is many of commentators on these forums don’t understand the concept of private property(but if it comes to their OWN property then they know it very well). They think of iOS(Apple property) as a REPUBLIC.
Last edited:
I find "the company that made your computer should be allowed to dictate how you can use it" to be an odd and frankly disturbing take. We can agree to disagree and move on.
Am I allowed to force you to use only some particular colour curtains in YOUR HOUSE or it should be YOUR decision whatever funky colour curtains you deem right.
This discussion is about property rights. And iOS is “Apple’s Property”.
They’re not dictating how you use it, though. You’re free to jailbreak, use the open web, etc. They just shouldn’t have to help you do it by being forced to “approve” stuff they don’t want running on their OS.
But yes, agreeing to disagree probably makes sense at this point - no one is changing anyone’s minds.
Lol, thanks for making a great analogy about doing it the right way… and then following it up with some crazy stuff like “iOS is Apple’s property.”
Look, what happens outside is outside. Imagine there’s a nudist living across the street, walking around their own home in their birthday suit.
Apple’s stance is like saying they have the right to board up that person’s windows just because a few HOA-style complainers are freaking out.
What they should do is simply tell the community, “Hey, that person is in their own home, they can do whatever they want. If it bothers you, look away—or here’s some credit to buy curtains.”
Now, if that same nudist knocks on your door asking for a cup of sugar in nothing but their skin… yeah, that’s a problem, and they probably deserve to be prosecuted. 😆
Here I rest my case.
This is exactly where our world view differs. You can't see the wrong in my Tesla analogy, we won't be able to articulate our views as valid perspectives to each other on this matter.
Not technically but practically.
Just as many monopolists don’t technically “force” you to use their services.
There are many developers that can’t afford to ignore Apple’s user base.
A dating app that has no iOS app is a no-starter, for instance.
But iOS is Apple's property. That's not crazy stuff. They designed it, built it, and maintain it.
I actually think the Tesla comparison is a good one. Tesla didn't open up its chargers to non-Teslas until November 2021 (EU pilot in the Netherlands) and two years ago in the US. Was Tesla a monopoly before then? No - plenty of other electric cars to choose from that worked at any number of charging stations. Were they limiting access to their charging network to make their offerings more attractive to its users? Absolutely. But that doesn't make them a monopoly, which again is a legal term that has meaning, not just "they're big and I don't want to use the competition".
Apple didn't open up its ecosystems to non-Apple approved apps until the EU (and Japan) forced them to. Was Apple a monopoly before then? No - plenty of other phone manufacturers to choose from, all of which allow multiple apps stores. Were they limiting access to their ecosystem to make it their offerings more attractive to its users? Absolutely. But that doesn't make them a monopoly, which again is a legal term that has meaning, not just "they're big and I don't want to use the competition".
Where we actually disagree is the government mandate part. I personally think it would have been a good idea for Apple to have take a softer approach on this stuff. But they don't want to, and I don't think the government deserves to come in and tell them they have to when they have a 25% market share.
I have to be honest, it is really cracking me up when I scroll the forum topic list and see:
"Apple Says It Doesn't Approve of EU Porn App"
😂
"Apple Says It Doesn't Approve of EU Porn App"
😂
To me, that is the crux of the issue. They want access to Apple's user base but don't want to pay for it. It's not about freedom or lower costs, it's about wanting access to the most lucrative market at Apple's expense. I doubt any 3rd party store, unless they are a large company like EPIC that just wants to stick it to Apple for a while, will beat what Apple offers small developers for a 15% markup.
That's why I think the best solution is for Apple to allow sideloading, offer to sign apps for a fee if developers want it, and continue to charge 30/15% fees to access the App Store, or charge hosting/d/l fees if developers don't want to use Apple's payment system. No free ride for paid apps because they now have all the alternative stores to sell in. Don't make enough money off of them? Not Apple's problem.
Exactly. No one is forcing them to give Apple a cut - they just want the value Apple is providing them without paying Apple for that value.
Any app is well within its rights to behave like Spotify or Netflix and require a subscription that is not offered in app. If they want to offer an in-app purchase or subscription because that is valuable, then they should be required to pay an entirely reasonable fee to the owner of the platform for that value - not have the government say “sorry Apple, you’re a public utility now”.
If they don't think that fee is worth it, then don't pay it and just offer a subscription in their website and don’t pay Apple any more than the $99 Developer Fee - or build a web app and don’t pay Apple anything at all.
I think Apple should adopt DT tactics of pushing the opponents, so that iOS 18.5 comes with a warning "Due to European Union directive we cannot safeguard your kids from downloading X-rated apps", let the European parents ask their elected and non-elected officials about that
…and rightly so!
They are willing to pay a fair price for a service - but not rent to a monopoly landlord (that often competes with them on related markets).
That’s a main point of antitrust law and competition regulation:
Preventing companies with monopoly power from denying access to their user base or impose anticompetitive terms and fees for it.
Monopolists should not be allowed to charge “at will” for mere access to their user base - particularly in important infrastructure and platform markets on which their users committed to them (such as agreeing to long contracts or by way of an expensive hardware purchase).
It’s not only about small developers. Most purchases and sales volume isn’t made up by small developers benefitting from that rate. Apple, again, was very clever in preempting impending regulation and reducing fees for small developers to elicit goodwill and divide their developer base.
But if you take away the nebulous and unquantifiable “marketing and promotion”, the licensing a d transaction processing can certainly be done for less than 15%.
Agree 👍 (except about tying that hosting fee to using Apple’s payment system - it’s not tied to that anyway, as Uber and other apps are proving)
Both Apple and Tesla have exhibited monopolistic tendencies, which is why regulatory bodies had to step in.
Tesla’s biggest USP is its Supercharger network, which it built well before any real competition existed, giving it a massive advantage. Apple, on the other hand, delivers an unmatched user experience that no other software giant has been able to replicate.
Both companies have created great solutions—and they still are. But they also need to open up. Not because they’re obligated to, but because doing so would foster greater innovation and allow a broader range of technologies to thrive. If they don’t, they’ll just keep monetizing and expanding until they become too big to change, too big to regulate.
That’s where governments step in—not to mimic corporate behavior and crush their citizens, but to act like a kindergarten teacher, reminding the biggest kids to calm down and let others play.
The EU isn’t a government—it’s more of a fact-checker and enforcer, making sure user rights are protected while maintaining a fair balance between innovation and consumer protection.
What's a fair price? Is it fair that competing stores can't offer what Apple does at 30/15%? It's not Apple's problem tehy can't compete on price/value. Even in the heyday of jailbreaking Cydia charged 30%, IIRC.
And the big ones making many millions should pay for access to the customer base. Sure it was good PR for Apple, and small developers got a better deal; the only losers were customers who didn't see price drops.
The value of a product is independent of the cost of production. Apple offers a very lucrative market for the 15%, and so is justified charging for it.
By allowing sideloading, Apple should restructure its fee structure so any app making money via na app pays to be on the App Store, and not just a developer fee. Uber, Amazon, et, al, could then simply offer the app from their site, sidestepping Apple which doesn't hurt Apple becasue tehy aren't making money off of them anyway.
Sideloading would let Apple completely rethink fees for the App Store in the EU, since no one would be tied to it anymore; much as on the Mac. They could start by taking a lesson from EPIC and charging developer fees based on sales. You make 10 million a year on the app, to be on the App Store is 3 million a year. Less than a million? 99 Euros. If you want to use our other services such as payment processing, tax compliance, etc. it's 15% of your sales.
if you want to go it alone, more power to you.