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 Tile Trackers Sold Poorly in Apple Stores
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's a fair question, but I think the mobile platforms have become their own markets. When you're talking about web stores, you can easily buy a few things from Amazon, a few things from Target, something from Apple, something from Etsy. When you're talking about mobile platforms, most people are locked in because of the cost of a handset and monthly service plan, integration with other products and no desire to carry around multiple handsets. You could say "If you don't like the App Store terms you can buy apps from Google," but most people aren't going to carry one phone for apps, another for the camera, another for messaging, etc.
So I think this is more like the antimonopoly issues related to operating systems, like when Microsoft got in trouble for using its OS monopoly to privilege Internet Explorer. In this situation, it's not valid to say "consumers must like every part of the platform since they're using it." It's more like "consumers will tolerate some exploitative aspects of the platform because it's too costly to use multiple platforms."
Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment. In a prior life I was, not for Apple, but still.
It actually does, at least in the way it matters for now, in the legal and economic sense.
This:
Confirms that there is competition, given that there's another way (currently even the only way) of making the transaction to procure Spotify subscriptions.
I'm not sure which of the two words are specifically bothering you, "intense" or "competition"?
Regardless, what constitutes "competition" has been explained ad nauseam by now, so I'll assume that's not the one that's causing contention.
"Intense" is a bit more up for debate as it pertains more or less to an opinion, but considering that almost all of Spotify's current iOS users have made the transaction directly through Spotify with negligent amounts left that transact through IAP, and that no future users can transact through IAP, I can see why one would consider that kind of competition "intense".
That said, I understand why the leading definition of competition is inconvenient for your (and Spotify for that matter), but I'd suggest skipping the messenger (me) and instead direct your ire to someone who can make a change, like your representatives. I for one would much appreciate that.
Especially considering that I have not voiced my personal opinions on the matter, rather I provided legal context and to a lesser extent, an economic context (derived from the testimony of the economic experts of both sides in the current Epic v Apple saga, some of which contributed to the definitions that the SCOTUS currently uses).
Hints of the lack of my own opinion can be found in the two parts quoted below.
Last edited:
Great points.
Same thing Walmart does. I can't use ApplePay. No different. Their store, their rules. Hell, I have to pay cash when buying my Boba drinks. Can't use credit car. No choice. Retailer decides. Been like this forever.
I assume you mean you can't' use non Apple Pay system on their store. And, you don't mean Visa vs Apple Card. If yes, I agree, they could allow more than Apple Pay.
Honestly Tile trackers did sell very badly. when they were in Apple stores they were a very new product and not very compelling beyond its aspirations.
I think I sold 5 of them in the time they were available
I think I sold 5 of them in the time they were available
Thanks. But you're right, there are a bunch of risk that come with comments like that.
The obvious one would be that it's just too long for people to consider reading, to be honest.
Another one is that, unless you want to write an entire textbook on antitrust 101, you're left to sticking with generalizations and whatnot, so it'll simultaneously act as bait for people who'll want to "correct" you by pointing at exceptions.
My personal "favorite" is the psychoanalysis that sometimes follows and that doesn't distinguish between what I say on the basis of my understanding of the law and what opinions I hold as private person.
Either way, I didn't aim to provide an opinion on the case/issue at hand (did provide an opinion on the quality of analogies though).
Rather I was hoping to make clear what the big hurdles are that one needs to overcome when trying to bring an antitrust case against Apple, without necessarily saying who I think should prevail or how strong/weak the arguments so far are in an attempt to overcome them.
There are a bunch more, but those are a bit more in the fringes and the minutiae, and become more relevant once the bigger ones are overcome.
Smart phone software was never sold at the brick and mortar stores. The apps for Symbian-based smart phones (Android and iOS predecessor) were sold/distributed online. Nokia Ovi store (just one of many) was announced in 2007 but there were other online distributors for Symbian and Windows Phone apps before that.
Their solution is free pass for them to do whatever they want while still taking advantage of iOS platform. Freeloaders.
I'm sorry to break this to you, but most of the feedback I've gotten from Apple about my app submissions is either irrelevant to users, or protecting their own business. Apple changes the size requirements for app icons every couple years and I've spent hours resizing icons before a submission will go through. I have a cross-platform app and I once mentioned in the release notes that I had made an improvement to Android compatibility, and it was rejected because you're not allowed to mention the existence of another platform. I've had bug fix releases delayed because a reviewer noticed some random thing that wasn't affecting anyone. User protection doesn't seem to be a high priority in this system.
Government regulation/intervention should be reserved for protecting/benefiting consumers, not as a way for one company to take profits from another company.
Of course niche corner cases can be concocted where breaking the App Store’s lockdown on would benefit a tiny minority of consumers — but doing so would undeniably harm the vast, vast majority of iOS consumers that not only take no issue with the App Store but many are happy to pay a premium for the benefits it brings.
Of course niche corner cases can be concocted where breaking the App Store’s lockdown on would benefit a tiny minority of consumers — but doing so would undeniably harm the vast, vast majority of iOS consumers that not only take no issue with the App Store but many are happy to pay a premium for the benefits it brings.
I had an electronic marketplace for apps on my Palm Pilot in the 1990s and same again for my Compaq iPaq in the early 2000s. This notion that Apple created the online App Store is totally false.
It doesn't matter what Spotify and Epic think is "fair" commission; it's not their store. But what if Spotify and Epic agree that 10% is a good charge? Should Apple be forced to drop it to 10%? Why?
Apple could show Spotify and Epic that their costs are, say, 15% (even though this is private information and they shouldn't have to), but Spotify and Epic will simply say, "Hey, it costs them 15%; we can run a store for 10%! You must drop it to 10%!" But they don't count all the costs involved in updating SDKs, developing Xcode etc., all the lawyers required for drafting contracts, the people in the various regions who have to determine when App Store prices have to change because of tax rate changes, the translators, the web developers, etc. and so on.
If Apple quantify the exact costs of the servers, bandwidth, employees, and everything else that's included, should Spotify and Epic be given the right to determine how much of a profit above that Apple are allowed to make? That's absolute BS.
Or people just bought their Tile products elsewhere? The two are not mutually-exclusive.
The keynotes have always been packed with Apple employees to make sure a crowd cheer can be heard on the broadcast.
Epic is raking in several hundred million a month with annual revenue of several billion dollars. Maybe they should slash their prices to only cover their costs. I'm sure Epic would do that. LOL
It was possible to download apps to your mobile phone long before the iPhone. Apple made it easier but they didn’t invent mobile apps.
To be fair, most of what was mentioned is enforced on the OS level and you'd have to create quite a hot steaming pile of **** for iOS to not know what to do with your app other than to throw an EXC_RESOURCE or a crash with SIGKILL.
However if you get to the point that iOS can't properly manage your app, App Review is definitely going to notice. If not during the automated dynamic analysis that happens before human review, then because the reviewer notices the crash.
ATT is also an example of a system level enforcement of privacy. IDFV perhaps doesn't cover all forms of tracking, but it's the biggest and easiest way of doing so, hence so many ad-dependent tech corporations being so pissed about it. Other forms of tracking, some of which are tested out as we speak, are kept track of (no pun intended) by App Review team and enforced at a policy level, as per Federighi.
Other than that Apple provides tools(attached), information(attached) and education to devs to help them create apps that are cognizant of resources like battery life, that have a pleasant UX/UI and overall make for a good experience.
Maybe you just make great apps that don't need further feedback on those subjects?
That said, there are situations that warrant strict enforcement (by App Review or iOS) and there are situation that remain the responsibility of the dev.
The better indie devs seem to be obsessed by details and minutiae, evidenced by some of my indie friends with relatively popular apps that regularly obsess over minutiae like shaving off a millisecond here and there during a cold launch.
I personally have not done that yet, as I'm focussing on improving other stuff, but then again, I wouldn't consider myself one of the "better indie devs".
There's nothing contradictory about someone being successful in the App Store while also producing a product that is not successful in one particular retail store, the Apple Store.
Ben & Jerry's can be very successful in general, but your local gas station might not sell many tubs of Ben & Jerry's ice cream.
I personally have spent a lot of money at Apple Stores, but I can't recall the last time I purchased a 3rd party product at the Apple Store, if ever. My anecdotal experience is useless on it's own, but it could be that I'm not alone in that kind of behavior.
Attachments
I'd say that's a very poor analogy. Apple doesn't operate the Verizon store, so it has no right to put ads up in the Verizon store.
The App Store is more like a mall. When you walk into a store a mall, it's super convenient - you can just buy stuff at the mall if you want. But a lot of store employees, say at GameStop or Verizon, will inform you that they have a wider selection and/or better prices at their standalone location down the street from the mall.
They can do that, because it's their store. The mall doesn't tell them not to do that, because it's none of their business.
Going a bit further, Apple's analogy is incredibly poor because it's just a complete lie. What's right outside all the carrier stores at the mall, with a much bigger storefront, bigger logos, brighter lighting, etc? Oh yeah - it's the Apple Store.
Does the mall charge Apple 30% on every Apple product purchased at the mall? Using Apple's logic, they really aught to do that. Maybe malls wouldn't be turning into urban blight (and this has been happening for years before COVID) if Apple would just pay malls what they're worth. Maybe we'd have fewer retailers going bankrupt if Apple wasn't demanding sweetheart deals from the malls and insisting on having their own rent lower and forcing other tenants (America's beloved mom & pop shops and small businesses) to pay higher rents?
No, more likely what they want is to be able to offer the commission rate they deem right to iOS users through their own infrastructure without Apple preventing that.
Of course it would mean that the Apple's App Store would have to face competitors on iOS instead of being the only option on the platform, which is definitely something Apple wants to avoid first and foremost to protect their profits.
The operative costs of the Apple's App Store would be irrelevant if third-party infrastructures are allowed. SDKs etc. are supposed to be included in the Apple Developer Program.
Apple itself stated that these costs are not the main factor in the commission rate they impose anyhow.
Apple would be still allowed to decide how much profit to make on top of their costs, but contending with actual competitors on iOS which would have to do the same on their side.
You could be right. My local Apple Store has very few non Apple accessories and you can usually buy them cheaper elsewhere.