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
The AppStore is like a Sears, not a mall that contains a Sears.
The mall charges Apple a rate to be in the mall.
again that’s just from your perspective. The things I mentioned like not allowing applications in the background to hog processor time are all things to benefit consumers. I’ve developed for the App Store before and it’s damn irritating. But as a consumer I’d rather have that than the Wild West of windows etc.
You keep making assertions that are flawed. If I want a Big Mac, I can only buy it in one place….MacDonalds. They control their entire operation just like Apple. I can’t go to Burger King and demand a Big Mac (or demand that they sell Big Macs, or indeed any other burger).
There are other Burger joints around and you can indeed buy from them. Android is a viable alternative to iOS, and has many App stores (in fact >1,000). If your choice is a Big Mac, you go to MacDonalds. If you only want a burger, you have many choices.
I‘ve yet to see an antitrust case against MacDonalds for not selling Whoppers, or indeed, not selling any other burgers.
I can’t walk into Ford and order a BMW. Which is a shame as my town has a Ford Dealership and not a BMW dealership. I can’t demand that Ford start selling BMW’s for my convenience. I can’t order a Ford with a BMW engine, or even demand that they accomodate that request. If I want a BMW, I HAVE to go to the next town.
The reason being it is NOT illegal to have a monopoly on your own products, it is actually expected. It‘s not illegal to get ahead by having a better product or service. It’s not illegal to get ahead through happenchance. It’s not illegal to get ahead through better business acumen.
Apple’s product is the entire stack….hardware, OS and App Store. These products have always been sold together and have never been available individually. If they licensed the OS and App Store to other hardware vendors but tied the OS to the store, then maybe you could claim anticompetitive behaviour. But they don’t.…hardware, OS and App Store is a single product. How they choose to monetise this is entirely their choice and the market is free to choose.
And they have chosen, year over year with increasing sales of all their products and with the top customer satisfaction ratings in every category, every single year. Good luck showing harm to consumers when this is the case.
Anti-competition laws specifically look at harms to consumers.
Last edited:
Yes, these developers can let users know on their own website, they can take out FB ads or newspaper ads or tv ads. They can post in web forums or Usenet or emails.
What they cannot do is use Apple’s platform to advertise buying a product elsewhere. Just like any product manufacturer is unable to advertise in a retail store that their product is cheaper online, or down the street at Joel’s corner shop.
Last edited:
I can download Microsoft apps both on ios and Android. There are games available on both platforms. I fail to see your logic.
If I want to sell my products through Best buy, I have to follow their rules through whatever method Best buy decide. I cannot just ask Best buy if I can set up my own shop in their stores selling my own stuff and pocket the money 100% myself.
"Apple does not prohibit developers from communicating with their customers; Apple simply says that developers cannot redirect customers who are in the App Store to leave the App Store and go elsewhere—just as Apple cannot put a sign in the Verizon store, telling customers to buy iPhones directly from Apple instead.
The rule is one that has long-been embraced by retailers in both the physical and digital worlds. As for Apple, this common-sense rule has been in place since 2009, pre-dating Spotify's launch on the App Store. Spotify launched, grew, and thrived under these rules, but now Spotify apparently either wants Apple to change them or to hold Spotify to a different set of standards from everyone else."
I thought this was a good point, but when I think about this metaphor more it really isn't. I understand Apple not letting developers tell customers about other purchasing options at another store in the App Store app (ie. "The Store"), and by extension I can see Apple forbidding it during the transaction for In-App purchases. The In-App purchase dialogue are Apple's and akin to a credit card POS terminal, and receipt text that prints out same as a brick and mortar.
I am not suggesting that Apps should be able to have their own In-App payment system. I get that Apple doesn't want their App Store to sell those kind of products. And whether or not that is a good thing is moot. But forbidding developers from informing customers about other purchase mechanisms in the developers own app seems like Apple is suggesting that every App on the App Store is an extension of the Apple App Store in perpetuity. At some point the customer leaves the store with the product, no?
Seems like what Apple is really stating to developers selling wares on their shelfs, is what type of product they will allow to be sold in their stores (ie. App Store regulations/standards), how the packaging of the product on the shelf has to look, how their In-App purchasing system must be used.
But the issue is that it goes a step too far in limiting one-way notifications to customers. I get that they don't want a link to another storefront showing up in an App. But the App isn't owned by Apple.
I don't see how putting a statement in an App informing consumers that they have the option to subscribe directly or through In-App subscriptions. Sure it isn't great for Apple if they loose revenue, but welcome to the risk of consumer choice. Developers doing that ISN'T like putting a sign up in a competing store. It is putting a message in their product's packaging, or manual. And it doesn't have to state that the service it offers is cheaper elsewhere.
It seems Apple is conflating the commission for the purchase/acquisition of an app with the commission of services and subscriptions in the App.
Software purchases, and services are different things. I have no problem with Apple requiring a commission for subscriptions they fulfill. I think it is fine for Apple to set standards for Apps in the App Store, but muzzling an App from informing users about alternative subscription seems a step too far if Apple is going to continue ask for reoccurring commissions on the subscriptions. (Maybe it isn't if they don't ask for commissions.)
My biggest problem with how Apple collects it's dues, is subscriptions through the App Store in-app purchases. Why should Apple continue to reap a commission long after the first sale of the App or In-App subscription? Are they claiming because of App Store costs? Is it because data passes through Apple's servers? Break it down Apple. Yes, I know that commission goes down over time, but the amounts seem arbitrary.
Continuing commission on a subscription that has nothing to do with platform costs (ie. Future app updates or initial consumer acquisition of the app.) Continuing commission on a subscription has nothing to do with platform costs if the majority of data generally isn't running through Apple's services/servers.
If Apple is concerned about covering App Store costs, clearly that should be done at the initial App sale/download stage, or the initial subscription signup. Not the reoccurring charge stage when no other commerce option is available or informed to the user. Ultimately the percentage should either be significantly lower percentage-wise, or developers should be able to inform consumers of other (probably sans pricing or incentives) options for the subscription services.
Seems like Apple is trying to have it both ways by conflating the justifications for 30% commission costs between the the App Store sale of apps and In-App Subscription commissions. They are using general blanket logic for both those commissions types.
The rule is one that has long-been embraced by retailers in both the physical and digital worlds. As for Apple, this common-sense rule has been in place since 2009, pre-dating Spotify's launch on the App Store. Spotify launched, grew, and thrived under these rules, but now Spotify apparently either wants Apple to change them or to hold Spotify to a different set of standards from everyone else."
I thought this was a good point, but when I think about this metaphor more it really isn't. I understand Apple not letting developers tell customers about other purchasing options at another store in the App Store app (ie. "The Store"), and by extension I can see Apple forbidding it during the transaction for In-App purchases. The In-App purchase dialogue are Apple's and akin to a credit card POS terminal, and receipt text that prints out same as a brick and mortar.
I am not suggesting that Apps should be able to have their own In-App payment system. I get that Apple doesn't want their App Store to sell those kind of products. And whether or not that is a good thing is moot. But forbidding developers from informing customers about other purchase mechanisms in the developers own app seems like Apple is suggesting that every App on the App Store is an extension of the Apple App Store in perpetuity. At some point the customer leaves the store with the product, no?
Seems like what Apple is really stating to developers selling wares on their shelfs, is what type of product they will allow to be sold in their stores (ie. App Store regulations/standards), how the packaging of the product on the shelf has to look, how their In-App purchasing system must be used.
But the issue is that it goes a step too far in limiting one-way notifications to customers. I get that they don't want a link to another storefront showing up in an App. But the App isn't owned by Apple.
I don't see how putting a statement in an App informing consumers that they have the option to subscribe directly or through In-App subscriptions. Sure it isn't great for Apple if they loose revenue, but welcome to the risk of consumer choice. Developers doing that ISN'T like putting a sign up in a competing store. It is putting a message in their product's packaging, or manual. And it doesn't have to state that the service it offers is cheaper elsewhere.
It seems Apple is conflating the commission for the purchase/acquisition of an app with the commission of services and subscriptions in the App.
Software purchases, and services are different things. I have no problem with Apple requiring a commission for subscriptions they fulfill. I think it is fine for Apple to set standards for Apps in the App Store, but muzzling an App from informing users about alternative subscription seems a step too far if Apple is going to continue ask for reoccurring commissions on the subscriptions. (Maybe it isn't if they don't ask for commissions.)
My biggest problem with how Apple collects it's dues, is subscriptions through the App Store in-app purchases. Why should Apple continue to reap a commission long after the first sale of the App or In-App subscription? Are they claiming because of App Store costs? Is it because data passes through Apple's servers? Break it down Apple. Yes, I know that commission goes down over time, but the amounts seem arbitrary.
Continuing commission on a subscription that has nothing to do with platform costs (ie. Future app updates or initial consumer acquisition of the app.) Continuing commission on a subscription has nothing to do with platform costs if the majority of data generally isn't running through Apple's services/servers.
If Apple is concerned about covering App Store costs, clearly that should be done at the initial App sale/download stage, or the initial subscription signup. Not the reoccurring charge stage when no other commerce option is available or informed to the user. Ultimately the percentage should either be significantly lower percentage-wise, or developers should be able to inform consumers of other (probably sans pricing or incentives) options for the subscription services.
Seems like Apple is trying to have it both ways by conflating the justifications for 30% commission costs between the the App Store sale of apps and In-App Subscription commissions. They are using general blanket logic for both those commissions types.
Last edited:
But it's not just a case of going, "Okay, you can now launch your own stores!" iOS would have to be altered to allow it. That costs Apple money, and it will cost Apple money to ensure that the next version of iOS also allows other stores to operate. It will also cost Apple when someone contacts them to complain that their app doesn't work when they actually downloaded it from a different store. Who pays for that?
You can't just launch a new store app unless any downloads within that store only work inside of that store, i.e. no app icons on your Home Screen for apps downloaded in that store. That's not currently possible. The mechanism for downloading apps and ensuring they're valid and can be used are part of iOS. To allow third-party store downloads, iOS has to be changed. Why should Apple have to pay for implementing that feature, and for the upkeep of it while all the profit goes to the store's developer?
Funny enough, I had PLENTY of 'apps' on my various hand-held devices from the early 90s through the Magic Apple Store starting to sell the same on their captive store.
Oh, and none of them were "Apple Stores" for Newtons or "Microsoft Stores", "HP Stores", or "Philips Stores" for Windows products.
As far as I'm concerned, having lived through that CONTEXT, Apple merely found the coal miner/textile worker Factory Store tether for Apple iPods so lucrative they merely decided to go even more-restrictive and better razor-wired AHEAD OF TIME with their iPhones.
Just because Apple is re-historying that CONTEXT is no reason they should continue to have a strangle hold on applications.
Now, there may be many OTHER reason people are willing to pay more. I am, in fact, moving to iPhones after the miserable state of Android updating and drivel app stores, but not because I want an iPhone app store for what I actually NEED to function, as opposed to what an easily distracted customer who continually CRAVES. I don't need the "SQUIRREL!" access to superfluous digital app candy.
BTW, I already have bought and pay for iPhone maintenance and have bought several iPads and iMacs in the house, so it's not like I'm anti-Apple on this.
I'm just experienced enough to know what I need and what I don't need, as in I am willing to MAKE MY OWN VALUE JUDGEMENTS without profit-biased manufacturers like MS, Google OR APPLE making them for me for THEIR advantage.
Last edited:
How many monopoly break-ups have YOU lived through?
You could just as easily be defending Microsoft forcing IE on everyone "for business purposes".
Epic AFAIK argues that Apple already knows how to implement a secure and more open platform and gives MacOS as example. They argue that there is no reason for iOS to work so much differently except for Apple to keep control and prevent competition under the guise of securing the user privacy and security.
There is no reason for native applications not to appear on the home screen, wherever they come from. Also note that Apple has already the technical ability to allow third-parties to manage and install their own applications, but limits the offer of this capability to enterprises for in-house distribution of internal apps.
The main reason for Apple to be against this are not technical or cost-related, they are strategical and aimed at protecting their platform against unwanted competition. Note that it's perfectly fine for a company to want to be protective, the question is whether the measures Apple is using are against anti-trust regulation or not.
As for the "why should Apple", it's pretty simple: they will very unlikely open-up their platform willingly, but if (and it's a huge "if") a sentence finds them in violation of anti-trust it's perfectly possible for remedial measures to be imposed on them. At that point it would not be a matter of what Apple "should do", but a matter of what Apple "must do".
Brent Simmons says:
“We used a service called Kagi for the storefront and credit card processing. Kagi had been around since the ’90s, and it was well-known and trusted by the Mac community.”
Mac community… OK. But I’m SURE ol’ Brent’s aware the conversation is about mobile phones of which the iPhone was one. Does Brent have any experience, in 2003, selling an app for Palm? Or any other mobile phone? Add to that, some cellular carriers forced you to go through their portals and they took a hefty chunk off, too.
”SO, I have a lot of experience with what they’re calling “snowboarding” now. I’ve been doing it for awhile, it’s just that my snowboard is split into two, the separate boards are longer and thinner and one foot is attached to each…. annnnnd you need a couple poles as well. Other than those minor differences, you can say that what I’ve been doing and snowboarding is IDENTICAL! So of COURSE my opinion should carry weight on this snowboarding matter.”
Last edited:
Absolutely. Every single point put forward falls apart if you replace “Apple” and “Apple AppStore” with any other company and product. Come up with a point that applies to all companies evenly and you’ve got something that passes muster. Come up with a point that applies ONLY to AppStores and then ONLY to AppStores developed by one specific company, and it just fails apart logically.
I do not doubt for one minute that there’s a large number of folks that want to see Apple “get what’s coming to it” because they have a very specific axe to grind against Apple. Maybe it’s because if Apple wasn’t around, folks would be buying/supporting their preferred flavor of Android. Maybe it’s because Apple stopped making the AirPort Base Stations. Maybe it’s because the Mac Pro is too expensive. But, for whatever reason they want to see Apple pay for their insolence (See! I told you switching to Apple Silicon was a bad idea that would destroy the company!). But, barring any unintentional missteps, as Apple’s been careful with their growth, these folks would even be in favor of illegal resolution methods. JUST to see the company get their just desserts for canceling iWeb.
Fortunately, legal proceedings of THIS kind rarely take into account the irrational views of the disgruntled. As of the end of this trial, contract law will still stand such that if you enter into an agreement with another entity, you’ll still be bound by the terms of that agreement. AND, if you feel that the terms of the agreement aren’t to your liking, you can continue to negotiate OR reject the terms. Anyt outcome that ends with an upending of contract law is highly unlikely.
Last edited:
I think if Palm was still in existence, and still operated its store the way Apple does, it would probably see the same regulatory issues today. Apple's problems stem from the fact that regulators believe iOS and Android to be separate markets for regulatory purposes. It's entirely possible this same trend in regulatory thought would apply to macOS and Windows if they didn't have existing alternative sales options to the company store.
The problem is that people in the computer world, have a different view of their world, than the regulators - where some see "smartphones" as a market, the regulatory powers do not.
A contract has to conform with the law overall, though. The result of Apple being declared an abusive monopolist within the iOS market is likely to mean those contracts can be argued to be under some form of unreasonable duress.
Apple's contracts being dismissed won't have any effect on contract law, except to strengthen precedents on how contracts work when the one operating the contract is an abusive monopolist.
A developer, on a massive, locked-down platform like iOS, not even being allowed to say "Subscribe on our website" in their app without even linking to it is textbook anticompetitive behavior IMO. That sort of thing wouldn’t be anticompetitive if Apple actually let other stores exist, but they don’t. Regurgitating arguments that Apple's extremely well-compensated lawyers say is not very compelling as they will say whatever they have to to defend Apple.
Last edited:
I think the regulators have been TOLD that and this is the “due process” just to have it confirmed one way or another. At the end of the three weeks, they will have to use the information available to them (that the Apple AppStore came into being as a creation by Apple for Apple iPhones and Apple iPads) and will have to be QUITE creative if they wanted to define a ruling that specifically ONLY affects AppStores (but not brick and mortar stores) and ONLY Apple (but not Microsoft and Sony).
They WOULD have to actually show, though, how THESE contracts, which are actually quite similar to OTHER contracts in the area of AppStores, would be seen as unreasonable duress while the other contracts are NOT unreasonable and not even worthy of review. It would also open up EVERY company to the same challenges by competitors/customers that are not in a position to negotiate/don’t own enough shares.
I think it will come down to the iOS app store not in fact being similar enough to other app stores for the contracts of those stores to be a guide for how Apple will be regulated. Or rather, that the differences (eg in games the console hardware is mostly subsidised by the app store maker, AND there are alternative retail options for consumers), will be critical enough that the similarities won't prevail.
Any ruling on Apple would be specific to the structure of Apple's setup - namely the single retail channel, and the use of the single retail channel to funnel participants into other parts of the company's business.
As long as Google keeps Android able to sideload, a ruling wouldn't apply to them. As long as console makers keep selling retail disks, a ruling wouldn't apply to them.
Effectively, IF you're the only game in town (and within iOS Apple is), you can't use the rules to benefit yourself, you have to be a hands-off FRAND manager of the market.
But even if the Epic suit goes Apple's way, most likely the Spotify case in Europe is going to break the Current App Store model, since it's clearly about the Apple's use of its store rules to hobble a competitor for its Music business (whereas Epics is about anti-competitive sub-function aspects within the App Store itself, Spotify's is about distinct customer-facing separate businesses), and that will almost certainly set a precedent for Video, eBooks, Games Streaming and competitors for any app Apple sells, as they are all businesses that Apple directly competes with third party developers.
What you describe sounds very painful. If only Apple would add a storefront and make it less painful. That would streamline it. 😉