Ok . . . The developer's website is listed on the landing page in the app store. I very often click to see what the developer's webpage looks like. And listing a webpage is a bit different than saying "click here to save 10% or more"
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 Slaps Warnings on Apps Using External Purchases in the EU [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I take no issue with Apple designing and stocking their store “shelves” as they please.
But not with controlling every retail box - I support third-party developers’ choice of contents.
Within reason (which goes both ways. Not saying Apple has to sell every kind of objectionable content as long as it’s legal. Or tolerate every form of design that negatively affects their image. But not allowing Apple anticompetitive practices either).
The amount of hand wringing on this is just incredible.
Just make the iOS apps like macOS apps.
Notarize them .. have your own store .. have 3rd party stores ... have dev direct.... have many payment methods .. compete on terms and experience to earn devs and customers.
Apple has pulled the biggest heist of all time getting everyone to not think of the iPhone for what it is ... just another computer that happens to be small.
Make it like the Mac ... done.
Apple don't want to because they stumbled into a massive revenue stream that kept growing and they have no shareholder story for pivoting away from it that doesn't tank their numbers -- that's the only reason they don't. All the rest of the narratives and pretzel logic are mostly BS.
It's not security or privacy or quality ... it's money.
Just make the iOS apps like macOS apps.
Notarize them .. have your own store .. have 3rd party stores ... have dev direct.... have many payment methods .. compete on terms and experience to earn devs and customers.
Apple has pulled the biggest heist of all time getting everyone to not think of the iPhone for what it is ... just another computer that happens to be small.
Make it like the Mac ... done.
Apple don't want to because they stumbled into a massive revenue stream that kept growing and they have no shareholder story for pivoting away from it that doesn't tank their numbers -- that's the only reason they don't. All the rest of the narratives and pretzel logic are mostly BS.
It's not security or privacy or quality ... it's money.
I'm guessing that none of the attackers here have ever run internet-facing infrastructure since they seem to vastly underestimate the costs involved.
Apple incurs the following costs:
- Physical plant. (Dunno if they rent or own datacenters).
- Equipment. Servers/racks/network/cabling
- Bandwidth
- Electricity
No, not at all.
👉 I want them to charge fair and competitive prices for their delivery of apps.
(I’ve stated that on many occasions - should you have read and remember them, your reply is a very disingenuous mischaracterisation)
Since you’ve mentioned “donating for free”:
What about all the other free-to-download-AND-use apps?
If Apple can “donate for free” their service to all Uber, Facebook, DoorDash, Instagram, TikTok eBay, Booking.com, banking and transit apps that - they can just as well do it for Epic, Spotify, Netflix and Amazon.
Everything else is predatory pricing to obtain monopoly power.
Soon we’ll get Apple ads that says «Nice iPhone you got there. Shame if sumpin sumpin were to happen to it, have you thought about paying insurance for it?" 😎🤟
The challenge becomes one of how does Apple monetize the store. The chose to create, in essence, a consignment model where people that are directly using the store for transactions AND for which Apple can do something to assist the customer if something goes wrong needs to pay a fee. It is the people that pay the fee that supports the economics of the overall store. Thus, Apple cannot, as you describe, donate all of their services for free; there does need to be a supportable economic model. The question is what should that economic model look like?
Apple could go to a per-download model. Or they could massively increase the Developer fee from $99. The challenge with both of those is that it directly affects those that are not professional or are exploring and learning iOS development.
IMO, the 15/30% is similar to a government tax. Nearly everybody is trying to figure out a way to reduce that tax. The problem is that if no one pays the tax, especially those that are reaping the benefits of the system created by that taxation system, then the system could collapse. Using the taxing analogy, roads won't be repaired and free public schools could close. (already seeing a limited form of that in parts of Colorado).
So what should Apple do? Let everyone that chooses to avoid the fee? Or should everyone be forced to pay something regardless? I do understand the concerns of the developers in wanting to make more money and pay less "tax". Everyone wants to pay less. But those developers are gaining access to the most profitable marketplace in the world and there are ways, within the current rules, for them to avoid the fee. I'm not sure if the "new" store would be as beneficial to all as the current system is.
My argument is necessarily pro-Apple. I just know what the system was like before the iOS store came out and the current systems in much better for all.And I would hate to see it damaged due to a couple of billion $ companies that want to make more $
plenty of people love Apple for building a safe and comfortable walled garden that makes all the decisions for them.
people who want to open up iOS are literally reducing choice for the average consumer. it's very simple. either iOS can or cannot do XYZ. adding in iOS can do XYZ if you do ABC adds complexity.
people who want to open up iOS are literally reducing choice for the average consumer. it's very simple. either iOS can or cannot do XYZ. adding in iOS can do XYZ if you do ABC adds complexity.
very true.
they want Apple to do all the work, and developers freeload off of that work. they don't understand the cost of running a business and just blindly worship Tim Sweeney.
it's clear they've never ran a business and just demand free things. that's not how the world works.
Are you this vocal in other avenues, luxury brands, cars, appliances, health care where fair and reasonable prices and markups are a wisp of air? Or as a consumer do you buy on value like all of us? I’ve never seen anyone for example trying to get laws passed to limit fees and commissions on dealerships.
That’s been addressed by use of the freemium model. Apple clearly incurs a loss.
Why should they. It’s their store. They run it as they want. I do t understand if people dislike the app store so much, why is Apple name the most valuable brand?
That monopoly word is a meme at this point. A company has a monopoly on its products and services.
Last edited:
They’ll find a way.
There’s nothing preventing them from charging fair, competitive prices - at which they’d be profitable.
Stop discriminating between digital and “analogue” transactions.
That is all that’s needed as regulation, IMO.
Literally not.
You can choose to download and make payment transactions exclusively with Apple.
But if the ecosystem is more open, users and developers have additional choices to do it elsewhere.
Closedness isn’t more choice.
Slavery isn’t freedom.
No.
But if there’s any one service or product subject to as high a market concentration as distribution of mobile apps, I might just as well be.
Maybe. If they do, their pricing is predatory and needs to be regulated by the government.
Government should legally restrict their ability to run is as they want by passing new laws or using existing antitrust legislation to fine and penalise them until they comply.
I’ve said it above: I’m not asking for anything overreaching. Just prohibit them from discriminating certain transactions.
Because others can’t escape it (if they want to use a smartphone - an essential tool and means of communication in today’s world). There’s only two platforms to reasonably choose from: Android/Play Services and iOS.
And Apple are overcharging at supracompetitive pricing.
Apple clearly have (had) a monopoly on distribution of mobile apps to large parts of the population - that are locked into their respective smartphone platform by way of their hardware purchase.
But that’s not what’s meant with having monopoly power.
Monopoly power is the ability to set pricing for the whole market (rather than just their own products).
Apple clearly have that power.
There’s not a high market concentration. There’s hundreds of manufacturers and probably just as many app stores. I’ll admit two are popular.
Predatory pricing is as subjective as which is better vanilla or chocolate.
No they shouldnt.
It’s their app stores. If they aren’t following current laws let them get treated thusly.
Using a smartphone is optimal and we’ve been round the horn in this.
No they aren’t.
A monopoly in their own platform. I agree .
No they don’t. They never set the pricing. Retail stores did.
Two are popular.
Exactly - so please read up on how market concentration is defined/determined.
No, it’s a well-known economic concept (when you provide or sell something below cost).
They’ve been found by a court of law to do so.
Apple set the commission rates - not only for their own store, but they can considerably influence market price.
I guess the bottom line is that there is nothing illegal going on. Read up on illegal market concentration.
Again not illegal.
Only the antisteering which is not related to alternate app stores.
The commission rates have been in effect for decades. It’s an industry standard.
The same that causes non stop Cookie banners everywhere? That is just as fear-mongering and the EU loves cookie banners.
I didn't say anything about legality. You're deflecting.
It (predatory pricing) absolutely is legal in many jurisdictions.
None of this is true. Let’s not forget that without developers Apple doesn’t really have much of a business at all. They’d go under if they completely closed off all their operating systems to 3rd party apps.
The App Store is also not a business in and of itself but part of a much larger company. If Apple stopped taking commission they’d just divert funds from elsewhere in the company, for example the profits they make off of the iPhone. Maybe we as users should be bankrolling the App Store through our hardware purchases?
I can understand people’s concern about 3rd party links taking them to some malicious scam website.
The question you need to be asking though is why Apple don’t just vet these links as part of the submission process to make sure they’re safe?
They could easily do this on their own part to protect you as a user. But they don’t because it requires human verification for every app which costs them more money and time.
Your ire should perhaps therefore be on the faceless corporation that decided that your security just wasn’t worth paying for out of the obscene profits it makes off of your hardware, service and software purchases.
It decides that its own bottom line was more important than looking after its existing customers.
The question you need to be asking though is why Apple don’t just vet these links as part of the submission process to make sure they’re safe?
They could easily do this on their own part to protect you as a user. But they don’t because it requires human verification for every app which costs them more money and time.
Your ire should perhaps therefore be on the faceless corporation that decided that your security just wasn’t worth paying for out of the obscene profits it makes off of your hardware, service and software purchases.
It decides that its own bottom line was more important than looking after its existing customers.
Last edited:
To defend Apple for a minute, they were likely worried about the potential for lawsuits.
Apple have built their empire on being the company people trust to do things for them, people who have no interest in being IT literate. Whilst there is perhaps some level of personal responsibility to be taken by the user, not everyone is inclined enough: they just want something that works!
I’ll bet Apple have to dole out hundreds of thousands of dollars each month on refunds to parents whose kids have overspent on IAP because they were unwillingly ignorant of the results. Apple do this because it’s costing them a competitive pittance and it want the goodwill.
If said child has done the same via a 3rd party link and Apple then say they can’t do anything about it, go contact the developer how will those parents react? They’ll collectively sue them.
Apple sadly went the wrong way about it internally by concentrating on making people fear developers rather than trusting Apple. They are two different things.
Those links can change but the URL cannot. If a dev wants to change this within an app it would require an entirely new submission which Apple could continue to vet, at their increased cost. They could make small payments themselves via these links to directly test if they are safe. Yes, each and every time.
They could have gotten away with charging developers a 10% commission to cover these costs and the courts would have stayed well away because the commission number would have some direct costs associated with it.
But they didn’t.
Please explain to me this as I'm confused.
Literally Apple has gotten into VERY deep trouble for deliberately selecting to creating scary screens and warnings to customers.
The Judge went mad at them for this and internal documents were shown and proved that Apple deliberately went out of their way to create scary warnings, and went back and forth to make them as scary as possible.
Now Apple, after this have decided to change this notification with a LARGE RED exclamation mark in an attempt to make this option even more scary that it was before.
Does this not fly directly in the face of what they were told not to do.
It's like they are deliberately trying to get into trouble again.
Are folks at Apple just plain stupid?
Do they not understand what they were told not to do?
Are they deliberately trying to get themselves into even more trouble?
I'm baffled.
It's like a Police Officer given you are warning to not do something, and immediately afterwards you go and do it again.
It's genuinely bizarre.
Literally Apple has gotten into VERY deep trouble for deliberately selecting to creating scary screens and warnings to customers.
The Judge went mad at them for this and internal documents were shown and proved that Apple deliberately went out of their way to create scary warnings, and went back and forth to make them as scary as possible.
Now Apple, after this have decided to change this notification with a LARGE RED exclamation mark in an attempt to make this option even more scary that it was before.
Does this not fly directly in the face of what they were told not to do.
It's like they are deliberately trying to get into trouble again.
Are folks at Apple just plain stupid?
Do they not understand what they were told not to do?
Are they deliberately trying to get themselves into even more trouble?
I'm baffled.
It's like a Police Officer given you are warning to not do something, and immediately afterwards you go and do it again.
It's genuinely bizarre.