If you can add alternate app stores, how is the Play Store a monopoly? People preferring the OS’ App Store does not make it a monopoly.
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
My point is that Google's business practices stifled the competition, effectively making it closed. More legit storefronts massively lowers the risks of relying on sideloading.
Google have deliberately used the Play Store to stifle competition. People prefer it because its where everything is but everything is only there because other options are so limited.
In the EU you can’t just name things whatever you want. A purchase button for example needs to have a specific wording. I feel like this would follow a similar case.
The wording and clearly intentional style makes it seem like every 3rd party app is insecure and I’d love for Apple to justify that claim in court. It’s almost defamation. „Either you limit your payment options to us or we will make you look like potential scam“
Apple now cannot stop consumers from using nor charge commission on external payments because of their overzealous practices on defending their commission. Now they're starting the whole process again, without having learned anything in the EU whose authorities are a lot stricter on them than the FCC.
The server storage, management, download and bandwidth are worth that alone. For big titles anyway... what would Fortnite's cost apple? It's a FREE download... they made money from the IAP and Epic wasn't happy with that.
10 years ago my companies offline downloadable game made about $1m in a year.
The server costs alone were $180K.
Before that we sold in stores with discs etc
We were lucky to take home 30% - Retail alone was 50% cut.
Just because it's not apple, DOES NOT MEAN it's insecure. I really hope the EU fines Apple for this as it's just pathetic, and indefensible.
If Apple doesn't post this warning, a customer has a complaint with the vendor, and asks Apple for a refund, because before this year Apple was in charge of the App Store and all payments, do you think the customer is going to say "oh, I understand completely, even though it's on your store, you can't give me a refund, that makes sense." Or are they going to scream at Apple and say "What do you mean you can't refund me. It's your store! And if you can't refund me me, you at least should have told me before hand!"
Wow. So when I give a credit card to a 3rd party it’s either more or less secure depending on WHAT I buy.
That’s wild. It seems so counterintuitive but I guess there’s some kind of magic at play here.
Using Apple Pay instead of Apple's in-app purchase system is the same security. Pro-consumer is making sure the app they download is still around in 5 years rather than 30% of it's profits going to a multi-trillion dollar company.
The warnings are not meant to protect consumers but rather Apple's bottom line. They do not care about your feelings as a user, only that your money goes into their pockets. Its a free market, you can choose to do this or not. They still make great hardware.
These warnings are however a punitive measure aimed at stopping developers from taking away more money for their efforts to protect their monstrous profits. That is what the debate is really about. Apple's 30% cut is not based on operating costs of the App Store but the deal it had with the music industry in iTunes. Phil Schiller suggested internally that Apple only charge operating costs and it was slapped down by Cook.
Some users might defend Apple and say that without them the devs would have no business, but smartphones have gone from 'portable Apple device with ancillary features' to 'App delivery system' and now the reverse is true: without developers Apple would have no platform.
Do you side with the museum or the artists?
These warnings are however a punitive measure aimed at stopping developers from taking away more money for their efforts to protect their monstrous profits. That is what the debate is really about. Apple's 30% cut is not based on operating costs of the App Store but the deal it had with the music industry in iTunes. Phil Schiller suggested internally that Apple only charge operating costs and it was slapped down by Cook.
Some users might defend Apple and say that without them the devs would have no business, but smartphones have gone from 'portable Apple device with ancillary features' to 'App delivery system' and now the reverse is true: without developers Apple would have no platform.
Do you side with the museum or the artists?
Trusted companies...vs Wall Crash robots 4 or PDF scanner Pro plus extra. Also it's not a digital download... a ticket is considered a physical thing / event. Some made the the same point regarding Pizzas and Taco Bell etc. That was decided a long time ago.
Apple doesn't have to manage, store, administer, or deliver someone's Pizza.
Well I don't let anyone take my card away... Bring the machine or I'll come with you. I pay on watch so...
Apple isn't saying it's insecure. Apple is saying it COULD be, which is a valid statement.
Just because it isno't apple doesn;t mean it's insecure.
Let me rewrite that, just because Apple won't get their cut, doesn't mean it's insecure.
agree to disagree. google's android platform is an open platform just as much as windows is an open platform.
if it's offered. apple has no way of requiring it.
that's a completely different issue.
people have always been able to sign up on the web instead of IAP for various apps. again, that's a different issue.
That's not what they are aiming for with the big red triangle. there's warning's and there's scare tactics. TBH if I ran a payment service that was as secure as Apple's (like nearly all of them nowadays) I'd probably sue for libel as it implies the external payment isn't secure.
having apple + third party handle your payments is literally less secure than just having apple handle your payments. you suddenly have 2 companies that hackers can target vs just 1.
YOU don't own the software. You have a licence to use it. You signed agreement to that when you turned it on... you did real the User Agreement right? RIGHT?
Apple Store, manage and administer the IAPs and deliver them as needed. Some are already encoded in the core games, some are additional downloads.. these might be small or Gigabytes. That bandwidth costs money.
Apple Also create all the APIs for the developers to use the devices. That is not something that can be undervalued. a single company pays the nominal $100 fee for a developer account... but 100s of developers could be making an app.
The Developer also agreed to the terms when they submit an app. 15% / 30 % on purchases. Apple provided the goodwill, storage and delivery system for free ( a big deal for a FREE app ), APIs and most importantly the whole CLIENTBASE of a Billion+ phones to potentially sell to. I agreed to that and I am happy with it.
What is going to happen: They'll just start charging developers for Free apps to be distributed ORRtick the minimum Sale app WITH IAPs up to $5.
Those specific apps no, but others? Of course there can be a risk.
The problem with letting every digital goods seller have their own payment method that isn’t verified is that it increases the risk of scam payments or card fraud.
I do think developers should be allowed to use external payment options if they want, but I also believe that the consumer needs to be fully informed about it beforehand so they know they are taking a risk. I think there should be something easy to spot you can tell someone like an aging parent (or other uninformed consumers) to avoid unless they are sure of what they are doing.
Last edited:
If you can install an App Store then how is the play store stifling competition? Are there restrictions on the alternate stores? If not then how is PS a monopoly?
Your argument is 'pro-consumer.' Which is why everyone is laughing at you. You're bringing up the bigger picture which is what is correctly against apple. Pro-consumer is CHOICE. Competition creates innovation. You are thinking backwards. One options only is not good. And again, your point of security is not valid with Apple Pay. Apply Pay CANNOT be offered because it's against Apple's rules, which was deemed ILLEGAL. So now that you're educated, Apple putting a WARNING that the app does not use the in-app purchase system is not pro-consumer. It's a company that tried to do something ILLEGAL trying to get their cut.
The whole point of this is that Apple doesn't handle your payments. Apple isn't nessersarily more secure than other companies.