Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I disagree. App developers should be allowed to build their own app stores if they want to. Nobody is forced to use them. Let consumers decide which app store they prefer.
We already have data on this and it isn't looking good for 3rd party stores.
 
I disagree. App developers should be allowed to build their own app stores if they want to. Nobody is forced to use them. Let consumers decide which app store they prefer.
Not all developers would be able to build their own Application Stores. Then users would not be able to easily find their App Stores. Nor would they have the trust that they would be legitimate either.
 
Except when consumers bought the app from the Apple App Store and in order to continue using it, they have to install the non App Store version.
Has that happened anywhere? I doubt it ever would. This process is primarily about subscriptions and in-app purchases.
 
Not all developers would be able to build their own Application Stores. Then users would not be able to easily find their App Stores. Nor would they have the trust that they would be legitimate either.
So don’t use them. Simples. Some users will be quite happy to use 3rd party app stores and some will stick with Apple. I have no problem with that. It’s called choice and it’s a wonderful thing.
 
Has that happened anywhere? I doubt it ever would. This process is primarily about subscriptions and in-app purchases.
Only cases even close to that that I'm aware of are where apps had or added functionality on macOS that was forbidden in the App Store. Devs I'm aware of made it as easy as possible to escape the mac app store in those cases.
 
So don’t use them. Simples. Some users will be quite happy to use 3rd party app stores and some will stick with Apple. I have no problem with that. It’s called choice and it’s a wonderful thing.
Of course people can choose what they want to do. If they do not like Apple's system, they can downgrade to other systems.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 0049190
Of course people can choose what they want to do. If they do not like Apple's system, they can downgrade to other systems.
Thankfully the law disagrees with you and the changes will go through so you can protest all you like but the times they are a changin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zchrykng
The commissions that Apple receives supports the infrastructure that hosts the App Store. Infrastructure is not free and neither is the electricity used to power that infrastructure.
So should the electricity company charge Apple 30% of their (online) services revenue for powering the data center?

Should they charge you 30% of the revenue of your work-from-home work/business?
 
So should the electricity company charge Apple 30% of their (online) services revenue for powering the data center?

Should they charge you 30% of the revenue of your work-from-home work/business?
They charge 100% of the electricity that I consume from the grid. I use more electricity if I am working from home or have a home business. Besides electricity is a public utility and the App Store is not a public utility. When you agree to sell an application in the App Store, you agree to the terms of service. If you disagree, then you do not use the App Store. It is that simple.
 
They charge 100% of the electricity that I consume from the grid
Exactly. 👍
And I’d agree that’s a fair system: you pay for what you consume.

But when a third-party developer like Epic sells a virtual item using their own website and payment processor, they consume nothing provided by Apple.

When you agree to sell an application in the App Store, you agree to the terms of service. If you disagree, then you do not use the App Store. It is that simple.
So if there’s a monopoly or duopoly on electrical power in t your area and they changed their pricing to “commission of your revenue”, you simply agree, saying “fair enough”?

Governments, regulators and courts of law should - and do - impose restrictions on dominant firms’ terms of service. On what they’re allowed to demand in their terms of service and what they can’t.
To ensure a fair allocation of resources, costs and competitive markets.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. 👍

And when a third-party developer like Epic sells a virtual item using their own website and payment processor, they consume nothing provide by Apple.
Not true, Apple must digitally sign the application in order for the application to install in iOS.
So if there’s a monopoly or duopoly on electrical power in t your area and they changed their pricing to “commission of your revenue”, you simply agree, saying “fair enough”?

Governments, regulators and courts of law should - and do - impose restrictions on dominant firms’ terms of service. On what they’re allowed to demand in their terms of service and what they can’t.
To ensure a fair allocation of resources, costs and competitive markets.
There are monopolies where electricity is provided by a single vendor. I have known no utility that would change rates based on commissions. Regulations are always a cost of doing business and should be as simple as necessary, not thousands of pages of garbage. Governments are never effective in determining what is correct and true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zchrykng
Apple must digitally sign the application in order for the application to install in iOS.
They do that when admitting the app to the App Store.

Not when I purchase Fortnite items from/through Epic’s app.
Nothing gets signed by Apple when I purchase Fortnite items from Epic’s store (without using Apple’s IAP).
 
  • Like
Reactions: zchrykng
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.