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 Study: App Store Ecosystem Generated $1.3 Trillion Globally in 2024
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Then you don't understand how iOS works. The apps and resource bundles are signed by Apple, but in app purchases aren't "signed" by Apple. If you are using Apple IAP, they have some role, but if you are using third party purchases, Apple needs to do nothing.
Besides that, the process is basically automated and costs Apple nothing.
Good to see the numbers. App store is generating revenue for both the developers and of course Apple. However don't know whether regulations will cause a drop in revenue for Apple.
A common problem in these topics, particularly when it's suggested that Apple should simply move to the macOS methods for iOS and alleviate all these legal issues and concerns.
Apple marketing on this topic has made people think iOS = "Fort Knox" and macOS = "a cheese grater with holes everywhere"
There are r&d costs associated with it. It’s like saying an auto assembly line cost millions to setup but the running of it costs the manufacturer nothing.
That have long been (more than) recouped.
There are certainly costs associated with running and maintaining the App Store (as well as iOS).
And costs have been incurred in developing it all (again, they have been more than recouped)
I agree that’s Apple is entitled to demand fair compensation for it all.
- Giving it away “for free” ($99 developer membership)
- claiming that’s not enough
- and charging billions of dollars more as
taxon revenue - only to a particular subset of customers
- that they’re often directly competing with (on gaming, music/video streaming and ebooks) themselves
- on transactions that they provide no service for
- from a dominant market position
- or otherwise prohibiting these developers from marketing to their customers
And it was found anticompetitive such by judge Gonzalez-Rogers in a court of law. On an order enforceable today.
Last edited:
Oh, I do. I was not going down the process of in app purchases as that is not something that I have done in the past so I just did not think or care about in-app purchases.
That change took place over time. The original intent was for road maintenance. As often happens, governments decided to reallocate those funds from that original purpose.
They could, but that is for Apple to decide if ditching California and moving to Texas would be a good business decision. Unlikely to get out of the US Federal jurisdiction, it might have taken them out of the specific judge's jurisdiction. Just like Application Advertising Transparency we will see over time if it actually changes anything. People will make their own decisions about whether or not they will support this endeavor.
Last edited:
For the app-signing process an in-app purchases (that I was talking about), themselves they cost basically nothing, yes.
These are accomplished with processing minuscule amounts of data.
Does delivering tons of Gigabytes of App Content - and iCloud user content that third-party developers can utilise storage for - use (and cost) much electricity, internet bandwidth and storage. Absolutely.
Apple are free to charge fair fees for that - rather than unfairly making it free for companies like Uber and Meta - while charging a particularly “vulnerable” subset of developers through the roof for the same thing.
👉 You don’t pay a zero rate on your electrical power either, while your neighbour pays $1.50 per kWh.
And if you did, claiming - let alone justifying that pricing scheme by saying…
“Oh, but the rates the electricity company charges us support the infrastructure of the power grid. Infrastructure is not free…”
…is outrageous! (Not too mention a power company that has a side business that competes with your neighbour.)
Last edited:
I do not think that Epic was harmed by abiding to what they agreed to when they signed the contract to deliver their applications through the App Store. In the end, they agreed to the contract when they started and then decided that they did not agree to when they broke the contract. The case was a pure contract dispute pure and simple. Epic wanted their popularity to attempt to force Apple to bend to their will. Epic filed the same lawsuit against Google. Of course lawsuits are the way to handle contract disputes.
As for the storage question, I can see that Microsoft OneDrive stores no information on my iCloud account. If any of my third party applications stored data in iCloud, I would be paying for that not the developers. I have yet to develop an application to publish to the App Store because all of the applications that I currently use meet my needs. If I want to publish an application for free, then I would only be paying Apple the $99/year to publish to the App Store.
Not relevant. Companies are not obliged to stop making a profit on services that have their r&d recouped.
No it’s not anti-competitive. Apple is allowed to charge historical and reasonable fees for it’s services.
It’s not over until it’s over. And the appeal is still alive. So you, I and everyone else will have to wait until it is all said and done. Additionally Apples historical fees weren’t deemed to be anticompetitive.
Businessman in a taxi away to a meeting, while talking on the phone via WhatsApp.
Businessman: Hello, close the deal at 31 million. Oh, you got it? Not yet? Ok I'll arrive in 10 mins.
Taxi Driver: Hello sir. I just noticed that you seam to be away to close a very important deal.
Business man: Yes yes. It's amazing. It will allow us to do so much more.
Taxi Driver: Really glad to help sir.
Business man: Helped? How come.
Taxi Driver: Well, I am taking you to the meeting right? If it is not for me, you will never arrive. Hence never close the deal.
Businessman: Are you threatening me?
Taxi Driver: No no sir. I am just point out the importance of my role. By the way, I have a policy that whoever travels in my cab and closes a deal, owes me 15%. You are so lucky that you are closing it outside of the cab, so lucky. Be grateful.
Businessman: What about WhatsApp should they also get something?
Taxi Driver: Well WhatsApp takes care of their business, beware with them. Just looking after your sir. You know, just trying to keep you all safe. Do you need some water? Music, is too cold or hot for you? I am humbled to serve.
Businessman: What?
Taxi Driver: I'm in owe how my passengers are enriching peoples lives. Throughly amazing.
Businessman: You are joking me right?
Taxi Driver: Oh no sir. Truly inspiring. Just the other day I drove Tim Cook. By my account my influence should be worth around 500 billion already.
Businessman: Hello, close the deal at 31 million. Oh, you got it? Not yet? Ok I'll arrive in 10 mins.
Taxi Driver: Hello sir. I just noticed that you seam to be away to close a very important deal.
Business man: Yes yes. It's amazing. It will allow us to do so much more.
Taxi Driver: Really glad to help sir.
Business man: Helped? How come.
Taxi Driver: Well, I am taking you to the meeting right? If it is not for me, you will never arrive. Hence never close the deal.
Businessman: Are you threatening me?
Taxi Driver: No no sir. I am just point out the importance of my role. By the way, I have a policy that whoever travels in my cab and closes a deal, owes me 15%. You are so lucky that you are closing it outside of the cab, so lucky. Be grateful.
Businessman: What about WhatsApp should they also get something?
Taxi Driver: Well WhatsApp takes care of their business, beware with them. Just looking after your sir. You know, just trying to keep you all safe. Do you need some water? Music, is too cold or hot for you? I am humbled to serve.
Businessman: What?
Taxi Driver: I'm in owe how my passengers are enriching peoples lives. Throughly amazing.
Businessman: You are joking me right?
Taxi Driver: Oh no sir. Truly inspiring. Just the other day I drove Tim Cook. By my account my influence should be worth around 500 billion already.
Last edited:
The analogy does not work. A Better analogy would be the driver having to pay a percentage of their fair to the company providing the taxi and the service on the backend to get the driver to the fairs.
Last edited:
“the Court FINDS Apple in willful violation of this Court’s 2021 Injunction which issued to restrain and prohibit Apple’s anticompetitive conduct and anticompetitive pricing.”
“the Court found that Apple’s 30 percent commission “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” and was not tied to the value of its intellectual property, and thus, was anticompetitive”
They were harmed by being prohibited from communicating with customers about their store and its offers.
This is like predicting the outcome of a football game at halftime. Remember: if the app don’t fit you must acquit.
The judge was in her right but it ain’t over yet as a reminder. Don’t count your chickens etc.
Additionally this wasn’t the case in the original trial verdict. So this was punitive.
"the trial did show that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive conduct under California’s competition laws"
"the evidence presented showed anticompetitive effects and excessive operating margins under any normative measure"
The only count that they were found guilty was with anti-steering, which was really a stretch to find.
Notice it's only California. So that leaves it free and clear for every other state. So while the Judge used California law, the appeal is still ongoing and all this could be thrown out. In addition, if the benchmark of excessive is now to be a rule of law, the ripple effect across the board is going to be disastrous.