Even Stevie Wonder can see That the App Store is 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 Threatens to Remove Email App 'Hey' From App Store Over Lack of In-App Subscription Option [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Even Stevie Wonder can see That the App Store is a monopoly.
Seeing the direction most courts have been going, especially in the EU, this will be a rather interesting case to watch. There aren't many arguments for what Apple is doing in this case. I agree that they're providing the platform, but you also have no alternative, no?
Imagine Walmart was the only store and you had to pay 30% to sell your items or not have them available at all. Thats the issue here, it's not like you can distribute the app outside the App Store.
[automerge]1592367633[/automerge]
As someone that pays $10 a year for Airmail I would say so, it's the best email service I've ever used. The most customizable and the best built mobile and desktop application for email.
"thanks apple for risking billions of dollars on carefully creating this platform, providing yearly updates across the board with fresh new services and new platforms to take advantage, and for giving us great careers. now surrender to us so that we can do whatever we want with it" -cranky app developers.
This argument has never made sense to me. Of course hey can distribute their app outside of the apple App Store. They can distribute it in the google play store, Amazon App Store, yandex App Store etc. of course that means hey can’t sell to iOS users, but that’s a business decision they need to make. If apples 30% cut means they can’t make money from iOS then they shouldnt put their app on the platform. If the 30% cut means they can make money from iOS then they should put their app on the platform. Let the market decide.
[automerge]1592371735[/automerge]
[automerge]1592371748[/automerge]
And in Walmart or Target or any other place one can sell to anyone. That makes your analogy flawed. To make it work, perhaps we need alternative app stores. That would make Apple customers happy and that's what Apple cares about.
But alternative app stores potentially turns iOS into android (in terms of introducing negative consequences for consumers). And many of us don’t want another android.
Who’s interests should we be championing in this case? The developers or the consumers?
And you can stick with Apple's App Store and stay "safe". BTW most people (by big margin) prefer Android to iOS. Perhaps your concerns are overblown.
This is why Apple is getting sued. Shame on them! I hope Spotify wins their lawsuit and end this monopoly.
How do you keep people safe who don’t understand the risks of installing things outside of the App Store? For instance, how does Apple stop a user from downloading and running malware from another App Store? That’s the problem that needs to be solved.
If the advantage of apples products are regulated away, then something of value is lost to us consumers.
Look at China, an ass governing body for foreign companies, yet companies are still trying to squeeze their balls in.
Pretty obvious that this app links out of the app to get subscribers. Heck, the Macrumors screenshot shows it.
[automerge]1592374568[/automerge]
As long as those network operators don’t use any public resources in the process. You know, like wire touching public lands or using spectrum.
[automerge]1592374568[/automerge]
As long as those network operators don’t use any public resources in the process. You know, like wire touching public lands or using spectrum.
That's not Apple's responsibility. They don't do it on Macs and nobody ask them to. What's next? Apple deciding that they need Port? prevent people from watching porn?
I personally like the Apple Ecosystem, because of simplicity and security (compared to side-loading)
BUT
I have a big problem with the rules Apple enforces. Lets say, I want to write or use an app that falls in a category Apple dislikes (eg something nud3 or just even farting-Apps) - why is Apple even allowed to decide what is good for me? security-checks, ok, but PC-Police based on Apples view is not acceptable.
And their 30% revenue: It is fine for charging them when I use their infrastructure for payment, etc. I even could understand if they would push me in that direction, even for selling the initial version I might be ok with it, but for subscription my understanding ends.
And for the argument, they provide the tools, yes, but I need to pay yearly to have my app listed in the app-store, what is that 100$ for?
On a personal note, I wrote an app years ago for my brothers business, quite simple, same features as a listed app for a car dealership, but mine was rejected because i should redistribute it over a different channel as business app - WHY? Whats the problem having a commercial section that does not show up in the hot-today-listings?
BUT
I have a big problem with the rules Apple enforces. Lets say, I want to write or use an app that falls in a category Apple dislikes (eg something nud3 or just even farting-Apps) - why is Apple even allowed to decide what is good for me? security-checks, ok, but PC-Police based on Apples view is not acceptable.
And their 30% revenue: It is fine for charging them when I use their infrastructure for payment, etc. I even could understand if they would push me in that direction, even for selling the initial version I might be ok with it, but for subscription my understanding ends.
And for the argument, they provide the tools, yes, but I need to pay yearly to have my app listed in the app-store, what is that 100$ for?
On a personal note, I wrote an app years ago for my brothers business, quite simple, same features as a listed app for a car dealership, but mine was rejected because i should redistribute it over a different channel as business app - WHY? Whats the problem having a commercial section that does not show up in the hot-today-listings?
Ok. Going through their website I don’t understand why someone would pay anything for this. Am I paying for the ability to take me email account with me when I want to leave them? Am I paying for them snooping on my email? They claim they don’t invalid my privacy, but they can’t do the things they claim without scanning my messages.
[automerge]1592374957[/automerge]
[automerge]1592374957[/automerge]
They do it on macs, and many people have asked for it.
Nope, Apple simply changed the rules again this time. Now it's 'business vs consumer'. Maybe different next month, who knows.
So you listed your app in the wrong section? It sounds like you know what the problem is.
And the $100 is for the tool... you know... like you said.
Honestly, I think it’s a shame that apps don’t get reviewed once a year to verify they are still updated. Developers should not be able to post new apps if their existing apps are out of date.
[automerge]1592375214[/automerge]
Apple can have a different set of rules for every developer if they want. It’s a bad idea because it will push small developers away, but it’s in their right.
The App Store sucks. It is trash.
It is the reason why I ditched my 12.9 iPad Pro and replaced it with a 2020 13" MacBook Pro so I can use "real software" that is not "policed" by Apple. Heck, I can even run Linux and Windows too with all the wonderful software that is available without Apple policing it.
As long as the software is bought legitimately, there is no risk of malware and viruses. And open source software is very safe also as everybody can see what is in it.
You don't think that's a normal cut for businesses? That's the same that Google charges.
Service fees - Play Console Help
Apps and in-app products sold through Google Play’s billing system or an Alternative Billing System (as defined below) in accordance with the Payments policy are subject to a service fee.
support.google.com
Is it anti-competitive though? I don't know that it is. It's Apples Store, they built it. If it was your store and Company X wanted to sell its goods in it; taking up your resources, using your power, utilities and payment (merchant banking) services, that you paid for, I doubt you'd be happy about that. It's only different here because Apple is so dominant but, they didn't get to that position just by buying out competitors. They have *at least* three peer competitors, Google, Microsoft (arguably) and Samsung. Mostly it's the market that has led us to where we are now, with Apple having the largest share of App Store profits.
However, the free market doesn't work effectively without regulation, so I think there's definitely scope for investigation. If we look at the extreme case, of the EU deciding Apple must let companies like Spotify and the makers of, "Hey" sell there products in the App Store without Apple taking a percentage - then I think that would be abhorrent. People should be paid for their work, and Apple does a lot of work to make the App Store function, not withstanding it's (many) imperfections. Apple should pay more taxes, a lot more taxes but that's another question and I'm not sure that can be solved effectively without far more international cooperation. So long as companies can trade freely across international borders, and so long as countries maintain separate legal jurisdictions, Multinationals like Apple, will always be able to play one off against the other and pay ridiculous low levels of tax. Could the EU impose limits on the level/type of charges Apple can take? Perhaps, 30% does seem quite high, and, whilst the market does seem to be baring it, it could be that it is, nevertheless unfair from a larger socioeconomic stand point. How that would play out across the industry, we'd have to wait and see but it seems to me that either extreme view i.e Apple shouldn't be investigated or Apple should operate the App Store for free don't bare scrutiny.
The "App Store" on Linux is free. Apple stole this idea from Linux basically (as they were first with this idea)
That’ll show them. /s
[automerge]1592376335[/automerge]
The alternative is Apple doesn’t take any cut and rather buys and resells the app. This would give them control to mark up apps more than 15%, mark up some apps less than others, and pull them at will. If they operate like Walmart they would also be able to tell the developer what they will pay for the app.
Developers will like the 15/30% price point once they no longer have the protection it offers.
Last edited:
It's a bit different with Microsoft. Microsoft literally holds the majority marketshare of computer OS, and their anti trust actions were obvious back then as they used their position against many PC OEMs as well.
It's a bit different with Apple. First, iOS is not the majority of mobile phone OS. Second, Apple is the only one making the hardware for iOS. Apple is more of vertical integration.
I'm not going to argue further than that as I'm sure each sides have their strong opinions, but the comparison with Microsoft is not entirely accurate Imo.
But it is apples responsibility because they have made it their responsibility. It’s one of the selling points of their products.
I disagree. There is definitely a business model in paying for a subscription model. The entire motivation behind the service is privacy first. No one is snooping your e-mails. Not the sender, not the service... no one. We've been accustomed to 'free' email services for so long that I think we're forgetting how we're actually paying for it. There's loads of people willing to pay if it means securing their privacy, myself included.