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
I couldn't agree more.
The App Store basically invented apps as we know them, but they have become a commodity.
This is wrong.
There aren't many "competing app stores" out there. There's only one because there is only one way to get your app to iOS users and that's through Apple's App Store.
Apple can allow other app stores to freely compete on the iOS platform. If that's the case, no one would have a problem with the 30% fee.
The App Store does not have a monopoly on mobile apps.
"iOS apps" is not a relevant category. It is the most successful category, yes, because Apple provides a superior platform with security and curation. Can't blame them for that.
[automerge]1592390408[/automerge]
It would make the iOS/iPadOS platform less secure, and Apple would obviously and wrongly get blamed for that.
I would argue that the security provided by the closed and curated platform is a key part of the product and a valid business model. I left android for that very reason.
I think people sometimes have a wrong notice of "choice"; being able to choose from 20 garbage solutions is, technically speaking, more choice than being able to choose from two or three good solutions that are different in nature. The latter is more meaningful choice.
Last edited:
Then users can choose app stores that do a better job of finding and banning insecure apps right?
Choice right?
Isn't this what you're advocating for?
Then users can choose app stores that do a better job of finding and banning insecure apps right?
Choice right?
Isn't this what you're advocating for?
I'm advocating for choice between different kinds of platforms, according to one's preference. I chose iOS because it's a closed platform, which provides certain advantages. If I wanted a platform where I could use competing stores or sideload apps, I would have chosen android.
Breaking the App Store will leave us with two android-style solutions.
I don't understand your lack of reasoning. Why do you love to see Apple suffer? Because Apple is successful?Good. We will make Apple suffer. The EU now has even more arguments against Apple. Time to break up the iOS App Store. Apple can decide to not offer their devices in the EU
I believe that the EU has enough intelligence to investigate all aspects (and there are very, very many) of the ongoing process.
And this particiular "hey"-case, well, has nothing to do with the basic considerations. Here, Basecamp just wants to display his advertising in Apple's house and cash in somewhere else. This is immoral by EU standards.
Last edited:
The difference is, I don’t have to sell my apples at Walmart, I can sell them at the farmers market.
So all your reasons to justify Apple abusing its platform to compete against its customers, setting different rules for different apps, and charging 30% fee is because you think that Apple does a better job of finding insecure apps than the competition?
I think many developers prefer iOS because it's generally more profitable than android. I don't think that's Apple's fault.
However, I agree that Apple should not abuse its power, and that equal rules should apply equally. That being said, Apple should be entitled to a percentage cut for providing the infrastructure. Whether that percentage should be 30% or less, can be the subject of discussion.
[automerge]1592391207[/automerge]
You can also sell your apples on the biggest mobile platform in the world with 80% market share.
Then you're in agreement with us.
We don't think Apple shouldn't charge a fee at all. We just think Apple should be charging way less. After all, Apple needs the developers as much as the developers need Apple.
I'm out.
A great article on the topic. https://www.theverge.com/interface/...t-hey-email-congress-house-judiciary-tim-cook
This is a good example of Apple getting too big.
In order for Apple to add meaningful growth to its 1.5 trillion market cap, it needs its services division to deliver more revenue and profit. The easiest way for its services division to make money is to take a large cut of the profit and to force more apps to give up 30%.
All the while, Apple has forgotten that developers helped it get to this position in the first place and that developer support is not forever. They might be profiting heavily from them now, but it just makes developers angrier and angrier by the day.
I didn't say it was a sound business decision...I just said that is what I would do! I actually frequently turn customers away in my business when the stress of dealing with them isn't worth the money they bring in. Of course it is a very different equation for a business like Apple, but at some point the drama of dealing with the EU (assuming it does continue to live on in its ghoulish, pestilent existence) would become too much. To quote The Girl Next Door..."Is the juice worth the squeeze?"
Oh, and by the way, do you honestly think that things would become cheaper if Apple only took say 10%? If you you are fundamentally naive! What is this article about? It is about a Dev complaining that Apple takes too much...in other words, the DEV wants that money...they won't simply pass the savings on to you!
Also, please do not lump me in with "consumers" like you. I am a consumer, yes, because I buy things. But I am not the "consumer" that you speak of. I understand that a business does not - and should not - cater to me as an individual. I understand that a business should have the right to make whatever decisions it wants. If it chooses to go down a path that the "consumer" hates then the "consumer" has the right not to buy the product/service. Unless it is a monopoly AND for an ESSENTIAL good, in which case yes, there should be regulations. However, Apple is not in a monopoly situation (in terms of mobile phones) and neither could a smartphone be considered ESSENTIAL by anybody who actually lives in the real world.
They make up obscure rules to punish smaller developers and to keep bigger ones happy enough* to stay on the platform.
Anyone supporting this behavior is a sheep.
As an iOS user and a developer, I'm mad.
[automerge]1592392424[/automerge]
Yes.
In these ways:
1. Developers can directly lower costs in order to drive higher adoption rates
2. Developers can reinvest the money into hiring more engineers, thus accelerating progress
Last edited:
1. Just because they can...doesn't mean they will!
2. So you mean the devs can take the 30% and use it to grow THEIR business...or "accelerating progress" if you prefer...but Apple can't? Why's that? What's the difference?
The App Store is a monopoly enforced by Apple. Apple actively tries to kill competing app stores aka jailbreak. And Apple does not give you the ability also to install software outside of their App Store.
It is almost like Windows removing the ability to install software outside of their own Windows store. Microsoft will be in so much trouble if they did that like what Apple is doing.
It is almost like Windows removing the ability to install software outside of their own Windows store. Microsoft will be in so much trouble if they did that like what Apple is doing.
It's their Operating System and their App Store. They can charge whatever they want to. Just my 2 cents.
I agree that Apple needs Devs, but I think you are forgetting that Apple is a diversified business so if, for some reason, the whole iOS side of the business shut down, there are still other revenue streams to keep the company afloat. At the moment that would mean a loss of a huge part of the revenue, but Apple are definitely diversifying more as time goes on.
So if all the Devs left the platform, Apple would survive. Can you say the same about the Devs? Sadly, in almost any business relationship with supplier (Devs) and client (Apple) you can argue that the client couldn't survive without with suppliers, but for a client the size of Apple, there will always be other suppliers willing to jump in where one supplier leaves. It's just too much of a lucrative marketplace and there will always be somebody willing to undercut you as a supplier...somebody more than willing to take 70% of a huge pie rather than getting 100% of a MUCH smaller pie.
This is basic economics. You are often better off taking a smaller cut in exchange for larger sales. But if your morals prevent you from accepting the economics then you are more than welcome to abandon the platform.
No company should be forced to have their product jailbroken. I'm very glad Apple doesn't allow this, it would compromise the ecosystem.
So Linux, Windows and Mac OS X are comprised?
I hope that iOS will become a much more open platform so that my 12.9 iPad Pro becomes better device. But we all know that will never happen unfortunately.
Just out of curiosity, what apps have you built? I am asking because I am wondering if you are like one of those people who says they are a "music producer" when they put a few ready-made loops together from a sample pack in Fruity Loops...
[automerge]1592393463[/automerge]
If you mean compromised then, in many ways, yes! Have you heard of a thing called viruses? They exist because of vulnerabilities in the operating systems caused by having to have this openness. If Windows, MacOS and Linux could be locked down in the same way that iOS is, then I am pretty much certain that viruses and malware would die out!
1. Agreed. But it does give them the ability to.
2. Apple can take their proceeds to accelerate progress. They've done that. All businesses do that. The only difference is that the mobile market is a duopoly and essentially a monopoly since the Play Store has the exact same rules.
I don't argue that Apple wouldn't naturally enact these policies as a business. All businesses in Apple's situation would. It's up to the developers to band together to force change and/or governments to force change for the greater good of competition.
The iOS platform would die tomorrow if all the app developers switched to pure Android or something else. You think too much of iOS.
No one would use iOS if they can't use their favorite apps.
Would Apple survive? Yea. They'd probably be a 100 billion company instead of a 1.5t one. Would the developers survive? Yea. They'd take a temporary hit but probably make up most of it on Android since that's where users will all go.