Apple to Collect 27% Commission on Third-Party App Payment Systems in the Netherlands

[Nuno Lopes]

In other words, a dev willingly and without coercion entered into a voluntary contract.

So you don’t deny that these connections are being fabricated probably for the first time. Good. That is a start.

I think everyone is obeying the terms of the terms that have been signed. So what you point out is not the matter being discussed. But if the leverage used to byproduct the terms of the contract is abusive or not. The pressure being up on the market to accept the fabrication of these connections deeply “hidden” in this kinds of contracts is indeed real … evidences can be presented.

 

[I7guy]

So you don’t deny that these connections are being fabricated probably for the first time. Good. That is a start.

I think everyone is obeying the terms of the terms that have been signed. So what you point out is not the matter being discussed. But if the leverage used to byproduct the terms of the contract is abusive or not. The pressure being up on the market to accept the fabrication of these connections deeply “hidden” in this kinds of contracts is indeed real … evidences can be presented.

There is no fabrication. Only the terms of the developer agreement.

 

[Maximara]

Funny, as the 2023 year they expect to be profitable was in the same document (with some reservations).

You seemed to missed the logic flaw there:
"Current estimates indicate negative overall earnings in the hundreds of millions of dollars through at least 2027."

"Epic Games now says it expects the Epic Games Store to become profitable by 2023, the store's projected revenue from prior years has proven overly optimistic."

Either that 2027 estimate wasn't "current" or as the Court noted Epic's new 2023 date seems to have been overly optimistic as proven by past behavior.

Epic also has this crazy idea of allowing people "to buy software in one place, knowing that they'd have it on all devices and all platforms." That would mean iOS, Android OS, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, Windows, MacOS, and Linux. Even Peter Molyneux would call that insanely overly ambitious.

Anybody who knows anything about programing knows that is pie in the sky utter insanity just from a binary standpoint. Then there is the licensing issue; in what world would Nintendo and Sony have all of their games able to run on the others console? Not even the fantasy world the Pyro lives in is that off the walls gonzo.

 

[robco74]

Good.

Just to review some stuff that has been defended by you and others. The App Store does not operate like Cotsco, Best Buy or whatever retailer. It‘s model is not even close to consignment shops. So please don’t use that anymore in the debate. Some of you likees come over and over to this point every couple of weeks or so. I know, its catchy, but its not based on evidence.

Let’s put aside the term gatekeeper, gosh the news outlets love create catchy terms to things that don’t understand. Let’s stick to the core. Indeed PlayStation Store Nintendo Shop sell suppliers the user ability to install their apps. XBOX Game Store only partially, only the assets concerned to the XBOX Console, not Windows.

A software program can take many shapes, one of them a Game. The way they charge for the user ability to install a game, as you know, to simplify, is by getting a share over the software license sold. Indeed, one cannot install an app without agreeing and paying this kind of license. The software license is what grants the user the right to install an app … with or without the App Store … every where. So all is cool.

Super, in many instances that is precisely what the App Store does too. Games, Note taking apps, text processors, photo editors … you name it. I for one do not see anything wrong with that.

Where they differ is that the App Store goes way beyond charging for software licenses, and start charging for things that are in great part disconnected in value to the software license provided by the creator if not for the conditioning by policy, a connection that is legally fabricated in the agreement that developers are compelled to sign for the ability.

Take for instance a dating arrangement. There is a disconnect between the thing that is the software license, the ability to install, and one getting hooked to go out for dinner. Well, the App Store also wants to get a share from that. Say the software license and watching a movie or listening to music, reading a book, a math lesses … whatever, it gets a share from that.

For someone not used to the digital material all this might look the same. But in fact these components are totally different … in fact ar charged with a different value … some might even carry entire industries with it.

Car dealers sell cars, and get a fee from the sale of the Car. They don’t then “pretend“ to be selling transportation and charge 30% for Uber business. That would be absurd. But would it be absurd if indeed you are between one of the very few Car sellers in the planet … Of you had 50% of the US market? You see, context is everything.

None of these of the examples you mentioned, leverage the ability to install an app to charge for those things, just the software license. The later very close if not in practical terms, the legal enabler of a software install and update.

Some might find this the crucial difference between the business models of the businesses you mentioned and the App Store. The way they leverage such power to charge business developers. Some might find that the App Store is abusing the leverage they have.

I’m one of those that agree that they are. Simply because there is indeed a disconnect between a software license and the ability to provide a dating arrangement (An example) … or reading the Steve Jobs book mentioned. Selling a Bus (the vehicle) and a Bus ticket.

Cheers.

A software license does not necessarily grant the user the right to install an app everywhere. Some licenses might do that, but not all do. The developer has some control over how they license their software. Apple does not allow per-seat licensing, which is why some MAS apps are more expensive, since Apple allows for family sharing up to five users. That is one of the decisions Apple made in favor of the consumer over the developer.

You may not like the fees Apple charges. You may not like how they run the store. Your option then is to use and/or publish on another platform. Nobody is forcing you to purchase or subscribe to any Apple products and services. None of the services Apple offers are essential.

I decided that I no longer want to trade my data for services, so I deactivated my FB and Insta accounts. I'm also stepping down my engagement with Google for similar reasons. It's why I choose Apple's ecosystem instead of Android.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

There is no fabrication. Only the terms of the developer agreement.

Fabrication in terms of being a new construct of value. As for the agreements made and signed they are valid as per the time of celebration.

Don’t see any issues with that.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

A software license does not necessarily grant the user the right to install an app everywhere.

Don’t understand the connection to what I wrote. Haven’t said otherwise. Please clarify. Gas lighting? Where is the software agreement in a dating arrangement?

Business Developers should have full control of the software license. They may nominate third party as their agents, which in effect is required by this contract. After all is what they indeed created and the things users end up buying. That just it.

All this palava is because the App Store charges for more than the sale of software licenses. There are evidences of that.

Are you saying the businesses are loosing control over their assets if the way the App Store operates become standard practice? Are you saying that they become resources at Apple disposal …? Businesses, industries become something in their payroll …

I agree.

The terms of their contracts have absolutely no boundaries to Apple, all leverage in selling ability to install software. And developers signing them aren’t really being legally advised … most of them. After all it’s at a click of a button and Xcode and the iPhone are so nice.

There is a thing in law called Good Faith. But it’s not for dummies. Dumb businesses developers should just stick with coding and be happy to have an App Store badge aka, having their fab app listed … nice on their CV maybe.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Essentially the answer is no.

Do you know what right to repair even asks for? These are things( right for repair asks for) and Microsoft allow and apple doesn’t

Still incorrect. Apple does not manufacture anything.

Then apple being green is a meaningless word.

Can you point to some citation where Apple has been convicted of it?

Yes of course

EXCLUSIVE Dutch watchdog finds Apple app store payment rules anti-competitive - sources

The Dutch antitrust authority has found that Apple’s rules requiring software developers to use its in-app payment system are anti-competitive and ordered it to make changes, four people familiar with the matter said, in the latest regulatory setback for the iPhone maker.

www.reuters.com

In other words, these devices can be repaired. Same as Microsoft who has no official program in place.

Only by doing illegal things. How is it a good thing that apple actively make it harder to get spare parts

I'll wait until 2023 then to come back to this.

Well it’s barely a year so it’s kind of written in stone if you read what it does. Apple and google are automatically targeted as they fulfill the requirements. So they will be forced to open up in one way or another

So why opine on something then?

It, was a rebuttal to your opinion. So we

Yep and at 50,000 feet they should.

It should be wherever the people decide.

Apple didn't really lose anything. They seem to be just fine.

Well they lost revenue or lost a revenue source. They actually broke the rules and apple didn’t act. If their mails are to be believed

At this point apple is fighting this and not paying fines. The sticking point seems to be their commissions. We’ll see where this goes.

Do you have any sources for this? They seem to still be fined and required to comply to the rules of the ACM

 

[I7guy]

Fabrication in terms of being a new construct of value. As for the agreements made and signed they are valid as per the time of celebration.

Don’t see any issues with that.

Ah, you mean being able to adjust the operating conditions of the App Store over time. If tgst is your definition of fabrication we’re on the same page.

[…].

Are you saying the businesses are loosing control over their assets if the way the App Store operates become standard practice? Are you saying that they become resources at Apple disposal …? Something in their payroll …

I agree.

[…]

I disagree. The iOS App Store is a totally opt-in arrangement, where one elects to distribute an app that provides some service.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Don‘t forget that interchange fees are only a part (fraction) of card processing fees/costs.

But considering that even Sumup for small business charges less than 3% (less than 2% for card-present transactions at payment terminals) in the EU, payment transaction costs should still be considerably less than even 3% for Apple.

Have had a hard time finding any sources for it. I only find that the interchange fees or network fees can be 2% for business to businesses and are unregulated, but not for customers to business transaction. And companies are banned from applying any fees to the consumer for card transactions.

 

[I7guy]

Do you know what right to repair even asks for? These are things( right for repair asks for) and Microsoft allow and apple doesn’t

Microsoft’s position is being overly aggrandized. They are studying right to repair.

Then apple being green is a meaningless word.

No it’s not. Apples website is a wealth of information.

Yes of course

EXCLUSIVE Dutch watchdog finds Apple app store payment rules anti-competitive - sources

The Dutch antitrust authority has found that Apple’s rules requiring software developers to use its in-app payment system are anti-competitive and ordered it to make changes, four people familiar with the matter said, in the latest regulatory setback for the iPhone maker.

www.reuters.com

What are the changes?

Only by doing illegal things. How is it a good thing that apple actively make it harder to get spare parts

Illegal?

Well it’s barely a year so it’s kind of written in stone if you read what it does. Apple and google are automatically targeted as they fulfill the requirements. So they will be forced to open up in one way or another

We’ll see what happens in the future and come back to this.

It, was a rebuttal to your opinion. So we

It should be wherever the people decide.

The people should be voting with their $$$.

Well they lost revenue or lost a revenue source. They actually broke the rules and apple didn’t act. If their mails are to be believed

Do you have any sources for this? They seem to still be fined and required to comply to the rules of the ACM

I didn’t say apple wasn’t being fined, I said (according to the latest MR article they weren’t paying the fines)

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The Xbox Marketplace, PlayStation Store, or the Nintendo eShop act as gatekeepers to their respective platforms. You cannot sell a console game without going through MS, Sony, or Nintendo - physical or digital. Even if you purchase a digital code, fulfillment happens through the console store. Console makers take a commission on all games on their platform. This is no different from the App Store. If you want to create a console game, you have to go through them. If you are unhappy with the terms offered, you can publish for another platform, same as with the App Store.

And before you go off on how mistaken I am, I used to work for a game company. I'm not talking out of my ass here.

So how much does Xbox take for a key I purchased online from G2A or that’s included in some random box or other random place not connected to Microsoft?

 

[robco74]

Don’t understand the connection to what I wrote. Haven’t said otherwise. Please clarify.

Business Developers should have full control of the software license. They may nominate third party as their agents, which in effect is required by this contract. After all is what they indeed created and the things users end up buying.

Are you saying the businesses are loosing control over their assets if the way the App Store operates become standard practice? Are you saying that they become resources at Apple disposal …? Something in their payroll …

I agree.

The terms of their contracts have absolutely no boundaries to Apple. And developers signing them aren’t really being legally advised … most of them. After all it’s at a click of a button and Xcode and the iPhone are so nice.

I agree.

There is a thing in law called Good Faith. But it’s not for dummies.

Developers have control, they can pull their app from the store at any time and terminate the contract for any reason.

Apple, like any other distributor also has terms. The developer has the choice to agree to those terms or not, and usually have to agree again when major changes are made. This is not unusual. Developers do not become Apple employees just because Apple distributes their app, no more than EA employees become Sony employees because they publish a game on PS. The developer retains the rights to their IP, including, but not limited to, their code.

The choice to obtain legal counsel is entirely up to the developer. Same with choosing to hire an accountant, or any other services they may require for their business. It's true that larger developers will have more leverage, as in almost any business negotiation.

As for good faith, it would have to be demonstrated that Apple is deliberately misleading or attempting to defraud developers or consumers

 

[AppliedMicro]

"Current estimates indicate negative overall earnings in the hundreds of millions of dollars through at least 2027."

"Epic Games now says it expects the Epic Games Store to become profitable by 2023, the store's projected revenue from prior years has proven overly optimistic."

So what? What does that prove?

It doesn't disprove that you can run an online app download store at a 12% commission rate profitably.
Also, what are you trying to prove there?

Epic also has this crazy idea of allowing people "to buy software in one place, knowing that they'd have it on all devices and all platforms."

Don't be silly.

What they mean is a cross-platform store with cross-platform buys. Which does exist today. In fact, even Apple is providing such today. That doesn't mean that every single app under the sun will be available for every platform under the sun. But it can be available for multiple platforms.

Anybody who knows anything about programing knows that is pie in the sky utter insanity just from a binary standpoint

Don't be silly.

Everyone that is capable of reasonable and rational thinking knows that it's going to offer the exact same binaries for different platforms.

Same as today, actually. I recently bought a game on a PS4. Because of my purchase, I can download the "same" game for free on my PS Vita and play it. Does that mean that PS4 and PS Vita will run the same binary? No, of course not.

Same thing in the Apple universe: When I buy Sonic the Hedgehog on an iPhone, it'll also appear as a purchase on my Apple TV. Where I get to download for free and play. Possibly even all my Apple devices. Does that mean that my Apple TV will run the same binary? No, of course not.

Some apps, like that flash card app I got, are even cross-platform buys between Macs and iOS devices.

Others could, conceivably, be cross-platform buys among Macs and Android phones. Which is what Epic is envisaging:

? Epic want to be offering a service where you can buy a game (out of the selection they carry) and play it on every device you have (that the game is technically compatible with and/or available for) with only one purchase.

It really doesn't take a genius to figure the meaning out and understand what they're saying.

Then there is the licensing issue; in what world would Nintendo and Sony have all of their games able to run on the others console?

Don't be silly.

It really doesn't take a genius to figure out that they're not meaning any reasonably popular game under the sun will be available on every console.

PS: And no, neither do Epic mean there's only one big, monolithic or "monopolist" store that will sell all the apps in the world for every platform - as you've previously claimed on this thread. They want their store to compete with others.

 

[tennisproha]

I think the main problem with going down that route is the difficulty of agreeing on what a suitable lower commission rate ought to be. How much is low enough? 20% 15% 10%? Who decides what is fair?

Say Apple lowers their cut to 15% tomorrow. How long before the developers feel that this is still too high and start fighting for 5%?

I see the appeal of allowing alternative payments or app stores and basically leaving it to the market to work itself out. Thing is, payment processors don’t need to contend with the cost of operating an App Store. Even epic store Tim Sweeney loves to tout so much is fairly lacking in certain functionality.

It’s easy to charge less when you are also doing less for the money.

Payment processors charge 3-5%. How's that any different than Apple charging 30%. They're both arbitrary. It costs Visa, etc a negligible amount to process payments.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Have had a hard time finding any sources for it. I only find that the interchange fees or network fees can be 2% for business to businesses and are unregulated, but not for customers to business transaction

Card payment transactions can have multiple fees paid to various parties involved.
The interchange fee is only one of them among others (and could also be rolled into a flat fee by an acquirer).

This blog post from Adyen should explain it briefly (and note that interchange fees are not the fees paid to VISA nor Mastercard as the processing "payment schemes").

To emhasise and for clarity's sake: the EU interchange regulation does not put a cap on the overall fees that merchants pay for consumer card transactions. They will be paying more than 0.2% (debit) or 0.3% (credit).

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Microsoft’s position is being overly aggrandized. They are studying right to repair.

Still doesn’t change the fact of things you can do legally without a program with Microsoft ( a program isn’t needed)
And what you can’t do with Apple legally with a program. I can go out and buy any OEM parts for Microsoft’s computers, and I can’t buy OEM parts for apples computers

No it’s not. Apples website is a wealth of information.

What are the changes?

Changes or charges?
Apple's in-app purchase requirements are anti-competitive. This is the charges.

The changes they must enact is.
Allow third party payment solutions

The ACM said Apple is also forcing dating apps to choose between the App Store's standard in-app purchase system or alternative payment systems. The regulator said that dating apps must be able to offer both options in the Netherlands.

So apple is still in breach as of today

Illegal?

Yes such as hacking to help people to repair their computers

Leaked MacBook Schematics Have Aided Independent Technicians Performing Complicated Repairs

Independent technicians have reportedly been able to use leaked MacBook schematics to aid repairs (via Vice). Last month, Apple supplier Quanta...

www.macrumors.com

As quoted by rossman

Our business relies on stuff like this leaking. This is going to help me recover someone's data. Someone is going to get their data back today because of this.

You can't go to Apple and say "I will give you $800,000 to give me this data." When we fix the board, most of the time we preserve the data.

I'm not saying I'm in favor of people hacking into computers to get this information. I would prefer to get this by going to Apple and giving them $1,000 every year to get this information.

And another legal case in Norway in 2019 a business was sued for importing spare parts unauthorized to repair iPhones as no legal way exist.

Apple crushes one-man repair shop in Norway’s Supreme Court, after three-year battle - Right to Repair Europe

Norwegian small business owner and repairer Henrik Huseby lost his legal battle against $1 trillion company Apple in Norway’s Supreme Court.

repair.eu

You can’t purchase logic board parts legally

The people should be voting with their $$$.

How do you vote with your money for 1 issue when you like 99 other things of the iPhone? You just accept untill something offering 100 good things? Android have 99 ****** things but 1 good thing…

I didn’t say apple wasn’t being fined, I said (according to the latest MR article they weren’t paying the fines)

I know, but I can’t find anything saying they aren’t paying it. Only that they are appealing it. It’s still enforced.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Card payment transactions can have multiple fees paid to various parties involved.
The interchange fee is only one of them among others (and could also be rolled into a flat fee by an acquirer).

This blog post from Adyen should explain it briefly (and note that interchange fees are not the fees paid to VISA nor Mastercard as the processing "payment schemes").

To emhasise and for clarity's sake: the EU interchange regulation does not put a cap on the overall fees that merchants pay for consumer card transactions. They will be paying more than 0.2% (debit) or 0.3% (credit).

Even with that as I can find thanks to your information the average combination land at 0.3% for B2C transaction on average

Interchange ++ fees | Documentation CentralPay

doc-api.centralpay.net

Example for a European transaction:

• A prepaid or debit consumer card cost is 0.2 % + 0.085 % = 0.285 %
• A credit card or differed debit card cost is 0.3 % + 0.085 % = 0.385 %
• A business card cost is 0.9 % + 0.085 % = 0.985 %
• A card issued outside the EEA cost is 2.15 % + 0.085 % = 2.49 %
• The average cost in Europe is 0.23 % + 0.085 % de card scheme fees = 0.315 %

 

[Maximara]

And another legal case in Norway in 2019 a business was sued for importing spare parts unauthorized to repair iPhones as no legal way exist.

Apple crushes one-man repair shop in Norway’s Supreme Court, after three-year battle - Right to Repair Europe

Norwegian small business owner and repairer Henrik Huseby lost his legal battle against $1 trillion company Apple in Norway’s Supreme Court.

repair.eu

You can’t purchase logic board parts legally

It isn't that simple: "Huseby claimed that the screens used original panels and were repaired by replacing the broken glass with glass made by a third party. Apple claimed the panels were made by a third party and that they had not approved placing the Apple logo on the panel. The court agreed with Apple about this."

The case revolved around if Huseby did or did not use "counterfeit" parts and as one person pointed out Huseby "would have been fine if he used a non-genuine replacement screen with no logo. It's possible he planned to use the logo to lie to the customers about using genuine parts, but it's also possible that he believed they were genuine panels and was tricked by the seller. I think the latter is more probable, as this went all the way to supreme court."

Another had this: "If you're the repair shop or people scavenging parts, claiming the screen is genuine is a big deal, you'll get twice as much money for it and the quality is better than generics."

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Key phrase there is gross profit which is not the same as net profit.

Considering all the costs for services is close to net costs of services. Net profit includes everything apple does. And we can safely assume the operational profits are basically the same as the gross profits.

We can safely assume the data provided in the court is accurate as apple didn’t try to disprove the claims
Below are some of the costs in COGS:

• Direct materials
• Direct labor
• Equipment costs involved in the production
• Utilities for the production facility
• Shipping costs

What Is Not Included in Gross Profit Margin?​

Gross profit only includes the costs directly tied to the production.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Developers have control, they can pull their app from the store at any time and terminate the contract for any reason.

That means leaving 50% of their customers without support on their smartphone. It hurts their customers. Futhermore that also means probably leaving millions in investiment down the toilet.

All this is not control really … but being controlled. It weakened leverage. It further strengths the idea that indeed their assets aren’t theirs.

I can see you may be not a business person or an entrepreneur … as you seam to have little sensibility for the above.

The ridiculous thing, as you said, it all comes down to one’s ability of one’s to control a bunch of binary files … 500 MB or maybe even less. The amazing thing of the digital world … very easily to create compounds … where things of little to no value actually generate billions.

As such this debate kind leads to a dead end.

Cheers.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It isn't that simple: "Huseby claimed that the screens used original panels and were repaired by replacing the broken glass with glass made by a third party. Apple claimed the panels were made by a third party and that they had not approved placing the Apple logo on the panel. The court agreed with Apple about this."

It’s very simple. He simply did not have the consent of apple to import apple parts. Genuine or not doesn’t matter as it’s still a breach of apples copyright. And screens don’t have an apple logo on them, but they do have serial numbers and QR codes

The case revolved around if Huseby did or did not use "counterfeit" parts and as one person pointed out Huseby "would have been fine if he used a non-genuine replacement screen with no logo. It's possible he planned to use the logo to lie to the customers about using genuine parts, but it's also possible that he believed they were genuine panels and was tricked by the seller. I think the latter is more probable, as this went all the way to supreme court."

He had already sold repairs for many years. There is no evidence he ever claimed they are genuine and is one of the reasons he won in the first case

For those interested: The 1st case was held in early 2018, the judge gave her verdict on the 2nd of February. Apple lost, primarily on the following points:

• Huseby (the guy who was sued) does not advertise his parts as original from Apple, or unused.
• The logo cannot be removed permanently without damaging the parts (the case was about screens that had been seized by Norwegian customs). The logo was covered with markers, but this is considered non-permanent as it could be removed with rubbing alcohol.
• The logo is small and on the inside of the screen, and will therefore not be seen by the consumer. The court found that Huseby did not gain anything from the logo being on the screens, covered or not.
• Huseby is not an Apple authorised dealer, and is therefore unable to purchase his parts directly from Apple.

Another had this: "If you're the repair shop or people scavenging parts, claiming the screen is genuine is a big deal, you'll get twice as much money for it and the quality is better than generics."

Would it be great if you didn’t need to scavenge? If only it was so simple to fix.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You seemed to missed the logic flaw there:
"Current estimates indicate negative overall earnings in the hundreds of millions of dollars through at least 2027."

"Epic Games now says it expects the Epic Games Store to become profitable by 2023, the store's projected revenue from prior years has proven overly optimistic."

Either that 2027 estimate wasn't "current" or as the Court noted Epic's new 2023 date seems to have been overly optimistic as proven by past behavior.

Epic also has this crazy idea of allowing people "to buy software in one place, knowing that they'd have it on all devices and all platforms." That would mean iOS, Android OS, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, Windows, MacOS, and Linux. Even Peter Molyneux would call that insanely overly ambitious.

Anybody who knows anything about programing knows that is pie in the sky utter insanity just from a binary standpoint. Then there is the licensing issue; in what world would Nintendo and Sony have all of their games able to run on the others console? Not even the fantasy world the Pyro lives in is that off the walls gonzo.

That’s not how this works in ant world.
Do you honestly think steam store difrent binaries for Mac, windows and Linux games? The store is simply a platform to find games to purchase and centralized storage of information. The store knows what device your on and you will download the correct copy. There is no technical reason why you wouldn’t be able to purchase any game in one place.

For example Back 4 Blood works on PC, PS4, PS5 and Xbox One

Bioshock 1 works on: Windows, Xbox one, PlayStation 3, Mac OS X and iOS

Bioshock collection works on Windows, Xbox one, PlayStation 4, MacOS and nintendo switch.

All these games would be under one title with just a small icon next to them to indicate what platform they support. They are all separate copies and not distributed with a fat binary. Nothing technical prevents them from being listed in one store

only thing preventing this is platform gatekeeping preventing the store to exist on the platform for developers even wanting to publish it on this universal store.

 

[robco74]

Well, iPhone was the first to smartphone with support of rich web apps, that is always an option. Google isn't going to give you much better terms. These costs are well known and are not hidden. There are no surprises. You need to account for these costs in your business plan.

If you want to sell goods on Amazon, you play by their rules. Same deal with Apple and Google. If none of these are palatable, then there is the open web. Even then, there are costs. You can build with free (as in beer) frameworks, and host on your own server, using your own ISP, but then you will need to handle support and development on your own.

Personally, I don't think this is worth the headache for Apple and Google going forward. They should pull Books, Apps, and Podcasts subs and move all digital media to the iTunes model. Apple will negotiate direct deals with large entities (MS, Adobe, Amazon, etc). Others can sign up through a publishing label or aggregator, just as musicians who want to publish music currently do. Smaller developers should have several publishers they can go through.

Allowing sideloading will be a trickier issue and completely disabling SIP is likely a nonstarter with the carriers, but we'll see what happens.

The debate will likely become moot. Globalization is on the decline. The EU and US are drifting apart economically and politically. Apple will likely need to start creating bespoke products and services for each market in which they operate. That may mean canceling services in some markets, or reworking them to match local regulations. It also means developers will need to do the same when distributing "a bunch of binary files".

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If you want to sell goods on Amazon, you play by their rules. Same deal with Apple and Google. If none of these are palatable, then there is the open web. Even then, there are costs. You can build with free (as in beer) frameworks, and host on your own server, using your own ISP, but then you will need to handle support and development on your own.

• ISP= everyone have this
• Servers= dirt cheap and easy to scale if it’s just a website and download link. (Less than apple’s membership fee)
• Support= they already do it now. Apple only handle support for payments and apple services, nothing about the app
• Development= dirt cheap/free. Unity, Xcode, unreal engine, Eclipse, Apache Netbeans etc etc

Developers actually used third party options until apple banned their use

Personally, I don't think this is worth the headache for Apple and Google going forward. They should pull Books, Apps, and Podcasts subs and move all digital media to the iTunes model. Apple will negotiate direct deals with large entities (MS, Adobe, Amazon, etc)

Never going to happen unless apple wants to kill the iPhone

. Others can sign up through a publishing label or aggregator, just as musicians who want to publish music currently do. Smaller developers should have several publishers they can go through.

Why would developers use publishers? We have independent developers launching expensive Xbox games without a publisher. Why woul they need a publisher for cheap mobile apps?

Musicians can right now publish music on iTunes.

Allowing sideloading will be a trickier issue and completely disabling SIP is likely a nonstarter with the carriers, but we'll see what happens.The debate will likely become moot. Globalization is on the decline. The EU and US are drifting apart economically and politically. Apple will likely need to start creating bespoke products and services for each market in which they operate. That may mean canceling services in some markets, or reworking them to match local regulations. It also means developers will need to do the same when distributing "a bunch of binary files".

Windows, Mac and android have SIP. iOS have zero reason to disable SIP.

Allowing side loading isn’t tricky same with every other “issue”

At worst Epic might just take over apples AppStore business. Or steam might give it a try

Or apple can stop being so childish and just allow developers to keep their cut and have a traditional retailer model.
Payment for shelf space, commission for first sale and compete fairly for them to use apples IAP service instead of other ways.

Apple can very likely compete with an open platform if the services they provide are so much superior. If Epic even crawled back to google play store, then apple will be fine.

Or apple just pulls all their services and cripple the store for “reasons”. Exits the markets they don’t like and become just a random obscure tech company from California

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Personally, I don't think this is worth the headache for Apple and Google going forward. They should pull Books, Apps, and Podcasts subs and move all digital media to the iTunes model. Apple will negotiate direct deals with large entities (MS, Adobe, Amazon, etc). Others can sign up through a publishing label or aggregator, just as musicians who want to publish music currently do. Smaller developers should have several publishers they can go through.

I think they should pull those digital services out of the App Store, leave the EU, AU and whatever they find challenging for App Store policies to cope with. Apple grip on digital services is not that strong … way weaker than Microsoft … maybe even Amazon. You seam to have no idea what is happening in the backend. It’s just another iPhone and faster Hardware every year … that is the reality.

As the iPhone novelty and amazement erode and become familiar, it’s just another iPhone … people will go were the digital services that they need are. And these will go and innovate were they feel that are welcome in writing, not monkey dances and air styles and the OS manufacturer policies are more aligned with entrepreneurs needs.

Yes … move all digital services to a web browser. Basically devaluing the iOS grip.

Eventually maybe Apple will end up needing to pay digital business to develop for their ecosystem rather than being payed. That is what happened to other with tactics not has aggressive as the ones you propose.

Best of luck with your arrogant strategy … seen that before happening with companies with way more technical grip over digital businesses and did not went well. Maybe it will work for Apple … who knows.