What was the point of quoting all those figures? If I was an app developer and paying $99 a year for hosting my app on the app store I would expect the owner of the app store to police what I am paying for. Thus those figures mean nothing because policing the app store is what app developers expect of Apple.Add how does "10% 2.2 Apps that exhibit bugs will be rejected" and "3% 2.1 Apps that crash will be rejected" add up to "3% of rejected apps are fraudulent or bad code."?
Also that "14% information needed", I assume means Apple needs to know who the developer was. "3% 22.2 contain Apps that false, fraudulent or misleading representations or names use" and "2% 17.2 Apps that require users to share personal information, such as email address and date of birth, in order to function will be rejections" are also important. The 52% is a collection of who knows what.
Apple says it rejected almost 1 million new apps in 2020 and explains common reasons why gives a more recent view:
"* 48,000 apps were removed for using “hidden or undocumented features,” often software tools that Apple uses internally for its own apps.
*150,000 apps were removed because they were spam or copied another app.
*215,000 apps were removed because they collected too much user data or other privacy violations.
*95,000 apps were removed for fraud, often because they changed after Apple’s review to become a different kind of app, including gambling apps or pornography.
And on top of all that.
*Apple booted 470,000 accounts from its developer program because of fraud.
The only confusion is with those defending Apple. With the dutch case, Apple has proven that it only takes 3% for payment processing so where does the other 27% come from? What Apple has done is allow regulators to now probe this so called 'standard 30%' because if payment processing is only 3% then what is it costing all the other platform owners? and are the platform owners in collusion together to maintain this 30% when in actual fact it could be a lot lot lower.Exactly.
There's a difference between running a platform and being a simple payment processor:
Platform Owners: Apple, Google, Sony, Nintendo, etc... 15%-30%
Payment Processors: Stripe, PayPal, etc... 3%
It's amazing there's still confusion about this 44 pages into a thread...
Regulators would have to prove collusion. If all the platform owners have come to 30% independently then there’s no collusion.
That's the beauty of regulators, they have the power to get answers to questions that would otherwise go unanswered or get ignored. Like I said, all that regulators need is a tiny crack to appear and they now have that tiny crack which is Apple saying it only takes 3% for payment processing.
If you believe that $99 a year covers everything required to keep all the features of the App Store you don't know anything that is involved in running a digital store. Heck, Epic even at 13% is loosing money and while they claim they'll break even in 2023 the estimates project 2027 and we aren't even sure of that.
Interestingly claims of collusion between Apple, Google, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to all charge 30% is admission that these entities all compete with each other in that market. That means Apple can’t be singled out as a market in its own right because Apple can’t collude with itself in its own market.
Of course not, they are different markets. But it has always been claimed that 30% is standard. Standard of what exactly? Saying something is a “standard” have never worked as a defense in EU. Google have tried it multiple times and been smacked harder every time.
What collusion? Do you think if there was any indication that there was collusion between Apple and Google that Epic would have sued them separately? Epic could have requested evidence just as regulators can and would have the force of a judge behind their request.
Epic looses money even with Fornite to prop up its store and even they say it won't be profitable until 2023 even though "Current estimates indicate negative overall earnings in the hundreds of millions of dollars through at least 2027".
In the court filing. They proved they are in the red is for aggressively purchasing shares and exclusive deals. And Not for the store itself. And the same estimations they would become profitable in 2027 if they stopped aggressively purchasing exclusives and investing money. And if they increase their aggressive actions they expect profitability by 2023/24 as They gain market shares. But time will tell as they have increased their spending.
Well the EU is by launching an anti competitive probe in to Apple’s AppStore.
Well do you have evidence for this? Xbox store have multiple publisher paying way less than 10%. Same thing with PlayStation. And who have they agreed to pay more than 30% to?
There is no way Epic would have been able to go against the 'norm' on the 30% standard because as soon as they did the industry, critics and consumer groups would immediatly be asking 'why is Epic only charging x% for the same thing that all the other platforms are charging 30%'. It would get people curious and wondering why if Epic can do it, why can't the others thus the other platforms would be getting an increasing amount of awkward questions asking why they charge 30%. Even if Epic had evidence against any supposedly collusion, they are not about to whistleblow against platforms they know they need to host their games. Epic would be blackballed.
People twist their logic like a pretzel trying to justify the logic taking the iOS app store and having government regulate it like electricity or why apple isn’t entitled to its profits.
That wasn't the question: Again why was the industry standard 30%? Don't you think if the EU had even the smallest, even circumstantial, evidence that Apple, Google, Microsoft (Xbox) Store, and PlayStation Store, the Nintendo eShop were in collusion wouldn't they filed charges? Yet crickets. Only go after Apple and Google.
That assumes there is any logic in all this. No one wants to go anyway near the 'why was there an industry standard of 30%?' question. Not Epic, not the US government, and not the EU.
Fair depends on what context. Fair in this context is the market on the basis on anti competitive actions. And apples fees could simply be rent seeking.
Nobody is arguing it, it’s just a question of where they can charge their fees and how. It’s essentially a chicken and the egg problem. Apple didn’t produce 1 billion users, but a combination of both. No developers= iPhones will not sell. No iPhones= no consumers for developers on iOS.
Undesirable for who? It can just as easily be differences in services provided with the same security and privacy but lower costs. This is just fear mongering without probable cause.
Users have no voice at all. It’s only apple’s decree that matters. With more competition user can as many say “vote with their dollars”
can you argue they have rent seeking behavior? Can you argue they have anti competitive behavior towards developers? Do they have anti steering clauses? Do they all have mounting class action lawsuits and anti competitive investigations being launched around the world?
Apple and developers created the user base. Without developers the iPhone would have failed. And nobody is saying they can’t make money on their IP, the question is how.
Because there is only two card networks in EU such as visa and MasterCard it led to a fee Capp at 0.3%. It could be that apple might Be forced to break down exactly what the 15-30% pays for. And apple might be forced to allow developers not to pay for such fees in exchange of not benefiting that service.
Active Collusion must have evidence first.
Sure anything can be argued and anything can happen. I’m waiting for the EU to limit profits and regulate the fees and commission for every business. They is where this is headed.
Its almost you conflate things not related.
Not happening. Only for gatekeepers abusing their position. Nothing points to anything’s happening to competitive markets
We’ll see where this goes. Apple isn’t a gatekeeper…plenty of competition.
