Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Huh, it's not as dire as I had thought. Still, it's crazy that a bug fix installed on the 366th day is billed as an app install. (Granted, this whole "billed installations" thing is nonsense)
General question, not specific to you -- if a developer isn't monetizing their app sufficiently to more than offset these charges, why would they go to an alternative app store?

In the case of it being an app which Apple wouldn't allow - let's say a pot vaporizer control app - would the app not be funded by the manuf's hardware sales - or could the developer of an app not supporting hardware sales not find ways to monetize their app via ads or similar sufficiently to offset the costs?

After all, the developer likely has bills to pay - housing / food / etc - so they'd be inclined to ensure their apps at least pay for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Yes because Apple has a vested interest in keeping iOS as safe a platform as possible for end users. The EU recognises the value in this and specifically allows for measures on safety and privacy grounds.

Would you rather it just be a free-for-all?

If that is what you call the current macOS situation then sure.
 
Apple chose to monetize the iPhone ecosystem differently than the Mac, as is their choice. It is their business after all.

The question I was answering was, "Would you rather it just be a free-for-all?" And my answer was "
If that is what you call the current macOS situation then sure."

Questions about which models for monetizing an ecosystem are legal, should be legal, I would like, and Apple choses are all separate questions. On that subject I will just note that Apple's gross margins on the iPhone, etc appear to be no less than Mac hardware so it doesn't seem a different monetization model -- just additional monetization.

But if the question is would I rather it be a free-for-all where free-for-all is just like the Mac, etc then yes.
 
Point noted — somewhat. I also liked my Treo PalmOS device and my Compaq and HTC Windows CE and Windows Mobile devices. They all worked well and there was a very vibrant app ecosystem for PalmOS and Windows Mobile. I don’t recall any complaints about lack of apps.

Even without an App Store and third-party apps, the iPhone was just better and Apple was a much better run company than the competition in the eyes of many and this contributed to users quickly adopting it while the competitors faltered and failed.

I concede that (largely due to the success of the iPhone) Apps play a greater role today and the iPhone is a computer first and a phone second (or maybe even third after entertainment); however, I think the stock Apple apps cover a broad spectrum of information, communication, entertainment, health and productivity use cases, and are probably good enough for a majority of iPhone users. Add in privacy and security considerations and I would bet on high-value users choosing Apple hands-down if it came down to switching platforms because of app availability. It’s more likely that I’m wrong but that’s my 2c.

I would disagree that if Apple iPhone lost all its apps most people would abandon the phone.

Look at what you use on it every day. I know I sure as hell don’t use Apple apps most of the time. My password manager is not Apple’s as I have to cross ecosystem far too often. My 2 factor sure as hell is not in Apple and honestly don’t know of Apple 2 factor code tracker. Mine 2 factors are stored in the cloud so they can quickly cross phones.

My work 2 factor is again a different app.

My music not an apple app nor is it Spotify. Streaming not Apple and so on. Majority of my apps are not Apple.

Insurance, banking and email all not Apple’s version and honestly Apple version of email is by far the worse.
 
Now imagine of the developer had just charged a dollar/euro for that app; they could be making over $500k per year.

Which chances are would not even cover their cost.
Developer time is expensive. At the senior level you are talking $150-200 an hour all said and done and you will need multiple developers.

That 150-200 an hour includes everything for them in terms of equipment, salary, tax and so on and I am being cheap on the number.
 
Which chances are would not even cover their cost.
Developer time is expensive. At the senior level you are talking $150-200 an hour all said and done and you will need multiple developers.

That 150-200 an hour includes everything for them in terms of equipment, salary, tax and so on and I am being cheap on the number.
If a dollar doesn't cover costs, why would it be free (which is what’s being discussed)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: heretiq
If I’m giving away an app then my assumed costs are just the time invested, if suddenly on top of that there is a $500,000 bill that is an enormous burden.
So with that risk in an external app store, why aren’t you sufficiently monetizing the app with advertising or publishing it through the Apple App Store?
 
So with that risk in an external app store, why aren’t you sufficiently monetizing the app with advertising or publishing it through the Apple App Store?
In this example the app could be something that is a utility or passion project and might be some category that Apple wouldn't allow in the App Store.

I said above that I would actually prefer only the App Store but Apple has run it so badly and allowed it to be overcome with terrible predatory Apps that I have no faith that they have the users best interest at heart.
 
I would disagree that if Apple iPhone lost all its apps most people would abandon the phone.

Look at what you use on it every day. I know I sure as hell don’t use Apple apps most of the time. My password manager is not Apple’s as I have to cross ecosystem far too often. My 2 factor sure as hell is not in Apple and honestly don’t know of Apple 2 factor code tracker. Mine 2 factors are stored in the cloud so they can quickly cross phones.

My work 2 factor is again a different app.

My music not an apple app nor is it Spotify. Streaming not Apple and so on. Majority of my apps are not Apple.

Insurance, banking and email all not Apple’s version and honestly Apple version of email is by far the worse.
I think you meant to say “I would disagree that if Apple iPhone lost all its apps most people would [NOT] abandon the phone.” [NOT] added to make that statement consistent with the remainder of your answer.

I understand why you would disagree based on the way you describe using your iPhone — seemingly more like a general purpose computer where value is created by third parties than an appliance with built-in utility for your primary use cases. And that’s ok.

Interestingly my use cases are similar to yours but I use Apple stock apps including Keychain and Passwords exclusively for managing passwords for accessing all my online services including those that use 2FA (like my Client-assigned Slack, Google Apps, Microsoft 365, OKTA and other accounts). I use Safari as my browser for accessing web apps as well as websites including my insurance providers and banks although I do use my insurers’ and banks’ apps but would switch to using Safari without heartburn if their apps went away. I use Mail for personal and business email accounts and have no issues at all with email. And yes, I use Apple Music, and Apple TV+ along with Netflix, Disney, Max and a few others which I would ditch if their apps went away — because they are neither essential for me nor important enough to cause me to consider switching platforms. You may prefer to use non-Apple apps, but you’re not obligated to do so for technical reasons — unless you’re using Apple and non-Apple devices. The question is whether your iPhone usage scenarios and preferences or mine are reflective of the majority of iPhone users. I don’t know. Yours could be, and that’s ok.

But I think we are discussing an unlikely hypothetical (would Apple see a mass exodus if third-party apps disappeared) — as I do not believe most developers will abandon the best mobile device ecosystem (with practically effortless access to hundreds of millions of potential customers) because of Apple‘s policies or fees. I lead operations for a team of nearly 200 global development professionals who delivered dozens of iOS apps for clients over the last couple of years .. and observed zero concerns from clients (businesses we have built healthcare, gaming, travel management, social media, productivity, workflow management, and other apps for) about App Store fees or policies. In fact we found clients were willing to build discretionary commercial transactions into their apps for convenience vs handling them offline — even when advised that Apple may take a cut.

There are exceptions, but the developers I see complaining are largely those that built unsustainable business models based on a sense of entitlement to (and belief they can dictate terms of use of) a platform they neither built nor maintain, and expect Apple to subsidize their bad business decisions instead of correcting their flawed business models. I don’t believe these whiners are representative of either the typical indie developer or Clients that pay for contract development and see the App Store and its policies as beneficial on balance. So, net-net: I don’t think the hypothetical developer exodus due to App Store fees and policies is plausible.
 
Last edited:
I said above that I would actually prefer only the App Store but Apple has run it so badly and allowed it to be overcome with terrible predatory Apps that I have no faith that they have the users best interest at heart.
To paraphrase the great philosopher, Joseph R. Biden, “the choice is not between [Apple] and the Almighty, but between [Apple] and the alternative. 😉
 
You do have a choice, to find another job. If my job forced me to use Facebook Messenger, I probably would too!
Finding another job is much more difficult than just moving to Android which is what people should have done.
 
Have I or have I not, since day one, been stating categorically how Apple intends to not meet the spirit of the law in the EU? The specific details of how Apple intended to achieve this may have been off (but then again, I don’t have an entire legal team at my beck and call), but I think I have been fairly spot on in my assertion that Apple intends to keep their App Store commission in one way or another.

The idea that just because many people here don’t like Apple’s App Store policies, that Apple will surely change their policies in the EU to something you will all like, and which Apple will loathe, is frankly quite ludicrous.

The world does not revolve around the whims of random Macrumours members. For better and for worse, this is who Apple is. They are only going to give up App Store revenue kicking and screaming, and the sooner people understand and accept that, the less shock (real or feigned) there will be when decisions like this are made.

Because that’s basically what discussion on this entire forum has been revolving around ever since news of the DMA broke, and it’s frankly frustrating. We would have had so much more productive conversations if people weren’t so absorbed in theory crafting how Apple would be screwed by every single thing that’s happening around them.

And they are legally required to do this. Honestly all these people who bash Apple for protecting their revenue sources until their last breath need to look at how public companies operate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
I disagree with charging per install. That's some Unity-level (or was it some other game engine?) nuttery.

But I also hate freemium software, so I'm a little torn here lol
The problem is that the per install charge is going to incentivize more freemium micro-transaction rather than fewer. If there is an annual cost associated with each user then devs will either need some form of in-app micro-transaction or a subscription based model.

Apple should have tackled the scummy freemium apps years ago but I suspect they make too much money for them
 
And they are legally required to do this. Honestly all these people who bash Apple for protecting their revenue sources until their last breath need to look at how public companies operate.

Most for-profit companies don’t have the kind of market power Apple has, which is the root of much of the issue. Coca-cola is a big company, but it’s easy enough to grab a case of Pepsi if they start charging too much. They also don’t have control over what competitors are doing nor do they take a cut of Pepsi’s sales.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppliedMicro
And they are legally required to do this. Honestly all these people who bash Apple for protecting their revenue sources until their last breath need to look at how public companies operate.

Apple being required to maximize profit at all costs isn’t a good thing.

It is instead the core reason why we are all complaining about the en********ation of the App Store.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: I7guy
They don’t charge a fee for free apps exclusively distributed through their own store. Therefore any fee they charge to free apps distributed outside of their store is a combination of a steering measure, and rent seeking behaviour.
This is pretty hilarious coming from the poster who said that their argument was based on the idea that "there should be a consistent reasoning for the commission and that it should be applied uniformly."

You got what you said you wanted.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
Most for-profit companies don’t have the kind of market power Apple has, which is the root of much of the issue. Coca-cola is a big company, but it’s easy enough to grab a case of Pepsi if they start charging too much. They also don’t have control over what competitors are doing nor do they take a cut of Pepsi’s sales.
App stores prices have gone down over time not up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BaldiMac
This is pretty hilarious coming from the poster who said that their argument was based on the idea that "there should be a consistent reasoning for the commission and that it should be applied uniformly."

You got what you said you wanted.
No I didn’t:

Apple offers two agreements which treat apps differently.

One where developers distribute exclusively inside the App Store, and another where you can distribute inside or outside. The one with inside + outside is worse than the one for inside.

Therefore there is steering behaviour to push devs to only distribute exclusively inside the store.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samplasion
No I didn’t:

Apple offers two agreements which treat apps differently.

One where developers distribute exclusively inside the App Store, and another where you can distribute inside or outside. The one with inside + outside is worse than the one for inside.

Therefore there is steering behaviour to push devs to only distribute exclusively inside the store.
It's not worse. It's different. Better for some. Worse for others. I suspect it will be revenue neutral for Apple.

But, to your point, it is the same for any developer that chooses the new terms. No more reader exemption. Which is what you asked for.
 
It's not worse. It's different. Better for some. Worse for others. I suspect it will be revenue neutral for Apple.

But, to your point, it is the same for any developer that chooses the new terms. No more reader exemption. Which is what you asked for.

Firstly:

For developers for whom this new system is worse it remains a steering measure.

The system seems designed to ensure that companies like Meta, Spotify, Netflix, and Microsoft continue to use the App Store as the exclusive distribution mechanism (where they can benefit from the Reader exemption and not have to pay the per install fees which would likely affect them more than anyone else).

This is steering…


Secondly:
The reader exemption still exists for devs who choose exclusively App Store distribution so what I asked for has not been delivered.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.