Maybe, but of the two developers have a worse track record. So it makes sense to start with them, but I am on board doing it at the same time too.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's In-App Purchase Rules Are Anti-Competitive, Rules Dutch Antitrust Watchdog
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am confused. Do you buy software for iOS? If you do then you are buying from Apple. If not, great!
It will be fun when they start doing this again with something you really really won’t like, I imagine most of the top comments here will be singing a different tune.
Well I am forced to purchase apps from apple store. I can’t go anywhere else or pay apple less to punish their bad service.
I “purchase” free apps as often as I can.
I sometimes buy apps, but I’m forced to pay apple a fee.
I don’t want to buy apps from apple, until they make the service worth it.
I could compromise and pay for the cost of me downloading it. If it costs apple 2cents or 10$ to show, download and update the app u purchase I would be annoyed but compromise. But nothing more.
same way I refuse to pay a tip unless the service was worth it. Then I would only pay the cost of the product and give the waiter or business zero in a tip. If the service was bad I would even demand a partial refund as punishment for a product not delivering what’s promised
Crazy logic indeed. That thinking might make sense if Apple did all of that work for a single developer. In reality the man-hour and monetary investment made by Apple is amortized across hundreds of thousands of developers and millions of apps. Apple’s contribution to any one app when appropriately amortized is quite small. Your claim that Apple is responsible for the majority of every apps experience is quite myopic. And does that apply to the bad apps to? If so, Apple should be ashamed of themselves.
Such as?
Apple does very little that’s in consumer interest anymore.
They need to be reigned in
It doesn't matter how much they make. Why are you so focused on that when it's irrelevant?
It applies to all apps. If the app is too far off from Apple's expectations then it should be rejected. Failure to reject bad apps is 100% on Apple.
Wow, it took only two comments to invoke Godwin's law. Thats kind of impressive....
People can already choose, its called buy an Android. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Well not buying from Apple isn't an option, and since they have a hand in iOS app development you shouldn't have the option to not buy from them. That is if you want it to run the software on iOS devices. You always have the option to use other OS's, such as android, windows, PalmOS on hardware that supports it. You don't have to have the newest device and once you accept that you can still use devices made years ago your options open up significantly.
Well Apple did anything humanly possible to lock me into their ecosystem… so really there is no choice.
Exactly this, plus a larger amount of tryouts: if the app/business idea works then the company pays the success fees, if it doesn’t then the service to try it on was almost free… that sounds like a good deal.
Maybe they should have both depending on who wants to do which one because if everything devolves to only the flat fees of yesteryears… I think it is an environment that would have a way higher entry barrier. Currently it can be seen as “try as many times as needed until you make it, if ever; and if you do, then share your success with these fees”.
Its not about "should" or "shouldn't", its about whether Apples terms are worth it to each company.
Apple states, up front, "here is what we offer, here is what you have to pay to use it". Either thats worth it to you or its not. If its not, thats perfectly fine and valid. Target could absolutely say "We don't think a 30% commission on sales is worth it, so we won't make a native app, we'll use the web instead". OR they could say "we'll get way more customers with a native app, so the 30% will be worth it".
No one is forced to make an iPhone app. Alternatives exist, including the web and Android. If Apple had monopoly power it would be different, but they don't. Apple offers an opportunity and its a free choice whether someone decide to try and use that opportunity or not. Thats how it should work. Apple offers terms, developers can either agree and make an app, or disagree and not make an app (or alternatively disagree, try and convince Apple to change its policies).
In areas like these the only things that "force" Apple to change should be market pressure (i.e other platforms offering better deals) or customer pressure (i.e. people not buying Apple products because they can't get the apps they want for it). Otherwise? Apple should charge whatever cost or fee it feels is reasonable and devs can take it or leave it. Courts and legislatures are ill-equipped to deal with technology issues like this and should tread lightly absent proof of actual harm. Given very little (if any evidence) consumers are harmed by Apples approach to IAP (which is no different than Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, or pre-smartphone phones) and many examples how they benefit (trust, privacy, security, convenience), the courts and legislatures should stay in their lane and stop trying to force Apple to change just so some other company can take that money instead. Consumers are still going to be forced to pay, it'll just be less convenient, secure, and absolutely ignore their privacy concerns as has been shown many times in other areas.
Users (and developers) already have a choice. Use the web, use an Android device, use a Mac or PC, etc. Leave the iPhone alone. Many of us are quite happy with the way things are, in fact we prefer it.
They do charge from their store like any other store? Although it is being reduced from 30% to 12% on W11 but still nevertheless. XBox it is my understanding that it stays untouched at 30%.
That’s okey, as long as I have an option to pay apple less for bad services I didn’t ask fore.
Why would I buy other another phone? I never said iOS was bad. Or that iPhones are bad. They are good.
Good thing I haven’t upgraded. I bought the iPhone 8 when it was released. The App Store had much better service then compared to today.
I might just jailbreak my phone again so that I can use better services, pay apple zero dollars until they improve their store.
they could start with returning App Store in iTunes on the computer or web browser so looking up apps stoops being a hassle so I don’t need to look up random blogs or YouTube videos of apps.
My iPhone 8 Plus screen is to small to be comfortable with searching the App Store
That’s not enough justification. And clearly multiple courts in disparate countries have come to that same conclusion. That you’re part of a duopoly as opposed to a singular monopoly is of little consequence.
No, they really didn't. You could walk in to a store today and buy an Android phone. The only thing stopping you is yourself (and maybe your bank account). Are there advantages to having mostly/only Apple devices? Sure. Would it be inconvenient to switch? Sure. Do people do it everyday (in either direction?) yup. There is plenty of choice, always has been.
RDF. Time magazine says Tim Cook is one of the most influential person.
Hopefully, so it's fair, people figure out a way to not pay you for your work too.
Spoken like someone who Doesn't actually know how anti-trust law works. Courts come to bad conclusions all the time, they aren't gods.
No, charge for ALL purchases made on the OS. Their OS itself enabled the transaction. No OS, no browser, no access to the merchant’s website.
I'm just ready for some kind of change so we can stop with these articles every three days. It seems like every time I turn around there is some new nation launching an investigation. 🤣
And yes... I know I don't have to read these articles. In fact... me typing this comment is part of the problem. But still.
I just want everyone to be happy. Users, developers, everyone. If developers don't like 15% or 30%... and they simply cannot find another job besides being an iOS developer... I hope these upcoming changes (or regulations) will help them.
Just frickin' fix it. I'm tired.
Spotify started their big exit from in-app subscriptions in 2015 because they didn't like paying the 30% fee. That was SIX YEARS AGO. And I'm sure other developers had problems with the App Store before that.
Hurry. Do something.
If we're still talking about this 2025... I'm gonna be upset. Or more sad, really.
And yes... I know I don't have to read these articles. In fact... me typing this comment is part of the problem. But still.
I just want everyone to be happy. Users, developers, everyone. If developers don't like 15% or 30%... and they simply cannot find another job besides being an iOS developer... I hope these upcoming changes (or regulations) will help them.
Just frickin' fix it. I'm tired.
Spotify started their big exit from in-app subscriptions in 2015 because they didn't like paying the 30% fee. That was SIX YEARS AGO. And I'm sure other developers had problems with the App Store before that.
Hurry. Do something.
If we're still talking about this 2025... I'm gonna be upset. Or more sad, really.
Yes that’s it, it’s the courts. It’s not possible for Apple to do wrong. 🙄
I think the fact that courts all over the world are agreeing with one another might mean perhaps it’s you that is reaching the bad conclusion.
Hmm… strange. That‘s contrary to the explicitly stated business strategy of Apple. So Apple does not agree with you 😉.
Internal Apple Documents Reveals Plans to Allow Sideloading, Ecosystem Lock-in Strategy and More
Apple has been very clear about not allowing sideloading of apps. Now new internal documents have surfaced as part of Apple. Vs. Epic legal trial. Most interestingly, the documents reveal that Apple’s plans about allowing sideloading of apps persuade users to lock into the ecosystem with the...
www.iphonehacks.com
Last edited: