Did I read this right? Apple is abusing it's market power over in-app purchases in dating apps? Seems like a rather narrow ruling...
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
Did I read this right? Apple is abusing it's market power over in-app purchases in dating apps? Seems like a rather narrow ruling...
How dare you use Apple’s own words against them!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
The lack of a developer fee is what helped make the App Store. It allowed anyone to go into business with virtually no upfront costs. And Apple created a "free" storefront that enabled any developer to sell there apps under a consignment store model. Developers made tons of money. High School youth and Senior citizens all had access to the same tools for little cost. Except for the purchase of a computer and an investment of time, anyone could try. Compared to any other start-up business, the App Store is a blessing. Unfortunately, the new developers have no idea what trying to start a software business was like before the App Store came around. And now devs are hoping that they can keep more of the money and Apple will not react. Sadly, I can suspect the price for the Dev tools will increase dramatically and there will be more fees charged to the developers (App review fee, App hosting fee, App download fee, App upgrade notification fee.) This will change the model that the developers have enjoyed for the past 10+ years. Not sure if it is for the better. The open and low-cost opportunity that Apple offered will be gone. And the winners will be the big developers.
"The ACM told Apple about its decision on in-app purchases last month, and it was the first antitrust regulator to decide that Apple has abused its market power in the App Store."
Forget about IAP and whether the rules are excessive or not: can someone explain to me how a company can abuse market power in its own store?
Forget about IAP and whether the rules are excessive or not: can someone explain to me how a company can abuse market power in its own store?
Man - some of these people need to take their debate elsewhere.
I like Apple. I don’t personally agree with a lot of the stuff they choose to do (heck I don’t agree with a lot of things people/businesses do).
Like a lot of things, times change - in this digital age, things move much faster than they did prior.
Apple is going to have to really take their whole App Store policy, developer accounts rules etc back to the drawing board if they want to get ahead of this.
something to pay attention to - Apple has more capital than most countries - this is what maters. People/governments/businesses always want more more more, and it is always at the cost of someone else, as long as it doesn’t cost them. Plan and simple selfish human nature.
A person/business should be fairly compensated for services rendered (but who decides what is fair?)
I like Apple. I don’t personally agree with a lot of the stuff they choose to do (heck I don’t agree with a lot of things people/businesses do).
Like a lot of things, times change - in this digital age, things move much faster than they did prior.
Apple is going to have to really take their whole App Store policy, developer accounts rules etc back to the drawing board if they want to get ahead of this.
something to pay attention to - Apple has more capital than most countries - this is what maters. People/governments/businesses always want more more more, and it is always at the cost of someone else, as long as it doesn’t cost them. Plan and simple selfish human nature.
A person/business should be fairly compensated for services rendered (but who decides what is fair?)
"lock in" is absolutely a strategy, they want to create friction for you changing platforms, just like EVERYONE who runs a business does. But its not literally preventing you from choosing differently, just making it less fun to do so.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...
Been commenting here for months (since Epic case) that App Store rules were unfair. Everyone who disagreed, you might be wrong.
Why stop there? Why not allow users to choose their own OS as well? How much of the iPhone experience do you want the government to control?
Exactly. The model has been simple, straightforward, and I believe fair for the value you are getting.
Nothing will prevent Apple from having the fees you’ve suggested. They will need to revamp the fees so that everyone has to pay their fair share — even the free/ad supported apps.
And you’re absolutely right about the ignorance over how software distribution worked before the App Store. If they only knew, 30% to access 1.6B users would seem like the deal of the century.
Tinder isn't just a dating app - it's also a social network where people message each other. A bit like iMessage.
Therefore Apple and Tinder are direct competitors even if they don't offer exactly the same products. App Store rules like 3.1.3 (which prohibits communicating details about your business to your customers) are clearly an abuse of market power and that's one of the things Apple needs to change.
I don’t like the fact that Apple can just ban apps for no legitimate reason and those apps have no way of reaching iOS users. Allowing open source apps to be installed on iOS is very important.
I think Apple can increase the price of hardware to offset the costs.
They can also include a subscription and make AppleCare mandatory.
I've been distributing software since long before the App Store existed. I very much know how it used to work and how it works right now, and no business I've ever worked at has ever paid 30% of gross revenue to anyone. Even now we don't pay, because we refuse to use in app purchase.
We prefer to make our app significantly worse by forcing users to already create an account (on our website) before they download the app. If they download without having already signed up, they can't use the app and won't be given any information about how to sign up (because that's against the rules).
As for "access to 1.3B users"... our website is available to anyone via a google search. That's 4.3B users. We have no problems finding new users without paying a cent. And no customer has ever complained or hesitated to pay us directly.
Users can choose. Developers can't really choose - they need to be on both platforms.
Or if they're only going to be on one platform, a lot of them pick iOS because demographically it tends to have a more profitable user base.
This. Even for a solo developer with no employees - $9999 per year would be far cheaper than the current deal.