And cloud storage, push notifications, user authentication, certificate management...
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.
Arizona Advances Bill That Will Let Developers Skirt Apple's In-App Purchase Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And cloud storage, push notifications, user authentication, certificate management...
It's very good - Choice is good on this front.
If Apple has such a compelling offering, it will win out.
Apple is fighting these types of efforts so hard specifically so they don't have to compete.
Monopolists know that doing anything and everything to maintain a monopoly is better than having to compete.
Folks - I've loved Apple forever also, but C'mon.
Let's be honest about who and what they are at this point.
With its army of lobbyists, Apple surely doesn't want to leave your dear Apple customer money on the table...
The Apple Store wealthy exec mafia is ready to die over this fight.
The Apple Store wealthy exec mafia is ready to die over this fight.
For one: storing a debit card in plain text field of a MySQL table is not safe. But it sounds like you're fine with that. Anything to bash Apple, right?
Like Piggie said, I believe it's a matter of when not if. Apple could work with a consortium of trusted third party providers, like Microsoft or Google, to ensure a rigorous standard across all future app stores. That way, the iOS system stays safe, secure, and privacy-conscious. I'm sure Apple has the technical expertise and know-how to create such an environment with robust app review boards and developer guidelines. And best of all? They don't have to include Facebook or Epic in the consortium if they lead the charge 😆
Essentially, Apple shouldn't put themselves into a position where they get boxed in by the likes of Epic and the US/EU/State Governments. They need to be creative. They need to think different.
Name me the country that has 25% payment processing alone.
And some of it is over generalising. Why should an EU specific Apps that offer Personal Teaching Assistance to group of Students be charged 30% ( Scrapped after pandemic ) when most of the thing you listed has nothing to do with them?
The core problem is the one size fits all and no way to fight for access. People are far too focused on the 30%.
Im all for anything that hurts Apples financially.
I believe they purposefully stifle innovation due to unprecedented greed and the only way they are going to change is if it hurts them in the wallet.
Of course now the blind apple worshippers will come out and hate on this.
I believe they purposefully stifle innovation due to unprecedented greed and the only way they are going to change is if it hurts them in the wallet.
Of course now the blind apple worshippers will come out and hate on this.
What is Apple stifling?
Apple charges a flat-rate to build and sell apps on Apple's platform... creating a million developers and generating billions of dollars for those developers.
I think they are hitting this at the wrong level. Apple should be allowed to control and charge what they will for use of their market. However, they should also not be able to prohibit the creation of other markets on their platform. They provide the market as a service which costs money, but just like physical markets other markets should exist to create competition. That competition should come at cost to whoever is running that market though.
Exactly. Let's look at from a different perspective:
If various app stores chagre less than Apple's 30/15%, why should developrs pocket the difference? The same argument that Apple adds little for their cut from a sale applies to developrs that maek extra profit from lower fees. Why should they be allowed to charge the same price as on Apple's store at a store where the fee is 2%? They add nothing for the extra 28 -13 percent they take in. It's pure excess profit and price gouging. Let them only charge the smallest amount they get plus the added fee.
Why should I be forced to buy cloud services from an app provider when I can get them cheaper elsewhere? Just becasue I want to synch across devices doesn't mean I should be limited to the app develop's cloud.
Why are subscriptions allowed? I paid for the app why do I need to keep paying to use it?
Not sure developrs want the same arguments applied to them as is being used against Apple.
followed by
...when you blindly follow one side and accuse another side of being blind is hilarious.
Salty in here! I like it.
Hitting a nerve. Good to see.
Hitting a nerve. Good to see.
Keeping Apple's greed in check. This is the yin and the yang at work, 100% necessary or else there would be no end to the fees.
Yes, the world really needs state legislators (that think their kid’s iPhone Apps cost too much) to abrogate previously agreed-to contracts. Maybe they should limit how much of a mark-up small or large businesses makes on the products they sell in their stores. That can easily exceed 30% on items like furniture. Think how much more profit a furniture maker could see in increased sales it the reseller where legally barred from marking up the price so much.
Just the beginning hopefully
Innovation > Monopolies.
Innovation > Monopolies.
So true and apparently lost on way too much of society at this point.
Is it really "greed" when Apple creates the platform, creates the OS, provides XCode, maintains Swift, makes the APIs, runs the servers, runs the store, manages users, handles payments, and calculates taxes in over 100 countries?
And all Apple wants is 15% or 30%... after you make a sale?
That doesn't sound like greed... it just sounds like business.
So what should the "fees" be then? Or should developers get to use all of Apple's tools and resources to build their apps and get to use Apple's worldwide store for free?
Last edited:
It makes sense that the companies backing such a rule are those who feel they are big enough to not need it. Never mind that the rules do benefit the smaller developers by levelling the playing field for everyone.
The sorry truth, which the proponents of such a move seem to not want to acknowledge, is that these companies seek to burn the App Store model to the ground just to gain more power and earn a little more money for themselves. They don’t care who gets caught in the backdraft.
This will in turn have the ramifications of compromising the viability and vitality of the App Store, which has a very real impact on the end user experience.
This lawsuit isn’t just about Apple vs developers. Such a move will impact consumers as well, and we deserve to have our opinions heard on this as well. Poll the masses (and not just the people on Macrumours). I am willing to bet many consumers don’t actually hate a walled garden ecosystem because of the added convenience and security it affords them.
Like when Apple threatened to ban Unreal Engine and had to be restrained by the courts.
Saw this - can't take credit - link below...
Good thought
"Imagine a world where Apple and Google had to compete to be the best payment provider on their App Stores not just the only one. Would their fee be 30%? Would their terms be different? Would they work to make their payment simpler and easier for developers and customers alike?"
https://twitter.com/rustyshelf/status/1367225762902777857?s=20
Good thought
"Imagine a world where Apple and Google had to compete to be the best payment provider on their App Stores not just the only one. Would their fee be 30%? Would their terms be different? Would they work to make their payment simpler and easier for developers and customers alike?"
https://twitter.com/rustyshelf/status/1367225762902777857?s=20