Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The app store model is brilliant and successful. And while it may not be perfect in a perfect software world there, as I see it are more benefits than downsides.

And some regulatory bodies want to intervene with Apples' success because a handful of business' complained they are not making all their are entitled to, when the app store gave them an opportunity to make a buck period. (Or with Epic, several hundred million)

Government regulation almost never turns out well when it overshoots what it should not be doing. And while like a Monday morning quarterback, regulations could be made that split the model of all app stores apart, it's not for the best interests of the public to interfere with a successful business model. Even if government does interfere and this becomes fact, app store v2 will have it's own sets of issues that could be worse.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Rob_2811
Right, 87.5% of Asia... 3 billion+ people... should just use the Visa or Mastercards that they don't use and don't have anyway.

Great reply. Well thought out.

Well yes. As if Asia dont have Visa and Master? Perhaps because I actually live in Asia? And you dont need a Credit Card to use Visa or Master Payment network.

And assume in the places they are not as as widely available, which payment processing takes 25%?

I mean seriously.

That is no shame to admit you are wrong or you made a mistake. And this isn' the first time I caught you doing it either.
 
These payment processing services don’t run a curated App Store either. Its easy to charge less when you are also doing less.

Yes yes. Of course. Payment Processing has nothing to do with App Store payment in the context unless it is specifically mentioned or noted. Which isn't the case here.
 
Well yes. As if Asia dont have Visa and Master? Perhaps because I actually live in Asia? And you dont need a Credit Card to use Visa or Master Payment network.

And assume in the places they are not as as widely available, which payment processing takes 25%?

I mean seriously.

That is no shame to admit you are wrong or you made a mistake. And this isn' the first time I caught you doing it either.

Wow. Of course they exist. But cash is king in pretty much the entire world outside of the US. I don’t know why their existence makes you think that 3 billion consumers are suddenly going to change their purchase habits so a developer doesn’t have to pay a 25% premium on the transaction... which Apple covers for them.

So what causes charges of 25%? Well, you know all those pre-paid cards you see everywhere? Labeled as iTunes, Steam, Xbox, PlayStation... even restaurants...? Those are provided by Blackhawk Networks... for 20% of the value on the card. In the United States. So there’s 1 country, the US. 8 dollars received for every 10 they give you credit for.

There is no shame to admit that I’m right. And this isn’t the first time I’ve pointed this out and been right, either.
 
Wow. Of course they exist. But cash is king in pretty much the entire world outside of the US. I don’t know why their existence makes you think that 3 billion consumers are suddenly going to change their purchase habits so a developer doesn’t have to pay a 25% premium on the transaction... which Apple covers for them.

So what causes charges of 25%? Well, you know all those pre-paid cards you see everywhere? Labeled as iTunes, Steam, Xbox, PlayStation... even restaurants...? Those are provided by Blackhawk Networks... for 20% of the value on the card. In the United States. So there’s 1 country, the US. 8 dollars received for every 10 they give you credit for.

There is no shame to admit that I’m right. And this isn’t the first time I’ve pointed this out and been right, either.

You started the whole argument that a special region , SEA , And Latin America requires 25% *payment processor*. As if there are no alternative payment processing.

And you are now saying *specific* payment ( not payment processing ) in the region takes *20%* premium? And no, iTunes, Stream, Xbox, Playstation dont offer their credit at 25% even in their biggest discount sale. Not to mention your example is only at 20% discount. Credit, not payment processor.

You are just moving the goal post. Wow, just Wow.
 
Last edited:
You started the whole argument that a special region , SEA , And Latin America requires 25% *payment processor*. As if there are no alternative payment processing.

And you are now saying *specific* payment ( not payment processing ) in the region takes *20%* premium? And no, iTunes, Stream, Xbox, Playstation dont offer their credit at 25% even in their biggest discount sale. Not to mention your example is only at 20% discount. Credit, not payment processor.

You are just moving the goal post. Wow, just Wow.

....those are alternative payment processing services. PayPal is another one that exists outside traditional payment methods.

And yes, Blackhawk Networks charges the companies that issue cards literally 20% of the face value, so they’re only getting 8 dollars for every 10 dollars sold on a prepaid card. 5% of that goes to the store selling it... and suddenly the fact Costco and Sam’s Club selling them for 5% off face value makes sense to you.
 
Yes but millions wouldn't buy Apples phones if their apps were not available on iOS.

Facebook needs Apple more than the other way round. Apple survived the removal of fortnite, and it’s bigger than any app on the App Store.

The more Macrumours shares these articles about Apple getting embroiled in antitrust fights, and the more I partake in such discussions, the more I realise how ridiculous it is that pro-consumer and pro-privacy initiatives by Apple are being painted as monopolistic and tyrannical.

So it’s supposed to be a good thing that developers don’t have to implement “sign in with Apple” which offers users an alternative to creating an account with Facebook that can be used to track them with, or pay a share of their earnings to help keep the App Store sustainable and thriving?

What I find even more dismaying is how little pushback there is against such narratives, especially here on Macrumours, where people are often seen rushing to be the first to condemn Apple.
 
That wouldn't make up for the lost $$$ from those that do. Apple needs Facebook on the platform



Don't be so ridiculous.
I think people by and large overestimate the pull these apps have, and underestimate the pull of the apple ecosystem. While it is true that many people do use Facebook, the reality of the matter is that very much like google services, Facebook gets much of their revenue from Apple users. As such, the only way they would ever leave the platform is if Apple booted them off first, much like what was done with Fortnite. There's just too much money at stake here.

For some inexplicable reason, people like to position Apple as one flop away from implosion. Apple keeps being framed as being weak and vulnerable, dependent on revenue sources that could disappear overnight due to consumers fleeing to the competition.

Instead, what I would argue is that Apple has been covertly countering Facebook by creating its own social network, by betting on the relationships that actually matter to people: family and close friends. Every iPhone comes preinstalled with iMessage and FaceTime, which people (in the US at least) can use to communicate with each other, as well as news, which uses human curation instead of algorithms to tackle content distribution. Not to mention that Facebook is also available via the browser, which also benefits from ad-blockers. In short, Apple already has alternatives to Facebook baked into their OS. Not perfect 1:1 replacements, but enough that people are not going to flee straight to Android if Facebook were ever unavailable on the iPhone.

At the same time, are people really going to give up their Apple Watch and AirPods, or will they realise that maybe, just maybe, that Facebook isn't really that beneficial to their lives after all?

I would love to see that day come.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
I think people by and large overestimate the pull these apps have, and underestimate the pull of the apple ecosystem. While it is true that many people do use Facebook, the reality of the matter is that very much like google services, Facebook gets much of their revenue from Apple users. As such, the only way they would ever leave the platform is if Apple booted them off first, much like what was done with Fortnite. There's just too much money at stake here.

No, you are underesting the size and scope of Facebook to an almost comical degree.

To sugest Fortnite/Epic are bigger is just plain silly, the last we heard Fortnite had about 350 million players. Facebook has 1.4 billion active users, Instagram about 500 million, Whataspp has 2 billion. Fortnite/Epic are tiny by comparison, even Apples platform has significantly less users.

Apple aren't banning Facebook any time soon, Facebook have been caught pulling much worse stunts than Epic and barely got a slap on the wrists from Apple.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: I7guy
No, you are underesting the size and scope of Facebook to an almost comical degree.

To sugest Fortnite/Epic are bigger is just plain silly, the last we heard Fortnite had about 350 million players. Facebook has 1.4 billion active users, Instagram about 500 million, Whataspp has 2 billion. Fortnite/Epic are tiny by comparison, even Apples platform has significantly less users.

Apple aren't banning Facebook any time soon, Facebook have been caught pulling much worse stunts than Epic and barely got a slap on the wrists from Apple.

It’s not a matter of who is bigger but about who has more to lose.

Apple and Facebook’s business models are starting to clash. Apple is banking on improved privacy as a key selling point of their devices, which is increasing at odds with how Facebook runs their business.

Why do you think Facebook is campaigning so hard against the latest privacy changes that Apple will be instituting in iOS? Because they know very well how much money is on the line.

If Facebook were to ever be made unavailable on iOS, we may see some users switching to android, resulting in lost sales for Apple. That is assuming, of course, that they are willing to give up their Apple Watch and iMessage and airdrop.

But Facebook would lose the ability to monetise the iOS user base, which I am willing to bet makes up a large chunk of their earnings, because iPhone users by and large have more disposable income and a higher propensity to spend.

I am not saying that Apple will come out of this war of attrition unscathed, but that if it ever came to that, my money is on Facebook blinking first.

And life goes on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
It’s not a matter of who is bigger but about who has more to lose.

Apple and Facebook’s business models are starting to clash. Apple is banking on improved privacy as a key selling point of their devices, which is increasing at odds with how Facebook runs their business.

Why do you think Facebook is campaigning so hard against the latest privacy changes that Apple will be instituting in iOS? Because they know very well how much money is on the line.

If Facebook were to ever be made unavailable on iOS, we may see some users switching to android, resulting in lost sales for Apple. That is assuming, of course, that they are willing to give up their Apple Watch and iMessage and airdrop.

Well only 10% of Apples user base own an Apple Watch so I'm not sure the lock in is very strong there. Airdrop/iMessage maybe

There are alternatives to iMessage though and it it isn't anywhere near as pervasive in Europe as it is in the US, because ... Whatapp.


I am not saying that Apple will come out of this war of attrition unscathed, but that if it ever came to that, my money is on Facebook blinking first.

And life goes on.

It'll never happen because Apple will never ban them, despite their mutterings about privacy, because Facebooks apps are some of the most popular on their platform.

I wouldn't put any money on any of it if I were you, you were under the impression that Fortnite was the biggest App on the App Store, with that judgement you would lose your shirt.
 
It'll never happen because Apple will never ban them, despite their mutterings about privacy, because Facebooks apps are some of the most popular on their platform.
Never say never. Facebook just hasn't done something drastic enough to openly challenge Apple and get itself booted off the platform, the same way Fortnite forced Apple's hand by trying to sidestep their IAP policy.
 
Folks need to have a touch more "vision" here.

Just because something has "been a certain way", in no way means that's "the only way".
It doesn't even mean it's "the best way".

Apple, unfortunately, might simply need to be compelled to change at this point.

Changes to things like this aren't going to kill Apple or kill their App Store or torpedo the iPhone.
They'd love everyone to believe that -- trust me -- they'll be just fine, dandy and still UBER profitable.

For me, it’s not so much about whether Apple needs to change or not.

I am simply not convinced that these changes will ultimately benefit the end user. At least, not in a way that I find meaningful.

For one, we already have a pretty good idea of what an opened up App Store may look like in the form of the google play store. Sure, there are more flowers there (in the form of apps otherwise not available on iOS), but its formation is a mess, and the lack of a fence means any dog can simply come in and piss in it, weed to penetrate it and it just looks harder to maintain overall.

I chose iOS over android because I don’t care about the benefits that android supposedly boasts over iOS, while also appreciating the benefits a walled ecosystem does bring.

Not only will this change (likely) not give me more of what I want, but it may also saddle me with more issues that I need to contend with. More features and functionality isn’t a selling point for me here. Simplicity is.

Second, consumers are not going to get lower prices, despite whatever fortnite or developers may promise us. As such, I am just not as invested in this fight as developers. There’s simply nothing in it for me.

Meanwhile, the loss of App Store revenue may mean that Apple has less incentive to devote resources towards running the App Store, which can mean a worse experience for all users. Epic and Basecamp probably believe they are big enough that they can skip the App Store model and market directly to consumers. Ultimately, the ones losing out are the end users and the indie developers for whom the App Store remains an equalising force that allows them to compete on an equal footing with the larger companies.

As its name implies, a store can only remain profitable when it actually sells something. Imagine if anyone could simply sell anything they wanted on Amazon and not pay the parent company a cent. Why even stay in business?

Third, it’s shown that the developers don’t always have the interests of the end user at heart. This fight is solely about them and them alone. For example, many developers still refuse to implement sign-in-with-Apple, a move initiated by Apple to give users more choice and control over our privacy (gee, I wonder why).

The more I see these lawsuits play out, the more convinced I am that these developers (Epic, Spotify, Basecamp, Tile) are not seeking to empower or benefit users. They just want more money and more control than what Apple is willing to give them for their own financial gain, and they will not hesitate to burn the existing App Store model down to the ground to get what they want.

That makes them, in my eyes, the enemy. Not Apple.

Of course, living in Asia, this fight is far beyond my jurisdiction and I have more than enough real-life matters to see to. The most I can do is to gripe about it in online forums and see how it all plays out in the courts.

But I do, and always will, stand with Apple on this matter.
 
I read the tweets. In this instance, this would have been a bad bill, in my own opinion. I guess the salient point was DHH doesn't like lobbying, but the creation of the bill, sure seemed like lobbying to me.

Yeah. He has no qualms about using the lobbying process to push for a particular bill, then complains when the same process is used to quash it.

I admire his zeal in trying to change the world, even though I cannot accept the end goal that he is pushing for.
 
Lmao chill nobody here’s asking for 0% flat rate. The only argument being made is one size doesn’t fit all, and misrepresenting the opposition’s argument isn’t gonna win brownie points

lately it isn’t once size fits all for fee based apps. Make over a million (I think) then you begin to pay the fee (in %).

the opposition, right now, is complaining about the 30% App Store fee for those or themselves that qualify to pay that fee. None have stated what % their ok with. If they win a few cases n all appeals in EU or USA tomorrow they’ll complain about any fee!! There’s a brownie point for you. Here’s another, they don’t want Apples store they want to use their own without any rules or restrictions from Apple or other than their own. If their revenues in their stores significantly dropp then they’ll be again pointing the finger to Apple n iOS iPadOS all over again.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.