Court Rules Apple Can Be Sued for Monopolizing iPhone App Market

[Stella]

It doesn't have to be a legal agreement.

It communicates to the user 'at your own risk'

SMH

A web browser will give the user a warning if it thinks your about to go to a suspect web page. Again, it's to communicate to the user the risk, and gives the user an opportunity to stop.

Uhhh because what's the point of putting a warning if it doesn't protect the person or entity which put it there????

Seriously?

 

[RichardF]

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act forbids declaring an entire warranty "null and void" as you asserted. In addition the burden is on the manufacture to prove that the third-party repair or enhancement directly caused the warranty claim on the part(s) that have failed. Even if that is proven it doesn't void the remainder of the warranty relating to any other issues that may or may not arise.


Mike
[doublepost=1484343009][/doublepost]
Every state. It is federal law.


Mike

@Tinmania you may want to take a second look at this. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act absolutely does not apply to intellectual property.

Try and load your engine module with your custom firmware, blow your engine, proceed to sue the manufacturer for declining your warranty claim and watch what happens.
[doublepost=1484355772][/doublepost]

It doesn't have to be legal.

It communicates to the user 'at your own risk'

SMH

And it does NOT absolve the other party if the user causes harm to himself/ herself and/ or others.

You are saying open it up to others and let the user assume the responsibility of his/ her action. We will show a warning and it should suffice.

Well it doesn't.

SO why would Apple expose itself to litigation. No upside. It's all downside, it would hurt their profits, their product and image and you think they should allow it anyway?

With that way of thinking no wonder these lawsuits and an entire industry of scum lawyers exist!!!!
[doublepost=1484356169][/doublepost]

Not if your device is running 10.2.
[doublepost=1484353818][/doublepost]

Whoa! 15 years ago security was a big concern. The target was different. These days it is more 0day, fishing, etc.. than direct malware or virus.
[doublepost=1484353991][/doublepost]

My background is engineering and regulatory is my latest venue. I did have to chuckle when, during the Apple vs. Samsung episodes, Apples' lawyers had to take time to interpret Apples' legalese and they had difficulty.

If you understand it, more power to you. Very few do.

those documents and strategies are very complex. That team was prob. not the original team behind what was in place.
And even the original authors must have had to pause and think.

It seems to me Samsung emboldened everyone by blantantly copying and then tried to keep a straight face when telling Apple tough luck, that's the way of the world today.

I wish evryeone would step back to examine the implications at play here.
Why would anyone risk and build anything if it is going to be taken away from them?
Why have we allowed our society to morph into this, in America??? If you didn't know this could be a banana republic somewhere. The "due process" and "fair trial" become a satire.

 

[code-m]

If Apple did enable developer mode, then what developer would remain in the official app store and pay 30% of sales to Apple?

Apple will have to provide an incentive to developers, possibly lowering its commission percentage, the free market yes.

And if Apple is not receiving any money (since a Dev wouldn't have to pay the $99 annual fee or 30% of gross revenue to sign their app) then why would they continue to develop the tools and APIs for free?

Majority of Apples revenue has been through hardware sales, it is projected that services sales will surpass hardware in the near future hence the focus on services and long gaps for hardware update. Apple does not seem very committed to hardware, regardless of what they say. Actions speak louder than words, comes to mind.

If this sideloading of Apps mandated as legal, I could see developer tools costing money and developers and consumers would be worse off since there is a higher barrier to entry for small shops. At least with the current system you only pay more if you make more, so deploying a free app (even with Ads) is just $99/yr.

It could cost more, then again Apple provides Swift for free and the developer tools as well. You can write, compile software with dev tools and run it for MacOS without doing the same for iOS presently. Higher barrier to entry. Developers have operated very well on MacOS before there was the MAS. The present system you pay $99/yr for a dev account. You can obtain the dev tools without paying the $99/yr. If you want to post your app on the MAS/AppStore you need to pay that membership. Once your app is approved for sale, Apple takes 30%. That means a free app cost the developer money, however generates income via in-app ads, subs, etc. Apple even takes a commission from that income stream. You charge for your app, Apple takes a cut from that. At present you cannot offer your app for free outside the AppStore and collect revenue via in-app ads/subs, etc without Apple taking a commission.

There is nothing stopping a developer from developing an app for the App store and setting whatever price they want, including having advertisements, in-app purchases, and subscriptions (yes, I agree not having upgrade pricing is strange). There is nothing stopping the developer from offering the same IP on different platforms (or "stores") for different types of devices to reach a broader market. And there is nothing stopping a customer asking a developer from asking a developer from developing an app for the platform they want (within platform rules.)

Apple does not give the developer the choice here to reach the iOS community. As a developer you are forced to pay a fee, are forced to give Apple a commission for the sale, IAP, in-app ads, subs, and use ApplePay, are forced to host with them to sell or give your app for free to the iOS community. If you are developing in-house software for your company and want to distribute it internally, you have to pay the $99/yr fee to install it for a year on those iOS products.

While if you created in-house MacOS app with the free dev tools and install it on the company machines there is no cost.

Pay Apple to provide your free software to reach iOS users or go someplace else. If Apple is not making money on this business model their would not be in it to begin with. It is blocking competition that is presently available on the MacOS platform. If I want to install an app on my Mac, I can get it via MAS, in-house, or third-party. Its is a semi-closed system, something I believe iOS should adopt in the future. Choice whatever happened to that, I can install an other OS on my Mac and run Windows software on it too. Limiting innovation and progress, with arrogant behaviour comes a fall.

Right now Apple does allow temporary signing of apps to a target device, I think its just for a week though. So you can develop at home and send it to your device for free for a week, which is enough to test and learn how to code.

I am aware as this is what I have to do every week, its a PITA to renew the signature. I do not want to offer my app for free or charge for it and post it on the AppStore, it is for personal use. I do not want to pay the $99/yr fee. I can write a MacOS app and run it on my other Mac computers without limitations, why can I not do the same for iOS. I am not a full-time developer nor do I want to be. I want the creative freedom to test and explore on the MacOS/iOS hardware that I spent my money on. I do not need Apple to treat me like am in kindergarten to use my products.

What happened to "Think Different" Apple. Sad days.

Apple 1984 Super Bowl ad.

P.S. Apple please take more of my hard-earned money to add to the interest you make on those billions in the bank and please raise cost on all iOS and MacOS devices while still only offering 5GB for iCloud storage even though you hardly update any of the hardware and software for professionals anymore. Oh please Apple I will only be happy till I have nothing left in my pockets just as long as you accept me for being a loyal follower and keep me safe from the big bad world out there with the AppStore and MAS. If I am not worthy of your approval I will have to go to that other bad place called Google/Android, please have mercy on me Apple. Amen.

 

[miamialley]

Old judge who rules probably barely knows how to work his/her smart phone.

 

[69650]

So - Xbox is a monopoly then?

No because you can buy Xbox games from multiple retailers. Microsoft does not exclusively control the sales and distribution of Xbox games.

 

[B4U]

Not even close. More like allowing Victoria's Secret panty buyers to get their bras from a different store if they wish. In other words, allowing normal rights.

This is not about making Apple themselves sell anything they don't want to.

It's about letting consumers get addon apps from any place they choose.

Apple can remain censored and controlling, and people who like that kind of environment can stick with them.

The consumer bought the phone knowingly. Why is Apple getting sued?
Your example is not even close to the situation here. It is like the customer walked into the Victoria's Secret and look for a different brand. Shall I start seeing Kroger branded items in Walmart now?

 

[69650]

You are absolutely right, however, FORD doesn't require me to buy by TIES, OIL, SPARKPLUGS, WINDSHIELD WIPERS, etc only from FORD STORE, I can go to any other Automotive store to buy those and most likely will be higher quality than the OEM product. Does FORD's Store sell them, sure they do, but they are not allowed to be the only supplier of those products.

Very well said. An excellent analogy for people who still don't get it. If Ford tried that there would an uproar from consumer groups and the government would step in. If Ford couldn't get away with it why should Apple be allowed to get away with it.

 

[macfacts]

...

There's really no "price fixing" going on here....

If you force Apple to allow alternate App Stores, you essentially outlaw the whole idea of maintaining an ecosystem. That would seem to imply you could also force all the game console makers to follow suit with the same "logic". Sony Playstations have to let you download games and apps from alternate online shops, and so do Nintendo products.....

....

Let's compare and contrast an iPhone device and a PlayStation device. It is probably safe to assume whatever Sony is doing is legal cause no one is suing them.

As a PlayStation developer, you would have to pay Sony to get the sdk, devkit, documentation. Same with iOS, as a iOS developer, you have to pay Apple a yearly fee for similar.

PlayStations can only play games approved by Sony. Similar with iPhones, Apple can approve or not anything they want.

As a PlayStation dev/publisher, I can sell my games in any store; Bestbuy, GameStop, mom and pop grocery store, etc. As a PlayStation user, I can buy my games in any store. .... As a iPhone dev, I can only sell my app in Apple's Store. As an iPhone user, I can only buy my apps in Apple's store. Sounds like a monopoly to me.

Anti-competitive practices are legal, except when you have a monopoly.

 

[69650]

Help me understand, if developer Joey creates a Weather app. How does having it on the app store available to millions of users verses on BillyBobs app store any different? Maybe BillyBob wont charge the $.29 cent fee and only charge the developer $.19 (20% not 30%). But how many potential sells with BillyBobs store have verses Apples? And how will that make it any better for you, the end user? If you get the app, whether you got it from Apples store or BillyBobs store how does that matter in the least to the end user? And if getting it from BillyBob store you have to jump through hoops to install it verses pressing an icon right on your device, how would that be better? Talk about "defending the undefendable".......

It's called freedom of choice. If you want to sell your iOS App through someone other than the AppStore then you should be allowed to do that.
[doublepost=1484363029][/doublepost]

Could you tell us an example of an App or content you'd like to source and which you cannot find in the App Store?

I cannot actually purchase anything using the Amazon App because Amazon would have to pay 30% of the sale price to Apple.

 

[code-m]

It's called freedom of choice. If you want to sell your iOS App through someone other than the AppStore then you should be allowed to do that.

I have been and still am a long time Mac user, and I feel that a lot of the pushback from the MR community regarding this case deals with fear. It reminds me of Apple's 1984 SB commercial. The one thing these people were trying not to be have now become them. You will hear every excuse in the books to support Apples anti-XYZ, however at the end of the day these users have lost the option of choice. They claim you know what you are getting to when you purchase into the system, yet they fail to see the possibilities for innovation that opening up the system and providing choice may bring to them. This may pressure Apple to lower it commission so developers get more money, it may even allow other hobby developers to test things locally. People here are confused, thinking that users of iOS who want choice are against iOS. This maybe further from the truth, I like iOS I also like Android and other mobile OS. However I also like testing things on different platforms. OS X was built on FreeBSD and through the open source community contributions has aided it on many security and feature fronts. This attitude reminds me of the closed Windows OS attitude and we know where that got Microsoft to eventually.

 

[xyion1]

Apple will have to provide an incentive to developers, possibly lowering its commission percentage, the free market yes.

Or increasing the developer tool cost. I don't think there are any shortage of iOS developers.

Majority of Apples revenue has been through hardware sales, it is projected that services sales will surpass hardware in the near future hence the focus on services and long gaps for hardware update. Apple does not seem very committed to hardware, regardless of what they say. Actions speak louder than words, comes to mind.

If service sales will eclipse hardware sales, why would they do anything to reduce the income from services? (though, to be fair, I am not sure where App store revenues are bucketed, and think that 5GB iCloud storage is shameful)

It could cost more, then again Apple provides Swift for free and the developer tools as well. You can write, compile software with dev tools and run it for MacOS without doing the same for iOS presently. Higher barrier to entry. Developers have operated very well on MacOS before there was the MAS. The present system you pay $99/yr for a dev account. You can obtain the dev tools without paying the $99/yr. If you want to post your app on the MAS/AppStore you need to pay that membership. Once your app is approved for sale, Apple takes 30%. That means a free app cost the developer money, however generates income via in-app ads, subs, etc. Apple even takes a commission from that income stream. You charge for your app, Apple takes a cut from that. At present you cannot offer your app for free outside the AppStore and collect revenue via in-app ads/subs, etc without Apple taking a commission.

Those tool are free under the current paradigm, potentially because of the tremendous income that the App Store generates for Apple. No paid iOS updates, no paid Mac OS updates, new yearly updates for both including well constructed APIs and development tools.

Also, I was unaware Apple took any commission from in-app Ads (whether iAds or other). Also, if you sign up from outside the App store for a subscription, they don't take that either (Netflix, Spotify) or simply viewing outside purchases (like reading Kindle books purchased from Amazon). They only take what you pay for while using the platform.

Apple does not give the developer the choice here to reach the iOS community. As a developer you are forced to pay a fee, are forced to give Apple a commission for the sale, IAP, in-app ads, subs, and use ApplePay, are forced to host with them to sell or give your app for free to the iOS community. If you are developing in-house software for your company and want to distribute it internally, you have to pay the $99/yr fee to install it for a year on those iOS products.

While if you created in-house MacOS app with the free dev tools and install it on the company machines there is no cost.

Pay Apple to provide your free software to reach iOS users or go someplace else. If Apple is not making money on this business model their would not be in it to begin with. It is blocking competition that is presently available on the MacOS platform. If I want to install an app on my Mac, I can get it via MAS, in-house, or third-party. Its is a semi-closed system, something I believe iOS should adopt in the future. Choice whatever happened to that, I can install an other OS on my Mac and run Windows software on it too. Limiting innovation and progress, with arrogant behaviour comes a fall.

Why should it be free to access such a broad customer base (with attached credit cards and valid 1-touch payment) and suite of tools?

I am aware as this is what I have to do every week, its a PITA to renew the signature. I do not want to offer my app for free or charge for it and post it on the AppStore, it is for personal use. I do not want to pay the $99/yr fee. I can write a MacOS app and run it on my other Mac computers without limitations, why can I not do the same for iOS. I am not a full-time developer nor do I want to be. I want the creative freedom to test and explore on the MacOS/iOS hardware that I spent my money on. I do not need Apple to treat me like am in kindergarten to use my products.

Yes - understood. Perhaps designating one or two (or 5) iOS devices as authorized could be a solution a-la iTunes Authorized machines. Which is different from opening up the device entirely & permanently to sideloading apps.

What happened to "Think Different" Apple. Sad days.

Apple 1984 Super Bowl ad.

P.S. Apple please take more of my hard-earned money to add to the interest you make on those billions in the bank and please raise cost on all iOS and MacOS devices while still only offering 5GB for iCloud storage even though you hardly update any of the hardware and software for professionals anymore. Oh please Apple I will only be happy till I have nothing left in my pockets just as long as you accept me for being a loyal follower and keep me safe from the big bad world out there with the AppStore and MAS. If I am not worthy of your approval I will have to go to that other bad place called Google/Android, please have mercy on me Apple. Amen.

 

[macfacts]

The lack of competition and price argument is facetious. Apps compete against each other on the same terms, not across different sources.

I win. Next.

There is no competition among iOS app stores, because there is only one. Compare with PlayStation games, there are many stores. An example of getting a lower price is if Amazon decided to sell a PlayStation game below cost, as a loss leader to get you in the store.

 

[Tech198]

This ain't fair already..

"According to today's ruling, because iPhone users purchase the apps directly from Apple, they have the right to file a lawsuit against the company"

So, that means everyone else who didn't purchase apps from the store come out as "second best" when it comes to deciding.. ok, that's all i need to hear..

 

[xyion1]

There is no competition among iOS app stores, because there is only one. Compare with PlayStation games, there are many stores. An example of getting a lower price is if Amazon decided to sell a PlayStation game below cost, as a loss leader to get you in the store.

Apple does not set the price in the App store. if the developer wants to offer a sale on their product, they are more than welcome to. Retail stores works a bit differently, where manufacturer's suggests a price (MSRP) and sell it to the retailer for something less than that. If the retailer wants to offer a sale or take a loss, thats on them, the manf. has already been paid. I'm sure its more complicated than that since retailers don't just give up shelf space for free either - prime spot in the physical store costs $$$.

In the case of the App store, the developer sets the price and can change it however and whenever they want. Want a sale - have at it! I'm not sure what good a second app store would do from a pricing perspective. I can see its benefits by letting developers skip the 30% Apple Tax and App Store policies (Private APIs, whatever) but Apple isn't interested in that, and I am not sure a court can compel them to do it, but I'm not a lawyer.

 

[jrswizzle]

Very well said. An excellent analogy for people who still don't get it. If Ford tried that there would an uproar from consumer groups and the government would step in. If Ford couldn't get away with it why should Apple be allowed to get away with it.

It's not an excellent analogy. It's not even remotely the same thing. This isn't about app purchasing, it's about wanting to control various functions of the phone that aren't currently user controlled. At which point, you shouldn't buy an iPhone because that's part of the price of admission.

There isn't anything available in any other app store that exists that isn't available in the app store. And the idea that prices in the app store are "higher" is nonsense. Any discrepancies in price average can be attributed to the higher quality of apps found on the App store.

But if you look at the same app across any app store or platform, you'll find the same pricing because it's not Apple arbitrarily causing higher prices. It's the developer themselves that set their prices.

Heaven forbid these people actually win this suit (I doubt they will). Compromising iOS for crappy third party app stores and potentially malicious software would be awful.
[doublepost=1484365183][/doublepost]

There is no competition among iOS app stores, because there is only one. Compare with PlayStation games, there are many stores. An example of getting a lower price is if Amazon decided to sell a PlayStation game below cost, as a loss leader to get you in the store.

But that's different - in your analogy the STORE sets the price.

That's not the case here. In this case you would be arguing for Best Buy and Amazon to be available to everyone even though PlayStation says the price of the game is $XX. If Playstation sets the price, what does it matter where it comes from? Except that the Apple App Store is heavily scrutinized for malicious content and purged of garbage, unlike most other stores out there.

 

[Tech198]

I can see its benefits by letting developers skip the 30% Apple Tax and App Store policies (Private APIs, whatever) .

Don't think private API's would even help... People wanna know what information is at stake by using them.

 

[code-m]

Or increasing the developer tool cost. I don't think there are any shortage of iOS developers.

Developers come, developers go. Looking through history the Mac platform had many developers, then lost them to Windows and never really regained the previous numbers. With iOS it attracted many developers, this could also change. Never say never.

If service sales will eclipse hardware sales, why would they do anything to reduce the income from services? (though, to be fair, I am not sure where App store revenues are bucketed, and think that 5GB iCloud storage is shameful)

Apple started as a hardware company and created software to take full advantage of that hardware. Recently it has spread into services and loosing its focus on hardware. While Microsoft initially was a software company and recently started to focus on hardware. The projected revenue stream from service will only add pressure on Apple to be anti-competitive. Its is fair practise in a free market. Yeah, I don't get the 5GB of storage also. Initially it was fine as iOS devices were offered in 8,16,32,64GB sizes, now its doubled if not quadrupled in physical storage yet iCloud is still sitting at 5GB.

Those tool are free under the current paradigm, potentially because of the tremendous income that the App Store generates for Apple. No paid iOS updates, no paid Mac OS updates, new yearly updates for both including well constructed APIs and development tools.

If I stand corrected Apple used to charge $10USD for major iOS upgrades, this was done as it was the law and their had to follow it. When the law changed Apple was happy to offer iOS upgrades at no charge. The reason why it did this is to attract more developers. By having majority of the user-base on the most recent if not a generation or two behind, the developer can create and take advantage of current technology rather than code for multiple version of an OS. MacOS follows this same method, it used to cost to upgrade, then it was given away for free. Linux distro used to never charge, however WindowsOS eventually offered free upgrades. Those tools are free for developers to write interesting software to maximize the OS platform for its end-users and in return Apple sells more hardware and and leverage to pro users with its own branded software. iMovie, GarageBand, etc were created to appeal to the creative novice to the iMac/Mac platform and once there to develop and build loyalty into a pro-user. Apple develops and gives dev tools for no other reason, it helps new developers gain interest in the platform.

Also, I was unaware Apple took any commission from in-app Ads (whether iAds or other). Also, if you sign up from outside the App store for a subscription, they don't take that either (Netflix, Spotify) or simply viewing outside purchases (like reading Kindle books purchased from Amazon). They only take what you pay for while using the platform.

In the past when Microsoft and others offered apps on the AppStore, Apple specified in its TOS that any subs, have to occur within the AppStore and a commission paid. These apps could not allow a link to the parent website and make payment there. Apple wanted its cut, even though the app to use in trial was free. I am not certain if this has changed, however there were many articles relating to this in the past. Apple saw this as a company circumventing paying them a sub even though any processing fees were done via the parent site. If that parent site was allowed to host their app and charge through that it would be a free and fair market.

Why should it be free to access such a broad customer base (with attached credit cards and valid 1-touch payment) and suite of tools?

Apple does take a commission via ApplePay, their did not develop it because it was the right thing to do. It is part of their services revenue.

Yes - understood. Perhaps designating one or two (or 5) iOS devices as authorized could be a solution a-la iTunes Authorized machines. Which is different from opening up the device entirely & permanently to sideloading apps.

I hope Apple offers a better solution compared to what we have presently. Fingers crossed.

 

[jrswizzle]

I have been and still am a long time Mac user, and I feel that a lot of the pushback from the MR community regarding this case deals with fear. It reminds me of Apple's 1984 SB commercial. The one thing these people were trying not to be have now become them. You will hear every excuse in the books to support Apples anti-XYZ, however at the end of the day these users have lost the option of choice. They claim you know what you are getting to when you purchase into the system, yet they fail to see the possibilities for innovation that opening up the system and providing choice may bring to them. This may pressure Apple to lower it commission so developers get more money, it may even allow other hobby developers to test things locally. People here are confused, thinking that users of iOS who want choice are against iOS. This maybe further from the truth, I like iOS I also like Android and other mobile OS. However I also like testing things on different platforms. OS X was built on FreeBSD and through the open source community contributions has aided it on many security and feature fronts. This attitude reminds me of the closed Windows OS attitude and we know where that got Microsoft to eventually.

The choice is to not purchase an Apple product.

Folks here whine and cry and claim they want all these things "other devices have". Yet why are they not proud owners of those devices and off these boards moving on to "better things"?

Developers made tens of billions of dollars on the app store last year. iOS almost ALWAYS has the best and newest apps FIRST. If it was so bad for developers, why would this be the case when the iOS marketshare is so small? Are all these developers masochists?
[doublepost=1484365725][/doublepost]

Apple does take a commission via ApplePay, their did not develop it because it was the right thing to do. It is part of their services revenue.

You speak of things you know nothing about.

You think these banks that are signing up for Apple Pay would rather pay Apple a relatively small fee or continue losing BILLIONS in fraud each year? Banks couldn't wait to sign up.....and why shouldn't a FOR PROFIT company be compensated for their services.

The idea that everything should be GIVEN to you is repulsive and permeates our society. And we wonder why we are in the mess we're in.

Apple developed ApplePay because there was a problem they wanted to solve. Every solution to a problem Apple solves should make them money. That's ultimately the reason they are solving it. But it also in turn protects consumers, is incredibly convenient and saves banks a fortune.

 

[code-m]

The choice is to not purchase an Apple product.

Folks here whine and cry and claim they want all these things "other devices have". Yet why are they not proud owners of those devices and off these boards moving on to "better things"?

Developers made tens of billions of dollars on the app store last year. iOS almost ALWAYS has the best and newest apps FIRST. If it was so bad for developers, why would this be the case when the iOS marketshare is so small? Are all these developers masochists?

If no one purchases Apple products, those developers will also leave. Developers go where the users are.

I do have all those "other devices" too, I do not discriminate and am a proud owner as such. I also like seeing innovation on the iOS side similar to MacOS. "off these boards" I presume you are referring to MR, been a long time MR member before I had to re-register as my account was compromised.

True dev made 10s of billions and they could have made more, speaking off do you know how much Apple made. Here is a hint Apple is projected to take in a Trillion in revenue for its services alone.

Apple is leveraging the AppStore/MAS by saying the cost will go down and more free apps or quality paid apps. The problem is that if you offer your app for free you still have to pay Apple the $99/yr dev fee to get it on the AppStore. If a developer only has free apps on the AppStore, Apple should provide then a refund for that fee. If there are IAP, etc Apple can take its commission from that. If a developer has a mix of free and paid apps it can leave the $99/yr fee as usual.

This is being open to discussion, think of lost opportunities the present system has failed to see.

 

[macfacts]

... I'm not sure what good a second app store would do from a pricing perspective. I can see its benefits by letting developers skip the 30% Apple Tax and App Store policies (Private APIs, whatever) but Apple isn't interested in that, and I am not sure a court can compel them to do it, but I'm not a lawyer.

Perhaps if Amazon could sell iOS apps, they would only take 20% from the devs. But there is only one iOS app store, owned by Apple.

Of course Amazon can only sell iOS apps Apple approves of, just like game consoles. Amazon can only sell xbox games MS approves of. So saying a second app store would bring malware is not true.

 

[code-m]

The choice is to not purchase an Apple product.

Folks here whine and cry and claim they want all these things "other devices have". Yet why are they not proud owners of those devices and off these boards moving on to "better things"?

Developers made tens of billions of dollars on the app store last year. iOS almost ALWAYS has the best and newest apps FIRST. If it was so bad for developers, why would this be the case when the iOS marketshare is so small? Are all these developers masochists?
[doublepost=1484365725][/doublepost]

You speak of things you know nothing about.

You think these banks that are signing up for Apple Pay would rather pay Apple a relatively small fee or continue losing BILLIONS in fraud each year? Banks couldn't wait to sign up.....and why shouldn't a FOR PROFIT company be compensated for their services.

The idea that everything should be GIVEN to you is repulsive and permeates our society. And we wonder why we are in the mess we're in.

Apple developed ApplePay because there was a problem they wanted to solve. Every solution to a problem Apple solves should make them money. That's ultimately the reason they are solving it. But it also in turn protects consumers, is incredibly convenient and saves banks a fortune.

All financial institutes have insurance which covers fraud. These financial institutes have been in the business of money longer than Apple. Banks in other countries already had pin and chip payments, NFC/tap, etc. Apple did not save this arena. It incorporated TouchID from a mobile device with ApplePay. If you think financial institutes did have have security in place you may want to refrain your statements of not know things. Banks look at options in the market to make them more money, if consumers are using XYZ product/service banks will be there to offer and make money of that as it is they business. Apple could have licensed ApplePay, however they decided not too (maybe in the future, similar to MFi).

Everything GIVEN for free, overdramatic much. Apple developed ApplePay because there was a problem, I guess not enough people spending they cash fast enough. Banks still have to get insurance and Apple as well.

 

[jrswizzle]

If no one purchases Apple products, those developers will also leave. Developers go where the users are.

I do have all those "other devices" too, I do not discriminate and am a proud owner as such. I also like seeing innovation on the iOS side similar to MacOS. "off these boards" I presume you are referring to MR, been a long time MR member before I had to re-register as my account was compromised.

True dev made 10s of billions and they could have made more, speaking off do you know how much Apple made. Here is a hint Apple is projected to take in a Trillion in revenue for its services alone.

Apple is leveraging the AppStore/MAS by saying the cost will go down and more free apps or quality paid apps. The problem is that if you offer your app for free you still have to pay Apple the $99/yr dev fee to get it on the AppStore. If a developer only has free apps on the AppStore, Apple should provide then a refund for that fee. If there are IAP, etc Apple can take its commission from that. If a developer has a mix of free and paid apps it can leave the $99/yr fee as usual.

This is being open to discussion, think of lost opportunities the present system has failed to see.

(1) If that's true, why do developers not flock to Android and Google's Play Store? There are WAY more users there - Android has what an 85% worldwide marketshare?

(2) This isn't true. Perhaps lifetime yes, but not annually. Not even close. From this very website.....

"Over the course of the last 12 months, Apple's services revenue is up $23.1 billion..." -July 2016.

So they're sitting about about $20-30 billion annually in services revenue. Growing at roughly 20% annually the last few years. I made a mistake when I said $10s of billions for developers.....it was actually $20 billion to be exact and that was growth of 40% from the previous year.

So developers are making almost as much off the App Store as Apple is making across it's Services.

(3) If you're offering your app for free, you're trying to get something else out of it - be it ad revenue or exposure or something. Apple offers the best platform and tools for that. And it's $99/yr. If you are putting a free app out there out of the goodness of your heart and for no other reason than you like it, go put it on Android and reach more customers and be happy about it......

I'm being facetious with that last bit. Because all "free" apps are after revenue in one way or another. Be it subs or ad-generated revenue or whatever. Developers know that Apple's platform is their best way to get paid. And that's all there is to it.
[doublepost=1484367033][/doublepost]

All financial institutes have insurance which covers fraud. These financial institutes have been in the business of money longer than Apple. Banks in other countries already had pin and chip payments, NFC/tap, etc. Apple did not save this arena. It incorporated TouchID from a mobile device with ApplePay. If you think financial institutes did have have security in place you may want to refrain your statements of not know things. Banks look at options in the market to make them more money, if consumers are using XYZ product banks will be there to offer and make money of that is they business. Apple could have licensed ApplePay, however they decided not too (maybe in the future, similar to MFi).

Everything GIVEN for free, overdramatic much. Apple developed ApplePay because there was a problem, I guess not enough people spending they cash fast enough. Banks still have to get insurance and Apple as well.

Banks were spending BILLIONS annually for that fraud insurance. ApplePay (and other NFC payment options) are saving them a boatload. Big banks are slow to adapt. US retailers are slow to adapt. ApplePay is not just TouchID over an NFC payment. There's far more to it than that.....perhaps you should refrain from talking about things about which you don't know.

And as far as ApplePay being a solution to the problem of "people not spending cash fast enough" - ApplePay has ZERO monetary impact of consumers who use it.....so exactly what is your point here?

 

[code-m]

(1) If that's true, why do developers not flock to Android and Google's Play Store? There are WAY more users there - Android has what an 85% worldwide marketshare?

(2) This isn't true. Perhaps lifetime yes, but not annually. Not even close. From this very website.....

"Over the course of the last 12 months, Apple's services revenue is up $23.1 billion..." -July 2016.

So they're sitting about about $20-30 billion annually in services revenue. Growing at roughly 20% annually the last few years. I made a mistake when I said $10s of billions for developers.....it was actually $20 billion to be exact and that was growth of 40% from the previous year.

So developers are making almost as much off the App Store as Apple is making across it's Services.

(3) If you're offering your app for free, you're trying to get something else out of it - be it ad revenue or exposure or something. Apple offers the best platform and tools for that. And it's $99/yr. If you are putting a free app out there out of the goodness of your heart and for no other reason than you like it, go put it on Android and reach more customers and be happy about it......

I'm being facetious with that last bit. Because all "free" apps are after revenue in one way or another. Be it subs or ad-generated revenue or whatever. Developers know that Apple's platform is their best way to get paid. And that's all there is to it.
[doublepost=1484367033][/doublepost]

Banks were spending BILLIONS annually for that fraud insurance. ApplePay (and other NFC payment options) are saving them a boatload. Big banks are slow to adapt. US retailers are slow to adapt. ApplePay is not just TouchID over an NFC payment. There's far more to it than that.....perhaps you should refrain from talking about things about which you don't know.

And as far as ApplePay being a solution to the problem of "people not spending cash fast enough" - ApplePay has ZERO monetary impact of consumers who use it.....so exactly what is your point here?

Android has more Apps:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/276623/number-of-apps-available-in-leading-app-stores/

Android has more Developers:
http://blog.appfigures.com/app-stores-growth-accelerates-in-2014/

There are many apps being offered for free on the MacOS platform, no ads, no subs, etc. Have you asked yourself that some developers may have ads in they free apps in the AppStore to recoup payment for the $99/yr fee that Apple charges.

The trillion dollars in service revenue is projected from prior historic growth.

 

[macfacts]

...
(3) If you're offering your app for free, you're trying to get something else out of it -...

This isn't about free apps.

Imagine adobe made a full feature photoshop app for iOS and they want to get $70 per copy. Since Apple has a monopoly on iOS app stores, the final price will be $100.

What if Apple didn't have a monopoly on iOS app stores and Amazon could sell iOS apps. Perhaps Amazon would only take 5%. The user can buy from Amazon for cheaper and the dev gets the same amount per sale. Wow, competition at work.
[doublepost=1484368354][/doublepost]

True - but by opening it up to other App Stores Apple has no control over, it means those alternative ones can sell spyware or malware infected apps that wreak havoc with iPads and iPhones, and hurt the perceived value of those products.

It also means people could sell you apps that Apple doesn't ever want to see on their product line, like pornographic apps.

Does having multiple stores to buy Xbox games mean malware and spyware? No, those stores can only sell Xbox games MS approves of.

 

[code-m]

(1) If that's true, why do developers not flock to Android and Google's Play Store? There are WAY more users there - Android has what an 85% worldwide marketshare?

(2) This isn't true. Perhaps lifetime yes, but not annually. Not even close. From this very website.....

"Over the course of the last 12 months, Apple's services revenue is up $23.1 billion..." -July 2016.

So they're sitting about about $20-30 billion annually in services revenue. Growing at roughly 20% annually the last few years. I made a mistake when I said $10s of billions for developers.....it was actually $20 billion to be exact and that was growth of 40% from the previous year.

So developers are making almost as much off the App Store as Apple is making across it's Services.

(3) If you're offering your app for free, you're trying to get something else out of it - be it ad revenue or exposure or something. Apple offers the best platform and tools for that. And it's $99/yr. If you are putting a free app out there out of the goodness of your heart and for no other reason than you like it, go put it on Android and reach more customers and be happy about it......

I'm being facetious with that last bit. Because all "free" apps are after revenue in one way or another. Be it subs or ad-generated revenue or whatever. Developers know that Apple's platform is their best way to get paid. And that's all there is to it.
[doublepost=1484367033][/doublepost]

Banks were spending BILLIONS annually for that fraud insurance. ApplePay (and other NFC payment options) are saving them a boatload. Big banks are slow to adapt. US retailers are slow to adapt. ApplePay is not just TouchID over an NFC payment. There's far more to it than that.....perhaps you should refrain from talking about things about which you don't know.

And as far as ApplePay being a solution to the problem of "people not spending cash fast enough" - ApplePay has ZERO monetary impact of consumers who use it.....so exactly what is your point here?

ApplePay as I simplified it, I know there is more to it:
https://www.apple.com/apple-pay/

Banks spending billions on fraud insurance, sorry to say that depends on how much is being insured its the cost of doing business. Big banks are slow to adapt, to a point more along the lines of conservative to the ever changing digital/tech space. You would understand this if you work for a bank in this tech space. US retailers are slow to adapt, here we go again USA the center of the universe. Other countries have had contactless payment systems for years, before shrug ApplePay. I have used many contactless payment systems including ApplePay, nothing new here with the exception of TouchID.

Could be more spending due to convenience:
http://www.fool.com/how-to-invest/p...pay-could-wind-up-becoming-consumers-wor.aspx
http://www.ibtimes.com/mobile-payment-technology-apple-pay-could-entice-consumers-spend-more-1686220

If I am not mistaken Apple pays developers much later compared to Google, I cannot account for any recent changes in payment frequency. Google has been paying ad revenue much longer compared to Apple as well.