Would it be more accurate to say Apple has a monopoly on having the AppStore be the ONLY way to get iOS apps onto the iPhone? Apple can do what it wants in it's own store afaic.
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.
Developers Sue Apple Over App Store Fees in Latest Class Action Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So, if I’m getting this...
In your mind; if it became a clutter of insecure fly-by-night app stores vs. the real App Store- rather than try to encourage people to ignore the hassle of multiple app stores & inevitable differences in privacy/security/quality standards & only use the official one- Apple should instead try to bolster & back these stores by offering to test and certify their apps for them?
That is an absurd stance for Apple to take! Thinking about it for more than 15 seconds shoots dozens of holes in this proposal.
The largest being- ok, so I want to d/l apps NOT off the Apple App Store for whatever reason you can think of (sorry, I can’t come up w/ a single one), but at the same time, although I refuse to get apps from Apple’s storefront... I will only get apps off “Brand X” app store if they indicated at download that they passed Apple QA/QC & received certification stating such. Alright.... now I feel comfortable. Wait- I got an update to the app... now it actually steals all my info, even though it was certified & approved by Apple. Hmmm... what’s a solution? I got it! If you d/l an app from “Brand X” app store that was certified safe by Apple, it absolutely MUST continue to pay Apple for approval of each and every update. Really that’s the only way for it to mean anything, right?
Makes one posit the question- if your theoretical app stores would be so beholden to Apple and need their approval & certification to distribute apps and any updates to their apps, and trying to be sneaky and weasel around certification requirements wouldn’t be tolerated...... aren’t you just calling for more app stores basically completely run by Apple??
You missed the part about the app certification being voluntary. Think of it like Apple's MFI certification for cables. Having that certification cost more but has value for the app vendor and customer.
The developers can always peddle their apps on some other site if they don't like Apples policies no one is forcing them to use Apple.
Just like Apple DOES NOT stop Developers from selling their apps at Android or OC’s or any other platform .
And you missed the part about updates...
What if you paid more for a MFI certified cable (which I would strongly suggest!), but the next day it reverted to a crappy Chinese fire danger?
See my point?
It would ONLY be tenable if said certificates had the mandate of also having each and every update also certified by Apple... otherwise the certification would be meaningless, yeah? So... at that point, Apple is so involved in this process- what exactly is the difference between just releasing it on their App Store??
These developers forget that it costs Apple a lot of money to run the App Store... it’s not free to host the packages and all of the data, reviews, purchase info, etc. The reason they have the App Store is to protect themselves from the idiots that would install any and all apps from 3rd parties and then proceed to complain to Apple when their personal data gets swiped or the device starts to malfunction. The point of the App Store is to avoid the malware or spam that plagues other platforms. If you don’t like the cut that Apple gets, don’t post your app to the App Store. As simple as that. They’re lucky they even have an App Store to begin with. Apple originally only wanted web based apps on the iPhone...
Nope. You won’t find the “great value” or “our finest” brands in any other store.
Most of the apps you get on iOS you’ll get on Android.
I am a trader. I sell products on amazon. Amazon takes a hefty cut on each sale. Even more if I opt for FBA. Should I sue amazon?
You’re referring to the App Store where there are rules, guidelines, curation, content discovery, and better assurance against malware than some random web site, ensuring the customer base that they’re part of an engaging and relatively safe ecosystem, supported by a large paid staff which created and maintains a store that has made developers billions.
And I suppose all that should come free.
Last edited:
If you have an iPhone, no you can’t.
Again, I don’t agree with those developers, but I get their point.
The lawsuit is ridiculous. It is attempting to force Apple to change the essential nature of iOS, which is a closed, secure platform that provides iPhone users the assurance that all the criminal malware perpetrators in the world will not be able to invade their device and steal their private data. This is why only a tiny percentage of iPhones are jailbroken, and why a large percentage of iPhone users are repeat buyers. If one wants to jailbreak and sideload, they can live it up with Android.
Last edited:
What other stores are generally available to Android users? I'm Keen to know!MS and Android devs have the option to sell outside those markets if they don't like the fees.
With Apple you have only one option.
iOS dev here, this lawsuit is no good for us. On the surface, I get what you're saying, but what you're not seeing is what that fee goes to.
That fee goes to a full store front for your app and a secure payment method to buy it with an over 99% up time. It goes to analytics tracking, and billing/payment handling and tracking, and knowing your consumers feel safe in their purchase. It also goes towards making subscriptions and in-app purchases easy. If you're app is really popular, it also goes towards free visibility and advertising. 30% is nothing for that and Google charges the same 30%.
In the past, developers would have to pay for ALL of that out of pocket, build a website to handle all of it, deal with any kind of payment issues all themselves, deal with all the finances themselves, deal with any kind of downtime for their site themselves, etc. This is why the App Store is so attractive. You put your app up, people buy it/review it, and Apple sends you a check each month.
I mean I guess devs could be given the opportunity to side load apps. But you’re a fool if you do that on your iPhone and Apple shouldn’t have to honor a warranty against a bricked iPhone because someone side loaded an app to it.
Prior to the App Store if you wanted to develop software, you had to get hired by a company to do so and your couldn’t freelance and make your own stuff. In addition you had to buy a license to visual studio or other IDE which was very expensive. The App Store allows you to do that and make money on it. I think $99 per year and 30 percent is a reasonable amount to do so especially given that XCode is free. However I have no doubt that some idiot politician or judge who has no clue how any of this stuff works will screw it up for everyone
Prior to the App Store if you wanted to develop software, you had to get hired by a company to do so and your couldn’t freelance and make your own stuff. In addition you had to buy a license to visual studio or other IDE which was very expensive. The App Store allows you to do that and make money on it. I think $99 per year and 30 percent is a reasonable amount to do so especially given that XCode is free. However I have no doubt that some idiot politician or judge who has no clue how any of this stuff works will screw it up for everyone
This. Apple built a way to put indie developers in front of customers, getting software companies out of the way, just like streaming created a better way to put artists in front of consumers, getting labels out of the way. They did this with effort, expense, time, and a commitment to the customer experience. As a customer, this is a vast improvement from the way it used to be. And this is supposed to be all about the customer, right?
[doublepost=1559739035][/doublepost]
How about the part where Apple has to pay for tech-support employees dealing with a flood of phone calls about iPhones and iPads that are bricked or otherwise jacked up because of accidentally or deliberately bad actors? “ i’m sorry sir, you’ll have to call brand X App Store customer support.” Yeah, we’ll love that. And it’ll really boost the Apple brand. Or the part where Apple gets raked over the coals, fairly or not, for all the personal information BrandX App Store is about to steal?
Last edited:
The absurdity of this argument is that the App store costs Apple money to run. It may appear differently in the accounting report, but it's not just not true that there's no expense associated with Apple placing apps on the App store.
You mean like how what never happened on Macs before the advent of the App Store for that platform?
You can agree all you want, but there is nothing in antitrust law that prohibits what you describe.
Moreover, Apple does not set app prices. Developers are free to charge whatever they want.
More whataboutism, and not the point. Apple has come up with a better way for app delivery, and prior state has nothing to do with it. And now people are trying to stop it.
Your argument is illogical because it presupposes that Apple’s interest is only in selling apps, which is in fact, percentage of apple’s revenue.
Even if 99.99% of all apps were sold on the App Store and .01% on a competing store, that still creates security and privacy problems, and opens the door to bad actors. Consumers do not have the knowledge or tools to determine whether an app is malicious or not.
How is it not the point? The nightmare support scenario you described didn't happen on Macs before the Mac App store so why would it suddenly happen on iPhones with an alternate, non-App store distribution?
Last edited:
No, you can't go elsewhere if you have an iPhone, but why should you be able to? At the heart of the matter is whether a company that makes a product may be forced to make that product open for anyone to what they wish with the product. What is so special about the iPhone that the government should dictate to Apple that it must make it possible for anyone to add software to it? It happens to be a popular device among people who are willing to pay money for additional software, but is popularity of a product alone a reason to strip a company of ownership of it's product?
This isn't just a foolish lawsuit, a ruling in its favor could radically change the way technology is developed and almost certainly not in a good way.
These developers get the excellent XCode for free - try developing in MS Land and see how much a company can end up paying for a development environment.
Maybe if they had to pay $2,000 for the software and a then a per-app vetting charge of $500 to check the software is legit - instead of $99 for an annual subscription ...
Maybe if they had to pay $2,000 for the software and a then a per-app vetting charge of $500 to check the software is legit - instead of $99 for an annual subscription ...