Developers Sue Apple Over App Store Fees in Latest Class Action Lawsuit

[Ethosik]

If you have an iPhone, no you can’t.

Again, I don’t agree with those developers, but I get their point.

This is the same thing for Microsoft with Xbox and PlayStation for PS4. Even if I sell in stores, they take a cut. I cannot direct someone online to download my game.
[doublepost=1559746253][/doublepost]

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 ...

Visual Studio Community is free for small teams and education. When your income gets too high you need to buy professional.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Actually, "deciding with your wallet" has a larger scope than just the narrow buy-or-don't-buy-at-all decision.

No, you may want to PUT a larger scope on it because it suits your end goal of justifying punishing a company for being successful, BUT deciding with your wallet literally means, if you don’t like it, don’t buy it. If millions do the same, then, whatever it is you don’t like is BOUND to change because now the company isn’t making any money. It’s like the folks that HATED the idea of the iPhone, so they bought it then jailbroke it to “send a message”. Well, sorry, the message was sent when the dollars left their wallet and went into Apple’s coffers. The message being “this product is something I desire to spend my valuable dollars on”.

Unfortunately for many, Apple may not be the top smartphone OS, but they’re making enough of a profit to not care that millions and millions every day are choosing the competition.
[doublepost=1559746841][/doublepost]

Maybe the % could be decreased based on how well the app sells?

But what if the APP is so popular and sells so well that everyone wanting to “identify flowers on the iPhone” would use that one app. That app would have a MONOPOLY OVER SMARTPHONE (OF THE iPHONE VARIETY) FLOWER IDENTIFICATION APPS!!! And, we’d need to break them up into smaller flower identification apps, of course. That’s the only solution.

 

[BootsWalking]

No, you may want to PUT a larger scope on it because it suits your end goal of justifying punishing a company for being successful, BUT deciding with your wallet literally means, if you don’t like it, don’t buy it. If millions do the same, then, whatever it is you don’t like is BOUND to change because now the company isn’t making any money. It’s like the folks that HATED the idea of the iPhone, so they bought it then jailbroke it to “send a message”. Well, sorry, the message was sent when the dollars left their wallet and went into Apple’s coffers. The message being “this product is something I desire to spend my valuable dollars on”.

Unfortunately for many, Apple may not be the top smartphone OS, but they’re making enough of a profit to not care that millions and millions every day are choosing the competition.

"Penalizing a company for being successful" is a great public relations talking point that's often been using by companies facing regulatory scrutiny. Unfortunately for them it's a superficial trope that's not a very effective defense in the halls of government or Federal court system.

As for the scope of voting with their wallets, our antitrust enforcement history is littered with counter-examples against your love-it-or-leave binary choice. It's not illegal in this country to be a monopoly - it's only illegal to act in a monopolistic fashion, which by definition does not require you to be a monopoly. Thus the mere fact there are alternatives to iPhones will not be a compelling defense for Apple.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

This is idiotic. Every store front charges a percent of sale price. It’s how retail works. If Walmart is the only supermarket in town, a common situation nowadays, are they forbidden for taking a percent of sale?

You're incorrect. Walmart is in a competitive landscape, as evidenced by companies such as Dollar General, Aldi, and Amazon. Walmart is constantly forced to change their practices with how they manage inventory, how they hire, how they let customers shop, etc by these companies.

The App Store is virtually unchanged in the last 11 years. At the start, Apple charged developers $99/year and 30% of revenue in exchange for distrbuting apps and collecting money.

Today, Apple still charges the exact same amounts and performs the exact same services.

There's no competition whatsoever because there's no way to install apps on iOS except through the iOS App Store.

That's not the case on Android. Google has had to adjust their policies with the Play Store in response to competing stores such as Epic's. Developers have been able to protest stores by choosing to distribute apps via their own website. That's not an option on iOS.

 

[gnasher729]

Do Developers realize Apple pays to build, host and maintain a worldwide network of servers; Apple pays to write, maintain and distribute the SKD’s and other tools Developers use to create apps; Apple pays write, maintain and distribute the OS’s used worldwide that run all the Apps developers write.

So Developers, just expect Apple to do all these things for free?!

No, developers are usually highly intelligent, and understand that nothing in life comes for free. They are quite happy with what Apple does.

These guys here are not developers. They are lawyers. Specifically, they are the vulture / hyena type of lawyers who need to create complaints where non are. Developers create value. This kind of lawyer destroys value.
[doublepost=1559748352][/doublepost]

Show me where I can download an iOS app and install it on my iPhone or iPad without going through the app store.

You can download an Android app on your Samsung phone or tablet without going through the App Store. Therefore, no monopoly.
[doublepost=1559748462][/doublepost]

These developers forget that it costs Apple a lot of money to run the App Store...

Don't insult developers. These complaints don't come from developers, they come from lawyers.

 

[tranceme]

I agree with the lawsuit.

Just like macOS and ms windows. If your not allowing apps to be installed outside your App Store than your creating a monopoly that forces everyone to go through you to install apps on their phones. Hence creating an increase in price to the consumer.

Don't buy an iPhone, there are alternatives. there are more Android and WinOS systems out there by far?

People crack me up. They want security, reliability, easy of use and such. But, then don';t understand the cost behind it. Who do you think pays for the engineers that build the products and services? Not be to jerk. But, you need to be in the business of running cloud services to understand that their cut is very resealable. I can launch a new app worldwide in minutes in over 100 countries with their store. Awesome.

 

[charlituna]

I do not believe $99 to be high it is $149 in Australia but if you are a business it would be tax deductible. Also gives you access to a lot of tools and resources. But anybody who signs up to this is making a choice. If you do not like the terms do not sign up.

Nothing you are saying is wrong. But businesses, especially big ones, have to worry about optics. And the optic of $99 a year plus a cut of all sales is a potentially bad optic for Apple. Especially when they have billions in the bank.it’s not like they set up this system just for the App Store and need to recover R&D money. It’s the same payment processor as their own iTunes system. It’s not like they spend hours analyzing every app to make sure the coding is correct etc or giving folks hands on help creating apps. So maybe they could improve their optics by having a lower fee even if it’s just for folks that are only doing free apps and only up to X number. They could still charge $99 for folks that wanna do paid apps or over that limit. And maybe even add a service for that hands on help (with an additional fee of course). And just maybe they could cut back on that fee percent a little.

 

[StyxMaker]

If you have an iPhone, no you can’t.

Again, I don’t agree with those developers, but I get their point.

And, you can vote with your wallet. If you don’t like the way the App Store is run buy a phone that has an App Store you like.

 

[EDarkness]

This whole thing is silly. Almost every online store out there charges 30%. Also, Amazon also has a 99 cent rule as well. I tried to have my book available for free, but they don't allow that at all. I had to charge 99 cents. So what exactly do these "small" devs want? To be able to charge a nickel for their game or app? That's insane. Also, devs have 99.99999% control over the cost of their app. The only thing is they have to charge above the minimum, which I think is fair price.

Also, devs don't have to make software for Apple products. They can choose to do whatever they want. If they want to make iOS apps, then they know what they're getting into up front. As a developer myself, I understand the headaches that go into software development. Sometimes it sucks, but I don't see anything wrong with what Apple is doing. If that's the case, then I guess we can start targeting Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft because their stores function the same way with heavier curation.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

"Penalizing a company for being successful" is a great public relations talking point that's often been using by companies facing regulatory scrutiny.

The thing is, if these were not Apple’s rules in the beginning, if they had gotten increasingly more draconian, then there MIGHT just be PR talking points. But, the only real difference between when the App Store was created and now, is more people using it. So it’s very hard to accept that rules that WERE apparently non-monopolistic at the start magically BECOME monopolistic once you become popular.

If a company maintains a set of rules that are ONLY seen as monopolistic if the company is lucky or skillful enough to become successful, then that’s being penalized for success.
[doublepost=1559771443][/doublepost]

And, you can vote with your wallet. If you don’t like the way the App Store is run buy a phone that has an App Store you like.

According to some, that’s not what “voting with your wallet” means. I certainly agree with you, though.
[doublepost=1559771524][/doublepost]

And the optic of $99 a year plus a cut of all sales is a potentially bad optic for Apple.

But, that would assume that it’s ONLY a bad optic now, but wasn’t a bad optic for years. Why is that?

 

[RHustler]

Visual Studio Community is free for small teams and education. When your income gets too high you need to buy professional.

Community is free, true, but the devs I worked with extended their VS by buying in extra toolsets etc to improve the functions. Then they buy testing software to use internally etc. It all adds up.

My main point is, basically, that Apple doesn’t have to give away such an amazing development platform, and they don’t have to vet the software submissions for free, and they don’t have to host your free ‘sample’ apps for free.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The App Store is virtually unchanged in the last 11 years. At the start, Apple charged developers $99/year and 30% of revenue in exchange for distrbuting apps and collecting money.

You make a very good point. The store is virtually unchanged BUT today it’s a monopoly. Two years ago, was it NOT a monopoly? When it was first opened, it was not a monopoly. How successful is a company allowed to be, I guess, is what I’m wondering?

 

[mrNiftYpAnts]

As an iOS developer I have to say one of the biggest issues for me is the complete control over app releases more so than the money side of things. I have several apps in the App Store but I also have had a few denied for things that do seem to fall into the category of some lawsuits. One app was denied for being too similar to other apps.. I suppose the idea was similar but the execution I felt was quite different from others. I can let that one slide. The other, bigger one, for me was a game I made with my daughter.

We created a game over a few years. It took us a long time to learn creating characters and animating them as we wanted them to animate but it was a great learning process. The game was based on our dog and he went from different world to different world. It was actually quite fun from my biased opinion. In the game you could shoot poop out of the dogs butt.. Some may find that offensive but we found it very funny. I checked the rules first and saw nothing about this, I then checked the App Store and there were several apps with "poop" in them. Some were very pointless from my own opinion but they were there.

When I submitted my app, it was denied for having poop in it. Apple stated they had new rules where no poop was allowed in any games anymore. I know that was not true, because I gave them examples of games, with poop, I found that had been released within the last week. They did not care and would not budge.

All the beta testers we had loved the poop and said it would not make the game as fun to remove it.. After loosing a few appeals I went back and changed the game so the dog had a paint ball gun on his back, and it shot paint balls. Apple was ok with adding the gun, and allowed the app through. I then received emails from users asking why I would include a random paint ball gun and shoot balls when there was a "perfectly good butt" right below it. A few said the game would be 10X better if the dog just shot poop instead of the random paint ball gun on his back. ...

So this is clearly a random story from a random no-body... but I think you can see how the control does potentially remove things that artists intended or that users would prefer. I am sure 80% or more of the time they remove things that we all are happy they did but what about the other % where things we may really like get removed. I have also heard from devs that apps are denied if they are similar to Apple apps. I can not say if that is true or not, but if it is, in my opinion that too is problematic.... Anyways.. wish you all well party on.

 

[Cosmosent]

I have a proposal for Cook & Schiller.

Reduce your Commission to 0% for ALL $0.99 USD Paid apps, as well as for ALL $0.99 USD NON-consumable In-App Purchases (with a limit of one such eligible IAP per app).

Subs would (naturally) be excluded.

Game Apps would (obviously) need to be excluded, as AAPL would never agree to cut themselves off to their existing cash flow machine (or any part of it).

Initially, the Popular Norm (in the App Store) would be FREE apps with the single $0.99 USD IAP.

Ultimately, perhaps 1-2 years later, the Popular Norm could be $0.99 Paid apps with the single $0.99 USD IAP.

And by "Popular Norm," I mean what sells well.

I think this could work out to be a BIG win for both sides.

Game Apps are responsible for ~85% of AAPL's revenue in the App Store, Streaming Media Content sub apps account for ~10%, & everything else fights for the remaining 5%.

This proposal is for the "everything else" group, & could, if promoted right, completely change the equation.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

You make a very good point. The store is virtually unchanged BUT today it’s a monopoly. Two years ago, was it NOT a monopoly? When it was first opened, it was not a monopoly. How successful is a company allowed to be, I guess, is what I’m wondering?

I'd say it really became a problem when Apple decided that customers weren't allowed to sign up for, IE, Netflix, via the Netflix app without giving Apple a cut. I was mistaken when I said it is unchanged from the beginning. Whereas other stores have become increasingly friendly to developers and customers, Apple's iOS store has become increasingly hostile to both.

Apple's policy in this matter is like if Walmart took a cut of every iOS app sale from an iPhone because you bought that iPhone at Walmart.

 

[ruka.snow]

When these things pop up, I always wonder how I opt out of there class action case if I don't agree with their nonsense case.

 

[warp9]

Google charges the same 30%.

This fact makes me furious. Google doesn't deal with any of the paperwork, taxes, or other legal services. They want me to remit taxes to over 100 different countries manually and sort out local issues myself, but they have the nerve to charge the same 30% as Apple.

Considering the 90%+ piracy rate on Android, I won't be releasing on that platform anymore unless I get a viral hit.
[doublepost=1559827680][/doublepost]

You mean like how what never happened on Macs before the advent of the App Store for that platform?

The Mac doesn't have hundreds of millions of tech-illiterate people using them. It's a completely different market with completely different dynamics.

 

[BootsWalking]

The Mac doesn't have hundreds of millions of tech-illiterate people using them. It's a completely different market with completely different dynamics.

Sure it does. The platform was specifically targeted to people who are less tech savvy. Forget about the “I’m a PC” ads?

 

[warp9]

They did not care and would not budge.

I once submitted a game with over 50 levels and it was approved in less than a day on first submission. There's no way anyone was able to review all that content that fast.

The real issue here is the huge army of barely trained app approvers working for Apple. Whether you get approved or not completely depends on who reviewed it. Your appeal will often get denied by the supervisor just so they don't look bad or unreliable.

If you create a new app id with a new name and resubmit the game, it would probably be approved.
[doublepost=1559829283][/doublepost]

Sure it does. The platform was specifically targeted to people who are less tech savvy. Forget about the “I’m a PC” ads?

I'm not talking about "less tech-savvy" people. I'm talking about people who are truly computer illiterate. They number in the billions worldwide and most of them use smartphones.

Privacy and curation are the unique selling points of an iPhone, not a detriment.

 

[T-R-S]

I agree with the lawsuit.

Just like macOS and ms windows. If your not allowing apps to be installed outside your App Store than your creating a monopoly that forces everyone to go through you to install apps on their phones. Hence creating an increase in price to the consumer.

If you are going to play in someone else's sandbox you have to follow the rules of the owner of the sandbox. I for one am glad that Apple forces developers to conform to a standard for example can you imagine a developer who sells you an app that steals all of your banking apps logins and passwords plus the password for you mobile phone provider.... Its ALL and SAFTY and PRIVACY. Another example ALL apps are going to require to require anonymous "Sign in with Apple" for their apps as well. I got one there is a cop on the street corner protecting me from the criminal element.

 

[rjohnstone]

You can download an Android app on your Samsung phone or tablet without going through the App Store. Therefore, no monopoly.

That was not the question I asked... everyone knows Android allows you to install from anywhere (i.e., side load).

I asked where can I download apps for my iPhone or iPad other than the App Store?
It's a rhetorical question as everyone knows you don't have any other option for an iPhone or iPad.
Apple has a monopoly on where one can purchase apps for their iOS devices.
[doublepost=1559837885][/doublepost]

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.

iOS apps can only be installed on an iOS device through the App Store. That is the topic of this discussion.
[doublepost=1559838019][/doublepost]

What other stores are generally available to Android users? I'm Keen to know!

Amazon has an app store for Android apps and you can always side load an app from any source (can be dangerous if the source is not trusted).
That's actually how you get the Amazon app store installed on your phone... you have to side load it.

 

[gnasher729]

That was not the question I asked... everyone knows Android allows you to install from anywhere (i.e., side load).

I asked where can I download apps for my iPhone or iPad other than the App Store?
It's a rhetorical question as everyone knows you don't have any other option for an iPhone or iPad.
Apple has a monopoly on where one can purchase apps for their iOS devices.

You asked a question, but it is irrelevant. "iOS apps" is NOT a market. "Smartphone apps" is a market. And Apple has no monopoly in the "Smartphone apps" market. Just as say Ferrari has no monopoly in the Ferrari market, even though you can only buy a Ferrari from that one company, because it is not a market. "High end sports cars" _might_ be a market, and even that would be dubious.

 

[rjohnstone]

You asked a question, but it is irrelevant. "iOS apps" is NOT a market. "Smartphone apps" is a market. And Apple has no monopoly in the "Smartphone apps" market. Just as say Ferrari has no monopoly in the Ferrari market, even though you can only buy a Ferrari from that one company, because it is not a market. "High end sports cars" _might_ be a market, and even that would be dubious.

Deflection noted.
You know very well what the lawsuit is about. iOS apps are most definitely a market of their own. Just like Android apps have their market.
Calling them "smartphone apps" is generic and does not properly portray the various platforms available.

Telling a dev he can just go write an Android app if he doesn't want to use the App Store is not going to help them reach customers who use Apple products.
With Android, he has several avenues to pursue for distribution of his application.
With iPhones and iPads, he only has ONE choice and that comes with additional financial burdens that are optional in other markets.
Apple doesn't want the EU and DOJ breathing down their necks all the time. EU penalties can be staggering, and they've lost once before with the DOJ (e-books).

 

[Unregistered 4U]

iOS apps are most definitely a market of their own.

Calling them smartphone apps is calling them what they are. Unfortunately, calling them what it really are isn’t convenient for the point you’re trying to make, so you reject reality.

Once you start attempting to define a discrete member of a market as it’s own market, then, logically you can describe any FURTHER discrete member as it’s own market. Are drawing apps on iOS a market? Are drawing apps called “Graphic” a market? If so, then Graphic has a monopoly on the drawing apps on iOS called “Graphic” and we’ve GOT to break them up or have the government step in to dictate what they can charge. Their unchecked control of themselves cannot be allowed to stand.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Do I have options?
Can I not get it at different places?
If I have a TV, I can watch cable, chose over air, direct TV. I have options

And here lies the errant thinking at the core of this talk about a monopoly. Once you accept that a portion of a market is its own market, there’s no end to it. I mean, you say “cable” here generically, but you don’t go with “smartphone” generically?

Let’s use a brand name like you want to use with phones and say COMCAST. Do you have OPTIONs of how you get Comcast? No, you use THEIR cables. You can’t sign up with Verizon and get Comcast features like using their Xfinity hotspots. Do you have options of features? No, if COMCAST hasn’t cut a contract with the channel, you just don’t get that channel. If there was something about Comcast you didn’t like, you would have to leave Comcast and sign up with another service provider! Not surprising at all. Comcast has a monopoly on everything offered by Comcast. BUT not a monopoly of cable services nationwide.

If I have cellular service I can buy an iPhone, Samsung phone, Huawei phone, I have options. Each option has to be considered carefully, pull out a checklist and start marking off the things that are important to you. Once you find something that suits what you’re looking for, then you’re stuck with everything that means. There are certain apps that don’t run well on android... there are certain apps that aren’t available on iOS, but that’s a PART of your decision.

Here’s a tip. If you’re trying to define a monopoly, it’s best if you’re using the term for a MARKET.
Like
Samsung has a monopoly on TV’s! — generic and defining a control exerted outside their own company - good
Home Depot has a monopoly on tools!
McDonald’s has a monopoly on fast food!

These are all good possible definitions of monopoly’s.

However, if you have to use a trademarked name as a part of the description of a monopoly
Samsung has a monopoly on Samsung TV’s
Home Depot has a monopoly on Ryobi Tools
McDonald’s has a monopoly on the Big Mac

Then what you’re describing is a PRODUCT from a COMPANY, not a market that they exert undue influence over.