Well it’s not just me otherwise apple wouldn’t be getting investigated by all these different regulatory bodies and be in the middle of who knows how many lawsuits specifically around it. But thanks for the chat
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.
Dutch Antitrust Watchdog Nears Draft Decision in App Store Probe
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It wasn't a suggestion. It was more of a thought process on how I would think one would determine which smartphone to buy taking the various considerations into account.
It's called the Netherlands Authority for conusmers and Markets
Authority for Consumers & Markets | ACM.nl
www.acm.nl
It's ACM, the text on the site says nothing, just some guy/girl not knowing it should be Dutch... instead of The Netherlands...
This is the Dutch site, there's no Nederland (Netherlands) before ACM as you can see.
----------------------------
The problem is that the Dutch are pretty good at speaking English in general, but the person in The Netherlands that translated the dutch language ACM website into English made a mistake. It should be Dutch...
Not unusual. I was born and raised in The Netherlands but have lived in the US for the last thirty years. It's very common for Dutch people to translate Dutch into English, thinking they did a great job. They should make it a point to have their translation checked by a native English speaker.... avoids issues like this. That's what I did for the first 15 years I lived here....
I’m curious to know if you think this has brought down the macOS environment. I can install software from any source on my Mac that I want, or I can choose to restrict all software instillation to the Mac App Store by configuring my Gatekeeper preferences.Not really good for consumers in this case, as it brings down the entire IOS environment.
Ever since the “What’s a Computer” ad campaign, Apple has been positioning their tablets as a viable computer alternative. A lot of my work depends on having access to software from the open-source community. As much as I love my iPad Pro, it will never replace my Mac for this reason.
Does having this choice really sound anti-consumer to you? I’m not trying to sound rhetorical here, I’d honestly like to understand the other side of this position.
The horse has left the barn with MacOs and Windows. As far as Windows goes, even Microsoft understands that by creating the Microsoft Store, they are offering a "safer" place to download software.
The entire "what's a computer" is like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
Unless a public for profit company is engaging in illegal business practices, I am against government intervention.
Apple does not host anything but the store itself. And many developers (like Epic) would prefer Apple did not do that either.
Maybe, but that's not the developer's, or Epic's, choice. the don't like it don't develop iOS/iPadOS apps. It's really that simple.
I'm going to second the above on this. If the dev doesn't like it, develop somewhere else. Some want to freeload on Apple's hard word and use their customer base and infrastructure all the while, whilst paying Apple a de minimus amount.
The regulators may make it even simpler. If the developers want to develop for the devices owned by people they can do it without any fee regardless of the phone/OS model. Who needs the intermediary (Apple/Google) which is there primarily to collect the fees?
Customer base does not belong to Apple. Once the buyer paid for the phone, his/her obligation before Apple is complete. Now let the phone owner to work with the developers on what they need.
Customer base does belong to Apple. Once they buyer has paid for the phone they can use the device as they see fit. But if they decide to use IOS, they are licensed to use the software and agree to it's use. Apple is under no obligation to help one use their devices in a way that is contrary to the license.
Once the regulators forbid Apple from using this type of licenses this won't be a problem anymore. It's that simple. The government is there to take care of the customers/people. Apple will be free to choose to sell the phones with legal licenses or stop celling the phones and switch to something else (I hear they are working on a car, this might be their plan B).
Yes. in terms of security, it absolutely brings down the MacOS and Windows environment and there is not much Apple or Microsoft can do about it. This is one of the reasons Apple created the iOs environment to be a walled garden from the start. I would equally not approve of Apple locking down MacOs as much as me not wanting them to unlock iOS because at the time of my Mac purchase the Os was unlocked.
You kind of answered your own question. By bypassing gatekeeper, you are "forced" into taking risks. The reason there are these risks is because the developers that choose not to get a simple developer ID are allowed to function this way. Although you might be savvy enough to take your chances with this, the majority of iOs users would have no clue of the dangers.
The other problem with this is app management. On a computer you typically have less applications, and most are from big developers, so it isn't as big a deal to get updates for the software. Unless you use the MacOS store you are getting updates directly from the developer unchecked from anyone. There is some comfort of dealing with (Adobe, Microsoft, etc). But on a phone, most people get apps on whim and have huge libraries to manage. Right now, apple manages all the updates for you. They are checked by them and all you have to do is hit one button to update all your apps. With multiple stores that goes away. Either that store has to have an update mechanism or they will leave it to developer to manage updates (like it is on MacOs). So now you are allowing bob from Zimbabwe to have an unchecked update for his free game go directly into little Timmy's iPad.
But you say you have a "choice" to not use these other stores. That is as true as saying you have the "choice" to only use the MacOS store. There is hardly anything on there, so if you want certain software, you have no choice but to go somewhere else. If multiple iOs stores were introduced, many apps will leave the App Store. So the "choice" of not using other stores no longer becomes a choice if the other store has the software I need. Right now as a consumer you have a one stop secure shop to find all existing apps and manage their updates. I understand that some people want more freedom than that but what I can't understand is why these same people can not understand why some of us like it the way it is.
@jlc1978
Developers put their apps on it because it holds 50% of the market in the US. If it got 10% or less, would be gone already. Developers flocked to the iPhone at the start because it was selling like hot cakes whilst the solo App Store was mostely a green field, very few apps. Publish something back than it would sell ... bit not anymore. Now with thousands of apps there is no added advantage of the App Store, its an expensive cloud service that developers need to pay to reach 50% potential customers on the US. The litmus test ... take Windows Phone ... with Android and iPhone already ahead the Windows Phone could not get more than 10% of market, a uninteresting number of consumers for devs to bet on.
Check the top “free” apps on the App Store ... it’s quite impressive, belong to highly profitable digital businesses much more profitable than any top paid app that. They also benefited from the smartphone boom as any digital business, yet the little ones are indeed 100% subsidizing the deployment of the moguls. Why “free” in quotes? Because this moguls have enough brand presence not to pay a dime to Apple as users are used to pay buy other means, not even for the cloud service to deploy and update their apps they pay, review process they get all that or free. Honestly, if users loved to pay through the App Store for sure any of these top free apps would be a top paid app. But no, users opt to pay elsewhere.
The policies have nothing to do with fairness. But collect the most from the ones that have less. This is the effect of these policies.
Do you know that the average IT depending of a business is around 10% of the revenue. Even software companies go up to around 20%. Now put the 15% to 30% on top and you gave 50% of revenue going. The rest is operations, marketing sales, research and development .... How else can say productivity combination say of Ulysses + Notion cost almost as much or more per year as an Office 365 subscription with less than half of the features?.... these guys cannot simply compete, neither are getting enough revenue in with 70% of what they sell to move fast ... investors of these companies are indeed subsidizing App Store business with a profit margins that I figure that is unprecedented even for Apple, over 85% profit ... they will simply disappear as fast as fads go in the Valley. The subscription model simply rose the prices up By an order of magnitude of 12.
Developers put their apps on it because it holds 50% of the market in the US. If it got 10% or less, would be gone already. Developers flocked to the iPhone at the start because it was selling like hot cakes whilst the solo App Store was mostely a green field, very few apps. Publish something back than it would sell ... bit not anymore. Now with thousands of apps there is no added advantage of the App Store, its an expensive cloud service that developers need to pay to reach 50% potential customers on the US. The litmus test ... take Windows Phone ... with Android and iPhone already ahead the Windows Phone could not get more than 10% of market, a uninteresting number of consumers for devs to bet on.
Check the top “free” apps on the App Store ... it’s quite impressive, belong to highly profitable digital businesses much more profitable than any top paid app that. They also benefited from the smartphone boom as any digital business, yet the little ones are indeed 100% subsidizing the deployment of the moguls. Why “free” in quotes? Because this moguls have enough brand presence not to pay a dime to Apple as users are used to pay buy other means, not even for the cloud service to deploy and update their apps they pay, review process they get all that or free. Honestly, if users loved to pay through the App Store for sure any of these top free apps would be a top paid app. But no, users opt to pay elsewhere.
The policies have nothing to do with fairness. But collect the most from the ones that have less. This is the effect of these policies.
Do you know that the average IT depending of a business is around 10% of the revenue. Even software companies go up to around 20%. Now put the 15% to 30% on top and you gave 50% of revenue going. The rest is operations, marketing sales, research and development .... How else can say productivity combination say of Ulysses + Notion cost almost as much or more per year as an Office 365 subscription with less than half of the features?.... these guys cannot simply compete, neither are getting enough revenue in with 70% of what they sell to move fast ... investors of these companies are indeed subsidizing App Store business with a profit margins that I figure that is unprecedented even for Apple, over 85% profit ... they will simply disappear as fast as fads go in the Valley. The subscription model simply rose the prices up By an order of magnitude of 12.
Last edited:
There is a big “if” missing from this statement. It has not been determined “ the people” will be better off with another arrangement. Some are acting as if some regulations are a done deal. It’s my opinion this is far from a done deal.
And apple will fight this tooth and nail.
They provide access to the entire user base, advertising, etc. get rid of tha apps tore and let the stores prolifirate so developrs have to work with multiple stores and payment systems, advertise on their own and hope they get on the top of search results, host it themselves and handle all the chargebacks, etc. I am sure developers would be asking for Apple to reinstate the App store if they closed it and said "you're own your own. Have a nice day."
Apple could simply charge for developer tools, certificates , etc. to make up for the revenue. They could have more stringent privacy rules for non signed apps, etc, as well. The end result is likely to hurt the small developers more than the big ones by driving up the upfront costs of development.
Which is why developers like the app store and Apple's fee for access to that market is not out of line.
The flip side is popular apps like those drive sales and increase the user base for all developers.
The flip side is it gives small developers access to a large user base for far less than if they had to do it by themselves, with virtually no up front costs. It also aggregates users in one store, instead of developers having to deal with multiple ones or go it alone.
I'm not sure what you point is; if a developer cannot make money with their app then they simply should go out of business. No one owes them a profit.
They would not. They would still want to sell their phones. The phones without good/free software development ecosystem would fail very fast.
So you finely admit it. Apple is attempting to charge a fee to digital services to access 50% of the US population give or take. It does not even need to try to sell an app or digital service. It’s leveraging on iPhone sales to than use users as a product that sells to devs. It’s about access to population. This is unprecedented at such a scale ... Google tries to do the same.
This thing needs to be regulated as no regulation is prepared for this. Imagine Amazon holding the gate to 50% of the US population of any business selling goods. They would not even need to be a monopoly to be potentially extremely damaging
Apple does not need to be broken in any way. That is crazy talk. App Stores and devices with such an impact on society need to be regulated. Simple has that. Much like the automobile industry is.
It’s crazy.
Cherrs.
Last edited:
Don’t you see the inherent irony behind your statement?
The reason why I as a consumer am happy with the current App Store arrangement is precisely because Apple has more leverage to bargain collectively with developers on behalf of all of us, than any of us will ever have as an individual.
What incentive is there for iOS developers to implement Sign In with Apple, or stop tracking, if Apple wasn’t there to enforce these policies?
And I think therein lies the current standoff that we face. Maybe this ruling is better for developers in the form of less onerous rules and lower fees / higher revenues, but I as a consumer have a hard time seeing how it would be to my benefit when it won’t necessarily translate into lower prices (it’s not like I pay less for fantastical after one year), or better oversight and enforcement of existing policies.
As a consumer, I just don’t see how any of this would result in a better user experience for me at all. I look at the state of the google play store and I am like “you expect me to be in support of this?!?”
You are but one consumer enamored with Apple. Apple never bargains on your behalf. They only care about their profits (as they should). What the monopolistic position does let them do is charge you and software developers exorbitant fees. Do you like them too?
What monopoly? Court case ruling please. As an ex-dev the fees were a pittance compared to what I didn’t have to do. And that “ monopoly “ is precisely how the iPhone ecosystem grew.
As one observer (don’t know if you’re a consumer) you’re not enamored with apple.