I don't think so.
I'm not saying tha app store gets dispanded or third parties stores are imminent but the current model, the way Apple does things it will change.
We're already seeing the start of it.
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
I don't think so.
I'm not saying tha app store gets dispanded or third parties stores are imminent but the current model, the way Apple does things it will change.
We're already seeing the start of it.
It might change, but not the way you believe or would want. The same comment applies to me to be fair.
That may be the case, but the post I was responding to was specifically calling out the fact that Apple doesn’t allow advertisement of those external payment methods you mentioned. What I am saying specifically to that point is that this could easily be remedied by Apple not taking a ridiculous cut for a service they largely don’t touch at all, and just take a reasonable cut for being the payment method used (IAP). Apple makes a little money, and devs pay such a small sum that it makes the advertisement issue moot. Everybody wins.
Courts and governments are working hard right now. We'll see what they decide. You can't claim that this is the reason why the ecosystem grew: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.
* Android ecosystem grew even bigger and it does allow for the alternative app stores
* iOS ecosystem did not have a chance to grow any other way because of Apple policies. We just can't know how it would have developed under different circumstances. It might have developed much better.
Yes.
I usually get downvoted for this kind of response, but I'll put it out there anyway. Apple's ecosystem is designed around people that easily spend money. It's a common trope around here that Apple gear is overpriced (which I disagree with) but given that, and their financials which are unlike any other comparable company, you can only conclude that Apple buyers spend money - a lot of it. I'm end-to-end Apple gear. A lot of the people around me are as well. I don't want to dick around with cobbling some system together, deal with any more accounts than I already have (200+ passwords in my 1Password - welcome to adulthood), or deal with security issues. I work hard and make enough money to make ends meet, and at this point in my life, I want things to be easy more than I want them to be cheap.
I am Apple's target market. Is Apple Music lower quality or more expensive? I literally don't care. I just want to be able to pull up a song on my watch and stream it to my airpods no matter where I am. That's it. I'll pay more for it. I don't have to install an app. I don't need to enter my l/p. I can airplay it to damn near everything.
Same thing extends to the App Store. I bought an iPhone precisely so I don’t have to deal with third party app stores or similar crap. This is what Apple does. They rarely beat competitors on the bullet list, but when it comes to 'look at your phone and all your **** is unlocked', they're unbeatable. They play the system integration game better than anyone else, and if it costs a few bucks more, I'm happy to pay it.
Last edited:
Being “hard at work” doesn’t mean anything substantial will change. Android is exactly the competition for IOS that will mitigate this entire thing. Android grew bigger because android manufacturers are in a race to the bottom to sell phones…except for some ridiculously high priced phones that are halo phones.
I think most people realize the iOS ecosystem grew to what it is because of the way Apple managed, not “in spite of” the way apple managed as you say.
Courts are working hard as you say. They let epic stay kicked out of the App Store.
The idea that digital services fear being on their own when in it comes to put their product on the market is absurd. It can only come from someone that never or will be an entrepreneur.
Now, no one is require Apple to allow other App Stores. What business are claiming is for the ability to process payment directly, considering they, the businesses have done almost everything up to payment To convert the customer. Not the App Store.
Apple has several options. Allow multiple App Stores or say start charging the App Store service as any other Cloud Service, a peace of infrastructure allowing the deployment and updating a bunch of files we call apps. On top that businesses that require App Store marketing features such as recommendations, ads, etc etc, charge on top.
Nah multiple app stores means more competition which is always good for customers. Not buying Apples take on this
Currently there is no third party app stores for Apples app store as they don't allow side loading applications for security reasons. Doesn't mean they have to open up the platform just to allow third party app stores to exist, let alone compete. Third party applications already compete inside Apples app store. This isn't App vs App competition which already exists, but rather app store vs app store competition which none exists in the first place.
Thats not how software licencing works. We have software licencing on desktops, but now not on phones and tablets?
What’s crazy are some think along the lines of “if it ain’t broke then fix it”. The automobile industry is regulated because lives are at stake and pollution is at stake. Same for airlines.
Slotting fees at supermarkets are not regulated. Apple is a successful minority player according to every metric and should be able to run their lawful business and not be penalized for not doing a great job.
This is not ATT.
Never underestimate Apple's ability to find ways to make money off of its installed base. The problem with your assetion that devloper tools eed to be free is the major players, such as What's App, Facebook, Google, Major Networks, Netflix, etc. can easily absorb such costs. As a result, the majority of users would still have the apps they want.
Most smaller developer apps would not be missed by most of the iOS user base, and those developers would be the ones to suffer. Smaller developers, who are more niche markets, would be hurt because they would see potentially significant cost increases without a corresponding revenue increase.
The current system benefits them right now; and while I understand they'd like more money they may find changes actually result in less. What's missing in the argument is the impact on the consumer. Have developers lowered app prices in response to Apples' reduction to a 15% cut for smaller developers? Not that I've seen, so the consumer hasn't benefited, and consumer benefit is the whole point of market regualtion.
The whole argument over 30% is isimply an attempt at a money grab; not some consumer / small developer protection scheme.
Never claimed it wasn't. There is nothing inherently wrong with having a large and desirable customer base whether you sell electronics or any other good.
I would not be surprised if 50% of the population does buy from Amazon; however being successful is not a reason to force a company to change.
The problem I have with the idea of regulating app stores is the unintended consequences; and regulation ultimately benefits the regulated by adding barriers to entry that allow higher prices. The automobile industry is a good example. The various safety and other regulations make it hard for a new company to be a serious competitor to the major manufacturers. Tesla is the closest anyone has come recently but even so their long term survival is not assured unless they can actually make money on selling cars and not by selling EV credits.
Regulation is not necessarily bad but can be absurd. The US regulates barbers and beauticians, yet no one ever died from a bad haircut; the result is higher prices because it is harder to open a barbershop.
Same here. I raise a glass of Vinho Verde to a good conversation.
Apple's cut is for distributing a paid product, just as any stores. Apple's 30% is actually quite reasonable when compared to what it used to cost to get an app to market.
Android grew because companies made cheap phones using a free OS; and the ecosystem is badly Balkanized as a result.
Actually, I have run my own company for a long time, but am very aware of the costs of developing aa new product and want to avoid as much of those as possible. In the app store's case, I think developers have a better deal than if the rules were changed. Apple will find ways to make money, and the result may very well be front loading costs onto developers which raises the initial costs of a new product.
Which is my point. Change that and Apple will find other ways to make money, and likely at the front end rather than the back end. How many developers can afford such charges upfront before they know if a product is going to make any money? If they don't pay for advertising, for example, users may never see their app. If Apple charges per download, every update would cost them without providing any revenue; a developer could easily burn through cash before making any money. The big companies could easily afford it and drown out the smaller ones.
To add to my auto comment above; airlines were initially regulated not only for safety reasons but to ensure they could profitably run all their routes. Airlines were assigned routes and fares were set based on distance to ensure every route was profitable; which lead to higher fares and reduced competition.
Southwest was limited, by regulation, where it could fly; which is why for years Southwest could not expand beyond the states around its base at Dallas' Love Field.
That's why when the fare structure regulation was eliminated many of them failed since competitors with lower costs could take away customers.
Regulation is touted as protecting consumers but ultimately benefits entrenched companies.
Very true.
Good, cogent, points were made. But to the above, if Apple is regulated and hamstrung, the big devs are probably going to be the ones that make out at Apple's expense.
In today's environment, other than the blood, sweat and tears that goes into the final app, all devs have equal footing.
Apple isn’t distributing Netflix videos, as just one example of what I’m talking about.
The NFC aspect quoted in the article is just dumb. Every bank can use Apple Pay (and by extension NFC) by allowing their cards to be placed in the Wallet. Per the “Apple Pay for Merchants” Apple Support document there are no fees for this. There is literally no cost involved. And, while the bank may not get the complete itemized purchase record from the POS, I personally don’t have a problem with that. This decision to lock NFC charge transaction to the Wallet / Apple Pay does secure my financials better than what I would ex from the banks themselves - some of which have truly appalling iOS apps that look like they contracted the development to the CEO’s kid’s junior high coding club.
And, Apple does allow third-party access to the NFC via certain transaction types and APIs, such as hotel electronic key cards from within the hotel apps.
edit: correct typo.
And, Apple does allow third-party access to the NFC via certain transaction types and APIs, such as hotel electronic key cards from within the hotel apps.
edit: correct typo.
Last edited:
Banks aren't a competing service with Apple Pay, you've missed the point.
Can Paypal use it? Can Stripe use it? Nope.
By the way they let hotels use it because they don't compete with any of Apples services.
Last edited:
Unless you ensure all App Stores have access to largely the same catalog I don’t see the benefit of competition you think will be there. Developers, especially smaller ones, will not support every store. Many developers will flock to store with lower fees regardless of customer value. Prices for apps will not be cheaper (or at minimum not cheaper by the developer’s costs savings).
Oh, and you want anticompetitive action, try to enforce what I mentioned in the first sentence.
@
Actually, PayPal can be used as a payment option (again, reference Apple’s Apple Pay support docs). Stripe is a POS provider (registers, card / nfc readers) which can read my Apple Pay transaction from my phone today.
EDIT: To be certain, I looked at Strip Issuing virtual cards after posting this. They support Apple Pay via Wallet as well.
And, yes, many of the entities complaining are the banks and card issuers themselves.
Regardless of that, why do I as a device manufacturer have to offer complete and unrestricted access to everything in device. A really dumb comparison: many cars have built in nav and therefore a gps antenna. I want my phone to use the car’s receiver all the time. My car may support the optional capability. Other makes may not. Shall we for all manufacturers in all models to completely open up the antenna in their car? What if that access up is also used for some other vehicle-specific purpose that the manufacturers does not want to share?
As I said, dumb example, but you can see how not every hardware feature has to be open to all possible uses by all developers. And the auto up industry is one of the most regulated.
Actually, PayPal can be used as a payment option (again, reference Apple’s Apple Pay support docs). Stripe is a POS provider (registers, card / nfc readers) which can read my Apple Pay transaction from my phone today.
EDIT: To be certain, I looked at Strip Issuing virtual cards after posting this. They support Apple Pay via Wallet as well.
And, yes, many of the entities complaining are the banks and card issuers themselves.
Regardless of that, why do I as a device manufacturer have to offer complete and unrestricted access to everything in device. A really dumb comparison: many cars have built in nav and therefore a gps antenna. I want my phone to use the car’s receiver all the time. My car may support the optional capability. Other makes may not. Shall we for all manufacturers in all models to completely open up the antenna in their car? What if that access up is also used for some other vehicle-specific purpose that the manufacturers does not want to share?
As I said, dumb example, but you can see how not every hardware feature has to be open to all possible uses by all developers. And the auto up industry is one of the most regulated.
Nah the PC gaming marketplace (Steam, GOG, etc.) is super healthy and has many competing game storefronts that improve at insane rates due to the fact they actually have to try. Being the only player in the game results in stagnation. Nobody said anything about enforcing the same apps in all storefronts that’s just silly, what’s the point of that.
Honestly just having the ability to side load would make most people like me happy. Comes in handy for when apple overreaches which seems to happen a lot these days
I think part of that competition is the nature of the gaming market. Perhaps. I really don’t know that market well enough.
I’ve done the jailbreak thing before. Just not worth the hassle. I imagine the same true for sideliading.
You have to remember how phone and mobile apps have developed (going back to the crap that was sold by the phone companies) the market is really not the same as what Steam sells. Please correct me if I am wrong, but Steam, Epic, GOG, etc all sell much larger, fatter games than might be the typical mobile app.
It is the non-game apps. Or non-AAA game apps. These are the ones that will be most hurt. Productivity apps. Developer apps. Utilities. Smaller niche games. Those not cross-platform or produced by the large platform players will be relegated to one store or another. This will hurt indie player much more than the large shops by having to pick a store (with related pricing model) or spend extra time supporting multiple with all the overhead - both tech and office - that go along with them.
Android should handily fill that niche about side loading at whim.
It wasn’t a suggestion, it is a fact. Buying an iPhone and then wanting them to support your use case won’t happen for the most part.Thanks for the suggestion
The best alternatives are to pick devices that support your use case from the get-go.
No but they are the app, which gives Netflix the access to Apple's customer base. That is the value Apple adds ; although they may have cut a deal with Netflix, IIRC.
You missed a "little" detail here. Yes the banks can use Apple Pay, but they have to pay for it. And what about services that do not require credit cards? PayPal?
People watching Netflix are Netflix customer base not Apple's.