Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Exactly. Apple is not getting a free ride.
well your point was that other companies having access to iPhone users for free was stupid. But now that Apple has access for other companies users for free Apple you conclude that is not for free after all.l because it pays Internet access.

Here is the news for you. Everyone pays Internet access.

This duality of criteria just exposes how consistent is your bias and inconsistent is you analysis of the situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedRage
Exactly. Apple is not getting a free ride.



Your logic is flawed. You keep wanting to conflate two different business models in a failed attempt to argue that it's unfair that Apple charges for being on the App Store. ISP sell bandwidth. ISP get paid by their customers, in exchange for providing access to the internet. How the charge varys, in some cases it's a blanket fee, per data usage, or by device. Either way they still charge. Of course, there are other fees ISPs pay for interconnects, etc.

BTW, some do charge for access to their user base if you call a mobile phone.

Apple did quite nice before the internet as well.



Uh, last time I checked stores take a markup for whatever they sell, and it can vary form a few % points to several hundred percent. So yes, everyone is doing what Apple does.

Stores aren’t being used to create fences around third party customers and their devices like Apple is using.

Will see if my logic is flawed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedRage
well your point was that other companies having access to iPhone users for free was stupid. But now that Apple has access for other companies users for free Apple you conclude that is not for free after all.l because it pays Internet access.

You claimed Apple had access to other user bases for free; I never claimed that others have access to iPhones for free to sell software, so please stop twisting what I say or at least try to comprehend it before you reply.

Here is the news for you. Everyone pays Internet access.

Exactly my point, and some pay to access other users on it as well. So you are no longer claiming Apple accesses other users for free, I take it.

This duality of criteria just exposes how consistent is your bias and inconsistent is you analysis of the situation.
?
Stores aren’t being used to create fences around third party customers and their devices like Apple is using.

Will see if my logic is flawed.

Sure they do. I can't walk into Continente and setup my own shop selling something.
 
You claimed Apple had access to other user bases for free;

And they have. Apple does not pay anyone to access users neither others impose tariffs to Apple to access their users.

You are the one thought strange businesses accessing each other ones users base for free.

Overlapping user bases is quite common. You and I, we are users of many services.

As for Apple paying Internet connection as such user access is not free … so does everyone else. ISP do not sell user access but Internet connection.

Now you are quite right stating that in end of the day, Apple App Store gate keeping sells user access, not so much the apps or digital services.
 
Last edited:
You claimed Apple had access to other user bases for free;

I claimed and its true. I’ve said, Apple pays for an Internet connection like everyone else. This is NOT the same as paying to have access to your customers, or someone else user base. So no, Apple does not pay to access user bases, theirs or someone else’s.

That is why say an ISP cannot demand 30% of Apple revenue to pay for an Internet connection. It would be ridiculous. An Internet connection does not cost that much … right?

You can twist this as much as you would like To fit the Apple practices in this context yet it will never be the same.

Now to have access to your customers … how much can that cost? … well sky is the limit here isn’t it?

The App Store + its policies indeed requires companies like Apple but not Apple to be open to share 30% of their revenue to access their customer using their customers devices that happen to be an iPhone or an iPad. The App Store + it’s policies creates a bubble in my view akin to customers Ransomware with a market share of over 50% of mobile users in the US. Digital services having direct, unrestricted yet legal access to their customers within their realm, within their apps, is vital to business.

Imagine iPhones being constantly subjected to ISP’s changing policies … it would be crazy. That is why ISP are regulated. That is why App Stores working as gatekeepers need to be too.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RedRage
The amount of people on this site that want Apple to be able to do whatever they want is crazy!
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: I7guy
The amount of people on this site that want Apple to be able to do whatever they want is crazy!

The number of people on this site who thing everything Apple does is immoral or illegal, even when everyone else does the same thing, is crazy!
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
The amount of people on this site that want Apple to be able to do whatever they want is crazy!

I believe that Apple is pushing the boundaries of digital commerce. Both in its form and it’s narrative.

It’s typical Apple and I really love it.

What I find astonishing is the amount of people in this site with so little critical thinking about this. Case in case the App Store and it’s policies, right to repair … so on and so forth. Getting lost in sophistic comparisons and metaphors. Fear about security and privacy …

Technically the App Store does not even sell Apps but the ability to install and update apps in iOS devices go figure. This is unlike any other store in the world prior to the App Store era. All the other layers are technically optional yet entangled by policy to drive the markup up and increase Apple control over third party assets to “protect” theirs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RedRage
You are the one thought strange businesses accessing each other ones users base for free.

I have consistently said stores charge for access to customer bases, whether online or B&M.

You keep brining up unrelated business models to attempt to show Apple gets a free ride.

You can twist this as much as you would like To fit the Apple practices in this context yet it will never be the same.

I'm not - I've said the ISP model is different, you keep trying to use it for comparison purposes.

But, if you insist, Non-Tier 1 ISPs pay to access the customer base available to Tier 1 ISPs, and pass on that cost to customers, so yes there is an ISP "tax" if you accept your argument.

Now to have access to your customers … how much can that cost? … well sky is the limit here isn’t it?

Yes. It all depends on how much money another company can expect to make from it.

Look at slotting fees as an example.

The App Store + its policies indeed requires companies like Apple but not Apple to be open to share 30% of their revenue to access their customer using their customers devices that happen to be an iPhone or an iPad.

Store brands typically return more to the store. Nothing new there.

Technically the App Store does not even sell Apps but the ability to install and update apps in iOS devices go figure.

Well, technically Continente only sells the ability to take products home as well. Should their profit margin be less?

This is unlike any other store in the world prior to the App Store era.

Computer stores for years sold boxed apps that could be installed and newer boxed versions, i.e. updates be bought. Nothing new except the delivery method, and even Apple did not create the idea of an app store.
 
I believe that Apple is pushing the boundaries of digital commerce. Both in its form and it’s narrative.

It’s typical Apple and I really love it.

What I find astonishing is the amount of people in this site with so little critical thinking about this. Case in case the App Store and it’s policies, right to repair … so on and so forth. Getting lost in sophistic comparisons and metaphors. Fear about security and privacy …

Technically the App Store does not even sell Apps but the ability to install and update apps in iOS devices go figure. This is unlike any other store in the world prior to the App Store era. All the other layers are technically optional yet entangled by policy to drive the markup up and increase Apple control over third party assets to “protect” theirs.
Agree, it's a typical Apple story. The amount of contortions and spin that is present with so much overthinking is astounding.

The sentiment from Musk juxtapositioned with the Tesla walled garden would make Apple blush.
 
I have consistently said stores charge for access to customer bases, whether online or B&M.

You keep brining up unrelated business models to attempt to show Apple gets a free ride.



I'm not - I've said the ISP model is different, you keep trying to use it for comparison purposes.

But, if you insist, Non-Tier 1 ISPs pay to access the customer base available to Tier 1 ISPs, and pass on that cost to customers, so yes there is an ISP "tax" if you accept your argument.



Yes. It all depends on how much money another company can expect to make from it.

Look at slotting fees as an example.



Store brands typically return more to the store. Nothing new there.



Well, technically Continente only sells the ability to take products home as well. Should their profit margin be less?



Computer stores for years sold boxed apps that could be installed and newer boxed versions, i.e. updates be bought. Nothing new except the delivery method, and even Apple did not create the idea of an app store.

Stores fundamentally are sales channels. It’s their ability to sell that makes them relevant.

Comparing with Continent makes no sense. Continente does not charge for further sales going through the mobile phones, Xboxes and TVs … it sells. It does not install mandatory ransomware to be able to do so with the products it sells. Imagine Continente charging Apple 30% of the revenue going through the iPhones it’s sells … Worten/Continente. Crazy right?

There is a practical boundary that has been struck by Apple. The difference is that the technology matured and Apple got the power to do so.

That is the boundary Apple is pushing within the realm digital commerce … and it’s clearly unbalancing the relationships between supplier and their customers, including customer ownership over the products they buy. Challenging the concept of property … to their favor of course. That is the problem, because the challenge is not equidistant to al entities properties, but is turning the table in Apple direction … the more market share they get the stronger it will be. Now two or theee of this … and …
 
Last edited:
Developers knew Apple's rules before they built their apps for the App Store.

But they did it anyway?

That's on them...

:p
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
Stores fundamentally are sales channels. It’s their ability to sell that makes them relevant.

The same for an App Store. It , like a store, provides access to a customer base in exchange for a fee.

Comparing with Continent makes no sense. Continente does not charge for further sales going through the mobile phones, Xboxes and TVs … it sells.

So does Apple. You can buy an app and never pay Apple a cent again. OTOH, there are B&M stores that get a cut of ongoing revenue when subscription based services ae sold through their channel, just like Apple so the broad comparison is valid. In addition, some charge for floor space if someone sets up a store within a store. I used Continente since it is in Portugal and you probably are familiar with it.
It does not install mandatory ransomware to be able to do so with the products it sells. Imagine Continente charging Apple 30% of the revenue going through the iPhones it’s sells … Worten/Continente. Crazy right?

They do, however, charge every seller of the product a fee to carry the product, as Apple does with non-free apps.

That is the boundary Apple is pushing within the realm digital commerce … and it’s clearly unbalancing the relationships between supplier and their customers, including customer ownership over the products they buy. Challenging the concept of property … to their favor of course. That is the problem, because the challenge is not equidistant to al entities properties, but is turning the table in Apple direction … the more market share they get the stronger it will be. Now two or theee of this … and …
It actually has benefited many develpers over teh old way of delievering software aas well.

That is a different issue as to ownership than is it fair for Apple to charge a fee for access to the App Store and have an exclusive access for apps.

Your phone is still your property, however Apple is under no obligation to make it possible to modify it; you are free to do so if you want even if it isn't easy.
 
The same for an App Store. It , like a store, provides access to a customer base in exchange for a fee.

You are thinking in terms of customer base. That is just potential. Look man you can have very large stores with huge customer base, yet a store with a smaller customer base sell much more. Its not that uncommon.

Its the ability of a store to sell that matters not the customer base.

Now within this, the App Store there is no competition hence nothing to directly compare with in terms of sales ability.

Take Fortnite for instance. There is no doubt in my mind that it would sell well in iOS as it sold in other platforms. The App Store is fundamentally there collecting revenue share in iOS market, banking on the success of the dev world wide after licenses and devices.
In App I find it very difficult to believe it’s the App Store converting the lead into a sale. It’s a bit like considering thinking that it’s Continente that sell Apple Music on the iPhone. It’s more akin to a ransomware device rather than an active sale device.

Given this all possible comparisons are indirect.

PS: What old way. The only difference to prior art is that the iPhone devices sold like cup cakes and the App Store was the only way to acquire, install and update apps. What made Apple was the iPhone and the flock of third party Apps not the App Store. Back than was fundamentally a green field starving for Apps. In effect the devs contribute a lot to iOS popularity. Take for instance Windows Phone that basically was “boicot” by devs and boom down the drain of irrelevance.
Take for instance the HomePod … a device Apple built for its services only … at failed to acquire scale … no third party devs bringing in their creation … no mega device sales …

Why it was “boicot” … well here are the devs in a similar position with a different player.

Anyway will see how this unfolds.

PS: The rest of your argument is extrapolating from certain similarities that it’s the same thing. While ignoring fundamental differences that do not fit the narrative. If you want to proceed like that … do not have much to add to what I’ve written. Now, if you want to compare businesses as a whole … better look at the differences in practice … and imagine how it would like transposed to Continente, ISP, Worten, … Apple would not exist in such a world.
 
Last edited:
Did you guys see the article about the Tesla owners father in law that accidentally bought a $14,000us driver aid via the cars menu system and is taking Tesla to court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
I think a lot of people have missed an important point: Musk has this ability to make things "trending" just by talking about it. I think this will bring further scrutiny to Apple's practices by the general public.

If that's a good thing or not, idk.
It should bring further scrutiny to Elon & his businesses not Apple. The fcc would have a field day with his ramblings of Bitcoin & doge if those currencies were regulated under then.
 
Elon is not dumb and he knows if the rumors about Apple Car is true than Apple is competition and you need to start making their life more difficult now
 
The iPhone was great out of the gate. What really made the iPhone was the innovation called the App Store that offered 3rd party developers a no-risk way to push their wares.

I think that is a very convenient explanation given the circumstances.

I digress from that point of view. we just need to watch the presentations back than to understand why was poised to be a success.

In my view, on par with its brilliant touch interface, smooth operation and web centricity, was crucial to its success not go the BlackBerry or iPod way and instead open up the system to third party apps and digital services enrichment / contributions like any modern desktop OS of the time. This decision opened up a green field of possibilities on top of the device and its OS.

Within this the App Store could have been just a very convenient way for users to install and update Apps, say simply a global App Directory. But in fact turned out to be monetization scheme paired with policies enforcing the monetization over third party contributions / enrichments while providing some library like facilities to the end users.

Hey, but this is tangent to the issues at hand as far as I’m concerned.
 
Last edited:
I think that is a very convenient explanation given the circumstances.
It’s convenient because it’s a likely scenario.
I digress from that point of view. we just need to watch the presentations back than to understand why was poised to be a success.

In my view, on par with its brilliant touch interface, smooth operation and web centricity, was crucial to its success not go the BlackBerry or iPod way and instead open up the system to third party apps and digital services enrichment / contributions like any modern desktop OS of the time. This decision opened up a green field of possibilities on top of the device and its OS.

Within this the App Store could have been just a very convenient way for users to install and update Apps, say simply a global App Directory. But in fact turned out to be monetization scheme paired with policies enforcing the monetization over third party contributions / enrichments while providing some library like facilities to the end users.
Brilliant strategy by apple to provide a complete management, testing and distribution environment for $99 and elbow grease. Enforcement of policies to provide a safe and secure one stop shopping environment for iOS users.
Hey, but this is tangent to the issues at hand as far as I’m concerned.
Everything is tangent I suppose. But the comment by Musk is ironic, to say the least, considering the closed nature of the Tesla”ecosystem.”
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.