Elon Musk: Apple's App Store Fees Are a 'De Facto Global Tax on the Internet'

[Nuno Lopes]

Brilliant strategy by apple to provide a complete management, testing and distribution environment for $99 and elbow grease.

Kekeke. You sound someone out of an Apple commercial.

$99 + 30% of the business revenue.

I don’t understand what you mean by complete management, it can mean so many things. Management of what?

What I do know is that for $99 devs are buying access to a development environment and SDKs that in all other commercial OSs of the kind are available for free. On top devs in other systems have a myriad of options for distribution … from fixed pricing, pay per usage … even self publishing. Unlike iOS.

Enforcement of policies to provide a safe and secure one stop shopping environment for iOS users.

Albeit I find it very weird I understand the possibility of ones digital life maybe be summed up as iOS user. Maybe I’m too old school but I consider my self not only an iOS User, but a macOS user, a Netflix user, an Amazon Prime user, a Zoom user, … heck a user of so so so many things.

Sometimes they roles overlap in complementary ways, other times they compete with each other for an activity. In a moment the same time I may be an iOS user together with say a user of medical digital services … digital learning service … a Netflix users. Other times, they compete, for my attention.

Being a User of a thing is different from being a Customer. But for most users to be a iOS users does not mean to be a no one else’s Customer … but an App Store Customer.

When it comes to Customers, the fundamental security threat is one … unauthorized payment. Meaning, someone charging you unauthorized volumes of money. For that matter, albeit trusting only one store, being a Customer of one Company, Apple and the App Store is indeed, a solution. It does not protect the consumer from the other perils of being a customer, in particular manipulation by supplier price or otherwise.

So what are other solutions you might ask? Well, there is one currently be deployed everywhere. Called two factor authorization. Meaning, any charge to your bank account or credit card need to be authorized with a code sento to you by SMS, within your banks app. You may even configure it in such way, say for this supplier, … Apple Store or Amazon … no need for a Pin … you fully trust it. For other, don’t, always send you the pin … and proceed. It’s a very simple process that once you get used to it, is second nature. This covers everything, from apps to groceries, houses, cars … you name it.

This is being deployed all over Europe. With the banks I work with, its already in place. There are some flaws, but it became an EU requirement, so its all being ironed out right now!!! People may safely provide their credit and debit card number and CRC without being afraid of someone charging their account without their full consent.

So it is not just safe shopping to iOS Users … its safe shopping to all users!

Now there are other kinds of scams. Honestly you should go around and watch some videos about how people are getting scammed on the Internet. No technical implementation is possible for most scams. It’s people being imbeciles. Honestly, imbeciles. This is a fight that can only be dealt with education.

Now back to App Store: https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-avoid-app-store-scams/

The thing is before buying an app or subscribing digital a service … trust no one ... Including the App Store. You should always search the Internet for reviews, read comments and forums about it.

So what I have to say about your statement: Humpf.

The fact is that the policies are mostly in place for Apple to be able to monetize over third party contributions. The company has shown that in many policies and moved (xCloud, Stadia, Epic, restrictions on eBook sales) … come up with “reader” apps … WTF?. Like any other reputable store will remove problematic products from its listings … but that is just it … if scammed will not give you the money back … maybe your bank will if you with your due diligence. It does not go further than any other well known merchant in terms being safe and secure.

But don’t worry. Others are working towards that regardless if you are an App Store or any other merchant customer. Now … that is innovation in this field.

No need to gatekeep end-points/apps if not entire digital businesses In exchange of 30% of the revenue.

Now back to iOS. Technically I love how it sandboxes apps. That is key to threats. Absolutely key. Really and advanced OS in that respect. More so than Android. We also love its usability and integration. That is my family / I have:

xiPad 2018
1xiPad Pro 12.5” 2019
1xiPad Pro 12.5” 2020
1xiPhone 11
1xiPhone X
1xiPhone SE
1xiMac Core i9
2xMacbook Air M1
1xAirPod
1xAirPod Pro
1xAirPod Max
2xApple Watch 3
1xMagic Keyboard
1xApple TV 4K

… and we absolutely do not believe that having more merchants, meaning being a Customer of more than just the App Store for digital goods and service changes this in any shape or form.

Cheers.

 

[I7guy]

Kekeke. You sound someone out of an Apple commercial.

I'm not sure you really understand the IOS app store.

$99 + 30% of the business revenue.

I don’t understand what you mean by complete management, it can mean so many things. Management of what?

For your reading pleasure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(iOS/iPadOS)

What I do know is that for $99 devs are buying access to a development environment and SDKs that in all other commercial OSs of the kind are available for free. On top devs have a myriad of options for distribution … from fixed pricing, pay per usage … even self publishing.

Devs are buying access to 1 billion devices.

Albeit I find it very weird I understand the possibility of ones digital life maybe be summed up as iOS user. Maybe I’m too old school but I consider my self not only an iOS User, but a macOS user, a Netflix user, an Amazon Prime user, a Zoom user, … heck a user of so so so many things.

Sometimes they roles overlap in complementary ways, other times they compete with each other for an activity. In a moment the same time I may be an iOS user together with say a user of medical digital services … digital learning service … a Netflix users. Other times, they compete, for my attention.

Being a User of a thing is different from being a Customer. May you do. But for most users to be a iOS users does not mean to be a no one else’s Customer … but an App Store Customer.

When it comes to Customers, the fundamental security threat is one … unauthorized payment. Meaning, someone charging you unauthorized volumes of money. For that matter, albeit trusting only one store, being a Customer of one Company, Apple and the App Store is indeed, a solution. It is also one possibility of money, furthermore in does not protect the consumer from the other perils of being a customer, in particular manipulation.

So what are other solutions you might ask? Well, there is one currently be deployed everywhere. Called two factor authorization. Meaning, any charge to your bank account or credit card need to be authorized with a code sento to you by SMS, within your banks app. You may even configure it in such way, say for this supplier, … Apple Store or Amazon … no need for a Pin … you fully trust it. For other, don’t, always send you the pin … and proceed. It’s a very simple process that once you get used to it, is second nature. This covers everything, from apps to groceries, houses, cars … you name it.

This is being deployed all over Europe. With the banks I work with, its already in place. There are some flaws, but it became an EU requirement, so its all being ironed out right now!!! People may safely provide their credit and debit card number and CRC without being afraid of someone charging their account without their full consent.

So it is not just safe shopping to iOS Users … its safe shopping to all users!

Now there are other kinds of scams. Honestly you should go around and watch some videos about how people are getting scammed on the Internet. No technical implementation is possible for most scams. It’s people being imbeciles. Honestly, imbeciles. This is a fight that can only be dealt with education.

Now back to App Store: https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-avoid-app-store-scams/

The thing is before buying an app or subscribing digital a service … trust no one ... Including the App Store. You should always search the Internet for reviews, read comments and forums about it.

So what I have to say about your statement: Humpf.

The fact is that the policies are mostly in place for Apple to be able to monetize over third party contributions. The company has shown that in many policies and moved (xCloud, Stadia, Epic, restrictions on eBook sales) … come up with “reader” apps … WTF?. Like any other reputable store will remove problematic products from its listings … but that is just it … if scammed will not give you the money back … maybe your bank will if you with your due diligence. It does not go further than any other well known merchant in terms being safe and secure.

But don’t worry. Others are working towards that regardless if you are an App Store or any other merchant customer. Now … that is innovation in this field.

No need to gatekeep end-points/apps if not entire digital businesses In exchange of 30% of the revenue.

Cheers.

None of the above justifies micro-regulation, imo. It's my opinion that when government gets involved in telling companies, who had a legal business, how to run it, it becomes a lose-lose for the parties involved. (Not discussing businesses where your health or money are being managed by someone else).

My last plea: please don't confuse innovation with micro-regulation.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Devs are buying access to 1 billion devices.

No. True developers, innovators and entrepreneurs don’t care less for the devices. They care for solving problems.

Its not 2009 anymore. In effect today they are buying access to their users and customers. People are using Windows, macOS, iOS, Android … fluidly moving from one device to the other as per their choice … choosing one as per situation … transitioning from one end-point o the other … the Internet graph.

I’m not a game player. But in abstract I can see why a Fortnite player in Windows might want to buy the game and related digital artifacts for their device of choice. iOS or Android is irrelevant. Just as an example. But are others, take Zoom for instance. None of these are reader apps … yet their customers are using iPhones / App Store … as well as Android / Google Play.

Indeed there was a miracle … an understandable one but still. The idea that it was just a Store really stick, that was the miracle. While the reality was and is that Digital Businesses were and some still are willing to share 30% of the revenue to enrich Apple devices ... typically you would get payed for it. Understanble in the sense, that yes it was a green field, so great returns could be possible, but how far would it go no one knew not even Apple or Google. I think even Apple was internally surprised by the market accepting such a deal.

Funny enough, the companies that actually have grown tremendously in the last decade … did not share a dime. Interesting isn’t it? Take Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, Titok, SnapChat and some others.

Anyway. Gladly for Apple and Google it went really really far. Two companies reaching close to 48% of the planets population pockets that use the Internet.

Its time for a new phase and bring some neutrality to the operation of these types of devices. Something I’ve mentioned in another post … its not 2009 anymore … its 2021.

Cheers.

PS: Thank you for the link. For me that is not complete management in business terms or technically. The best selling point of App Store for devs, for me at least, is universal billing for the ones that need it. But other entities also provide that service … with the advantage of being OS independent.

 

[I7guy]

[…].

Its time for a new phase and bring some neutrality to the operation of these types of devices. Something I’ve mentioned in another post … its not 2009 anymore … its 2021.

Cheers.

This is still Apple's business model the government wants to micro-regulate. If the government wants a new phase let them introduce a government phone with side loading.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

This is still Apple's business model the government wants to micro-regulate.

As your arguments are rebated … you always com down with this one. Yes, regulation always come in context. They don’t come in abstract. New laws are come, laws change … etc etc … its all about context.

The very concept of side load … is biased towards the App Store. There is no side load … there is only installing and updating end-points in the Internet graph. Side load is a concept that came with the notion of a single App Store. Say two App Store, which one would be side loading the other?

I think regulators don’t need to or should mandate biased technical solutions … such as sideloading …. Simple regulate devices in Tiers as mentioned. As say that Tier 1 device manufacturers cannot charge for the ability to install and update any app, neither diffrentiate such process between merchants while providing security and privacy check points. That should be an instinct part of the OS capabilities, as part of the EULA.

 

[I7guy]

As your arguments are rebated … you always com down with this one. Yes, regulation always come in context. They don’t come in abstract. New laws are come, laws change … etc etc … its all about context.

I don’t agree with your view of this. And should some of these new laws get passed I hope they are successfully challenged in the Supreme Court. My view is government over-reach.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I don’t agree with your view of this. And should some of these new laws get passed I hope they are successfully challenged in the Supreme Court. My view is government over-reach.

I guess any regulation that limit the way businesses operate can be considered overreach. For me it depends on the situation. In this particular case, looking the shape of Internet usage and what is coming in the future in terms of smart devices, AI and so on … I think it’s crucial to keep the concept of Net Neutrality principles on board, if necessary expanding its reach from ISP policies and related devices to these kinds of devices working so close to people. The ability for a customer to choose their preferred merchant for digital goods should be as well protected as its privacy. In fact, putting barriers, lock-ins if you will, on such ability is indeed a threat to privacy.

EDIT: I used to think like you regarding this matter … even though with more reservations. Unfortunately my reservations are being met as time passes. The tipping point for me in actually changing my mind regarding the one App Sore approach, was when Apple clearly engendered a set of policies specifically targeted to Stadia and xCloud. I’m not even interested in subscribing these services at all, but the principle behind such move from Apple has clarified to me as a Customer that Apple or Google cannot fully trusted with controlling our the ability to install and updated apps on our smarphones. That move had nothing to do with our privacy, security, quality of apps much less conveniency. Meanwhile they open arms to privacy threatning services like Facebook and TikTok.

Here is the thing. No single company will protect you from threats to privacy or security. In fact having just one supplier increases the both privacy and security risks in the long run. It’s life, there are always risks.

 

[I7guy]

I guess any regulation that limit the way businesses operate can be considered overreach. For me it depends on the situation. In this particular case, looking the shape of Internet usage and what is coming in the future in terms of smart devices, AI and so on … I think it’s crucial to keep the concept of Net Neutrality principles on board, if necessary expanding its reach from ISP policies and related devices to these kinds of devices working so close to people. The ability for a customer to choose their preferred merchant for digital goods should be as well protected as its privacy. In fact, putting barriers, lock-ins if you will, on such ability is indeed a threat to privacy.

I think it’s crucial to stop the government from over-reach. By all means protect us, but stay away from successful business that have grown through innovation and producing attractive products. Since the iOS App Store is the ip of apple, leave them alone as they have been operating a successful business for thirteen years.

And there we have it. Two views:
1. Regulate the app store
2. Don’t

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I think it’s crucial to stop the government from over-reach. By all means protect us, but stay away from successful business that have grown through innovation and producing attractive products. Since the iOS App Store is the ip of apple, leave them alone as they have been operating a successful business for thirteen years.

And there we have it. Two views:
1. Regulate the app store
2. Don’t

That is the thing. I don’t want the App Store to be regulated. So I guess would be option 2.

Instead I want these kinds of devices (smartphones, Tablets, PCs) to fall into the umbrella of Net Neutrality principles as are ISPs regulated. Its different from regulating the App Store(s) specifically.

Net Neutrality: must treat all Internetcommunications equally, and not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication.

These devices policies actually do the opposite. As Steve Jobs said … these are devices are at their center Internet Communicators, Internet communication devices.

So:

1. Regulate these devices based on Net Neutrality principles like ISPs networks are.
2. Don’t

Cheers.

 

[I7guy]

That is the thing. I don’t want the App Store to be regulated. So I guess would be option 2.

Instead I want these kinds of devices (smartphones, Tablets, PCs) to fall into the umbrella of Net Neutrality principles as are ISPs regulated. Its different from regulating the App Store(s) specifically.

Net Neutrality: must treat all Internetcommunications equally, and not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication.

These devices policies actually do the opposite. As Steve Jobs said … these are devices are at their center Internet Communicators, Internet communication devices.

So:

1. Regulate these devices based on Net Neutrality principles like ISPs networks are.
2. Don’t

Cheers.

I don't see the government stepping in to force Tesla to open up their supercharging system. Why not? Doesn't the government "hate" closed systems? Or does "they" only "hate" closed systems by Apple?

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I don't see the government stepping in to force Tesla to open up their supercharging system. Why not? Doesn't the government "hate" closed systems? Or does "they" only "hate" closed systems by Apple?

Tesla that does not hold together with another company 48% of planet earths population. Yes, 48% of planet earth are using smartphones accessing the Internet.

Size matters. Stop pretending that it’s only Apple practices watched … Google also is on this matter. Like Microsoft was decades ago …

There is nothing extraordinary happening here as you seam to imply.

 

[I7guy]

Tesla that does not hold together with another company 48% of planet earths population. Yes, 48% of planet earth are using smartphones accessing the Internet.

Size matters. Stop pretending that it’s only Apple practices watched … Google also is on this matter. Like Microsoft was decades ago …

There is nothing extraordinary happening here as you seam to imply.

Tesla does not hold 48% of the planet earth population, but neither does Apple.

Size should be irrelevant and actions should matter? Right?

What Microsoft did back in the day is not comparable to what is being claimed Apple is doing.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Tesla does not hold 48% of the planet earth population, but neither does Apple.

Both Apple and Google do together Both are being regulated as their are exercising their power to fence third party customers. Not just Apple.

Microsoft was regulated fundamentally due to the same. By the way, stop prettying Apple to be an angel, they were found guilty in many instances … including as I violation of the Sherman Act in the eBook price case … they settled with the State.

 

[I7guy]

Both Apple and Google do together Both are being regulated as their are exercising their power to fence third party customers. Not just Apple.

You’re saying 50% of the earths population has smartphones? Even if I assume that to be true, they got there the old fashioned way. They earned it. And for their innovation they get regulated. While governments have the right to do that, that doesn’t mean: 1) it will stick and 2) it’s best for all involved.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

It does not matter how you get there but what you do once you get there. It might not be appropriate to do the same.

Anyway don’t understand why we are discussing the virtuous or non virtuous things of using regulation. That is beyond the topic

 

[chucker23n1]

You’re saying 50% of the earths population has smartphones? Even if I assume that to be true,

Well, it can't be far off. 50% of the population had Internet over five years ago, and most people with Internet have a mobile phone (rather than a PC or both).

In any case, I find this whole thread where the world's third-richest man wishes he could pay slightly less so he'd become even richer hilarious.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

In any case, I find this whole thread where the world's third-richest man wishes he could pay slightly less so he'd become even richer hilarious.

Given that it does not pay a dime to Apple and he just open sourced Tesla technology I’m still wondering what is his angle.

 

[AdamNC]

No. True developers, innovators and entrepreneurs don’t care less for the devices. They care for solving problems.

Thats absolute BS. They only care about making money. If they cared about only solving problems they would pack up and join Linux and open source companies.

 

[jlc1978]

Thats absolute BS. They only care about making money. If they cared about only solving problems they would pack up and join Linux and open source companies.

And most Linux and open source developers only care about finding solutions they need for their own use; not for others. Neither approach is wrong, just different self interested motivations.

 

[I7guy]

Given that it does not pay a dime to Apple and he just open sourced Tesla technology I’m still wondering what is his angle.

Musk “pledges “ not to sue if patents are used in good faith? That’s open source?

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Musk “pledges “ not to sue if patents are used in good faith? That’s open source?

True it isn’t. And?

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Thats absolute BS. They only care about making money. If they cared about only solving problems they would pack up and join Linux and open source companies.

They care about the money and a lot. But money does not come by itself, even on the App Stores.

The product is at least for me fundamental. If you produce badly, your revenue is consistent with it, very small if not 0. If you produce good stuff you might have a chance to big revenues as other things are necessary to get there … good marketing … good business networking … partnerships and so on … even an innovative business model in some cases.

Selling a game is not the same as online lessons even though payments may be processed the same way. The concept of App in that respect is very, very misleading when it comes to what is effect being transacted.

Take for instance Zoom … as per App Store policies they are obliged to provide in app payments trough it and no other. Still, the potential significance of Zoom in customer was not at all created within the App Store realm. Leads flow to the App Store because it is in effect a bottleneck to digital services on iOS when it comes to the ability to install and update apps, not by its virtues as Store. Or at least its incredibly difficulty to ascertain that is the case.

Than you have something like Ulysses thas was and is specifically marketed to iOS users. Here the App Store value proposition is significantly stronger. But still I came to know about it on the web as I needed a markdown editor. Eventually I just went to the App Store simply to buy it. To be honest I find it difficult to read reviews and so on in the App Store, both on an phone and on the iPad.

 

[I7guy]

They care about the money and a lot. But money does not come by itself, even on the App Stores.

The product is at least for me fundamental. If you produce badly, your revenue is consistent with it, very small if not 0. If you produce good stuff you might have a chance to big revenues as other things are necessary to get there … good marketing … good business networking … partnerships and so on … even an innovative business model in some cases.

Selling a game is not the same as online lessons even though payments may be processed the same way. The concept of App in that respect is very, very misleading when it comes to what is effect being transacted.

Take for instance Zoom … as per App Store policies they are obliged to provide in app payments trough it and no other. Still, the potential significance of Zoom in customer was not at all created within the App Store realm. Leads flow to the App Store because it is in effect a bottleneck to digital services on iOS when it comes to the ability to install and update apps, not by its virtues as Store. Or at least its incredibly difficulty to ascertain that is the case.

Than you have something like Ulysses thas was and is specifically marketed to iOS users. Here the App Store value proposition is significantly stronger. But still I came to know about it on the web as I needed a markdown editor. Eventually I just went to the App Store simply to buy it. To be honest I find it difficult to read reviews and so on in the App Store, both on an phone and on the iPad.

Bottleneck? What does that mean? The App Store provides a consistent payment mechanism…it’s a strong value add.

 

[diamond.g]

I don't see the government stepping in to force Tesla to open up their supercharging system. Why not? Doesn't the government "hate" closed systems? Or does "they" only "hate" closed systems by Apple?

But they are, by using tax incentives (the US). The EU flat out won't let anyone build chargers that are not open to the public (IIRC).

Why do you think Musk talked about opening up the SC Network on the last Earnings Call? I know the Tesla folk in California are not interested in the least with sharing the network with even more cars.

 

[I7guy]

But they are, by using tax incentives (the US). The EU flat out won't let anyone build chargers that are not open to the public (IIRC).

Why do you think Musk talked about opening up the SC Network on the last Earnings Call? I know the Tesla folk in California are not interested in the least with sharing the network with even more cars.

I’m not happy with this type of government interference, but as long as Tesla shareholders are compensated appropriately…it’s good. Just like apple should be able to recoup lost revenue should the government regulate the App Store.