If customers want to pay absurd prices for new emojis why should anyone intervene? Why place a limit on success? It is crabs in a barrel mentality. Why? Because you have no will power to say it’s too expensive and take your business elsewhere?
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.
EU Accuses Apple's App Store Steering Rules of Violating DMA and Opens Investigation into Developer Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If customers want to pay absurd prices for new emojis why should anyone intervene? Why place a limit on success? It is crabs in a barrel mentality. Why? Because you have no will power to say it’s too expensive and take your business elsewhere?
We keep hearing from the hardcore gamers here that the gaming industry is bigger than Hollywood and has been for years now. Please don’t pass it off as an industry too small for legal scrutiny when Apple vs Epic was one of THE conflicts that got the ball rolling in the EU…
Come on now, we’re not a dumb crowd here.
The DMA's main objective is to give alternatives a fighting chance, but I don't think anyone is expecting a massive shift to third party app stores overnight. It also doesn't say that individual stores must not be very successful or dominate the market (within the confines of all relevant legal requirements, of course).
Steam is successful because it provides an excellent service, but a consumer can move to Epic or GOG on the very same device when that is no longer true.
There's no reason to believe that the App Store wouldn't be successful if it had to face more competition, but so far we don't know that because on iOS there's just no other alternative.
Didn't Epic v. Google decide that Google did all sorts of anticompetitive things to maintain that position. Contrary to the above, might there then be some reason to believe that there could be more competition if the platform providers didn't stack the odds in their favour?
Going back to your gaming example, Apple is pushing iOS gaming not least with universal purchases that are available on your Mac, your iPhone and your iPad. If Steam could offer the same and push into the mobile AAA gaming market (assuming, of course, that this will turn out successful), it'd be a lot harder for Apple to corner that market.
First of all, for most developers it's 15% and that covers hosting, transaction fees, tax compliance, etc. plus access to a very profitable user base. So ya, they should charge and 155 is not unreasonable, considering developers used to get 30% after up fronting all the costs of duplication, printing, warehousing, shipping, etc. before they knew if a program would sell. Today's developers have it real good compared to the early days of software distribution.
And surely that’s a good faith argument you were making at the time I quoted it right?
I’m trying to figure out if there are specific and factual points you are trying to make when it comes to the value that 30% provides (perceived or otherwise), or if I’m having a conversation based on “vibes”.
Android has always had this capability. Yet there isn't a big push towards multiple stores there. And alternatives do exist, Android. There is plenty of fighting chance already.
You can also move to Android.
Its a targeted attack purely at Apple and Google being slightly affected. Backed by the Epic and Spotify companies lobbying for special treatment and forcing these things to happen. Where is the consumer outcry?
And my point is the EU compliance team’s time would be better spent doing literally anything else.
No point in doing so because up until now iOS users have had only one App Store. Now all bets are off.
If your kid happened to grab a credit card and not a debit card. Spoiler alert: credit card use is way less common in the EU than the US. And even then hope your credit card company sides with you.
That's not the argument I'm making at all. Please go back and read the conversation I was having for the full context.
Google have been absolutely hammered by the EU regulators, there is no victimisation of Apple here.
You can also sideload software on Android devices, this takes the heat of Google a lot when it comes to the Play Store.
Not vibes per say. I'm trying to piece together how the huge margin Apple makes does not cover their software development cost, which is what we were discussing before.
I think this argument has been had a million times, so let's just say that I don't think expecting customers to change their entire platform ecosystem is a helpful way to encourage competition among services.
That is what competition is. You knew from the beginning that Apple's approach was closed. If that doesn't work for you, you made a bad decision with your purchase.
People like to use store analogies here. Target is the only store of its kind close to me. I need to travel 20 miles for an alternative. I don't think that is very convenient for competition!
Also, I don't think forcing people to put their house on sale and requiring them to move in order to get a different high speed internet company a helpful way to encourage competition! But yes, let's put all of our efforts in to taking Apple DOWN! Not the true monopolies. I hate that I only have access to Spectrum.
I’m sorry, when most people on the planet want to search for something, which company’s monopoly is the literal verb for that action again?
Google has repeatedly and out loud been proven to be absurdly anticompetitive in the seo and advertising practices they partake in, and *nothing* about that has changed in the EU.
Given that searching the internet is literally the basis for access to human knowledge in the modern world, it’s a bit rich to see how much coverage EU complaints of Apple have been covered comparatively.
Note: Apple absolutely should be scrutinized, but in a fact-based way rather than the vague assertions that keep getting brought up. I was just shocked to see anyone claim that the EU, or any other regulatory bodies have done anything remotely effective in regards to Google.
Agreed, they'd save a lot of time if they just complied (non-maliciously).
I fail to see what that has to do with Android though. Mind expanding on this one?
Fair point on this one.
No, that’s a claim you made during the discussion, but no one who is thinking through the logistics of how business entities actually function would draw a line between the two.
Apple could pay for everyone in the company to have a free hot dog every day too, but it has no impact on the business operations of divisions within the company.
Yeah that isn't true at all.
Google will now let EU users choose which of its services share their data
Users in the EU can choose to have all, some, or none of Google’s services share their data.
www.theverge.com
And you know the budget allows for this do you? Where is the financial breakdown that proves this? Where would the budget go for the SoC engineers working on the higher end M4 chips and M5? Where would the budget go for the iPhone 16 and 17 planning and their respective chip design?
Hardware sales alone won't pay for all the support technicians that deal with customers every day with their purchases and issues.
Right. And your previous point in post# 276 was that software cost money to develop, in defense of their 15%/30% tax on software sales. It would sound as though, somehow, tens of billions of dollars annually isn't enough to develop iOS.
If they don't, then Apple will hurt itself by annoying long time customers or developers.
Yes, I know, Apple doesn't want those customers anyway so don't let the door hit you on the way out and all that...
Different departments have their own budgets. Its not like you can walk over and take budget from one and apply it to another. Especially the company the size of Apple.
Microsoft makes a ton of money too, yet they keep making Windows worse and worse because their budgets are now mostly Office 365/Azure based.
Right, but it's not like these budgets are carved into stone.
Microsoft makes their money in Azure like you said. Seems like Microsoft has no problem taking revenue generated by Azure and spending it on not-Azure, like on Windows and shady OpenAI dealings.