It absolutely is more restricting especially to end users. Unlike iOS, I can (and could) sideload, download alternative browser engines, etc. on Windows. I can (and could) also do the same on macOS which is sold as part of the Mac hardware. iOS has been much more restricting than other major operating systems including Android, Windows and macOS whether they are bundled with hardware or not.
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 Antitrust Chief Warns Apple About App Store Fees and Safety Warnings
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It absolutely is more restricting especially to end users. Unlike iOS, I can (and could) sideload, download alternative browser engines, etc. on Windows. I can (and could) also do the same on macOS which is sold as part of the Mac hardware. iOS has been much more restricting than other major operating systems including Android, Windows and macOS whether they are bundled with hardware or not.
First off, cite your sources, including what exactly is included as being a "smartphone".
The first iPhone sold quite respectably, around what it's already established competitors did. Palm was selling around 750k (3 million per year) Treos per quarter and RIM was selling about 2.4 million per quarter (9.6 million per year) when the iPhone came out. The original iPhone sold 6.1 million units.
Palm’s Quarterly Profit Falls, While Rival Posts an Increase (Published 2007)
The maker of Treo smartphones reported a 43 percent decline profit, while Research In Motion, the maker of the BlackBerry, posted a 73 percent increase in profit.
How is this wrong? Will Apple abandon app sandboxing altogether? Has your Mac ever been compromised to the core? Elaborate a bit…
What apps will people be forced to install from outside the App Store? Give some examples.
Let’s say you sell for €10 to an end-user. In a country with 20% VAT, it’s divided as follows:
Developer: €5.83
Apple: €2.5
VAT: €1.67
A developer would then only keep about 58,33% of a price increase.
If Apple is out of the picture, developers would keep 83,33% of the price increase. That’s an incentive to increase prices more than when they kept a much smaller part of the price increase, as a price increase becomes more beneficial for the developer.
And it's also an incentive not to lower prices since the revenue lost would be bigger for the developer.
That is how a feee market works and this is in turn Apples biggest nightmare. If a payment provider offers a better experience foe a lower price, Apple has to lower the price itself til a point where the price is reasonable.
How do you know what customers in the EU do and don't want? The reality is that the vast majority of users likely don't care if their mobile OS is closed or not. The only folks who care are people with a vested interest (Apple, developers, and regulators) and a relatively small number of tech nerds like ourselves.
It's not more restrictive in the context of 1990s Microsoft or 1990s Nintendo. In the 1990s, a system that had 1st party OS running only on 1st party hardware and control of software released on the platform was not considered to be too restrictive from a legal standpoint. Nintendo won. Microsoft lost.
It's like pine apple. I don't want it on my pizza or burger. I'm fine with it as a dessert.
I have different standards for different use cases, just as I have for a wife and a mistress.
Mac is for complex stuff. It should be more flexible and allow the user to me more flexible.
iPhone is for simple stuff where I prefer simplicity and uniformity.
Although I would really like for all the application for the Mac, to be on the Mac App Store. I only have two applications not from the Mac App Store, the reason being they're available on the Mac App Store!
That’s what going public typically means. For the most part you are expected to grow infinitely and do everything possible to maximize profits.
It would be very possible technically, if the TLAs (Three Letter Agencies) would allow it.
Developers are not forced to produce apps for iOS. Fortnite wasn't originally developed for iOS/Android and never really needed to be released on mobile at all in order to be successful. 85% of the revenue was generated on consoles and Windows PCs.
It's not more restrictive because Apple only applied those limitations to its 1st party OS that only ran on its 1st party hardware. Microsoft was trying to control 3rd party hardware. Nintendo was sued by Atari in 1992 with Atari claiming that Nintendo's control of software on 1st party OS/1st party hardware was an antitrust violation. Atari lost that lawsuit.
"Around this time, Nintendo was planning to enter the North American console market by launching a version of its Japanese Family Computer (Famicom) console.[10] To differentiate the Famicom from failed consoles in America, Nintendo rebranded it as the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) and its cartridges as Game Paks, with a design reminiscent of a VCR.[10][11] To limit the flood of games that led to the 1983 crash as well as bootlegging problems seen in Asia, Nintendo created the proprietary 10NES system, a lockout chip that would only allow the NES to play a cartridge with an authorized "key".[10][12][13][14] Game developers were only authorized if they agreed to Nintendo's licensing terms, preventing any developer from releasing more than two games per year, and limiting "inappropriate" content such as religious themes or excessive violence.[10] This led Nintendo to add the Official Nintendo Seal of Quality to their games, signaling to customers that their games met a consistent standard.[15]
The strategy allowed Nintendo to avoid some of the mistakes of other consoles in the market, including the older Atari 2600.[10] According to Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi, "Atari collapsed because they gave too much freedom to third-party developers and the market was swamped with rubbish games."[12] Officially launched in 1985, the NES quickly became a commercial success outside of Japan.[16] By the end of the decade, it was estimated that Nintendo's products were in 15–20 million homes in America,[17] or 30% of American households.[18] Nintendo accounted for 80% of the video game market at an estimate $2.7 billion in sales per year,[19] which was more than the market for all home computer software.[20][21]: 347 "
Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc. - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Did you read your own article?
Although Nintendo succeeded in court due to Atari's foul play, the company faced a trend of litigation over unfair business practices and other monopolistic behavior. Atari Corporation (a wholly separate company from Atari Games) also sued Nintendo for seeking to monopolize the game business, but Nintendo was exonerated of any unfair business practices. Under further legal pressure, Nintendo soon began to shift their legal strategy. When Nintendo was accused of fixing their prices with retailers, Nintendo settled with the Federal Trade Commission without admitting to any wrongdoing, offering to $5 million in legal costs and millions of $5 coupons to their past customers. Nintendo began to ease their licensing restrictions to avoid accusations of monopoly. By the early 1990s, Nintendo began losing developers to the Sega Genesis, and the competition forced Nintendo to make further concessions to developers.
Amazing what fear of being labeled a monopoly (or labeled a gatekeeper under the DMA) and fostering competition can do in a marketplace.
Huh? Developers didn't exist before the iPhone was invented? Apple invented the third-party software industry now?
No, Vestager only said the EU will be investigating.
And she certainly didn't say it violated article 6, point 7 of the DMA.
This is what gets missed by the haters. They call Apple childish because they are fighting this. But they need to legally protect their profits. You are spot on. If Apple doesn’t do all they can to skirt around some of these things it could lead to other trouble.
It’s not illegal currently to ask for recurring payments for development. I mean why should Unreal Engine get a percentage from me even if I just sell on Steam which ALSO takes a percentage from me.
This will set a larger precedent in many industries.
Then I guess Apple can shut down the App store in the EU and still reap in the incredible profits they get from hardware sales. Win/Win.
Most of my friends and colleagues ignore Apple just fine. They hate Apple actually. They do just fine with Android and we communicate very well without the BLUE BUBBLES!!!!!
Let me get this straight, your answer is taxes lol? Just because you can put some words together to form a sentence, doesn't make the statement logical. Not to mention this doesn't even begin to address that fewer people are likely to buy the app when the price goes up, negating the purpose of the price increase and potentially resulting in even less revenue.
Thank you for this though. It certainly helps inform how much value I should place on your comments lmao.
True, but $100 billion in yearly revenue from the EU means that Apple (i.e. Apple's shareholders) are going to tolerate a lot more over-regulation
It's less. Probably closer to $80 billion. Apple doesn't provide any revenue numbers for the EU.
People need to realize this isn’t driven for us consumers or for Apple to be more “fair”. Windows is the most open platform around, and Epic is going after Steam as well. Epic/Spotify are driving this initiative. NOT you/me/other consumers. Companies just want more money from you. It’s all it is.
90% of what I want on my Mac is not on the App Mac Store. I don’t have a choice. This is what iOS will become.