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
You must also be a dooms day prepper....To each their own
If it does, then maybe ask yourself why. Perhaps it would be a sign that developers aren't seeing much benefit from the money they have to give Apple to remain on the App Store.
You will not need to do so. You can keep it locked into the Apple App Store. Furthermore, you can any digital service or app provider that do not render their services to the Apple App Store has a spy.
PS: You may also do the same on your macOS usage. If you don’t, it’s your choice.
Today, a developer will only get about 58% of the price charged to the customers (in a EU country with 20% VAT). Those other 42% is taken by Apple and the state of the customer.
Let's say customers pay €1 million euro for the applications to Apple for apps from a developer. The developer is thinking about increasing price by 10% because they want to increase their revenue. We're also assuming no loss of customers because of the price increase, just temporarily.
Pre-DMA:
Customer: -€1 million
Developer: €583 333
Customer: -€1.1 million
Developer: €641 666
The developer increased their revenue not by €100 000 but €58 333.
Post-DMA (without Apple):
Customer: -€1 million
Developer: €833 333
Customer: -€1.1 million
Developer: €916 666
The developer increased their revenue not by €100 000 but €83 333.
It means the developer gets to keep €83 333 - €58 333 = €25 000 more of a price increase of 10% when Apple is out of the picture.
If a company can keep more of their revenue when increasing prices, it works like an incentive to increase prices, when not considering other factors.
If a price increase always resulted in less revenue and profit, there would be no price increases at all for any product or service.
We do know that a price increase for an app, will most likely lead to lost sales, but as long as the lost sales are less than €83 000, it will still be a profitable decision. Pre-DMA you could only bare to loose €58 000.
Will it lead to increased prices in the short term? No, because there are other factors which works in the other direction.
Your argument is perfectly fine, if Apple were only selling to you.
If it sells to the general population in the EU, it will, unfortunately, have to follow the law of the land. The EU's job is making laws and it can make any law that gets approved by its member states. Apple cannot decide on whether the laws are applicable to them or not, sadly.
I'm not arguing against Apple following the law, I'm arguing why I defend Apple which was the question asked.
They want Apple to subsidize their business. The EU wants to engage in digital protectionism. Neither thing is right.
No, Apple has stated that the notarisations in the EU will not be content based.
I'm arguing against someone who says notarisations are de jure illegal in all circumstances.
But it is. As I stated... 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.
Even third party companies/retailers had more flexibility with Windows (and it go better). AT&T, Best Buy, etc. are much more restricted on what they can do with iOS on iPhones they sell than computer makers were with Windows.
No. They want free ****.
Maybe Apple should start doing even more of locking software features to specific devices? "Ok, you want <new feature X>? Great. Buy new iPhone. Feature X cost us money to develop. And if you only want us making money off of hardware then buy the hardware."
It can be said about closed systems.
Compare exploits and general security on iOS vs android or windows / mac. It’s not even in the same ballpark. Even console Systems which are closed have far less or practically non existent exploits.
Not sure what point your making here?
Basically, Apple created something which was great for both customers and developers.
RIM only created something which was great for customers.
This is what they have said, they might not fully be implementing this correctly however. IIRC there have been a few cases of App notarization being rejected due to the notification API usage.
No, I want companies to obey laws, even in China.
I just don't want laws which regulates consumer products and services in how they work in detail, except in some rare circumstances like health, when consumers have access to good alternatives.
What's the point of regulating Safari as is done by the EU?
It was a major reason why so many non-technical people felt safe as they would actually buy apps.
Lot's of people just think about technical security and not how Apple's closed system made the user feel safe, even though they didn't know why.
I think the EU erred in the DMA because it doesn't regulate enough of the right things.
I want more data protection, I want it spelled out that ad companies cannot track without consent, I want more limits on what companies can do with my data (I don't think any of them should be able to sell it)
I want more rights to own copies of the content I purchase, if I buy a digital movie I should be able to use it unencumbered by DRM. If I want to convert it to a different format or just make 30 backup copies I shouldn't be restricted from doing so. I shouldn't be forced to use the digital media player of the company that sold me the digital content.
I want software companies to remove phone home DMA from their products at time of discontinuation so that they can continue to operate even if the company goes bankrupt or decides that everyone should just migrate to newer versions.
etc...
Regulation is not the enemy and companies are not your friends even if there is competition
They can say it in the store, on their website, in emails, in telephone calls, in advertising, in meetings, YouTube videos. Anywhere really.
It does not take much brains to arrive to the conclusion that Apple Core fees is an attempt to steer users to the App Store, an Apple digital service.
As an example ....
- Suppose you have 10.000 subscribers paying €3 a month. You also update once a mont the App with new features and bug fixes ... like any good service provider or App developer should do.
- Suppose that users subscribe for one entire year, €36 a year. That makes €360.000 of revenue in one year.
- Apple distributes, processes payment, you are listed in the App Store, etc .... Apple keeps 15% ... €54.000,
- Now suppose you go outside ... €0,5*12*1000 = €60.000 (16% revenue) and you still need to pay for international billing, app distribution, your not the the App Store listing ... so on and so forth.
So we have one litmus test scenario where the App Store sells Core Technologies for 0 and another that sells it for 16.5% of the revenue.
Sorry guys but Apple is in trouble. Whatever Apple calls Core Technologies should cost the same either way for a steering free environment as there is no change in what is being offered either way from a technical perspective, is the same "bricks".
PS: Since when an App at 36€ a year is cheap? Where are the App Store games that cost as much? If Apple Music subscriptions pricing had to cover Core Technologies costs at this price would be out of business fast.
As an example ....
- Suppose you have 10.000 subscribers paying €3 a month. You also update once a mont the App with new features and bug fixes ... like any good service provider or App developer should do.
- Suppose that users subscribe for one entire year, €36 a year. That makes €360.000 of revenue in one year.
- Apple distributes, processes payment, you are listed in the App Store, etc .... Apple keeps 15% ... €54.000,
- Now suppose you go outside ... €0,5*12*1000 = €60.000 (16% revenue) and you still need to pay for international billing, app distribution, your not the the App Store listing ... so on and so forth.
So we have one litmus test scenario where the App Store sells Core Technologies for 0 and another that sells it for 16.5% of the revenue.
Sorry guys but Apple is in trouble. Whatever Apple calls Core Technologies should cost the same either way for a steering free environment as there is no change in what is being offered either way from a technical perspective, is the same "bricks".
PS: Since when an App at 36€ a year is cheap? Where are the App Store games that cost as much? If Apple Music subscriptions pricing had to cover Core Technologies costs at this price would be out of business fast.
Last edited:
It's because you don't think about Nokia and Ericsson.
A smartphone was a phone with PIM functionality. The first one was made by IBM in 1995.
Nokia leads smartphone vendors in 2006 sales
Handheld PC vendors sold four times as many smartphones as PDAs in the second half of 2006, and Nokia continued to distance itself from competitors.
Ah good old trillion dollar defence force logic at it again I see.
Microsoft and Nvidia wanting their streaming apps on the App Store isn't wanting free ****. They want to allow people who may have spent £/$40 on a game to be able to stream it to a device they own. All the processing and backend is on MS and Nvidia's side, costing Apple nothing. When a user wants this app they have to open the app store, which is free advertising for Apple in itself. If 100,000 people go to download the streaming apps, and 2% buy a $2 app or subscription from the main
Instead apple have shot themselves in their own foot, made a mess of the whole situation, and now they'll be made to pay while in the process becoming even more reviled by the general tech community for no reason at all. Anyone who argues otherwise is drinking too much tim juice.
I don't agree with everything the EU does, but they're currently the only ones attempting to reign in these monopolistic corporations. I've always found it weird that the US seems to think that capitalism is the holy gospel. A nation that preaches family and love but would happily push their grandma off a cliff if it meant getting 10% more value on their bitcoin wallets.
Might want to tone things down. What is being bypassed?
Your “solution” doesn’t really do much for anyone.
And there are more security risks. Is that so hard to comprehend 🤔
But that's not content based, unless is was about the (text) content of the notification?
And? What will they do after investigating? Keep quiet? They will act if they find that it is stifling the emergence of alt appstores. There is no question that the CTF is stifling the competition's capability to open alt appstores.