Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EU Antitrust Chief Warns Apple About App Store Fees and Safety Warnings
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I believe it was about how they were (or were not) telling people about the way notifications would be delivered - which is the content of the app - I am not saying Apple doesn't intend to do it in a non-content based way, I just don't know if they are doing so yet.
Thanks I guess, but I don't need it broken down. I understood what you were saying the first time and it's still just as asinine.
Thank you for at least admitting your argument is a complete crock.
It really is time for a leadership shakeup at Apple
Yes, but will it be as effective as Aple saying that the App Store you are going to download is not secure at the point when the user clicks? That is why the EU does not want to enable it.
That's like saying we should have countries with no human rights so people have a choice, and if they don't like it just go to another country
And the resources/$ it takes to produce those excellent APIs and smooth UX is supported by the App Store.
Does Android have the same level of commitment from Google? Not even close.
The App Store closed model incentivizes Apple to keep it the best.
Why else would the App Store have 2X the revenue with 1/3 the users?
The best apps, from the best tech/hardware stack.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that aspect is being overemphasized here. Prior to the iPhone, which smartphones allowed you to install applications from the open web? I can't think of a single one. Most smartphones of the time had prebuilt apps that you had to use and maybe a few optional ones you could install from a GUI within the phone but I cannot think of a phone that let you install whatever apps you wanted from anywhere. Remember that when the App Store debuted, the competition was Blackberry, Palm Treo, and Sidekicks. I don't think there was any thought of serious security issues arising from installing apps on phones because at that point apps on phones were not terribly prevalent. It only became an issue once Android became big enough to compete with iPhones and you could sideload whatever apps you wanted on it, but by then the Google Play Store also existed. I just cannot recall any point where Apple or the tech press or regular users in person or online stressed the security aspects of the App Store as an integral part of its success. Discoverability, convenience, ease of access, quality of apps, those were all major factors.
Nothing you've written here has anything to about my point, which was that initially iOS did not succeed because it was offering a closed ecosystem. Primarily because the numbers in the first few years were far and away from the numbers today. Today, the App Store is tens of billions a year in business, this is not the case when the iPhone launched (no App Store) or even when devs first started flocking to it.
The App Store broke carrier control of the OS and made lots of positive changes to give developers more capabilities, which, initially, weren't funded. by App Store revenue because it was so small (and in the beginning Apple Steve Jobs only suggested that the commission was to pay for the store, not to pay for iOS development). Paying for iOS development with App Store revenue is a very new argument from Apple.
So if your definition of smartphone is so broad as to include an IBM device from 1995, what exactly should devs have been developing, offering, and profiting off of on such devices? Because it seems that in your mind there's no bar to the level of sophistication a device needs before it becomes practical for devs to offer such mass market and profitable software. Can't wait to hear about the ideas and profits devs were missing or ignoring before the mid to late 2000's.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.www.networkworld.com
Discussion is assuming that Apple doesn't get what they want at all.
Epic tried without Play Store, no one bit. So then they tried building a user base on Play Store, then pull theatrics by getting banned from Play Store to get people to install their game store.
Goes to show how crazy companies want the extra 30%.
I don't think the EU is saying notarization is not needed. It is just saying Apple need not notarize the apps. They do not want Apple to have any control over the apps that will be installed through alt app stores. These appstores will have their own notarization process or there may be some third-party independent notarization companies springing up to do the notarization.
Just how I am interpreting this. I could be wrong.
uh no. it's nothing like that. at best, that's a massive strawman argument
Yes, much has changed in 15 years.
How many of those original apps remain?
iOS is much more complex now with more devices than just the iPhone using the OS. More $ is required.
The open Android vs closed iOS situation has existed for many years now.
App Store and iOS has shown to be the winning model for consumers and developers.
EU is making up carefully crafted rules to protect EU companies.
It’s okay to admit that.
Again, nothing you've written has anything to do with what I was talking about. I was arguing against the point that iOS succeeded because it has a closed App Store.
iOS won out over rivals long before the revenue from the App Store exploded to its current levels.
Pointing out the state of today and trying to draw a causal link is what I take issue with. Those who keep pointing out how things are today and picking particular parts of the iOS ecosystem and saying, "see, these parts are why iOS succeeded" are making fallacious arguments.
Edit: I am not saying that the closed ecosystem did not contribute to its success, but I argue that the user experience, quality of dev tools, and the breaking of the carrier veto on apps had a far bigger impact.
I had forgotten that the carriers used to be able to veto apps on phones. They truly are the worst.
So your non-fallacious argument is that the 15 year old App Store created the conditions of today.
Like the “butterfly effect” eh?
Edit: Okay I see what you’re saying and I agree those were all important. I also think that keeping the store closed allowed iOS to advance faster than Android because it provided Apple the $ and incentive to do so.
Except in your scenario Apple wouldn't make anything if you distributed outside the App Store. CTF does not apply to the first million first annual installs.
And the rest of your math is off by an order of magnitude as well.
I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again...the fact that the EU is threatening to fine based on WORLDWIDE revenue is unacceptable and clearly overstepping boundaries. The EU isn't the government of the world. Their power ends where their territory ends and therefore they should have absolutely ZERO claim to ANY revenue that doesn't come from their economic area.
The EU clearly has too much power if they think they're entitled to collect fines based on revenue that doesn't even come from their territory. Absolutely ridiculous abuse of power. But it does showcase one thing though...they aren't looking out for the interests of anyone...consumer OR developer. It's a money grab for the EU, plain and simple. It wouldn't look like such a money grab if the fines were based on revenue from within the EU only.
The EU clearly has too much power if they think they're entitled to collect fines based on revenue that doesn't even come from their territory. Absolutely ridiculous abuse of power. But it does showcase one thing though...they aren't looking out for the interests of anyone...consumer OR developer. It's a money grab for the EU, plain and simple. It wouldn't look like such a money grab if the fines were based on revenue from within the EU only.
Last edited:
What are you talking about?
The question at issue (given what I was responding to) is:
Why did iOS succeed where blackberry and palm failed?
That is the thread of this conversation. The App Store being closed, I argue, was only a very small component of iOS success.
Claiming that App Store revenue allowed more funding of iOS features which then lead to iOS success back before App Store revenue was large enough to meaningfully contribute to funding iOS is the fallacious line of argumentation.
Ah yes, how could we forget about those superpowers from the EU like Nvidia, Microsoft, and Epic Games. How dare they be so European and protected.
I bet they all wish they were as big as profit making Spotify from the US.