Nothing that Apple did was anticompetitive relative to the 1990s. iOS only runs on 1st party hardware. So its success or failure was entirely dependent on customers wanting to use Apple hardware. Apple's choice for the App Store was to base it on digital storefront models that were already accepted in the electronics industry on video game consoles. Video game consoles ran 1st party operating systems on 1st party hardware just like the iPhone. Video game console companies like Nintendo had already won antitrust lawsuits challenging their right to control software on the platform.
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's because what Apple wants, aligns with what I want.
I consider developers to be dangerous and hostile to me, unless proven otherwise. I want to have as little to do with them as possible except using their apps. Apple has worked as a great shield for me against developers.
That doesn't answer the question of why they would raise the price they're charging consumers though. Devs aren't lobbying the government to raise prices. They're lobbying the government to not be beholden to Apple and their platform fees. Those are two completely different things. I'll ask again, how will letting a dev keep the 30% Apple had been taking cause them to raise the price of their product?
and you'd buy the phone that lets you load whatever software you want. see how that works?
It’s you posting every other post in every thread. Ranting and raving and hand waving. I thought it at least affected you. And you live in the US. 😂
iPhone was still being chosen by many before this mess.
This is just dumb... I expect Apple to change how they sell devices in the EU.
If Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft can have extremely locked down app stores by labeling devices differently then why not just sell "Portable Gaming Devices" that also take calls and has some utility apps... EU legislators are worthless.
Next Sept Headline: "Apple launches EU-only 'Arcade' phone targeted at gaming"
If Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft can have extremely locked down app stores by labeling devices differently then why not just sell "Portable Gaming Devices" that also take calls and has some utility apps... EU legislators are worthless.
Next Sept Headline: "Apple launches EU-only 'Arcade' phone targeted at gaming"
Last edited:
not if the apps leave the App Store, no.
you think Epic didn't know they were going to get banned for breaking the rule?
Doesn't matter in the EU anymore. Companies have to follow the laws wherever they operate. See how that works?
people outside EU aren't allowed to have opinions on this? 🤣
stop assuming next time.
And the security of macOS is lesser than on iOS.
Look at Android in China or Russia to see an example of how bad it could be if you applied macOS-security to mobile phones.
Sure Apple can do that. As long as they're ok with massive fines for trying to be cute and not follow the law.
How do you know that the alt store doesn't have better security? Appstore has 2 million Apps. Set App/Epic will probably have a handful. Who do you think can vet the apps better? Appstore can get away with scam apps because it has captive audience. Not so with Alt Appstores.
Looking into my crystal ball I see a LOT of whining and complaining when devices are bricked in the EU from the mass side loading of apps from stores that cannot regulate the app code as thoroughly as Google/Apple. As a developer, if you allow me to side load apps to your device without some form of serious code review, there are SO many ways I can brick your device either intentionally or accidentally. Good luck all! I'll pay my 30% and live over here in the word of not getting my pants sued off of me, or the risk of taking down a lot of devices.
The hilarious thing is how obsessed defending Apple everyone seems to be.
Won’t somebody please think of the trillion dollar companies!!
If iOS was open I wouldn't have picked iOS. I would most likely not have bought a smartphone to begin with. Apple phones are quite expensive and offer quality user experience. Something no open system ever had. On Windows: you'd better install 5 virusscanners and you may be safe, Android riddled with malware as well, Mac OS a bit safer because by default third party installs are blocked, Linux <1% of global (desktop) userbase, and not user friendly to begin with.
iOS is just a lot better than all of them. Because you have a very advanced system that is designed to protect you.
On iOS I chose to not have a lot of freedom for security. That's my choice.
How does the core tech fee for iOS compare to the core tech fee developers pay on macOS?
Oh…
Last edited:
I will tackle that. The technology behind your computer / Mac evolved very differently than the smartphone even though both are a "computer". Computers pre-date the internet so there way no way to have an App Store or design a profit system around royalties. So in the beginning.... computer companies made ALL their money on hardware. So then you have someone like Nintendo who realized even back in the 80's that licensing was where to make all the money so they locked out access to the Nintendo platform and required customers not only go through them for manufacturing, they limited release counts and enforced minimums on production. in a way a Nintendo cartridge is a 1980s app and the Nintendo is a smart phone. crude analogy but it happened because Atari had an open system and it played a roll in the VG crash of 1983. No one FORCED Nintendo to open its platform to others and still to this day all video game stores on system still enjoy this model to some extent. They are just getting into this closed system model but are you suggesting that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo should all be forced to open their devices to side loading and basically allow video game piracy to run wild??? And then there is the smartphone that sits in the middle. the "trailblazer" of the App Store. Apple did the work, created a huge user base. And if you want access to that user base you should have to pay for it. you can argue that the 30% is exorbitant. but what number is OK. you and I cant really make that call we dont have access to the numbers to justify that.
This doesnt even get into the warranty / support aspect. the computer evolved with that in mind. a computer manufacturer in most cases will not be responsible if your computer fails because a 3rd party application violates specifications. with apron that is a different animal. Apple doesn't have the infrastructure to deal with all the people coming in saying my phone doesn't work because I side loaded some app on my phone that looks like the phone dialer in the iPhone but every time I call someone I get someone else. or worse someone with even less understanding than that and just says my phone doesnt work. Computers have a whole ecosystem around app support and computer repair that doesnt exist for phones in the same way. sure you can get your screen replaced. but getting program support when you start intoducing bad actors could be a disaster. could be a business opportunity for others but in it initial days and months of this changeover... it will be a nightmare.
it is funny how when it was " you have to buy a security chip from me to use our platform " that was OK... no one ever took issue with that. but now that it is all digital and you dont SEE or HOLD anything that it isn't ok and you should be able to do anything you want. the argument that Apple has loads of money and will still be profitable is garbage. How much profit a company makes is up to the company to do the best they can. Not for government to look at big winners in the game of life and say.... you did TOO well. we need to knock you down a peg.
I had Cydia installed on my phone for years, not anymore. I loved having access to that kind of stuff on my phone that would never make it through the apple approval process. but it isn't government's job to force that to happen. and now I do see privacy as a much bigger issue and I like that Apple at least feigns that they agree with that.
Cool. Thanks for letting me know not to believe anything else you say.
So if customers in the EU have other alternatives, then why is the EU forcing Apple to be like all the others? If EU users want something different, they should use one of the alternatives! You said it yourself...there are alternatives. If that's true, then the EU should stop their incessant meddling and let the customers decide!
Maybe you should quote the entirety of point 7?
"7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper.
Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.
The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that interoperability does not compromise the integrity of the operating system, virtual assistant, hardware or software features provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper."
It's about interoperability. Apple's core platform fee isn't a fee to gain access to the hardware or software features. That's why it's not entirely clear whether it's complaint or not.
You notice that Vestager doesn't say the fee is illegal.