Apple increased prices on subscription services. Essentially consumers paid developers more and apple more because of the EU rule.
Are you happy?
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's Digital Markets Act Failed to Lower App Store Prices, Apple-Commissioned Study Says
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you happy?
EU defenders are running out of arguments.
Weird how you just blindly agree with EU's self reported data but if Apple does it, it's bad Apple.
developers didn't create the iOS api, nor did they do the hard work of building the user base of over a billion devices.
They have those goalpost on wheels.
says nothing about services spending.
Y'know what, Apple should just pack up and leave the EU. Like they insist users and developers do if they don't like Apple's rules.
Hardware always exists before apps but if apps will not be developed or are weak, the hardware will not succeed. By the way, there is no such thing as a free lunch...
Locking down MacOS would completely kill Macs. Have you looked at MacOS App Store? That is depressing experience. Looking outside App Store you will find that there are 10-fold more apps in nearly any field for Windows compared to Mac. Hence Mac will never be a large platform because of the lack of Apps.
Yes iPad was made for a different use case. Past tense. Since they put MacOS capable SoC into iPad (starting with A12Z) nothing stops app developers to produce full fledged apps in all fields. Many do not and I wonder if the return of investment is too low? 30% app fee (without explanation of why it must be 30%) + usually abysmal low app prices= a bad business case*. iPads a still outselling Macs in numbers but are used as they were originally intended for: a web interface and apps for consumption. iPad could be much more with more and better apps.
* there are exceptions, many luckily, but MS Office is not one of them.
Read up on how EU works and you will find out the taxes is not one of the key competences. In fact, most member countries do not want EU to collect taxes. The EU countries collect taxes and they pays a fee to EU that uses this fee for many purposes.
lol. Nobody believed this was about consumers. You may be perfectly happy with the changes Apple was forced to adopt, and that’s perfectly okay if you do, but those companies didn’t lawyer up and spend major money to save the consumer a dollar.
Any study to look into how a company does things paid for by the company that is being looked into is a study that no one should pay attention too because they always end up being biased towards the company. There is no way on this planet Apple is going to pay for a study that would conclude the EU is right and Apple is wrong.
I have opted out of Apple One (no price increase though), and even if EU commission ruled otherwise, Apple was going to increase the prices and the Developers going to charge more to compensate it (vice versa situation). I just now tested Final Cut Pro in my iPad and the subscription for this lousy app is really atrocious and going to cancel it after the free trial. My DJI MIMO App which is free is able to do many things better in my mobile itself. Hence those who subscribe to Apple services are to be blamed for the increased prices of Apple services. I could very well remove the iCloud Storage services sooner which is the only thing that I am currently paying for.
Seems like the other way around to me. Apple is running out of arguments and now needs to resort to paid publicity because nobody serious wants to take their side.
In other news, science on the effects of tobacco is inconclusive, says study commissioned by RJ Reynolds.
Only on MacRumors does “study shows that EU law doesn’t do what EU promised” mean those who are against the law are out of arguments.
Yes, it was an Apple-commissioned study, but we all saw what happened (or rather, what didn’t happen) when Apple and Google reduced commissions for almost everyone. Prices stayed the same. Is reality paid off by Apple too?
Anyone who was paying attention could have told you prices weren’t going to go down, and developers were going to pocket the extra money. (For example, I’ve been saying it on here for years now). And if the EU’s argument was “developers deserve more money” that’d be fine. But that isn’t their argument. It is “prices for consumers will go down because of increased competition.” Which again, we've been telling you for years isn't true, and therefore the privacy and security comprimises the EU is forcing on Apple and its users aren't worth it.
So the real question is: was the EU not paying attention? Or were they dishonestly lying about the benefits to the public to increase support of their law? Because it’s one of those. And whichever one it is, it’s pretty damning, and should be absolutely disqualifying from them making decisions about how Apple is allowed to run its platform.
I'm curious to learn where the EU/EC promised lower prices for consumers ...
App developers do not have to worry about the integrity of the the phone or the OS. They just have to worry about selling the apps. Apple is attempting to provide the best end user experience as safely and efficiently as possible and keeping the phone and OS as protected as possible.
Apple would have moved to USB-C eventually. They didn't need to be forced
Well, in the law itself, it says (emphasis mine):
"The combination of those features of gatekeeper is likely to lead, in many cases, to serious imbalances in bargaining power and, consequently, to unfair practices and conditions for business users, as well as for end users of core platform services provided by gatekeepers, to the detriment of prices, quality, fair competition, choice and innovation in the digital sector."
"Since the objective of this Regulation, namely to ensure a contestable and fair digital sector in general and core platform services in particular, with a view to promoting innovation, high quality of digital products and services, fair and competitive prices, as well as a high quality and choice for end users in the digital sector, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather, by reason of the business model and operations of the gatekeepers and the scale and effects of their operations, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 TEU."
Here's an interview with Vestager, where she says (emphasis also mine):
"It’s also the case that an app store is what we call middleware. And middleware represents a future threat to current platforms because it makes entry easier and more profitable. Middleware could become, or could sponsor, the entry of the next operating system and will, more generally, create more competition between operating systems. If there is middleware, a user who switches to a different handset and logs into her middleware application has all her content immediately; that user experiences low switching costs across operating systems. When users have low switching costs that puts a lot of pressure on Apple to compete and charge lower prices. So the competitive implication of blocking rival app stores is really substantial, and there are ways for Apple to collect money that don’t have those competitive implications."
(Also, note the absolute ridiculous argument that additional app stores will lead to more competition between OSes because "you just log in and have all your content". Having an account that syncs your content doesn’t eliminate platform switching costs any more than a Steam login makes Windows and macOS interchangeable. She really had no idea what she was talking about.)
Yet here we are with no overall price reductions in developer apps. Seems like to me you're wishing Apple was struggling with their argument.
Love to see a list of 10 major apps that reduced prices after making the change.
Perhaps it is simply too early to assess the impact of the legislation? We still don't know if the "Platform Fees" Apple wants to charge will eventually be applied to purchases or not.
In the meantime, WeChat has struck a pretty good deal with Apple in China. Instead of giving Apple 30 percent for in-app purchases, they only pay 15 percent.
Was this perhaps possible because WeChat/Tencent always had the option of using other payment methods? Competition sometimes works wonders.
Last edited: