Facebook and Spotify CEOs Slam Apple's App Store

[Biro]

Facebook and Spotify are free to slam the app store. They are also free to leave. Frankly, I would miss neither.

 

[toph2toast]

Apple is not the only maker of mobile devices or app stores. I seem to recall other companies that have devices and app stores… just can’t put my finger on it…. Hmmmm….

There are other app stores available for android phones. On Samsung phones both the Samsung App store and Google play app store are available by default (and others can be installed). So there's that...

 

[toph2toast]

The stability of my iPhone is unmatched - this is directly tied to Apple’s tight control. I’m fine with the OS being locked down. I’m glad Apple doesn’t allow murder porn and fecal fetish apps. Developers of successful apps are making millions. The system is wide open to anyone. I’m a windows guy, the argument about what if windows was closed off similarly to Apple is definitely interesting. Makes my brain spin actually. ;-)

That's fine and all, but if a user wants to accept the risk of having an unstable iPhone in order to have options for app stores on their phone, they should be able to. That isn't a decision Apple should make for them.

 

[toph2toast]

That’s just the way it is. Their rules. Freedom to do what they want. Control is their choice. Steve wouldn’t want it any other way. Capitalism is not a charity. It’s a fierce battle for invisible illusions of value. Apple has created an extraordinary level of perceived value. People lined up for days to buy early iPhones for a reason. Destroying Blackberry was a clear signal to the world. Dominance. Dominating. Dominant. Winning.

"That's just the way it is" isn't acceptable. The app store is a complete monopoly, there are no options to purchase apps elsewhere. There is no motivation to change their way because they have no competition in that space. Capitalism is great, but there also needs to be competition, which the app store doesn't have.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple seems to have been preparing for this eventuality by decreeing that in Denmark, developers using third party payment options will still need to pay 27% to apple as a platform fee. Coupled with the typical 3+% for payment processing, this is actually a worst deal for them, especially when it means that smaller developers don’t benefit from the 15% reduction, or for the reduction in subscription cuts after the first year. On top of the added admin load of having to have their sales receipts vetted by Apple.

I suspect Apple will also do something to make sideloaded apps more inconvenient to run (eg: having to deal with annoying pop ups like what we saw with third party keyboards).

In a way, I am actually interested in seeing this new legislation being passed, if only to see what Apple’s answer to it will be.

Well you will see in about 5 months. The law passed November 1.

Apple can’t enforce a commission on anyone.

They aren’t allowed to prevent consumers from linking up to businesses outside their platforms

Digital Markets Act: rules for digital gatekeepers to ensure open markets enter into force

Tomorrow, the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA) will enter into force. The new Regulation will put an end to unfair practices by companies that act as gatekeepers in the online platform economy.

ec.europa.eu

 

[Abazigal]

Still missed the point. Apple owns the store but not the phone

That is precisely the point. Apple has a monopoly on iPhones (in that they are the only company who can legally manufacture them), but that argument will never hold up in court because it applies regardless of whether Apple has sold 1 billion iPhones or just 1 iPhone.

I will use the same logic as game consoles. Companies like Nintendo and Sony sell their own gaming hardware, and developers distribute their software via proprietary app stores, and pay said companies a portion of their revenue, similar to the iOS App Store. If you want to argue that I can buy my games via cartridges, thereby sidestepping the App Store, then I will argue that Apple should still be entitled to a cut of revenue from apps sold via third party app stores, or if third party payment options were used (if it ever came to that).

You don't get competition by demanding that I be able to access my steam library on the PS5 (which would mean that Sony has to allow me to play the games I purchased on another platform for free on their hardware, without them earning a single cent). You get competition by opting to purchase another gaming device if you don't like what the company is offering.

It's the same logic here. The App Store and the iPhone are one package deal. If you want to be able to side load apps, or do a dozen other things that android allows which iOS doesn't, then the solution would be to buy an android device instead, rather than insist that iOS become more like android. Where would the meaningful choice be then, if both platforms essentially become one and the same?

 

[Abazigal]

Well you will see in about 5 months. The law passed November 1.

Apple can’t enforce a commission on anyone.

​

They aren’t allowed to prevent consumers from linking up to businesses outside their platforms

Digital Markets Act: rules for digital gatekeepers to ensure open markets enter into force

Tomorrow, the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA) will enter into force. The new Regulation will put an end to unfair practices by companies that act as gatekeepers in the online platform economy.

ec.europa.eu

How time flies indeed. It seemed like we were just debating about this earlier this year.

Your move, Apple.

 

[PowerButton]

It seems pretty simple to me. You either choose to use an iPhone or not… 😏

 

[Ethosik]

So answer the question everyone else seems to avoid... why does Apple lock users into using the App Store on the iPhone, but doesn't on the Mac? What makes those two devices so vastly different that its OK for me to download any app I need from the web, or by a license from a third party, buts its impossible on my iPhone?

Uh……Mac and Windows have horrible security in that sense. Relying on how smart my grandma is installing or not clicking on those malicious messages to install something. I’m tired of cleaning computers every week. And I have tried training for years.

 

[toph2toast]

Uh……Mac and Windows have horrible security in that sense. Relying on how smart my grandma is installing or not clicking on those malicious messages to install something. I’m tired of cleaning computers every week. And I have tried training for years.

So Apple should have this level of control over products that hundreds of millions of people own just because your grandma can't stop clicking on malicious messages... got it.

 

[cocky jeremy]

I don't use Facebook, spotify or twitter but I think 30% is too high, make it 10% and you will still make money and might not need to change the rules. If not, congress will make it happen at some point.

10% is nothing. My company makes 30% minimum on everything. Usually 50-60%.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

is precisely the point. Apple has a monopoly on iPhones (in that they are the only company who can legally manufacture them), but that argument will never hold up in court because it applies regardless of whether Apple has sold 1 billion iPhones or just 1 iPhone.

Well not necessarily. Monopoly isn’t bad or negative by itself as Wel have millions of technical monopolies but the market itself they occupy is diverse.

I will use the same logic as game consoles. Companies like Nintendo and Sony sell their own gaming hardware, and developers distribute their software via proprietary app stores, and pay said companies a portion of their revenue, similar to the iOS App Store. If you want to argue that I can buy my games via cartridges, thereby sidestepping the App Store, then I will argue that Apple should still be entitled to a cut of revenue from apps sold via third party app stores, or if third party payment options were used (if it ever came to that).

I think this is a good point where apple have fallen in to a trap. Apple haven’t allowed anyone to buy anything from anywhere but their store and doubled down. And being inconsistent. Some pay apple a percentage while other don’t.

The PlayStation have games available on multiple places even if they take a small cut from the beginning. The cut Sony takes for a games sold physical store or a key sold somewhere are in the single digits. But the store is just like Apple at 30% or so.

And Sony takes a percentage from 100% of everything. No exceptions. But still Allow outside links and communication with users. Such as Netflix

You don't get competition by demanding that I be able to access my steam library on the PS5 (which would mean that Sony has to allow me to play the games I purchased on another platform for free on their hardware, without them earning a single cent). You get competition by opting to purchase another gaming device if you don't like what the company is offering.

Yes you do, you think of competition between platforms when the competition we talk about is the service itself.

The steam library are physically not able to run on your PlayStation. Games still must be built for the architecture and signed to run.

Example steam, GOG, Epic Store,Windows store are all a service on windows.
Windows have a gaming store service you get with your Os. And other compete with that service.

Or on Mac, the Mac App Store is a service you get with your computer. And steam is a third party solution that competes with it by providing a better service. This forces apple/windows to do better or not be used.

It's the same logic here. The App Store and the iPhone are one package deal. If you want to be able to side load apps, or do a dozen other things that android allows which iOS doesn't, then the solution would be to buy an android device instead, rather than insist that iOS become more like android. Where would the meaningful choice be then, if both platforms essentially become one and the same?

Not at all I just want to have the ability to install software when I own the hardware.

iOS already have the ability to install third party program. If you have a developer account.

The AppStore in my experience is extremely terrible and it needs competition to improve.
I would example love to use steam as my game store on my iPhone. Allowing be to use the Sam for windows, Mac and iOS. Making it very convenient for me.

Apple did have the ability to provide a compromise but when the government (EU) have stepped in it will be done more extensive than apple would have otherwise

 

[toph2toast]

That is precisely the point. Apple has a monopoly on iPhones (in that they are the only company who can legally manufacture them), but that argument will never hold up in court because it applies regardless of whether Apple has sold 1 billion iPhones or just 1 iPhone.

I will use the same logic as game consoles. Companies like Nintendo and Sony sell their own gaming hardware, and developers distribute their software via proprietary app stores, and pay said companies a portion of their revenue, similar to the iOS App Store. If you want to argue that I can buy my games via cartridges, thereby sidestepping the App Store, then I will argue that Apple should still be entitled to a cut of revenue from apps sold via third party app stores, or if third party payment options were used (if it ever came to that).

You don't get competition by demanding that I be able to access my steam library on the PS5 (which would mean that Sony has to allow me to play the games I purchased on another platform for free on their hardware, without them earning a single cent). You get competition by opting to purchase another gaming device if you don't like what the company is offering.

It's the same logic here. The App Store and the iPhone are one package deal. If you want to be able to side load apps, or do a dozen other things that android allows which iOS doesn't, then the solution would be to buy an android device instead, rather than insist that iOS become more like android. Where would the meaningful choice be then, if both platforms essentially become one and the same?

I have to disagree. I can go buy a game for my Xbox at Target or Walmart. I'm not locked into the Microsoft Store on my Xbox. It's a win for the consumer to have choices, that way if Target has a game on sale, but it's not in the Microsoft Store, I save money. For years Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo relied on 3rd parties to sell their games and products. It wasn't until digital distribution was available that they released their own stores, not for convenience, but so they could get more $$.

You're comparison to steam is a little off. I don't think anyone is asking for purchases made on an android phone to be transferred to an iPhone. The problem is there is only 1 single way to purchase apps, and that's the app store. There is no alternative and no justification for it to be a package deal.

 

[Mysteriousone]

Free market economics. If I create a new platform/product, others have no right to tell me how to design or run it. Even if it gets so popular that it blankets half the market, this doesn't change. People can choose to buy or not to buy my product, and if it gets really popular, it indicates that consumers like the way it works.

Apple wants their ecosystem to work a certain way, and even if it stinks, they have the right to do so. But consumers' choices speak for themselves.

It'd be one thing if there was no other mobile phone company out there and Apple held a monopoly, but that is not the case. As things are, if you want to target consumers on Apple's platform, then it's reasonable that you follow their rules. If their rules were bad enough, no one would make stuff for iPhone and the platform would die.

iKnockoff users claim Apple is a “monopoly”. Hahaha.

 

[cthompson94]

I have to disagree. I can go buy a game for my Xbox at Target or Walmart. I'm not locked into the Microsoft Store on my Xbox. It's a win for the consumer to have choices, that way if Target has a game on sale, but it's not in the Microsoft Store, I save money. For years Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo relied on 3rd parties to sell their games and products. It wasn't until digital distribution was available that they released their own stores, not for convenience, but so they could get more $$.

You're comparison to steam is a little off. I don't think anyone is asking for purchases made on an android phone to be transferred to an iPhone. The problem is there is only 1 single way to purchase apps, and that's the app store. There is no alternative and no justification for it to be a package deal.

I commented earlier about this, yes you are correct with Microsoft allowing you to get games outside of the Microsoft Store, but both Nintendo and Sony restrict digital games through their consoles to their store only. You cannot compare the ability to use physical game disks in consoles and the Apple App Store because there is no physical thing for the App Store besides like gift cards.

You need to compare that just like Nintendo and Sony (where Sony even has the digital only PS5) those app stores only allow games to be purchased from their store. Sony used to be more lenient but they have since shut those down. Sony for a few years now have stopped the purchase of digital game codes being purchased from retailers, so for instance, the digital only PS5 (the cheaper one) basically you are restricted to whatever full price/sales that Sony wants to give.

*I will put the disclaimer that yes a consumer can purchase a digital key from a person from like G2A but this comes with it's own risks and IMO cannot be counted*

 

[dk001]

They negotiate. They allow apps into the App Store in exchange for a cut of the profits. Most developers, however, don’t have any chips to bargain with and have too little market share to have much negotiating power. Large developers, on the other hand, can sometimes negotiate better deals. Amazon has done this few times I believe.

You might argue that Apple dictates what people can and can’t put on the App Store, but that’s Apple deciding how to run their own business. Apple can’t dictate how other‘s businesses are run. (Epic is actually a good example. Apple can set the rules for entry to the App Store and enforce them, but can’t force Epic to keep their app on the App Store.)

I’m not arguing for or against Apple’s App Store policies or their choice to prevent side loading, I’m just defending their right to make their own business choices (whether good or bad).

Thanks for the answer.
I see both depending on the situation.

 

[skottichan]

Not this again.

Your example would hold some truth if all the products at Nordstrom were only available at Nordstrom and could be bought nowhere else. If you want to shop somewhere else you would have to set up a completely new household that is Non-Nordstrom and then you can buy from Target or other stores - but not Nordstrom.

Okay then. Look at gaming, Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo controls how developers get their games on their systems, and has rules on content, and as consumers we can only get the software those companies allow. That's not even the counting the control over exclusives (1st, 2nd and 3rd party included).

Wanna play Bloodborne on your Switch or Mario on your XBox, good luck.

Also, to the people who use the 30% as why "Apple is bad!", All three console makers (as well as GameStop, Amazon, Steam, etc) charge 30%. The only exception are MS's PC marketplace, and I think GOG. which do 12-15%

 

[macsound1]

That's fine and all, but if a user wants to accept the risk of having an unstable iPhone in order to have options for app stores on their phone, they should be able to. That isn't a decision Apple should make for them.

This has been the key argument forever.
BUT
How do my parents - who don’t know 3rd party app stores are a cesspool - know to not click the cesspool app store link instead of the App Store link when Facebook and Spotify send whiny emails saying they need to for an “optimal” experience? They won’t be honest or clear.

We’ve all decided iOS makes the most sense because it’s safer. If you want something a company doesn’t offer, shop elsewhere.

 

[macsound1]

Okay then. Look at gaming, Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo controls how developers get their games on their systems, and has rules on content, and as consumers we can only get the software those companies allow. That's not even the counting the control over exclusives (1st, 2nd and 3rd party included).

Wanna play Bloodborne on your Switch or Mario on your XBox, good luck.

Also, to the people who use the 30% as why "Apple is bad!", All three console makers (as well as GameStop, Amazon, Steam, etc) charge 30%. The only exception are MS's PC marketplace, and I think GOG. which do 12-15%

As do all retailers. Except 30% is low. I used to work for an international retailer and 67% markup was the sweet spot. And who’s place is it to complain

 

[dk001]

I don’t understand why the blame would fall on them. Perhaps due to Apple’s babysitting, somehow people have expected them to take care of everything but it’s ridiculous. Crimes are committed every day using electronic devices. No one blames the manufacturers of these other electronic devices. I don’t think anyone is holding Google responsible for car thieves using android but maybe I’m wrong. Burglars have been using the Raspberry Pi and other small computers to jam cameras, but I don’t think those companies are being held responsible.

I don’t think it’s so much that Apple is being held responsible, but due to the fact they have the capability they are being used as a tool. If Apple didn’t have such a lockdown on the iPhone, then China or other governments couldn’t pressure them to do anything. I think it’s a double edge sword with the OS being locked down helps but it also makes Apple vulnerable to pressure.

I would love to see another alternative besides Google and Apple but I don’t think it’s going to happen. I think at this point they have the market locked down. Look at how the web browser market is turning out. Microsoft can’t even make their own browser successfully so they have to use Google. Right now it’s Google (Chrome/ Chromium), Mozilla (Firefox) and Apple (Safari) with Google, holding a huge majority. It’s just out of reach of even large developers to come out and make a web browser. I think it’s the same way with a phone operating system.

It would be interesting.

Say someone came up with a new device, a great OS, and a nascent app store - something that looked like it could really take off and priced to sell. When this company started reaching out to devs and companies to expand their app store offerings, how would Apple and Google react?

Somehow I doubt it would be with good intentions or camaraderie.

 

[skottichan]

As do all retailers. Except 30% is low. I used to work for an international retailer and 67% markup was the sweet spot. And who’s place is it to complain

Yeah, I know that Nordstrom's (which was the original commenter's objection) and other big retail chains' markup is around 67%, I wasn't sure what Amazon's was, so I lumped it in with Gamestop, since their markup is around 30% on games.

 

[SteveJawbs]

"That's just the way it is" isn't acceptable. The app store is a complete monopoly, there are no options to purchase apps elsewhere. There is no motivation to change their way because they have no competition in that space. Capitalism is great, but there also needs to be competition, which the app store doesn't have.

Perhaps Ford and GM should invite independent car designers to add their own untested and unverified customizations to cars in the production assembly line.

Apple really has no reason to allow anyone to deploy apps on their platform without any inspection or verification. I like it this way.

Google actually ranks windows software malware sites at the top of their search lists.

Search for any windows drivers and watch the fake apps appear at the top of the list, crushing unsophisticated users into installing malware.

An open system like Windows is insidious to this kind of thing.

 

[skottichan]

It would be interesting.

Say someone came up with a new device, a great OS, and a nascent app store - something that looked like it could really take off and priced to sell. When this company started reaching out to devs and companies to expand their app store offerings, how would Apple and Google react?

Somehow I doubt it would be with good intentions or camaraderie.

What do you think would happen?

Aside from snarky comments, ad campaigns and the like? Because when the largest marketshare leader in home computers failed honestly, I'm really confused as to what nefarious plots happened/would happen.

 

[dk001]

Does anyone under about 70 use Twitter anyway. It was a dying platform even before that cretin Musk took it over. It will go the way that MySpace and Bebo did

If this is the case why is the readership growing so much after Musk's takeover?
To me what is more telling is the political/media censorship push.

Either way, continued growth/evolution or failure it will be an interesting case for the history books.
If allowed in class.

 

[macsound1]

So Apple should have this level of control over products that hundreds of millions of people own just because your grandma can't stop clicking on malicious messages... got it.

That’s called “value add”
Apple makes more money selling phones and iPads because they’ve added inherent value for every single customer by saying the App Store is vetted.

The App Store isn’t perfect - you can still buy a crap kitchen toy at Target, but it’s a waaaayyy better bet that it’s the real deal vs buying off Amazon. And Williams Sonoma, they probably only have the good stuff.
That’s the value they offer. you know it’s better just by seeing the name on the outside of the store.