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.
Facebook Claims Apple is Damaging Small Businesses by Collecting Fees From Paid Facebook Events
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The thing is, there is nothing illegal or bad about becoming a monopoly simply by being better than everyone else. Apple and Google got to the positions they are today simply by being better than everyone else, and a duopoly is not a monopoly.
That’s the whole basis behind aggregation theory. Your product offers a superior user experience, which attracts users, which then gives the parent company leverage to exert over their suppliers. Which is something existing anti-trust law is ill-equipped to handle.
Even the cries of Apple being a monopoly sound a bit hollow because nobody has been able to convincingly argue just what market Apple dominates.
Is Apple a monopoly of iOS devices? By that (exceedingly narrow definition), Apple is a monopoly regardless of whether they have sold 1 iphone or 1 billion iPhones.
Does Apple have a monopoly in smartphones? 15% global market share seems to suggest otherwise. A strong case can be made that users certainly have choice in a wide plethora of android devices to choose from, if you desire functionality that apple devices don’t have.
Is Apple using this “monopoly” to gain an advantage in a different market? Debatable - Fortnite certainly is available on various different platforms. Even if I can’t play Fortnite on my iphone, I can still play it on a PC or even my Nintendo Switch.
Is Apple having a monopoly on profits? I am not even sure if there has been a precedent of a company with minority market share but majority revenue share being found guilty of being a monopoly. It goes back to my original point that it is not illegal for Apple to be as successful as it is by being good at what it does. That’s precisely how a capitalistic market is supposed to work.
Is 30% too high? Relative to what? I don’t see the courts taking it upon themselves to decide what a right cut ought to be, simply because nobody can agree. What if the judges could argue that 30% was actually too low, and Apple was actually justified in charging 50%?
The worst I can see if Apple taking a hit to their image, but I simply don’t see this lawsuit holding up in court because the plaintiffs are going to have a hard time proving that Apple is a monopoly in any market that matters. Before Apple can be found guilty, the laws have to change first, but that is beyond the purview of this debate.
That’s easy. They dominate the marketplace of jealous haters.
License their software like they do and charge the customers for the OS license which I am sure included in the iPhone cost. Charge developers for the licenses for the development tool which they cover through developers subscription.
All these are established models all along. Microsoft can’t charge their desktop users 30% for every Banking transaction just because they maintain the OS.
They're not entirely wrong, Apple's cut will cut into eventual takehome for small businesses.
Ultimately can't believe how many people are arguing that a 30% cut, for no reason, is justified.
Ultimately can't believe how many people are arguing that a 30% cut, for no reason, is justified.
AS DEVELOPER, facebook freakin lazy and release unstable thing
1. react-native
2. facebook sdk for php -> 3 year no update. I would say high risk and wouldn't deploy to any my apps.
Costco did just that, raise our price- see ya- kicked Coke out for a considerable amount of time.
Every single developer trying to maintain their own store, and handle their own installations, and updates, etc would be a disaster. For both the user and for the developer (it would cost them far more time and effort the you think to do so). And im not just speculating. I had PDA’s long before iDevices, and finding, installing and getting apps to run was a joke. You guys act like having seamless, integrated system is supposed to be free. And to everyone saying 30% markup is ridiculous, I suggest you educate yourselves as to what pretty much all business typically markup the products they sell. I’ll give you a hint... when you see any store selling something on a 30% off sale... they are still not losing money on it.
Really uninformed statement! Exactly how is Apple collecting 30% for "no reason"? What about the fact that built and maintain a marketplace? Does Amazon not collect fees? Does Sony/Microsoft not collect fees? Does your supermarket not charge a markup? Walmart? Need I go on?
Do you really think some tiny indy developer would get any exposure if they had to rely on their own web site to advertise a side loaded app?
P.S. - Any of these small businesses are invited to login to facebook via a browser to avoid this whole thing.
Last edited:
What do you think of MS and Sony taking a cut of games sold on their consoles?
Epic’s battle for “open platforms” ignores consoles’ massive closed market
Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo demand the same platform control—and the same 30% fee.
arstechnica.com
How is it “for no reason?” Apple created the iphone. Apple employs hundreds of people to make and maintain sdks that these developers rely on. Apple delivers a customer base that, unlike on android, is actually willing to pay for apps. Apple provides documentation and developer support. Apple provides payment services and sdks that ensure that customers are willing to pay money for apps, knowing that they can easily cancel recurring subscriptions, get refunds, etc. Apple employs hundreds of people to curate the App Store so that customers trust it enough to be willing to spend money on apps. Apple allows the majority of app developers to take advantage of all this without paying apple anything more than $99 a year, thus taking a loss on most of those apps.
If you are a customer and don’t like it, buy an android phone. If you are a developer and don’t like it, build your own phones and ecosystem, or develop for android - you have no right to all the benefits provided by Apple without paying for them.
While it is very clear that you read the article and recognize what this issue is today you clearly are missing the long term goal of Facebook in this case which is to jump on the app store commision negative press bandwagon.
Facebook could care less about small businesses setting up events or they would just notify all of their users to login with a browser instead of the app.... oh wait, they can probably spy on you better via the app, forget that.
Last edited:
They app makers get around the sales fee by making everything freemium, and you say Apple shouldn’t collect for in app purchases either? So Apple should just do everything for free?
30% seems excessive but zero is ridiculous.
They have 3% bank card transaction fee, so add 10% to support operations, that still be 13% compared to 30%. I don't think anyone expects Apple to do this for free. But do they have to sell app's with similar margins to what they sell memory upgrades in their computers? LOL
The whiners aren't complaining that 30% is too high. They are complaining that they should be allowed to have their own stores and collect their own 30% without sharing with apple.
If we are all in agreement that apple should be permitted to be the only store on iOS, and it's just a matter of whether 30% is fair, then I think we can have a much more intelligent conversation about that. But that's not what everyone is demanding.
I haven't really decided if there should be just one App Store for iOS. Why make one and then you encounter too many scenarios that don't make sense for the rules. This goes back to the iTunes being hated for being a jack of trades master of none. Perhaps multiple stores would allow more variations to the what's allowed.
I haven't really decided if there should be just one App Store for iOS. Why make one and then you encounter too many scenarios that don't make sense for the rules. This goes back to the iTunes being hated for being a jack of trades master of none. Perhaps multiple stores would allow more variations to the what's allowed.
Well then if we’re back to “apple must allow other app stores” I don’t see why that’s any different than “walmart must allow competing retailers to set up store fronts in walmart locations.”
Apple built the ecosystem, and started from zero percent market share. The entire time, it’s been competing against android, windows mobile, and various other ecosystems over the years, most of which permitted/permit multiple app stores. And this whole time apple has been generally charging MORE for their hardware than the competition. And yet customers love it. And part of the reason they love it is safety, consistency, and simplicity that has derived from apple’s locking down of the devices.
if consumers would really benefit so much from “choice,” and if developers would really benefit so much from choice, why has apple not been driven to zero percent market share by android? Why do developers make no money on android?
It’s simply a fallacy to argue that this abstract notion of “choice” is somehow a net benefit to consumers.
You just wanted to push that thought while I was thinking this was a good time for Apple to consider splitting up the App store like iTunes to make the complexity of the store operation work better its against its wide range of products categories.
So you want ”App Store games” and “App Store fart apps” and “App Store stuff that’s banned in china?”You just wanted to push that thought while I was thinking this was a good time for Apple to consider splitting up the App store like iTunes to make the complexity of the store operation work better its against its wide range of products categories.
My Walmart has a Burger King, an Auntie Anne's, a nail salon, a bank, an eye doctor, and a hair salon. The two salons also sell HBA products just like Walmart. They even let Girls Scouts sell cookies as customers walk in. Most Walmarts are Mini Malls at the front, so arguing they don't allow other retailers in kind of rings hollow, even without your over-stretched brick-and-mortar v digital metaphor.
You think walmart doesn’t get to choose who those retailers are? You don’t think they take a cut of the action? (girl scouts notwithstanding)
Stop it.
I was also struggling to find a non trivial single market Apple is dominant in.
I think in the end it’s not strictly about Apple as a competitor holding market power, but about Apple as maintainer of the market infrastructure itself (the app store). but i don’t know how much that makes sense from a legal perspective
Yes, but that doesn't make your argument strong. Do they take a 30% cut, do they just lease the space selectively? Hardly a comparison if you can't back any of the supposed similarities up. Try again, please. Conjecture isn't evidence.
Edit: You could have made a great argument about how Walmart forces vendors to do a lot of the forecasting, inventory and supply chain management typical retailers do in house, forcing vendors to take on a significant portion of Walmart's overhead costs. It's not a direct comparison, but at least it highlights a big retailer using its dominant position to force small vendors into taking on unnecessary costs just for a chance to play. But then again, I don't expect you to actually know much about how Walmart, Apple or the world in general operates.
I don't have to like Walmart or Apple, I can be frustrated with and demand better from both. This is why arguing that the other kids did it too never works. Not on the playground, not in the real world.
Last edited:
