30% seems too high but obviously they should pay something since they're getting exposure from Apple's App Store. Maybe they should be trying to renegotiate the commission, not do away with it entirely.
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.
FTC Looking Into App Store Rules Regarding Subscription Services
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I understand why Microsoft was investigated just as I understand why Apple is being looked at, and yet not investigated at this point. They may not be investigated at all.
My question was very clear, and that question is why I commented on the post you made. I'm wondering why you won't let that one small comment go.
Well, for various reasons. But right now? Because you won't answer my question.
that's like Target charging 30% markup for Jeans; while selling their own brand WRANGLER Jeans:
when they sell their own brand they obviously don't pay the markup to themselves.
Is this really so unfair ? a lot of stores sell some of their own brand products. Unfair would be to charge Spotify more than other streaming services.
when they sell their own brand they obviously don't pay the markup to themselves.
Is this really so unfair ? a lot of stores sell some of their own brand products. Unfair would be to charge Spotify more than other streaming services.
it was a joke. No way will the companies drop their price. apple cuts the 30% and the subscription will stay the same. You know it.
I make mine for various reasons too. I made mine because I was looking for answers.
How exactly does this apply to antitrust law? AFAIK, antitrust law only applies when a company has an overwhelming dominance in the marketplace and uses that dominance to unfairly restrict competition. Apple is certainly not the dominant streaming service and they don't have dominance in the mobile marketplace.
Apple Music existing doesn't change the TOS or the agreement. Even if it did, Apple has the right to change their TOS. 30% is nothing compared to the mark up on most products sold in stores and it is equal to that of other mobile device app stores (android, windows). The amount of Apple's cut is irrelevant. The real question is whether or not Apple has a right to take a cut and prevent apps from directing to their own websites to sign up for service. I think few will argue that Apple doesn't deserve a piece of the pie; all stores mark up products they sell and Apple incurs costs based on offering those apps. To whether or not they have a right to prevent apps from directing to their own sites to get users to subscribe I'll ask this: Do you think Best Buy should be forced to carry game disks that are free but require the purchase/subscription to be made when they are loaded into a gaming system?
You say that 30% isn't fair and puts them at a competitive disadvantage. Apple is giving them a platform to compete on and an enormous customer base. It is no different than any other store. Do you think Apple shouldn't able to create apps or services that compete against existing apps? What about grocery stores that carry store brand items along side name brand items?
Do you think Apple shouldn't able to create apps or services that compete against existing apps? What about grocery stores that carry store brand items along side name brand items? (copied from above)
Microsoft does do the same behavior, as does google. Their mobile app stores take a cut of apps sold on the stores.
To your last point: Do you think that Walmart should be forced to hang an LG TV on the wall with the rest of their TVs that displays a message to order it on LG.com? Of course not. So why do you think you should be able to bypass Apple's cut? You wouldn't have iOS apps to capitalize on without them.
Why does a reoccurring cost change things? You think if I created a game it'd be okay for them to take 30% if I sold it for $10 but not if I charged $0.99 a month? Its a store; stores sell products and services to earn revenue/profit. Why should Apple, at no cost, offer and support a service that is generating revenue because of them?
How is it completely different? How is it any different from a store selling its own soaps next to Tide and Gain?
30% is the industry standard. Its the same as the Google play store, the windows mobile store, steam, etc. It's also less than the markup on many goods you'd purchase online or in store. Apple follows tax law. They are also the largest corporate taxpayer. There is nothing wrong or immoral about minimizing your tax liability in accordance with the law. Do you give more to the IRS that you are liable for? Why should they? If you have problems with how much they pay in taxes you should take it up with your Congressman as tax reform is needed.
If you read what I've written above then you'll see I'm on Apple's side on this one. What you said though is the only reasonable demand they could make. It being preinstalled is the only way Spotify could claim its anti-competitive or that anyone could really relate it to Microsoft/Internet Explorer. But it really isn't preinstalled. Music has always been an App on iOS and an Apple Music subscription isn't automatic when you activate an iPhone. Maybe Apple Music being part of the Music App is the problem.
I don't think anyone's saying that Apple should just give everything away sold through the App Store out of the kindness of their hearts. They're running a business, and commissions are expected. The 30% cut per app sold might be a little steep, but it's still reasonable. They're paying for the hosting after all. Giving it store space.
What isn't reasonable is Apple taking a 30% cut of all subscription fees run through the app store in perpetuum. If it were for a set time, that'd be fine. It'd be like their commission, since most service apps are free to download. But to do it for all time, regardless of if it's used on an Apple product or not, is ridiculous. They're taking a 30% cut of a company's profits without having done anything expect initially host the app.
I remember when Google was being looked at for favoring certain results in searches so they could promote their own services, or those of paid advertisers. I also remember people basically saying: It's Googles search engine, they can run it however they like.
Now Apple is running the App Store that they own how they like, and people are upset?
What a bunch of hypocrites (you know who you are).
Now Apple is running the App Store that they own how they like, and people are upset?
What a bunch of hypocrites (you know who you are).
The ability to purchase a phone that has it. Apple doesn't make a million different options. If what they offer doesn't fit you, don't buy their product. Pretty simple.
What kind of daft question is this?
People who are getting millions from their apps in the AppStore. Like the Angry Bird guy with countless of others. But who am I telling this? You are very well known to be extremely nitpicking when it comes to Apple around here. It's almost like you have an agenda or something!
Not a fair or proper comparison. Android is an open source OS used on a multitude of products from a slew of manufacturers. Apple is a closed ecosystem both hardware and software.
You do realize that the cost of an employee is around double the salary that is paid out. I meant $200/hr.
Did the government get MSFT for the browser? No. They tried to and ultimately failed and IE 6 became the #1 browser for years after the fact. That was good for no one even MSFT. This is why I think the government doesn't always need to insert itself when the markets haven't been given a chance to work.