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
The logic is flawed here. Are people downloading iTunes through the MSFT app store? Apple doesn't charge people for downloading things outside the app store.
Apple is responsible for the distribution of the service including updates and payment processing etc...
Music screenshot at WWDC...The poster I replied to wrote that Apple would deserve 30% of everything just for having created the platform that it runs on.
They don't allow people to run apps from outside the app store. And they charge an extraordinary fee for services (like a music streaming service in this example) that are run completely outside of the app store or any other part of Apple's infrastructure, and where Apple doesn't contribute anything but billing.
Now there is a good reason why Apple has to charge for in-app purchases in general. If that weren't the case, developers could easily circumvent the (completely justified) fee for selling apps in the store by making all apps free and charging in-app to unlock them. But there has to be a way to treat subscriptions differently. It is clearly not proportional to perpetually charge 30% for a service that Apple has nothing to do with. This kills any low-margin service and drives up prices for consumers in the long run. At the very least apps should be allowed to have a sign-up button that leads to the provider's own web site.
I wouldn't have estimated that high, especially when excluding benefits from the figure. Most of these guys are probably on salary, but assuming $100/hr * 40 hr/week you're suggesting that they are each paid ~$200k/yr? Glassdoor is typically just a bit inflated. Here are their estimates. This also assumes they never go past 40 hours at that salary, and I kind of doubt that.
Actually that's not true either. The government already ruled that people could jailbreak their iPhones and download whatever they wanted.
As to your second argument I agree. The subscription fees are overpriced. Apple needs to come down off that high price. I think it's a bad business decision and really has only done nothing but hurt their image.
Last edited:
What can an Apple engineer get on the market? Probably a lot more than everyone else. I was including total compensation. It comes out to about $200/hr. You need ann experienced dev to review the code not just someone starting out. Then you need experienced QA people to review the UI etc... These dev and QA people are going to be on the high end of the high end.One other thing to consider is that an employees compensation is just the beginning of the costs associated with the employee.
I believe in streaming and competition with streaming but not this way. I think Spotify is a better option for some people and Apple Music is a great option for others.
Apple apps are always the baseline service. Other apps exist to give people the premium experience they are looking for on top of the baseline service. For many people like myself the baseline service is better for my needs. For those who need a more premium streaming service Spotify exists.
Last edited:
Now you're making stuff up. Just because they're from Apple, they can command an average of $200k/yr. You wrote that like you were talking about each team member, not necessarily a senior engineer (still seems high) or a principle engineer. You mentioned an army.
I'm not sure about baseline services here either. Apple bought out Beats, and they are offering their services for a monthly fee. It's not really one of their baseline products that merely adds value to their ecosystem. Rather it appears to be intended as a revenue generating model.
Well it could pre-empt anti-competitive behavior. Maybe that is the point. I wonder if it could be argued that Spotify is prematurely getting the government involved so it can protect its market share as it is the dominant player in the streaming music market. Is that not anti-competitive behavior?
Last edited:
Yes it is, because Google can use it to get their services in the hands of users of the end device with that OS, as they do with the Gapps in a similar manner that MS did with Explorer. Open handset alliance and the Android trademark are used to get manufacturers in line. The issue with Explorer had nothing to do with the fact that it was closed source, but that MS used its market position to get a favorable position in the browser market. After all, users could install another browser should they want to eventhough it was a closed source product. But this was really just a sidenote since someone brought up MS and Explorer, it really is off topic.
Yeah no one seems to mind Google being the dominant player in the search and advertising space even though they've done anti-competitive things in the past...like favoring some vendors over others as it relates to Android releases and the like.
Good point. I forgot about that. However, Google never suffers in the press nearly as much as Apple when they are investigated for wrong doing.
There are a couple reasons for that. One is that Google is constantly accused of harvesting everyone's data, so it doesn't make for as great of a story. The other is that Apple gets an extreme amount of media attention no matter what. They're good for page clicks, so sites run stories about Apple whenever they are available.
You're just moving things around, and you have been inconsistent on every post. I have no idea why you're doing that, but that link doesn't argue with anything I stated.
Orly... Cause it seems spotify cannot match 9.99 without making a loss via the App Store. Maybe the 30% they need to pay apple.??
Now as a punter , why on earth would I pay 12.00 for spotify when apple music is 9.99 Via the App Store. Apple is winning by a big margin in my mind .... Spotify loosing the completion here.
Given the really tight margins in music streaming, who can offer a streaming service via the apps store and be competitive ? Where are they going to find 30% margins, that do not exist...
The 30% apple tax is fine, but not if Apple offers the same service, with similar wholesale prices , through its own apps store. Previously Apple has collected the 30% without having their own apps competing against others.... Beats music is an apple app!
You really see no issue here ?
Applebots are surely funny. It's amazing how many will jump to the defense of a billion dollar company over those eeking out a living, yet when it's another company it's the other way around. Rich company taking advantage of people.
Jeez, nothing has even happened yet.
The difference is, you can sell to other stores or sell direct.
Not so on Apple's exclusive-by-mandate App Store.
This. I don't understand why critical thinking offends these people. You attack Apple for a stupid policy and the fanbois swarm you.
The only way things improve is by first acknowledging how screwed up they are.
Contractors in IT that make a lot more than permie employees are no where near $200 per hour ! Not even close ... Unless you have very unique skill set in old platforms or your work in finance .
iOS devs are common as ! They are some of our cheapest resources
Yes it makes the point that an employee making 95k in salary costs a company around 190k. That is about double the salary. I made a typo saying $200k/hr when I clearly meant $200/hr. I have well over 100k salary wise as a software engineer and I wouldn't even consider myself to be senior level. So if we say 150-180k for a Senior Level engineer. Multiply that times 2 and you get 300-360k/year cost for a company. $200/hr 40hrs per week comes out to $384k - $400k depending upon how you do the calculation.
The costs for the company isn't not the salary alone.
Last edited:
You are going to have to read what I said before posting. I know that. There is a difference between the salary given to an employee and the cost of an employee for a company. I am trying to make a distinction here. I even posted an article that explained as much.
On the whole, I think the press is extremely Apple friendly. They are willing channels for Apple's hype machine whenever a new product comes out. No other company gets a remotely similar treatment.