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
Google doesn't have a monopoly. There are several other app stores that users can choose from besides Google Play Store.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/android-app-stores/
I agree apple has a monopoly on the iOS App Store. And they have locked it down .
I thought you had to be rooted, but if that is correct then I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing it out.
If that's true then apple is the only one that has a monopoly. On selling smartphones they do not. On selling apps for the iphone they do.
You are correct, I even forgot about amazon. Don't know where my mind was, thanks for catching it.
Yep, they sure do. I may have misspoke on google though in that post.
Ah, I just remembered amazon for example. Lazarus was correct.
This ?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/spotify-washington-lobbying-firms-117001.html
That was back in April .
That's like saying that Toyota has a monopoly on Toyota cars. Obviously there are viable alternatives since Apple isn't the only provider of smartphones.
I think it becomes an issue from antitrust law point of view, when a company owns a market to a point that it's impossible to compete and therefor puts one fundamental idea behind capitalism out of play, that competition leads to better products.
Not its not, that's a terrible analogy. You can buy and install 3rd party parts on a Toyota, without having to go through Toyota . Car analogies are plain awful when used to compare what a tech company.
You can buy and install 3rd party parts on an iPhone as well I believe. The point is that there are other smartphones available.
It comes down to this: Apple spends a lot of effort and money to market and maintain the App Store. Their policy is this: "if you sell your app for free, we're fine with that, but if you make money off of it, we want a 30% cut" - I don't see any problem with this and I don't see why it's anti-competitive. It's Apple's platform, their rules.
Hence a really bad analogy comparing a car manufacturer to a App Store software walled garden. Twist it as you like, the anology does not work, nice try with the 3rd party accessories.
I get your point, but wouldn't that be the concept of an open market? Nobody is forcing you to buy the TV there. Go to Amazon where it's cheaper! Lol
The example was iOS devices, not the Appstore. But given the Appstore and subscription based apps, consider that most of these apps are free and the provider makes their money through the content and a subscription fee. This means that Apple makes no money at all on these apps, while at the same time giving access to their entire userbase letting these apps siphon off users to their services. Why is it so strange that Apple wants a cut?
Exactly. Some people fail to grasp how beneficial it is for them that Apple has competition. It's a fire on Apple's rear. I don't think iOS would be what it is today if Android didn't exist. Same deal for Android users.
The app store is a symbiotic relationship, although Apple has far more to gain than the developers. Without the app store, developers can reach a large audience in hopes of generating revenue. Without the apps, Apple loses a huge selling point of the iPhone.
That kind of monopoly is called a "natural monopoly" which doesn't count as a monopoly legally. Like Ford has a monopoly on Ford cars, PepsiCo has a monopoly on Pepsi Cola, McDonald's has a monopoly and McDonald's cheese burgers and so on.
That is, if you make money on the iOS device. You can write an iOS app that let's you buy anything, as long as it isn't something that runs on an iPhone. You can write apps to buy shoes, clothes, physical books, whatever, absolutely fine with 0% of the purchase price going to Apple. Actually, for these kinds of purchases Apple doesn't _allow_ you using "In-app purchases" and giving 30% to Apple.
That's a good point, it's a bit of a balancing act I imagine. It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds. Although a rumor, according to the main article here apparently they have looked into changing the rules for media apps as well.
"In June, it was reported that Apple was considering changing the 30 percent cut for media apps like Netflix, Hulu, Spotify and more."
okay the goal posts are moving now, and not interested in following them. Just wanted to point out the car analogy did not work. Feel free to discuss with someone else how deserving apple is to a cut.
Have a good evening.
What are you talking about, look at the post I quoted. Perhaps you didn't read it before you replied? But I'm also not particular interested in continuing this, so a good evening to you as well.
And apple makes the bulk of thier money selling iPhones ! If the users believe the iOS App Store is the best, apple could make no money from it, and it would allow them to achieve thier main goal, iPhone sales !
Hence Apple gives away its software for "free", the money is in hardware. The App Store money is a added bonus.....
What are you talking about, look at the post I quoted. Perhaps you didn't read it before you replied? But I'm also not particular interested in continuing this, so a good evening to you as well.
We are in agreement
Would you even say it's appropriate to use the word "monopoly"? I always looked at it as a walled garden, closed ecosystem.
There is no unfair disadvantage here at all. First, the Apple Music team and the Spotify Music team both developed similar solutions, and they both have to negotiate with record companies and independent musicians about the fees to run their solution. They have the same cost. Independent of that, the App Store team reviews software, publishes it on the store, and collects fees for that. The Spotify Music team pays money for that. What about the Apple Music team? Either they pay the same money to the App Store team, or the App Store Team doesn't make money from the Apple Music team. So the Apple Music team can only be more profitable if Apple gives up money elsewhere.
This is like complaining that Samsung would have an unfair advantage in the phone market because they use their own parts, and while Apple would pay cost + profit for some Samsung component, Samsung would only pay the cost. And that is just as wrong. Samsung's phone manufacturing pays the same price for Samsung components as Apple does, because Samsung's components manufacturing wants to make as much profits as they can to get their bonuses. Of course Samsung _could_ charge itself less for components, but that would increase the profit in one area while reducing the profit in another area.
The real problem that Spotify has is that the AppStore has exactly one set of rules for payments, and applies these rules to everyone, and Spotify's business doesn't work well with these rules. As a counterexample, Dell could write an app that allows you to order Dell computers and components and services etc. from your iPhone and iPad, and because of the exact same set of rules, Dell wouldn't need to pay anything to Apple. Amazon could write an app for a music subscription service that sends a CD of your choice to your home once a month, and Amazon wouldn't have to pay a penny to Apple.
That is of course absolutely false. Spotify is selling lots and lots of subscriptions, including subscriptions for Mac, iPhone and iPad users, without using an iPhone app to subscribe. You can go to Spotify's website, subscribe to their service, download a free app on the App Store and listen to Spotify music 24/7 without one penny of the subscription money going to Apple.
That's a strange thing in language, that a combination of words can mean something totally different from the individual words. It is a "natural monopoly", just like your Auntie Sally has a "natural monopoly" on Auntie Sally's Strawberry Jam. A "natural monopoly" is not a monopoly. Like a "design patent" is not a patent, "linear algebra" isn't about algebra, and so on.
Last edited: