If the app is running on the iPhone, it can be said that 100% of the iPhone app’s success is because the iPhone exists (any web app or Android app success excluded).
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.
Illinois Floats Bill That Would Let Developers Skirt Apple's In-App Purchase Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And the iPhone is a success because the internet exists. So should AT&T and Comcast get a cut of iPhone sales?
The technicality there would be that AT&T and Comcast didn't create the internet. Apple created the App Store.
But why should they get a cut of Amazon’s sales in Amazon’s store? The fact that Apple allows the Kindle app to exist without IAP means they know them getting a cut of Kindle book sales is ridiculous. They could allow the Kindle app to function like every other app does for non-digital goods. I doubt there’s much Apple magic behind the Kindle app (it’s not like the iOS app has these amazing features that don’t exist anywhere else).
You said the iPhone, not App Store. I think Apple has a legitimate argument when it comes to games. And some productivity apps (like ones that take advantage of Apple Pencil). I guarantee you the majority of App Store revenue comes from game IAP.
Every app uses Apple’s IP but only apps that offer IAP pay a commission. Like I said Apple could come up with a way to fairly charge EVERY developer for the use of their IP/APIs/dev tools etc.
AT&T does get a cut of every iPhone they sell through their store. So does Xfinity. And, an additional bonus for them is that they get to charge the customer for the ISP service and Apple doesn’t get a cut of that.
You are not understanding what I have said. I said that Amazon is taking a healthy cut from what the publisher gets from selling their books on Kindle. So far this is currently a standard practice in the tech world. I expect that percentages will be reduced all across the board at some point and the income loss from that will be made up somewhere else. In the end, the vendor will never lose the income.....the customer will pay it one way for another.
*edit for spelling error
That's kind of the point. Illinois is trying to enact a law codifying something as illegal. Are you under the impression that what's illegal now has always been illegal and what's legal has always been legal? Just our Constitution has been amended 27 times.
It's the thin edge of the wedge. Once Apple is opened up, then all the others will have to follow too. Apple is just the biggest target. Shoot it down and the rest are nothing. If you start by aiming at the smaller guys, then everyone will be up in arms at you for picking on the small guys. That's why it appears to be just Apple in the cross hairs for now.
They have to be able to do this without SCOTUS nullifying the law. Picking on apple could open up for a supreme court case that could neuter much of the bill.
What is it exactly that should be enforced upon Walmart, Target, Amazon as well?
You seem to be blissfully unaware of the myriad of corporate, consumer, employment, and environmental laws, that already exist in your country, protecting you and every other citizen, and every other business, from unbridled corporate, greed-fuelled, behaviour.
I have no idea about the first two, but Amazon has some shady, greedy practices that could use a little curtailing. I can't say I've put much thought into that, so I'm sure someone else could answer that better than me.
Apple did not create the need for apps… phones had app stores before the iphone and people jailbroke the original iphone for the express purpose of adding new apps. Apple sells the hardware and it’s great hardware, apple made the tools necessary to make apps for their phones and they’re great tools, but make no mistake: apple did not invent software development, nor create the niche of mobile apps. They made their own api’s and their own coding language, yes, but developers use swift because apple doesn’t distribute apps made any other way.
I think you forget that apple makes a profit not just on the app store, but also through its hardware, dev program, and subscription services. Letting capable devs allow alternate payment options does nothing but improve the user experience. Imagine if walmart demanded a cut of every app store purchase just because you bought your phone from there! It would be insane! It’s the same with purchases made in apps the user has already downloaded.
How things work on computers? It’s a Wild west with all kinds of viruses. That’s how they work.
I’m not against consumers having the choice of an open ecosystem. Something similar is already out there with android but not completely open because even with android it’s still a little locked down. What I’m against is taking the choice away of choosing this lockdown safer system. If someone wants to take a higher risk of potential viruses and maleware on their phone then they should buy a product that features that. Don’t tell me I have to buy that same product though.
Often when people say anything about having a choice they mean everyone should be forced to choose what they want. That’s not how choice works.
Exactly. People are buying Apple products for that walled garden. If people didn’t have an alternative brand then I could understand it being a problem. Right now there are other brands of phones. I would like to see more than two operating systems. It’s unfortunate that someone else hasn’t come up with an operating system to compete with Google and Apple. Attempts have been made but not successfully.
I definitely support people having choices but I don’t support taking choices away from people so to force them to choose something that someone else thinks is better.
This is the problem I have. People who are in favor of forcing Apple to open up claim it offers more choice. It doesn’t. Right now, we have a choice between closed (Apple) and open (Android).
If this goes through…our choice is open (Apple) and open (Android). End result? The choice for a closed system for those who want it is being taken away. I like the closed Apple system. I don’t like the open Android system. But if this goes through, I’m forced into an open system I intentionally did NOT buy into because I didn’t want it, but I end up in one anyway. And let me tell ya…outside of MacRumors…I never hear ANYONE (Apple and Android users alike) complain about this stuff. At all. On MacRumors, however…it’s like the sky is falling and it’s this major pressing issue.
Agreed that forcing Apple to be more like android isn’t giving consumers more choice. I really don’t think consumers have enough choice though because even though Apple or Google aren’t a monopoly they’re a duopoly. It’s not the only part of the tech market where two mega corporations control the entire market but that’s not a good situation.
Of course MacRumors is going to have the sky is falling crowd. It’s a bunch of people interested about the topic. Most people don’t give their phone hardware or operating system that much thought. Even the ones that have their nose in their phone 24/7 are only in the app so they’re thinking about Facebook or Instagram not iOS or android.
Especially when those "someone else's" is nowhere near a significant number of users.
I fully Understand and before the iPhone the only choices for a "smart" phone were the Palm Treo...of which I had every new that was offered each year from Sprint. The other close thing, but was not a phone which I had was the Dell X5 and that was a piece of ****. There were no "apps" that went into cellular phones before that. I had the first "digital" offering from Qualcomm which replaced a Mitsubishi DiamondTel and there were no apps for them.
The number of users demanding a closed system from Apple is also insignificant. In reality 90%+ of users don’t give a crap one way or the other. As long as they can get Facebook and their banking apps, they don’t care.
For the most part I would say that is true, because the "average" user just want to do the things that apple touts that their device can do. I would also say that the number of users that are also demanding side loading, open system and that type of stuff is also insignificant....when you think about how many iPhones are out in the wild. But I would also say that the garage user wants to get to facebook and their banking apps securely and if something happened that caused banking issues there would be hell in the PR world and maybe even the courts.
* edit correct spelling/grammar
Last edited:
True, and the number of users demanding an open system is also insignificant.