Apple's Safari browser runs the risk of becoming the new Internet Explorer – holding the web back for everyone
WebKit engine is well behind the competition
www.theregister.com
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.
Judge Says Apple Has Until December 9 to Make App Store Change Letting Developers Link to Alternate Payment Methods
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This equates to an ecommerce site being required to post links to other sites that sell the same goods and services. If you don’t own and develop the storefront, you shouldn’t be allowed to dictate terms of the commission (which is basically the the markup from a wholesale price). Apple isn’t a storefront monopoly, neither is the android storefront, the playstation storefront or the xbox storefront. Is Fortnite going to undercut brick and mortar retailers like Walmart and Best Buy to place advertising next to their physical products in order lure customers to a digital download? Fortnite has a right to retail pricing on their own storefront, but only wholesale pricing when others are facilitating the sale of their products. 30% too high? Build your own hardware and sell your software exclusively on that hardware.
Apparently we should all still be beholden to Ma Bell, because the government had no business breaking it up.
We’d all be using rotary dial phones and paying $10/minute for long distance, and we’d like it that way, damnit, cuz FREEDOM!
A judge is probably not going to force Apple to allow developers to bypass parental controls. So, "just hyperlinks" is not going to be enough.
There are people here that are very jealous of Apple's success. Yet Sony, Microsoft and other charge the same 30%. Go and change their percentage also. Microsoft has estimated that 15% is the breakeven point for Apple. Yes, they do need that much revenue to sustain the App Store, to vet the apps, implement the store mechanism, pay for developer and customer support, implement and support the App Store APIs. Now could they get the same revenue to sustain the App Store? Yes, the could charge you $10,000 for the developer account, charge you for documentation, charge you every time you used one of their APIs, etc. In short, there is no free lunch. If Apple is forced to abandon the agency model they will find a way to charge developers and users to make up the difference.
BTW, people, even me, have been signing up for Netflix and Disney+ and Spotify outside the App Store for many years now. All that Apple have to do is allow the developers to post a link.
Personally, since I don't want my credit card info strewn all over the place, I would let Apple take their pound of flesh.
BTW, people, even me, have been signing up for Netflix and Disney+ and Spotify outside the App Store for many years now. All that Apple have to do is allow the developers to post a link.
Personally, since I don't want my credit card info strewn all over the place, I would let Apple take their pound of flesh.
It will be interesting (based on your comment) to see if current customers actually do move away from Apple's payment system to any of the other potential options. Any discussion in the filings allowing the dev options to offer a lower price "outside" of the apple payment system? (ie: pay XYZ directly and the cost is $5..if you pay via Apple, it's $7.99)
No no... not that at all. Those two abused their monopoly powers in one market by trying to gain monopoly in another. You can have a huge company, even a monopoly, so long as that monopoly power is not abused. When you get huge, you do have to play by a different set of rules, however. That's how the monopoly law works.
Had Microsoft not abused their PC market by bundling Internet Explorer (and forcing it), they would have been ok.
AT&T didn't want to lose Western Electric and Bell Labs, which made telephone handsets. Had they not abused their power to force everyone to buy their handsets and/or a licensing fee, they would've been ok. (They made a bad bet, like IBM, that the future was hardware and not software; they both were wrong and lost badly.)
Edit: stupid typo, thanks autocorrect
Last edited:
More like $7.99 via apple and $7.50 directly to developer. If the developer lowers the iap by $3 it means the value of the iap was overpriced to begin with.
I suspect 99% of people will still pay through Apple's system because it's trustworthy and really convenient. I think this option is more likely to appeal to people who make niche but well loved apps for a small community of power users or professionals, where the dev can actually give users an explanation of why they'd prefer their users use a different payment method.
There will undoubtedly also be some big companies who try the tactic you mentioned, but I suspect a lot of people won't actually care or use them because of the inconvenience of filling out details on another site. Never underestimate the power of laziness.
And we as consumers really made out big time with the breakup. Cell phone service is bar-none with world class leading speeds with monthly unlimited rates merely a pittance. Consumers really didn't make out in the scheme of things.
What parental controls? The safari parental controls would work the same as they work with the aforementioned hyperlinks that are already forced to developers
If you mean financial information, I don't think a judge is going to force anyone to give their kids a credit card
Customers' expectations for purchases in the app are that parental controls will work.
Parental controls in safari are really easy to bypass, Apple has no control over websites playing by the rules.
In the app, going through Apple's API's, they have control.
While I agree with being happy with Apple's setup as a user - you wouldn't be handing CC info to random devs. It would be PayPal/Stripe/Square/Amazon/Google...companies that likely have already swiped your credit card in retail stores or online. If a dev won't refund then their carrier for purchases would like to know as they don't want scams running on their payment systems.
Hmm.., that's not how I read it.
Citing from the article:
According to the article then, it is rather that App developers have the option of NOT having to use the in-app payment system. It isn't that users have the option to use in-app payment. If the developer doesn't provide it, the user won't have access to it.
How would your kids get your credit card information?
If your kids are already buying stuff on the web without your permission, that is your problem
It's the same as the Peugeot dealer being forced to allow its competitors to conduct business on their premises.
Apple is fine with people buying in other places, the internet is a huge place with lots of stuff for sale. Apple even makes a browser to help with that.
Apple is not the only company with a Apps Store, Google and MS have it too. So it is not something innovating or exclusive to Apple.
How is this impacting anyone other than safari users though? How does it stop Firefox, Edge and Chrome from innovating? As I said, Apples actions are by definition self limiting due to being vertically integrated and thus don’t hurt competition.Apple's Safari browser runs the risk of becoming the new Internet Explorer – holding the web back for everyone
WebKit engine is well behind the competitionwww.theregister.com
LOL, I don't have kids. What epic wants is for it to be as frictionless as in app purchase. So the credit card information will already be on file and ready to use.
I don't agree. What would be the point of linking outside the App Store if Apple can still demand a cut?
Apple was the first with an App Store that was worth using.
The app store like things before that were garbage and took 60% or more.
I know, I lived it.
You obviously don't follow the markets very well. Every quarter, the pro-Apple analysts have to explain the importance of Apple services to the general investors. Other than a brief headline, I doubt if this change would have any significant effect on Apple share price as long as iPhone sales stay steady. Arguably, this change might actually increase iPhone sales even if it lowers app revenue.
To increase competition? The judge herself said Apple are still entitled to charge a commission