That is the ideal, allow more apps stores with notarized apps, and let the developer decide where to publish their apps.
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.
Korean Startups Call for Investigation into Apple and Google In-App Purchases
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That is the ideal, allow more apps stores with notarized apps, and let the developer decide where to publish their apps.
An ideal solution is that Apps that go 3 months without an update are removed from the app store and existing users have all IAP unlocked.
If I am shopping at Amazon I use my computer, I use the app for tracking only. And Uber and Lyft I use apple pay which does not share credit card info only a payment token...
What happened with Fortnite (the origin of all this mess that everyone jumps in) is like the following: a guy called Joe gets a hotel room, rents it to someone else (thus earning money) and won't pay anything to the hotel owners. The hotel doesn't belong to Joe, he didn't spend a single buck building it or investing in it, but when the owners ask him to pay them he's entitled enough to tell the hotel owners to go **** themselves and demand them for monopolio.
That's not an exacty analogy but you get the point. And as ridiculous as it gets, now everybody sees the oportunity to benefit from this and will try to twist and abuse the laws to get more money. But things get more ridiculous when:
1. A developer can go to Google Play if they don't like Apple Store
2. Google Play asks the same 30% cut as Apple asks
So yeah, whoever still thinks this is about a monopoly instead of pure greed (from both parts, Apple included) is delusional.
Does Apple have to lower % to give devs higher margins? Maybe, but if things go further than this measure and enter the monopoly terrain everything will get nasty really quick.
That's not an exacty analogy but you get the point. And as ridiculous as it gets, now everybody sees the oportunity to benefit from this and will try to twist and abuse the laws to get more money. But things get more ridiculous when:
1. A developer can go to Google Play if they don't like Apple Store
2. Google Play asks the same 30% cut as Apple asks
So yeah, whoever still thinks this is about a monopoly instead of pure greed (from both parts, Apple included) is delusional.
Does Apple have to lower % to give devs higher margins? Maybe, but if things go further than this measure and enter the monopoly terrain everything will get nasty really quick.
I agree. People here are creating classifications on the fly to fit their narrative. iOS does not have a monopoly on Apps. But people here are coming up with the classification of iOS Apps which is not valid. Apple has a monopoly on macOS Apps! Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows Apps!
This is it. Apple could allow other stores on iOS so that consumers have a choice. I would wager the number of successful stores will be greater than zero. Especially if apps are cheaper and commissions are lower.
Yeah, this kind of complaint was unheard of in the early days of App Store. I guess there was far less competition. Now it is getting harder to make a living with App Store and Google Play. Some portion of devs would probably do well occupying space unrelated to smartphone.
But then it is so hard to come up with something that is completely unrelated to smartphones. For viewer services, Apple is already competing with their customers like Netflix, Disney+, Spotify, etc. For non-viewer service, devs have to make Apple money first then use leftover 70% to pay the bills.
I feel for those devs. As a fellow developer, I'm glad I'm in business app category where it is far less regulated by Apple.
Maybe Apple should allow third party ap stores, but charge a fortune for the certification/certificate.
I do not think Apple will allow this without some form of compensation to them. Then see what the fees and / or commissions would be to other developer looking for a third party App Store.
And charge the developer to have their app notarized.
Ecaaxtly. Appel would simply look for other ways to makeup for the lost revenue, and the developers that get hurt are the small ones that can't afford the upfront fees.
I'm not sure why people think 3rd party app stores would chare less, or that developers would lower their prices in response; or flock to 3rd party stores. More likely they would simply pocket the extra money.
A few might host their own iOS apps, but I would be surprised if that was more than a small fraction of the developers on the App Store, especially if they had to pay for tools and a certificate, renewable on an annual basis BTW.
Last edited:
Another thread I had a party discussing the security and safety of the Apple App Store, but for us Mac Users, we acquire software from trusted vendors with their own stores. Could be many well known vendors. We seen reviews and write ups, and YouTube videos on software we are considering.
But the Apple App Store is being argued that for iOS/iPadOS ecosystem you need this protection by the Apple store to protect us all from all the malware, privacy and security issues that are out there.
Should not iOS and iPadOS be just as effective as MacOS or is it that inferior as far as hardened/locked down so its more vulnerable, hence the Apple App Store acting as a gatekeeper?
That's the lie that people tell themselves... that Apple created this market on the iPhone. The created the app-store not the market for mobile apps. There has always been a market for apps on mobile devices back to Windows Mobile CE. Even Symbian phones could load apps. Apple also did not invent the concept of a software store. Windows had said app-store as well...
What Apple did was making the(ir) store the only entry point to the plattform.
In a hypothetical scenario where Apple doesn't exist, we would have an all-android world (very hypothetical -and scary) and we could at least sideload apps on all the devices VS only 50% with Apple (percentage depending on market), meaning Apple cuts off 50% from the mobile phone app market from the principles of the free market.
How about all these companies that don't like the prices, withdraw their apps from App Store and see who lasts longer...you know like a labour union strike until they get a higher pay.
Apple could circumvent this, just make a way to officially "jailbreak" the iOS in which the owner of the phone loses all guarantees and warranties on his device and allow 3rd party stores. They could retain their technologies like SDKs, APIs, OS integration...lets see how far they can go.
Apple could circumvent this, just make a way to officially "jailbreak" the iOS in which the owner of the phone loses all guarantees and warranties on his device and allow 3rd party stores. They could retain their technologies like SDKs, APIs, OS integration...lets see how far they can go.
I have never seen so many people that need their hand held while paying for things online.
Google really can’t be found guilty here. They allow third-party App Stores on Android. That removes any validity for a claim of a monopoly.
Epic lawyers filed the law suits against Apple and Google in order to underline the difference between the two. The suit against google is a gimmick.
Why can't 3rd parties work with apple to vet iOS/iPadOS apps as being Apple certified to their OS security. Why does the Apple App Store need to be the gatekeeper?
EPIC is a example of a multiple billion dollar company, not to use them as a perfect reference but to illustrate they certainly can afford to work with Apple directly and comply with their security and privacy concerns.
Possibly you guys don't realize that this is a bit insulting to the tech world in that regard. For Macs we can do just that without a App Store. Seems things could actually grow Apples eco system if you allowed some restrictive freedoms you know.
A free market has nothing to do with allowing access to a device by third parties; a free market is one where competition can occur in a market. Given their are a number of computers for customers in phone apps, it is a free market. It just so happens that iOS and Android share the most significant parts of the market, but that does not mean it is not a free market because you can't sideload apps.
If google is not a monopoly, and they charge 30%, that is proof that 30% is the fee that a competitive market would charge, and thus Apple's 30% is not unreasonable and Apple is not abusing its position ion the market.
Epic is equally pissed at Google's fee structure. Gimmick suits would be costly since they would be frivolous and a judge would take a dim view of Epic saying, "Your Honor, we know our lawsuit has no basis in law or fact, we just wanted to show Google isn't like Apple..."
This whole debate concerning the creation of this commission back in 2007 for iTunes by Apple and used as a norm by this industry since is contestable, due to the fact that Apple never changed their commissions verses what is being transacted. If you sell a game and collect 30% but offer this reduction to 15% for a subscription later on, why can't something like that be applied to in-app options if it is not a free app? It's like you need different rules for these scenarios. A blank 30% transaction fee with most of the industry doing that is contestable. It's certainly allowing these large companies to rain in competition. Oh we have a name concerning that tactic you know.
I spend more online a year then some make a year. But there is no way in hell I going to give some random game my credit card info...
This whole debate concerning the creation of this commission back in 2007 for iTunes by Apple and used as a norm by this industry since is contestable, due to the fact that Apple never changed their commissions verses what is being transacted. If you sell a game and collect 30% but offer this reduction to 15% for a subscription later on, why can't something like that be applied to in-app options if it is not a free app? It's like you need different rules for these scenarios. A blank 30% transaction fee with most of the industry doing that is contestable. It's certainly allowing these large companies to rain in competition. Oh we have a name concerning that tactic you know.
Walmart isn't going to cut you break just because you sell your goods with them for a while...They change what they charge and it seems like most online stores charge about 30%.
Even if you buy that random game on Apple App Store there is a small chance that it would be doing something that is not acceptable. In that regard the most well known software vendors can still author something that breaks something or allows something that creates a security or privacy issue. We saw that happening a lot with the various video conferences apps during the pandemic.
Why do you think it's contestable? Subscriptions are an ongoing revenue stream, once someone subscribes that user keeps revenue flowing in untill the end their subscriptiion, which means an app produces more revenue and each subscription adds to the stream, vs one off IAP that often simply roll over when updated. The difference in revenue flow makes it logical reasonable to lower fees after a period of time. It would also be reasonable for Apple to set a sales threshold, say x IAPs and then reduce the fees, if they wanted.This whole debate concerning the creation of this commission back in 2007 for iTunes by Apple and used as a norm by this industry since is contestable, due to the fact that Apple never changed their commissions verses what is being transacted. If you sell a game and collect 30% but offer this reduction to 15% for a subscription later on, why can't something like that be applied to in-app options if it is not a free app? It's like you need different rules for these scenarios. A blank 30% transaction fee with most of the industry doing that is contestable. It's certainly allowing these large companies to rain in competition. Oh we have a name concerning that tactic you know.
I do think Apple should let subscription based apps set a lower price for non IAAP subscriptions; even though their "best price" requirement may not be illegal I do not like such agreements from a free market standpoint since they can result in higher prices; which of course is to both parties benefit and the consumer detriment.
The real question is if Apple were to lower fees why shouldn't the develpers be forced to lower prices as well? That would be the true consumer benefit. I don't hear the developers saying that is the endgame.
It's not out of line for markups in retail, segments of the market where there still is competion haven't seen reductions worth mentioning and there is no collusion. The market has spoke. It sounds like the market has spoken but developrs don't like what. they hear.