Apple wouldn't dare kick the meta apps off the store. They know how harmful that would be to them.
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.
Meta, Spotify, and Match Launch Coalition Against Apple and Google
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple wouldn't dare kick the meta apps off the store. They know how harmful that would be to them.
If (as suggested) both Apple and Google would throw these three out from their platforms, neither Pixel or dumb phone would work with the these three apps either.
Why would it be — if both Google and Apple would kick Meta out. Likely people would just shift to web apps and start using Meta products less; while being tracked less.
or people would just sideload the app on Android but either way Apple would get all the heat for it as those using the web would lose a ton of functionality.
Nobody is going to stop using Instagram because Apple have had a fit.
Is it up to Penthouse or the store that sells it to prevent a child buying a copy?
You're likely right, would be entertaining to watch anyways.
Stop being so damn nice Google & Apple, put up a fight for us all to enjoy
I believe we were only talking about the Apple store, and likely only in the context of iOS and Apple's gatekeeping (not explicitly stated I grant you, but heavily implied way back in the thread by the Epic reducing the 15-30% store fees) So those are the only apparent options today for many folks.
You can, if you so desire, compile and run your own apps on your devices, but there are some caveats there. For $0, you have to redeploy every 7 days. For $99 dev subscription you can create effectively long lived apps on your own system. I have done both.
We were only talking about the Apple store. The download and do your own thing is wide open, so it goes back to why the Apple Store has so much in it. Which,
But I do!
You actually can't, not for commercial purposes. Meta, Spotify or whoever cannot choose to distribute their app this way.
And that’s where you and I have a disagreement. This is a self imposed situation that Apple has created by making the App Store the exclusive location to get apps. You believe that Apple should make 15 to 30% of revenue off every website/app that is visited and purchased something on a Mac. It’s the same thing. I disagree. I believe the hardware/OS has been paid for when the user bought the device. The website/app is now separate from Apple and that Apple is not owed anything but the transaction fees.
Agreed to disagree. I think you now are on my side if I’m being very honest I wish you would be too. Have a good day
We can agree to disagree. I believe Apple has gotten paid already from the user purchasing the hardware with the operating system license. Apple does not deserve any commission off a product purchased on a website on a Mac. It’s the same analogy with Apps. The experience comes 100% from the developer and the fact that Apple’s eating at 15 or 30% is ridiculous in my opinion but in your opinion Apple deserves it and also Apple deserves 15 or 30% of every transaction done on every website on a Mac.
I hope that after you’ve heard this argument you wake up and realize how unfair this is and you’re on my side. But if not no problem agreed to disagree and I hope Meta wins. Have a good day
Your post stated "I" (Mrkevinfinnerty) can download and install x on my Apple logo'd computer. So I responded in kind that yes, you can still do this, but it has more hoops and restrictions on phones and ipads than computers.
I didn't say anything about commercial. Only "you", as an individual.
Yes meaning that companies are able to offer me the ability to download their software from them directly on macOS. This is not possible on iOS because Apple wants to shakedown every third party on the platform.
And I would argue that Apple want to control it all--to be the gatekeeper--but when it comes to the responsibility that goes with that role, they're looking to shirk it as quickly as they can. It says in the article:
What part of that is ambiguous to Apple being the store holder? Apple more than any of the other companies want their cake and eat it too. They're greedy and they're protecting their money maker as best they can.
To be fair, Apple doesn’t require ANYONE to use their systems. There are likely millions of developers alive today that don’t use any of Apple’s systems and Apple isn’t holding an axe over their head forcing them to comply.
I'm still confused about your point of view. I responded directly to the context you presented. Laws don't prevent crime. Age restrictions don't prevent kids from accessing what they aren't supposed to have.
Most people willingly put their name, home address, email addresses, phone numbers, birthday and everything else into contacts, so it's not like the phone doesn't already know you. Having to confirm our age to Apple will presumably just be a one-time thing.
As long as they just do an on-device age check and don't pass those personal details on to the app developers, I don't see what the harm is
As long as they just do an on-device age check and don't pass those personal details on to the app developers, I don't see what the harm is
I understand the macOS comparison. However, we have two precedents here.
The PC open market was long established in the 80s.
Then games consoles came along, and you had to buy the specific cartridge that fit that hardware to release your software. You couldn't make your own cartridges; you had to license them through the console maker. You could make the same argument that they made their money selling the machine in the first place here too. The split in their setup was largely considered to be 70/30. This then applied to disc based systems later with Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo - the same 70/30 split.
This progressed into online consoles and online web stores. So now we have PlayStation’s online store, the Microsoft store for Xbox, Nintendo has a store. Before that, we had Steam, who set up arguably the first online digital store with a 30% digital split. Everyone else followed.
After Apple did it in 2008, Google did it a bit later also with a 30% split. Then followed Amazon's app store, Microsoft store, all the games stores mentioned, Meta Quest's store - all at a 30% split.
It's largely built around the bricks-and-mortar shop idea where they'd hope to make 30% (though it'll be a lot less these days) - so that's why EVERYONE does it, not just Apple.
Of course, the Epic store is the standout difference, and that's why Tim Sweeney pushes everyone as wrong because he's realised they can make a fortune at 12% and try to get everyone to side with the man who makes billions selling children pixels in a computer game every year as "skins" as if he's the arbiter of morality.
So the argument falls on: is the iPhone more of a Mac or PC, or is it more like all the other devices mentioned above? Apple have a very good argument for the latter as every other mobile device, phone, gadget, games console, consumer electronic falls under the latter.
It is a general purpose computing platform used for entertainment, business and administration.
Just like Macs and PCs.
Not a uni-tasker thing like a game console.
Ok but then why are Steam taking 30% for a PC then to sell games?
Why are Microsoft in the Microsoft store on Windows?
You can do lots of things on the Meta Quest but it's still 30%
Amazon's Web App store is also 30% - their tablets are the same.
Every Android phone and tablet could also be counted.
The entire industry would need to change not just Apple's iPhone (and iPad)