So stop supporting Apple and go buy an Android phone.
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.
Microsoft Says Apple's 30% Fee Makes Xbox Cloud Gaming iOS App 'Impossible'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
LOL, what?!? There is nothing unethical about copyrighting something you create. I can copyright a book I write. It doesn’t matter one iota that I used a pencil from someone else to write it.
There is nothing unethical about using free or open source software as long as you abide by the license terms.
No they don't. There are countries where you don't pay taxes at all. And in fact, the EU doesn't allow other countries to compete on tax and call them "tax havens", such as Ireland. So it's all hypocrisy.
We should be able to setup up a shop in the EU and pay no taxes also, as the EU is a gatekeeper themselves.
Because they do. If I run a business and I have a client list that list is mine. I’m not obligated legally or morally to share it with anyone, particularly my competitors. Why should Apple be required to provide its customer list to other companies? If individual customers want to interact with companies like Microsoft they are free to do so, no one is stopping them. But Apple is not and should not be required to help Microsoft (or anyone else) do so.
MS isn't asking for any list or customer contact info. They are just making it public why Xbox game pass isn't in Apple's store.
Apple can choose to not sell in the EU then they don't have to follow the regulations in the EU.
That's a different argument than those in this thread who are saying that Governments should force Apple to operate the way they prefer Apple operates.
But I agree with you. Apple is not forced to sell their products in the EU.
That said, the EU will likely become less of a priority for Apple. Fewer product releases. Slower updates. Higher prices. Etc.
Last edited:
Apple isn't above the law, if they sell in the EU then they should follow the rules and regulations in the EU.
People do not understand, allowing ultimate app stores does not help the consumer. One of the reasons why iOS has been so successful is that there is a single App Store. It isn't like a Windows PC where there is a Blizzard Store, Sony Store, Epic Store, Microsoft Store, Steam Store, Activision Store, and all of the others I missed just to install a game. You go to the App Store, install the game, and you are done. You don't need all of these stores taking up CPU, updating themselves every time you login to your machine, popups, and everything else. It is a terrible experience which Apple fixed. You can already sign up for Microsoft Xbox gaming without in inApp Purchase, I am not sure what adding a Microsoft Store would accomplish other than inconvenience the user.
Actually that is how every supermarket (and other store) works. And actually those fees often are 50-60%.
It's exactly the same thing. Even if you make your own XBOX Game disc you still pay a 30% license to Microsoft. Even if you host your own servers with your own DLC in your own game. You still pay a 30% fee to Microsoft.
Also you are free to place a free to use app on the App Store, that costs nothing. (except the $99/year developer fee). But you have to pay if you want to profit off of Apple's services. Apple offers a device and store to billions of people. You can't reach them without Apple. And because of that you pay Apple a 15/30% fee.
Also a subscription is 100% a digital purchase. Only based on a rental like system. So the 15/30% should absolutely be applied.
These companies (Microsoft, Spotify, Epic) want to make millions of dollars off of Apple's userbase without paying Apple anything. And that is wrong.
The lack of basic understanding of economics and business in these threads simply astounds me.
Like the silly argument "Apple should GIVE me more iCloud storage for FREE!!!!" This mindset is so foreign to me. And the surprise by some that Apple is in business to make money...ummm, of course? What else is business in business to do?
You sell your house, and you pay your listing agent a ~6% commission. The listing agent splits that 50/50 with the buyer’s agent. And for some reason, Apple can’t survive off of anything less than a 30% commission on each and every transaction on your iDevice.
I tend to agree. People will always prefer the path of least resistance. Part of the antitrust arguments have been that there is an anti-competitive cost to the software makers for participating in the low friction ecosystem and that alternate paths, which may be lower cost, have higher friction. But this is analogous to grocery shopping. Yes, I can save money by visiting five different stores once I've figured out what the products I want cost at each store, but boy it's not a hassle I'm willing to put up with to save some money.
The 30% fee may seem usurious but all of the major banks have 30% interest rates with their credit lines and get away with it too. I could find a small bank or credit union with better rates but sacrifice some convenience such as co-branded cards with discounts or cash-back incentives or other useful features. It's a trade-off.
Nether can Xbox, Sony, Nintendo, Steam, they all charge the 30% amount.
And MS is explaining why there is no Xbox pass game app on iPhone/iPad. Enjoy apple arcade.
Supermarkets operate brick and mortar stores with associated costs.
Then they generally operate in a competitive market -- generally one can choose their supermarket without moving. Sometimes one store near me sells strawberries for $8/lb and sometimes its ~ $2-3/lb and vice-versa with the other one. And if they're both high at the same time, I just don't buy. The thing is I don't have to move my entire household just to buy strawberries at a competitive price.
Apple's current structure is more like if Walmart said if you want to sell to us you can't sell to any other store in the area and this is our cut. An vice-versa if you want to buy from other stores you have to move your household.
I would be fine with Apple's 30% commission if I had my choice of app stores (that didn't involve moving entirely to another platform). When it comes to $5 apps, I'd probably still pay the Apple premium if it fell on me.
On the flip side, alternate apps stores offer the possibility of alternate content. One thing that I would like is the ability to go back to old versions of apps. Apple's app store system makes it difficult to downgrade apps even if the vendor replaces the original with an entirely different/broken app under the same name.
Why?
It’s their own ecosystem, they should be able to do what they want. Even if that means pissing people off or losing business.
You realize the more Apple gives up on service revenue, the more we’ll end up paying in hardware to circumvent that.
Do you know what Monopoly is? Do you also know that Monopoly gets regulated precisely for the reasons to not be a monopoly?
'their own ecosystem' 'what they want' -> totally off here. Monopoly companies can't do what they want which is why they need to be watched and regulated.
Appstore became a monopoly and the fact that its closed, you can't direct to other ways to pay is also shady af!
Simple as that.
'their own ecosystem' 'what they want' -> totally off here. Monopoly companies can't do what they want which is why they need to be watched and regulated.
Appstore became a monopoly and the fact that its closed, you can't direct to other ways to pay is also shady af!
Simple as that.
I certainly know what a monopoly is. Unfortunately, in this forum it's just used as a loaded term to justify certain arguments. The US courts specifically said that the App Store wasn't a monopoly in the Epic case. The EU hasn't classified the App Store as a monopoly. The DMA doesn't require a monopoly, only size metrics. You could be 10% of the market and still qualify as a gatekeeper.
So why do people keep bringing it up as if it has any legal relevance to these issues?
Agree it is at best cart before horse and otherwise not prerequisite for intervention. Being a monopoly isn't technically illegal in the US but restraint of trade regardless of monopoly status is illegal. However, as a practical matter it has been assumed that restrainst of trade is ineffective outside of monopoly situations.
Relevant text from the Sherman Antitrust Act, "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal." and "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce..."
Note that the first part doesn't depend on the existance of a monopoly but rather outlaws any contractual attempts to restrain trade (a concept which has common law origins predating the forming of the US).
Also note the second part includes attempts to monopolize or conspire to monopolize any part of trade or commerce. Thus 5 competitors with 20% market share each are not individually a monopoly but it would be illegal for them to conspire to set prices (aka "pricing fixing").
The latter is not the Apple situation. As a platform for hosting mobile applications, iOS is a duopoly with Android. Duopolies can arise naturally and behave like monopolies (e.g. through tacit collusion). In general the most effective remedy for duopolies is a 3rd and maybe 4th viable competitor.
It's unclear how that will arise in the mobile OS market in the foreseeable future. At this point my ideal is a shift to webapps for most things. Then I can see why Apple has no interest in making those a first class experience on the iPhone, etc. Reminds me of how MS tried to coopt the web back in the IE days.
Finally note one area where the Epic case found against Apple was it's prohibition against developers communicating alternatives to the app store. It's unclear to me why other legal or technically enforced limits on what apps can do on the platform are not illegal but I am not a lawyer and it is not practical for me to study all the app store rules in the context of all the relevant law and precedence...