iBooks, iOS itself are the first ones that spring to mind
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.
Multiple U.S. States Sue Google for Violating Antitrust Laws With Play Store Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don’t see how this is relevant. Google is making it tedious and scary for users to install apps from outside its own store. That is an antitrust concern regardless of the reason they’re doing it.
But since we’re on that topic now…
We have seen, time and time again, that the Play Store is not very safe. It’s absolutely infested with scam apps and malware, yet users installing apps there don’t get all those warnings.
Last edited:
Lol you're right... we didn't decide that. Apple created the 70/30 split.
And developers loved the idea in 2008. It was so much better than the "old" way of selling software.
But fast forward to 2021... and people are losing their everloving minds about having to give 30% to app stores.
So that's why I asked... is 30% too much? Clearly there is a problem with that now. Holy crap... I've lost count of how many lawsuits and investigations there are. And the subsequent articles on fine sites like MacRumors.
Other questions to ask... what is the percentage that developers will be happy with... and to prevent government interference?
Can Apple fix this themselves and repair their relationship with developers?
Or will Apple be "trust-busted" into oblivion?
Is it an actual problem? I'm betting there are App sellers on the App Store who don't want anything changed. If you're on the App Store and there are non Apple users demanding side loading -- for example -- you think most profitable App providers are ok with that? Maybe some, unlikely anywhere close to all.
The App Store has been a boon to Apple, App developers and Apple users. App Store policy is straight forward and Apple keeps it on the up and up completely(your idea stays your idea). I'm sure there's plenty (including actual Apple users) wanting what isn't broken to not be fixed.
Corporate media can create a problem when none exists. Sprinkle in competitor corporations looking for an advantage by other means, and a problem can very much be a manufactured one.
I’ve only heard a few very high profile developers complain. I’ve seen a number of smaller devs say the system suits them just fine. I’ve also seen a bunch of app buying opportunists who think this is their chance to get something for nothing— but those are people who think this will somehow affect app prices in general rather than just shift the split between Apple and devs.So that's why I asked... is 30% too much? Clearly there is a problem with that now. Holy crap... I've lost count of how many lawsuits and investigations there are. And the subsequent articles on fine sites like MacRumors.
Other questions to ask... what is the percentage that developers will be happy with... and to prevent government interference?
Can Apple fix this themselves and repair their relationship with developers?
Or will Apple be "trust-busted" into oblivion?
I don’t think there have been any lawsuits around what the ”proper” percentage is, and I don’t think this is the main point of contention between Dev Sixpack and Apple. I think most devs care more about the review process.
A big part of the problem is that, early on, the app store had prices, on the whole, that were more reflective of what it took to write and maintain the software (eh, closer anyway). But then we got a race to the bottom - developers tried to drum up sales by pricing their apps cheaper than the others, and they all (well, all the ones playing that game) went lower and lower until we arrived at "free, with ads", and "free, with microtransactions". And this "taught" consumers, incorrectly, that software had very little value.
I'd be happier to go back to paying quite a bit more for apps, up front, so that they have a solid funding model. For some apps that I use a lot, I'm fine with reasonable subscriptions, if that's their solid funding model (frankly, I'd be happier with "$X for the app + $Y/year for maintenance / upgrades / support", for those apps I depend on).
I think Apple ought to lower their 30% cut to, oh, somewhere in the 20% or even 15% range, but that's just an opinion, not something that the government should enforce, and not something that developers or consumers are entitled to. Apple put a tremendous amount of work, and money, into developing, maintaining, and supporting the iPhone and iOS and the App Store, and it's pretty clear to anyone who bothers to look, what the situation is, before buying (you pay a lot up-front for the hardware, to get really nice hardware, nice support, hardware that will work and be supported for a long time, good security, strong attention to customer privacy, and a pretty safe walled garden to play in) - if that isn't what you (they) want, don't buy an iPhone. And by all means, do NOT: fail to inform yourself, and buy an iPhone, and then demand that particular features of the ecosystem you bought into (walled garden, etc), must change because you wanted something different - if you want something different, go buy that different thing instead.
I have very little sympathy for people who buy a device that costs many hundreds of dollars without doing any research on how it works and what its limitations are. If they do that, and are unhappy with the result, that's on them. (I'd have the same lack of sympathy for someone who bought an electric car and then got enraged that they couldn't fill it up at a gas station.)
(Now I'm ranting too.)
Last edited:
Seems to be!
There are 36 US states suing Google for anti-trust... the EU is investigating Apple for the same thing... Epic and Spotify will have Apple tied up in court for the next few years... and so on.
Let's be clear... I don't have a problem with the App Store and its policies. I'm just a humble user of Apple products.
But there is definitely a drumbeat of something bad brewing.
I just wish everyone could get along.
Says the drummer...Seems to be!
There are 36 US states suing Google for anti-trust... the EU is investigating Apple for the same thing... Epic and Spotify will have Apple tied up in court for the next few years... and so on.
Let's be clear... I don't have a problem with the App Store and its policies. I'm just a humble user of Apple products.
But there is definitely a drumbeat of something bad brewing.
I just wish everyone could get along.
I haven't read the complaint in any detail yet, but I don't see the 30% number as an alleged violation anywhere.
In a world where Epic can sell fake money for real money at an arbitrary exchange rate, and then sell fake clothes for fake money, I think it's weird to even be talking about what's a fair overhead to charge for maintaining an App Store portal.
Your last sentence is perfect. You win the Internet for today (please try to have it back by midnight).
Wait... are you saying I'm manufacturing the problem?
I didn't file a 144 page lawsuit against Google here.
36 state Inspectors General did.
So clearly they found a problem with "Google's plan to require all app developers who use the Google Play Store to pay a 30 percent commission on the sales of digital goods or services"
Wait... are you saying I'm manufacturing the problem?
I didn't file a 144 page lawsuit against Google here.
36 state Inspectors General did.
So clearly they found a problem with "Google's plan to require all app developers who use the Google Play Store to pay a 30 percent commission on the sales of digital goods or services"
That’s not actually what the problem was, according to the complaint.
Wait... are you saying I'm manufacturing the problem?
I didn't file a 144 page lawsuit against Google here.
36 state Inspectors General did.
So clearly they found a problem with "Google's plan to require all app developers who use the Google Play Store to pay a 30 percent commission on the sales of digital goods or services"
I don't see that phrase anywhere in the complaint. If you scroll down to the Prayer for Relief section (a great phrase by the way, almost as cool as "remedy of disgorgement"), you'll see that none of the states' proposed remedies discuss the percentage of the commission at all.
Well maybe MacRumors should revise their article where I pulled that quote from... and update the headline too:
"Multiple U.S. States Sue Google for Violating Antitrust Laws With Play Store Fees"
🤣
Not to developers. You CAN try teaching folks how to side load, but Epic found that people weren’t willing to go through that for a game. Developers know that not being on the Google Play store is just like not being on the Apple Store. The majority of folks that want an easy peasy purchasing/download experience (and have the monies to actually spend on things) like the structure of the App Stores.
And for stores, too. There are FAR more phones with the Google Play store installed than Apple’s App Store.
Seems to be!
There are 36 US states suing Google for anti-trust... the EU is investigating Apple for the same thing... Epic and Spotify will have Apple tied up in court for the next few years... and so on.
Let's be clear... I don't have a problem with the App Store and its policies. I'm just a humble user of Apple products.
But there is definitely a drumbeat of something bad brewing.
I just wish everyone could get along.
Oh agreed there's a drumbeat alright
but a drumbeat doesn't equal a problem. The DOJ and all 50 states plus the district of Columbia, Puerto Rico and American Samoa could sue. The only thing that definitively proves is that the DOJ and all 50 states plus the district of Columbia, Puerto Rico and American Samoa have sued. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong, needs fixing and it certainly doesn't mean their case is right or just because they have a big group of drum beaters.
Is there a drumbeat from actual users of the platform complaining? Not IME. Apple users I know (I know quite bit, and I suspect it applies to most) are very happy with the Apple ecosystem as is. There not looking to be saved or and something not broken to be fixed.
Funny thing about the chance for big headlines and free media, a chance for a favorable monetary "agreement", and in general taking on big entities that can be framed as 'the boogeyman'. It tends to bring out only the, AHEM, very finest of people to crusade for the...the....the....people who use it and like it? Ummm no, how about the people who don't use it and mostly don't care? Hmmm no, how about the people who created it and profit from it or the people who profit from the existing system quite nicely(and fairly)? Hmmm, nope. I guess it is just those who are looking for "justice"? Well then justice is in good hands with those groups: big media companies, Mark Zuckerberg, big and small ad companies, likely a few phone makers in China, and those who just intrinsically hate Apple.
What I consider to be an axiom: Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
At what point to developers say "Welp... those are the rules. 30% commission to the store is what it is..."
Surely getting 70% is better than getting 0% by not being on the store, right?
I assume you only use a homebrew Linux box for total security and not MacOS then?
Yeah, they probably should.
I pasted text directly from the complaint in a prior post.
Guess their Huawei phone will be a perfect example of the free market. It comes with the huge advantage you can never loose your data. The Chinese keep detailed up-to-date copies.
At what point to developers say "Welp... those are the rules. 30% commission to the store is what it is..."
Surely getting 70% is better than getting 0% by not being on the store, right?
Both posts are spot on.
Here’s the platform we maintain, here’s the rules we enforce for everyone, we’ll give you direct exposure to a third of a billion users through a single App Store button tap, these users don’t fear spyware or malware if they install your app, if you make money then we take a minority but sizable cut. Bonus: in age of IP rip-off, your IP is about as safe as there is on the internet.
You bought a Nintendo or SEGA console. For one console brand game manufactures negotiated an exclusivity agreement. The game was launched on a cartridge specific to one brand and could not be played on another brand. Over time some games were ported to Atari or PC. Those were the days.
I have no idea what cut Nintendo or SEGA took.
Last edited:
Funny GrandM.
You can be sure that despite the purely altruistic motives that will absurdly be projected on opponents of Apple, those opponents will be huwaei and other corporations who may be lots of things, altruism isn’t one of them.
I noticed some faux gloating by a hater or two involved in this thread. That’s very telling of their “thoughts” and motivations. Logic isn’t one of those motivations. if it was they’d know that 4 years from now ain’t nothing be different for Apple’s ecosystem. Haters, politicians and media can make all the decrees and faux cheer all they want. Yet By the time this is fully adjudicated (likely in Apple’s favor) a lot of them will already have thrown in the towel and be loving their IPhone 20 Pro Max 😀
Why do people keep referring to some companies MCap as if it has anything to do with what they charge? So, should the MCap of BMW make them lower their prices? How come the same logic doesn't seem to apply to 'Rich' individuals when it comes to paying their fair share of domestic taxes? Just wondering...
This post will be boring
Because market capitalization is oft repeated in media, people hear it and easily remember and process a big even number, so it's now an easy thing to reference repeatedly. Most don't know what the number actually is complex and what it means. Many may think it means a company with a big market cap has money to just throw out the window, give away free products or below cost. Prime example, Tesla. It is a 750 Billion market cap company. Not far from a trillion dollars! Yet Tesla most certainly doesn't have money to burn, not even remotely close. Their market cap derives significantly from the belief (belief, not necessarily reality) that Tesla will one day in the future see bigger sales and actually be making a significant profit. Proft is something they currently do comparatively little of.
Another example would be Walmart. Walmart has double the revenue of Apple and almost quadruple that of Google. But it's market cap is about half a trillion. This is not because the company isn't incredibly valuable, it is, but it has murky growth possibilities(in significant part thanks to the rise of Amazon) and its profit margins are comparatively tight. A company as massive as Walmart yet just a couple of notably underperforming quarters could lead to people being laid off (maybe).
OTOH interesting juxtaposing examples are Apple and Bloomberg. If Apple's sales, GP and stock price stayed the same (increasing only for inflation), Apple would not even have a market cap number (not going to happen but it's a true math hypothetical). Bloomberg, the company that Michael Bloomberg started and has made him one of the richest men in the world, has no market cap. This is because it is a private company. For Apple, it's retiring its shares from circulation. If kept at 2021's pace, Apple would eventually see no common stock on the market, no market cap number (effectively making it a private company).
Ultimately market cap isn't a particularly good number to reference. The best number, if one is needed, is total Gross Profit and Gross Profit % of revenue -- especially as compared to peers. You could be the biggest player on the block with a significant market cap, but if your GP% in well under your industry peers? You likely don't have cash to burn, certainly not products to give away because you have a big market cap.
As to why these things never reference wealthy individuals paying -- instead just referencing wealthy corporations? That's an easy one. Recently national "leaders", most well off to wealthy, got together to speak about minimum corporate tax rate. Fact 1: taxes on corporations are paid by everyone. Add a dollar of tax to the price of a car? A dollar is likely added to the price. Fact 2: personal income tax on the wealthiest would be paid directly by the individual -- for example the individuals together talking about corporate taxes.
See how that works?
Last edited:
Not really. There are quite a few other application stores on Android. The argument claiming that Google is a monopoly is that developers are suffering from Google’s fee structure and control. The problem with your approach is that you are looking at it backwards. You claim that since the biggest alternative application store run by Amazon is about 1/4 - 1/5 the size it shows that there is a lack of competition. I think the opposite is true. First there is no real reason for free apps to care, and that is a large percentage of the apps in the store. Second, given how little effort it takes to support Amazon’s store, the fact that more developers do not choose to do so indicates not a lack of competition, but a lack of perceived harm. If they felt that they were not getting a fair deal, they could easily add their application to the second store increasing the size of that store and making it more competitive.
That they do not so indicates that developers do not felt harmed.