If this is true it would mean Apple is in fact in the "position of strength" in the market that justifies it being subject to antitrust considerations.
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.
News Publishers Want the Same Discounted 15% Revenue Share Apple Offered Amazon Prime Video
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They are free to leave the AppStore. The old saying Americans like: vote with your wallet.
I am sure against that reduced 15% fee, Amazon offered in addition to Amazon prime app 15% fee, side benefits including pushing selling Apple products on Amazon platform. Relationship benefits work both ways. What publishers willing to offer more than just selling news contents on App Store ? They are like other App developers so must be treated same at 30% fee.
Customers are never treated the same. A businesses' biggest customers get special terms. They might not treat Amazon as a developer, but as a business partner, in which case Tim Cook wasn't "lying".
But how will companies be able to paint their rivals as the bad guy and reap better
Sales or what have you as the good guy
Miya not that you can reap better and more rewards not doing that....
Also does Samsung Store not take 30% cut?
Regardless of someone’s viewpoint on the issue, defining the conditions that Tim Cook talked about is a fairly reasonable demand
This is not an agreement exclusive to Amazon. At least two other companies have the same agreement and it is open to anyone who qualifies.
So who has been able to charge 30% in the last 12 years?
If a developer don't like Apple's commission but still stay in the App Store, Apple has won the power struggle.
Good lord, the mental gymnastics Apple fans go through to defend their favorite for-profit corporation...
No, the POINT is that only a handful of corporations (less than 5 probably) have that kind of leverage, so suggesting that all a developer need do is "negotiate" is ridiculous. Virtually no developer, not even a BIG one, has the kind of leverage that Amazon does. And what "extra" did Amazon have to offer? Not cutting off the sale of Apple products? That's not brining something extra to the table. That extortion. Sort of like how Apple extorts its developers with a single App Store and a grossly unfair commission structure.
It’s not mental gymnastics, it’s understanding how business is conducted. And I never pretended that every developer had negotiating power.
Also, negotiating is all about “if you give me this, I’ll give you that. If you don’t, I won’t give it to you, or I’ll take it away”. If your boss offers you a $5000 raise and you go back to him with “no I want $10000” and give no reasoning, you won’t get it (and you’re also really bad at negotiating). If you say “I have been looking at other opportunities that would be more lucrative for me, but if I had a raise of $10000, I’d happily stay”, you’re not extorting your boss, you’re negotiating.
There’s a reason business people are refered to as sharks and not Care Bears.
If your company doesn’t have enough leverage, find others like you and build your leverage by association. Arguably, this is what is potentially happening here. If Apple is committed to Apple News+’s success and wants to keep the narrative that it contains credible reputable news sources, and all these publishers are threatening to leave the service, they have leverage. If Apple News+ is more important to the publishers than these publishers are to Apple News+, then they have more leverage as a unit than Apple does.
Is that a bad thing? If Apple does do that, would more be inclined to use their services, which in turn hits the competition.
Legally, Apple cannot be subject to anti-trust considerations simply due to position of strength. They are subject to anti-trust considerations because they ABUSE their position of strength.
iPhone launched in only the US in 2007 and was locked to a single carrier. The iPhone 3G released the next year with the App Store and was made available in 22 countries. Maybe the 22 extra countries for the phone to be available in might have helped with the popularity boost with each subsequent release adding more countries. Apple helped make the apps for the iPhone early on before they opened it up, including third party services like Google Maps and YouTube.
Steam, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo amongst others managed to charge 30% for even longer.
Apple have a position of strength for their own platform but the question is if they have a monopoly. Epic have defined that Apple has a monopoly over their own platform which means anyone who sells a product has a monopoly over their product. I don't think the court will let them keep this definition and Apple will try to redefine the market they compete in as being smartphone devices for which they do not have a monopoly, only barely having a majority of the market in the US. In a sense they don't have a monopoly over the apps market in general with Android having more apps than iOS.
The question in this case is if the 30% they charge to Epic is an abuse given they require the same terms of most others on the App Store. I think they'll have a hard time arguing that it's an abuse given the duration that this has been in place and how Epic have accepted it for an extended period of time as well. It'll be an exciting week to see what the judges decide though.
It'll be interesting to see if the news publishers can get a better deal out of this but I expect that unless the Epic battle goes poorly that Apple might move but I don't see that happening.
This is actually what I meant, sorry if I worded it not clearly enough.
Note though, as a side note likely irrelevant to this case, that depending on how strong the position in the market is evaluated, some practices can be considered anti-trust violation "per-se", meaning that it's not necessary to prove an abuse or a damage to the competition: the mere existence of the practice can be considered a violation.