I actually do like the idea of Web apps these days. Most of the corporate productivity ERM functions used at small to mid-sized companies are run using web-based applications these days rather than locally installed software, which has allowed them access to enterprise level tools without the previously prerequisite level of investment - i.e. leveled the playing field on that front. It eliminates a lot of the problems that the App Store was created to solve. Software updates is a big one. If we all recall, this was Steve Jobs original vision for iPhone apps, he was pushing this. When iPhone launched, there was no App Store. Apple wanted Devs to make web apps!
In the mobile space though, as it is today, would a web-app be able to access all the hardware capabilities of the device as an App Store distributed and locally installed piece of software? Could it be curated properly? How would app discovery work? The App Store in general has been such a boon to Developers the last almost 15 years, that they have lost sight of what the software distribution landscape looked like back then, mobile or otherwise. On an iPhone, if the consumer hears about your app, they know exactly where to go to get it and try it out. That alone should be worth 30%. Again, before the app store, would anyone venture to guess what the developer actually got to take home after signing with a software publishing company? It was a lot less than 70% of the revenues, I can tell you that! Today, for an investment of $99 a year and your time, a one-man software outfit can release an app that is instantly distributed to a store front that is easily accessible to BILLIONS of potential users. I honestly think that devs have nothing to complain about as far as the 30% cut is concerned.
Fortnite, for example, can go cry me a river - how many $$BILLIONS did they make in a day on launch?
Hardware device, yes; the operating system software you never own; you’re granted a license to use it. Read the Ts&Cs.
Therefore the software license extends to the App Store. Also note that no one ever “buys” an app; you’re buying a license to use the app. The copyright never transfers to you.
Yes, but this is the case for all non-open-source software, not even just OS’s. Desktop, mobile or otherwise, you can’t touch or modify the source code, redistribute, or even use on a machine you haven’t applied your license to, etc etc. I don’t think this is even a relevant part of the equation for what this is about.
Exactly. If it weren't for this, I'd say what they're doing is all fair game. Apple made a market and great tools for devs. Don't like it, there's always the web. The exemptions for certain devs seems very wrong, but maybe only because they're dishonest about it.
This is for me the lesser of the two main issues. Level playing field is great and all, but when I look at it, and am happy to be corrected, I see there being two main perspectives at play here. The first one is apps/services that became popular outside the App Store, independently of Apple - i.e. Netflix, et al. The second one is apps that began their life on the App Store and owe their popularity to that fact, i.e. Candy Crush, et el.
Now it is not nearly black and white with all of this either, I don’t think anyone is naive enough to believe that. There are other reason for Apple to make exceptions. A big consideration is mutual benefit. Apple benefits enough from having services like Netflix available as a native app on its platform that it is willing to make exceptions for such services/apps. For these apps/games/services that can bring a big enough user base and user benefit to the table, they can use that as a negotiating tool. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, it is how business works. Apple is not being dishonest about this, Schiller doesn’t deny it, but they aren’t and shouldn’t be compelled to come out with a PR to the AP with the terms of their negotiated agreements with everyone they make a deal with either. So when I look at it, this sort of behavior shouldn’t be seen as shady or incorrect, let alone illegal.
The greater of the two main issues I see here is the preferential treatment of their own, in-house apps over 3rd party alternatives. Here is where I feel the real legitimate beef is. Competing services like email clients, browsers, maps and navigation, music & video streaming, should all be treated the same way as Flappy Bird. They should all be allowed access to the entire capabilities of the device/OS they are developed to run on and should be given equal status to Apple’s 1st party apps and services, and be allowed to be chosen as the default for those functions. Apple should not be allowed to suppress these apps from being seen in an effort to promote their own or anybody else‘s software, and they should not be allowed to engage in anti-competitive practices to otherwise discourage an app or service from success. They also should not be allowed to put any anti-competitive clauses in their developer agreement for the App Store, such as not being allowed to distribute an app that compete’s against an Apple core application, etc. (Core OS functionality though shouldn’t be applicable here, like an alternative to FaceID for example is an OS level function, not a separate app. If you have to click on an app icon for anything other than convenience - i.e. device settings - it isn’t part of the OS core functionality)
