You're presenting three large successful companies that have large user bases that regularly use their products on other non-Apple platforms. Do you really believe that all (or even most) app developers fit in the same segment as Netflix and Amazon?
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.
Report: Sideloading in Europe Will Still Involve App Review and Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But consumers at a store like Costco don’t own it. Costco makes money because people buy goods from it. I already bought my phone and would like to put whatever I want on it without paying Apple, and without developers paying Apple. With your scenario, developers should be paying me since I own my phone, which you likened to Costco.
I do, we merely disagree on what constitutes "respectful behaviour".
At least we agree that the content creator is not due any money, which is what ultimately matters.
Consoles compete with Windows and Mac as well because they typically play the same kinds of games and are played in the same context. Just because Windows and Macs can do other things does not mean they aren't competitors in the gaming space. Consider how a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square. All of them compete in the gaming space because they all play the same or similar games. However, consoles do not compete with Windows or MacOS in the word processing space because that is not something those machines do.
Indeed Apple doesn't have a monopoly, but they do have a duopoly with Google and duopolies tend to be subject to the same kinds of regulations as pure monopolies.
That doesn't make any sense. If the option to purchase in the app is there the consumer can tap and purchase. If the option to purchase in the app is not there by definition the consumer will go somewhere else to make the purchase.
The only other outcome is that because the option to purchase is not in the app the consumer does not purchase. But that tells you a lot about the value Apple brings in those situations and why they charge a commission.
The value Apple is offering is being able to make the purchase directly in the app.
In the EU at least it looks like Apple will be shifting the value from IAPs to being able to run software on iOS.
Many posters seem to think that the aim of the regulation is to remove Apple from any part of the transaction of running software on it's operating systems. Apple will always be part of that transaction, and will always charge a fee along the way.
Last edited:
In the EU having a "dominant position" is enough to be subject to special antitrust regulations. The standard is far less strict than a "monopoly" or "duopoly".
Monopoly in gaming? No. In mobile smartphone platforms there is a duopoly however.
If by "interpret" you mean "find a way to get around it and still make our money", they yeah, I'm sure they have. There's a reason people don't like lawyers -- until they are working on your behalf. (And even then, frequent showers are probably necessary.)
That's fair on Apple's side though: they are doing their interest and nothing else should be expected. The regulator will have the final say on whether the measures Apple want to put in place are allowed or not.
This
Follow the money. It wasn’t users petitioning these agencies for changes. It was large developers who didn’t want to concede to Apples distribution and payment policies. Ironically, it’s these policies that may have, in fact, allowed the iOS App Store to prosper with high engagement from users and limited piracy and malware!!!
This issue was never about user choice. It’s developer choice. Developers can choose which platforms to distribute their software and collect payments.
Follow the money. It wasn’t users petitioning these agencies for changes. It was large developers who didn’t want to concede to Apples distribution and payment policies. Ironically, it’s these policies that may have, in fact, allowed the iOS App Store to prosper with high engagement from users and limited piracy and malware!!!
Except, Apple is hosting nothing in this case.
LOL...it has everything to do with undercutting them. Other developers didn't have non-native game streaming apps in the store because the App Store (as you already stated) is about native iOS apps. If what you're selling to the App Store customer is games then you have to submit iOS native versions of those games. A remote use app would be fine, where the customer is accessing apps that they already purchased for a different OS. But that isn't what Microsoft was selling. They were selling games, thus the requirement that they be native.
True, and large devs had enough money and visibility to make it a good-looking case for the public, pretending it's for users' greater good and that ALL developers want it. Nah.
So Apple does a good job of trolling them with 27% and mandatory app reviews. Irritation grows on both sides.
I think it’s the other way around. The media, and by extension, the consumers of that media, got duped by Epic, Spotify, and the like.
Both the district court’s judgment and the 9th Circuit’s judgment that affirmed the district court’s judgment were crystal clear on Apple being able to collect a commission.
And not just “if you have a legal degree” levels of crystal clear, but crystal clear in plain layperson-friendly ways.
Either their legal teams are not worth the paper their paycheck is printed on (unlikely) or they informed their respective leadership and they shrugged, knowing people wouldn’t bother to read the judgments and decided to play coy.
Now you’ve got outlets echoing their feigned surprise and your everyday media consumer playing the role of pawn.
Desktop/laptop is also a duopoly and even more lopsided in terms of market share than mobile. It also has higher software prices than mobile.
First, what level of experience do you have working with sponsors? The entire sponsorship world is a game of ROI. Where there is no return on investment (which is the inevitable conclusion of the world you're promoting), sponsors will stop investing. One of the easiest ways to guarantee the shows you enjoy watching continue to put out great content is to watch their sponsorship blocks and support their sponsors.
Second, the premise of your argument, "if someone doesn't know I'm stealing from them, then I can't be stealing from them" is a faulty premise. They may not know it's "@hacky from macworld" stealing from them, but when their sponsors drop them because there's no ROI (because everyone is using tools to skip past the sponsor blocks), they'll know. Could you fast forward manually? Sure, but why would you... it hurts your preferred content creator's bottom line.
I'm sure there are some devs that want to do their own hosting and payment infrastructure, what apple is doing is forcing devs to use their app store and wanting to get paid for work devs are forced to use. Apple still has a monopoly on iOS app distribution.
That’s the thing. Apple doesn’t make a product that meets your requirements. There are products that meet your requirements.
It's about competition. When one dominant player abuses it's market position to hamper competition, there should be laws to reign them in. Similar things happen in many different domains like telecoms, financial markets, energy. And everywhere there is regulation to increase competition, which leads to better outcomes for customers.
This law was never meant for a "free to all" sideloading. Since that would impact both EU's own GDPR regulation as general security. Which is why the DMA has a clausule that gatekeeper (Apple in this case) can place limitations for security.
Which Apple is ofcourse going to do.
Totally agree. Apple's always going to act in their own best interest and I wouldn't expect anything else. But Apple has always had a philosophy about apps and the App Store -- that from all accounts came directly from Steve Jobs -- that developers are leaching off Apple success with the iPhone, so Apple deserves their cut under all circumstances and that cut is 30% (Jobs would probably have wanted 50%). Yes, a lot of developers only get charged 15% under some circumstances, but I think Apple went there kicking and screaming. All the regulations and pushback are about that number, 30%. People who think it is too high feel that Apple benefits just as much from developers and developers do from Apple's platform, so that number should be lower. How much lower depends on the developer doing the talking.
Where do I think the number should be? I have no idea. But I think that, as with the alternative payment regulations situation, Apple sticking to their 27% commission number is a refusal to acknowledge that regulators and/or developers have any point whatsoever. And I think that may come back to bite them.