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 there is a free market for the smartphone market. Nothing like narrowing the definition of a market to make it seem like a monopoly.
Corporations will always charge more money, if they can get away with it. Look at Apple's margins. They don't need to cross-subsidize anything. They are rent-seeking from an artificially created monopoly.
Apple would have a much lower market share if there were more competitors in the smartphone OS market. Apple does not prevent competitors from entering the smartphone OS market. Google does engage in anti-competitive practices that prevent competitors from entering the smartphone OS market.
All paths lead back to Android when it comes to how uncompetitive the smartphone OS market is.
There's a theory it's the same place where you'll end up if you trace DMA lobbysts' money too.
No, but the commenter who is defending a free market probably has this as their free market of choice.
EU and its members are heavily regulated and far away from free markets for almost every kind of product or service.
If you want to create a new Music app because you think you can do a better job than Apple, you are instantly at a disadvantage because you have to pay the 30% Apple tax. How is that fair competition? Someone who wants to compete in this space can't also create a new smartphone platform.
Sony still gets a cut of games sold through retail channels, in addition to the distributor. This is why when digital stores came out, developers were actually happy at the 30%. Getting 70% from a sale was far higher than anything they had ever received.
1. You don't have to pay the 30% as evidenced by Spotify.
2. Apple spends billions on iOS. Why is it unfair to charge a fee to a company that derives value from that investment.
I spent $1200 on my iPhone. Why should I have to give Apple more money every time I want to install a new app?
Absolutely zero chance this will fly with the EU if this report is accurate (which I doubt), it’ll end up being more like gatekeeper on the Mac.
If your app is really better, users will justify +30% subscription. Paid camera apps, book readers, audio players somehow manage.
The market share for music streaming doesn’t support that. Spotify is the runaway leader and Apple Music is right around the same share as two other companies.
It will be unavoidable at some point. The option to have a console like experience will end and eventually everyone will need to use one of these app stores.
You don't, but you know that. Developers enter into agreements to give Apple a commission on sales in exchange for use of Apple's IP and services.
30% of the money I pay for any app goes to Apple, so I absolutely do.
Yes, the DMA was specifically made to appease certain lobbying efforts targeted at apple. I mean...it specifically targets apple because some people cannot image the market can support two different but sustainable business models. I mean...Apple is limited access to the digital market they created and some EU people are convinced that is wrong. So here we are.
You’re complaining the MS isn’t being regulated for their gaming marketshare, but that Apple is for their mobile marketshare. If that’s not the case, feel free to clarify.
Assuming what you said Google is doing is true, then the EU should definitely do something about that. If you think that means Apple gets off the hook here, then you haven’t thought this all the way through. If the EU did something about it, either things would continue as is, just without the anti-competitive agreements, or these other smartphone makers will all develop and sell their own phones with their own OS. However this means Apple suddenly has marketshare several times that of its next closest competitor, rather than roughly equal marketshare. I don’t think that bodes any better for Apple in escaping regulation.
Some of it goes for coffee and some of it might even go to Amazon. But it's not your money after you spend it.
This is a much bigger question than Apple. It impacts all retailers and platforms. Store brands for example are often 1/3 the price of name brands. How is that fair?
What sort of rules would you suggest? That any platform can't add features or sell additional functionality? What if Apple Music was there first and Spotify came along second? Does AM have to go away?
In this case, the problem with Spotify isn't 30%, it's that they are in a commodity business, and AM is a great product.
What’s more difficult about it? Would you as a consumer rather use a native app or a web app hosted in Safari?
Rentseeking? They are hosting apps worldwide for you. Not to mention being on their app store allows it to be seen by billions.
But I can choose how to spend it, and where. Despite having an iPhone, I haven't spent a single dollar in the App Store, or any Apple services, in almost two years.
At this point, if I can't pay the developer directly, I don't buy.