We can only hope. I'm willing to accept the risk of 3rd party apps because i do with my windows PC and Macbook pro every day.
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
Without seeing Apple's books, no one can know what they use the money for. We don't know if Apple could charge 5% commission and that might cover all the fees of running the App Store. The profits from the iPhone by themselves likely cover all the costs of iOS development and then some. Apple's gross profit in the quarter ending September 30, 2023 was $40.427 billion on revenue of $89.5 billion. Don't know what the net profit is, but once source said they had cash reserves of $61.55 billion at that time, while another said $162 billion; either way, it's not unlikely that they could get away with dropping their commission if they wanted to. Like I said in my previous post, I think it's a fundamental philosophical issue with them that it be at or around that 30% number.
And I have no problem with that. I don't know what the right commission is. I don't know what reduction would pacify any regulators who think Apple is being, what was the term? "Maliciously compliant"? (I'm too lazy to look it up.) I just think their stance might come back to bite them.
If I could make the rules, I see two possibilities. Either all music services compete on fair grounds. This would mean Spotify can use and advertise their own payment solution. Or second solution, Apple can't compete in Music at all. The second option is of course not desirable. We are talking about the App Store here, but the same of course also applys to Android.
Yes but you don’t have to download said app or App Store
I eagerly await regulations for Wikipedia....lol. Regulations in every country are not consistently enforced. Mood, politics, money, etc all influence whether some company faces regulations or not. But I am glad the EU has its eye on wikipedia. So sick of them asking me for money...the EU should force them to carry ads
No, I'm not. I'm discussing your use of a duopoly as a justification for regulation. I was just using Xbox as an example since you claimed they weren't regulated because they aren't in a monopoly or duopoly.
Which has been my argument for years.
I think your marketshare numbers are way off there. But, again, you are the the one that has repeated used the duopoly to justify regulation. My point is that your claim is unreasonable based on Google actions.
How significant that would be is a wild assumption on your part, particularly how diehard Apple users tend to be. Additionally, if Apple actually believed their marketshare would be significantly lower under such a paradigm, presumably they would be all for Google’s anti-competitive actions.
But there are massive amounts of stores a consumer can go to. On Apple there is only one store. It's not a good analogy.
You dont have to drink water. You dont have to have a phone.
But in practical real world....you will have to do it. Some corporate app you need, or school needs, or something will force you in the practical sense to do it. This changes everything for everyone...it takes away choice from the majority of consumers.
You couldn't even figure out we were talking about gatekeepers, not VLOPS. Please be better at following discussion context next time.
You already stated that a cloud based game is just data streaming over an internet connection so it obviously wouldn’t make a difference to the consumer.
Just because some users may stomach an extra 30% doesn’t magically make it a fair market. In fact, Apple could mimic whatever those superior features are for their own app and now who would be willing to pay the premium? At the end of the day, you can’t be both a referee and a player.
Wouldn't you do the same if it was your company?
Or would you rather prefer to work hard to favor your competitors?
competition /kŏm″pĭ-tĭsh′ən/
noun
- The act of competing, as for profit or a prize; rivalry.
- A test of skill or ability; a contest.
"a skating competition." - Rivalry between two or more businesses striving for the same customer or market.
Based on some people's perception, usually those who are ahead of the pack "are not fair!".
Enough crying "Mommy!".
That's why, to have real and fair competition, you need a referee. In this case, it's the government.
Competition is more important than a free market.
Fair = everyone pays 30%. Idk if there is even a single Apple app that is #1 in its category.
And that would be a thing for anti-trust trial. But they aren't eager to copy apps, they usually provide vital, but basic barebone functionality.
I am amused that you think Apple does QA on an app. They insure apps don’t use forbidden APIs, they don’t infringe on Apple products and a few other things their tools can automatically detect. Apps are still chock full of bugs.
Xbox isn’t part of a duopoly. It is clearly a dominant player though, which in the EU should meet the bar for regulation. No need to go as far as a monopoly/duopoly. You didn’t answer my question though. What the value of the mobile apps market in the EU and what’s the value of the gaming market?
Epic charges 12% in their store and have stated in a court case that they don’t generate a profit so you can safely assume that 12% and below wouldn’t be profitable for anyone.
You are correct: being a monopoly or duopoly or whatever has nothing to do with this specific regulation. The regulation specifies criteria to evaluate whether a vendor qualifies as "Gatekeeper" and which regulations apply to said Gatekeepers.
I believe the criteria Xbox or Sony PlayStation fail to meet is likely the "10k yearly active business users". That would require e.g. at least 10K different users selling games to consumers on the Xbox or PlayStation store per year.
While those stores are big, they actually have a minuscule amount of games and individual game publishers compared to the number of Apps and App publishers on the App Store.
As example I think there are less than 10k individual games on these stores, which means a far lower number of individual publishers as multiple games are sold by the same publisher. For comparison, the App Store hosts literally millions of Apps with hundreds of thousands of individual publishers.
PS: Xbox or Sony PlayStation might not be Gatekeeper but definitely enjoy market dominance, so they might be subject to the regulation relevant to that.
Well they sort of play with app for a bit. Sometimes reviewer blocks app for having breaking bugs.
It does though. Answer the question, would you as a consumer rather use a native app or a web app access through Safari? We both know the answer…
Do smartphone app developers need to be forbidden from it? Couldn’t the argument be made that it’s fine either way, so why be so draconian as to draw more unwanted attention from regulators?
Fair point. But who are the competitors. We are talking about thousands of developers who create apps and make the platform as valuable as it is today. A naked iPhone OS is a rather dull experience. It's the app ecosystem that makes it interesting. The interests between Apple as a hardware company were perfectly aligned with developers for most of the companies existence. But then Apple decided to invent the Services category on their balance sheet. Why? To make more money. Now suddenly the interests were not aligend anymore, and many developers are not happy.
Everyone can compete, just bring your products to the tournament. If you can't afford to compete, then stay out.
Just don't go lobbying and crying for help, just because you are not capable to accomplish what others have with their own sweat and effort.