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
This is the point a lot of people seem to be dodging. A lot of these hoops Apple is making people go through have nothing to do with safety or convenience or any of the other benefits of the walled garden. If I truly thought Apple’s top priority was user experience, with the secondary goal being good developer relations, I don’t think we would be having all this debate about it.
Interesting math. So Apple “pays” itself 30% for Apple TV, Apple Music, and Apple Arcade subscriptions? Tell me something, if I have $100 in my pocket and take 30% of it and use it to pay myself, how much money do I have? $100.
If the home court advantage is a requirement, it's not fair competition.
What are these math shenanigans here for?
Apple Music isn't #1, Spotify is. Is +30% subscription affecting competition, if app is better? No.
That's only true if the playing field is even. If a competitor has enough power to make the field uneven to their advantage, "just compete" doesn't work anymore.
That's a well known fact of free markets and the reason anti-trust regulation exists everywhere a free market does.
Problem with these analogies is it’s really not like any of these things.
What is really, actually is for a lot of developers: They make an app. They sell it on several stores. But only one of those stores is extremely restrictive about how they can communicate to their customers.
If nothing else it doesn’t look good by comparison, does not set a good precedent, and is not actually a helpful policy to anyone but the one store owner.
Would consumers actually be better off if every store was this way? Would the vendors? Would anyone but the retailers?
It definitely does. You are arguing that the business being successful is evidence that it's not being unfairly disadvantaged, but the business might be successful despite being unfairly disadvantaged.
Should be easy to understand, but for some reason this concept seems to be too abstract for some.
Not happy that they got where they are now thanks to someone else who invented the hardware and the ecosystem where they have all been living and feeding?
Without it, they would be nowhere, selling apps on their own website, paying more for hosting, e-Commerce and advertising than their annual profits.
So Apple invented one more Category for the developers to benefit. So why can't Apple also benefit from their own inventions? They had to create a whole infrastructure to provide these services and in-app purchases, etc., and that was not free to them.
Some people only care about milking the cow, but don't want to feed the cow.
At some point, there will be no more cow to milk.
"Rent seeking is an economic concept that occurs when an entity seeks to gain wealth without any reciprocal contribution of productivity."
IMO Apple provides quite a few things that justify it seeking rent.
Just off the top of my head, they have created the platform and the app store, acquired the customers, they host and review apps, create and maintain developer tools, and they take care of billing, returns, and customer service and developer support in addition to the continual maintenance, development, and marketing of the platform.
You can argue a lot of things about Apple, but surely we can't brush all that aside as not providing any reciprocal contribution of productivity?
Last edited:
You’re the one that created the math shenanigans by saying everyone paying 30% would be fair, but that’s not possible for Apple to do. Apple doesn’t have to be #1 in an app category for what they’re doing to be nefarious. Not to mention that having to give 30% of their in-app subscription’s revenue to a direct competitor certainty does affect competition because it leaves them with less resources with which to pay employees to improve their app.
The software running on "your" device is not your property. iOS is licensed to you. You can't do "whatever you want" under the terms of that EULA.
Now, if you can get an open-source operating system running on your phone... go nuts!
So long as Apple controls the OS, and apps use services and frameworks from that OS, it's not a free-for-all app platform.
Once iOS devices are sold at break-even, or as a loss-leader, then I'll take your point into consideration.
...but not a minute before that.
Firstly, Apple does not legally need to justify their fees. No corporation does, really. There’s not a “fair” fee, or a profit cap. Those things just don’t exist.
Spotify also does not need to justify its subscription fees to any court, or to justify the royalties it pays. Those are commercial issues decided by the market — if the cost of subscriptions is too high, people will move to competing services, and if the royalties are too low, record labels will withhold their IP.
Similarly, app review and commissions are part of Apple’s terms of doing business on the iOS platform. Companies don’t need to participate (just like they’re doing with Apple vision pro, they could go web-only).
That is separate from the idea of allowing competition in digital storefronts. Apparently that’s all the DMA seems to cover - letting developers seek alternatives with better shopping experiences, etc. It doesn’t require Apple to completely change their business model.
Secondly, Apple has explained that, among other things, AppStore fees go towards general platform maintenance and the free OS updates users receive for several years after purchasing a device. That is the business model they have chosen.
Of course, it is profitable, but that is perfectly okay. The law does not cap corporate profits or require certain businesses to be run at-cost as a public benefit.
It's demagogy. The facts are Apple is #1 nowhere on their own app market.
The reality is Spotify simply wants to show you ads and sell their products. Apple didn't allow them to show you ads leading to third-party providers. It's not about competition or making UX better for user.
For Operating Systems, Microsoft definitely does qualify and will be regulated as Gatekeeper accordingly in that (specifically as PC OS Vendor), but its Xbox store does not qualify.
Note that the same is kinda true for Apple but in the inverse.
Apple is also a player in the Operating System market but their numbers don't qualify for Gatekeeper status, but the numbers of the App Store definitely do, so Apple is being treated as Gatekeeper for the App Store but not for their Operating Systems.
You've got some pretty hard opinions there. Why so strict? Zero third-party apps? Why do you even own a smartphone?
"Gatekeeper" is a company, not just some branch. There's "core platform service" in "gatekeeper" if you want to go deeper into the mess of DMA.
Why even discuss this crap, it's clearly a legal construct, created by politicians to bypass judicial system when assigning "bad guys" in economy. Benefits are (for lobbyists) you don't really even have to be a bad guy anymore, don't even have to infringe any anti-trust laws. And you can appeal only to EU commission, which is by far not a legal court. It is as far from free market paradigm as it can be.
This is just wrong. Spotify wants to make the experience better by allowing you to manage your account inside the app. Today, because of stupid app store rules, you have open a browser and login to spotify to do anything related to payment. How is that better UX?
Many pay for Spotify using store bought coupons. Can't use them in the app as well.
Yeah I'm not sure what it is about this that is so hard for some people to understand. When you purchased the phone and set it up...you willingly agreed to terms. Terms that say you do NOT "own" the software. Do most people sit and actually read these things? No they don't. But the agreement is there and visible and you agreed to it!
The "I own the software" crowd would be shocked if they actually took the time to sit and read through the agreements.
So you’re saying that if Apple became wildly inefficient and increased the costs of making iPhones, then some business practices would become legal?
Let’s say they a promised a dividend to shareholders per iPhone sold — for the sole purpose of increasing the costs per device, and not saving that money to reinvest in the business — then it would be okay to charge commissions on digital purchases?
But because they save that money to acquire smaller technology companies (like the recent news that they’ve acquired 21 AI companies), they’re not allowed to charge commissions?
Very strange that you all signed a contract before swiping your card to buy the iPhone. I've never had to sign a contract with Apple to walk out of the store with an iPhone.