You are thinking only from your point of view. If emulators will be allowed, you will suddenly see the Switch emulated. Nintendo will then lose a lot more sales and will then start suing Apple and the emulator developers for piracy. This will be a very real scenario.
nintendo would already lose that money, the people already emulating either own the game or will never buy it from the beginning
Are you sure this is how the vast majority using the emulator for? I sure don't.
You do realize you’re not going to be forced to install a second app store, right? If you want, things will stay the same for you.
does it matter ; give me the stats then, oh wait you can’t so does it matter . Who is this really going to affect . If people are pirating then they are already going to pirate it. There is not loss for anyone since they weren’t going to buy it in the first place
It matters to Apple and I'm sure they have the stats. Doesn't matter what you or I think.
no it doesn’t, you were the one that replied to me specifically because emulation. Emulation sideloaded is just a software what users do is on them not apple . You just don’t want sideloading and you will use any excuse to go against sideloading when it doesn’t affect you or devs at all .
How do you know I don't want "side-loading", which btw. is a silly term. I've never said whether I'm for or against. That's all your conjecture. So you're putting words into my "keyboards" so to speak.
The Dutch Dating App case had Apple clarifying that of the 30% cut, only 3% is for payment processing while 27% is a platform fee (which I think is pretty clever, when viewed in the context of setting the stage for subsequently tackling the DMA).
would apple get sued for piracy by having their books app that actually allows outside epub sources and pdf in externally. I can tell you right now I have many “pirated” college books right now in my apple books app . Will apple get in trouble for piracy . Same for a emulator will apple get in trouble for having a emulator in their store even when it has nothing in it that would be considered piracy
The only thing that i want is: Even if external payment methods was allowed, I want apple to force that the apple pay method Should be one of them.
Bloomberg's Mark Gurman this week reported that Apple is preparing to allow alternative app stores on the iPhone and iPad in the European Union, as part of an effort to comply with the Digital Markets Act, which goes into full effect in 2024. The report said Apple is aiming for the changes to be introduced as part of iOS 17.
In a research note this week, a trio of analysts at investment bank Morgan Stanley argued that third-party app stores and sideloading would pose a "limited risk" to both App Store revenue and Apple's overall revenue given that iPhone users have "long prioritized the security, centralization, and convenience that the App Store brings."In an implausible worst case scenario where Apple somehow lost the entirety of its App Store revenue in Europe as a result of competition from third-party app stores, the analysts estimated this would equate to just a 4% hit to Apple's services revenue and a 1% hit to Apple's total revenue. If third-party app stores are allowed globally, the analysts forecast around a 9% hit to services revenue and around a 2% hit to total revenue.
In reality, the impact on Apple's revenue could be far less, as the analysts believe it's likely Apple would still receive a commission on purchases made through third-party app stores. In the Netherlands, for example, Apple's standard 30% commission is reduced by only 3% for dating apps using third-party payment systems.
While there are still a lot of question marks surrounding third-party app stores and sideloading, Morgan Stanley believes that the reported changes do not present material risk to App Store revenue/growth or the long-term performance of Apple's stock.
Article Link: Rival App Stores on iPhone Estimated to Have Limited Impact on Apple's Revenue
They are different issues and I think you know it. Straw man argument.
it literally is the same thing. one is a game emulator and one is a book reader both made by people . One app reads books and one app runs games . Both apps have nothing but can run either books or games. neither by themselves are piracy until the user chooses to do so.
This sounds like pure fantasy. Not a chance Apple gets a 30% cut of sideloaded apps. It will rightfully be 0%.
Apple are entitled to charge a fee for developers to use their IP. Any app running on an iOS device, regardless of where it is obtained from, is using Apple's IP, and Apple are entitled to monetise that if they so wish.
Not true. As the creator and owner of the IP that is iOS and it's associated APIs, Apple can choose to license it however it wants. They could license it for free, or for a fixed fee, or for a percentage. I suspect we'll see Apple charge the same 27/12% commission on apps from outside the Apple app store.
Maybe you should tell that to Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony as well?
There is nothing comparable to Apple getting a cut of 30% for subscriptions. When you are using Windows from Microsoft, i don't think they get 30% from your VPN subscription, your Netflix subscription ....
They don't get it because Microsoft decided not to charge for it. That's not to say they couldn't change their minds.
I'm referring to the Xbox.
Don't forget, developers are always free to not make an app for any of Apple's platforms if they don't want to be subject to a commission. Those developers can access customers via the internet instead.
