Rival App Stores on iPhone Estimated to Have Limited Impact on Apple's Revenue

[Abazigal]

This sounds like pure fantasy. Not a chance Apple gets a 30% cut of sideloaded apps. It will rightfully be 0%.

It was raised as a legitimate concern in an interview Theverge had with the Epic CEO, Tim Sweeney.

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney thinks “every politician should fear” Apple’s power

“I think it’s incredibly dangerous to allow the world’s most powerful corporation to decide who is allowed to say what.”

www.theverge.com

The judges were clear that even if the store was opened and alternative payments were allowed, Apple could still charge a fee. They’re doing this in South Korea, for example, where they’re still taking commission of 26 percent. And with Xcode, they could literally just charge you to run code, to run binary on their phone, no matter what. So I’m curious what happens if Apple is forced to open up distribution but Epic and other developers, they still have to pay the potentially double-digit percentage for in-app payments somehow. Is that enough for Epic?

In summary, he himself isn't entirely sure he will be able to get out of paying said fee, which would pretty much tank the viability of offering the epic game store as an alternative on iOS. He will certainly fight the case in court if it ever came to that, but the outcome is far from certain.

 

[swm]

Your comment assumes that all apps will remain in the App Store. I suspect what will happen is that large developers like Microsoft, Adobe, Meta, and Epic will create app stores for their titles and services and remove titles from Apple's App Store. If other app marketplaces sold non-proprietary apps, they would try to get developers to give them exclusive rights to distribute popular or new apps.

This would not create user choice. The choice would be for developers to determine where to distribute their apps.

doubt. microsoft was so successful creating its own store for its own platform(s).
having access to a massive amount of customerbase is what counts most. and this is only available at the app store.

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Because the one thing Apple cares more about than profit is control.
Apple without control is nothing.

You are talking about the same thing. In apples case one doesn’t exist without the other.

 

[staypuftforums]

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.

No they aren’t. Anyone who thinks that is nuts.

 

[mrochester]

No they aren’t. Anyone who thinks that is nuts.

Why do you think Apple can't charge for the use of it's IP?

 

[Abazigal]

No they aren’t. Anyone who thinks that is nuts.

Another article on this matter.

The DMA and alternative in-app payments: too early to celebrate | Mobile Dev Memo by Eric Seufert

The DMA and alternative in-app payments: too early to celebrate. Mobile marketing and advertising, freemium monetization strategy, and marketing science. Mobile Dev Memo.

mobiledevmemo.com

If the ACM cleared the current approach to alternative in-app payments — which requires the use of entitlements, which still levies a 27% platform fee, and which requires regular revenue reporting — then would the CMA apply a stricter standard? And if Apple’s current approach to facilitating alternative payments for dating apps in the Netherlands is viewed as compliant with the DMA and applied to the whole of Europe, then alternative payments may not materially impact the app economy.

 

[strongy]

I’m not interested in other app stores, but it’d be nice to download apps straight from the browser, as I do on my Macs since the 90s with no security problems at all.


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.

you do understand that option is their and it will be forced by someone at some point either by a hacker or by someone social engineering, some people prefer not to have that option in place which is why they got an iphone in the first place

 

[strongy]

This sounds like pure fantasy. Not a chance Apple gets a 30% cut of sideloaded apps. It will rightfully be 0%.

you realise you are still using their IP right? they don't have to let you use any of their API's

 

[strongy]

No they aren’t. Anyone who thinks that is nuts.

yes you are nuts you don't get to use someone elses hard work for free

 

[Appleman3546]

It probably will not affect revenue that much because third party app stores will only be allowed in Europe. How can a third party App Store gain significant traction when only in one region? How can Apple keep justifying exclusion and security in the US when it will allow third party app stores in Europe?

 

[d686546s]

You don't think Apple will be liable with lawsuits when they can be accused of abating piracy?

Why would Apple be sued for piracy on the iPhone outside of their own distribution model anymore than they could be sued today if you pirated a game for the Mac? Has Microsoft ever been sued for people playing pirated games on Windows? This sounds like a completely made up risk.

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).

I didn't follow the Dutch case in great detail, but is the "platform" you are referring to the iPhone or the App Store. The latter makes sense, to some degree, even if people can disagree whether Apple's split is disingenuous or not.

Charging a 27% commission because your app happens to run on the iPhone sounds and feels absolutely not justified. I could see them raise prices for their developer programme or tools, fair enough, but demanding a cut just because your provide stuff for the iPhone outside of the App Store sounds like highway robbery.

What's next? Verizon demanding a 27% cut of all iPhone revenue for Verizon customers because they use their platform? If Apple doesn't like it they can always build their own network?

 

[mrochester]

Why would Apple be sued for piracy on the iPhone outside of their own distribution model anymore than they could be sued today if you pirated a game for the Mac? Has Microsoft ever been sued for people playing pirated games on Windows? This sounds like a completely made up risk.



I didn't follow the Dutch case in great detail, but is the "platform" you are referring to the iPhone or the App Store. The latter makes sense, to some degree, even if people can disagree whether Apple's split is disingenuous or not.

Charging a 27% commission because your app happens to run on the iPhone sounds and feels absolutely not justified. I could see them raise prices for their developer programme or tools, fair enough, but demanding a cut just because your provide stuff for the iPhone outside of the App Store sounds like highway robbery.

What's next? Verizon demanding a 27% cut of all iPhone revenue for Verizon customers because they use their platform? If Apple doesn't like it they can always build their own network?

Verizon likely already makes a percentage cut of each iPhone it sells to a customer. Verizon will make money on the device sale and the ongoing service.

 

[dandy1117]

doubt. microsoft was so successful creating its own store for its own platform(s).
having access to a massive amount of customerbase is what counts most. and this is only available at the app store.

I am not sure your comment says what you think it says! I’m talking about Microsoft selling and distributing their apps like Microsoft directly to consumers. Microsoft has a large customer base and successfully sells Office already on its e-commerce website.

If you’re talking about the Microsoft Store on Windows, then this also disproves your point. Windows has a large ”customer base” and yet their desktop App Store is not successful. Clearly, a large customer base is not what counts most.

 

[jonblatho]

The financial impact is having your brand identity suffer image quality loss if third parties don’t follow guides and make your UX/UI look and run junky.

Ah, yes, because Apple diligently uses its iron fist to enforce the HIG on existing App Store apps.

Fantasyland.

 

[spinedoc77]

I'll be curious to see if non Apple app store apps are actually cheaper, because if they aren't then I'll have zero motivation to move away from having all my apps hosted and upgraded on a single platform. There are some exceptions, like Amazon and Kindle are a complete **** show on Apple where you have to go into the web browser just to make a purchase.

 

[purplerainpurplerain]

Ah, yes, because Apple diligently uses its iron fist to enforce the HIG on existing App Store apps.

Fantasyland.

Tough job considering how many apps submitted. Smart people recognise that. Would be even worse in other circumstances. Smart people recognise that.

Be smart.

 

[_Spinn_]

This seems low to me. But either way I think Apple wants to maintain the control and user experience more than anything else.

 

[Ethosik]

B...b..b...but what if Facebook leaves the App Store??? You know, because I care so much about my data and privacy that I use Facebook......

People aren’t thinking long term on this. And by the time it DOES happen it will be too late to correct. That’s why some of us are fighting it up front. We can see in 2 years where things will be. We have proof of things happening on other platforms.

A good example from Android is that Fortnite WAS removed from the play store years ago. This allowed people to download malicious Fortnite apps instead of the real one.

Epic wants a store on iOS. They stated so day one of this issue. They also sued Google because it’s “too difficult” to side load on Android. Why can’t people see where things are heading here?

It’s not the users driving these laws and complaints. So it won’t end until it’s VERY easy to side load. This will lead to both iOS AND Android changing for the far FAR WORSE. So we should try to stop it now.

 

[swm]

I am not sure your comment says what you think it says! I’m talking about Microsoft selling and distributing their apps like Microsoft directly to consumers. Microsoft has a large customer base and successfully sells Office already on its e-commerce website.

If you’re talking about the Microsoft Store on Windows, then this also disproves your point. Windows has a large ”customer base” and yet their desktop App Store is not successful. Clearly, a large customer base is not what counts most.

i've meant the failure of microsoft with their app store. at that time they had access to a bigger userbase with windows, than apple. yet they failed to monetise it. they had no competitor.

i don't see how they could do better now. the IOS customer base right now is very big, and they spend a lot of money - 4x more than the folks using android, and the size of the customer base is 1/x: there are roughly 3-4 times more android users than iOS users.
running an app store with comparable amount of features and services is not a small undertaking. and all the competitors would need to start from 0.

 

[d686546s]

People aren’t thinking long term on this. And by the time it DOES happen it will be too late to correct. That’s why some of us are fighting it up front. We can see in 2 years where things will be. We have proof of things happening on other platforms.

A good example from Android is that Fortnite WAS removed from the play store years ago. This allowed people to download malicious Fortnite apps instead of the real one.

Epic wants a store on iOS. They stated so day one of this issue. They also sued Google because it’s “too difficult” to side load on Android. Why can’t people see where things are heading here?

It’s not the users driving these laws and complaints. So it won’t end until it’s VERY easy to side load. This will lead to both iOS AND Android changing for the far FAR WORSE. So we should try to stop it now.

We absolutely should think about this long term, but I think you have to approach the question quite broadly rather than just through the risk of malicious apps angle.

I'm convinced we're seeing a slow transformational shift from relatively open computing devices to increasingly locked down machines. Phones and particularly iPads now have enough power to cover most of people's needs. Chromebooks are fully capable solutions for many.

Maybe not in 5 or even 10 years, but I'm convinced that the age of the traditional computer driven by what is now Windows or MacOS is coming to an end.

What we absolutely not want is concentrating the power to distribute software, provide (mobile) payment solutions, decide which software is appropriate for users to have and etc etc etc in the hands of a small number of companies. It's just not healthy.

 

[dandy1117]

i've meant the failure of microsoft with their app store. at that time they had access to a bigger userbase with windows, than apple. yet they failed to monetise it. they had no competitor.

i don't see how they could do better now. the IOS customer base right now is very big, and they spend a lot of money - 4x more than the folks using android, and the size of the customer base is 1/x: there are roughly 3-4 times more android users than iOS users.
running an app store with comparable amount of features and services is not a small undertaking. and all the competitors would need to start from 0.

The alternate app stores won’t exist to compete with Apple’s model. It’ll be to create app marketplaces exclusively for their proprietary apps. The Meta store will distribute Facebook, Meta VR assets, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The Microsoft store would have Office, Xbox games, and Enterpside cloud apps.

These large developers already have the customer base and resources to develop app stores for iOS and Android apps now that both major platforms will allow for third party stores. Instagram users and corporate users of productivity apps will have to visit these developer app stores to get access to their content.

 

[BaldiMac]

What we absolutely not want is concentrating the power to distribute software, provide (mobile) payment solutions, decide which software is appropriate for users to have and etc etc etc in the hands of a small number of companies. It's just not healthy.

The number one solution to that problem is to end Google's collusion with android manufacturers. Otherwise, these requirements are just going to extend Google's control in these areas.

Who's most likely to gain share if alternate stores are allowed on iOS? Google.

Who's most like to gain share if alternate browsing engines are allowed on iOS? Google.

 

[Gabebear]

For example, with Xbox you can buy your games at Best Buy, at Walmart, at Amazon, at eBay, etc.

That's just a different way to pay; the app is still going through Microsoft's Store. If you buy an iTunes gift card at Walmart you can do the same thing on iOS. Adding middlemen doesn't make anything better.

 

[mrochester]

The number one solution to that problem is to end Google's collusion with android manufacturers. Otherwise, these requirements are just going to extend Google's control in these areas.

Who's most likely to gain share if alternate stores are allowed on iOS? Google.

Who's most like to gain share if alternate browsing engines are allowed on iOS? Google.

And/or make the market conditions right for alternative operating systems and respective app stores to exist instead of allowing android to dominate.

 

[d686546s]

The number one solution to that problem is to end Google's collusion with android manufacturers. Otherwise, these requirements are just going to extend Google's control in these areas.

Who's most likely to gain share if alternate stores are allowed on iOS? Google.

Who's most like to gain share if alternate browsing engines are allowed on iOS? Google.

And/or make the market conditions right for alternative operating systems and respective app stores to exist instead of allowing android to dominate.

I don't think anyone would disagree that increasing the number of operating systems would be a good thing. I'm still bitter that WebOS wasn't a broader success and I'm sure there's plenty of people here who actually would have preferred Windows Phone. It wasn't meant to be.

Let's not get the perfect get in the way of the achievable. Breaking up the hold of iOS and Android on the market is difficult and might not work. Apple has made progress in PC market share and people have been hoping for Linux to finally break through on the desktop for as long as I can remember, and Apple is still quite a bit under 10% market share and Linux is nowhere to be seen (not counting servers of course), so I just don't see it happen. Not anytime soon, anyway.