That’s a different topic, and if you ask me somewhat voided by the fact you have unfettered access to the open internet via a web browser on iOS.
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.
Sideloading Bill Would Allow 'Malware, Scams and Data-Exploitation to Proliferate,' Says Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is it tho? There are many stores you can pay monthly for A subScription.
Or any electronic store you can buy computer/phone/car/software and then do more purchases in these goods.
Amazon delivers Microsoft office digitally/cd to you.
You can continue to buy from their store on your device and pay them a commission on first delivery or purchase things inside office without paying amazon a commission
Apple delivers digital Microsoft office to you and pay a commission on first delivery to them and every subsequent delivery doesn’t pay apple a commission.
Apples Mac/iOS AppStore you purchase office, you pay a commission on first delivery and every subsequent delivery on the first goods to apple.
Apple delivers you a an iphone.
You can only purchase things from their store and pay a commission on first delivery and every subsequent delivery on the first goods to apple.
Amazon delivers you an iPhone and you pay a commission on its purchase.
You can only purchase more goods through apples store and subsequent purchases gives apple a commission. Why can’t Amazon or any other retailer online or physical ask for a commission of subsequent purchases?
Delivery of physical goods and digital goods are exactly the same. They are both transported from point A) digitally/physically to point B) to you as an owner. It being electronic shouldn’t make a difference
That’s not what you implied though is it.
You said the difference between a digital good and a physical good. A digital store or a physical store.
A loaf of bread or an app.
With the exception of the phone itself you’re using digital goods and stores to try to back up your analogy of physical goods and stores.
You can just go to G2A for example to purchase PS4/5 games. Unfortunately no home brew is possible as of yet or available as every game must be signed by Sony.
Is somebody forcing you to?
It's a choice.
Just like side loading would be.
No forcing -- all choice
From MY experience, I have told people that iOS is better for them and they never looked back because of that wall garden property. If it was not for it, go to other plataforms. I think it is a business model option like any other. Hell if Apple was a small player no one would bat an eye. But because the model works - something is wrong with them, right?
Regarding the choise, in my opinion think there is something that you might be missing here.
By allowing sideloading, you are now putting the power in the hands of the other developers (I know how this sounds but I'm not talking about the small company just starting, I'm talking about big players here!)
Imagine Facebook - they lost revenue with the track option that Apple added. They could riot and remove Facebook of the store as pushiment to Apple so that iOS' users feel the punhisment of Apple's choices - yet they did not.
But with sideload they could pull the app from the App Store and tell the users that from now on, only via sideload.
And here is the forcing! It is still a choice, but now you Facebook dictating how the user must use the phone in order to access the App. Now this for all major apps. It does not sound like that the user will be prompt with "where do you want Facebook from?".
Back to the wall garden and the choice, that being a choise why not go somewhere else? With another approach? Just because others don't care (Google with Android) does not mean that the Apple won't.
Of course there are other implications but what we need to be aware is that the business model of Apple worked for iOS - probably wouldn't work now for macOS. But you need to see the history of both products. macOS/OSX started open and because of that, all the players coded their apps that way.
With iOS they saw a change - which worked in my view. If you want an app, go here. Hell, iOS started without app store - Steve Jobs wanted webapps. (I guess that if facebook were to pull the app, I would tell people to use the browser if that were to happen).
People have mention the closing of the App Store and such - people that want sideloading think that Apple would carry on doing all the support that they give and all the APIs and such. But what if they were to lock things down?
I really struggle to understand any argument in favour of this (maybe if iOS was a monopoly it would be a bit different).
PS. I am a developer myself.
That’s what I said. That digit foods and physical goods are equals and have no difference. I can buy a song/ pictureand that’s that just as with a lot of bread/ case or anything else with no.
The only difference is our phones of some reason counts as an extension of the store.
And any app on our phones must still pay a commission of its external purchases. But for some reason if the purchase is made in safari or on another website with the exact function they don’t take a commission. This is contradictory.
Netflix subscription made in the app outside the store= Commission
Netflix subscription made on the iPhone web browser for the app outside the store= no commission?
They never argue in good faith, we all know this.
Netflix the app is free. You can purchase a sub outside of Apple. By charging for the sub when it can, Apple is recouping the costs of the free storage and distribution of the app.
Afaik, Netflix (the multi million pound company) still only pay Apple a £99 dev fee.
They are different though. And Apple treats them as different.
They don’t charge Amazon or any other company for selling me food or any physical good via the Amazon app.
On the other hand, It’s not possible to buy an in app purchase from a loaf of bread purchased at tescos, for example.
So the initial analogy you made comparing a physical store selling physical goods, to an app purchased in an App Store being subject to extra charges made to additional purchases is not even slightly comparable.
I’m not suggesting Apple (and the multitude of other companies that practice it) are correct, I’m just saying that it’s not something that is comparable.
Last edited:
This is a mess and completely contradictory 🤔
- Purchasing digital Microsoft office from apple web store on an apple device YOU OWN= commission to apple
- Purchases made inside the office you purchased from apple ON YOUR DEVICE = no commission?
- Purchasing Microsoft office from Mac/AppStore= commission to apple
- Purchases made inside the program= commission to apple
Not including other physical/online stores not doing this for purchases made outside that we would never accept. For if we would be consistent.
- Apple website buying office= commission to apple
- Digital programs In app purchases from apple’s website= MANDATORY commission to apple
- Purchasing Netflix subscription in safari on iPhone= commission to apple
- Amazon selling Microsoft office= commission to amazon
- Microsoft office subscription bought in the program you purchased from Amazon= MANDATORY commissions to amazon
- Amazon selling iPhone= commission to amazon
- App Store purchases made on your iPhone you bought from Amazon= MANDATORY commission to amazon and apple.
- iPhone in app purchases from your phone you purchased from Amazon= MANDATORY commission to amazon
- Netflix subscription made in safari on the iPhone you bought from Amazon= MANDATORY commission to amazon
Apple Don’t like amazons commission? Apple should sell on their own store.
Samsung/random company doesn’t like amazon/target/AT&T commissions on sales don on their device? Make their own store/website
Don’t like apples commission?
Make your own website.
Don’t like amazon having a high commission? Buy from another platform etc etc
The only difference is our iphones of some reason counts as an extension of the app store and never leaving it
And any app on our iphones must still pay a commission of its external purchases.
But for some reason if the purchase is made in safari or on another website with the exact function they don’t take a commission. This is contradictory.
- Netflix subscription made in the app on YOUR iPhone outside the store= Commission
- Netflix subscription made on YOUR iPhone web browser for the app outside the store= no commission?
- Purchasing dating app In the App Store= commission
- Dating app purchases inside the app but outside the App Store made on YOUR iPhone = commission
- Dating app website purchased on YOUR iPhone in safari outside the App Store= no commission?
- App Store web browser to dating app website purchases outside the App Store but made on YOUR iPhone = No commission?
- And now linking in the app to their website outside the App Store made on YOUR iPhone = commission?
Please, show us on the doll where the crypto hurt you. At best, the topic is only tangentially related to crypto. Notice how it wasn’t mentioned even once in the original article, but it’s all you seem to want to rant about? I’m also not a crypto bag holder. I’m a proud weed stocks bag holder.
You’re creating the mess here. Let me simplify it for you:
Sell an app on the App Store - Apple gets a commission.
Sell an IAP via this app - Apple gets a commission.
All the rest is what it is but out of the realms of either this thread, this discussion and most certainly completely different from what you said that I was disagreeing with in the first place.
We’re taking about Apple and allowing different app purchasing options.
It’s not a valid comparison to compare digital goods bought via a digital store front to physical goods bought via a physical store - which was what I was objecting to when you said it originally.
In my point of view the issue is not of using one or multiple payment systems or even using just one App Store. I’m not even defending the using of multiple App Stores in iOS.
It seams that I’m the only one representing the idea that no Merchant should be able to mandate charges of any kind over the sale of products and services that it does not sell or distribute given any pretext. In other words, only be able to charge for products and services it actually sells.
The understanding of this leverage is crucial.
Apple can through their App Store as it fully controls the distribution of software programs to 50% of Americans pockets. A power granted by its market share on the smartphones bought by 50% of again American citizens according to stats.
If an App Store provides a payment system, than charge for payment system in tandem with others for the things it does not sell or distribute (Apple Pay?), not for the sale of a product that does not even sell. The same for their billing, its use should not be mandatory given that many companies already have their billing system … actually companies are required to have a billing and accounting system by law in many countries … so Apple billing may be actually $redundant$.
I agree that all voices should be echoed. I don’t consider me part of any group if not for this idea where payment is as close to use as possible. The further apart it gets from it, the weirdest things start to happen.
Imagine AWS, or Azure Clouds asking companies for 30% of the sales of their products and services given that they host the technical infrastructure of their business. This of course on top of Apple and Google demanding 30% for the sale of their products and services. In a few iterations of this futuristic business practice, you would be paying to be in business and not be payed, like paying to work not being payed for your work … nice future for a one payment system no? …
Why charge a fee for the sale of products and services that you sell and distribute rather than charge for the ones you do not. I think anyone would prefer the second, such a futuristic business practice. Believe me this is not the best scenario for anyone but the ones able to enforce it … they will not.
Cheers.
Last edited:
What real difference is there between a digital song and a painting? Both can’t have internal purchasing methods.
Purchasing Microsoft Office on a physical disk, digitally code from an online store and apple App Store are all equal. But only on the iPhone do we accept apple taking a cut of every in app purchase.
But on apples website they don’t take commission for in app purchases.
Why don’t apple take a commission on physical/some digital goods?such as Amazon store( if you buy digital license key or Uber for example?
If it’s because apple didn’t deliver good or services to the user they don’t take a commission, then why do they take a commission on in app purchases or subscriptions made in the app? Apple didn’t deliver any goods or services to the end user as well. Apples work and expenditures are equal in both cases.
And now apple will have a “reader app” classification that allow Spotify, Netflix, Amazon kindle etc and similar apps to link outside the app for an external payment solution on their website without paying apple a commission or the requirement to include apples IAP solution.
But for some reason if they or other apps used a different payment solution inside the app, they must pay apple 27% commission?
But Apples time, money and expenses are still equal for every situation but only takes a commission on some of them?
Apple have a digital goods distinction to “real” goods for some arbitrary reason.
And recently EU deemed digital software and services are legally classified the same as “goods”
But it’s an important distinction to can or should apple be allowed to mandate a commission on something outside their store?
Apple takes 27% on Dutch dating app alternative payment MacRumors
Why is it not a valid comparison?
Buying digital goods in a physical store
And
Buying digital goods from a digital store?
EU just deemed them to be the same?
I am old enough to have used MS os’s and apps on the job. Over time i Personally migrated to the Apple environment. My laptop is a Mac, my tablet is an iPad, my phone is an iPhone. All my software comes from the App Store and alway will. Why? Almost a bug free environment. And I don’t have to be systems programmer to use my Apple tools.
For background my first exposure to computers of any consequence was at Columbia in the late ‘60s. IBM and later MS. As Apple came on the scene my inner geek surfaced and I have been moving to Apple ever since. And few problems and no malware.
art k - I drank the koolaide!
For background my first exposure to computers of any consequence was at Columbia in the late ‘60s. IBM and later MS. As Apple came on the scene my inner geek surfaced and I have been moving to Apple ever since. And few problems and no malware.
art k - I drank the koolaide!
Thank you for the reasonable discourse, some here cannot debate without veiled insults.
My discussion around payments was indeed including the worst case scenario of all devs pulling out of stores and going it alone, similar to what we see in the PC world. Example: Malwarebytes, not on the MacOS store, I need to go to their site, use their payment processor. As I posted, they have been hacked, that was just one example. Most people would never need 100 different payment processors for apps but it is the worst case, 10 different stores is far more reasonable a number but I still like 1 store far more. Why do you think people shop at Amazon, one stop, one pay!
Other payment protection layers are indeed availalbe (paypal etc) but they do no good unless the merchant accepts them. In the case of Malwarebytes, they do accept PayPal, but not all merchants accept other processors.
Definitely a nuanced topic. I'll try something with this analogy:
As it works today:
Walwart builds a retail location
LG sells them TVs, LG makes their cut
Walwart marks up the TV and lists it for sale
A Consumer purchases the TV, Walmart makes their cut
Or in our digital world it works one of two ways:
1) Apple builds the app store (and all its infrastructure for IAP, Upgrades, Listing, Bandwidth, etc)
Epic Games lists Fortnite on the app store for free
Consumers "purchase" the app by downloading it (no money)
Consumers make IAPs and both Epic and Apple make money (70/30)
2) Apple builds the app store (and all its infrastructure for IAP, Upgrades, Listing, Bandwidth, etc)
Epic Games lists Fortnite on the app store for $69.99 (think console game money)
Consumers purchase the game and both Epic and Apple get paid (70/30)
Consumers make IAPs and both Epic and Apple make money (70/30)
Now if I am understanding your point correctly you feel that Apple does not deserve a cut of IAP, but are ok with them getting a cut of an initial purchase price for an app, correct?
So you would want this world:
1) Apple builds the app store (and all its infrastructure for IAP, Upgrades, Listing, Bandwidth, etc)
Epic Games lists Fortnite on the app store for free
Consumers "purchase" the app by downloading it (no money)
Consumers make IAPs and Epic makes 100%
Apple makes only $99/yr for all the Fortnite "purchases"
2) Apple builds the app store (and all its infrastructure for IAP, Upgrades, Listing, Bandwidth, etc)
Epic Games lists Fortnite on the app store for $69.99 (think console game money)
Consumers purchase the game and both Epic and Apple get paid (70/30)
Consumers make IAPs and Epic makes 100%
My only challenge to you in this is how does Apple recoup the costs of their marketplace when the vast majority of the items for sale in it are free (scanario #1)? How would this work:
Walwart builds a retail location
LG pays Walmart $99/yr to put free TVs on their shelves
Walwart puts the TV on the shelf for free
A consumer takes the TV home and "activates" it online through LG, LG gets all the money
I think it fair to say that Walmart would need to increase their fees in order to be profitable. Are you suggesting that a better alternative would be for Apple to increase the dev fees to the point that the app store is profitable? This might squeeze out indie devs.
Even a digital marketplace has costs, programmers, servers, payment processing, customer service, approval/testing, etc. I like Apple products and want them profitable so in your world where Apple is not entitled to a cut of IAP with free apps how does this happen?
My discussion around payments was indeed including the worst case scenario of all devs pulling out of stores and going it alone, similar to what we see in the PC world. Example: Malwarebytes, not on the MacOS store, I need to go to their site, use their payment processor. As I posted, they have been hacked, that was just one example. Most people would never need 100 different payment processors for apps but it is the worst case, 10 different stores is far more reasonable a number but I still like 1 store far more. Why do you think people shop at Amazon, one stop, one pay!
Other payment protection layers are indeed availalbe (paypal etc) but they do no good unless the merchant accepts them. In the case of Malwarebytes, they do accept PayPal, but not all merchants accept other processors.
Definitely a nuanced topic. I'll try something with this analogy:
As it works today:
Walwart builds a retail location
LG sells them TVs, LG makes their cut
Walwart marks up the TV and lists it for sale
A Consumer purchases the TV, Walmart makes their cut
Or in our digital world it works one of two ways:
1) Apple builds the app store (and all its infrastructure for IAP, Upgrades, Listing, Bandwidth, etc)
Epic Games lists Fortnite on the app store for free
Consumers "purchase" the app by downloading it (no money)
Consumers make IAPs and both Epic and Apple make money (70/30)
2) Apple builds the app store (and all its infrastructure for IAP, Upgrades, Listing, Bandwidth, etc)
Epic Games lists Fortnite on the app store for $69.99 (think console game money)
Consumers purchase the game and both Epic and Apple get paid (70/30)
Consumers make IAPs and both Epic and Apple make money (70/30)
Now if I am understanding your point correctly you feel that Apple does not deserve a cut of IAP, but are ok with them getting a cut of an initial purchase price for an app, correct?
So you would want this world:
1) Apple builds the app store (and all its infrastructure for IAP, Upgrades, Listing, Bandwidth, etc)
Epic Games lists Fortnite on the app store for free
Consumers "purchase" the app by downloading it (no money)
Consumers make IAPs and Epic makes 100%
Apple makes only $99/yr for all the Fortnite "purchases"
2) Apple builds the app store (and all its infrastructure for IAP, Upgrades, Listing, Bandwidth, etc)
Epic Games lists Fortnite on the app store for $69.99 (think console game money)
Consumers purchase the game and both Epic and Apple get paid (70/30)
Consumers make IAPs and Epic makes 100%
My only challenge to you in this is how does Apple recoup the costs of their marketplace when the vast majority of the items for sale in it are free (scanario #1)? How would this work:
Walwart builds a retail location
LG pays Walmart $99/yr to put free TVs on their shelves
Walwart puts the TV on the shelf for free
A consumer takes the TV home and "activates" it online through LG, LG gets all the money
I think it fair to say that Walmart would need to increase their fees in order to be profitable. Are you suggesting that a better alternative would be for Apple to increase the dev fees to the point that the app store is profitable? This might squeeze out indie devs.
Even a digital marketplace has costs, programmers, servers, payment processing, customer service, approval/testing, etc. I like Apple products and want them profitable so in your world where Apple is not entitled to a cut of IAP with free apps how does this happen?
As far as I can tell, the ruling is related to complete software purchases, not iap of a software already purchased, just to note. I’m jot sure what this will lead to regarding iap. And as I have mentioned several times, there is a need to regulate this aspect of all tech giants’ grasp.
Still doesn’t back up your point though. It just means it falls under the same rules as purchasing anything else.
It’s still not a valid comparison to compare a physical good purchased at a physical store, to buying an iap from an app purchased on a digital storefront.
There is no comparable situation in a regular store to enable the comparison. There is no such thing as an iap.
Never owned a Switch. PS 1-4. Bought games from Walmart, Target, Amazon, GameStop, Best Buy, etc….
Son has a PS5 - get his from multiple places. Usually Best Buy or GameStop.
If you can write games for PS5 … wow. That answer I do not know. I was talking about alternate points of sale. Other stores. Places to procure from, not develop.
Not one of those was a digital download, which is all an iPhone and other devices can accept. Where do you buy all of these gaming console games from if you were limited to just digital?
This is the interesting thing about all of this. We have not heard one peep from actual consumers about this. Only developers. So if Apple treats iOS like Sony/Microsoft treats their console, yeah you can distribute your app elsewhere, but you will need to pay a much larger licensing fee. Just like I can sell my PS5 game at Target or Walmart, but I still need to pay Sony's licensing fees to even produce the game.
There’s just a few problems with this. Once Apple has already stated they don’t like the system they had to implement for macOS because the platform is already attacked by malware and other malicious actors. So this solution they created was to try and mitigate it but it doesn’t prevent it.
That being said the more glaring problem I see is that side loading wound allow well known companies like Meta to simply pull Facebook from the App Store and only allow it to be side loaded. This has a huge potential to circumvent many of Apple’s privacy and security protections and allowing companies to harvest information on a much larger scale since they are not being regulated by Apple’s App Store policies or review.
Its not that I don’t want side loading. I personally have not interest in it. I just don’ see the positives in this. I’m all for finding ways for developers to make more money from Apple’s 70/30 split that doesn’t compromise our personal data and privacy.
Most of this argument is nonsense. Apple couldn’t care less control over speech. If they were they’d pull out of china in a heartbeat. Their concern is almighty dollar. Period.
That is what companies do. There is not ONE company that doesn't act this way. No matter how much they "care" and "advocate" for their users. Which is why I think these kind of arguments are just pointless. You are looking for non-profit organizations if you want greed to not be part of any decision.
So now you are limiting to DigiDL only … okay
Well PS1 - PS4 were all disc. Have to ask my son about his PS5.
Now my XBox (it was sold a bit back) I did a couple of digital games via Best Buy.
All my other game consoles were disc or cartridge.
My PC was disc at one time but is now all digital from all kinds of places. My MB and Linux too.