Spain Launches Investigation Into Apple's App Store

[wbeasley]

No - if anything, they should switch to a model where hosting any commercial app is charged. Any pricing model that charges Uber something else than Spotify should be banned as unjustified differentiation.

Whether or not the Mac allows allowed that, they’re fundamentally the same.
The macOS App Store even carries iOS and iPadOS apps.

…and yet people could install anything if only signed with an enterprise certificate.

It’s clearly not designed “from the ground up” to prohibit installation of third-party software through other channels than Apple. Apple merely impose - for monetary gain - restrictions on app installation “on top” of a system that allows for installation of apps.

no no no.

the iOS app store and the Mac app store are NOT the same.

the iPhone that Jobs wanted had built in apps and anything else was going to be a webapp.
he was talked into an AppStore and it flourished because it was designed specifically be secure and vetted.
not a free for all like Mac is. The Mac AppStore is a convenient place to buy apps. Or buy them outside. It's just another shop. but iOS AppStore was always a lot more than that. And you know that. And until this year, it was the only option and STILL people bought the phones. If it was so bad, why was the iPhone a success? the Walled Garden made people feel secure and it's well documented Apple users buy more apps and generate income for devs.

 

[wbeasley]

When people decided to buy Apple products THEY ALREADY KNEW what was offered. Why suddenly a lot of people (Android lovers that need to come out of the closet) want iOS to do the same that can be done in Android?

it's not regular iPhone users clamouring for another app store.
just a few noisy tech folk who knew all the limits when they bought the device but decided the rules should change.
just like Epic did when they signed up to the billing rules and then released a version that knowingly broke that rule.

 

[jlc1978]

Competition drives DOWN prices if competition is in place

While I agree in the purpose of a competitive markets is to lower prices for the consumer; how much price flexibility to developers have? Per Statista, the average selling price for an iOS app is less than a dollar; though I can't see the data on how the determined the average and wonder about it since 99 cents is the lowest price. Most are free. Another site gave old data the media sunscription price was around 5$. I don't see how 3rd party stores will make any difference in pricing; especially when developers didn't lower prices when Apple cut its commission.As for the big developers who make the bulk of the revenue, does anyone really thing Spotify/Netflix/Epic et. al. will all of a sudden lower prices when they can host their own iOS app?

In the end, small developers may find a more difficult landscape with a profusion of stores that come and go, more entities to deal with to get paid, etc. People here like to point out 3rd processor payments are 3%, but many also charge a transaction fee of 25 cents or more. That alone drives the cost to the developer of a $5 app to around 8%, and a $1 app to almost 30% before hosting, store cut on a 3rd party store, etc. I just don't see how consumers will benefit from lower prices.

The again there is the whole question of free apps? How many stores will be willing to host thousands of free apps and bear the costs? Apple could, although I seriously doubt they would, end hosting free apps or raise developer fees to cover their loses; which again would hurt the small developer.

No - if anything, they should switch to a model where hosting any commercial app is charged. Any pricing model that charges Uber something else than Spotify should be banned as unjustified differentiation.

It's not unreasonable to differentiate markups based on product category and type of sale. Stores do that all the time.

just a few noisy tech folk who knew all the limits when they bought the device but decided the rules should change.

I think it's a few big companies that want all the revenue for themselves while Apple gives them free access to the App Store. In the end Apple must still be allowed to charge for access to the store; even if companies use 3rd party processors, if a company wants access to the App Store's customer base. The could charge a variable fee based on app type, per d/l, monthly hosting, all based on annual revenue of the developer. That's similar to what EPIC does, although I suspect they'd whine about that as well.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

While I agree in the purpose of a competitive markets is to lower prices for the consumer; how much price flexibility to developers have? Per Statista, the average selling price for an iOS app is less than a dollar; though I can't see the data on how the determined the average and wonder about it since 99 cents is the lowest price. Most are free. Another site gave old data the media sunscription price was around 5$. I don't see how 3rd party stores will make any difference in pricing; especially when developers didn't lower prices when Apple cut its commission.As for the big developers who make the bulk of the revenue, does anyone really thing Spotify/Netflix/Epic et. al. will all of a sudden lower prices when they can host their own iOS app?

In the end, small developers may find a more difficult landscape with a profusion of stores that come and go, more entities to deal with to get paid, etc. People here like to point out 3rd processor payments are 3%, but many also charge a transaction fee of 25 cents or more. That alone drives the cost to the developer of a $5 app to around 8%, and a $1 app to almost 30% before hosting, store cut on a 3rd party store, etc. I just don't see how consumers will benefit from lower prices.

The again there is the whole question of free apps? How many stores will be willing to host thousands of free apps and bear the costs? Apple could, although I seriously doubt they would, end hosting free apps or raise developer fees to cover their loses; which again would hurt the small developer.



It's not unreasonable to differentiate markups based on product category and type of sale. Stores do that all the time.



I think it's a few big companies that want all the revenue for themselves while Apple gives them free access to the App Store. In the end Apple must still be allowed to charge for access to the store; even if companies use 3rd party processors, if a company wants access to the App Store's customer base. The could charge a variable fee based on app type, per d/l, monthly hosting, all based on annual revenue of the developer. That's similar to what EPIC does, although I susepct tehy'd whine about that as well.

While the "buying apps" example is easy to sling, this law goes beyond only the app transaction. Look up data on total App Store revenue. It's not nominal money. Apple is not resisting so hard to protect 15%-30% of nearly nothing in revenue on "less than a dollar" apps. From a March 4, 2024 NYT article talking about impacts of this law...

The changes are expected to pinch Apple’s sales and cut into profits. Last year, the App Store generated an estimated $24.12 billion in revenue, according to Bernstein Research.

As anyone can see, 15%-30% is a BIG slice of GROSS revenue "right off the top." Apple takes FIRST bite of GROSS, even before the creators of the app themselves get a nibble. There's a LOT of money in 15%-30% right off the top. Example.

Competition can do what it does, which is erode very lucrative profit margin down to more competitive margin. How does that work? The easiest way to take some share is offer the SAME "thing" for lower prices. Apple makes lots of things that they sell in their own stores and other stores. Other stores compete with price. See the "Weekly deals" posted to this website every week and check sale prices vs. Apple Store pricing. If price is cut "to the bone", competition can compete with other tactics that add value. For example, where X Apple product must be priced exactly the same wherever it is sold, competitors may throw some bonus stuff in to make their same price more appealing. Competition thinks of such things if competition is able to compete. In a "Company Store" model, there is no direct competition, so no point in innovating if one can't actually sell (too).

I think even the smallest developers will be just fine. It's EASY to sell things online. Do a search and you can find stuff for sale as low as pennies. Those small transactions are not offered to lose the seller money. Pricing goes as low as necessary to still generate a profit. Competition drives that pricing low. Where there's no competition, there's no reason for pricing to go lower. That's just cutting one's own profitability throat if that one has complete control of a market/"company store".

Your examples are valid in isolation of a sole app transaction only. As I understand it, much of the catalyst behind the EU law was driven by revenue AFTER the app is sold/installed... such as ongoing fees being also "forced" to be subject to Apple's "first in line"/"right off the top" approach. For instance, I recall many articles offering up dating sites as wanting Apple OUT of the ongoing-revenue equation (Apple can take their big cut of an app sale, but they are not fulfilling the ongoing service AFTER the sale, so why do they need 15%-30% of that too?). And, of course, far more than dating sites have ongoing models. All that total app revenue is not 99-cent one-time purchase transactions.

Lastly, consumers always benefit from lower prices when lower prices buy the exact same thing. If you ever shop around for anything to get it at a lower price (and without knowing you at all, I can almost guarantee that you do, because that is a fundamental behavior of all "buyers"), you benefited by being able to do so and saving some money on the exact same product or service. The money you save courtesy of that fundamental consumer power can then buy you MORE of something else. We all do it... we all shop around... for all kinds of stuff as often as every day. The consumer end of the game is to get as much for our money as we can and shopping around competition facilitates that vs.- say- universal "company store" models where an AT&T alone controls phone service prices, Microsoft alone controls browsers, Standard Oil sets oil prices, Delta airlines has a complete lock on airfares, etc. Take a moment and recast the "WHO?" in this situation and then ask ourselves if we would be as passionately against this action if it was Samsung or Google or Microsoft or Netflix or AT&T, etc on the other end of this law?

All that offered though, it doesn't matter. This is done. EU laws are in place nearly 6 months. A very big, very obvious test cell is in place for almost half a year to prove or disprove all beliefs about this issue. Apple IS complying. EU people CAN buy apps from other places, pay for things beyond the app sale in other ways, etc. The wall of how this is terrible, won't work, will destroy via security problems, etc should be readily showing itself by now if there is anything to all of that. I've not seen even ONE story about EU Grandmas bank account being emptied because of this. Best I know, the EU is still there and not some burnt husk from the total devastation so many spun that this would certainly bring. I just don't think the criminals in the syndicate that were so absolutely going to exploit this massive vulnerability would wait... and continue to wait... to "harvest" even one bit of money, etc.

Where's the "WOLF! WOLF!" Show me some real wolf and I'll buy more of what is spun about this. All I've seen in the first 6 months the law being implemented is no negative consequences for EU Apple people... VS. a mass wall of NON-EU people faulting this law like it is end of the world... which is hilarious in that seemingly the loudest of them are not even subject to the law... because they don't live within the EU.

 

[wbeasley]

While I agree in the purpose of a competitive markets is to lower prices for the consumer; how much price flexibility to developers have? Per Statista, the average selling price for an iOS app is less than a dollar; though I can't see the data on how the determined the average and wonder about it since 99 cents is the lowest price. Most are free. Another site gave old data the media sunscription price was around 5$. I don't see how 3rd party stores will make any difference in pricing; especially when developers didn't lower prices when Apple cut its commission.As for the big developers who make the bulk of the revenue, does anyone really thing Spotify/Netflix/Epic et. al. will all of a sudden lower prices when they can host their own iOS app?

In the end, small developers may find a more difficult landscape with a profusion of stores that come and go, more entities to deal with to get paid, etc. People here like to point out 3rd processor payments are 3%, but many also charge a transaction fee of 25 cents or more. That alone drives the cost to the developer of a $5 app to around 8%, and a $1 app to almost 30% before hosting, store cut on a 3rd party store, etc. I just don't see how consumers will benefit from lower prices.

The again there is the whole question of free apps? How many stores will be willing to host thousands of free apps and bear the costs? Apple could, although I seriously doubt they would, end hosting free apps or raise developer fees to cover their loses; which again would hurt the small developer.



It's not unreasonable to differentiate markups based on product category and type of sale. Stores do that all the time.



I think it's a few big companies that want all the revenue for themselves while Apple gives them free access to the App Store. In the end Apple must still be allowed to charge for access to the store; even if companies use 3rd party processors, if a company wants access to the App Store's customer base. The could charge a variable fee based on app type, per d/l, monthly hosting, all based on annual revenue of the developer. That's similar to what EPIC does, although I suspect they'd whine about that as well.

on here it's just the same people demanding more from Apple.
I agree the EU made the change based on a fee noisy big companies...
Has Spotify made a real profit yet after being able to use their own in-app-payment method instead of the app being free from Apple and the user had to subscribe outside? (how arduous indeed when millions were doing it LOL)

I used to subscribe to Sporify. I turned it back to a free account.
When listening to it today I got three ads - one at the start and two after 30 minutes.
They werent even ads that made Spotify money. They just tried to upsell me back to Premium.
Could it be advertisers arent making them much money?

 

[wbeasley]

While the "buying apps" example is easy to sling, this law goes beyond only the app transaction. Look up data on total App Store revenue. It's not nominal money. Apple is not resisting so hard to protect 15%-30% of nearly nothing in revenue on "less than a dollar" apps. From a March 4, 2024 NYT article talking about impacts of this law...



As anyone can see, 15%-30% is a BIG slice of GROSS revenue "right off the top." Apple takes FIRST bite of GROSS, even before the creators of the app themselves get a nibble. There's a LOT of money in 15%-30% right off the top. Example.

Competition can do what it does, which is erode very lucrative profit margin down to more competitive margin. How does that work? The easiest way to take some share is offer the SAME "thing" for lower prices. Apple makes lots of things that they sell in their own stores and other stores. Other stores compete with price. See the "Weekly deals" posted to this website every week and check sale prices vs. Apple Store pricing. If price is cut "to the bone", competition can compete with other tactics that add value. For example, where X Apple product must be priced exactly the same wherever it is sold, competitors may throw some bonus stuff in to make their same price more appealing. Competition thinks of such things if competition is able to compete. In a "Company Store" model, there is no direct competition, so no point in innovating if one can't actually sell (too).

I think even the smallest developers will be just fine. It's EASY to sell things online. Do a search and you can find stuff for sale as low as pennies. Those small transactions are not offered to lose the seller money. Pricing goes as low as necessary to still generate a profit. Competition drives that pricing low. Where there's no competition, there's no reason for pricing to go lower. That's just cutting one's own profitability throat if that one has complete control of a market/"company store".

Your examples are valid in isolation of a sole app transaction only. As I understand it, much of the catalyst behind the EU law was driven by revenue AFTER the app is sold/installed... such as ongoing fees being also "forced" to be subject to Apple's "first in line"/"right off the top" approach. For instance, I recall many articles offering up dating sites as wanting Apple OUT of the ongoing-revenue equation (Apple can take their big cut of an app sale, but they are not fulfilling the ongoing service AFTER the sale, so why do they need 15%-30% of that too?). And, of course, far more than dating sites have ongoing models. All that total app revenue is not 99-cent one-time purchase transactions.

Lastly, consumers always benefit from lower prices when lower prices buy the exact same thing. If you ever shop around for anything to get it at a lower price (and without knowing you at all, I can almost guarantee that you do, because that is a fundamental behavior of all "buyers"), you benefited by being able to do so and saving some money on the exact same product or service. The money you save courtesy of that fundamental consumer power can then buy you MORE of something else. We all do it... we all shop around... for all kinds of stuff as often as every day. The consumer end of the game is to get as much for our money as we can and shopping around competition facilitates that vs.- say- universal "company store" models where an AT&T alone controls phone service prices, Microsoft alone controls browsers, Standard Oil sets oil prices, Delta airlines has a complete lock on airfares, etc. Take a moment and recast the "WHO?" in this situation and then ask ourselves if we would be as passionately against this action if it was Samsung or Google or Microsoft or Netflix or AT&T, etc on the other end of this law?

All that offered though, it doesn't matter. This is done. EU laws are in place nearly 6 months. A very big, very obvious test cell is in place for almost half a year to prove or disprove all beliefs about this issue. Apple IS complying. EU people CAN buy apps from other places, pay for things beyond the app sale in other ways, etc. The wall of how this is terrible, won't work, will destroy via security problems, etc should be readily showing itself by now if there is anything to all of that. I've not seen even ONE story about EU Grandmas bank account being emptied because of this. Best I know, the EU is still there and not some burnt husk from the total devastation so many spun that this would certainly bring. I just don't think the criminals in the syndicate that were so absolutely going to exploit this massive vulnerability would wait... and continue to wait... to "harvest" even one bit of money, etc.

Where's the "WOLF! WOLF!" Show me some real wolf and I'll buy more of what is spun about this. All I've seen in the first 6 months the law being implemented is no negative consequences for EU Apple people... VS. a mass wall of NON-EU people faulting this law like it is end of the world... which is hilarious in that seemingly the loudest of them are not even subject to the law... because they don't live within the EU.

why why why do we keep hearing how bad 15-30% cut is?

plenty of App devs have stated its great value for them. the small devs dont have to worry about so many things they used to worry about. back when in store shelf items returned as little as 10% to devs by the time all the middle men got their cut. along with a whole host of other costs and time delays.

how well are those EU alt app stores doing? raking it in?

TechCrunch a few days ago wrote this:

"AltStore, an alternative app store, has launched its first batch of third-party iOS apps in the European Union. The rollout comes a few months after the company launched an updated version of its app marketplace in the EU. AltStore PAL arrived as a response to the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which is forcing Apple to open up to new rivals.


The initial batch includes torrenting app iTorrent, which allows users to download P2P (peer-to-peer) files, along with a qBittorrent remote client for iOS devices called qBitControl. The list also includes social discovery platform PeopleDrop, which is designed to help people connect with others nearby.

There’s also UTM SE, an emulator app that allows you to run classic software and old-school games. Unlike the other apps in this first batch, UTM SE is also available on the official iOS App Store, whereas the other three were created specifically for the alternative.

AltStore says it has independently vetted these initial apps to ensure that they meet its safety standards. Users can access them by adding them from the “Sources” screen. After that, they will appear in the “Browse” tab. "

Like wow, torrent stuff. Yeah, I'd really want to be chewing my mobile data on P2P files... nor do I want to connect to people nearby. LOL. What's that good for? Locating where you pick up your drugs? The emulator is also in the Apple AppStore. So unless you like the interface for AltStore better... mind you, with only 4 apps in there is does make app discovery a lot easier

AltStore PAL is E1.50 to cover Apple fees. So they arent making money getting the app store app installed and their pitch page doesnt show much detail about what your access payment gets you...

Epic doing Epic sales in their store?
The amount of bad press and ill will they've generated over their whole game playing hasnt endeared them to many gamers.

It will be interesting to see any reported revenue from these stores.

A few companies might try their own store.
And when sales and costs to run the store and advertise it and all the other bits that make up business costs pile up, how many are going to away or go broke? Then what happens to the apps you bought? No updates? No free move to another store? All the same arguments we hear about why it is evil for Apple to lock you into their store. Except the Apple AppStore is going to be around as it is core to their business...

 

[jlc1978]

Other stores compete with price. See the "Weekly deals" posted to this website every week and check sale prices vs. Apple Store pricing.

Most companies that run their own store front sell at the list price so as not to upset the stores they also sell through. All those stores would stop selling Apple products if Apple undercut them in price. Even so, Apple stores revenue per sq meter is one those company CEO's would sell their family for.

I think even the smallest developers will be just fine. It's EASY to sell things online. Do a search and you can find stuff for sale as low as pennies.

Which is generally mass produced Chinese stuff sold via Ali Express, where the cost to make them in bulk is even less and production is spread over hundreds of sellers.

I've already pointed out a simple payment processor could take up a signifant percentage of an app's price; in some cases more than Apple's markup.

I agree they will be fine, and most will stay with Apple and their 15% cut because that will be the best deal for them. Only ones Apple won't carry their app will have to go elsewhere; and with 3rd party stores they have no reason to complain if Apple refuses to host their app.

The real danger to small developers is if Apple changes fee structures and raises their upfront costs so no they have more capital at risk than the developer fee and a Mac. I also think it remains to b seen what happens to app piracy with sideloading. Depending on how it is implemented, if you can simply load an ipa and it works, I suspect developers of popular apps will see a jump in piracy and need to find ways to combat it, such as subscriptions, key codes, etc.; all of which adds to their costs or makes users, in the case of a subscription, forgo purchases.

Lastly, consumers always benefit from lower prices when lower prices buy the exact same thing.

True, but I'm not convinced the EU rule will result in lower pricees but rather companies that can afford to do it on their own will simply pocket the extra cash. Do you really think Spotify will all of a sudden charge less? Or Epic? Netflix? Those are the higher cost to user apps where lower prices would benefit the user.

I'm not opposed to what the EU is doing, just don't think it will be all rainbows and ponies for the user or developers; the big companies are the ones that will benefit.

As a side note, has the EU outlawed the idea of a richtpreis and established teh MAP as was proposed/ Booth of those are highly anti-competive and anti-consumer.

Has Spotify made a real profit yet after being able to use their own in-app-payment method instead of the app being free from Apple and the user had to subscribe outside? (how arduous indeed when millions were doing it LOL)

Spotify is in a slow death spiral and absent EU help will fade away. They, unlike Apple, convinced users they should have free access to music while adds made them money (and they paid artists crap) and are discovering people like free and unless adds generate revenue companies won't buy them. Companies have seemed to figured out that much Internet advertising isn't worth the costs.

why why why do we keep hearing how bad 15-30% cut is?

Because many people have never run a business or developed software; they just see taht Apple makes a ton of money and thinks it should run the App Store as a charity.

plenty of App devs have stated its great value for them. the small devs dont have to worry about so many things they used to worry about. back when in store shelf items returned as little as 10% to devs by the time all the middle men got their cut. along with a whole host of other costs and time delays.

Most people were never around in the days when developers had to upfront a lot of cash to buy an IDE, pay to print, duplicate, store and ship their software, advertise in computer magazines, provide free review copies, etc. The hope they can get a distributor at some point and pay them a cut and even then they may only be a few shelves tucked away amongst tons of other titles. Then there were returns for which they reimbursed the cost and the ever evolving bit copiers. In the end, they were lucky to make 30% of the sales price.

Except the Apple AppStore is going to be around as it is core to their business...

and it is a good deal for many developers. Look at Pixelmator. They could easily sell their great phot editing app on tehir website, but chose to do it through teh App Store and probabaly pay 30% not 15% due to its success. I suspect they do so because they find that a better option than running a store and development shop; and suspect many developers will fee the same way.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

why why why do we keep hearing how bad 15-30% cut is?

It's not bad. It's what Apple wants to make.

The bad part is no competition to then seek whatever cut that others may want to make. If 15%-30% is as small as possible for profitability, competition will just charge the same and there will be no competition. However, if there is room below 15%-30%, competition may charge less to make less than 15%-30% and use lower pricing to take some market share. If customers want to spend less to buy the exact same thing, they will enjoy the freedom to do that.

And if Apple doesn't want to lose that market share, they will feel some competitive pressure to match lower pricing so that the customer has no reason to buy elsewhere... exactly as it works in the vast world of retail now, where retailers compete for customer business and it mostly "just works" fine for all involved.

The real question is why do some of us who probably DO NOT work for Apple feel compelled to defend a classic "company store" arrangement even at our own expense (as consumers)? And if we can perfectly justify it for ourselves, why do we want the rest of the world subjected to the same when- obviously- there are other consumers in the world who feel differently about this topic?

If YOU do not live within the EU, this law does not affect you in the least. You still have the very same store with the very same Apple rules governing how you can buy apps, etc. If you are within the EU, your say is as good as anyone else's... but others within the EU may feel differently and their say is as good as yours.

I do NOT live within the EU but I can appreciate a law that is likely to lead to eroded profit margin on App Store business. Why? Because how it is eroded most obviously is competitor driven price cuts. As a consumer, I want more for my money than wanting any given seller to maximize their profit. However, I can't get it yet because this law doesn't apply to my location. I can simply appreciate other Apple's people's greater freedom to enjoy the benefits competition always brings.

plenty of App devs have stated its great value for them. the small devs dont have to worry about so many things they used to worry about. back when in store shelf items returned as little as 10% to devs by the time all the middle men got their cut. along with a whole host of other costs and time delays.

This law doesn't kill the Apple App Store. All of those happy devs, happily paying Apple 15%-30% first cuts of their app sales can keep right on doing exactly what they are doing, exactly how they've been doing it... enjoying all of that "great value" and happiness as they always have.

OTHER devs no so happy with Apple taking 15%-30% right off the top FIRST have some other options. Good for them too.

Both the happy devs and the unhappy devs can enjoy more ways to reach, sell and serve their app buyers & users. Those wanting no change at all in how they sell their app do not have to change at all.

how well are those EU alt app stores doing? raking it in?

I don't know. It doesn't matter. I don't care any more about how much they rake in or not rake in because I'm a CONSUMER of products... not working for the SELLER of products. What I do care about as a consumer is competition... because tangible competition always leads to better pricing and better value propositions. No competition never works well for consumers... but it does allow sellers with a 100% lock on any such situation to get very, very rich. Those able to exploit such situations don't do ANYTHING for me as consumer. My "job" in the buy:sell equation is to seek a very best buy for me... not maximize the sell side for the seller.

TechCrunch a few days ago wrote this:

"AltStore, an alternative app store, has launched its first batch of third-party iOS apps in the European Union. The rollout comes a few months after the company launched an updated version of its app marketplace in the EU. AltStore PAL arrived as a response to the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which is forcing Apple to open up to new rivals.


The initial batch includes torrenting app iTorrent, which allows users to download P2P (peer-to-peer) files, along with a qBittorrent remote client for iOS devices called qBitControl. The list also includes social discovery platform PeopleDrop, which is designed to help people connect with others nearby.

There’s also UTM SE, an emulator app that allows you to run classic software and old-school games. Unlike the other apps in this first batch, UTM SE is also available on the official iOS App Store, whereas the other three were created specifically for the alternative.

AltStore says it has independently vetted these initial apps to ensure that they meet its safety standards. Users can access them by adding them from the “Sources” screen. After that, they will appear in the “Browse” tab. "

Like wow, torrent stuff. Yeah, I'd really want to be chewing my mobile data on P2P files... nor do I want to connect to people nearby. LOL. What's that good for? Locating where you pick up your drugs? The emulator is also in the Apple AppStore. So unless you like the interface for AltStore better... mind you, with only 4 apps in there is does make app discovery a lot easier

AltStore PAL is E1.50 to cover Apple fees. So they arent making money getting the app store app installed and their pitch page doesnt show much detail about what your access payment gets you...

Epic doing Epic sales in their store?
The amount of bad press and ill will they've generated over their whole game playing hasnt endeared them to many gamers.

It will be interesting to see any reported revenue from these stores.

All this reads like you only care about the SELLER side of the equation. Why do you care how much any App Store is making? If you work for any of them- including Apple's- then yes, that's your job to care. However, if you only a consumer- as I am- you might want to take a better look through consumer lenses. We consumers should not care much at all about maximizing profit or market share for those who sell things to us. Instead, our part of the capitalism bargain is to get as much as we can get for our money. There's no way to do that well in any lone "Company Store" arrangement. Whatever the company store wants for something we want to buy is the price we have to pay... or do without.

Perhaps it's brand bias? Change the player. If this wasn't Apple, would you passionately defend maximizing for the seller over the consumer change? If your local grocery decided eggs should be priced at $30/carton or your local gas station decided to price gas at $20/gallon, they would certainly be maximizing profit on those eggs or gas transactions. Do you just pay up because what's important is paying whatever a store wants? OR do you perhaps go shop for eggs and gas somewhere else, buy the exact same product for less and happily preserve the difference to put towards other things you want to buy? I don't know you at all but I know the answer to that question.

Why is this different? Well, because it's Apple and Apple doesn't want competition... so some of us don't want competition for Apple. Apparently, Apple is not rich enough and our job above being consumers is to swallow any for-profit spin Apple offers and then evangelize it to others like we somehow greatly benefit by a SINGLE "company store" model where one entity controls what software we can buy, install and even what prices we pay if we want that software.

As that same company offered for a long time: "Think different!" If Apple's store is best is every way, a thousand other stores won't be able to lure any customers away. If Apple's pricing is as good as it can be, other stores won't be able to charge less to lure customers away. Etc. However, when a company store is doing everything it can to protect its company store model, even it is acknowledging what will happen when competition is allowed to compete.

A few companies might try their own store.
And when sales and costs to run the store and advertise it and all the other bits that make up business costs pile up, how many are going to away or go broke?

That's their business, not yours or mine.

If it was me, I'd absolutely make my apps available for direct purchase on my own website in hopes of getting some sales direct and getting to pocket up to that same 15%-30% that Apple would take if sold on the App Store.

However, I would also leave my app in the App Store too because the whole world is long-term programmed to go to the App Store when hunting for apps and I wouldn't want to lose those less-profitable (for me) sales either.

And if some other stores open where I can profitably distribute my app too, I want to be in them as well. Why? Because I want my offerings to be everywhere anyone might be shopping for my kind of apps.

If I want to go buy Levi Jeans, I'm not limited to only getting them form a Levi's store. Levi's also has them in all kinds of retailers, online and off. If I want to buy a Coca Cola, I'm not limited to only a Coca Cola single store but can basically get that product just about anywhere... because Coca Cola would rather cut in all kinds of stores to make some money than maximize their profit for each soda sold by selling them only on their own store. Etc. EVERYTHING works like that.

You seem to believe or are just spinning this idea that the law closes the App Store. It does not. It also doesn't force apps out of the store unless the creator- and thus OWNER- of that app wishes to pull it from that store. It does allow the creators of apps to sell their apps direct- just like many of them already do with their Mac apps- and customers can opt to buy direct instead of only buy through the App Store... but those customers- apparently like you- who ONLY want to buy apps through the App Store are not blocked from doing so.

The App Store will still be there for anyone wanting to use it. If Apple wants to NOT compete and leave their cut right off the top, first in line at 15%-30%, they are free to keep it right there. If others will settle for less than that cut, they will likely be able to offer the exact same apps for a lower price. And as consumers, we can do what we do in just about every other kind of purchase we make: shop around and pay more or less as we please... an option we do NOT have now because it is a lone, "Company Store" arrangement.

Then what happens to the apps you bought? No updates? No free move to another store? All the same arguments we hear about why it is evil for Apple to lock you into their store. Except the Apple AppStore is going to be around as it is core to their business...

What happens when we buy Mac Apps direct from their creators instead of the Mac App store? Do we get updates? I do. Are we free to move to another store? I am. Am I "locked in" with that developer? Eye of the beholder. They are the maker of the app. If I want the app, no matter where I get it, I'm "locked in" if I want to use that app.

However, if buying somewhere else disappoints me- as many of us have experienced when shopping around-finding lowest price- buying and then discovering some "burn"- I learn to NOT buy from there again... as we do in all things where better pricing didn't prove out to be a better deal.

Since this bothers you so much, don't change a thing. And if you- like me- don't live within the EU, you can't even change anything if you wanted to, as this law doesn't alter anything for you (or me). Instead, Apple is still OUR only store and Apple gets to decide for us what Apps we can and cannot install on Apple devices we own (and they no longer own).

 

[I7guy]

Because people want the overall benefits of iDevices- of which there are MANY beyond only where one buys apps and makes in-app purchases- AND the superior freedom to be able to shop around for apps. Shopping around for ANYTHING usually leads to lower prices of whatever is being shopped.

This is a gross generalization. I would agree if you are shopping for planters peanuts. But try shopping for a new Ferrari from an authorized dealer and see how much the needle moves. Note you said anything (in caps)

See Apple pricing of their own things and compare to prices on Amazon, Best Buy, etc. It's exactly the same product but one can save some money by being able to shop around and finding a better/best price for it.

Apple is not discounting their product the seller is. this is quite opposite of an App Store as an app is not “distributed” like physical merch. So your analogy is off base.

Competition drives DOWN prices if competition is in place. A lone Company Store always exploits being the only store in town... and the owner of such a complete lock on what it can sell always gets very rich when shoppers can NOT shop around. This is a story as old as time and it's always the same story.

Again, this is a generalization meant to lead up to a conclusion based solidly on opinion.

Closer to home: Mac. Apple runs a Mac App Store too. However, Mac is already set up with these basic freedoms for customers on a global scale. If you look in Applications and have even ONE app you got direct from the creator of that App, or from some third party store (tax software anyone?), or in one of those "10 apps for a $1" bundle offerings, etc... you've very likely taken advantage of the better value available to add 1+ apps to your Mac by NOT limiting your app shopping to only the Mac App Store. I have several great apps that I did not buy from the Mac App Store. Some came from one of those bargain priced bundles. I've never even seen one of the bundle-type offers for iDevices? Why? Because there's no such competition for a lone "Company Store" able to offer them.

Macs an iPhones are two different schools of thought. I would have thought this would be obvious after thousand of posts on this matter.

The "a lot of people" doesn't even really fit. It appears that many of us passionately arguing for or against this EU law are people NOT in the EU... including myself. I can only envy their greater Mac-owner-like freedoms with their iDevices. Where I live- ironically nicknamed the "land of the free" and the "cradle of capitalism" etc- I am limited to getting my apps from only the lone company store and if "Daddy" decides to kick any apps out of that store, I can't opt to add them to this little computer I OWN (that no longer belongs to Daddy anymore after I buy it)... and should Daddy decide to up pricing across the board to ANY LEVEL, I don't have any choices if I want Apps for these Apple mobile computers I own... because that's how it ALWAYS goes with a lone "Company Store." One seller with no competition can charge any price. Consumers in that situation have 2 choices: pay up for that "any price" or say "NO" and do without. There's no other option... unlike with the vast majority of all other things for sale.

Some misplaces analogies.

Could someone switch to Android? Sure, but that comes with losing countless other benefits that have nothing to do with store, in app purchases, etc. The fact that Android phones exist doesn't resolve this problem for people who want their Apple cake and want to eat it too... like Android owners... without having to embrace Android. Again, see Mac. With robust competition for Mac apps, the only alt choice is not to switch to Windows. All of us everywhere can have our Mac app cake and eat it too and it all works just fine.

Again, how any of us feel about this is practically moot at this point. The law is in place (nearly 6 months now). Apple is mostly complying with it... and will be moved to fully comply with both the letter and spirit of it eventually (because that's how all such scenarios always go once the might of GOVs take on this issue). All the writing in the world in threads pro or con won't put this Pandora back in the jar. All we have to do now is simply stand by and watch & learn.

The law is in place in the EU and in my opinion it is not a slam dunk for the DOJ. That doesn’t mean it’s a good law or will do what people think it will do, like drive prices down for consumers — so devs go bankrupt.

Will these laws lead to the EU being destroyed by the absolutely certain virus/trojans/plagues/pestilence/doom/crime so many have slung about this for the last year+? TBD but coming up on 6 months now

Very possible.

, I've not even seen ONE such story so far. Apparently EU criminals are very patient in executing their nefarious plans such as emptying those bank accounts.

Crime doesn’t happen in a day and it takes time for criminals to ramp up.

Will Apple be destroyed by complying with law? Apple continues to regularly be competing for "richest company in the world" and will still be doing so even if the whole planet presses and enforces this kind of law.

totally misses the point.

Will all of us be doomed by EU laws if we don't live in the EU? Business as usual for the rest of the planet. One App Store for the rest of us. Daddy gets to decide what software we can and can't have and if we want any of the "can have" we pay whatever price is asked... because we can't shop even one other source for the very same app.

Will Apple friends within the EU be destroyed by these laws? TBD... but not even ONE case of any such thing so far... after nearly 6 months.

In summary: nothing to see here. Move on (much like the EU law "force" from lightning to USB-C was also a certain disaster for all turned out to be one big nothing burger too. I still have lint in my pockets. My port is not wobbly. My USB tongue is not broken. I've rarely seen any posts at all about anyone suffering with the doom of USB-C. I presume nobody bought the USB-C iPhone given the absolute certainty of how terrible that "forced" change would be for all of us. Or perhaps they are bogged down under a huge pile of broken USB-C tongues and can't report? It can't be the extinct pocket lint!

There is plenty to see. It’s called government micromanagement. I’m sure you are in favor of every single law on the books. You are happy with the taxes you are paying and wish the government could enact legislation to tax you more.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Most companies that run their own store front sell at the list price so as not to upset the stores they also sell through. All those stores would stop selling Apple products if Apple undercut them in price. Even so, Apple stores revenue per sq meter is one those company CEO's would sell their family for.

I don't know where you live. I live in America. In my vast experience buying all kinds of things, while LIST is often a price, stores have sales. Friends of mine just picked up new Sonos tech in the Father's Day sale they just offered. Many speakers were below "list." Amazon just sold millions of other companies products below list on Prime Day(s). Every week on this site, somebody has Apple products- often many of them- either discounted off list or bundled with some added value to try to woo a buyer to buy Apple stuff from them instead of direct from Apple. Apple themselves right now are offering Apple tech at LIST with an added value push of Apple gift cards.

Name about any item sold in many places. Then hop in Google Shopping and search for it and you'll be likely to find some better prices from someone(s) for that very thing. If you come up with something where the price is the same everywhere, give it a week or three and try again and tadah! Special price.

Apples stores revenue per square meter is dazzling, contributing to what makes them richest company in the world. But this law is not about closing their stores... or their App Store... only encouraging more competition for the latter... which for most of us is the ONE & ONLY store.

If Apple decided to bump all pricing in that store by $100, we have nowhere else to turn because they have a "Company Store" setup. If we want new apps on our iDevices, we would have to pay at least $100 for what was free apps, $100.99 for what was 99 cent apps, etc. No competition invites any such scenario. No competition offers no policing of any such for-profit decision making.

However, establish lots of alternative stores and that policies such potential choices. And competition drives prices DOWN.

Which is generally mass produced Chinese stuff sold via Ali Express, where the cost to make them in bulk is even less and production is spread over hundreds of sellers.

I've already pointed out a simple payment processor could take up a signifant percentage of an app's price; in some cases more than Apple's markup.

Among many other things, I help small businesses set up business, often to sell intangible digital offerings (no shipping) through websites and at least all I've ever helped set up have never been "expensive." Perhaps you are somewhere where there is great exploitation of B2B options. From my spot here in America, it's dirt cheap to set up payment processors and sell & fulfill intangible digital offerings.

Sorry if where you live it's like that. If you have the ability to "shop around"- that is, you are not forced to buy from only one source of payment processing- there is abundant competition and pricing can be quite small. Even a relatively expensive player like Square can run transactions for about 3% of the price charged for whatever is being sold.

I agree they will be fine, and most will stay with Apple and their 15% cut because that will be the best deal for them. Only ones Apple won't carry their app will have to go elsewhere; and with 3rd party stores they have no reason to complain if Apple refuses to host their app.

Yes.

The real danger to small developers is if Apple changes fee structures and raises their upfront costs so no they have more capital at risk than the developer fee and a Mac.

That would be Apple being a bad partner though... basically exploiting their great position of power... which is fundamental to why GOVs need to get involved and foster competition when all other routes can no longer do it naturally.

I also think it remains to b seen what happens to app piracy with sideloading. Depending on how it is implemented, if you can simply load an ipa and it works, I suspect developers of popular apps will see a jump in piracy and need to find ways to combat it, such as subscriptions, key codes, etc.; all of which adds to their costs or makes users, in the case of a subscription, forgo purchases.

Yes... but apparently those most passionately arguing on BEHALF of this law have probably considered the cost:benefit of getting what they want... and want it anyway.

And again, as I understand it, this is not entirely about the one-time app transactions but the trail of transactions that often follow to make maximum use of some apps. As you offered in the prior thread, many apps are "free" so there's no profit in them at 30% or 3% cuts. But then comes the in-app purchases and the subscriptions, etc. where there is abundant opportunity and where piracy is more challenged.

True, but I'm not convinced the EU rule will result in lower pricees but rather companies that can afford to do it on their own will simply pocket the extra cash.

Maybe. If so, THEY made the app. Why shouldn't they enjoy some additional profit on it? Change the brand here. If it was someone else- not Apple- would we feel exactly the same about this? Who should be FIRST in line at the money trough? The creator of the product or the retailer?

If they pocket the extra cash from those who may choose to buy direct from them, good for them. Maybe it will help them grow their businesses and make more wonderful apps people want to buy and use.

Apple pocketed big fat cash in the sale of the hardware and will continue to likely make the bulk of all app sales and after-app sales too because most people are accustomed to buying apps only that one way from only that one place and/or are scared into considering any other channel.

Personally, I don't care so much if any particular app costs less or not... only the potential for it to cost less. As is now, there is NO potential because there is no competition for most of us. That said though, history is awash with examples of Company Stores eventually getting competitors... and prices always go down with competition. I can't think of a single historical Company Store lock on any market where competition was facilitated and prices stayed the same or went up with more entities competing for the same dollars. Perhaps you can think of one in all of history and teach me something new?

Do you really think Spotify will all of a sudden charge less? Or Epic? Netflix? Those are the higher cost to user apps where lower prices would benefit the user.

That's none of my or your business. Maybe they will or maybe they won't. But the opportunity will be there for positive benefits for consumers where there is none now.

And in the Epic reference, while there is a mass wall of hate for them because of Apple love, if I happened to be an iDevice person who wanted an Epic game on MY device, this will allow me to CHOOSE what software I can install on MY device instead of "Daddy" deciding for me. Whether it costs the same or less or more, I would gain additional software that I can install and enjoy if I choose vs. a company deciding for all of us what we can and cannot install on a computing device we bought from them.

I and many of us enjoy that very same flexibility with our Macs. I do not see it any differently with iDevices. When I want a new app for my Mac, I check the Mac App Store, I check the developer website and I shop around anywhere else I can get that app. Often, somewhere has the better price. The product is EXACTLY the same from wherever I get it. So I get the very same benefit of buying that app for less as anyone who paid more for it buy from only the ONE store.

I can fully respect how someone else would rather preserve the "as is." So within that example, they can get the same app from the Mac App Store. And if it is priced higher there, they pay more for it and get what they want too. No consumer loses either way. With competition one has more options to seek whatever they want in whatever way they deem best for themselves. In "company store" philosophy, the seller gets to decide many such things for all buyers. One of those is quite self serving for one player. The other offers at least the potential of benefit for everyone. Even those who would only get their Mac app from the Mac App Store could benefit before Apple could opt to lower their cut to lower prices to compete with other sources taking share from them because of price. NO WAY AT ALL for that to occur now in the iOS App Store because there is NO competition in most of the world.

I'm not opposed to what the EU is doing, just don't think it will be all rainbows and ponies for the user or developers; the big companies are the ones that will benefit.

It probably won't. Change always brings challenges. And yes, the big companies are the ones likely to make out the best with the added freedoms. However, the biggest company among them is the one who may feel a little pain when some smaller companies (but still your "the bigger ones") take some actions along these lines. At that level, it's not really about us: it's about the dominant player and some whopper but not as dominant players. And as they wage some retailing battles to try to take some share from the dominant one, our (us consumers) benefit will be in the competition among them to woo share, they often resort to better pricing to do it.

As a side note, has the EU outlawed the idea of a richtpreis and established teh MAP as was proposed/ Booth of those are highly anti-competive and anti-consumer.

I don't know.

Spotify is in a slow death spiral and absent EU help will fade away. They, unlike Apple, convinced users they should have free access to music while adds made them money (and they paid artists crap)

Maybe, and Apple pays the artists crap too. In that implication, Spotify was running a suicide model while losing money by paying artists crap and Apple is running a very profitable model by not paying the artists more than crap. I don't know which is better for consumers. Should Spotify actually die, their customers can easily switch to another music service with little harm done to them. In the meantime, if Spotify serves up the same music for LESS than Apple, consumers benefit by getting the same product for less.

IMO the artists deserve "MORE"... but I won't cast Spotify as the sole villain and Apple as the hero. Both pay the artists nearly nothing while greatly profiting on the artists creations.

and are discovering people like free and unless adds generate revenue companies won't buy them. Companies have seemed to figured out that much Internet advertising isn't worth the costs.

Yes. IMO, advertising-dependent models are NOT the way unless you are near the top of the advertising revenue pyramids taking the lions share of each sale... much like Apple is taking the lions share of each app transaction by being first in line and taking 15%-30% right off the top. Many companies would love to make 15%-30% of Gross Revenues and can't. Apple gets to take it from the sale of somebody else's creations.

Because many people have never run a business or developed software; they just see taht Apple makes a ton of money and thinks it should run the App Store as a charity.

Nope. This is just slung by people who see this only one way: maximize for Apple because they deserve every nickel. Hopefully such people send ever possible nickel from their net pay each week or so to Apple as a charitable donation because Apple deserves it... ALL of it.

The level headed among us- which sometimes feels like it might be only about 20 or 50 people around here- seem to readily acknowledge the value of the App Store, infrastructure, etc. If I don't seem to do that, let me be clear: I FULLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE VALUE OF THE APP STORE. Some- also myself included- just don't think that 15%-30% is required for Apple to still rake in a healthy profit while still covering their costs of all of that. Introducing competition will show what it should cost to host, serve up, sell & maintain apps. Competition will either prove that 15%-30% is required because that's just what it takes to NOT be a charity OR Apple will lose share of customers finding others who can sell the same products to them for less, making a healthy (but not 15-30% profit) and then maintain that business.

Conceptually, since Apple has MANY revenue streams and are fantastically profitable in many ways, they could crush all competition in price competition. Any small upstart stores have no way to undercut Apple pricing if Apple opted to flex their great dominance. Yet still, I suspect better pricing will come from competition because Apple will opt to maximize profit even at the cost of share (which is why Macs and iDevices don't own majority shares).

Obviously, I believe that competition will result in lower prices... which means I believe there is healthy business profit at lower prices... which means I fall into the assumption that 15%-30% is too high. But that guess is as good as any- and only a guess- and it can be proved out or refuted by creating competition for App Store sales and seeing where the market goes. To take the other extreme, perhaps Apple has been operating "like a charity" this entire time by charging ONLY 15%-30%? If so, there will be nothing for competitors to offer to take share and survive.

This law and the passage of time will clarify whatever is reality. We can simply stand by and see what happens... especially those of us with passionate opinions OUTSIDE of the EU who can only be observers because nothing is different for us.

Most people were never around in the days when developers had to upfront a lot of cash to buy an IDE, pay to print, duplicate, store and ship their software, advertise in computer magazines, provide free review copies, etc. The hope they can get a distributor at some point and pay them a cut and even then they may only be a few shelves tucked away amongst tons of other titles. Then there were returns for which they reimbursed the cost and the ever evolving bit copiers. In the end, they were lucky to make 30% of the sales price.

Yes, but the debt for the App Store streamlining all of that has likely been paid hundreds and hundreds of times over. Apple is richest company in the world. How much higher does that price need to rise to repay them for the much better way vs. those days decades ago?

It's a different world now. It's dirt cheap and easy to put a piece of software on ones own site, sell it there and they download it. However, Apple is still charging the same commission they were charging when they "resolved" a lot of those burdens all those years ago. They need to evolve with the times and, unfortunately, they clung to that past (and easy money) for so long, GOVs have had to get involved to force an evolution.

and it is a good deal for many developers. Look at Pixelmator. They could easily sell their great phot editing app on tehir website, but chose to do it through teh App Store and probabaly pay 30% not 15% due to its success. I suspect they do so because they find that a better option than running a store and development shop; and suspect many developers will fee the same way.

I love Pixelmator. I bet if we could freely chat with their owners and they could freely speak, they would say they feel like they have very thoroughly paid Apple for App Store hosting, sales & fulfillment many times over and would like to pay LESS than 30% for that since they could opt to "go direct" (too) and keep a big slice of that 30% for themselves for anyone opting to buy direct (as I would myself).

The App Store has been a fantastic thing for many developers. But the debt of the value received should not be forever owed. Else, where's the ongoing fat cuts to G.E. for the lightbulb and Ford/Merc for the automobile, etc? The world has changed.

Lastly, this law doesn't close the store, nor force any developer to exit the store, etc. So anyone like Pixelmator who remains perfectly happy with the "as is" can stick with the "as is." The law simply makes those not as happy with the "as is" have other options too.

If it was me, I'd keep all of my apps in the App Store AND I'd offer them on my own website AND I'd offer them through any other website likely to chip in some profitable revenue too. Why? Because while I'd likely maximize profit on each direct sale, I'll make more total profit by being EVERYWHERE app buyers want to find and buy apps. The dominant dog will very likely continue to be the App Store for wayyyyyyyyy into the future so only business fools will yank their apps from that major distribution "hub" too, even if it will continue to let Apple take 15%-30% FIRST, right off the top.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

This is a gross generalization. I would agree if you are shopping for planters peanuts. But try shopping for a new Ferrari from an authorized dealer and see how much the needle moves. Note you said anything (in caps)

Sorry I can't see iDevices as Ferraris. I love mine very much but I know Ferrari and it is not Ferrari. There are abundant retail products in the world that cost similar to iDevices (Ferrari NOT being one of them) and those usually are sold in broad distribution channels where one can find better prices by shopping around for "it."

Apple is not discounting their product the seller is. this is quite opposite of an App Store as an app is not “distributed” like physical merch. So your analogy is off base.

That's fine. The point is about the POTENTIAL not what has existed so far. Competition polices such potentials. No competition allows the potential for bad consumer things. For (very tangible) example, we use to have competition for RAM & SSDs when Mac was Intel-based. Now if we want more of either, there is ONE source and they charge 3X-5X relative to market.

Intel-based Apple also tended to charge premiums back then (though I don't remember to this extreme) but competition meant one could buy base and then upgrade by shopping around. Now we can't. If you want a Mac and you need more RAM or SSD, you have to pay WHATEVER price the "company store" wants. Right now it's 3X-5X market but nothing at all stops that from becoming 5X-8X or 10X-15X because there are no other Mac options.

Again, this is a generalization meant to lead up to a conclusion based solidly on opinion.

Everything people write here are opinions... all biased to whatever that person believes. Even some "conclusion" is only the conclusion of the person writing. I just wrote that my conclusion is that RAM & SSD is far overpriced. Someone else could jump in and proclaim they are bargains because <reasons>. It's all opinions.

Macs an iPhones are two different schools of thought. I would have thought this would be obvious after thousand of posts on this matter.

That's just a standard defense argument. They are all computers running on variations of Apple silicon, running variations of what was OS X evolved into iOS and macOS branches. We can easily run iOS apps on Macs and if Apple was willing we could easily run macOS apps on iDevices (recall that the FIRST 'test" Mac Mini ran on iDevice chips, not M0.5.

What seems like 50,000 posts in old threads passionately defended the perfection of 3.5" and then 4" screens and ridiculed phablet-sized phones. Apparently all of those posts were wrong because I bet nearly all of those writers have a phablet in their pocket right now.

I could make more than a thousand posts that say something, but that would not necessarily make whatever it is true or obvious. See countless long-term conspiracy written about for years or decades with countless references on many websites. A friend of mine once proclaimed the old "Paul is Dead" thing. I challenged that and he went to the trouble of gathering up a lot of evidence to prove it. What convinced him? Lots of people had written the conspiracy... enough to make him believe it. Man, that Billy Shears was impressive to hop right into that spot and then crank out some of their biggest hits immediately thereafter.

Some misplaces analogies.

The law is in place in the EU and in my opinion it is not a slam dunk for the DOJ. That doesn’t mean it’s a good law or will do what people think it will do, like drive prices down for consumers — so devs go bankrupt.

I didn't even mention the DOJ.

I did mention that it may drive prices down. That won't necessarily bankrupt any devs if they are offering THEIR creation at a price lower than now by chipping a bit into the 15%-30% Apple takes FIRST and right off the top. In actuality, the dev paying 30% could dramatically cut into the 30% Apple would otherwise take and MAKE MORE profit per app sold on direct sales (but make less overall revenue and probably profit if they also opted to yank it from the App Store, which I actually think will not be very common at all... certainly not something I would do myself).

History clearly shows what happens in Company Store models when competition is introduced. Generally prices are driven down, not by bankrupting the creators (and thus somehow taking more from their cut) but by eroding the Company Store fat cut. I don't know of any Company Store model where- after the introduction of competition- prices stayed the same or went higher. If you know of even one in all of history, enlighten me.

Crime doesn’t happen in a day and it takes time for criminals to ramp up.

OK. Nearly 6 months and counting. We can check in again at month 9 or 12 or 24. Based on the massive wall of seemingly certainty of how easy it was going to be for "evil crime syndicates" to drain EU bank accounts, I thought that would lead to massive stories over 6 months. It's hard to imagine such patient criminals working in tandem and resisting such easy money theft we were all told was coming.

All I can presume is the criminals are weighed down by all those USB-C repairs in their phones that we were also seemingly promised as almost a certainty when it came out that EU law was "forcing" the switch from Lightning to USB-C. That's had longer than 6 months and seems mostly an evaporated argument. Apparently USB-C was actually just fine... as this will turn out to be in a similar amount of time.

There is plenty to see. It’s called government micromanagement. I’m sure you are in favor of every single law on the books. You are happy with the taxes you are paying and wish the government could enact legislation to tax you more.

Nope, but as someone who lives in a capitalist society, I favor BOTH buyers & sellers having every tool to strike the fairest bargain between them. It is not the consumers job to maximize the profits for the seller and/or argue on behalf of doing anything possible to help the seller do that. And it is not the sellers job to do anything for the consumer.

Buyer has the money seller desperately wants. Seller has the stuff to try to woo the money from the Buyer. When the "balance" of the transaction is leaning too far in either direction, corrections are required. When the system itself is unable to drive the correction, GOVs tend to be last resort.

I'd rather it not have come to needing the GOV to get involved... but Apple basically did it to themselves. History shows that EVERY company that roars into the territory of "richest" must evolve their business practices away from purely "maximizing." Else, the great power that comes with "richest" makes them start making decisions that are not in the customers best interests and individual customers lose much power to correct such choices. That then motivates GOVs to step in and force the correction. This has played out MANY times before.

We can feel however we feel about this but it's already OVER. Once GOV gets involved in this kind of thing, CHANGE always follows. GOV is last resort to reel in things like this before they get completely out of hand. And it always goes the same way. Believe it or not... but time (not fan, non-fan or middling consumer opinions) will reveal all.

 

[jlc1978]

I don't know where you live. I live in America. In my vast experience buying all kinds of things, while LIST is often a price, stores have sales.

You missed my point:
The manufacturer of a product that also has a storefront will generally sell at the list price so as not to upset all the other competing stores that also sell its product. If Apple were undercut Best Buy, B&H, etc. those vendors would dump Apple and Apple would lose a significant percentage of revenue.

Even a relatively expensive player like Square can run transactions for about 3% of the price charged for whatever is being sold.

Last time I looked Square charged 2.9% + 30 cents per transaction, which for iOS software taht may sell for between 1 - 5 dollars is some 33 - 9 % of sales. They'd have to charge a bit more than 2$ just to match Apple's 15%; and that's before all their other costs with going it alone.

That would be Apple being a bad partner though... basically exploiting their great position of power... which is fundamental to why GOVs need to get involved and foster competition when all other routes can no longer do it naturally.

I disagree - Apple chose a model that allowed them to provide a lot of tools for free and a low cost way to get into the store. If the market changes due to government intervention, like in the EU, they need to rethink the business model if revenue suffers.

Maybe. If so, THEY made the app. Why shouldn't they enjoy some additional profit on it? Change the brand here. If it was someone else- not Apple- would we feel exactly the same about this? Who should be FIRST in line at the money trough? The creator of the product or the retailer?

It's not who should be first in line but who should be able to make a profit; it's a symbiotic relationship. If a product is unprofitable a retailer won't carry it, and you can have the greatest program in the world but if nobody sells it it is worthless.

That said though, history is awash with examples of Company Stores eventually getting competitors... and prices always go down with competition. I can't think of a single historical Company Store lock on any market where competition was facilitated and prices stayed the same or went up with more entities competing for the same dollars. Perhaps you can think of one in all of history and teach me something new?

People keep referring to the App Store as a company store when the two are very different. The App Store drove a race to the bottom and pricing of apps way below what people were used to in the PC world; unlike a ompany store that jacks up prices.

Apple forces no one to buy from them if they choose a different device. Apple is not the only choice; and just because someone likes Apple or dislikes Android doesn't mean they are forced to buy one or the other.

IMO the artists deserve "MORE"... but I won't cast Spotify as the sole villain and Apple as the hero.

I agree, which is why I didn't do that. Streaming is just the latest way to screw over artists; except unlike labels streaming services can't seem to find ways to make a profit.

much like Apple is taking the lions share of each app transaction by being first in line and taking 15%-30% right off the top.

Except they're fronting all the costs much like a consignment store and don't get their commission until the item is sold.

Nope. This is just slung by people who see this only one way: maximize for Apple because they deserve every nickel.

It's not a question of deserving but do sellers see teh value in being on teh App Store Given it's size and growth I'd say they said yes.

Some- also myself included- just don't think that 15%-30% is required for Apple to still rake in a healthy profit while still covering their costs of all of that. Introducing competition will show what it should cost to host, serve up, sell & maintain apps.

However, pricing is done on value, not covering costs. Apple is selling access to a large and lucrative customer base; and until a competitor can offer that there is no reason to change their pricing structure just beacuse the costs of running it are minimal in comparison to their commission.

Obviously, I believe that competition will result in lower prices... which means I believe there is healthy business profit at lower prices... which means I fall into the assumption that 15%-30% is too high. But that guess is as good as any- and only a guess- and it can be proved out or refuted by creating competition for App Store sales and seeing where the market goes. To take the other extreme, perhaps Apple has been operating "like a charity" this entire time by charging ONLY 15%-30%? If so, there will be nothing for competitors to offer to take share and survive.

Fair enough, I fall into the camp it will be hard for competing app stores to offer what Apple does at Apple's prices. They aren't likely to get the Spotifys and EPICs who bring in lots of revenue, they'll get at best smaller developers who won't generate the revenue needed to cover costs at 15%.

Look at Cydia - they charged 30% and said they didn't make a lot of profit.

I love Pixelmator. I bet if we could freely chat with their owners and they could freely speak, they would say they feel like they have very thoroughly paid Apple for App Store hosting, sales & fulfillment many times over and would like to pay LESS than 30% for that since they could opt to "go direct" (too) and keep a big slice of that 30% for themselves for anyone opting to buy direct (as I would myself).

You missed my point - they could go direct but chose to sell the Mac version on the App Store; which tells me they find it more attractive. Would they like to pay less? Sure, but if they thought going it alone was more profitable why haven't they?

If it was me, I'd keep all of my apps in the App Store AND I'd offer them on my own website AND I'd offer them through any other website likely to chip in some profitable revenue too.

Profitable revenue is important but you also have to look at the impact on sales. If you offer them cheaper on your web site than the Apple Store, unless your margin is higher you are losing a contribution to profit on each sale that is done on your store rather than on Apple's.

Let's say you have a product that sells for $1 and the total demand is 1000 units. You sell all on Apple and get a check for 850$. Unless your all in costs, including hosting, payment processing, bandwidth, advertising is less than 15% you've lost money; what you are hoping for is not to cannibalize your Apple sales but to add to them. However, as has been pointed out, price comparison is pretty easy and that, IMHO, is what likely will happen.

 

[surferfb]

If YOU do not live within the EU, this law does not affect you in the least.

I see this argument all the time, and it is false. Whether the negative impacts are worth it or not is up for debate, but the fact that there are negative impacts is not. New versions of iOS are literally going to be worse because of the DMA.

Apple is spending significant engineering resources to implement the DMA's requirements, and those resources would be better spent on new features or fixing bugs. We also don't know what bugs are security holes are going to be introduced making this work. And no, just because nothing has happened yet (or rather, nothing that we know about has happened yet) does not mean that nothing will ever happen or that iOS isn't less secure now.

There is also the concern that there are new features that won't be built because Apple decides it's not worth it to further fragment the OS and offer it only in some parts of the world and not others. Remember the EU only represents 7-8% of Apple's revenue, and they've already a lot of money to support the DMA only to be told "nope, try again." If a new feature is borderline worth it, Apple might just decide not to bother for anyone because it isn't worth the ROI to figure out how to build the OS to support it in some regions and not others. And, because we'll never know what we didn't get, we'll never be able to point to the DMA and say "told you so".

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You missed my point:
The manufacturer of a product that also has a storefront will generally sell at the list price so as not to upset all the other competing stores that also sell its product. If Apple were undercut Best Buy, B&H, etc. those vendors would dump Apple and Apple would lose a significant percentage of revenue.

That's not my experience. I offered specific examples including Sonos Father's Day sale which had product lower than some retailers for a few days. Is there risk of upsetting retailers by sometimes selling direct for less? YES. But I've seen enough of it to think of it as "normal."

Amazon and Best Buy, etc would not dump Apple for having short-term sales that undercut their prices. Instead, they either match Apple pricing or let the sale run, return to normal and resume their efforts to compete. If a sale runs for a while but not most of the time, there's plenty of time for the retailer to make money the rest of the year. I've seen this too... OFTEN.

Last time I looked Square charged 2.9% + 30 cents per transaction, which for iOS software taht may sell for between 1 - 5 dollars is some 33 - 9 % of sales. They'd have to charge a bit more than 2$ just to match Apple's 15%; and that's before all their other costs with going it alone.

You're just locked in on only the app transaction. Much of this law is about the transactions AFTER that one, not just ONE transaction. And Square was my "extreme" example, highest I could immediately think of to show that NO, transactional prices in even my own extreme example are not that high... but respecting that they may be wherever you are.

I disagree - Apple chose a model that allowed them to provide a lot of tools for free and a low cost way to get into the store. If the market changes due to government intervention, like in the EU, they need to rethink the business model if revenue suffers.

It's OK to disagree. I don't disagree with your first sentence there. Apple did offer many good tools way back when they created the App Store. And all app sellers have paid for everything they got from using any of them for every transaction since. I have to believe that the "debt" to Apple has been paid many times over.

Those who wish to keep using Apple tools, Apple Store, Apple transactional services, etc should continue paying whatever price Apple wants to charge. However, some don't want to keep paying so much in 2024 and feel like those long-ago-created tools, etc have been more than fully repaid.

It's not who should be first in line but who should be able to make a profit; it's a symbiotic relationship. If a product is unprofitable a retailer won't carry it, and you can have the greatest program in the world but if nobody sells it it is worthless.

I referenced FIRST IN LINE to clarify who takes first bite of the transaction and that it's a big one.. and that there can be a lot of money in 30% Gross right off the top of just about any transaction. In this discussion about more competition, my point is that there is likely room above 0% and below 30% for competitors to sell the very same app, still make a profit and the developer still get as compensated- if not more so- too. 30% is a BIG BITE. Even 15% can be a BIG BITE. Per that NYT article previously referenced, it makes Apple well over $2X BILLION/yr and growing.

There are abundant business- especially down at the developer level who would love to make a tiny sliver of what Apple takes. There's plenty of room in that huge pot for some competition to deliver the same to consumers for less money and everyone makes the same or more money. If Apple doesn't want to compete, they are not obligated by this law... they can just potentially lose some share as some choose to get their apps for less elsewhere... exactly as we all can- and many do- with Mac apps.

People keep referring to the App Store as a company store when the two are very different. The App Store drove a race to the bottom and pricing of apps way below what people were used to in the PC world; unlike a ompany store that jacks up prices.

I refer to it as "Company Store" and what I mean by that is that exclusive lock on being the only sellers of its offerings. Here's the classic example in detail. I consider the App Store a Global "Company Store" because we iDevice owners can only buy apps from it and only it... except, now our friends in the EU have more choices. The owner of this Company Store has all of the power, can arbitrarily kick any product out of it (thus deciding for us whether we can have or not have any specific app) and could- at any time- decide to alter pricing to anything it wants.

Historically, you are correct in that the old model generally had more expensive software and this model drove much cheaper software. But again, how long do we have to pay for that old "breakthrough." That's no longer some special advantage vs. the established way in 2024... as we'll be increasingly seeing as EU stores grow, as developers sell direct and competition starts motivating prices downward... as it always goes with "Company Stores" then facing actual competition.

Apple forces no one to buy from them if they choose a different device. Apple is not the only choice; and just because someone likes Apple or dislikes Android doesn't mean they are forced to buy one or the other.

Right, but if you want the MANY benefits of Apple technology, your ONLY choice of iDevices Apps is from the Apple "Company Store" (unless you are in the EU). The "just switch to..." arguments are weak because that involves substantial changes for the consumer already in the Apple ecosystem or similar.

And this competitive LOCK is not essential to that ecosystem as evidenced by Mac apps not being locked to only be sold in a Mac App store. This argument is typically counter to the accusation of "monopoly." Apple is not a monopoly but this particular arrangement is monopoly-like in it's complete hold on this particular market with no competition nor anyway to compete. I don't believe the law uses the M-word either. Instead, it is Gatekeeper... and it all revolves around CONTROL of a very sizable market all being held by a single entity... much like IE went back in the 1990s with Microsoft (also not a monopoly at the time) and long distance with AT&T (also not a technical monopoly) and many others before and since.

The ONE card that consumers hold that is the ULTIMATE card to play from the buy side is saying "NO." So you are right that any of us can say NO to iDevices and Android, etc. But the world we live in demands that we have these kinds of devices... many of us (here) think Apples versions are the best but only some of us believe that the "Company Store" lock is necessary- for whatever reason- while another group of us believe it is not.

The EU is likely to PROVE that is is not necessary and show the benefits of "breaking" a company store model there. I will look on from America where I'm subject to only the company store "as is" with envy for our Apple friends there having BOTH the Apple App Store and alternatives... and thus likely benefiting from traditional competition.

Except they're fronting all the costs much like a consignment store and don't get their commission until the item is sold.

They're "fronting" hosting, distribution and sales processing costs. The developer is "fronting" the costs of creating the apps and maintaining them.

This law will still have Apple doing the same and still have developer doing the same... but now developers THERE will have the ability to host, distribute and sell direct or through others too. And, because of that competition, consumers there will probably be able to find deals on apps they want for less than they cost in the ONE store the rest of us use. And good for them.

It's not a question of deserving but do sellers see teh value in being on teh App Store Given it's size and growth I'd say they said yes.

I agree. I suspect the who have made a lot of money in the App Store are enormously thankful for that... and they have backed that thanks with 15%-30% of every gross dollar they have collected for their creation(s) for however long they've been in there.

How much or how long does that "debt of thanks" need to be paid in 15%-30% cuts? You keep writing this. Is it an eternal debt?

I'm sure they are ALL VERY THANKFUL for the entire app revolution etc. And they've PAID for it in cash for up to many years.

Now in 2024, some finally have some other ways to host, distribute and sell their apps in one zone and will likely appreciate the added revenue & profit they can make on THEIR creations for direct sales or through other channels that charge less commission. I'm sure those will also be VERY THANKFUL to those other channels where they can make more for their creations.

However, pricing is done on value, not covering costs. Apple is selling access to a large and lucrative customer base; and until a competitor can offer that there is no reason to change their pricing structure just beacuse the costs of running it are minimal in comparison to their commission.

People price in many ways. But to use your own words, perhaps the driver of why some back the law in the 2020s is that they don't feel they continue to get enough value from the App Store to warrant 15%-30% commissions to Apple... or they don't care for Apple practices now... or they simply have more ways to offer their creations and want to take advantage of them.

Certainly if one believe that pricing is done on value, they must believe that goes BOTH ways... not just seeing the value that Apple has offered (or delivered in the past) but also the relative value of that offer now vs. other options becoming available to them. They should pursue where value is best for them... which may not be "business as usual" or- as I think it will be- continue with business as usual but also offer direct sales and any other channels likely to connect with buyers of apps where they perceive some value.

Fair enough, I fall into the camp it will be hard for competing app stores to offer what Apple does at Apple's prices.

I completely get that. And I will simply say that time will prove that out or not, as the cat is out of the bag now and the gigantic EU test cell will put the whole concept (and all other variants arguing for & against this law) to the test. We can simply watch and see what happens vs. speculating like we know for sure how this will play out. I don't know for sure. I simply see the "company store" model facing GOV action and look to long-term history to see how that plays out every time. Thus, I'm confident about what is likely to happen... but don't know for sure. We'll all see together in time.

They aren't likely to get the Spotifys and EPICs who bring in lots of revenue, they'll get at best smaller developers who won't generate the revenue needed to cover costs at 15%.

Look at Cydia - they charged 30% and said they didn't make a lot of profit.

Yes, but again, I sent a link showing how much Apple makes at 15%-30% in an earlier post. There is enormous cash in that 15%-30%. If an entrepreneur can carve out the tiniest sliver of that money for themselves, they'll be making millions of dollars each year.

You missed my point - they could go direct but chose to sell the Mac version on the App Store; which tells me they find it more attractive. Would they like to pay less? Sure, but if they thought going it alone was more profitable why haven't they?

Yes, and you mine: there are other examples of apps sold both in the Mac store and direct. If it was universally better for app creators to only sell in the Mac App Store, all Mac apps would be sold there. Why are many selling Mac apps direct instead? Because it's not universally better. Pixelmator has whatever their reason for their decision making. Others feel differently.

On the Mac side, every app developer can choose from many options whatever is best for them. On the iOS side, there are no such choices: one store, one stores policies, one stores management, etc rules all... except, now, in the EU where some competition can offer other options... just like all developers enjoy with Mac.

Profitable revenue is important but you also have to look at the impact on sales. If you offer them cheaper on your web site than the Apple Store, unless your margin is higher you are losing a contribution to profit on each sale that is done on your store rather than on Apple's.

Yes, but again, if ME, I am not making this an either-or. I would leave my app for sale on the App Store because that is the long-established store and it could take another 20 years for most people who use it to even come to realize they can get apps from anywhere else.

And again, if ME and I'm in the EU, I'm also going to offer it direct from my own website, where almost certainly a much lower volume of sales would be my most profitable sales (per unit sold) because I wouldn't be giving away 15%-30% right off the top... including any in app or subscription transactions that follow.

AND if ME and I'm in the EU, if any other App Store pops up where I think I can get some additional sales, I'm distributing with them too... as the smartest strategy is being where buyers are looking for whatever they want to buy that you can fulfill.

You keep turning this back into an either-or and it's not. Do I think really big players might bail from the App Store and fully go it alone. Yes. But even they will likely see a drop in daily sales immediately and it should only take forgoing historical revenue flow for so long before they decide to reverse that decision and be both in the App Store and in their own Store (and in any other stores where they think they can get some additional profitable sales). For sellers, all want to make as much money as they can. Being EVERYWHERE buys can buy their offerings make the most sense... which absolutely includes NOT bailing out of the most established store where everyone automatically goes FIRST when they want new apps.

Let's say you have a product that sells for $1 and the total demand is 1000 units. You sell all on Apple and get a check for 850$. Unless your all in costs, including hosting, payment processing, bandwidth, advertising is less than 15% you've lost money; what you are hoping for is not to cannibalize your Apple sales but to add to them. However, as has been pointed out, price comparison is pretty easy and that, IMHO, is what likely will happen.

Again, you are thinking only in a single transaction. Many of the voices that led to this law coming together have much more money AFTER that app transaction. For example, I recall that EU dating apps in particular wanted to be out from under the burden of having to pay Apple an ongoing cut of the SERVICE itself.

So if I'm running an EU dating app that only has 1000 people and they are paying a typical fee of maybe $60/year for access. Now your example is playing with revenue on those 1000 people at $61000 gross instead of only $1000 gross.

And hosting, fulfillment and sales infrastructure of the app remains about the same whether I get $1000 from them or $61,000. Cut Apple in on all of that when they could apparently afford to host my app and deliver it to all 1000 people for only $150? That's quite lucrative for Apple. Perhaps the dating site would be thrilled to give Apple the entire $1000 in your math if Apple would then be out of the ongoing service fee offered? 100% commission on the app sale but you're not doing ANYTHING in support of the dating service infrastucture, code, etc running on "my" own servers.

Here I looked it up for anyone interested... what very well may have been a core catalyst for the EU law from back in 2021. Anyone able to consider the concept objectively will recognize that Apple was fighting for a share of the ongoing business completely hosted, managed & run OFF of Apple servers & infrastructure. I'll guess this law was probably percolating even sooner than 2021 but that's the kind of business practices that ultimately leads to this situation.

If Apple was still small, nobody would care. But when you become towards or fully "richest," everything gets more scrutiny and practices like that lead to GOVs realizing that must reel it in before it gets way out of hand. It's been the same story many times before. Apple did what all of those before them chose to do ("maximize, maximize, maximize") on ever-growing strength and a GOV came knocking. More will follow and this will ultimately be addressed as all of the "Company store" entities had it addressed before.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I see this argument all the time, and it is false. Whether the negative impacts are worth it or not is up for debate, but the fact that there are negative impacts is not. New versions of iOS are literally going to be worse because of the DMA.

Poor Apple... having to spend money on some programmers to comply with a law. I hope they survive those enormous costs. Maybe we should start a gofundme?

Apple is spending significant engineering resources to implement the DMA's requirements, and those resources would be better spent on new features or fixing bugs. We also don't know what bugs are security holes are going to be introduced making this work.

As to fixing bugs & new features, I'm quite confident the richest company in the world can afford enough programming talent to do all. I'm near certain it's not either-or. How much did they just spend on that Car again? While enormous resources worked on that for about 10 years, was the rest of the products left stagnant with no improvements/evolution? Or were there people & resources working on a car AND other people & resources working on Vision Pro and other people & resources working on Mac and other... etc. etc? I've seen enormous evolution of Macs & iDevices while they also worked on Car and Vpro. It really seems like they are able to do more than 1 thing at a time.

And no, just because nothing has happened yet (or rather, nothing that we know about has happened yet) does not mean that nothing will ever happen or that iOS isn't less secure now.

Didn't say it will NEVER happen. I was poking at what seems like about a year of near certainty posts about how much all that doom/crime/virus/trojans/etc would be easily unleashed on the EU as soon as the law took effect and now we're almost 6 months later and I haven't seen ONE story about any of that.

A year+ before there was an enormous wall of certainty about the incredible damage coming because the EU "forced" the change from Lighting to USB-C. Now we're way beyond that and I've not seen more than a mention of two of anyone having no lint, broken tongues, wobbly ports and all of the certain expensive repairs that were going to be required by that change.

Two tangible examples of "Wolf! Wolf!" Eventually the villagers wise up and stop believing. When I see a wolf, I'll be more amenable to such stuff. But I haven't seen ONE yet in almost 6 months now. I just don't believe all those EU & global criminals with now easy access to all those bank accounts can be this patient.

There is also the concern that there are new features that won't be built because Apple decides it's not worth it to further fragment the OS and offer it only in some parts of the world and not others. Remember the EU only represents 7-8% of Apple's revenue, and they've already a lot of money to support the DMA only to be told "nope, try again." If a new feature is borderline worth it, Apple might just decide not to bother for anyone because it isn't worth the ROI to figure out how to build the OS to support it in some regions and not others. And, because we'll never know what we didn't get, we'll never be able to point to the DMA and say "told you so".

Apple pursues anything and everything where they can get their target profit. If the EU "trouble" was not worth it, they could have bailed on them first over the Lightning thing and again over this law. Apparently, they choose to keep making huge money from that approx. 400 million person market even if they have to roll with some accommodations. There are also many accommodations made for China and India and other countries.

So I appreciate this point- having to build within global laws- could in fact inhibit the development of some planned features that would further exploit people in those places with things the laws are attempting to address. OR, Apple could look at history of how these kinds of things go EVERY TIME and proactively evolve their policies and strategies to operate in new ways to maximize profit for "another record quarter..." while NOT pressing to maintain these kinds of practices.

Else, the outcome is inevitable. This only goes one way once GOVs feel they have to take on this kind of stuff. Apple has plenty of cash to fight and delay but the end is well known- just look to the past- when it was towards "richest" vs. GOV over similar matters. It always goes the same way. Comply or spend a fortune fighting a battle that will eventually be lost and comply then. Apples resistance to any of this stuff only lasts as long as it is more profitable to fight/delay than it is to just get on with where this is going to go.

 

[AppliedMicro]

the iOS app store and the Mac app store are NOT the same.

the iPhone that Jobs wanted had built in apps and anything else was going to be a webapp.

Steve Jobs has been dead for almost 13 years.
And the iPhone hasn’t been web-app only for even longer than that.

It even allows end users installation of apps downloaded from a website that have never been reviewed by Apple. Though Apple does restrict that to enterprise certificates for commercial reasons.

Stop arguing as if we’re living 15 or 20 years ago - we aren’t.

he was talked into an AppStore and it flourished because it was designed specifically be secure and vetted.
not a free for all like Mac is. The Mac AppStore is a convenient place to buy apps. Or buy them outside. It's just another shop. but iOS AppStore was always a lot more than that

There’s no functional difference between the Mac App Store and the iOS App Store. Neither is there real difference in app installation- it’s just that Apple gatekeeps non-App Store distribution a bit more.

It's not unreasonable to differentiate markups based on product category and type of sale. Stores do that all the time.

It’s definitely reasonable for Apple - and in their interest.
But it’s undesirable from an economic perspective.

If, as people claim, Apple is “compensated” for their IP through commissions, they’re basically dumping their service and IP to many developers (Facebook, Uber, etc.) - namely the ones that have technical alternatives to provide their service or sell their products. While taking hostage the ones that must offer a native app, e.g. music streaming or gaming apps - while increasingly competing against them with their own services. This distorts the competition for the affected services.

I think it's a few big companies that want all the revenue for themselves while Apple gives them free access to the App Store

It’s even fewer companies (Apple, Google) that want revenue from everyone else that sells digital products - even though they’re not providing additional value to them, compared to “free” apps like Uber.

In the end Apple must still be allowed to charge for access to the store; even if companies use 3rd party processors, if a company wants access to the App Store's customer base.

This has been restricted by law and will be restricted by regulatory action.
Apple does not own its customers - yet they’re acting like it.

 

[AppliedMicro]

why why why do we keep hearing how bad 15-30% cut is?
plenty of App devs have stated its great value for them.

Great.

So why oh why is Apple so opposed to alternative payment methods and stores?
Why are they getting all that bad rep and fighting and tooth nail about it?
Furthermore, why are they giving alternative stores so much free publicity (Streisand effect) by it?

Apple provide the incumbent, most trusted and pre-installed store on iOS.

If their deal and the value they provide is so great…
if it’s so attractive and provides so much value to third-party developers…
and if “no consumer” was clamouring for alternative stores…

👉🏻 Why aren’t Apple complying silently, and watch those alternative stores falter from the sideline?

Answer: could it be that their deal isn’t so great after all?

they just see taht Apple makes a ton of money and thinks it should run the App Store as a charity.

Apple will never run the app store as a charity as long as they’re selling millions of phones for hundreds of dollars.

Most people were never around in the days when developers had to upfront a lot of cash to buy an IDE, pay to print, duplicate, store and ship their software, advertise in computer magazines, provide free review copies, etc. The hope they can get a distributor at some point and pay them a cut and even then they may only be a few shelves tucked away amongst tons of other titles. Then there were returns for which they reimbursed the cost and the ever evolving bit copiers. In the end, they were lucky to make 30% of the sales price.

Then again, there were (many) more than just one or two distributors of software that they could go to.

change? If your local grocery decided eggs should be priced at $30/carton or your local gas station decided to price gas at $20/gallon, they would certainly be maximizing profit on those eggs or gas transactions. Do you just pay up because what's important is paying whatever a store wants? OR do you perhaps go shop for eggs and gas somewhere else

More importantly: when that incumbent gas station has a local monopoly and hinders competing gas stations from setting shop nearby - and fuel distributors from making direct deliveries to consumers “for security reasons” - would those people defend the incumbent gas station?

 

[I7guy]

Sorry I can't see iDevices as Ferraris. I love mine very much but I know Ferrari and it is not Ferrari. There are abundant retail products in the world that cost similar to iDevices (Ferrari NOT being one of them) and those usually are sold in broad distribution channels where one can find better prices by shopping around for "it."

You are the one making a general case about manufactured items being distributed through the retail channel with competition leveling the playing field. Apps are not retail merchandise.

That's fine. The point is about the POTENTIAL not what has existed so far. Competition polices such potentials. No competition allows the potential for bad consumer things. For (very tangible) example, we use to have competition for RAM & SSDs when Mac was Intel-based. Now if we want more of either, there is ONE source and they charge 3X-5X relative to market.

That’s great if the manufacturers distribution model such. Apples model was not that and the government came in an made it into a public utility.

Intel-based Apple also tended to charge premiums back then (though I don't remember to this extreme) but competition meant one could buy base and then upgrade by shopping around. Now we can't. If you want a Mac and you need more RAM or SSD, you have to pay WHATEVER price the "company store" wants. Right now it's 3X-5X market but nothing at all stops that from becoming 5X-8X or 10X-15X because there are no other Mac options.



Everything people write here are opinions... all biased to whatever that person believes. Even some "conclusion" is only the conclusion of the person writing. I just wrote that my conclusion is that RAM & SSD is far overpriced. Someone else could jump in and proclaim they are bargains because <reasons>. It's all opinions.



That's just a standard defense argument.

This is just a standard move the goal post argument.

They are all computers running on variations of Apple silicon, running variations of what was OS X evolved into iOS and macOS branches. We can easily run iOS apps on Macs and if Apple was willing we could easily run macOS apps on iDevices (recall that the FIRST 'test" Mac Mini ran on iDevice chips, not M0.5.

What seems like 50,000 posts in old threads passionately defended the perfection of 3.5" and then 4" screens and ridiculed phablet-sized phones. Apparently all of those posts were wrong because I bet nearly all of those writers have a phablet in their pocket right now.

Nothing above has anything to do with the core discussion.

I could make more than a thousand posts that say something, but that would not necessarily make whatever it is true or obvious. See countless long-term conspiracy written about for years or decades with countless references on many websites. A friend of mine once proclaimed the old "Paul is Dead" thing. I challenged that and he went to the trouble of gathering up a lot of evidence to prove it. What convinced him? Lots of people had written the conspiracy... enough to make him believe it. Man, that Billy Shears was impressive to hop right into that spot and then crank out some of their biggest hits immediately thereafter.

I think it’s great we can all hold our opinions consistent across many threads over a period of time with not one person convincing another with an opposing opinion to change sides. Says a lot.

I didn't even mention the DOJ.

It has been mentioned as the next agency to “take down apple”. I’m sure the US government could pass their own DMa but right now there are bigger fish to fry.

I did mention that it may drive prices down. That won't necessarily bankrupt any devs if they are offering THEIR creation at a price lower than now by chipping a bit into the 15%-30% Apple takes FIRST and right off the top.

You don’t know that. You are assuming that lower revenue is a good thing for devs and that equates to lower prices for consumers.

In actuality, the dev paying 30% could dramatically cut into the 30% Apple would otherwise take and MAKE MORE profit per app sold on direct sales (but make less overall revenue and probably profit if they also opted to yank it from the App Store, which I actually think will not be very common at all... certainly not something I would do myself).

Sure, but not likely. Consumers will be the ones that lose out here. Only time will tell how this entire thing pans out.

History clearly shows what happens in Company Store models when competition is introduced.

History also shows the effect of competition by government regulation. It ain’t pretty.

Generally prices are driven down, not by bankrupting the creators (and thus somehow taking more from their cut) but by eroding the Company Store fat cut. I don't know of any Company Store model where- after the introduction of competition- prices stayed the same or went higher. If you know of even one in all of history, enlighten me.

Well in the US we can look at the sorry state of the Telco industry that resulted from the AT&T breakup. An app is not a distributable entity that goes through the retail channel.

OK. Nearly 6 months and counting. We can check in again at month 9 or 12 or 24. Based on the massive wall of seemingly certainty of how easy it was going to be for "evil crime syndicates" to drain EU bank accounts, I thought that would lead to massive stories over 6 months. It's hard to imagine such patient criminals working in tandem and resisting such easy money theft we were all told was coming.

Do you think criminals jump on stuff on day 1. It takes them some time to ramp up. Give it a year and see where we are.

All I can presume is the criminals are weighed down by all those USB-C repairs in their phones that we were also seemingly promised as almost a certainty when it came out that EU law was "forcing" the switch from Lightning to USB-C. That's had longer than 6 months and seems mostly an evaporated argument. Apparently USB-C was actually just fine... as this will turn out to be in a similar amount of time.

USB -C stinks. I use it because I have to and I’m sure others have that sentiment. But again that’s neither here nor there.

Nope, but as someone who lives in a capitalist society, I favor BOTH buyers & sellers having every tool to strike the fairest bargain between them.

That doesn’t mean the government has the right to make the iOS App Store a public utility.

It is not the consumers job to maximize the profits for the seller and/or argue on behalf of doing anything possible to help the seller do that. And it is not the sellers job to do anything for the consumer.

The consumer decides on the function/value ratio. If a consumer does not want a product for any reason at all that is capitalism in action.

Buyer has the money seller desperately wants. Seller has the stuff to try to woo the money from the Buyer. When the "balance" of the transaction is leaning too far in either direction, corrections are required. When the system itself is unable to drive the correction, GOVs tend to be last resort.

the system is under no obligation to provide a correction. Does the system correct high cell phone prices and low service from 3 providers? No it does not.

I'd rather it not have come to needing the GOV to get involved... but Apple basically did it to themselves

They didn’t do anything to themselves. I can’t control the DMA any more than death and taxes. But I don’t have to believe this is somehow good for the masses.

. History shows that EVERY company that roars into the territory of "richest" must evolve their business practices away from purely "maximizing."

Citation.

Else, the great power that comes with "richest" makes them start making decisions that are not in the customers best interests and individual customers lose much power to correct such choices.

Sure when you are talking about air, food an water and not tvs.

That then motivates GOVs to step in and force the correction. This has played out MANY times before.

Just some generalizations.

We can feel however we feel about this but it's already OVER.

It’s not over until the phat lady sings as they say.

Once GOV gets involved in this kind of thing, CHANGE always follows. GOV is last resort to reel in things like this before they get completely out of hand. And it always goes the same way. Believe it or not... but time (not fan, non-fan or middling consumer opinions) will reveal all.

We’ll see.

 

[I7guy]

[…]

It's a different world now. It's dirt cheap and easy to put a piece of software on ones own site, sell it there and they download it. However, Apple is still charging the same commission they were charging when they "resolved" a lot of those burdens all those years ago. They need to evolve with the times and, unfortunately, they clung to that past (and easy money) for so long, GOVs have had to get involved to force an evolution.
[…]

The App Store has been a fantastic thing for many developers. But the debt of the value received should not be forever owed. Else, where's the ongoing fat cuts to G.E. for the lightbulb and Ford/Merc for the automobile, etc? The world has changed.

[…]

I love when people count a companies profits. It’s easy. Don’t like a product, too expensive even overpriced, better products out there…. Then buy it.

It’s not for you nor the government to decide if a entity that manufactures discretionary products for consumers is making too much.

The automobile and batteries have been around for a 100+ years yet they are still expensive. What is the ceo being paid for. Cars are like lightbulbs today. Right?

 

[wbeasley]

Great.

So why oh why is Apple so opposed to alternative payment methods and stores?
Why are they getting all that bad rep and fighting and tooth nail about it?
Furthermore, why are they giving alternative stores so much free publicity (Streisand effect) by it?

Apple provide the incumbent, most trusted and pre-installed store on iOS.

If their deal and the value they provide is so great…
if it’s so attractive and provides so much value to third-party developers…
and if “no consumer” was clamouring for alternative stores…

👉🏻 Why aren’t Apple complying silently, and watch those alternative stores falter from the sideline?

Answer: could it be that their deal isn’t so great after all?

Apple will never run the app store as a charity as long as they’re selling millions of phones for hundreds of dollars.

Then again, there were (many) more than just one or two distributors of software that they could go to.

More importantly: when that incumbent gas station has a local monopoly and hinders competing gas stations from setting shop nearby - and fuel distributors from making direct deliveries to consumers “for security reasons” - would those people defend the incumbent gas station?

Apple can be opposed to any payment method they like.
Other retail shops can choose whether to accept Amex cards or charge an extra surcharge.
Some only took Visa or Mastercard for a long time.
Some now refuse cash.

Just because you don't like what's offered doesnt mean you can force something to change.
Vote with your wallet... except millions of people are using the in app purchasing going through Apple as the gateway.
They trust it. It works.

Adding another payment method also confuses things... when you decide you want a refund, who and how are you going to contact them? Currently it is all very simple. Apple do it. Not the app company.

And even when Apple reluctantly opens to other payments, people still whinge.
3% off the Apple cut. What did they want? 20%? 30%?
We all know credit card transactions are based on volume. Big merchants get 1% or less. Small merchants 3%+...
The cost of doing the transaction is minuscule to banks. It's profit on volume.

You seem to be confusing hardware sales which happen every 2-3 years with Services which while smaller in transactional value are often more frequent as you can see by the Services reported growth over the years. A smart diversification by Apple. Subscriptions keep people coming back for more and can be less painful to consumers as they are smaller amounts. So Apple is a business making business decisions not a charity.

Ask yourself, if Apple is the "local monopoly" why are apps from the same vendor the same (or close) on both Android and Apple? The Apple app is not going to be wildly different from the same supplier of apps because they know customers wouldnt buy it. Look at Music streaming. Apple Music on iOS and Android devices is the same price. Apple could go cheaper on iOS if they wanted to and wear the cost for loyal users. But they dont. It's level playing field to access the service. And it's like that for many apps on both platforms.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Just because you don't like what's offered doesnt mean you can force something to change.

The law can and does that, for the benefit of business user and consumer choice.

Adding another payment method also confuses things... when you decide you want a refund, who and how are you going to contact them? Currently it is all very simple. Apple do it. Not the app company.

Did Apple create the product? No.
Is Apple responsible for bugs or shortcomings in the product / service? No.
Do Apple provide end user technical support for the product / service? No.

So why shouldn’t I contact the responsible developer for a refund? Rather confusing is that!

The cost of doing the transaction is minuscule to banks. It's profit on volume.

The cost of doing transactions is minuscule to Apple.

So why aren’t developers benefitting from lower transaction costs - as is economically normal, given the magnitude of increased volume since 2008? Oh wait, yeah - because it‘s not a competitive market but a monopoly!

You seem to be confusing hardware sales which happen every 2-3 years with Services which while smaller in transactional value are often more frequent as you can see by the Services reported growth over the years. A smart diversification by Apple

I’m not confusing them at all.

Look at Music streaming. Apple Music on iOS and Android devices is the same price. Apple could go cheaper on iOS if they wanted to and wear the cost for loyal users. But they dont. It's level playing field to access the service.

Yeah, let’s look at Apple Music on Android, shall we?

The Apple Music app that tells its own users how to sideload the app and how to subscribe and add their own payment method in-app (or from within the app), circumventing the Google Play payment methods offered by Google?

👉🏻 Spotify hasn’t been asking for more and Apple hasn’t been fined and investigated in Europe for anything else than what Apple are using themselves for their Android app: sideloading and alternative payment methods.

 

[wbeasley]

The law can and does that, for the benefit of business user and consumer choice.

Did Apple create the product? No.
Is Apple responsible for bugs or shortcomings in the product / service? No.
Do Apple provide end user technical support for the product / service? No.

So why shouldn’t I contact the responsible developer for a refund? Rather confusing is that!

The cost of doing transactions is minuscule to Apple.

So why aren’t developers benefitting from lower transaction costs - as is economically normal, given the magnitude of increased volume since 2008? Oh wait, yeah - because it‘s not a competitive market but a monopoly!


I’m not confusing them at all.


Yeah, let’s look at Apple Music on Android, shall we?

The Apple Music app that tells its own users how to sideload the app and how to subscribe and add their own payment method in-app (or from within the app), circumventing the Google Play payment methods offered by Google?

👉🏻 Spotify hasn’t been asking for more and Apple hasn’t been fined and investigated in Europe for anything else than what Apple are using themselves for their Android app: sideloading and alternative payment methods.

Apple Music on Android only tell the users how they can install and use the app.
Just like any other app dev.
How that is done and documented and paid for is determined by what Android allows.
Show me how Apple is breaching any rules or laws there? Oh they aren't because that's what the OS was built to do.
iOS was not designed to allow that. And yet, people use it, increasingly so given the uptick in Android switches last year. Why? Maybe they value the Apple approach...

The rest of the points you made dont contain sufficient detail to bother commenting further on.

Believe what you want, but when only two of you are arguing over this, it speaks volumes.
Not a single non tech phone user has brought up the walled garden or alt stores or alt payments to me.
This is purely an EU move pushed by certain companies to pull Apple down a peg or two.
It's never been about making apps cheaper nor helping the consumer in any meaningful way.

And with that, I'm over churning over the same points with you... have a great day.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple Music on Android only tell the users how they can install and use the app.

Apple clearly explains users how to open the app, subscribe and add a payment method.
In or from within the app.

Show me how Apple is breaching any rules or laws there?

I'm not saying they did, did I?

I just said the same rules should apply to iOS third-party apps - establishing an, as you said yourself, "level playing field" for (among other types of apps) music streaming apps.

iOS was not designed to allow that

Then again, there's nothing in iOS that prevents third-party developers from adding their own payment system.

It's just a "rule", not some sort of OS design that Apple created.
Which has been made illegal by the European Union and its Digital Markets Act.

It's never been about making apps cheaper

Yes it is.

Competitive markets don't go 15 years and multiply many time in size without transaction costs for large sellers decreasing. And decreasing transactions costs regularly lead to lower consumer prices. That is, compared to no decrease in transaction costs. The average selling price of apps may still increase due to inflation or higher utility/value provided, of course. But everthing else the same, lower transaction costs will lead to lower prices in competitive markets - compared to a situation where transaction costs are higher, such as due to an intermediary being able to set them unilaterally by operating a monopoly.

Anyone denying that is out of touch with basic economic principles of competitive markets.

 

[jlc1978]

Competitive markets don't go 15 years and multiply many time in size without transaction costs for large sellers decreasing. And decreasing transactions costs regularly lead to lower consumer prices. That is, compared to no decrease in transaction costs.

Which is true but highly impacted by the nature of the transaction costs and markets. Even when they do go down, sellers often simply keep the lower costs, as many app developers did when Apple dropped their commission from 30 to 15%.

In the case of the App Store, it's important to consider the nature of the market. Here is a breakdown of # of apps vs price, from Statista:

Free and $1 apps dominate the market and 1 - 5 are 3x as the higher prices ones. Apple and developers have trained their customers that an app should be a dollar or less. That prices have dropped almost to marginal costs tells me it's a very competitive market in terms of pricing.

I tried to find data on subscription costs but couldn't find a good source. One I found said subscription prices have steadily gone up but I suspect that is do to streaming services and not subscription based apps.

The average selling price of apps may still increase due to inflation or higher utility/value provided, of course. But everthing else the same, lower transaction costs will lead to lower prices in competitive markets -

So lets look at the two components of the App Store market:

Apps - given their pricing is already very low there any further reduction in transaction costs are likely to retained by the developer and not passed on to the consumer, based on past developer reactions to lower transaction costs; which some might consider a market failure.

Subscriptions: That is an interesting area, since we can compare the impact of lower transaction costs directly since Apple charges 30% year one and 15% for renewals. In my experience, subscriptions don't go down 15% after year, companies are happy to keep the savings.

I think history and market structure shows, for iOS apps at least, shows lower transaction costs won't lead to lower prices for almost all the available apps.

compared to a situation where transaction costs are higher, such as due to an intermediary being able to set them unilaterally by operating a monopoly.

The analysis is not a simple as "lower fees will result in lower prices."

I'm not convinced once all the costs are tallied it will be any cheaper for most developers; many transaction processors charge a percentage and transaction fee, which alone will be a significant cut of the app's revenue. A developer of a $1 app can't afford to pay 3% plus 30 cents per transaction and then all the other costs of selling outside of the App Store.

Only the really big ones who generate enough revenue to spread costs over a large number of sales and negotiate fees with transaction processors will benefit. I suspect most will simply keep the extra money. I say that because if you look at the large ones their subscriptions, except for Spotify who simply wanted to make a point, are the same no matter where you buy them. I think, if Apple starts losing all that revenue from the major revenue generating apps they will find new ways to get it from those companies, or simply not host their apps. Nothing, IIRC, in the DMA forces Apple to host an app for free.

If you look at typical transaction costs for digital marketplace, Apple's fee structure isn't that out of line with any of the other big ones. If the EU really wanted to change the fee structure they should have argued collusion amongst the app stores.

Anyone denying that is out of touch with basic economic principles of competitive markets.

However, as economist are want to say, 'The theory is this, but; on the other hand..." Which is the beauty of economics, in what other field could two people win a Nobel Prize in the same year by making two opposite arguments. Or a school have 2 Nobel Prize faculty members where one is the efficient markets proponent and the other the top behavioral economics one?

 

[wbeasley]

Which is true but highly impacted by the nature of the transaction costs and markets. Even when they do go down, sellers often simply keep the lower costs, as many app developers did when Apple dropped their commission from 30 to 15%.

In the case of the App Store, it's important to consider the nature of the market. Here is a breakdown of # of apps vs price, from Statista:

View attachment 2401877
Free and $1 apps dominate the market and 1 - 5 are 3x as the higher prices ones. Apple and developers have trained their customers that an app should be a dollar or less. That prices have dropped almost to marginal costs tells me it's a very competitive market in terms of pricing.

I tried to find data on subscription costs but couldn't find a good source. One I found said subscription prices have steadily gone up but I suspect that is do to streaming services and not subscription based apps.



So lets look at the two components of the App Store market:

Apps - given their pricing is already very low there any further reduction in transaction costs are likely to retained by the developer and not passed on to the consumer, based on past developer reactions to lower transaction costs; which some might consider a market failure.

Subscriptions: That is an interesting area, since we can compare the impact of lower transaction costs directly since Apple charges 30% year one and 15% for renewals. In my experience, subscriptions don't go down 15% after year, companies are happy to keep the savings.

I think history and market structure shows, for iOS apps at least, shows lower transaction costs won't lead to lower prices for almost all the available apps.


The analysis is not a simple as "lower fees will result in lower prices."

I'm not convinced once all the costs are tallied it will be any cheaper for most developers; many transaction processors charge a percentage and transaction fee, which alone will be a significant cut of the app's revenue. A developer of a $1 app can't afford to pay 3% plus 30 cents per transaction and then all the other costs of selling outside of the App Store.

Only the really big ones who generate enough revenue to spread costs over a large number of sales and negotiate fees with transaction processors will benefit. I suspect most will simply keep the extra money. I say that because if you look at the large ones their subscriptions, except for Spotify who simply wanted to make a point, are the same no matter where you buy them. I think, if Apple starts losing all that revenue from the major revenue generating apps they will find new ways to get it from those companies, or simply not host their apps. Nothing, IIRC, in the DMA forces Apple to host an app for free.

If you look at typical transaction costs for digital marketplace, Apple's fee structure isn't that out of line with any of the other big ones. If the EU really wanted to change the fee structure they should have argued collusion amongst the app stores.



However, as economist are want to say, 'The theory is this, but; on the other hand..." Which is the beauty of economics, in what other field could two people win a Nobel Prize in the same year by making two opposite arguments. Or a school have 2 Nobel Prize faculty members where one is the efficient markets proponent and the other the top behavioral economics one?

Great response...

Most free apps are making money by in app ads. Something Apple doesn't control or take any part of. Or they just wanted to make an app that proved they can do it and give the functions away to other users as basically freeware - a model that has existed in IT since the early days. The old "buy us a cup of coffee if you like it" model or donate what it's worth to you.

And app prices are usually the same on Android and Apple for the same app.

I can't see an alt app store making money or taking users away. They wont offer (much) cheaper prices. They need to advertise, grow trust, get apps people want - all the things Apple has over a decade of already.

Yes a few people might go there. Just to get an app that Apple hasnt allowed before.
Good for them. But then again, Apple can still state security concerns and not sign them.
It will be same people who used to jailbreak. They like the control and putting the middle finger up to a big business.
That's fine too. Do it. I dont care how you use your hardware and what you install so long as it doesnt risk affecting my use either. And no, I don't agree that if I dont use an alt store this wont affect me. Core iOS code has now been changed because of the EU directive ON EVERY PHONE. Even if you dont live in the EU. There is always some risk changing something fundamental opens a vulnerability. But some people wont accept that. It's all about them and their freedom to do what they want. Even though Android allowed them to do that. There's a word for that