If the consumer doesn't start speaking out with their wallet and instead continue to throw money out the window to Apple, then the consumer doesn't lose...they're just losers because they continue to tell Apple it's OK to raise prices. At some point the consumer needs to tell Apple what to do louder than the stockholders who expect record profits every quarter.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Spain Launches Investigation Into Apple's App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This has nothing to do with protecting consumers and everything to do with corporations and governments trying to stay rich.
It’s the fact you actually believe this propaganda
You have the freedom to use android.
Trying to force apple to open iMessage for example ( a proprietary app) was the first sign.
“Oh it should be open for the consumers. People are bullied because of a color of a bubble”
Now it’s about the freedom of apps and installing them and where you can lol.
It’s about corporations simply not wanting to pay apple the money they have been.
I’m not mad at it. I’m all about money. Just be real about it and stop saying youre doing this for consumers.
Because the only consumers whining about it or the same ones who want iOS to act like android
Strange indeed.
Love how these government inquiries are all about money hiding behind concern for the customers lol
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Regardless of how we feel about this topic, GOVs have an endless well of funding for legal actions and all of the time & resources in the world to fight such battles. Mighty Apple- as rich as it is- cannot compete with that. This ends one way.
Fighting the inevitable destination is just wasting money by only kicking the can down the road for when Apple will ultimately have to comply with both the written law and the intended spirit of it.
Fundamentally, this is about consumer choices vs. having a lone company store dictating all. These laws do not kill that store for anyone wishing to continue to use and only use that one store... but they do replicate how things are on the Mac side... where consumers worldwide can already buy Mac Apps from the Apple Mac App Store or direct from the creators of Mac Apps (via their website) or through third party stores such as "10 apps for $1" bundle offerings or even Walmart/Target/Amazon/etc physical or digital shelves.
Competition is ALWAYS good for consumers. No competition is always BAD for consumers. No consumer ever "wins" when they can only get "stuff" they want from a single retailer. The retailer always exploits any such exclusive lock on that transaction.
If the App Store is the BEST store as judged by shoppers, they will keep getting their apps from that one store. However, if third party stores offer more value or equally good value or better value, they will take some share of app transactions from the ONE store. In all other arrangements like this, when competition enters a market that formally had ONE source of anything, the original store is typically pressured to compete by improving the value proposition... so even those only wanting to source apps and in-app purchases from the one store will likely benefit from competition too.
The end result here is inevitable. Apple can fight until their legal team has all the accumulated wealth of the company in cumulative fees... OR Apple can do what every other company with similar extraordinary holds on some offering such that GOVs felt compelled to get involved to "break up" the "lock" has done and comply... voluntarily... or be forced there via the slow & steady process of law. The end is inevitable... which is why all of us are not paying an insane monthly fee for AT&T long distance... or all of us are not using the IE browser and it's "unique" (proprietary) HTML code extensions... etc.
Some of us will always react the same "defensive" way in favor of Apple relative to these (or let's face it, ANY) events but it doesn't make any difference in this case... as it didn't for fans of IE when Microsoft dominated the browser space or AT&T dominated the long distance space. The end is always the end. History clearly shows how this plays out and it always plays out the same way. Apple can learn from history and rapidly move this to conclusion... or do the same things those other entities did and spend a relative fortune fighting a battle that will not resolve as they desire (which is, basically, protecting an easy cash cow).
More simply: this matter is already decided because GOVs are increasingly taking action. Now it's only a matter of how much money Apple wants to waste fighting an ever-escalating battle on more and more "fronts" that cannot be won... only stalled.
What's Next? More GOVs will join in these actions and eventually even the U.S. will opt to do the same too... unless Apple comes to recognize how this will play out and comply with both letter and spirit of the law... winning and/or retaining their share of App Store revenue & profit on the merits of delivering the best experience & value for customers instead of fighting to avoid letting anyone else compete for the same... exactly how it already is with Apple's Mac App Store vs. competing stores and direct channels to buy from app developers of Mac apps, etc.
Fighting the inevitable destination is just wasting money by only kicking the can down the road for when Apple will ultimately have to comply with both the written law and the intended spirit of it.
Fundamentally, this is about consumer choices vs. having a lone company store dictating all. These laws do not kill that store for anyone wishing to continue to use and only use that one store... but they do replicate how things are on the Mac side... where consumers worldwide can already buy Mac Apps from the Apple Mac App Store or direct from the creators of Mac Apps (via their website) or through third party stores such as "10 apps for $1" bundle offerings or even Walmart/Target/Amazon/etc physical or digital shelves.
Competition is ALWAYS good for consumers. No competition is always BAD for consumers. No consumer ever "wins" when they can only get "stuff" they want from a single retailer. The retailer always exploits any such exclusive lock on that transaction.
If the App Store is the BEST store as judged by shoppers, they will keep getting their apps from that one store. However, if third party stores offer more value or equally good value or better value, they will take some share of app transactions from the ONE store. In all other arrangements like this, when competition enters a market that formally had ONE source of anything, the original store is typically pressured to compete by improving the value proposition... so even those only wanting to source apps and in-app purchases from the one store will likely benefit from competition too.
The end result here is inevitable. Apple can fight until their legal team has all the accumulated wealth of the company in cumulative fees... OR Apple can do what every other company with similar extraordinary holds on some offering such that GOVs felt compelled to get involved to "break up" the "lock" has done and comply... voluntarily... or be forced there via the slow & steady process of law. The end is inevitable... which is why all of us are not paying an insane monthly fee for AT&T long distance... or all of us are not using the IE browser and it's "unique" (proprietary) HTML code extensions... etc.
Some of us will always react the same "defensive" way in favor of Apple relative to these (or let's face it, ANY) events but it doesn't make any difference in this case... as it didn't for fans of IE when Microsoft dominated the browser space or AT&T dominated the long distance space. The end is always the end. History clearly shows how this plays out and it always plays out the same way. Apple can learn from history and rapidly move this to conclusion... or do the same things those other entities did and spend a relative fortune fighting a battle that will not resolve as they desire (which is, basically, protecting an easy cash cow).
More simply: this matter is already decided because GOVs are increasingly taking action. Now it's only a matter of how much money Apple wants to waste fighting an ever-escalating battle on more and more "fronts" that cannot be won... only stalled.
What's Next? More GOVs will join in these actions and eventually even the U.S. will opt to do the same too... unless Apple comes to recognize how this will play out and comply with both letter and spirit of the law... winning and/or retaining their share of App Store revenue & profit on the merits of delivering the best experience & value for customers instead of fighting to avoid letting anyone else compete for the same... exactly how it already is with Apple's Mac App Store vs. competing stores and direct channels to buy from app developers of Mac apps, etc.
Last edited:
Or and hear me out. We are fine with things.
The average consumer is not on macrumors because they don’t care about this.
What other option do I have to switch to? Android!
I rather chew and swallow broken glass. Literally.
Until they only allow you to purchase directly from their website or App Store.
That’s not good for the consumer. That’s child for the corporations
I hope even Apple critics agree it's pretty insane that a company can be investigated and (potentially) fined for identical behavior by the EU and each individual member country simultaneously. These investigations take an enormous amount of resources to deal with, whether or not any wrongdoing was involved. Apple can afford to do it but it would immediately crush smaller entities, which is a big reason Europe has so few successful companies.
Pepsi and Coke are close to a duopoly.
Many prefer one over the other.
Tiny bit players take a small market share.
And competition still exists with specials on products in supermarkets.
And shrinking consumption of fizzy drinks has made them diversify into equally expensive water (!!!) and juice and milk drinks as well as diet and flavoured versions of their core item.
There really is no room now for a third phone OS.
That battle and opportunity has long gone when Microsoft gave up.
Rabbit havent set the world on fire with their AI phone.
And how do you start with nothing and compete against app stores with millions of apps?
Samsung and Apple do compete historically. Samsung now facing a lot of Chinese competition too.
Everyone wins when that happens as high end phones need more features to seem valuable.
Is AI the answer - or not?
Yes people are usually locked into one environment (often by choice as you can switch) so the biggest competitors are the other cheaper phones from the same brand.
We've also reached "peak phone". Almost every phone is fast enough these days to do the tasks expected. And batteries are still usable for three or four years. Cost of Living is taking the need to upgrade away too for many. Its getting harder for all manufacturers to convince users to upgrade.
All of which they had before the App Store. The App Store eliminated the entire up front costs of printing, boxing, and storing product; finding a distributor who then takes a cut and charges you back for return/unsold produc, etc. All of that was spent before you sold a product. You could have invested a significant amount of time and never seen an Euro in revenue. All you have invested is development time, which had to be done anyway. Apple and other app stores has made it a lot less risky for small developers to bring a product to market by eliminating what used to be a significant impediment to selling your software.
Which the App Store provides. Apple gives developers access to huge and lucrative market; something most could never hope to achieve under the old way of selling software.
Which is an after sale expense.
Certainly not, but Apple has benefited small developers immensely by making it a lot easier to bring an app to market. Consumers benefited from much lower prices in general as well and have become accustomed to apps being cheap which is a challenge for developers; who probably regret conditioning users to pay a few Euros for an app as a one time purchase with free upgrades.
As always, but the barrier to entry is much lower. If I wanted, I cold write an app in my spare time and put it on the App Store and see if it sells. If not, all its cost me is the opportunity cost of doing something else and the developers fee. I haven't spent anything on getting the product in front of the potential customer an I don't have stacks of unsold product in my bedroom; each of which cost real money, not time.
and deserve to continue to make money off of what they created. Should musicians not get paid for their songs being played because they already made their money years ago and it costs them nothing to have someone stream it or rip a copy?
Again, for most developers it's 15%, and before Apple they were lucky to get 15-30% from sales of their product after everyone took a cut; and that was before they subtracted costs from their revenue.
this is about the AppStore. the devs set the price points, not Apple.
Apple just get a cut (15% or 30%).
If you believe authorities will only be judging that on the basis of a user's settings, you're quite naive. 😄 If they did base it solely on the chosen country of residence, why didn't Apple just set up shop for its digital sales in Andorra then - given its favourable 4.5% VAT rate (and company taxes) compared to Spain's 21%?
Authorities and courts of law have no problem in looking at additional facts to determine if something's offered in Spain. Lessons can be taken from the playbook of the tax administration and financial regulators to determine if something is offered in Spain. For example:
- Is service provided in the Spanish language or other languages of Spain?
- Is service provided to consumers that are located in Spain at the time of sale - and how many?
- Is service provided to Spanish business users (developers) and how many?
- Does the App Store carry Spanish apps, e.g. from local businesses, banks, transport associations etc.?
- Is the App Store advertised in Spain - and/or do its business users (developers) advertise there?
Their current implementation certainly proves they're able and willing to geo-fence.
Define anticompetitive?
“In business, “anticompetitive” refers to actions or behaviors by companies that unfairly limit competition, hinder the free market, or lead to monopolistic practices. These actions can harm consumers by leading to higher prices, reduced choices, and stifled innovation.”
The words ‘free market‘ key. That entails the entire market for smartphones, computers, software etc. Does Apple dominate the market. The reality, no. Apple worldwide market share for smartphones is a bit over 27 percent. Next is Samsung with 23 percent. The market has no dominate players. Looking the OS side, Android has almost 75% of the market. The OS side players are the problem.
I agree - especially since they're investigating them for violations of EU law. That said, I'm not particularly perturbed by it, given how spiteful and malicious Apple has shown to be in "complying" with the DMA.
...but their market hasn't got even remotely similar entry barriers to mobile operating systems and application software stores bundled with them.
...and for most sales transactions it's 30%.
"Most developers" combined only make up for a small part of all App Store/IAP revenue.
...and they're estimated to command more than half (50%) of consumer spending on mobile app user spending.
I was referring mostly to smartphone OS vendors. Worldwide Android is dominant though Apple still has a sizeable chunk of the market. In certain key markets, especially developed English-speaking countries (US, UK, Canada, Australia) iOS has a 50%-ish market share.
Either way my point remains, a market dominated by 1-2 key players with high barriers to entry for new players is arguably not necessarily a functional free market governed by competition.
Apple the same. What’s your point about the spending?
”The luxury car segment often represents a smaller percentage of total car sales but contributes a larger percentage of revenue due to higher prices.”
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Plenty of competition for apps- millions and millions of them with dozens of variants of about any kind of app one wants. Should some player pull their desirable app to sell only within their own store, the competitors left behind will likely enhance their apps with any special features & functions formally unique to the app that was pulled.
EXAMPLE: for a very long time, I was a Photoshop user. However, when Adobe decided to adopt a relatively expensive subscription model, I gave Pixelmator a try. Adobe lost my Photoshop business ever since.
Corps opting to try to form micro "monopolies" on their own app offerings by exploiting this law are only asking for double trouble: the same GOV powers being turned on them AND competitor apps sopping up customers frustrated at another kind of "exploitation" as I felt towards Adobe back then... which drove me to Pixelmator.
Competition is always good for us consumers. App entrepreneurs are always looking for ways to draw in more customers. I dare desirable apps to bail from the long-established, mainstream store with competitor apps ready to step right up and evolve features that might go with the app to the other store. Bring on a thousand Pixelmators to replace any apps that opt to leave forever.
That shared though: I doubt much of that will happen... and persist anyway. The ONE store is long established as THE store and many are 100% accustomed to using it and only it for apps and some segment of them are snowed into believing that it is only safe to get apps from it (in spite of a more open arrangement with Mac apps NOT resulting in doom, devastation, 4 horsemen, plagues, emptied bank accounts, virus & trojans, crime syndicate robbery, etc).
Do I think some major players will try going their own way? YES... but the immediate drop off of daily revenue will be missed and they will very likely decide to soon return. Why? Because they want the extra money from ALSO being in the store most people use and will choose to keep using.
If I create an app, I definitely want to sell it direct to maximize my own profit per app sold. But I also want to be anywhere & everywhere else where shoppers might buy apps. I'd rather have less profit for my app by reaching those who will only buy my app from other sources TOO. Why? Maybe they "try" this version of my app from the other store or the App Store and then like it enough to buy directly from my website for the next version. I'd rather have a shot at that future potential "full profit" transaction than to not have it at all because I only want to sell my app in my own store to maximize profit for only the transactions I can manage to get that ONE way. Broad distribution is a good business strategy for sellers. Note how Apple sells their own offerings at many places beyond their website and their retail stores (cutting in Best Buy, Target, Amazon, Walmart, etc to the overall profit per unit sold through them).
So I believe those who opt to leave will soon be back because they want the added revenue, even at a lower profit-per-app or in-app purchase sold. And the few who stubbornly forgo that "easy (extra) money" will likely see their share of their market eroded by other app entrepreneurs who evolve competing apps to cover whatever features & benefits were "lost"... TEMPORARILY... by the departure or some app to its own store.
But for the most pessimistic among us, if you suspect some app you like will depart the store and you can only stand to buy apps from the ONE store, install it before it departs and then you are unaffected if it is subsequently available elsewhere. There are U.S. iDevice owners with Epic software on them from BEFORE the fight. Once it's installed, it's installed. It doesn't vanish if an app exits the store.
Last edited:
Mobile app transactions aren't one-time purchases consumers only make once every couple of years.
And luxury cars don't account for the majority of car sales revenue.
App developers have to go to where consumers spend.
Which is a cultural problem, not a Messenger problem. Blaming the tool for the individuals actions isn't addressing the problem, and bullies will simply find other ways to identify a "lesser" user to bolster their low self-esteem.
For the rest of us, we just want to be able to text each other. I just looked at my text stream and the only blue bubbles are those I sent, all the rest are grey and I know they are from iPhones. Maybe I'm just too old to care what phone you use and to care what you think of mine.
Most of those 10 for $1 deals, though, have a bunch of no name apps with maybe one or two gems. Those deals are developers destroying their product in hopes of a little marginal revenue. I haven't seen a really good one in a long time; most just appear to be the same deal offered through various sites that are probably all part of the same company.
Yes, as long as it drives prices down. Will consumers see lower prices with teh advent of 3rd party stores?
I doubt it, for two reasons:
1. We didn't see price drops when Apple cut their fee from 30 to 15%. Developers will continue to line their pockets with whatever extra revenue they get from a different channel that has lower costs; and
2. I doubt alternate channels will wind up being significantly cheaper than Apple and may wind up being more expensive once all the costs are tallied and probably bring in less revenue
The challenge for any 3rd party App Store, or developer web site, is to find a way to reach as large and lucrative customer base as Apple's.
I think things have turned out well for them overall. ATT has rebuilt the Death Star, and MS, well, it's market cap is pretty healthy.
Certainly there are a number of ways to look at how the App Store generates revenue. One big revenue generator is subscriptions, and they drop to 15% after the first year so it's on teh seller to produce a product with minimal churn.
Big developers pay 30%, but in exchange they are making many millions off of the store and I think Apple has a right to decide how much they will markup any product they sell. The big sellers provide teh revenue that enables Apple to offer small developers a good deal. If it gets away, smaller developers may find themselves paying more to access Apple's customer base as Apple finds ways to makeup for lost revenue and comply with the DMA.
In someways, real sideloading, like on the Mac, would be the worst outcome for small developers. Apple has removed impediments to 3rd party options and could make a strong argument that developers now have a real choice, 3rd party stores can go on their own so we don't have to host them on our store and be DMA compliant. The big unspoken issue is what will happen to piracy if apps can easily be sideloaded? I remember the jailbreaking era where getting and installing an IPA was not that hard with a jailbroken phone; but at least you had to be technically knowledge to jailbreak and get apps, something most users weren't.
Which is why the App Store has been good for most developers with 15% because they are small developers not making millions off of the App Store.
Even governments are held accountable though.
Not all the time. At least in the US there are checks and balances.
No it’s not. It’s about big business.
They kill the iOS ecosystem, imo.
Real competition not government induced competition. How the ATT breakup in the 80s working right now with the 3 carriers?
There never was “no competition “.
Consumers don’t win when the government forces the single retailer to sell the competitions’ products.
There are already laws in the books for that. One example is price gouging.
Not the point.
A bunch of hypotheticals strewn together to force a point.
Apple fought in the US and what was the outcome?
some of us react in the exact same way. That hasn’t changed in thousands of posts.
History shows it doesn’t always play out the same way.
Somehow I believe apples legal team may know what they are doing.
Sure for good laws and bad. Government rules. At least in the US there are checks and balances.
We’ll have to wait and see how this all plays out.
IMO, doesn’t need to be, size is good in this case. Vendors who use google play don’t need to be regulated either. Competition by government regulation imo is a bad thing.
Absolutely. 👍
The App Store is an intermediary service in business users (developers) selling to consumers.
And Apple should be free to determine the markup or commission they're charging.
As long as the service and its pricing, terms and conditions are subject to competition.
(And that means competition on the platforms, i.e. OS consumers have committed to).
According to the news, Apple may be in violation of Spanish and European laws. Each country has the right to pursue companies that do not comply with its legislation.
The problem is that it’s not a free market as nobody else can build a store except in the EU. Again, as I buy a product, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. Apple acts like a bully and it’s completely anticompetitive in all ways.
Tim’s AAPL is about money for share making the executive team wealthy at Apple. Steve’s AAPL was about emboldening customers and giving them a true ability to accomplish things that weren’t possible with competitors.
This has become the most anticompetitive company in the market. Its integration is vertical and horizontal. It steals IP consistently from developers it supposedly cares about. It refuses to play fair! Just like Qualcomm has created what are now patents that are necessary for the functionality of the Internet which caused Apple to state that Qualcomm wasn’t practicing FRAND patents that were required to make iPhones. Apple should now be subject to he same types of FRAND patent licensing to other app stores, developers, and competitors! That’s the nature of this world.
Someone said on another thread that patents should be like in medicine where they have the right to the patent for seven years. I think this would solve the problems of companies like Apple screwing over the world.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Again, we can easily imagine the end point of all this by looking at Mac Apps. There is an Apple Mac App Store and one can generally buy all of the same apps direct from the developer websites and often through third party stores and even "10 apps for a $1" bundles.
Ever seen a "10 iDevice apps for a $1" offer from a BundleHunt or other third party entity? Ever see a big iDevice App sale on Amazon or Walmart website?
Competition pressures pricing DOWN. It "just works." It's fundamental to a benefit of Capitalism that works for us consumers. Not all of the system must revolve around maximizing benefits for only sellers... unless we consumers opt to passionately take the sellers side ourselves... even at our own expense.
#1 didn't really create competition... only more money for the developer within the same "company store" transaction. App developers need to feel competition pressures too.
#2 is to TBD. But the popular argument at 15%-30% is justified because of how expensive it is to host, distribute and process apps and in-app transactions is most of it, I can't rationalize the same applied to the Mac app side of things. How are direct app sales from developers for less and or "10 apps for a $1" bundles able to be profitable? That's a rhetorical question. Obviously, that popular spin that it takes 15%-30% to run the store is untrue... and Apple fighting this so passionately is NOT to preserve barely "breaking even" on store transactions.
If there's little to no money in this, Apple wouldn't be fighting it so hard. It being so, so lucrative in being the one & only "Company Store" underpins this fight.
Nevertheless, in spite of my response, the test is already in motion coming up on 6 months now throughout the entire EU. We can all watch that test "cell" to see how much of a (virus/trojan/crime syndicate/etc) disaster it has been for that enormous market in the last 6 months for those who believe that nonsense... and we can keep watching to see if pricing rises, stays the same or is pressured down by more competition. The rest of the world can just watch & see reality instead of speculating with personal opinion.
Last edited:
I am looking forward to all the Europeans complaining about how they don’t get AI on launch. The amount of copium of those who “don’t want it anyway” is going to be hilarious.