No Apps no platform. See AVP? It is not a hit because there are no real meaningful apps for that. So, Apple will make it easy for developers to develop apps. Once the apps come and the platform becomes a hit, Apple will say that without it there is nothing for the developers. You know why Windows Phone failed? There was a platform but no developers. As long as fanbois and Apple does not understand this, they will pay the price.
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.
Spotify, Epic Games, and Others Argue Apple's App Store Changes Do Not Comply With DMA
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It means that the EU is requiring gatekeepers to provide equal access to certain types of information/functionality that wasn't necessarily available before AND that the gatekeepers can't charge anyone for this new access.
So all the EU is doing is saying that gatekeepers can't try to monetize the access that wasn't required before. It's not the EU saying gatekeepers aren't allowed to monetize their IP.
So once the DMA is completely implemented, Apple can no longer compete? Thank you for agreeing with me and a host of others. Mac is not locked down and hence could not compete with Windows. Once iOS is no longer locked down, I guess it will go the Mac way. That must be your fear?
That’s not then an issue for the government to regulate apple because the competition is too lazy to develop their own operating system.
That’s an issue for manufacturers wanting to be lazy!and spending as little r&d as possible.
Like the post I quoted.
No platform, no apps. App developers support the platforms that are popular with consumers. iPhone/iOS was popular with consumers.
They can be locked down, but they should not be anticompetitive. They should not self-preference themselves. If they had done these changes themselves, there was no need for a regulation at all.
So Apple even has a precedent. It can follow it. But I am assuming the UK is also coming up with something against Apple.
Nope, the EU would have found some aspect to regulate. As it is, they are the owner of the App Store and except for large customers everyone gets treated the same and apple wasn’t anticompetitive. Sure there have been changes along the way. But the tell is given apple would have gone to usb-c at some point intone, the eu felt the need to regulate it.
Anticompetitive is thrown around here like it’s the truth. It’s not.
Users can still use it like an appliance if they still want to. The legislation just gives the discerning users the means to use it as a computing device that it really is. No need to pander to the lowest common denominator.
Nobody is saying they are saving consumers and that is not their mandate. They are asking for a level playing field. Not a crime.
Yes it is. The competition isn’t lazy. Neither was Microsoft lazy with Windows Phone. You cannot establish a competing smartphone OS without the Android or iOS ecosystem of third-party apps today - even if you throw billions at it. No one will but it. Similar to how no one will pay for the third, fourth or fifth electricity or phone line running to a house.
I could go on all day, quoting all of your posts with…
And yes, my argument stands: when you’re in a duopoly with a competitor that largely mirrors your own product and monetisation strategy and there are barriers to switch (hundreds of dollars expense and setting up and getting to know a different OS), you have low incentive to innovate.
Why wouldn't pandering to legacy standards be the lowest common denominator? How is that more innovative?
Apple is choosing to make the massive headache by their extra bs for blocking true side loading with extra layers so that cost and headache is on Apple.
"Core Technology" There it is. Put up or shut up. Either STOP USING Apple's developers' work, or PAY FOR IT.
iOS dev here who literally could never make a penny without standing on the shoulders of thousands of Apple iOS devs, who’ve put in uncountable years of effort into areas I basically have zero experience or expertise in.
Most people claiming Apple's cut is unearned don’t know what “import Foundation” does at the top of literally every iOS code file in literally every AppStore app. (Hint: It's not necessary to get an app into the App Store!)
Ditto for:
import UIKit
import SwiftUI
import CryptoKit
Button()
let task = URLSession.shared.dataTask(with: session)
etc, etc, etc…
Literallyof iOS apps use code written by Apple to do a staggering amount of their work.
ZERO apps roll their own custom code instead of using the mountain of frameworks and APIs that Apple has built and perfected (complete with expected features like free dark mode, rotation, language, compat across device, accessibility size, backgrounding, persistence, etc, etc, etc features).
ZERO apps do this because it would cost 10-20x as much to develop, and nobody would pay for the lesser experience.
Even the simplest app would take literal years more development, and STILL not achieve anything close to feature parity by dropping in Apple’s code with zero effort.
Oh, and when iOS updates with new features, or a new style? INSTANTLY that app needs massive work to retain feature parity with other apps that did zero work to match style or make use of many new features. (Sometimes a TEENY bit of work to make a huge new feature work if you want.)
Show me an app developer who doesn’t lean HEAVILY on Apple’s developers’ work, and I’ll show you somebody who gets to talk about the “outrageous” price Apple charges for their work.
of iOS apps use code written by Apple to do a staggering amount of their work.
Ok if that how you believe uninstall everything from you iPhone that is not an Apple app. No other dev other than Apple and tell me how useful you iPhone is or if you would still use you iOS.
iOS/Android on mobile. Windows/Mac on desktop. Xbox/Playstation/Switch on console. So console has the most competitors but it also has the same level of app control as iOS.
Because they are not designated as gatekeepers. The day they meet the quantitative criteria for gatekeepers, they you can expect them to be subject to the same rules.
Digital Markets Act: Commission designates six gatekeepers
The European Commission has today designated, for the first time, six gatekeepers, under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).
It’s precisely those large customers that provide popular gaming apps/marketplaces and media content (audio streaming, video streaming and ebooks) that Apple competes with with their own services.
The streaming services and ebook stores in particular are platform-agnostic, so do not rely on iOS and their content hasn’t been developed for iOS, so these are clearly separate markets from mobile operating systems. For which Apple anticompetitively favours their own services.
Click on the link below. Apple provides a list of what the $99 fee gives you versus the free version.
Choosing a Membership - Support - Apple Developer
developer.apple.com
Okay but in your very last comment you said $99 couldn't possibly be enough for all of those things, and now you're directly linking to a page where Apple says it is enough for all of those things.
Exactl.
It does. One could well argue that those, too, should be regulated - but the EU has deemed that market not important enough (and since a console is stationary, PC gaming is a decent substitute for consumers).
But their business models (subsidised console prices) is different and their use much narrower (gaming).
Last edited:
Oh wow, you've got a point. Apps kinda don't even matter, do they? Why even have an App Store? iOS 1.0 was so appliance-like compared to today. A locked-down, extremely limited OS with almost exclusively Apple-provided apps is a very attractive prospect. I'm starting to see your perspective now.
So, you will not list your app in any other app store that charges only 3%? Good to know. Can you please let us know which apps you develop?
This is the standard policy in the US? Don't like option A? Well then use option B! And those are your only two options. And they collude to make sure there's no substantial differences.
Your solution is really to just either let Apple do whatever they want, or let Google do whatever they want, and let the market sort it out? That's not working. A duopoly is not much better than a monopoly.
It has been proven over the past decade that it is absolutely impossible for another player to break in to this market. There are no real options. The dominant players have to be made to follow some rules, because they cannot be trusted to make their own. Not if anyone actually cares about the users.
My perspective is that the hardware/OS platform comes first. App developers can look at what that platform consists of and assess whether or not they want to develop for it. A primary part of that assessment is going to be how popular it is with consumers and how much $$ those consumers spend on apps.