Two Scumbag companies try to take down Apple because they can't compete fairly.
Spotify tries to minimize payments to artists. Screw 'em.
Spotify tries to minimize payments to artists. Screw 'em.
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
You're picking details like Bible slappers pick passages of the Bible to prove why it's okay to hate people.Show me what Apple has created from scratch then.
iOS or iPhones certainly aren't eligible answers going by that definition, since Apple clearly did not create them "from scratch"- With their Mach-derived kernel and BSD userland components running on an ARM instruction set SoC, I don't see Apple having created them from scratch.
Not convincing. Sorry. Apple creates lots of things. They have thousands of patents. They also copy and borrow. Just like everybody else.
Way to narrow your claim.
We’re not talking development for yourself (or enterprise apps) and neither does the DMA.
The DMA and Spotify and Epic are concerned with development for and distribution to end users.
This confirms that Apple are maliciously undermining the DMA by charging such fee to defend and maintain the old business terms they’re still offering.
Given how there are only two “sides“ to develop for, I support legislative action to restrict Apple’s right to charge - particularly to make sure they’re not charging in a discriminatory or anticompetitive way. I also support legislation action for non-discriminatory access to their platform.
Mobile apps have become too big a business and too important for people’s lives to let the developers of mobile OS reign and charge as they please.
We wouldn’t let a duopoly of car manufacturers charge a 30% commission on every fuel purchase either (just because their cars accept only fuel “signed” by them). Neither would we accept the argument “if you don’t like it, you’re still free to use the other manufacturer‘s cars”.
Last edited:
Why should you specifically need a Mac to develop for an iPad though? Simulators can run on any platform. It’s somewhat excusable with apple silicon but before then was pure $$$$
Please keep your language civil.
We’ve done cross compiling for decades. Eg the Commodore Amiga‘s operating system was made on DEC VAX machines. There’s no need for anything iOS related to only work on macOS…
You build a market square. You buy the land, concrete/pave/make it level, setup stalls organise facilities for parking, toilets, electricity and water. It all takes money and time. Vendors and consumers turn up and business is good, you get a return on your investment and time.
Then somebody comes along and says "why should pay you to sell my stuff here!!?"
Do you get it...? No? Probably not...
Bruh ... a platform without an SDK is nothing. It isn't on the devs to praise and compensate apple for their SDK, it's a necessity that if it didn't exist, the platform itself would literally not exist either. Stop shilling so hard it's god damn ridiculous.
Apple just wants to make a living.
Last edited:
Your answer to the analogy is wrong.
You buy goods in the marketplace. You use them anywhere. Just like the real world.
But the owner of the marketplace has rules on what you can sell there. just like real world marketplaces.
Try selling pirate games, drugs, alcohol, children, slaves or porn at a local market and see how long before the authorities turn up.
Wouldnt matter how many marketplaces exist (1 or many) if what you are selling isnt legal, then you get consequences you dont like.
And there is more than one place you can buy goods even in AppleLand... buy them direct from the maker and sign into the free app. The maker sets the price not Apple. And Apple gets nothing from the sale.
Apple Land is a happy land, and I feel good to be a part of it.
Last edited:
Sidenote: the EU just fined Apple… 1.8 Billion for anticompetitive behavior in regard to music streaming services. Boom.
Apple fined $2B today. Imagine Apple will be fined billions if it does not remove the CTF. By the time the EU is done with the fines, Apple will forget all about CTF and per-app installs, i guess.
Or be out of the EU and let the EU use android.
That is not going to happen. Shareholders will not hesitate to remove Tim for losing a quarter of their revenue in one go. Another issue is where to draw the line. Will Apple exit all the countries such as the US, India, Japan, China, and others if they come up with similar legislation?
Show me what Apple has created from scratch then.
iOS or iPhones certainly aren't eligible answers going by that definition, since Apple clearly did not create them "from scratch"- With their Mach-derived kernel and BSD userland components running on an ARM instruction set SoC, I don't see Apple having created them from scratch.
Very little of what makes MacOS or iOS unique is defined by just the microkernel. However, Apple pretty much built the XNU Kernel by hand. There is very little if anything left of the original Mach microkernel and their BSD implementation is recreated. Not ported. I guess you could say it's technically not developed "from scratch" but then almost nothing in the world would qualify by your definition either. Not a house, not a car, not even a chef's signature dish as they are all built or assembled from components or ingredients that they, themselves, did not have a hand in producing. A writer could not even claim sole authorship of their work as they didn't create the langue it was written in. As far as ARM goes, the basis for the modern ARM core was almost entirely developed by Apple, VLSI, and Acorn who all founded ARM, Ltd.
That free app still has to go through Apple. That's why there aren't any legal but not-Apple-approved apps on the app store - compilers, emulators, JIT compilers, torrent apps, and anything that runs in the background, to name a few categories.
Meanwhile, even that free app has a $99/year fee that someone is paying. If it's not you, it's because the developer is funding the app from his own pocket.
Facebook threatened with the UK. Of course this would have to be up to some type of vote.
Last edited:
I think what a lot of people really don't like and what they grapple with coming to terms with is that tight integration of app stores and devices are now so much better at enforcing the licensing terms they agreed to when they bought their software or content. AND the vertical integration is almost a complete guarantee that all license holders get compensated for their work along the way. That mean not only developers of the final products but also the developers of the components that went into them as well. This is what big companies are railing against and enlisting unwitting consumers in their battle by championing calls for choice and fairness while never intending those "rights" to be offered to their end users either. They just want better margins on their products and breaking the end to end enforcement of vertical licensing does that.
That part is true. Mix that with Apples licensing requirements for a virtual machine are beyond painful for any CI/CD setup.
On non OSX system you can pay by the minute. OSX has a 24 hour min usage. It make virtual machines setup hard and expensive. Add in other cases on getting a true CI/CD setup OSX is the odd one out compared to others.
Apple's offer of cloud Xcode is still not great pretty expensive. AWS, Circle, Bitwise all offer a better system for less money. They can do more, offer more support, longer support and cheaper.
It's even worse than that. In a world with only 2 cities, Apple built a city with impenetrable walls around it and only one gate, and then wants to charge 30% on any business that is performed in that city. It's an abusive monopoly
lol, they would never do that. More countries would follow, development for android would become more lucrative and developers would invest more resources in android. It would ultimately weaken ios and reinforce android, even in the US
How so?
It's a shared-effort, shared-success model.
Both have a HUGE hand in getting every payment from an app user.
Is your argument that you should get to decide how they share success?
Is your argument that Apple should just continue pouring uncounted millions into iOS app features without revenue which makes that work profitable?
Use your sense.
Wait, so you don't like Apple's first model of getting paid for their work, and you don't like Apple's SECOND model (letting people in the iOS app store not give apple a flat cut of fees, but charing for use of Apple's work more granularly).
And the reason you don't like either of those is because they are letting people who don't use the App Store use this work for free?
How is Apple going to get revenue to pay for the features it provides? These are all funded by people paying for AppStore apps (written in large part by Apple).
The number of frameworks and apis that were built by devs who are literally paid for by app sales is staggering. The cost to develop this code is equally staggering.
The fact that any Mac/iOS developer can use these COMPLETELY FOR FREE is frankly wonderful.
Apple has chosen a way of making that work profitable.
People are suing Apple to force them to make it profitable another way. So Apple said, 'okay, you can stay in the App Stores AND opt out of the percentage cut, but you're still gonna have to pay Apple's development efforts that you're using.'
The fact they STILL are letting the average joe use their work for free in this SECOND model is again frankly wonderful (and of course more profitable for Apple in the long run).
Are you honestly asking me how is it justifiable to charge monthly for the use of software?
Don't be naive.
How much of your monthly subscription to Netflix/Spotify goes to the artists, and how much is going to the platform developers?
Apple wrote a HUGE chunk of Netflix/Spotify. And you're saying Netflix/Spotify is entitled to an ENORMOUS cut of the revenue (they pay almost nothing to artists, keeping the rest), but Apple deserves none?
Please explain that.
Or are you saying you should get to decide exactly the model that Apple gets to use to recoup the massive, utterly MASSIVE costs they spend each year solely to improve the apps of app developers?
Last edited: