Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This isn't really about the 30%. Apple can charge whatever they want at their store. But they should NOT be allowed to have the only store. If I want to write an app for the iPhone, I should have the choice to put it in Apple's store, some other store, or sell/give it away directly from my own web site.

Apple never prohibit you to do any of that. Apple just made its iOS more protective for those end users that are not technically savvy. For technically savvy users, there is method to install the apps through other stores or your own web site. The difficulty of going through the technical hurdles kind of proves these users' ability to protect themselves well.
 
Hmm - I paid $2,500 for a MBP and let "Rogue Apps" control it on MAC OS - Example - About Rogue Amoeba

Great Apps - and a good model for iOS

Developers could charge much more if they could sell their apps freely and let customers decide if the apps are worth the price. They could also focus on developing apps for their "user base" not for Apple's marketing purposes.

They would also not beholden to some of Apple's draconian App Store rules like "must use webkit", "duplicate iOS functionality" & "pay us royalties." These hurdles are not technological.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikzn
I believe thinks worked out well for the consumer when the government stepped in to check all the anti-competitive nonsense Microsoft was up to in the 90s (stuff which, if I remember correctly Apple fans raised against).

What would be so awful if the iOS app market was transformed into something like the Mac app market, where developers can sell their apps in the App Store and from their own website. And individuals like you and me can install apps on our phone whether Apple approves of them or not?

Ana after installing such an app from a non-Apple entity, which in turn installs a virus on your device, people like you will be the first ones to whine about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveN
Can someone smarter then me explain this to me? Seems if you don’t like Apples way of doing things then go elsewhere...


All I see are devs who want the ability to reach IOS users through Apples platform, but don’t want to pay the price of admission. If you are not happy then go android.
 
you're not arguing what I'm saying though.

I'm not saying Apple must sell them seperately. Only that the "key" to unlock the bootloader be available if someone wants it, to replace the OS.

I would honestly expect 99.99999999% (with margin of error) to never know, or care.Only that it is available for those that desire to (as they own the hardware and should have the right to if they want)

To maintain brand quality and recognition. Android has been long associated with malware, not because of the Google Play Store, but because of the ability to side load bad applications.

We recently had a problem where developers could download Apple developers tools outside of Apple servers. That injected Malware into each Application put into Apples App Store.

Not only would allowing outside operating systems/Apps onto the platform be a Tech Support nightmare, Apple iPhone brand would be forever seen as bad product, riddled with Malware. All because allowing customers to easily hack into their platform degrading the Apple name known for high quality and known for "It just works" features.

People wanting to do this on Apple is on the wrong platform.
 
"In this case, however, several consumers contend that Apple charges too much for apps. The consumers argue, in particular, that Apple has monopolized the retail market for the sale of apps and has unlawfully used its monopolistic power to charge consumers higher-than competitive prices. "

Apple doesn't charge for any of their apps - developers set app prices
 
Surprised they got this far given how little consumer protection afforded to US citizens

Personally, I hope this doesn't go anywhere. I believe in caveat emptor - Let the buyer beware. We bought into an ecosystem. Apple has every right to control that ecosystem as it sees fit. If you don't like it, go Android.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shanson27
They can always buy an Android phone if they want a more open and potentially insecure way of getting apps.

To turn that around, Apple opening iOS up to allow alternative app stores and sideloading does not mean you have to participate in using those methods. An Android user can choose not to install other non-Google play stores and Android has a system setting to block app installs from other sources.

I feel like a lot of the Apple fanboi "NOOO! We can't open iOS app installation!" viewpoint here is based on ignorance of how Android works when it comes to this. Like they think by allowing alternative ways of installing apps your device is now inherently going to allow things to install willy-nilly without any user control. That's not how Android works, and you can lock down an Android phone to a single marketplace in exactly the same way Apple does. The "malware free" platform iPhone users (falsely) believe they have is not due to the closed nature of iOS/Apple's App store. It's just due to better vetting of apps by Apple on their own personal store. An approval process that has already been shown to NOT be the perfect utopia of security the proponents think it is.

You could have the same thing on Android by turning on a single switch on the Android system setting and if Google made getting apps published the same process Apple does.

My point is giving customers a CHOICE is not an issue. To quote you: They can always buy only from the Apple App Store if they want a more limited and potentially more secure way of getting apps.
 
It's not a monopoly as long as you have Android. You should probably refer to a textbook that has the actual definition of Monopoly.

Yes. And, ironically enough, textbook publishers have set-up lots of monopolies, price-fixing, forced obsolescence, and anti-competitive practices themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
I think Apple does have a monopoly. Why? Because you have to sign a developer agreement that you give Apple exclusive rights to only sell your iOS App through the Apple App Store. Now the next problem is that Apple is moving iOS Apps to Mac. Which makes me wonder if Apple will try to restrict the Mac App market even more. Right now no one makes Apps for Mac (except the ones that have good marketing or were popular before the Mac App store). It's already extremely restricted with Gatekeeper and such. So you say the App Stores are safer? it's pretty easy to spoof someone into thinking they need to enter their username and password on Mac and iOS and there's nothing Apple will do about it. The App stores and Gatekeeper are actually worse because you think that it's safe but in reality they're not. Just my two cents from the perspective of being a Mac and iOS developer...

Plenty of companies sell across the platforms. You do not have an exclusivity agreement with Apple. Search any diet app and see it exists on multiple platforms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MEJHarrison
Truly a bizarre case, if only because of the US’s misguided obsession with price as the only measure of monopolistic behavior. I believe Apple takes too big a cut from Store sales, but no serious person believes a lesser cut would result in lower app prices.
 
Apple built a walled garden and the U.S. Supreme court just called them on it. Tim's got to get out his hip waders and do some care and feeding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
Plenty of companies sell across the platforms. You do not have an exclusivity agreement with Apple. Search any diet app and see it exists on multiple platforms.

Exactly. I was going to say the same with games. It would be trivial to find an example that's available on Android and iOS.
 
These 5-4 decisions set precedent. We really need the Supreme Court to only set precedent unanimously. Having set precedent on a simple majority is too close and becomes too political.

So instead of having the supreme court set precedent you'd rather have a bunch of inefficient district court fights that all contradict each other? That sounds like a bad time.
 
No. I just don't believe lies. You have ZERO proof of Apple "rigging" a jury.

Yeah and Apple never attempts to have cases bought in certain counties as it increases their chances of wining.
But whatever, I’m sure you only like the Supreme Court when it decides in Apples favour and will defending Apple all the way.

If I was Apple ID be more concerned about the EU anyway as their is a chance they could be ripped apart there..
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
did you just read the very last two lines of my post and assume that was the message of my post? I'd recommend reading the whole thing, as I made that very exact argument ;)

I did, and after saying it's not you did a 180 and said:

but, if you look at iOS itself as a market unto it's own (which is part of the argument of the lawsuit), than yes, this is a monopolistic practice within the micro context of the specific platform.

if you are on iOS, the Appstore is 100% a monopoly.
if you don't care about iOS, than no, the Appstore is not a monopoly.

It was that contridiction I took issue with, i.e. that you could consider iOS a market in and of itself; I do not think looking at a micro market that is only a fraction of the larger one is the right way to define monopolistic practices.

If you did not mean to make that argument then you have my most humble apologies.
 
I hope this leads to other App stores or side loading. I know this will open Pandora's box with malware but I am will to accept the risk.

Maybe Apple could make something like a red band phone that supported side loading, 3rd party app stores, etc and the normal walled garden devices. I would even be willing to pay a little more IF it had the same specs as the non-red band.
 
I totally agree that Apple deserves a cut for its services but 30 percent just doesn’t seem reasonable anymore (especially not for IAPs where the only thing they do is handling the payment). The Epic Store keeps 12 percent for mainly the same services as the App Store and with the cost curves of data storage and payment processing fees coming down I could imagine that Epic still makes a fair amount of money with their store.

In a free market fair is what people are willing to pay at whatever demand level the seller desires. If developers don't like the deal they are free to develop for other platforms. If developers bolt then Apple has to decide wether or not to lower its price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LordVic

No problem that's why iasked.

all i was presenting was potential arguments, Not my argument, nor what I believe is the likely verdict. Just potential arguments to be made.

that's why it's probably being allowed to go to trial, because there are several arguments that can present themselves and the judge determined that a trial, where sides can present their cases to determine which is considered the "acceptable" view point.

And just because a judge allows the trial to commence, doesn't mean that any party is "guilty" of anything. Thats why it needs to go to trial.

If I put my personal opinion into the mix. No, the App store is not a monopoly. If you don't like it, there are more than enough competing products that are more open and accessible to chose from.
 
Your attitude of "Go buy another product or find another ecosystem" is pure bull.

It's a common argument against for sure.

The thing is, I did that. And you know what? My phone hasn't exploded yet. I haven't had my bank accounts wiped out, or my dong shots leaked on the internet. I have no reason not to stick the Play Store, except for that time I side-loaded a ported version of GCam from a vetted source. Thing is, I had a legit reason to do that and the option was available to me without a yearly subscription and a Mac & XCode to push the damn thing.

Apple literally no longer gets a single penny out of me. Not for their phones, tablets or their computers any more and thus not for their App Stores or any of their subscription services - nothing. How cool is that for Apple? It's what they want, obviously. Especially in numbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
Yeah and Apple never attempts to have cases bought in certain counties as it increases their chances of wining.
But whatever, I’m sure you only like the Supreme Court when it decides in Apples favour and will defending Apple all the way.

If I was Apple ID be more concerned about the EU anyway as their is a chance they could be ripped apart there..

I’m still waiting for your evidence of Apple rigging a jury or buying cases. Do you have some or don’t you?
 
In a free market fair is what people are willing to pay at whatever demand level the seller desires. If developers don't like the deal they are free to develop for other platforms. If developers bolt then Apple has to decide wether or not to lower its price.

This is the ultimate in how its' supposed to work. And its always a real possibility, especially in the phone industry.

it doesn't matter how big you are. If you manage to shrink your install base enough that the costs of development no longer present enough potential market, than the risk of those developers leaving is a reality.

We all saw what happened to Windows phone, despite trying to pay developers to come. We saw what happened to Palm when nobody developed for them, and even Blackberry, when they were #1 bled developers for growing markets instead of stagnating ones. (Blackberry was still the #1 seller of smartphones as late as 2010, and it still couldn't save them once developers left the platform)

Apple might sell the #1 selling individual phones, But they are not the #1 seller of devices and have seen their market share shrink slightly now for a few quarters (which indicates a trend).

3rd party developers and accessory makers pay attention to these things.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.