Well if they are, apple has a good case in court. If they aren’t apple doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Fair is fair.
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.
Telegram CEO Accuses Apple of Destroying Dreams and Crushing Entrepreneurs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Fair is fair.
This such a stupidd comment sheesh 🙄
It’s a point meant to illustrate that people and/or companies who design and sell services and products are entitled to compensation. Saying it’s a stupid comment is uninformed.
Yeah they get their compensation when they sell you the device. Is Audi entitled to a share of my salary because i drive my car to work?
Digital Markets Act isn't good for consumers, sure you might save a few euros in app costs every year but it will force Apple to allow companies like Facebook to get your user data. Might as well get an Android phone if you want your every move to be tracked by companies that's selling your data to swing elections.
It is the typical dangling of a few trinkets in front of people to get them sold on something that will hurt them, just because the corrupt EU politicians will get some nice payments later on.
Did you ever try to sell anything in a big box store? Do you think they do it for free? Out of the goodness of their heart?
That isn't a good comparison.
You have to purchase hardware from Apple in order to access iOS and the App Store. Apple has already made very large profits from a customer at the point when they download their first app.
Apple is tracking you anyway and they take money from Google to allow them to do the same.
It’s exactly the perfect comparison. Software sold in stores have a commission taken off the top. And as @Abazigal noted, game consoles. So there is plenty of precedent. And who are you to say what profit apple should make or not?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in New York?
Nobody is talking about game consoles the thread isn't about Microsoft or Sony but it they are abusing their market power in that market then they should be reined in aswell.
The store has to take a commission because that is their business they are not selling you expensive hardware upfront in order to access their store. It's a stupid comparison.
Doesn’t make it any less relevant.
If game consoles are allowed to steer users into a single online game store and charge game developers a percentage of their earnings, I don’t see why Apple is not allowed to do the same with their App Store. Apple makes the hardware, they get to control the software that goes onto it, and devs go in knowing fully well the terms and conditions.
At this point, many companies cry “unfair” when they really mean “not to my advantage”.
The take it or leave it attitude is not how antitrust laws work.
The word abuse and monopoly are very fluid.
No, it’s spot on and that’s the way things work. Apple provides a digital marketplace. Epic made billions in it and apple got paid for enabling epic to make billions.
If Sony or Microsoft abuse their market position in a way that unfairly harms competition with other business they should face regulatory action.
Nobody used the word monopoly or mentioned epic.
Apple makes plenty of profits from the hardware.
They should also be able to profit from the App Store if an app uses in app purchase. They should NOT be allowed to force developers to use it nor should they be allowed to ban the mention or alternative payment methods
It's not valid because our economy is built on companies creating value on top of others' prior inventions and products. Otherwise we be living in an economy where there's only one or two companies running the entire country.
Abuse, monopoly, anti-trust go hand in hand. Epic lawsuit failed miserably. You were just discussing abuse of power.
I personally don’t accept the argument that game console manufacturers like Sony are allowed to charge a commission on games sold just because their hardware is sold at a loss, while apple is somehow not allowed to do the same simply because their hardware is sold at a (handsome) profit.
Or is Apple expected to simply operate the App Store at a loss, just because?
They don't operate it at a loss. The App Store is a part of iOS, the operating system that runs on their wildly profitable hardware.
Unless you think it is a choice between taking 30% of somebody elses business on an ongoing basis or running the app store at a loss. The evidence doesn't seem to support that.
They said operate the *App Store* at a loss, not the whole company.
You pay for the device, not a subscription to have access to the store. Which is made possible by the 30% commission.
That poor "somebody else" is free to create another ecosystem. If you enter a platform, you agree to the rules.
The fact that the 30% only applies to companies that are already ABOVE the $1m mark is clear indication that it only applies to "wildly profitable" companies, in which case, they're absolutely free to cry me a river.
I don't quite understand why you believe it's up to the app developers to decide what commission (i.e. margin) the ecosystem owner is ALLOWED to impose on its users. Let's assume Apple reduces commission to 10%. Then what happens if developers say "oh that's still WAY too much". Where do you draw the line, and why? App devs are completely free to do whatever they want, they're not FORCED to support the iOS ecosystem. What would YOU think if it was your ecosystem built in 2 decades? Would you happily just hand over your margins, because those poor poor billionares like Durov or Sweeney can't buy a new island this year?
Which is my point basically. To what extent is Apple expected to just cover the costs of running certain services simply because their hardware business is so successful.
We could debate about whether 30% is fair or not, but in the very least, I feel that Apple is entitled to at least something for their role in facilitating transactions between developers and customers.