Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
For me this has more implications than just the iPhone. We are so close to the Mac being just as locked down as the iPhone.

from my perspective, Apple can keep their walled garden for the users that just want that experience. But if these devices are “computers” then Apple should give those that want it some freedom to do what they want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3NV7
The market determines what's reasonable. If you don't think the price is reasonable, don't purchase it.
Great. Where's the market for app stores on the iOS platform? Oh wait, there isn't one? Any other way to install apps is prohibited? Hmm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
I hope Tim Cook does not come up with the 300k jobs rehetoric. This is akin to third party digital services coming up with billions they help Apple get with their support … “Look what we have created for America. Without us the iPhone would be a brick a long time ago.”

Makes no sense to think in such terms. It simply exposes a monopolistic mindset. A sense of entitlement that does not correspond to reality along with a fake notion of gratitude. This can easily turn bad … very bad … with the right lawyer.
 
Last edited:
I hope Tim Cook does not come up with the 300k jobs rehetoric. This is akin to digital services coming up with billions they help Apple get with their support … “Look what we have created. Without us the iPhone would be a brick a long time ago.”

Makes no sense to think in such terms. It simply exposes a monopolistic mindset. A sense of entitlement that does not correspond to reality along with a fake notion of gratitude. This can easily turn bad … very bad
Actually I don't agree. The app store has created an abundance of opportunity for developers to make an honest living for $99, plus the appropriate hardware and software training...without any out of pocket costs for management and distribution of their apps.

It's positively a real thing. There is no monopolistic mindset or entitlement in that reality. And if the testimony goes in the direction, we can only watch and see what happens.
 
Actually I don't agree. The app store has created an abundance of opportunity for developers to make an honest living for $99, plus the appropriate hardware and software training...without any out of pocket costs for management and distribution of their apps.

It's positively a real thing. There is no monopolistic mindset or entitlement in that reality. And if the testimony goes in the direction, we can only watch and see what happens.

It’s a symbiotic relationship. As simple as that.

I could also write … the overwhelming third party support to iOS provided Apple abundant opportunity to grow their device and digital service business satisfying the needs of more and more Apple’s customers.

It is positively a real thing too.

What is happening is one company trying to get a moral upper hand over. Betraying the trust digital services deposited in the relationship. Who created those jobs were people that invested they heart and soul to create their businesses. If there was no Apple they would do it any other way.

PS: Without any out of pocket costs?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
It’s a symbiotic relationship. As simple as that.

I could also write … the overwhelming third party support to iOS provided Apple abundant opportunity to grow their device and digital service business satisfying the needs of more and more customers.

It is positively a real thing too.

What is happening is one company trying to take ownership of this symbiosis, trying to get a moral upper hand over it.

PS: Without any out of pocket costs?
This is Apples' platform (until laws are made after the fact to the extent it's not) and one is free to enter into a relationship with Apple or not. Apple is under no obligation to give away their IP (again, unless laws are made after the fact to force that). If devs do not agree, they do not have to enter into a business relationship with Apple. I do not agree with the "moral upper hand" comment.

Or just do a website, which sidesteps the entire issue.

PPS. What out of pocket costs?
 
This is Apples' platform (until laws are made after the fact to the extent it's not) and one is free to enter into a relationship with Apple or not.

Your are moving posts now. Just commented on the stance of the 300k+ or whatever. If they aren’t Apple employees, they haven’t created those jobs.
 
Your are moving posts now. Just commented on the stance of the 300k+ or whatever. If they aren’t Apple employees, they haven’t created those jobs.
It was you who made the comment about 300K jobs, and I merely agreed, saying it was a thing. I don't know, nor do I have the inclination to fact check how many jobs the app store has created.
 
It was you who made the comment about 300K jobs, and I merely agreed, saying it was a thing. I don't know, nor do I have the inclination to fact check how many jobs the app store has created.

You basically disagreed with me. Fine. No need to comment on what I haven’t commented, aka moving posts.

“App Store ecosystem now supports over 2.1 million jobs across all 50 states”

Let’s look at the other side of the coin shall we? Flip it …

“Digital services ecossystem now supports over two billion iOS users/Apple customers across the globe and thousands of Apple jobs”

It’s a Miracle.

hehehe. Pointless half truths, half lies.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
You basically disagreed with me. Fine. No need to comment on what I haven’t commented, aka moving posts.
Nope. I don't agree with your stance in general. I wasn't debating the accuracy of the 300K jobs. Couldn't care if it was 200K or 400K. The fact is the app store created an opportunity.
 
Why does there have to be one? That’s part of what may be determined.
I was replying to a statement that the market should determine the fees for using Apple's App Store. I agree with that, but it can't happen on a platform where competition is prohibited.

If what you refer to as "part of what may be determined" is whether a company can be said to exert a monopoly within its own platform, I think that's what the whole issue boils down to. My personal opinion is that with something as widely used and costly to switch as a mobile platform, then yes, using the popularity of the overall platform to exert exclusive control over one aspect of the platform is monopolistic. I might feel differently if Apple developed all the apps for its platform, but it seems to want it both ways -- take advantage of the diversity of 3rd-party apps, while keeping full control over the ways to monetize them. Anyway, I hope the court case addresses that question directly.
 
Nope. I don't agree with your stance in general. I wasn't debating the accuracy of the 300K jobs. Couldn't care if it was 200K or 400K. The fact is the app store created an opportunity.

I wasn‘t debating with you either otherwise I would have quoted you.

I understand you don’t agree with my stance in general. I think you also know that I don’t agree with yours either in the particulars. Made a remark on a particular Tim Cook stance over the number jobs the App Store supports directly or indirectly to justify its policies. A stance that I have reduced to its irrelevancy flipping the coin. There are two sides on this coin with truthful points, not just one.

If you are going to disagree with me in every remark I make, at least focus on each remark made, not on the general disagreement.

Anyway, one can of course comment anyway we think fit. But understand this … moving ball posts does not really work with forming my opinion. Reasoning over one issue at the time is the best way to do it. There are multiple issues at play here with complex relationships.

iOS its Apple’s platform indeed, but there are also third party assets involved worth hundreds of billions, creating millions of jobs. Both belong to businesses and individuals, not Apple. If Apple did not want their involvement probably should have stick with the original iPod, add phone call capabilities, keep the opportunity they created for themselves and call it a day no? I wonder how far that would go.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: PC_tech
I still dont get, that this is still going on. It is the same situation like this. I have small shop in a Shoppil Mall Center where a lot of other shops are, im paying 30% of my earn to the Shoping mall owner, i dont have to pay for anything else, like rent, advertising, electricity, or a security engineer, or a network adminisrtator, i can focus on one thing only that that is my product(s). On top of that for clouple of months or a year now if i earn less that $1 million in a year i pay just 15% of my earn. Ok this are the facts.

Now im unsatisfied with this conditions a want to have all of that above ( like rent, advertising, electricity, or a security engineer, or a network adminisrtator, ) a a lot of more also the platfrom which im developing my app for free, and a dont want to pay anything to the landlord of the shopping mall so instead that the land lodt will throw me out i will sue him that he is a monopy and i cand pay some other landlord which has nothing to do wit the shopping mall that im in ....

Im sorry but are the Judges in America total IDIOTS or what.

Could users on Xbox pay outside of the Plattform ... NO, could users on Sony pay oustside of the Plattform ... NO, could users on Nitendo pay outside of the Plattfrom ... NOOO, could Google (Android) user pay outside of the Plattfrom probably asno NOOOO .... what the heck, why is Apple a Monopoly Hehe and why did Apple get sued ... wenn i know for sure, because if epic would sue someone of theese oether ... it just get unnnoticed whi case about some non interesant battle betweeen gamers, but when you have Apple somwhere it gent the first page on every magazine .... thats why a this is **** not what they want or a unfair commision from apple or someone else.
You are only thinking from a small shop viewpoint. The scheme is extremely great for small shops and tiny booths to try things out.
But, when you gradually grow to a big shop, do you still think the scheme is great? No matter how gratitude you are to the scheme when you were the small player, you now have your own fame, a lot of the high costs at your infant time are ignorable at your current sales. Your only two concerns you have now, are:
1. How to increase the revenue?
2. How to reduce the cost, especially per $100 of reveue?
Question 1 is basically an endless chase you need to handle forever and there are endless possible methods you need to exploit.

Then, for question 2, it’s extremely simple, just to bargain with the shopping center as you have the power and a lot of chips. That, is exactly what Epic is doing now.

The shopping center’s original vision is to foster enough big shops, using the earnings from them to cover all of the early investments and the continuous goodwills towards the tiny booths. Now, if the big shops like Epic wins the lawsuit and Apple can no longer do this sort of compensation, Apple will sure come up with a different scheme so that it can profit in a “reasonable” rate from all sizes of developers, a similar rate, for big developers like Epic and Spotify, mid-size developers like Notability, small ones like Toca, or tiny booths like you and me. As a result, for the millions of tiny ones like me, I know I will have to stop my attempt. More importantly, if the scheme was like that, I don’t think I would ever try, EVER.
 
I was replying to a statement that the market should determine the fees for using Apple's App Store. I agree with that, but it can't happen on a platform where competition is prohibited.
Are you suggesting that any developer can dictate what Apple should charge for allowing their apps to be listed in the iOS App Store? The 'market' in this case would be the developers writing iOS apps. If they think that the fees charged by Apple is excessive, they can stop developing for iOS and start developing on other mobile platform. At the moment, I don't think developers are willing to forgo the iOS app market because it makes them money, so I think the 'market' has spoken.

The 'competition' you're referring to basically boils down to asking Apple allow third party stores. My question is why should Apple be forced to do that? iOS is a platform they created with millions of engineering hours put into it, and many millions more hours required going forward for enhancement and maintenance. I think Apple has earned every rights for them to manage iOS as they see fit, very much like Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo manages their console platform. As long as they are not breaking any laws, there's no reason to force them to change.

People need to realised that nobody is being forced to buy iOS devices or to develop for iOS devices right? Don't like what you see, walk away.

If what you refer to as "part of what may be determined" is whether a company can be said to exert a monopoly within its own platform, I think that's what the whole issue boils down to. My personal opinion is that with something as widely used and costly to switch as a mobile platform, then yes, using the popularity of the overall platform to exert exclusive control over one aspect of the platform is monopolistic. I might feel differently if Apple developed all the apps for its platform, but it seems to want it both ways -- take advantage of the diversity of 3rd-party apps, while keeping full control over the ways to monetize them. Anyway, I hope the court case addresses that question directly.
I really don't understand the 'monopoly over your own creation' argument. I really don't. If Apple is found to be 'guilty' of exerting monopoly power over iOS (?!), wouldn't that create an environment where no companies would ever create any new platforms in future, for fear of government persecution? I don't think law makers are that naive to go that route.

The argument of being 'costly' to switch mobile platform, to me is an argument deflection. A smart phone is not a necessity. If anyone is having financial difficulties but yet has ton's of their income invested in smartphone apps, this person has no rights to demand anything, because this person's priority is really screwed up. I see folks switching mobile platform all the time. I see folks staying with iPhones when they do not have many paid purchases. Switching mobile platform is not such a huge barrier, just initial inconveniences.

If anyone is really angry with Apple for the cut they receive from app developers (which I really don't understand why), they can stop buying iPhones/iPads. This will teach Apple a lesson and force them to change. I have friends that just refused to buy any Apple product because they are dissatisfied with Apple for whatever reason, and I respect that. I don't go about trying to convince them otherwise, because this is their rights.

Finally, Apple's sales figures seems to indicate that majority of their customers are happy with their purchase decision, and so, the market has spoken.
 


So far, Apple CEO Tim Cook has taken a backseat in defending Apple as it faces a significant legal battle with Epic Games regarding the App Store. While the CEO has commented on the platform in the past, for the first time this week, Tim Cook will take center stage in his company's battle with Epic Games.

timcookantitrust.jpg

Apple in March submitted its list of executives that will testify during the trial between Apple and Epic Games which began on May 3. Epic Games, developers behind the hit-game Fortnite, are accusing the Cupertino tech giant of holding a monopoly and anti-competitive behavior surrounding the App Store and the distribution of apps on Apple devices.

Apple's Phil Schiller, a company fellow, and the senior vice president of software engineering, Craig Federighi, are two executives set to appear this week. In addition, the company's top chief is likely set to appear at the trial this week or early next week and has reportedly been preparing for the hearing with "hours of practice," according to The Wall Street Journal.
Cook is expected to defend the App Store by touting its economic success, and the entirely new industry it has created. Apple often promotes the success of the App Store, saying the platform created 300,000 new jobs in the U.S. as the global health crisis was in full swing last year.

Cook is also likely to face questions regarding the App Store's 30% commission charge. To keep the App Store running, Apple takes a 30% cut from developers for in-app purchases. While the company has lowered the cut for developers making less than $1 million a year, many larger developers still argue that the "Apple tax" is unfair and that developers and users should have access to alternate means of purchasing in-app services and goods.

Apple's App Store policy requires that apps use its own in-app purchasing system. Epic Games attempted to skirt the policy in August of last year in its Fortnite game. Epic's violation of App Store guidelines led to the removal of the game from the App Store and marked the now nearly one-year-long legal battle.

Apple says that by requiring apps to use its own system, it can offer users a safer experience. Tim Cook himself has said that if third-party payment methods were to be allowed, the App Store would become a "flea market."

Article Link: Tim Cook 'Practicing for Hours' Ahead of Epic Games Testimony Expected This Week
Practising for hours? What happened to just telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? :p
 
If anyone is really angry with Apple for the cut they receive from app developers (which I really don't understand why), they can stop buying iPhones/iPads.

I am not angry at Apple at all. Just yesterday bought 1k of Apple stuff and wasn’t iPhones, iPads or Macs.

I am rewarding Apple for many things they do right.

Still, charging for things that they do not deliver it’s a stop for me and feel that should criticize this particular thing.

Take Tinder, top grossing App. Don’t understand why Apple is entitled to a mandatory 30% of this digital business … the app it self is minimal in size, meaning the cost of hosting and distribution (App Store resources) is minimal.

Take this policy:


  • 3.1.3(d) Person-to-Person Services:If your app enables the purchase of realtime person-to-person services between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. One-to-few and one-to-many realtime services must use in-app purchase.
For me this demand and others of its kind should be illegal under a digital regulation framework concerning any App Store. Regardless of how it is worded.

The policy admits that the App Store is enabling none of this, the App is. Neither it provides resources to enable it, just processes the purchase. In other words the App Store is not the thing that deliver customers this product or service. It deliver the app.

It’s not following digital market place prices neither. The standard price for the ability to install and update apps on OSs of this kind is 0 or close to 0. The standard price to host and distribute digital media of the size of an App it’s a fraction. Universal billing is a key differentiator, but what if a business does not need it?

They can mandate and enforce this successfully because of two things:

1. App Store at its core is the only device user have available to install and update an app of any kind.

2. One in two Americans have one of their devices in the pocket.

None of retail stores I know do this as they have in place competition. This is something that device centric App Stores full control off, in place competition.

As a customer looking at this I have little option than to consider that after rewarding Apple thousands for their devices, OS licensing and digital services, I’m also being used as a product to siphon value out of third party digital services to Apple.

Fundamentally this is what is in courts for me. Not Epic, Spotify … vs Apple.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: arlomedia
As a customer looking at this I have little option than to consider that after rewarding Apple thousands for their devices, OS licensing and digital services, I’m also being used as a product to siphon value out of third party digital services to Apple.
And yet you still give Apple $1K of your money yesterday? I suppose you meant to say you are paying Apple for iOS apps? Why? It is very obvious that you disagree with Apple's App Store policy.

For me this demand and others of its kind should be illegal under a digital regulation framework concerning any App Store. Regardless of how it is worded.
Fundamentally this is what is in courts for me. Not Epic, Spotify … vs Apple.
Until such a 'digital regulation framework' is written and passed as law, nothing Apple has done is illegal, can we agree on that? And this case being a civil case, it will not result in any such regulation being enacted, and the judge can only judge based on existing laws.

They can mandate and enforce this successfully because of two things:

1. App Store at its core is the only device user have available to install and update an app of any kind.

2. One in two Americans have one of their devices in the pocket.

None of retail stores I know do this as they have in place competition. This is something that device centric App Stores full control off, in place competition.
And I say Apple has every right to do this. And this includes Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. They invested millions into creating their platforms and attracted users to their platform. They have every rights to dictate terms of use for their platforms. Users and developers will abandon Apple in droves if they felt Apple is a money grubbing tyrant and it annoys them enough. Again, so far I don't see this happening, so I guess the majority of Apple's customer thinks they are doing just fine.

As a customer looking at this I have little option than to consider that after rewarding Apple thousands for their devices, OS licensing and digital services, I’m also being used as a product to siphon value out of third party digital services to Apple.
Stop giving your money to Apple then. You knew very well that using Apple's iOS devices comes with the only store that you can get apps, and yet you continue to buy them and complain that you can't get your apps elsewhere. Why?

Saying that you bought the devices but now demanding that Apple allows other app stores, which Apple is not willing to do, is not right. Stop buying Apple's devices and force them to change in that manner. You have other phones and tablets to choose from in the open market.

Isn't this what is supposed to be done in a democratic and capitalistic society?
 
And yet you still give Apple $1K of your money yesterday? I suppose you meant to say you are paying Apple for iOS apps? Why? It is very obvious that you disagree with Apple's App Store policy.

No. I bought some Apple devices, they are mine now. I don’t give my money to Apple, neither do they give their money to me.

Until such a 'digital regulation framework' is written and passed as law, nothing Apple has done is illegal, can we agree on that? And this case being a civil case, it will not result in any such regulation being enacted, and the judge can only judge based on existing laws.

Haven’t said it was legal or illegal in the current framework. That is for judges to decide I guess. But I suppose in the current legislation there is something about the concepts of property and the right to use it by either of the litigants … don’t know.

And I say Apple has every right to do this. And this includes Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. They invested millions into creating their platforms and attracted users to their platform. They have every rights to dictate terms of use for their platforms. Users and developers will abandon Apple in droves if they felt Apple is a money grubbing tyrant and it annoys them enough. Again, so far I don't see this happening, so I guess the majority of Apple's customer thinks they are doing just fine.

According to the American constitution everyone’s rights go as far as the right of others. iOS are Apple’s property, the third party Apps and its digital services aren’t. Yes, they invested millions in developing products and services and are being rewarded for that last time I checked. Currently the right of App/Business owners is being pushed to be close to 0 in these kinds of ecosystems. By the way, so does the rights of customers. The “right” is being privatized with the pure absence of law or regulations for the tech/digital space regarding the very notion of property … these notions are being challenged by the fluidity of digital materials and its constructs.

Stop giving your money to Apple then.

If we stopped paying for things we use every time we disagree with something than probably we not buying anything. There is a balance and trust that in the end things works out. Things aren’t black and white. Its up for the interested parties, case in case third party digital services and App Stores to fight for what they think it theirs while also paying for stuff use as their are doing. They have every right to do so … and valid points backing it up. This does not mean that one should not have an opinion on the matter.

Isn't this what is supposed to be done in a democratic and capitalistic society?

What you are arguing is that when in conflict Apple has more rights over their property than the rest.

In a pure capitalist society who owns/succeed more would overload any rights of who owns or succeed less, so yes. In a democratic society no, there are other values at play. In a joint venture of both values, yes, and no.
 
Last edited:
Sideloading Apps! That would be the dream!
Finally the iPad would be a useful device.

Yeah it’s probably outselling the Mac because it’s so useless right now. Top analysis.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.