Tim Cook should go to a flea market to improve his lexicon. He seems to believe he's speaking, exclusively to Saks 5th avenue shoppers, but he sounds more like pretend bougie at Nordstrom Rack
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.
Tim Cook Says App Store Would Become a 'Flea Market' if Third-Party Payment Systems Were Allowed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, Apple's argument is not that it should cover the overhead of running the store. It should cover the overhead + profit for making customers available to the developer, providing APIs, development tools etc.
They also argue that they should be able to decide for themselves how they choose to profit from those creations.
I honestly don't get his reference. Are flea markets inherently bad? No, in fact they serve a particular purpose.
Honestly, did not having an App Store hurt Mac sales? Because if I am correct, the Mac App Store didn't exist for a long time, and Macs still thrived. And I can even still sign-up for and purchase apps and services from anywhere (not the App Store) for my Mac. I think apple needs to rethink its position a little bit. I don't know the answer, but I don't think they are standing on high ground right now.
That being said, I don't think they are completely wrong to charge. I just think they could be a little more calculated about it.
Honestly, did not having an App Store hurt Mac sales? Because if I am correct, the Mac App Store didn't exist for a long time, and Macs still thrived. And I can even still sign-up for and purchase apps and services from anywhere (not the App Store) for my Mac. I think apple needs to rethink its position a little bit. I don't know the answer, but I don't think they are standing on high ground right now.
That being said, I don't think they are completely wrong to charge. I just think they could be a little more calculated about it.
I get it. I wish apple focused on hardware and software because their exclusionary services, from iMessage to the App store really screw everyone over, from customers to creators
Please don't encourage the praying mantis to visit the "normal world". He will look very foolish trying to blend in and relate.
We aren't talking about payment options but also about additional stores like on Android and Windows. We are talking about companies like Epic and Spotify removing their apps from the App Store and putting it only on their own store or competing stores.
Already around 2013 there were more than 500 app stores on the Android platform. In China, there is probably about 15-30 app stores which has great reach. If you want to reach a wide amount of Chinese Android users you probably have to have your apps on at least 15 of the Chinese Android stores.
Maybe Android simply offers more for less?! It's typical capitalism to measure the success based on profit instead on customer satisfaction.
In other words they suck money of your wallet, just like a vampire blood of your neck. There is absolutely no friction, people are used to use different payment system already around the globe, on many different sites, to order different things. That's just a lame excuse, without evidence, that Apple loves to spread around.
I do the opposite, I subscribed only stuff that does not worth much to me.
Music(Spotify)+Movie(Netflix)+AmazonPrime(since Corona because of mass order/delivery)+Office365(acceptable, because of the incl. 6*1TB Onedrive) and that's it. Working on getting rid of Office365, but my wife still needs it for file exchange.
Anyway, I would never subscribe a sole App. When I "buy" an App like e.g Affinity, etc. I buy them directly on their site, specially to make sure the money goes 100% to the ones that deserves it.
The fair resolution is, a device owner shall be the only one who decides when, where and how they want to buy their Apps, and what they want/can to install.
Enforce easy side loading by law, and let the AppStore as it is, a free(not flea) market.
Not only, but also. Apple got 20% for doing nothing.
An alternative Payment System and/or an alternative Store wouldn't harm users at all.
Apple created the macOS UI, and keeps puzzling on it, nothing more.
Their kernel comes from FreeBSD, their Shizzle Safari Browser with Webkit wouldn't exist without a KHTML fork, their Printing System is based on CUPS. They rely on open PDF standards, they moved to Samba for network sharing, and many other parts of their so beloved macOS is based on free libraries.
They also suck like vampires on free projects and love to resell it as self made.
Just old wine in new bottles!
But this just shows that their moral is below the bar.
What a Greedy Evil Company.
Last edited:
Forgive me if this is stating the obvious, but a lot of things are racist. Racism is everywhere and so the question isn’t should we get defensive over what feels like nitpicking but how do we go about picking out all these nits because they’re everywhere and it’s a huge problem.So now it’s racist to say you never know what you’re gonna get shopping at flea markets. Hahahaha. Jesus. Ironically, you characterized him comparing to a flea market as a lower standard.
The App Store hasn't raised its commission once in its existence (and actually reduced it for some in recent years) - and it was palatable enough for millions of developers to jump on that wagon. A wagon Apple built. The deal benefited both tremendously. Aside from making a tidy profit, I'm sure, Apple uses the 15-30% it makes from paying developers to do the curation/review - not just of the paying developers, but also of all the free ones - which outnumber the paying ones by 3-1, I think. It also maintains & enhances the App Store & dev tools. I believe Google charges a similar commission too, so 15-30% isn't outlandish.
As someone who enjoys flea markets, this sounds like a positive development for the App Store!
Today I can get every app publicly available for the iPhone by going to one store, the App Store.
With additional stores I would have to install additional stores app to get the same.
We _could_ end up installing the Epic store to get their games, a Microsoft store to get Microsoft apps etc.
If Epic wins completely, some of the power in the is removed from Apple and given to the larger developers.
I don't want to install several stores and have a customer relationship with developers just because I want their apps. Apple now has the power to "force" this companies to make their apps available on the App Store which benefits me.
Yes, tasty snacks and beverages, and management who cares about the punters.
It could become as on Android, many app stores selling apps on behalf of the developer. So not cutting the middle man.
I'm not sure how many app stores there are for Android but at least several hundres exists.
Tim Crook doesn't shop at flea markets with all the profits funneled to him from overpriced devices.
So, is MacOS considered a flea market?
Tired old meme - there's no monopoly. If I open a grocery store, I get to decide what prices I charge and what items I put up for sale. I own the cash register - not the manufacturer of the items. According to your economic views, I should be classified as a monopoly.
Apple created the iPhone and the App Store and decided on the rules it thought would maximize the store's success. There is no "app store monopoly" since there was never a market for multiple "stores" that Apple needed to monopolize - Apple's iPhone and App Store was always a single thing! App developers got to decide whether they wanted their apps to be sold in that store under those restrictions. Plenty did and both the app store and many developers reaped the rewards.
The Apple store already take credit cards, debit cards, Apple Pay. I don't understand any of the points you're trying to make, as your analogy is very weak and comes off more childish than informative.
Having a 3rd party payment would be an additional payment option, Tim. An option. You know what "option" means, Tim?
Having a 3rd party payment option wouldn't make the App Store a flea market... no more so than a brick and mortar store having payment options aside from cash.
Does a brick and mortar store offering cash, check, debit, and credit card payments make it a flea market? No.
Does it dramatically lower the volume of customers going to the store? No.
Would it be bad for the customer? No.
The only thing that would be bad is Apple losing out on their 15% or 30% cut of the transaction. That's what Apple is worried about.
Want to talk about "confidence level," Tim. Let's talk about the confidence an app store user had in your App Store which lead to the loss of 17.1 bitcoins or of the App Store allowing scammers to rake in millions through the fake apps.
You also give a straw-man argument, and provide one single negative incident of how an app slipped though, and had one negative consequence, which you try to contrast to an open wild wild west environment which you know has numerous more types of malware, and far numerous consequences.
Because right now customers feel safe making payments via single entity - Apple. If some apps got to charge themselves, how would I know that I could trust them? I imagine there'd be plenty others who would begin to hesitate buying stuff from the App Store - especially once a few scams started surfacing. Customers would blame Apple and the store - even though they had nothing to do with the scam payment.
I assume in your alternative reality Apple screws you over just like Epic does in this reality? Interesting twist.
You mean, today you can get every App that Apple "allows you" to install.
Well you would not have to install anything, just use what Apple offers in their AppStore.
Affinity Photo,Designer,Publisher also exists in the AppStore and exists outside the AppStore, that's no issue at all.
It's totally okay if Apple makes the AppStore *cough,cough* a safe place, comfortable for lazy users and take 20%.
But they shall not be allowed to prevent the markets taking the direction it wants to go, and prohibit users from installing apps they want.
Users shall be even allowed to install malware if they decide to do it, that's real freedom.
And personally, I would have nothing against a decent, well written, "competition friendly" disclaimer...