U.S. and European Regulators 'Looking At' Apple's App Store Subscriptions Program

[slattery69]

For the most part, antitrust laws only apply when a company has "significant and durable market power." Basically, they have to dominate the market enough to be able to control pricing outside of normal market forces.

How is knowing the competitions pricing unfair? How is it anti-competitive? It lets you compete on price. It lets you underbid them. But they could come back and underbid you. That's how we get lower prices. At some point, someone can't underbid because they won't make enough money for the transaction to make sense. It obviously can't be too unfair or anti-competitive considering that (I assume) most retail stores publish their prices. Why is it normal for retail stores and unfair or anti-competitive for b2b?

competition law relates to all companies not just once with significant market share.
lets just clarify as you sound like your getting the idea of prices wrong, when you say retaliers publish prices they do the selling prices , not the price they actually pay for the goods.
thats the area that you cant discuss the cost price of the goods if the cost price is not in the public domain..
competition alone fosters lower pricing as the 2 parties fairly do business against each other , no need to know there pricing to get an un fair advantage.
think of it as two sprinters one is drug free the other not. the drug free sprinter is at a disadvantage

 

[Carniphage]

No. You don't have any clue about the current terms. And you "think" that the others have better terms, yet not as good as Apple.

Listen to yourself. You have no clue what so ever.

There's really no reason to be so condescending.

This is my understanding of Microsoft's terms. I work in the games industry, and as far as I know they have not changed.

If you know any better, kindly present some actual evidence.

C.

 

[Oletros]

No problem. The customer gives Apple the money. Apple gives the money to the developer in exchange for the customers information. The developer uses that information to provide content to the customer. That's a referral.

Yes, when mafia mobs are asking for protection they actually are referrals

 

[Oletros]

There's really no reason to be so condescending.

This is my understanding of Microsoft's terms. I work in the games industry, and as far as I know they have not changed.

If you know any better, kindly present some actual evidence.

C.

Without a publisher in the XBLIG model, revenue is split between Microsoft and developer in a respective 30/70 split.

http://www.binarytweed.com/2010/04/xbla-vs-xblig.html

The $140 million in XBLA revenue — 30 percent of which goes into Microsoft’s coffers as the owner of the platform — is split among just 300 titles.

http://venturebeat.com/2010/09/23/f...-quietly-dominates-games-on-xbox-live-arcade/

If XBLA and XBLIG split is 30/70 I highly doubt other games are different.

 

[Carniphage]

http://www.binarytweed.com/2010/04/xbla-vs-xblig.html



http://venturebeat.com/2010/09/23/f...-quietly-dominates-games-on-xbox-live-arcade/

If XBLA and XBLIG split is 30/70 I highly doubt other games are different.

Like I said before. These are theoretical rates. In practice, Microsoft make various deductions, use their own currency and so on. Real developers complain that the actual rate is much higher. That said, they are content to pay it, because it gains them access to a large market.

Regardless of whether it's 65% or 30%. What Apple does is no different to what Amazon, Microsoft and Sony do. For that matter, it's the same for bricks and mortar stores too - although physical stores charge typically 45-50% of the retail cost.

C.

 

[Oletros]

Like I said before. These are theoretical rates. In practice, Microsoft make various deductions, use their own currency and so on. Real developers complain that the actual rate is much higher. That said, they are content to pay it, because it gains them access to a large market.

And do you have any proof of those "practical" rates?

Regardless of whether it's 65% or 30%. What Apple does is no different to what Amazon, Microsoft and Sony do.
C.

False, Apple is not hosting, not promoting and not deliuvering the content. Apple is cutting 30% for nothing more than FORCING to use their payment system.

Apple is doing the same that Amazon or Microsoft in the case of iTunes, iBooks or App Store sales. but no when they force a 30% cut of Amazon or Netflix sales.

 

[Carniphage]

And do you have any proof of those "practical" rates?

Trying to prove things to people on the internet is as hard as teaching a gorilla to type. But there are plenty of developers who have made their thoughts public.

False, Apple is not hosting, not promoting and not deliuvering the content.

Correct. But it is providing the most essential part of the infrastructure. The pipe that connects the paying customers to the content.

C.

 

[Oletros]

Trying to prove things to people on the internet is as hard as teaching a gorilla to type. But there are plenty of developers who have made their thoughts public.

So no, you don't have any proof but you're asking for proofs from the other people.

Correct. But it is providing the most essential part of the infrastructure. The pipe that connects the paying customers to the content.

C.

I highly doubt that those ridiculous claims are said in a serious way. No one can be so stupid to say that without shame.

And yes, Amazon, Hulu and Netflix wouldn't be reached if there wasn't iPhones or iPads.

 

[Carniphage]

So no, you don't have any proof but you're asking for proofs from the other people.

What?

You are right! It's clear that all the XBLA developers who complain about the effective rates, are obviously an evil conspiracy. Why didn't I see through their lies earlier?

I highly doubt that those ridiculous claims are said in a serious way. No one can be so stupid to say that without shame.

I highly doubt that anyone believes they live in a world where companies give away the product of their investment for free.

Here's the last thing I will say to you, it becomes tiresome when people are not polite.

For any of these companies that are so desperate to reach consumers, please go ahead. Build your own platform. Amazon did it. Microsoft did it. Sony loves doing it.

Yes, it takes years. Yes, it costs billions, but it can be done. Just do it! Show the world!

However, if you decide that it's not possible. It's just too expensive or it's too difficult, then please use someone else's platform.

Just don't expect it to be free. The age of hippies and free love has ended.

C.

 

[Oletros]

What?
You are right! It's clear that all the XBLA developers who complain about the effective rates, are obviously an evil conspiracy. Why didn't I see through their lies earlier?

I repeat, any proof of those complains?

What?
Here's the last thing I will say to you, it becomes tiresome when people are not polite.

Not being poolite like insulting the other's inteligence with such ridiculous claims?

What?
Just don't expect it to be free. The age of hippies and free love has ended.

C.

It's NOT free, they pay the access with their developer fees.

 

[diamond.g]

The XBox is a curated platform, just like the Kindle reader, the iPad and the PS3.

To publish a disk for the XBox, you pay the standard Microsoft tax, which I think is somewhere around $8 per disk.

For XBLA digital downloads, MS charges up to 65% of the retail cost. I think for very low cost games. This goes even higher.

http://www.1up.com/news/xna-developer-microsoft-claims-60
http://parveenkaler.com/2008/03/08/iphone-app-store-revenue-split/

C.

But doesn't microsoft actually host everything they sell?

There is one feature of Netflix on xbox that people overlook. You pay gold subscription and you can watch the same movie with other gold Netflix members. Of course I think it is stupid to buy an xbox just to watch Netflix as there are better devices to do it with (ps3 is one).

 

[BaldiMac]

competition law relates to all companies not just once with significant market share.

I was responding to your question about antitrust law in the US.

lets just clarify as you sound like your getting the idea of prices wrong, when you say retaliers publish prices they do the selling prices , not the price they actually pay for the goods.

I wasn't confused. I just don't understand the difference. Why is it unfair to know the prices of a wholesaler but not a retailer?

think of it as two sprinters one is drug free the other not. the drug free sprinter is at a disadvantage

Only because the drugs are illegal. If knowing prices is not illegal, why would either side be at a disadvantage?

 

[AaronEdwards]

Trying to prove things to people on the internet is as hard as teaching a gorilla to type. But there are plenty of developers who have made their thoughts public.

C.

I can prove the 30% AppleTax, and that they demand it even if they aren't hosting anything. You have yet to show any actual documents showing what Micro$oft demands or whoever else you use to defend the AppleTax.

 

[slattery69]

I was responding to your question about antitrust law in the US.



I wasn't confused. I just don't understand the difference. Why is it unfair to know the prices of a wholesaler but not a retailer?



Only because the drugs are illegal. If knowing prices is not illegal, why would either side be at a disadvantage?

legally a retailer must display his prices so the general public knows how much the goods they are buying cost. ie a bar of chocolate is $1 and it scans through the till at $1
what he pays for that chocolate is not in the public domain he may by the chocolate for $0.20 if a competitor was told that he has an un fair advantange at been able to sell his brand of chocolate for cheaper.
this is not classed as a fair competition.
im sure youll agree the fair way to conduct the transaction is both companies present there pricing to the store the store choses which price and package he prefers thus making it a fair competition

 

[Carniphage]

I can prove the 30% AppleTax, and that they demand it even if they aren't hosting anything. You have yet to show any actual documents showing what Micro$oft demands or whoever else you use to defend the AppleTax.

It's really not hard to Google the accounts of developers who are unhappy with their royalty share.

http://forums.create.msdn.com/forums/p/18515/97142.aspx

You won't find anyone uploading their publishing agreements because MS keep them private and developers will be bound by a non-disclosure agreements. Many of these gripes are anonymous because they fear repercussions.

These games publishing models are not a simple or transparent as Apple's model. The platform holder can reject titles for portfolio reasons, and may offer more attractive deals to prestigious developers.

Check out this presentation from the Game Developers Conference.
Note that even the author if this doc cannot be precise.

http://www.slideshare.net/simoniker/independent-games-sales-stats-101

XBLA 70% / 30% varying to 65% - 35% No change since 2008.
PSN 70% / 30% This figure came from a former Sony exec.
WiiWare 70% / 30%

Steam was announced with a 50% / 50% share. Again the current figure is kept secret.

And of course
Amazon 70% / 30%

and so on.


C.

 

[AaronEdwards]

It's really not hard to Google the accounts of developers who are unhappy with their royalty share.

http://forums.create.msdn.com/forums/p/18515/97142.aspx

You won't find anyone uploading their publishing agreements because MS keep them private and developers will be bound by a non-disclosure agreements. Many of these gripes are anonymous because they fear repercussions.

These games publishing models are not a simple or transparent as Apple's model. The platform holder can reject titles for portfolio reasons, and may offer more attractive deals to prestigious developers.

Check out this presentation from the Game Developers Conference.
Note that even the author if this doc cannot be precise.

http://www.slideshare.net/simoniker/independent-games-sales-stats-101

XBLA 70% / 30% varying to 65% - 35% No change since 2008.
PSN 70% / 30% This figure came from a former Sony exec.
WiiWare 70% / 30%

Steam was announced with a 50% / 50% share. Again the current figure is kept secret.

And of course
Amazon 70% / 30%

and so on.


C.

And once again, what you have to show got two rather big uncertainties. It's old, and it's not official documents, it's people complaining.

The AppleTax can be proved right now through Apple's own official documents. Now, not in 2008. And with direct documentation instead with what people say.

 

[Carniphage]

And once again, what you have to show got two rather big uncertainties. It's old, and it's not official documents, it's people complaining.

The AppleTax can be proved right now through Apple's own official documents. Now, not in 2008. And with direct documentation instead with what people say.

No idea what your point is. Everyone knows that all of these platforms are created to generate revenue for the platform holder. The exact models vary but the underlying principle is the same.

Or perhaps you imagine that everyone is allowed to gain access to lucrative markets for free?

C.


If you think its hard to see the publishing agreements. You are right, it is.
It's hard to see the Earth's core, but it doesn't mean the world is hollow.
As far as I know, only Apple and Amazon publish their terms.

 

[BaldiMac]

legally a retailer must display his prices so the general public knows how much the goods they are buying cost. ie a bar of chocolate is $1 and it scans through the till at $1
what he pays for that chocolate is not in the public domain he may by the chocolate for $0.20 if a competitor was told that he has an un fair advantange at been able to sell his brand of chocolate for cheaper.
this is not classed as a fair competition.

I completely understand what you are saying. I just don't understand why you call it unfair. Two retailers are competing, but it isn't unfair that they know each others prices. But if two suppliers compete, it's unfair to know each others prices? Why?

im sure youll agree the fair way to conduct the transaction is both companies present there pricing to the store the store choses which price and package he prefers thus making it a fair

That's one way to do it. What's wrong with the supplier that had the higher price coming back with a lower offer than the winning supplier? That lowers prices. Why is that bad? Is eBay unfair?

 

[slattery69]

I completely understand what you are saying. I just don't understand why you call it unfair. Two retailers are competing, but it isn't unfair that they know each others prices. But if two suppliers compete, it's unfair to know each others prices? Why?


as the two retailers publish there prices as they have to for there customers notice,
its unfair as to how the information of each others prices were gained if the retailer gives one of the suppliers the others price its breaking competition law, i did nt write competition law i just have to follow it.



That's one way to do it. What's wrong with the supplier that had the higher price coming back with a lower offer than the winning supplier? That lowers prices. Why is that bad? Is eBay unfair?
how would he know what the price was though to come back with a lower price?
if the retailer was to say to the supplier with the higher price"i like you package but your price is to high" nothing has been broken, if the retailer comes back and say" i like your package but your competition has quoted $00000 so i need you to beat that price if you want the deal" then competition law has been broken

i dont use ebay often but i dont think you see what someone has bid till you beat there price could be wrong

 

[Oletros]

And once again, what you have to show got two rather big uncertainties. It's old, and it's not official documents, it's people complaining.

The AppleTax can be proved right now through Apple's own official documents. Now, not in 2008. And with direct documentation instead with what people say.

And best of all, in the first link people are talking of a 70% for the developer

 

[Carniphage]

XBLA publishers receive 70%. First party individuals receive less.

http://www.jakeworld.org/JakeWorld/main.php?main=blog/BlogDisplay.php&file=200802_February_2008.xml&key=23/02/2008%2012:54:28%20PM&#AnchorHere

C.

 

[diamond.g]

XBLA publishers receive 70%. First party individuals receive less.

http://www.jakeworld.org/JakeWorld/main.php?main=blog/BlogDisplay.php&file=200802_February_2008.xml&key=23/02/2008%2012:54:28%20PM&#AnchorHere

C.

I am confused, from that link it sounds like MS is fronting the cost of testing and certification for Indie Titles they publish on XBLA. Is that not correct?

 

[Carniphage]

I am confused, from that link it sounds like MS is fronting the cost of testing and certification for Indie Titles they publish on XBLA. Is that not correct?

That's right. Apple calls the same process "approval" and but not charge for it.

This is different from mainstream XBox titles, the publisher pays a substantial fee for each submission. This can get costly if the game is submitted more than once.
Rejections are for pretty minor stuff. If for instance the game freezes when dialog modal is on-screen and someone pulls the controller out.

C.

 

[diamond.g]

That's right. Apple calls the same process "approval" and but not charge for it.

This is different from mainstream XBox titles, the publisher pays a substantial fee for each submission. This can get costly if the game is submitted more than once.
Rejections are for pretty minor stuff. If for instance the game freezes when dialog modal is on-screen and someone pulls the controller out.

C.

Oh, so in this case DLC = IAP. I am pretty sure MS checks DLC as well to make sure there aren't any show stopping bugs. Or at least that is what they seem to do for CoD DLC...

Does Apple do the same?

 

[Carniphage]

Oh, so in this case DLC = IAP. I am pretty sure MS checks DLC as well to make sure there aren't any show stopping bugs. Or at least that is what they seem to do for CoD DLC...

Does Apple do the same?

Pretty much 100% of XBox saleable content is either games or add-on packs.

Slightly different for Apple, because there is both apps and content being bought.

Apple check all apps for compliance. Major bugs, instability, illegal calls will all result in a refusal.

It's harder to check content. I don't think the compliance team check every single Marvel comic on sale. But they certainly take action if they discover that content violates the terms of service. Porn for instance.

C.