We don't have airline security to protect us against real pilots. Likewise, in that example Joe Evil isn't a developer.
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.
U.S. Antitrust Regulators Investigating Apple's App Store Fees and Policies
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We don't have airline security to protect us against real pilots. Likewise, in that example Joe Evil isn't a developer.
if so if 30 years nobody calls it's information technologies (it) but more on electronics instead. I'm also over that 3X year also. Hail prince of persia 2 macintosh.
[automerge]1593267550[/automerge]
wait, are they waiting for 30% airport fee..
just wait..Yes. Yes they do. Sure there's a myriad of other umbrella terms, but IT is still valid.
Let's not argue on semantics.
We have that. It's called the September 11 Security Fee, and it keeps going up.wait, are they waiting for 30% airport fee..
Fun fact, that revenue does not go to the TSA to increase airport security. Rather, it's dumped into the US Treasury general fund for non-specific use.
for me as long time users, semantic don't exist just a marketing term. I cannot remember the old meaning edo ram, sd ram whatever it calls long term just ram is enough.
.The only school teaches term and semantics.Back to topic, old-time, apple not as famous as seem, upon the steve job colorful iMac comeback then step2 by step becomes big. So either apple separate company as services or still combine hardware and services nobody knows how the gov will react.
The malware argument is just a deflection that tries to make the App Store sound like a thing to protect customers, when its core existence really is just to make money. Apple already has a good system in place for stopping viruses on the Mac. A developer can submit their app to Apple to be notarized, and if the app is notarized, the app is easier to install, and is verified to have no malware. No app store necessary. They could totally use that same system on the iPhone.
Can you elaborate on how the Mac stops malware if the user approves the installation? Apple isn't approving every build of every app not sold via the App Store.
Let the users pay for that then. I bet some users would say that they already have payed when they bought the devices. So it’s a case of double billing isn’t it?
Its True that Apple services should be payed for. But the payment of this services is forced to developer for the benefit of Apple users pretending its a service to devs.
Last edited:
Are only here because of Apple? What are you even talking about? 🙄🙄
[automerge]1593272243[/automerge]
That's absolutely ridiculous to think Netflix needs Apple to be relevant, they were already relevant before the Apple store 🙄
Last edited:
They do, whether paying for an App or having to watch an Ad, everything is paid in some way or another as a result of users. The user is king.
Exactly the way it should be. The user is king.
Developers set whatever price they want for their app, the user decides whether to pay that for it, if the app developer hasn't factored app store fees into the app price then that is their mistake, not the users.
The whole 15%/30% is never the whole story, people just like to focus on the drama elements.
How much of that will the app developer have had to pay regardless had they not had the app store?
Easily 15% of the app cost will translate into merchant fees, fraud, chargeback costs, time to administer and so on.
Then Apple is providing the tools to develop the app across their entire range of devices, widening the reach of your app, then direct and immediate access to the audience of 1.5bn+ users and the management of app delivery and the list goes on. Worth the remaining 15%? I think so.
Dry your eyes developers, either suck it up or leave the platform and develop elsewhere, better still, go it alone, see how long you last.
They used to say... 'Those that can do. Those that can't, teach'.
Now
"Those that can do. Those that can't become bad Lawyers and even worse Politicians".
^This. People don't recognize how important every single branding, ad, and penny charged is. It was a huge deal when Apple announced that the iPhone wouldn't have the AT&T logo on it. We were so accustomed to carrier branding that we just took for granted that cell phones advertise the carrier we pay for. Every time anyone looked at our phone we paid a little more for our service.
This is the primary reason I have an Apple TV instead of a Roku or a Fire Stick. I want to pay for my hardware upfront and be done with it. AppleTVPlus is already starting to push that idea a little to far for my liking.
No, I’m just refuting the absurd notion that the 30% cut is the cost of operating an App Store. If that were the case then Visa and MasterCard would’ve gone under a long time ago since they support a worldwide payment network (a little more complex than the App Store) with 1-3% transaction fee.
It’s all about greed given a cheaper option to distribute apps... developers will go for that because it means more money for them. The difference is Apples greed protects me the consumer. They provide me with a consistent refund policy, consistent billing and dispute resolution policy.
Amazon is the same why they are consumer focused.
Exactly, we know where we are on all these points and I for one don't want to give up what Apple provides me in that regard. I am not on the side of the developer here.
Amazon is a good example, want to return something? No problem, fill out a form, select return method, once it is scanned by the collection company my refund is processed or a replacement sent.
I used to go directly to some of the sellers on Amazon and they don't answer the phone, return emails and either try to prevent or make it difficult to return things. All adds up to time and frustration.
Not saying this is the same for all companies but enough that it catches you eventually, the same will happen for apps that can be purchased outside of the store. Most of these developers probably don't have the infrastructure to handle what Apple does that they will have to.
You are quite free to distribute your app(s) as free apps as well. There are a myriad of ways that apps don't pay any money at all to Apple. Switch to one of those. The very fact that those methods exist and Apple makes them well known should end this investigation. If you want the convenience of selling subscriptions in an app distributed through the APPLE app store...pay their 30%. If you don't, use a different method.
Which means if they can't make money via Apple don't develop for Apple. It's a simple choice.No one cares what it costs to develop a product when they make a purcahsing decion, they care about what it costs them and the value they get.
Factoring it out would confuse their customers and act against them. Because they would see different prices.
Now if the store showed their price + store fees that would be another matter.
One app.
Price: 9.99
App Store Service fee: 3.00
Total: 13.99
Another app.
Price: 19.99
App Store Service fee: 6.00
Total: 26.99
Click to buy.
This way the customer would be more informed.
Has far as I can tell, from what you have said, it would come down to the same. So why not?
The advantage to the dev is that prices would not be different from their regular price elsewhere. Actually this should be regulated in app stores.
Another is that has you have said, Apple customers love the store, so I bet they would not blink over the fee. So it would all be very transparent. If the Apple or the Dev rose rises or dropped fees the customer etc etc.
More, if the developer found it was not seeking enough he could always drop the price.
I bet that most people that come here don’t have their own business. Created and supported something unique, payed employees, face the issue of competition, investors ... ate tuna and beans from cans to sustain their Vision ... ...
Last edited:
These are the same arguments Microsoft used back in the time. Still they were forced to change their uncompetitive behavior
I don't see your point, Why does the customer need to be more informed? The price of the app is $x, that is all they need to know to then decide whether it is worth it to them. Customers don't care about who is getting what cut, they only want to know what it costing them.
I pay $19.99 on Amazon for a lamp, I don't get to know what goes to Amazon and what goes to the seller, but you are saying I need to know this so that I understand the fee paid to Amazon? Makes no sense.
Here's a question:
How do you limit piracy if Apple provides a way to bypass the App Store? I remember from the early jailbreaking days pirated APS were readily available on jailbroken devices. One advantage I see to the app store is it makes pirating apps harder, and being able to bypass that might make it easier. If so, developers would be hurt, especially the smaller ones who might see sales drop precipitously.
I agree it makes no sense, from a consumer's viewpoint; for many of the reasons you give. I think Appleshoild offer IAP for updates as well as let developers decide when to allow purchasers to upgrade recent purchases. It's frustrating to see an app now a "new" app a month after you purchased the previous version. It doesn't seem to me to be so hard to so, especially since Apple already knows what you've bought and what version you have.
[automerge]1593286187[/automerge]
She doesn't have to pay Apple 30% for the pirated apps?
Or as some claim, pirates eventually buy the app.
Pick one.
[automerge]1593286487[/automerge]
Except MS had a near stranglehold on the desktop OS and were using it to force companies to bundle other MS productsand making it hard to install competitors products. A very different scenario. Even so, MS won on appeal and then the DOJ decided to sttele on far less onerous terms than they originally demanded, which was to break MS into two parts.
Last edited:
True, but then she is losing many sales if it is a good app and popular the loss is likely to far exceed the fees to apple as it's the popular apps that are suffering the worst losses when it comes to piracy.
We know they don't, don't we?
So it's a lose/lose for the developer.