U.S. App Store Ecosystem Facilitated $406 Billion in Sales in 2024, Up From $142 Billion in 2019

[surferfb]

Is a third-party app Apple’s property?
Are all third-party apps Apple’s property?
Is the third-party (e.g. Spotify website) linked out to Apple’s property?

No, but iOS and the APIs that allow third party apps to function on Apple’s devices are.

The Google Play Store does not compete for my purchases as an iOS user.
It does not compete for any iOS user’s digital purchases.

Yes, I agree if you limit the pool to “iOS user” it doesn’t. But in my opinion that’s as silly as saying Burger King doesn’t compete for the purchases of a person inside McDonalds. The competition already happened.

We don’t demand that every TV manufacturer be required to offer every streaming app because “there’s no competition in the LGTV store” and people pay a lot of money for TVs and don’t buy new ones frequently

I would love to take a peek into Apple’s rental agreement for their Mall of America store.
I’d bet a good amount of money that they aren’t forking over a whopping 18% to the Mall.

I agree it seems unlikely Apple is paying 18% I’m sure they’re able to negotiate. But if Mall of America stuck to its guns and said 18% or else, then Apple has to decide to pay up or not. They don’t get to open a store in the mall and not pay the property owner because they think they deserve to be there.

Let’s take it a step further. Let’s pretend a store owner agrees to the mall’s terms to pay rent as a percentage of revenue booked in the store, but then in the store has all customers in the store use their phones to check out on the website to avoid booking the sale to that store, meaning the store has no revenue. They get all the benefits of being in the mall, get to use utilities for free, but don’t have to pay.

And you’re sitting here going: “yep, that’s fair and how things should work because customers inside the mall don’t have another place to buy the product when they’re inside the mall, and the mall owner makes too much money anyway.” And when the mall says “fine, but you need to pay a Core Utility Fee to at least reimburse us for that” you say “But the store pays an annual $99 lease renewal fee, so that covers utilities!”

But to keep with the analogy:

👉 Does Mall of America take 30% - almost a hundred dollars - commission off my Final Cut Pro purchase from Apple's App Store - or otherwise prevent them from advertising Final Cut Pro to me?

👉 When I ask the Apple retail clerk: "Hey, where can I buy Final Cut?”, does he answer me “I wish I could tell you, but I can’t. We know it’s not ideal”

Answer: of course not. A mall does not claim ownership of the customer relationship after a product has been checked out from the mall.

You could, of course, argue…

…and say Malls should have that right. In which case I’d applaud your consistency.
But again: it’s beyond me why governments should tolerate or support this rent-seeking and overreaching business conduct.

Because governments shouldn’t get involved in private contracts between companies when there are other options! This assumption that developers have a right to be on iOS is as absurd as saying I have a right to be in the Mall of America.

….but Spotify’s subscription will work (on other platforms) without Apple’s property being used.
So does my Fortnite virtual stormtrooper helmet or the Kindle eBook I’m purchasing.

Yes, but the iOS app doesn’t. Full stop. If they want an iOS app, rather than a web app, then they need to follow Apple’s rules. This isn’t difficult. Pay Apple for use of its property in the way Apple is asking. If Apple is asking too much, then don’t use their property!

👉 They all literally work without any piece of Apple’s property or programming code being used.

Not an iPhone they don’t.

 

[I7guy]

[…]

Does your bank deserve a (percentage) portion of your monthly income?
Does your power company deserve a percentage of your salary/wage when you're working from home?

Bank doesn’t but IRS does. But bank charges fees per dollar in the account. Power company charges usage fees also. Everybody gets paid somehow. Pop up stalls in mall pay by the dollar if merchandise sold.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Bank doesn’t but IRS does. But bank charges fees per dollar in the account. Power company charges usage fees also. Everybody gets paid somehow. Pop up stalls in mall pay by the dollar if merchandise sold.

Hopefully they don’t ask 30% of your salary considering you can’t use your money without their ip

 

[surferfb]

Hopefully they don’t ask 30% of your salary considering you can’t use your money without their ip

Actually, the bank is using your property, which they pay you for (interest), and they charge you for use of theirs (fees, etc.). It’s a mutually beneficial relationship, like the App Store.

But if the bank doesn’t pay you enough for your property or charges you too much for theirs, then you leave for a competitor. You don’t say “I’m just not going to pay the fees I agreed to pay when I opened the account.”

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Actually, the bank is using your property, which they pay you for (interest), and they charge you for use of theirs (fees, etc.). It’s a mutually beneficial relationship, like the App Store.

But if the bank doesn’t pay you enough for your property or charges you too much for theirs, then you leave for a competitor. You don’t say “I’m just not going to pay the fees I agreed to pay when I opened the account.”

It’s not your property. It’s their IP, their offices, their employees who manages your money. The money being put in your account should give them a right to take a 30% cut.

Luckily such rent seeking behavior is just illegal here.

 

[surferfb]

It’s not your property. It’s their IP, their offices, their employees who manages your money. The money being put in your account should give them a right to take a 30% cut.

Luckily such rent seeking behavior is just illegal here.

You guys say we can’t use retail stores or restaurants as a comparison, but come back with this?

The money in my account is my property. The bank uses my money to lend to others, and pays me interest for use of my property. They do nothing that results in me getting paid. Apple, by contrast, provides valuable property that allows developers’ apps to function. If Apple took that property away the app literally doesn’t work.

If I am using the bank’s resources and IP (employees, trading algorithms, etc.) to try to make money, then yes, the bank takes a percentage of my money for use of their property and resources. (Spoiler alert, most of them take a percentage of my money even if they lose money that year! They charge on assets under management, not profit.)

And, if a bank tried to charge a “30% of all money coming in” fee, then the correct answer is to change banks. Again, this continual “developers deserve to be on iOS and use Apple’s property just because” is tiresome. Why do you think developers deserve to use Apple’s property without paying them what Apple thinks it’s worth?

Also, as previously noted, Apple doesn’t rent seek. That term has a define definition that the “rent seeker” provides no economic value. You’ve told me repeatedly that developers have to be on iOS or they will go out of business (but keep ignoring how 15-30% of revenue is not appropriate value for providing property that literally allows their business to exist). That is clearly providing economic value.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You guys say we can’t use retail stores or restaurants as a comparison, but come back with this?

The money in my account is my property. The bank uses my money to lend to others, and pays me interest for use of my property. They do nothing that results in me getting paid. Apple, by contrast, provides valuable property that allows developers’ apps to function. If Apple took that property away the app literally doesn’t work.

If I am using the bank’s resources and IP (employees, trading algorithms, etc.) to try to make money, then yes, the bank takes a percentage of my money for use of their property and resources. (Spoiler alert, most of them take a percentage of my money even if they lose money that year! They charge on assets under management, not profit.)

And, if a bank tried to charge a “30% of all money coming in” fee, then the correct answer is to change banks. Again, this continual “developers deserve to be on iOS and use Apple’s property just because” is tiresome. Why do you think developers deserve to use Apple’s property without paying them what Apple thinks it’s worth?

Also, as previously noted, Apple doesn’t rent seek. That term has a define definition that the “rent seeker” provides no economic value. You’ve told me repeatedly that developers have to be on iOS or they will go out of business (but keep ignoring how 15-30% of revenue is not appropriate value for providing property that literally allows their business to exist). That is clearly providing economic value.

You can use malls or restaurants as allegory of you want. I often say as the example because the acts are illegal here and believe it should hold true for digital devices as well.

And in EU when value is ascertained you need to itemize them. Just saying value because some pays x or combining it as a package deal doesn’t fly ever. Because if you’re getting paid it has to be know. What pays for what. FRAND exist because companies do what Apple does.
Apple doesn’t provide any valuable property. They sell it to consumers. And consumers shouldn’t pay Apple for the privelige of doing business. I gave you the legal defenition of rent seeking. and that’s what applies when you’re taxing economic transactions to protect yourself at the cost of other industries.

It’s your property. They have sold it. The fee to access it has already been paid. Developer subscription pays for that acces because that’s what it’s shown to be. If it’s different the Apple have to demonstrate that. You thinking it’s to low doesn’t make it so.

 

[surferfb]

It’s your property. They have sold it. The fee to access it has already been paid. Developer subscription pays for that acces because that’s what it’s shown to be. If it’s different the Apple have to demonstrate that. You thinking it’s to low doesn’t make it so.

No it’s not. If I buy a DVD of Star Wars, that doesn’t mean I can start playing it in a movie theater, or use it to write a new movie set in the Star Wars universe without paying Disney. Because I licensed the IP. The exact same thing is happening here.

You thinking it’s different doesn’t make it so.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

No it’s not. If I buy a DVD of Star Wars, that doesn’t mean I can start playing it in a movie theater, or use it to write a new movie set in the Star Wars universe without paying Disney. Because I licensed the IP. The exact same thing is happening here.

Incorrect. Your speaking of copyright infringement. no IP is licensed when you purchase a dvd. The fact Apple have no case against jailbreaking and apps sold by others without being developers shows there’s no case for them.

You thinking it’s different doesn’t make it so.

Can you show the laws that supports your claim? Or cases regarding Ip laws and not copyright? EU isn’t the U.S.

 

[surferfb]

Incorrect. Your speaking of copyright infringement. no IP is licensed when you purchase a dvd. The fact Apple have no case against jailbreaking and apps sold by others without being developers shows there’s no case for them.

No. You literally license the content in a DVD. You own the physical disk and license the content in the disk. It’s the same in the EU too - I just confirmed - you get a limited, personal use license. That’s why you can’t use the DVD for commercial purposes.

Apple absolutely has a case against jailbreaking. In the US they have sued developers distributing jailbreaking tools and won.

Suing individuals would be a harder sell legally, and would be corporate idiocy at the highest level. (I do know it would be virtually impossible to sue individuals for jailbreaking in the EU.)

Can you show the laws that supports your claim? Or cases regarding Ip laws and not copyright? EU isn’t the U.S.

See the EU Copyright Directive (particularly Articles 3 and 4), and the EUCJ case Tom Kabinet v Nederlands Uitgeversverbond.

 

[BaldiMac]

It's hilarious how the anti-Apple contingent has jumped on "rent seeking" as a perjorative without any understanding of what rent seeking is. HINT: Apple doesn't engage rent seeking with App Store commissions. It's just your standard profit seeking behavior.

An example of rent seeking would be if a company lobbied the government for subsidies. Or if a company (say Spotify) lobbied the government (or say EU) to eliminate a cost of doing business. Thus increasing their wealth without adding anything of value.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

No. You literally license the content in a DVD. You own the physical disk and license the content in the disk. It’s the same in the EU too - I just confirmed - you get a limited, personal use license. That’s why you can’t use the DVD for commercial purposes.

False equivalence as DVDs Licensed under InfoSoc Directive 2001/29/EC, Art. 4 Protects creative works (films/music). And isn’t relevant to software.

The relevant law is software Directive 2009/24/EC
Article 5(3) of the Software Directive states that "The person having a right to use a copy of a computer program shall be entitled, without the authorization of the rightholder, to observe, study or test the functioning of the program"
Article 6 allows decompilation without permission if needed to "achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program"

While iPhones Software is sold, not licensed CJEU UsedSoft v Oracle C-128/11
Exhaustion doctrine applies to software. Sale transfers ownership of the copy.
Result: You own iOS functionally embedded in your device.

Product Liability Directive (EU) 2024/2853

In the interest of legal certainty, it should be clarified in this Directive that software is a product for the purposes of applying no-fault liability, irrespective of the mode of its supply or usage, and therefore irrespective of whether the software is stored on a device, accessed through a communication network or cloud technologies, or supplied through a software-as-a-service model. Information is not, however, to be considered a product, and product liability rules should therefore not apply to the content of digital files, such as media files or e-books or the mere source code of software.​

Apple absolutely has a case against jailbreaking. In the US they have sued developers distributing jailbreaking tools and won.

Suing individuals would be a harder sell legally, and would be corporate idiocy at the highest level. (I do know it would be virtually impossible to sue individuals for jailbreaking in the EU.)

Legally irrelevant in the EU if they might have a case in the U.S.:
So what case do they have against developers who supply jailbreak tools, software etc considering they all run on the devices without paying Apple any commission or developer fees.

See the EU Copyright Directive (particularly Articles 3 and 4), and the EUCJ case Tom Kabinet v Nederlands Uitgeversverbond.

The case doesn’t relate to software as is outlined in the case file.
Case C‑410/19 The Software Incubator Ltd v Computer Associates UK Ltd
The even refer to your example case as the destruction of software and copyrighted ebooks and movies.

The Court’s approach in the judgment in UsedSoft has been reiterated in subsequent case-law. ( 51 ) As illustrated by the judgment of 19 December 2019, Nederlands Uitgeversverbond and Groep Algemene Uitgevers, ( 52 ) the fact that the Court has distinguished its findings in the judgment in UsedSoft from circumstances arising in other situations highlights the special nature of computer programs, especially as regards the assimilation of tangible and intangible forms of supply, in comparison with other digital products​

In that judgment, the Court held that the term ‘sale’ in that provision must be regarded as an autonomous concept of EU law and, according to a commonly accepted definition, denoted an agreement by which a person, in return for payment, transfers to another person his rights of ownership in an item of tangible or intangible property belonging to him. On that basis, the Court ruled that the supply of a copy of a computer program accompanied by the grant of a perpetual licence involved the transfer of the right of ownership of that copy and thus a ‘sale’ under Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24. In reaching that conclusion, it found that it made no difference whether the copy of the computer program was made available to the customer by means of a download or a material medium.​

Can even refer to my 2024 post with relevant cases and arguments that seems to line up with the cases afterwards.
Thread 'Apple’s DMA malicious compliance explained.' That seems more preemptive for what’s coming and the my legal reading is legitimate.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apples-dma-malicious-compliance-explained.2417609/

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It's hilarious how the anti-Apple contingent has jumped on "rent seeking" as a perjorative without any understanding of what rent seeking is. HINT: Apple doesn't engage rent seeking with App Store commissions. It's just your standard profit seeking behavior.

An example of rent seeking would be if a company lobbied the government for subsidies. Or if a company (say Spotify) lobbied the government (or say EU) to eliminate a cost of doing business. Thus increasing their wealth without adding anything of value.

I agree Apple isn’t engaging in rent seeking with the AppStore( but not for alternative payment links and sideloading) . But You’re completely off base if you think ”rent seeking” only means lobbying for subsidies.
Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3)

3.5. Fourth condition of Article 81(3): No elimination of competition…When competition is eliminated the competitive process is brought to an end and short-term efficiency gains are outweighed by longer-term losses stemming inter alia from expenditures incurred by the incumbent to maintain its position (rent seeking), misallocation of resources, reduced innovation and higher prices.​

In EU competition parlance, rent seeking French: (recherche d’avantages personnels)
German: (Ausgaben zur Erhaltung der Marktposition)
is when a firm spends resources to block rivals rather than improve its product or compete on price.

To decide whether a given Apple practice is ordinary “profit seeking” (competing on merits) or outright “rent seeking” (using market power to extract unearned surplus), you can apply a simple litmus test:

1. Does the practice create new value or simply shield Apple from competition?
2. Is the primary goal to improve product/experience, lower costs, and innovate or is it to erect barriers and preserve profit margins?

And it seems like Apple does the latter instead of the former.

Apple’s isn’t just “profit seeking” in a normal competitive sense within the AppStore, but by forcing every non AppStore related transaction pay a 12-27 % commission (or CTF) and forbidding any developer from even mentioning a cheaper payment link, Apple erects a gatekeeper toll booth. This is textbook rent seeking behavior: instead of competing by lowering fees or offering better features, Apple uses technical and contractual barriers to prevent alternative app stores or payment systems from existing.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I agree if you limit the pool to “iOS user” it doesn’t. But in my opinion that’s as silly as saying Burger King doesn’t compete for the purchases of a person inside McDonalds. The competition already happened.

We disagree here.

Because there’s a crucial difference: I haven’t committed to Burger King through multi-$100 hardware purchase and learning how to use their platform (restaurant).

The time and cost for me to switch from Burger King to McDonald’s and vice versa is zero.
That’s why they’re competing daily for my purchases - and Apo Store/Google Play aren’t.

Let’s take it a step further. Let’s pretend a store owner agrees to the mall’s terms to pay rent as a percentage of revenue booked in the store, but then in the store has all customers in the store use their phones to check out on the website to avoid booking the sale to that store, meaning the store has no revenue

…in another word, a showroom, you say? 😉

And you’re sitting here going: “yep, that’s fair and how things should work because customers inside the mall don’t have another place to buy the product when they’re inside the mall, and the mall owner makes too much money anyway.”

That’s not what I’m saying, no.

What I’m saying is: the sale is concluded when the product is delivered to the customer.
Spotify do not advertise subscriptions in Apple’s App Store.

 

[BaldiMac]

I agree Apple isn’t engaging in rent seeking with the AppStore( but not for alternative payment links and sideloading) . But You’re completely off base if you think ”rent seeking” only means lobbying for subsidies.

Apple provides value in exchange for the commission. Which is profit seeking. This isn't one of those gray areas. It clearly fails both of the tests that you provided.

1. Selling access to the iOS platform clearly provides value to developers.
2. The primary goals are improved product experience and lower prices, as described when the system was introduced.

Your argument continues to be that the only value Apple provides developers is as a store. That's clearly disingenuous. As is begging the question by starting with the assumption that the primary purpose is to prevent competition, as opposed to their obvious interest in compensation for the value they create for developers.

 

[surferfb]

We disagree here.

Yep - even reasonable people disagree on this

Because there’s a crucial difference: I haven’t committed to Burger King through multi-$100 hardware purchase and learning how to use their platform (restaurant).

The time and cost for me to switch from Burger King to McDonald’s and vice versa is zero.
That’s why they’re competing daily for my purchases - and Apo Store/Google Play aren’t.

Let's use another example then - TVs. Should Apple be able to force TV manufacturers to offer AppleTV+ as a streaming option on their TVs? I mean, customers spend hundreds or thousands of dollars and then don't buy a TV for years (my current TV is 9 years old, and we have no need for a new one, for example). And should they be forced to allow an AppleTV+ app even if it costs them money to maintain? Why shouldn't the TV manufacturer be able to charge Apple a percentage of sign ups that happen through the TV app? Or if they should be able to, why can TV manufacturers but not Apple?

…in another word, a showroom, you say? 😉

Yes, but one designed to avoid paying a fee you've agreed to pay. I'm sure the Tesla showroom in my current mall didn't sign an agreement promising to give the mall a percentage of sales in exchange for significantly reduced rent.

That’s not what I’m saying, no.

What I’m saying is: the sale is concluded when the product is delivered to the customer.
Spotify do not advertise subscriptions in Apple’s App Store.

But Spotify continues to use Apple's property to have their app function. There absolutely has to be some way for Apple to charge for that. And I'd argue the current (old) method of "paid apps subsidize free apps" creates the most good for the most number of developers, as well as the most good for Apple's users. I certainly understand why some developers don't like it, but I firmly believe it's the best solution for the biggest number of Apple's users. And frankly, Apple doesn't make iPhones for developers, it makes them for users.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple provides value in exchange for the commission. Which is profit seeking. This isn't one of those gray areas. It clearly fails both of the tests that you provided.

1. Selling access to the iOS platform clearly provides value to developers.
2. The primary goals are improved product experience and lower prices, as described when the system was introduced.

Your argument continues to be that the only value Apple provides developers is as a store. That's clearly disingenuous. As is begging the question by starting with the assumption that the primary purpose is to prevent competition, as opposed to their obvious interest in compensation for the value they create for developers.

Sure if we only look at the core acts Apple have done developer fee sells access. But when we look at how Apple have handled any information provided by the developer such as Netflix/Spotify can’t mention anything such as making an account costs money, they can register on their website unless they pay Apple for it.

The CTF and 12-27% fee on alternative links/payment options isn’t improving the product.

How is the customer experience improved by not being able to be informed inside the app? How is the cost lowerd by imposing an extra 30% cost to the app?

 

[surferfb]

Sure if we only look at the core acts Apple have done developer fee sells access. But when we look at how Apple have handled any information provided by the developer such as Netflix/Spotify can’t mention anything such as making an account costs money, they can register on their website unless they pay Apple for it.

Then why not just ban that? Say "apps can tell users they can subscribe online (or subscribe for cheaper online)." Let Apple charge a commission if they want to use a linkout - if developers don't think the commission is worth it, they don't have to include a link. But to pass this draconian regulation to address that is, if you'll excuse a very American simile, like using a shotgun to kill a fly buzzing around your house. It's going to do a lot more harm than good.

The CTF and 12-27% fee on alternative links/payment options isn’t improving the product.

Says you. Apple would say that funds iOS development that makes the product better and Store better for everyone, including developers.

How is the customer experience improved by not being able to be informed inside the app? How is the cost lowerd by imposing an extra 30% cost to the app?

I would argue a one-stop shop for all my software is an improvement over having to hunt down licenses for all my different software. Have you ever bought a new Mac and set it up from scratch? "Did I buy this app on the store, or the website. Hmm, don't see it in my purchases in the store, so I must have bought it online. I need to find the license code - did I use personal email or work email? Let me see..." multiply that by a ton of apps. It's a terrible experience, and I'm a power user! The App Store is significantly better for the vast majority of users.

Again, I agree developers should be able to say "sign up online for cheaper" - I'd personally prefer they be required to ALSO offer in app purchases, but wouldn't die on that hill as part of a compromise. And Apple should be able to get a commission if a link is clicked.

 

[BaldiMac]

Sure if we only look at the core acts Apple have done developer fee sells access. But when we look at how Apple have handled any information provided by the developer such as Netflix/Spotify can’t mention anything such as making an account costs money, they can register on their website unless they pay Apple for it.

I completely agree that anti-steering provisions are anti-competitive. But that's not what we are talking about.

The CTF and 12-27% fee on alternative links/payment options isn’t improving the product.

Again, you're using the DMA to justify the DMA. "Let's order Apple to make the user experience worse and then claim that charging for the worse experience is anticompetitive.". My claim was that the original terms when the App Store was introduced were primarily about a better user experience and lower cost.

How is the customer experience improved by not being able to be informed inside the app?

Again, I agree that anti-steering provisions are anti-competitive. However, IAP is certainly a better user experience than link outs, ads, and multiple payment systems. I'd argue for both the developer and the user.

How is the cost lowerd by imposing an extra 30% cost to the app?

Because the costs were often more before the terms were introduced, and provided higher barriers of entry.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Then why not just ban that? Say "apps can tell users they can subscribe online (or subscribe for cheaper online)." Let Apple charge a commission if they want to use a linkout - if developers don't think the commission is worth it, they don't have to include a link. But to pass this draconian regulation to address that is, if you'll excuse a very American simile, like using a shotgun to kill a fly buzzing around your house. It's going to do a lot more harm than good.

It is, it states :Article 5
4. The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.

Says you. Apple would say that funds iOS development that makes the product better and Store better for everyone, including developers.

Well they haven’t said it. It would then be a licensing fee or perhaps access fee etc.
It needs to be atomized when argued in the court.

I would argue a one-stop shop for all my software is an improvement over having to hunt down licenses for all my different software. Have you ever bought a new Mac and set it up from scratch? "Did I buy this app on the store, or the website. Hmm, don't see it in my purchases in the store, so I must have bought it online. I need to find the license code - did I use personal email or work email? Let me see..." multiply that by a ton of apps. It's a terrible experience, and I'm a power user! The App Store is significantly better for the vast majority of users.

I have, used to have a second generation retina MacBook Pro as well as a powermac.

And I did appreciate the AppStore, it just sucked way more than it needed. I just used Steam for any game as the AppStore was just atrocious

Again, I agree developers should be able to say "sign up online for cheaper" - I'd personally prefer they be required to ALSO offer in app purchases, but wouldn't die on that hill as part of a compromise. And Apple should be able to get a commission if a link is clicked.

Sure they can offer both. This isn’t prohibited. They can have ApplePay on one sided PayPal in the middle and IAP on the right ( or hover you want to envision the example). I’m fine Apple getting a commission if the IAP is used, not if something else is used.( unless Apple can argue some other service)

I completely agree that anti-steering provisions are anti-competitive. But that's not what we are talking about.


Again, you're using the DMA to justify the DMA. "Let's order Apple to make the user experience worse and then claim that charging for the worse experience is anticompetitive.". My claim was that the original terms when the App Store was introduced were primarily about a better user experience and lower cost.

I agree, but the experience when they introduced IAP as well as subscription as a service was an improvement(2009/2011~ or so) then anti steering provisions didn’t make the customer experience better but worse.

Again, I agree that anti-steering provisions are anti-competitive. However, IAP is certainly a better user experience than link outs, ads, and multiple payment systems. I'd argue for both the developer and the user.

I agree and Apple can take whatever fee they want for IAP, and I would argue if developers can include a simple ApplePay button or PayPal or just subscribe within the app it would be much better.

Because the costs were often more before the terms were introduced, and provided higher barriers of entry.

Excerpt the fees were higher. Most apps had a 30% higher fee in their apps than their website that they couldn’t advertise
( for a while even you where prohibited from offering cheaper prices outside the app)

Apple Switches Up In-App Purchase Policy For Publishers | TechCrunch

Apple has been busy this week revising its App Store guidelines, first with the revision of its DUI checkpoint app policy, and now switching up the guidelines for in-app purchases. Section 11.13 of Apple’s App Store guidelines has been angering quite a few publishers as of late, forcing them to...

techcrunch.com

11.13 Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions.​

 

[BaldiMac]

I agree, but the experience when they introduced IAP as well as subscription as a service was an improvement(2009/2011~ or so) then anti steering provisions didn’t make the customer experience better but worse.

Great! So stop arguing that it was rent seeking, since you agree it was an improvement and not for anticompetitive reasons.

Excerpt the fees were higher. Most apps had a 30% higher fee in their apps than their website that they couldn’t advertise
( for a while even you where prohibited from offering cheaper prices outside the app)

Weird how when you don't compensate the platform owner, your costs go down. Shocking logic there. If I could sell tickets to Disney World without compensating Disney, I'd undercut them too!

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Great! So stop arguing that it was rent seeking, since you agree it was an improvement and not for anticompetitive reasons.

What part of apple’s business do you think I’m describing as rent seeking?
The appstore
The IAP mechanism
The developer subscription

Their anti steering mechanism and associated mechanism.

Weird how when you don't compensate the platform owner, your costs go down. Shocking logic there. If I could sell tickets to Disney World without compensating Disney, I'd undercut them too!

So how will you have it?

1. A free app Not compensating the platform owner with a commission, have a payed subscription on their website. BUT not in the app (completely fine?)
2. A free app Not compensating the platform owner with a commission, with an alternative payed subscription link in the app( not completely fine?)
3. A free app not Perhaps compensating the platform owner with a commission, with an alternative payed subscription link in the app AND apples IAP with a commission ( not completely fine?)
4. A payed app with a store commission compensating the platform owner with a commission, with an alternative payed subscription link in the app AND apples IAP with a commission ( not completely fine?)

They all pay annual developer fees.

How about any alternstive AppStore that pays 1 million yearly licensing fee but the apps pay no commission or CTF to Apple?

 

[BaldiMac]

What part of apple’s business do you think I’m describing as rent seeking?
The appstore
The IAP mechanism
The developer subscription

Sheesh. Our posts are still in the thread. Why do we have to go over this again?

You believe that any platform fees on steered transaction would be considered rent seeking and therefore should be banned. However, you already agreed that compensating Apple for the value of their platform isn't rent seeking thus undermining your own take.

Why should moving the transaction processing to a website mean that the platform is of no value to developers?

So how will you have it?

1. A free app Not compensating the platform owner with a commission, have a payed subscription on their website. BUT not in the app (completely fine?)
2. A free app Not compensating the platform owner with a commission, with an alternative payed subscription link in the app( not completely fine?)
3. A free app not Perhaps compensating the platform owner with a commission, with an alternative payed subscription link in the app AND apples IAP with a commission ( not completely fine?)
4. A payed app with a store commission compensating the platform owner with a commission, with an alternative payed subscription link in the app AND apples IAP with a commission ( not completely fine?)

How would I have it?

As a consumer, I want it all to be IAP with the best price available. I don't want to deal with pricing schemes and coupons and promo codes and all that nonsense. I want all subscriptions to be registered with a platform service regardless of where they are purchased, so they are all in one place and easy to cancel. I don't care what the commission is as long as Apple is able to attract a huge variety of talented developers that meet my needs.

I want a single App Store with the option for third-party curation. MacRumors can have their own branded section of the App Store with all the approved apps that they want in exchange for a referral fee for any commissions that Apple receives including IAP.

To prevent Apple from limiting competition, I'd want an external review board that can override Apple's decision to allow specific types of apps. I'd also limit Apple's commission (10% or so) for any apps in which it offers a direct competitor.

How about any alternstive AppStore that pays 1 million yearly licensing fee but the apps pay no commission or CTF to Apple?

The worst of both worlds. A high barrier to entry that doesn't scale with the value provided and discourages competition.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The money in my account is my property.

Once it's deposited, it's property of the bank.
You surrendered it for the promise of a eventual payback.

As evidenced by the fact that the bank usually has less money than the aggregate sum of customer deposits.
And also that a bank can go insolvent, bankrupt, basically "lose" deposit, i.e. fail to pay it back.

They're just making a promise for future transfer

Let's use another example then - TVs. Should Apple be able to force TV manufacturers to offer AppleTV+ as a streaming option on their TVs?

Yes, of course, given sufficient market concentration, network effects and customer lock-in.
Why should accessibility of streaming content depend on a multi-$100 hardware purchase?

Now, I'm not sure if and to what degree Apple should be able to "force" them.

But

• in a duopoly of dominant TV manufacturers
• that control 95% of the market or more
• having obtained an entrenched market position through bundled third-party products/services or a de facto technical standard..

👉 ...they should definitely be prohibited from preventing Apple to offer, market and monetise their service.

Example:

• Say all of the free-to-air channels in your country (or the world) broadcast in NTSC or PAL standard.
• Each of these two manufacturers control one of these respective standards, without "giving them away" to others.
• Every consumer therefore buys a telly from one of these two manufacturers, cause theirs are "the only ones that receive all of the free channels".
• That effectively prevents Apple from (make is economically nonviable for them) releasing their own TV set, cause they don't have that rich ecosystem of free channels available

👉 Absolutely should they have a non-discriminatory access right. And not be prevented from marketing to their own consumers.

I'm sure the Tesla showroom in my current mall didn't sign an agreement promising to give the mall a percentage of sales in exchange for significantly reduced rent.

Question is: Did they (have to) sign an agreements that entitles the mall to a commission on eventual purchases of aftermarket subscriptions - such as Tesla FSD subscription? ...and provide the mall an auditing right into their finances and sales figures?

I bet not.

Look, there's nothing preventing the mall from charging a small per person "entry fee" into Tesla's showroom.
And there's nothing preventing Apple from charging a fee for app downloads from their store.
Just make non-discriminatory!

I would argue a one-stop shop for all my software is an improvement over having to hunt down licenses for all my different software

It depends on the price and cost of the alternatives.
There's a benefit in being able to buy from a more efficiently priced marketplace instead.

Both benefits should just be weighed against each other - or as it's otherwise known: "compete".

 

[AppliedMicro]

It's hilarious how the anti-Apple contingent has jumped on "rent seeking" as a perjorative without any understanding of what rent seeking is. HINT: Apple doesn't engage rent seeking with App Store commissions. It's just your standard profit seeking behavior.

Imagine how hilarious it is how Apple apologetics are defending their "rent seeking" without understand properly what it is.

as previously noted, Apple doesn’t rent seek. That term has a define definition that the “rent seeker” provides no economic value.

"Rent-seeking implies extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to productivity"

👉 That describes Apple's anti-steering provisions, prohibiting third-party developers from communicating with their users (or otherwise being taxed 30% of their revenue).

Apple's prohibitions on third-party developers do not provide any such productive value. It's simply "charging because I can".