Well, who’s property it is-is when talking about bank accounts (or deposit accounts) probably is best described as owned by the depositor (you/creditor) and not the bank (debtor).
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. App Store Ecosystem Facilitated $406 Billion in Sales in 2024, Up From $142 Billion in 2019
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, who’s property it is-is when talking about bank accounts (or deposit accounts) probably is best described as owned by the depositor (you/creditor) and not the bank (debtor).
Not at all. As discussed extensively in this thread, developers receive value in exchange for the commission that Apple charges. Using a different payment processor doesn't make that value go away.
No, the money is still yours, you're lending it to the bank.
Literally the exact same thing is happening here. There are dozens of phone manufactures. Most of them allow apps installed from anywhere. And spare us the "duopoly" argument. If Android was 3 different companies each with 25% market share all with "open" ecosystems and all that that entails, the DMA would still apply to Apple. It's not about how many market participants there are - it's that the EU and its defenders are philosophically opposed to vertical integration as and so passed a sweeping law making it illegal without performing any actual studies of consumer harm outside of a one-sided report drafted by a bunch of people begging the question.
If the mall was demanding that Tesla could tell them "thanks but no thanks" if they didn't agree to those terms. But Tesla doesn't have a right to be in the mall. They don't get to go in the mall and use the mall's property without payment.
"Let's make things worse for all of Apple's users so Spotify can avoid paying Apple for using its property the same way it avoids paying its musicians!" You're making Apple choose between being properly compensated for their hard work and intentionally harming their platform and its users. Sure they have a choice, just as I have a "choice" if someone points a gun at me and says "give me your watch, wallet and phone or I shoot you in the leg."
It's not actually a choice and you and the EC know it, which is why the EC did it. If the EC had said "Apple isn't allowed to charge for use of its property" it wouldn't have passed. But this way they can lie and pretend they believe in the free market and private property rights and Apple is choosing to give their property away for free.
They do compete. If you want to buy from a more efficiently priced marketplace that is absolutely an option. It's called Android, and spoiler alert: despite the "open competition" prices are the same as they are in the App Store - proving that Apple is charging market rate for access to its platform.
(Actually, I'd argue it's below market rate, since as you frequently point out, iOS users buy more apps/subscriptions than Android users do and yet Apple doesn't charge more than Google does).
They do not.
Being willing to pay a certain price to someone does not mean that productive value has been generated. Even if third-party developers make more money in paying that commission than not - that does not mean that Apple aren't mainly charging rent.
The fact that many of the largest developers, of the most popular apps ceased to offer their subscriptions in their apps at all, is indicative of the contrary. They've literally withdrawn from the market, by not offering subscriptions or in-app purchases, because Apple charges more than a competitive rate.
I've been through that discussion with @I7guy countless times.
The number of phone manufacturers is irrelevant with regards to software distribution - as long as they're all running the same OS and application store. Consumers do not buy their phone apps from Xiaomi, Oppo, Samsung etc. (well, not in relevant numbers anyway). They're buying from either the Apple App Store - or Google's Play Store (which do not compete against each other for the same consumers).
Last edited:
I don’t find the argument that the iOS platform is of no value to developers in any way reasonable or worth debating.
It’s literally insane.
Ok the one hand: developers deserve to be on iOS because they need to be or else they’ll go out of business.
On the other: Apple provides no value whatsoever and just takes with providing nothing.
It can’t be both!
I agree!
The crazy part is how Apple so often behaves as though they don't think developers offer any true value to iOS and Apple itself.
Don't take my word for it .. Just listen to ATP & Upgrade and ... just pick your Indie dev show really.
It's a narrative that has become consistent, and very frustrating for those developers.
Neither do I. So don't put words in my mouth.
Apple's App Store provides some value to developers.
Their terms and rules on in-app purchases and anti-steering are mainly rent-seeking though and not providing value.
Prohibiting developers from communicating with and marketing to customers is not providing value.
It's "anti-value", if you will.
Would Apple continue to provide the App Store without exclusivity of charging for in-app purchases?
You bet - they'd just price it competitively, eventually.
They get away with it by being the behemoth that can play almost all of their smaller developers off against each other.
Last edited:
PS:
I’d not even dispute that - for a large part of their apps and important part of their customer (developer) base - Apple prices may their App Store too cheap. Below the value they’re providing.
The problem is how they’re leveraging that (the resulting attraction to the overall developer base that gives them a dominant market position in distribution of software) to ruthlessly extract rent from a particular subset of their customers - on a particular subset of transactions.
I’d not even dispute that - for a large part of their apps and important part of their customer (developer) base - Apple prices may their App Store too cheap. Below the value they’re providing.
The problem is how they’re leveraging that (the resulting attraction to the overall developer base that gives them a dominant market position in distribution of software) to ruthlessly extract rent from a particular subset of their customers - on a particular subset of transactions.
Why haven’t prices lowered on Android? And why are you convinced they will on iOS (assuming for the moment Apple is allowed to set its prices like most businesses are)?
This is an honest question. You are so convinced Apple isn’t charging a fair price, but the evidence we have in the ecosystem is that open is that the dominant store is charging the same price. They haven’t been undercut by anyone, even by Amazon! Why?
Anecdotes of people complaining are a dime a dozen.
To your point, I don't find arguing that a company is a one-dimensional character very meaningful. Reality is more nuanced with various people having different priories within the organization. Decisions are made with competing concerns and aren't always as straightforward as you want them to be from the outside, particularly around legal liability. Most of the complaints that I see in working with a few developers are simply inconsistency, rather than disdain.
I didn't put any words in your mouth. I said Apple provided value in exchange for the fees they collected, you said that "They do not."
It's data none the less, and the folks I mentioned are very pro Apple and it gives them little pleasure in publicly being upset about Apple and their relationship with Devs.
It's a disservice to them to wave away their very informed opinions here.
While I agree with this, I also think there is a definite echo chamber around developers where they may not fully consider what's best for most of Apple's customers is not necessarily what's best for developers (and maybe even the developers' customers). By definition, developers are highly technical, and particularly developers like STT, Marco and Underscore, who are making apps for "power users" have a customer base that isn't the same as Apple's.
That's not to say we should dismiss their concerns out of hand, but there are many times I am shaking my head reading/listening to them because they're clearly narrowly focused on their issues, and in my opinion, not considering that Apple has a larger customer base to be worried about.
Data without context isn't worth much.
I certainly am not waving anything away. I agree with many of the specific concerns that developers have (inconsistent reviewers, knock off apps, refunds, easy appeals, etc.) I just don't find any value in nebulous statements like "Apple doesn't value developers."
Interesting.
I don't look at it that way.
I prefer people to speak about their perspective and combine that with different ones from different angles.
I think many of us around here make the mistake of pretending to be wise about some overall picture and make broad sweeping claims about "Apple" and "the market" and "what people want". That is not to single anyone out, but it's sort hilarious when you look at the dialogue around here and how a bunch of rando forum users are suddenly economic experts, savants of various legislative jurisdictions and so very certain about "who Apple customers are" or "why Apple does X,Y,Z".
That last point is sort of laughable, from all of our angles, as they serve BILLIONS of people. There is simply no way to capture all of that as any kind of remotely singular viewpoint on what is "wanted" or "why people buy things", etc.
As a result, I find it more useful to go to very informed sources in various pockets of an overall situation and amalgamate the views and data.
Not so much about your overall point, but there are for sure times I am shaking my head at these guys.
1. When so laughingly talking about wasteful purchase of yet more new hardware none of them need.
2. If anyone says "jobby job" (usually Casey)
I'll also add that I stopped using Overcast last year.
I searched alternatives when he somewhat botched his upgrade and then I heard about a price hike also and I've settled on free Apple Podcasts and it's just fine for what I need.
I do sort of wonder if that's a project he's long on or just will be sold off in the next 1-3 years now that they seem to have gone all in on being restaurateurs. The price hike made me wonder if it was part of a broader plan to shore up the financial picture for a prospective sale.
To be fair to you, as one of the most prolific posters, wise or not, the exchange of differing opinions, expert or not, isn’t unhelpful in a casual forum.
If this discussion were happening in any setting requiring expertise… it wouldn’t be. Although, unelected non-expert, public opinion, like this, is what prodded the lawyers and legislators to invent antitrust law.
You must have me confused with someone else. I didn't mention Chrome and I wasn't talking about Chrome when you replied to me.