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

[ToothBlueth]

Incorrect. You can make up any reason why the DMA exists. It’s anti-American tech targeting Apple.

It is not, but you’d only knew that if you read the legislation or those comments on MR referencing the legislation.

I believe Booking.com is a gatekeeper, for example. I believe there is, or the EU is working on, legislation which had consequences for Spotify and the power they have over the music industry.

 

[ToothBlueth]

Yes corporations hold a legal monopoly in their own products. And also water is wet.

With great success comes great power and:
View attachment 2514779
And because corporations only like great power, the DMA (and similar legislation in other countries) obliges them to also take the great responsibility.

 

[ToothBlueth]

And Sony holds 100% PlayStation, Walmart holds 100% of their stories. iOS isn't a market it a platform in the smart phone market.

Replace beef with groceries in the case below:

You know, as much as anyone, this is just a dumb comparison.

Wish I could’ve used the signature of @AppliedMicro, but I am on mobile haha.

If I were you, I’d read up on the difference between a perfect competition and monopoly/oligopoly.

Briefly, beef is beef, there is little differences between different beef suppliers, so a burger is mostly a burger, and there is very little difference between burgers. And there are plenty of suppliers of beef burgers, so it is easy to choose a store that fits either taste or price, if you are lucky you het a good price for a great burger.

SmartphoneOSes are unique goods, there are practically only two suppliers/options. These two suppliers have a lot of power to steer the market. And so they do. So there is no real choice, it is the only alternative.

Adding to this, here I only consider from a consumer side, it is more complicated if you also include developers.

Playstation is an interesting case, as it is somewhat similar, but gaming consoles are not a necessity in modern lives, and have only a fraction of the users, and are still able to find other distributors of physical copies of games.

Apple, Google, and other large corporations are simply more important and bigger fish to fry.

 

[Pitogyro]

Cook's quote is written by ChatGPT and I'm not even joking. Anyone who's familiar with how ChatGPT writes can tell right away.

 

[Graphate]

And Apple deserves about $1b for all the work they did on the App Store, developer tools, etc. Give 3% to the credit card companies and the rest to the developers.

I’m not sure “deserves” is the best way to think about it (maybe it is). But if Apple deserves $1b for its work and support of technologies, how much does a developer of any given app “deserve”?

...which they already derived from hardware sales.


What they do not deserve:
Charging a percentage of everyone else's revenue - without that percentage being subject to alternatives and competition.
Let alone preventing other market participants from communicating and transacting with their customers.

Again, I’m not sure about the “deserves” part. Unless Apple is violating antitrust law, I don’t know another way to measure “deserve” than a free market. (I don’t know that we have a free market in this instance, but I still don’t know another way to measure “deserve”.)

That is a very western take, ignoring about most of the rest of the world, as well as the fact that developing for iOS mostly requires you to buy a mac too.

Well, Apple is a Western company, but my guess is the developer fee isn’t about paying for the services as much as it is about being a barrier of entry.

Do you see anyone complaining about the developer fee?

What people are complaining about for a company that rakes in 90 billion in profit is the monopolistic practices which regulators are rightful finally addressing.

I’m not sure… I think what people are saying is: wouldn’t the developer fee increase if they weren’t collecting 15% (or more) from developers? There’s got to be a cost to funding its technology; the developer fee or cost of hardware would have to close the gap and make up for lost profits.

Indeed! What a shame the successful companies of Standard Oil and Microsoft got their wings clipped! Government overreach!

Standard Oil and Microsoft were using their market power in an unfair way.

Standard Oil, for example, reduced prices to drive smaller competitors out of business. They struck deals with railroads to get exclusivity, rebates, and preferential pricing, which excluded competitors. They consolidated the petroleum industry with acquisitions. And they used the power of lawsuits to discourage competition. And other activities.

Microsoft, on the other hand, tied its Windows operating system to Internet Explorer. They had exclusive agreements with manufacturers to restrict competing software products. And, they used their market dominance to distribute IE at no charge to undercut the market competition. And other activities.

Now there are definitely things to not like about the post-Bork to current antitrust landscape. And Apple is certainly subject to scrutiny, at least right now; its market is just different.

Apple hasn’t actively purchased or eliminated competitors across all levels of its supply chains; it’s built its market organically. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t still be found to be a monopoly or that if it is a monopoly, it’s an unlawful monopoly.

Apple isn’t undercutting its competitors with predatory pricing like Microsoft and Standard Oil did. With the exception of its reasonably priced AVP, its products are expensive. In any case (priced) not designed to drive competition out of business.

Apple’s commission structure is transparent. As best we know, there aren’t secret rebate programs to keep developers from producing for competitors.

Apple does have some tying. Similar to Microsoft and Internet Explorer bundle, except Apple is a little more clever connecting it to security and ecosystem integrity. And it doesn’t, as best we know, employ retaliatory practices with manufacturers who work with competitors.

Apple has positioned itself as a security and privacy-oriented market. And from an antitrust perspective, those arguments have worked so far to keep regulators and some judicial recognition of legitimacy.

And, like it or not, Apple does face significant competition in its main business segments: Android, Spotify, and Netflix. That plays well when compared to Standard Oil and Microsoft, who controlled their market with minimum genuine rivals.

 

[Aeronauts]

What do they mean by “physical goods”? There are no examples quoted in the article

 

[I7guy]

It is not, but you’d only knew that if you read the legislation or those comments on MR referencing the legislation.

I believe Booking.com is a gatekeeper, for example. I believe there is, or the EU is working on, legislation which had consequences for Spotify and the power they have over the music industry.

It is. The legislation is thinly crafted anti American tech success.

 

[ToothBlueth]

I’m not sure “deserves” is the best way to think about it (maybe it is). But if Apple deserves $1b for its work and support of technologies, how much does a developer of any given app “deserve”?



Again, I’m not sure about the “deserves” part. Unless Apple is violating antitrust law, I don’t know another way to measure “deserve” than a free market. (I don’t know that we have a free market in this instance, but I still don’t know another way to measure “deserve”.)



Well, Apple is a Western company, but my guess is the developer fee isn’t about paying for the services as much as it is about being a barrier of entry.



I’m not sure… I think what people are saying is: wouldn’t the developer fee increase if they weren’t collecting 15% (or more) from developers? There’s got to be a cost to funding its technology; the developer fee or cost of hardware would have to close the gap and make up for lost profits.



Standard Oil and Microsoft were using their market power in an unfair way.

Standard Oil, for example, reduced prices to drive smaller competitors out of business. They struck deals with railroads to get exclusivity, rebates, and preferential pricing, which excluded competitors. They consolidated the petroleum industry with acquisitions. And they used the power of lawsuits to discourage competition. And other activities.

Microsoft, on the other hand, tied its Windows operating system to Internet Explorer. They had exclusive agreements with manufacturers to restrict competing software products. And, they used their market dominance to distribute IE at no charge to undercut the market competition. And other activities.

Now there are definitely things to not like about the post-Bork to current antitrust landscape. And Apple is certainly subject to scrutiny, at least right now; its market is just different.

Apple hasn’t actively purchased or eliminated competitors across all levels of its supply chains; it’s built its market organically. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t still be found to be a monopoly or that if it is a monopoly, it’s an unlawful monopoly.

Apple isn’t undercutting its competitors with predatory pricing like Microsoft and Standard Oil did. With the exception of its reasonably priced AVP, its products are expensive. In any case (priced) not designed to drive competition out of business.

Apple’s commission structure is transparent. As best we know, there aren’t secret rebate programs to keep developers from producing for competitors.

Apple does have some tying. Similar to Microsoft and Internet Explorer bundle, except Apple is a little more clever connecting it to security and ecosystem integrity. And it doesn’t, as best we know, employ retaliatory practices with manufacturers who work with competitors.

Apple has positioned itself as a security and privacy-oriented market. And from an antitrust perspective, those arguments have worked so far to keep regulators and some judicial recognition of legitimacy.

And, like it or not, Apple does face significant competition in its main business segments: Android, Spotify, and Netflix. That plays well when compared to Standard Oil and Microsoft, who controlled their market with minimum genuine rivals.

I don’t necessarily agree with your argumentation or conclusion, but I appreciate the effort and well set out argument you made. It gives something to think about and actually challenges my argumentation in ways.

I can see why it is not as clear cut as Microsoft or Standard Oil. I think it mainly lies in the question what the relevant market is. And if they abuse their power over it. I firmly argue the market is iOS app distribution, and they do limit competition there. E.g. Alternative browser engines, they used to block free communication with customers and payments outside of Apple Pay, Apple Music is preinstalled, and for obvious reasons doesn’t pay 30% commission on AM to Apple inc. 😛 (this argument is getting weak now Apple was found at fault of blocking third party payments). These are only a few points.

To add, I don’t think anyone argues Apple, as a whole, is a monopoly (or in all markets it is active, if that is a better definition).

Regarding the DPLA fee, I don’t think too much about it, I was merely replying that to consider it a bargain, you’d need to look at its competitors. On iOS it doesn’t have any, while Android has a way better bargain. The latter doesn’t really matter, cause you can’t publish on iOS with it.

 

[Naraxus]

...which they already derived from hardware sales.

That's not how this works.

What they do not deserve:

Charging a percentage of everyone else's revenue - without that percentage being subject to alternatives and competition.

The competition is called Android. They don't like it they can pull their apps but they won't because they know they make the most money from iOS

Let alone preventing other market participants from communicating and transacting with their customers.

Apple has no obligation to aid their competitiors, nor let them freeload (Epic/Spotify) off of Apple's hard work.

 

[Naraxus]

At the same time Apple trying hard to evade taxes with obscure structures in Ireland. No one has to thank Apple for anything, they are far from a charity, rather the opposite, a greedy corp.

This old canard? They're not evading anything.

 

[surferfb]

You know, as much as anyone, this is just a dumb comparison.

Wish I could’ve used the signature of @AppliedMicro, but I am on mobile haha.

@AppliedMicro and I go way back on this issue . And no, I don't think it's a dumb comparison despite his signature.

Yes I'm aware there isn't a "perfect" analogy, but it doesn't matter, because even when there is one that you agree is "better" (like the PlayStation example above) you'd just wave it away with some other excuse as to why Apple should be required to give away its IP. The fact of the matter is Apple does not have a monopoly in any market unless you artificially limit the market.

In the actual market, Android has over 70% share. It is simple to switch. You can get an Android phone for under $100 on Amazon. Just because you don't want to switch doesn't mean it isn't easy to, or that Apple should be required to change its business practices and give out its IP for free because you don't like Android but want an open ecosystem.

If I were you, I’d read up on the difference between a perfect competition and monopoly/oligopoly.

Trust me, I don't need to "read up" on this issue.

There are iOS apps, Android apps, web apps, Mac apps, Windows apps, Linux apps, etc. Sure, you can claim iOS has a monopoly if you limit the market to "iOS apps" (the same way Burger King has a monopoly on the Whopper), but there are plenty of ways for app developers to reach consumers without freeloading off of Apple's IP. Just like there are plenty of ways for beef suppliers to sell beef without forcing Burger King to sell their beef.

Because that is what is happening here, to use your analogy. Beef suppliers who want their products served at Burger King. Burger King says, “Sure, but here are the terms.” The suppliers don’t like the terms. Maybe it's the price, maybe it's the quality requirements, but they don't like it. But instead of walking away, trying to make a deal with McDonalds next door, or opening their own restaurant, they run to regulators and say, “Burger King should be required to serve our beef.”

That’s what some app developers are doing: demanding access to Apple’s platform and customer base, while rejecting Apple’s terms. It’s less about fairness, and more about forcing access to someone else’s product on your own terms.

SmartphoneOSes are unique goods, there are practically only two suppliers/options. These two suppliers have a lot of power to steer the market. And so they do. So there is no real choice, it is the only alternative.

No there are not. There are dozens of manufacturers and dozen of App Stores. Sure two of them are much more successful than the others, but as @BaldiMac pointed out, a large reason for that is because Google requires that the Google Play store be installed on almost all of them as a part of the deal for getting to use Android (practically) for free. If you want to increase competition, start there.

Not with the one company who has used "there's only one store" as a selling point for almost twenty years now, despite being told repeatedly by "open" zealots that its closed business model was going to lead to iOS' irrelevance (but now is, according to many of the same zealots, apparently somehow so clearly anticompetitive it has to be outlawed.) Because what you're doing is selfishly taking away the option for a closed platform and the clear safety and security benefits it provides from millions and millions of customers who want one. You're having the government pick winners and losers because you don't want to use Android, or you think Apple makes enough money on hardware, or whatever the reason of the day is.

Adding to this, here I only consider from a consumer side, it is more complicated if you also include developers.

No it's not. If you want to be in a store, you need to abide by the store's rules. For example, if I want access to the Mall of America's customers, I have to pay rent to the Mall of America (and, I'd add, pay the Mall of America 18% of your store's revenue in addition to rent). I don't get to set up a stand in the atrium and sell stuff because I "deserve" access to the Mall's customers.

 

[Naraxus]

We don't know it is, because they monopolised the iOS app market.

They haven't "monopolized" anything

 

[ToothBlueth]

This old canard? They're not evading anything.

If we’d know, they are not really good at. But their history is crystal clear. Doesn’t mean they do it now, in that you are correct.

 

[neuropsychguy]

Its not. They are charging recurring fee for things that is already part of the cost of doing business which is their right. If you want developers to make software for you, you need to provide and SDK and APIs to use.

Apple $99 Annually

Google 1 time fee of $25

Microsoft 1 time fee of $19

You should check out the gross margins of Alphabet and Microsoft. As services companies, they are high margin -- about 60% for Alphabet and 70% for Microsoft. With services (ads, etc.) their primary revenue stream, they can get by with lower fees for the services. Apple could lower the fee as well and still make a lot of money. All I'm saying is that it's simply good to recognize that Apple is a hardware company first and software/services second. The hardware and software are heavily integrated, but the bulk of Apple's money comes from products and not services. This gives less incentive to lower the barrier to entry (developer fee) than it does for Google or Microsoft who are all about the services they offer.

 

[BaldiMac]

It is a skin on top of android, it is still android and they themselves call it android.

Again, to be specific, it's a fork of android. Are Brave and Chrome the same browser because they're base on the same open source project? No. They're competitors. Being compatible doesn't change the fact that they are owned and controlled by different companies competing for consumer dollars.

The only all call it Android because they entered into anticompetitive agreements with Google to license the Android brand.

Good for you, I agree! Nothing to do with this case, though.

You're the one arguing that the duopoly is a significant factor. Should Apple be regulated because of Google's anticompetitive actions?

 

[ToothBlueth]

even when there is one that you agree is "better" (like the PlayStation example above) you'd just wave it away with some other excuse

This is called an argument, instead of yelling:

The fact of the matter is …

Without any thorough argumentation.

In the actual market, Android has over 70% share. It is simple to switch. You can get an Android phone for under $100 on Amazon. Just because you don't want to switch doesn't mean it isn't easy to, or that Apple should be required to change its business practices and give out its IP for free because you don't like Android but want an open ecosystem.

Ignores all the things I have pointed out. First and foremost, people make considerations based on criteria not only on the basis of app store. This is the reason why both Apple and Google hold so much power on SmartphoneOSes and the stores (just for you )/markets on them.

Trust me, I don't need to "read up" on this issue.

Well, if you keep repeating the same examples, I am not going to trust you on that.

but there are plenty of ways for app developers to reach consumers without freeloading off of Apple's IP.

You used a lot of words to come yo your opinion without stating any arguments.

Because that is what is happening here, to use your analogy.

It is not an analogy, it was the perfect market theory applied on your example.

Beef suppliers who want their products served at Burger King. Burger King says, “Sure, but here are the terms.”

this is why it is a ’perfect’ competition, as beef is not some rare resource, it should be fairly easy to change supplier/buyer.

 

[deevey]

What do they mean by “physical goods”? There are no examples quoted in the article

Non-digital goods or services. e.g. Buying groceries, or booking an Uber.

Products and services that actually exist outside of your device.

 

[ToothBlueth]

Again, to be specific, it's a fork of android.

One UI is a user interface (UI) developed by Samsung Electronics for its smart devices, including Android devices.

From Wiki, there is even a section named ‘Other Android Skins’

Are Brave and Chrome the same browser because they're base on the same open source project? No. They're competitors. Being compatible doesn't change the fact that they are owned and controlled by different companies competing for consumer dollars.

They are different browsers, the problem is the browser engine. Both are a problem. So you are right it’s not the same browser.

The only all call it Android because they entered into anticompetitive agreements with Google to license the Android brand.

Because they are Android with skin, and another similarity is that they all require Android apps.

You're the one arguing that the duopoly is a significant factor. Should Apple be regulated because of Google's anticompetitive actions?

No Apple should be regulated because of its part in the Duopoly. Maybe you also understand me wrong. I don’t think Apple intended a duopoly, that doesn’t matter, they are abusing the power there got from it.

 

[DEXTERITY]

It's nonsensical to claim that you have responsibility for transactions done on your platform that would just be done via the web otherwise.

Anyone with a brain would see straight through this. It's embarrassing to even try.

Then let them be kicked off the app store and see how true it is. No way these companies get the same exposure or sales without the app store.

 

[ToothBlueth]

You're the one arguing that the duopoly is a significant factor. Should Apple be regulated because of Google's anticompetitive actions?

You argued for Google’s search engine, that is not of relevance. Google’s relevance here is Android.

 

[BaldiMac]

One UI is a user interface (UI) developed by Samsung Electronics for its smart devices, including Android devices.

From Wiki, there is even a section named ‘Other Android Skins’

So you're argument is that because they named there UI, and it could be changed... something, something, something.

They are different browsers, the problem is the browser engine. Both are a problem. So you are right it’s not the same browser.

Much like android forks are different even though the are compatible.

Because they are Android with skin, and another similarity is that they all require Android apps.

So? Are you not familiar with how open sourced software works?

No Apple should be regulated because of its part in the Duopoly.

So Apple should be punished because of Google's anticompetitive actions?

Maybe you also understand me wrong. I don’t think Apple intended a duopoly, that doesn’t matter, they are abusing the power there got from it.

How are they abusing the power they got from it when they've loosened restrictions over time?

You argued for Google’s search engine, that is not of relevance. Google’s relevance here is Android.

No, I didn't. You just made that up. Google's relevance is the Android brand and Google Play Services.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

"App discovery and engagement"? The professor needs to go back to school 🤣 . So much is skewed and rigged in there by Apple's dubious "Search Ads". Search for lemons and Apple gives you pears, then bananas 'cause they effectively bought the keywords.

I don’t think I’ve “discovered” anything on the App Store in years. Most times, the developer posts something on reddit or someone reviews the thing and I’m like, “Yeah, that seems cool,” then I click on the helpfully provided link and download whatever it is. Plus, the review route pretty much guarantees that whatever it is, is good enough to have already attracted someone else’s attention. So, it’s like having the entirety of the content in the App Store vetted for me before even opening the App Store.

 

[omihek]

I am sure the Chrome Browser has facilitated trillions of digital and physical sales, in both category, Google has never collected a commission.

Um, you're kidding right? Google makes billions off the data they mine with Chrome. They don't take 30% of your money, they take 30% of your soul.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

You're the one arguing that the duopoly is a significant factor. Should Apple be regulated because of Google's anticompetitive actions?

Good point. Apple’s being punished because Google is exceptionally good at keeping the competition out. They even keep Apple at a tiny marketshare worldwide. But, the PROBLEM, you see, is that Google hasn’t completely destroyed Apple’s mobile ambitions yet?

 

[ToothBlueth]

So you're argument is that because they named there UI, and it could be changed... something, something, something.

What is your argument then? I don’t see a mention of it being a fork, I do see it is a skin. A skin is a alternative UI. Like, I might be wrong, but usually you I might reconsider if you provide proof or a good argument.

Also not on the basis of it having UI, but it being defined as a skin.

So Apple should be punished because of Google's anticompetitive actions?

They both have conceivable power, and are using those powers. That last one is what they should be held responsible for.

No, I didn't. You just made that up. Google's relevance is the Android brand and Google Play Services.

As I continue to argue, the real anticompetive force in the smartphone market is Google who has leveraged their search and ad monopolies to enter into anticompetive agreements with almost all its horizontal competitors except Apple for Google Play Services to be installed by default.

You connect, for no reason, Android with ‘search and ads monopolies’. All in all if Apple has a monopoly, it has nothing to do what Google/Android does. Especially if Apple is found to have a monopoly on iOS.