Which Apple is legally allowed to do since it's their platform and they are under no obligation to deal with all developers.
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. Developers Can Now Offer Non-App Store Purchasing Option, But Apple Will Still Collect Commissions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You’ve replied twice, not sure if that was your intention.
Nevertheless, you were talking about “charges of anticompetitive behaviour” and “fair competition rules”, those are legal arguments.
Now you’re shifting the goalpost to “fair”, which is a subjective moral judgement of little value.
I think all of this is very fair for example, and I’m a developer that writes apps for Apple’s devices.
So now all that we can do is acknowledge that your definition of fair is different than mine.
Regulatory scrutiny is certainly possible, which would then have to lead to legislative changes.
The problem however is that this would require significant overhaul of property and IP rights and it would need to be done with surgical precision to not affect commerce as a whole.
I don’t see that happening.
Even the often hailed DMA by the EU doesn’t contain price regulation and that’s not even mentioning the fact that it is entirely untested in court.
One of the biggest battles will be payment by sideloaded apps for usage of Apple’s IP.
We will certainly see some concessions that are brought about by regulation, but the key points for Apple, such as the commission, aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.
Legally allowed to do for now in the US. They are a dominant platform in an important market. That invites regulatory scrutiny and Apple is flirting with more rules being forced upon them the more the act in ways that obviously constitute uneven and potentially anticompetitive monetary compensation schemes.
It’s sort of legal and sort of fairness. Legality in the US at present is hanging on a few judicial decisions that could easily go another way. I actually am open to being convinced that Apple deserves compensation. However, where I think they may run into future regulatory and legal challenges is that they are a very important platform and they chose to treat developers differently for reasons that have mostly to do with how much leverage those third party devs have.
I mean, the solution is obvious. Create new legislation like what the EU has done with the DMA, but I am not convinced congress can get their act together for this.
The Department of Justice may soon be following in suing Apple for anticompetive behaviour.
You probably, don‘t enjoy a dominant market position in a nationwide duopoly. As do few sellers of,frozen milk products.
It‘s not only the leverage - they‘re notable also charging those services that they’re competing against - or, conversely have begun competing against the ones they charge (music, video streaming, gaming, online storage and data sync).
I read your DOJ link and saw that "Spotify accused Apple of giving themselves unfair advantages at every opportunity", which appears valid, seeing as the largest music streaming service signed Joe Rogan to an exclusive podcast contract, which does seem pretty anti-competitive. Wait, that was Spotify? Well, it was pretty horrible of Apple to not even wait until Spotify launched before starting iTunes to compete with them.
Edit: I just checked my Spotify app and it tells me I "cannot upgrade to Premium in the app. We know, it's not ideal." How exactly are Apple charging Spotify, other than the same developer account fee I pay? It looks like they are doing the same thing for Premium as Audible, where I just get my audiobooks direct from Audible and simply listen in the app. It's not really that "not ideal" to me (I actually prefer having a "just listen" app where I don't go unintentionally shopping), but I guess I could see how some people might possibly find it a pain, and I can see how the vendor would certainly prefer to be able to get you to buy anytime you use the app. But that "ideal" ecosystem seems like something Apple created, so I'm at a loss as to why you would think they don't have a right to charge for the privilege of that kind of sale. Spotify are avoiding any Apple commission by using a free app to play back a premium subscription purchased outside the app. I really don't see any fault on either side in this quite functional scenario, and don't see how this is so hard on Spotify. Now, I can see how all the In App Purchase companies would gripe, but that feels to me like a pusher complaining that they have to pay taxes.
Last edited:
The comparison is as preposterous as forcing McDonald‘s to sell Whoppers or similar ones.
Major sports broadcasts or leagues are exclusive too - they aren’t available on every network.
Rogan on Spotify is a normal, exclusivity deal - and there are about zero entry barriers into the podcasting market. Just buy a web hosting for a couple of dollars and off you go. And that’s true on both sides.
You do realise that Spotify, the big billion dollar corporation is paying Rogan (one of hundreds of thousands of podcasters). Not the other way around?
Why should Apple be entitled to charge Spotify anything more? Spotify are paying the music (or podcast) licensing rights themselves and the hosting/streaming infrastructure. And they aren’t using more of Apple’s IP than you.
Last edited:
iOS is the intellectual property of Apple and they retain the right to charge whatever fee they want. It’s really as simple and straightforward as that.
But you have this backwards, as it is more like preventing McDonald's from selling Big Macs because Burger King bought the exclusive rights. Do you know where the pod part of podcast came from? Maybe there were zero barriers to the podcasting market, but exclusives did add barriers for the users, not the creators.
And using Major League sports leagues as an example of NOT a monopoly confirms that this must be Bizarro world.
If you didn't get it completely backwards, that should have been obvious. Yes, the largest music streamer paid a podcaster to limit access of a previously widely distributed podcast to only them, which is wonderfully hypocritical for a company that complains about monopoly behaviour. I'm sorry that you can't see that.
I'm not the one claiming they are charging Spotify more, you were. I was simply asking why.
One question... where would Apple app store be without any developers? Sounds like it's time for developers to unionize so they have collective bargaining rights.
No empire ever got rich paying a fair days wage for a fair days work, and Apple is an empire. We are looking at a company that has a larger market capitalization than most countries on the planet.
No empire ever got rich paying a fair days wage for a fair days work, and Apple is an empire. We are looking at a company that has a larger market capitalization than most countries on the planet.
You can also say that without the App Store we wouldn’t have 95% of developers we have today. It can go both ways.
Exactly.
Apple thinks their platform is valuable... so that's why they charge a royalty.
Developers think the platform is valuable, too. It's valuable enough that they can have an entire business solely making iOS apps. Some developers don't even bother making apps for Android despite there being many more Android users. The iPhone has proven itself as a profitable platform for app developers.
What would these developers be doing instead? Making Windows apps?
If Apple had never opened the iPhone to developers it would not be the force it is today. Yes it is symbiotic but that symbiosis is precisely why Apple’s sense of entitlement can rankle people so. Apple has enabled the business but it is hard to imagine that Android would not have capitalized on Apple’s failure to bring apps to the iPhone if they had done so. One need only look to the failed windows phone, blackberry phone, etc… to see the importance of apps.Exactly.
Apple thinks their platform is valuable... so that's why they charge a royalty.
Developers think the platform is valuable, too. It's valuable enough that they can have an entire business solely making iOS apps. Some developers don't even bother making apps for Android despite there being many more Android users. The iPhone has proven itself as a profitable platform for app developers.
What would these developers be doing instead? Making Windows apps?
Since we can't go back in time and unring that bell... what do you think should happen now?
Remember that the App Store grew to where it is today despite it taking a 30% royalty from developers. It became a force even though it had "high fees" and tons of other restrictions. Still... 2 million developers jumped on board. It's a vibrant platform. Some developers make their entire living on the platform.
Eventually Apple reduced their royalty to 15% for most developers.
Should it be reduced further? Is that the answer?
I hear a lot of complaints but never any solutions.
Is 70-30 entitled? How about 85-15? 99-1? What should it be?
It's often said that Apple needs developers as much as developers need Apple.
Maybe the split should be 50-50 then... you know... keep it equal and symbiotic.
You are suggesting both are benefiting... however how many new Apples and Microsofts are you seeing popping up these days? How about in the last 30 years? Who can compete. Money buys power and complacency.
One question for you... is this view based on your own personal experience developing for iOS, or is this just the standard, youthful, "you can't trust anyone with money" view?
Yes, it is a good thing for Apple that Android, Windows, and Blackberry didn't introduce any way to add apps.
Gee, how many Apples and Microsofts popped up in the last 50 years? It isn't exactly the norm to have tech companies endure 50 years, let alone be market leaders for most of that time, so both deserve some respect. That said, I would have to think Google might come to mind, and Facebook. Even Blackberry dominated, so who knows... since many of you seem to think that Apple's journey was easy and predictable, Blackberry could just be in their Sculley period.
America Has A Monopoly Problem
A large and growing part of our economy is “owned” by a handful of companies that face little competition. An economy in which it is easier and cheaper to buy your competitors rather than out-innovate them is probably headed toward stagnation.
www.forbes.com
There are major differences in the mix of companies you mention - you know this.
The point was once a company gets as big as those two companies have, they have an outsized influence and smaller and small companies can't compete - they can only hope to ride the wave of Microsoft's and Apple's success, latch on . Control of the operating system market means they can control who can and can't write software for their OSs.
Apple has enthusiasts willingly installing beta software to bug test it for free, and I don't mean "I work at Walmart and make no money, I mean zero dollars, nada, nothing". That used to cost them something. Even people who plaster ads on their cars get paid something.
Developers are making all kinds of software which makes their OS appealing without that their platform would suffer.
Apple couldn't write that much software on its own. Are all of those independent developers getting health insurance and any other benefits working for Apple? No. Yet they still pay 30% for the privilege of having a platform to write for (sarcasm intended).
I'd really like to add more memory to my Mac after I buy it. If you have $7000 you can get a MacPro for the privilege of adding more memory and you can also buy four wheels for $500. They just keep taking away and keep finding ways to profit.. there comes a point where even zombies snap out of it.
My sensing is that smaller developers generally have no issues with the App Store cut, either because their app is already free, or they qualify for the small developer programme and need only pay 15%.
It’s really the larger companies like Facebook, Netflix, Spotify and Epic who want more control over the App Store. They are not doing this to benefit or empower smaller creators.
For example, Epic wants their own App Store on iOS where they can then host other developers’ apps and charge them a cut. Microsoft wants a game streaming platform where they can host other developers’ games and charge them a cut. Facebook wants to be able to skirt around App Store rules so they can better track their users. Spotify is circling the drain and I don’t know what they have up their sleeve, but I doubt it will help them stave off bankruptcy.
And notice how the aforementioned companies don’t even pay a cent in App Store fees anymore?
I really don’t see how a union is supposed to work when developers come from all over the world.
Again, you seem to see things with an amazingly backwards Bizarro view. Developers do not pay Apple 30%, Apple pays them 70% (actually 85%, unless you sell over $1,000,000) of the price that Apple collects. Feel free to go to a retail store and demand more than 70% of the price they sell your product for and let me know how that goes for you. And ask for health insurance and benefits while you are at it.
And Apple does pay their employees quite a bit to test software, and then they release the software for the more general population to beta test, if the users want. Sorry, but I paid Microsoft to get the beta for Windows NT 3.1, and was happy just to get the software and documentation. If you don't want to beta test for Apple, maybe do not download the free beta... I'm getting old, so I don't find it fun like I used to, so I don't bother, and they have yet to force me. Do you complain when the person at Costco offers you a sample, and tell them you should be paid to taste test?
But, like you, I would prefer to be able to upgrade the hardware in my Mac. That is finally complaint that I find somewhat reasonable. I've kept my 2011 MacBook Pro and mini specifically because of that, and I didn't buy a Mac for 9 years because of the lack of upgradability. When I did buy an M1 MacBook Air, I bought the bottom of the line, figuring it was now a sealed, disposable device and I would just use it until it no longer worked and eventually buy the minimum to replace it, so Apple would get less of my money than they used to get. I actually found it better than I expected, much better. The architecture of Apple Silicon at least now makes it fully understandable why the memory isn't upgradable (sorry, it isn't... even in the MacPro, and even if you splurge for the optional wheels, as it is built into the CPU module), but I wish they would at least allow NVMe SSD upgrades for those of us that usually do stuff like that (that, you can actually do in a MacPro). But Apple have not actively pursued the upgrade enthusiast market since the Apple II, so I don't see them changing their direction, and computers have been becoming more like standard consumer electronics for the last 50 years, so you can expect more companies to just build sealed units, since consumers have gotten accustomed to it with tablets and phones. As much as I do not fit the standard user profile, most people buy their computers and never open it, and those people really do not care. That mass market is a much bigger target than you or me, and Apple Silicon works really well for that market. Extremely well.
I skipped that one so I could specifically ask the major differences in the mix of companies I mentioned. How so? I didn't include software companies like Adobe, but very specifically listed huge companies that make software including OSes and hardware (although Blackberry no longer make hardware, AFAIK). I guess Apple would be a bit different as being what I would consider a hardware company that makes software, versus software companies that make hardware, but I chose the companies that are the most obviously aligned with Apple from a product standpoint. So what are the major differences you see?