The analogy is way off. Once you purchased software in the physical store you are done with them. With App Store, you keep paying them indefinitely for IAP. Just imagine that, say, Wal-Mart would require that the coffee pods for the Keurig machines purchased in Wal-Mart could be sold only in their stores. That would be ridiculous. But that's exactly what so many people are arguing here (but for Apple)
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.
UK Class Action Accuses Apple of Breaking Competition Law by Overcharging for Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's just greed. Everyone wants a bigger slice of the Apple pie, neverminding that Apple bakes the pie. I'd call developers like that ungrateful and short-sighted.
Apple are selling other peoples apps in the AppStore not their own product so it does qualify as a monopoly. A natural monopoly typically applies to government utilities like tap water.
No. Whatever the "AppStore tax" is – 0, 5, 10, 15, 30% – developers will price their apps the same.
Apple developers helped make the iPhone so successful. Without any apps the iPhone would sell very few units. I m think Apple are the ones being greedy here. Their profit margin on the AppStore is colossal.
So what you are saying is that in effect the 30% markup combined with the competition does put pressure on devs to lower their margins in favor of maintaining the App Store share. Hence, case in case striking the competition against say Apple Music, Apple TV+ or whatever is the case they may come next, say some Panic like app?
Has for the program you mentioned, one cannot ignore the political circunstances Apple came with such program. Furthermore, any developer with less than 1M in sales a year, barely still has a business … still is paying up tp 150K linearly a year just for their customers to be able to install their apps. 150K in API licensing, app hosting and payment processing alone grants that price tag? According to industry practices it does not really, so a great share goes to that ability.
Last edited:
"unlawfully excessive levels of profit"
What...? So who determines this? Politicians?
Let consumers decide. Let it go to a judge/jury.
What...? So who determines this? Politicians?
Let consumers decide. Let it go to a judge/jury.
Not true. I subscribe to several apps that cost less by subscribing directly on their website than through the AppStore. Developers do pass on the savings.
Those are valid use cases for the phone, but not good reasons to keep the device locked down. None of these use cases would no longer be possible if the OS opened up. Face it, apple loves the control and doesn’t want to let go.Which is not a phone thoughIt doesn't need to roam throughout the world. It doesn't get carried around and used in all circumstances. It doesn't get used to tap in/out of transport links, or pay at PDQ terminals in shops etc. It doesn't have the same level of all day/multiple day battery need for most people either.
I don't think personal computer like a desktop/laptop is comparable to a mobile phone device at all in its use cases.
I thin it’s control, with the benefit of security and (to a lesser extent) quality. I would also agree with that bet.
I find it funny when people even facing actual values calculated mathematically like any business person does still end up disagreeing.
It is just an example where one should not argue with reason a purely emotional argument. Should know better.
Cheers.
It is just an example where one should not argue with reason a purely emotional argument. Should know better.
Cheers.
I'd call this a win-win.
As for Apple's profit margin on the AppStore being colossal – I'd rather call the margin healthy, for maintaining the market place. It's a source of equally healthy (or colossal) profit for the developer.
Harm the AppStore and the developers will be hurt the most. If you cannot see this, I'd be inclined to say you don't see the forest for the trees.
No. You, the user, pay the price the developer sets. The fee is taken from the developers gross. No different than the treasury taking the VAT off the price you pay in a store.
How come no? Have you gone to the Apple website lately to buy a device? The VAT is calculated before or after the price set by Apple for its devices? Man you are so screwed Kekeke. Sorry, no disrespect meant.
Any business person will set their price without VAT man. The VAT its not included in the supplier business rationale, just the cost of business. The VAT is than included in the total on top of the price Apple set for the device. SAme with devs, they does not set end price, is totally out of their control.
Just like the 30% commission so that users can download and update you App is not their choice. Apple has pricing tables that you need to follow, choose a price from, the tables already include the commission … is that the Dev setting the end price? Of course not.
Last edited:
Yet without their app on the AppStore they would have considerably less users / subscribers.
So I call AppStore a win-win. It's a gateway to over 1 billion potential app users. Remove that, and what would the more lucrative subscriptions outside AppStore be reduced to?
There's a price for the access to one of the world's largest user bases. Apple AND developers built it together. So what's wrong with a win-win?
I have a logic on my side. If the developers could arbitrarily raise their prices they would do it today. However, they can't. They compete with each other. App Store on the other hand is a monopoly so nobody knows what the reasonable price is. Once the government(s) mandate alternative app stores the market should be able to establish fair prices.Neither have you to the contrary
Why would anyone want to harm the App Store? It's a good stuff and we need more of it. We need alternative app stores. That's the real forest.
Absolutely agree. What is in question is the in app purchase policy has far as I see it.
That would not be a forest. It would be a jungle with many different sets of rules and no responsible carekeeper. A disaster in the making, re: for example Android on a Samsung phone with two "official" stores – confusing & complicated for the average customer.
Disclaimer: I have an iPad Pro and a nice Samsung Galaxy Tab with a top-notch AMOLED display (the reason why I have it). User-experience and app-wise it's a frustrating, more laborsome device – but Netflix looks so nice on that AMOLED
Last edited:
There are other ways of getting apps on your phone, most however don't use anything but the app store because of security, and fears of malicious software. I don't think it is a monopoly anymore than the switch store is a monopoly, or the xbox store is an monopoly because they are the primary way for putting games on those platforms. It is a shame that people can make a lawsuit for things they don't research or fully understand.
Maybe not Hard proof that would stand in court. But plenty of circumstantial.
The App Store fees have dropped on subscriptions after the first year yet we still pay full price forever.
The fee for smaller devs was cut in half yet no developers dropped their prices (well maybe on - I haven’t checked them all).
and let’s not forget the race to the bottom in the App Store. In the first couple of years apps were priced at living wage for the developer. the fact that most all apps are not a buck or two is one of the reasons we have these arguments. And the reason we are stuck with the fermium model with all the unending - and way more expensive in the long run - IAPs.