White House Hits Back at Apple's Massive EU Fine

[Madhatter32]

Nope, other than a few party notables they have done no such thing. It just seems that way when MAGA is so far to the right of the right field foul line, essentially out of bounds of the regular political field.

MAGA is not on the traditional "right" in terms of many of its policies -- especially those pertaining to economic policy. It is a mostly populist agenda with many positions that would have found a home in the traditional Democratic party. But to be fair, the Democratic party is n longer really a bastion of liberalism. It is now defined by Marxist political strategy and a socialist big government ethos.

So there you have it: popularism vs. Marxist progressivism. Gone is the liberal / conservative dichotomy.

 

[jlc1978]

What the EU could have done is limit the fee Apple takes of each purchase on the App Store.

Which probably just resulted in different up front costs, or an end to free apps if the costs were not covered by paid apps. If they did limit fees, I suspect 3rd party stores would have. very hard time making a go of it, or charge more and not get developers to sign up because Apple was cheaper and likely higher revenue due to the App Store's user base.

If Apple were actually charging a reasonable 5% or something, none of this would be happening

What people forget is Apple's fee is a lot less than what it used to cost to bring a product to market, and essentially made the barriers to entry so small that a lot of small developers can be successful; and they only pay 15%.

Before App Stores, a developer was lucky to get 30% of a sale, and had to upfront many of the costs that Apple et.al. eliminated, and they didn't have to find a distributor that would even take on their software.

There are things about app stores in general and Apple's in particular that should change, but a 30% cut for developers making over a million US is not unreasonable, and they cover much of the costs of all the free apps as well.

As for lower fees lowering prices, which is the real benefit to consumers, that didn't happen when Apple reduced the fees for small developers, so who's being greedy?

So there you have it: popularism vs. Marxist progressivism. Gone is the liberal / conservative dichotomy.

I would characterize the Republicans more as Fascist populism if you want to label parties with inflammatory labels. And both parties love socialism/big government when it helps them at the polls.

 

[AppliedMicro]

What people forget is Apple's fee is a lot less than what it used to cost to bring a product to market

…and the same is true for costs.
Compared to previous distribution of software on physical media and through physical stores.
I costs Apple next to nothing to onboard a new developer or app - and distribute their app.

but a 30% cut for developers making over a million US is not unreasonable, and they cover much of the costs of all the free apps as well.

What’s reasonable is leaving pricing for a competitive market to decide.
By allowing developers the alternative to distribute their apps on their own, without being forced to use a dominant company’s intermediary service.
And a competitive market is characterised by choice of distributor/service provider. Not by facing a dominant firm in a “take it or leave it” basis.

 

[bcortens]

What people forget is Apple's fee is a lot less than what it used to cost to bring a product to market, and essentially made the barriers to entry so small that a lot of small developers can be successful; and they only pay 15%.

Before App Stores, a developer was lucky to get 30% of a sale, and had to upfront many of the costs that Apple et.al. eliminated, and they didn't have to find a distributor that would even take on their software.

This is just pro-Apple propaganda, in the early 2000s most indie Mac apps were not distributed in the way you describe but rather were over the internet already.

Only larger sellers that actually wanted to sell boxed software were hit by these distribution fees. The App Store did not meaningfully lower the cost of distribution because by the time it came along much of software distribution was already moving to the internet with very very minimal distribution costs.

It also forgets that one of the reasons why Nokia Symbian lost was because the tools were paid and there was no cohesion around the dev story. Symbian also required devs to manage their own code signing which was also another annual fee.
Apple used "free" tooling and signing as a way of competing early on. Ease of use of the developer platform is IMO a larger part of Apple's early app store success than their monetization scheme.

Today the App Store provides no discovery benefits unless you mange to catch the notice of one of the App Store reviewers and get featured on the editorial page. There are thousands of indie apps that never get noticed and have only a handful of downloads.

There are things about app stores in general and Apple's in particular that should change, but a 30% cut for developers making over a million US is not unreasonable, and they cover much of the costs of all the free apps as well.

As for lower fees lowering prices, which is the real benefit to consumers, that didn't happen when Apple reduced the fees for small developers, so who's being greedy?

When developers have a choice (the Mac) The App Store is often not the preferred distribution mechanism. On iOS bigger devs have managed to game the system so that they never pay this 30% fee, MS, Amazon, Adobe, none of them really bother with Apple's fee as they have their own systems for subscribing and signing up that avoid paying Apple any money (though last I checked MS still at least gave users the option to use Apple's payment system).

On the Mac many devs would rather you buy the product directly from them and download it from their website than go through Apple's store. This suggests that Apple's fee structure and store restrictions aren't to the benefit of developers anymore but is to the benefit of Apple.

App Stores are to the benefit of the consumer in many ways but if Apple can't incentivize developers on the Mac to use its store it suggests that Apple have prioritized their own needs over the needs of the consumer. If they truly valued consumers as highly as they claim they would try and reduce the barriers that keep devs off the Store. Sure a few indie devs put their app in the store but even those have started to leave due to the restrictions making it hard to build the kind of innovative apps users expect.

 

[I7guy]

Yes, there was:

“the European Commission found that Apple breached its anti-steering obligation under the Digital Markets Act”

Prior to the DMA there was no finding Apple acted illegally.

Prices for oil products depend on factor prices (e.g. crude oil), taxes.

Apple didn’t raise its fee or commission in years. That’s not a monopolist, which Apple isn’t anyway.

Thanks for providing a great example.
Because the oil price largely is subject to price fixing by a multinational cartel.
And the U.S. has been investigating domestic producers for colluding with them.

Investigating is not the same as guilty. Let them investigate away and let’s talk when a verdict of guilty is found.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Prior to the DMA there was no finding Apple acted illegally.

Prior to a legal prohibition coming into force as a law, no one is found acting illegally against them, yes.

Apple didn’t raise its fee or commission in years

Neither have they reduced them for large customers, as is to be expected in markets vastly increasing in size and economies of scale. We don‘t pay 2007‘s prices on other digital services in competitive markets.

Investigating is not the same as guilty. Let them investigate away and let’s talk when a verdict of guilty is found.

Economic findings and analysis do not require legal verdicts of guilt.

 

[redheeler]

The EU has a right to implement their own laws / fines but why is Apple fined based on its total earnings rather than the earnings it makes in the EU ?

If two people get fined the same amount, with one having millions in offshore bank accounts and the other being a local man off the street, which of the two do you think cares less about the fine?

Doing it based on just the EU earnings is a bad idea. But all Apple has to do to avoid any fine is comply with EU law as thoroughly as it complies with CCP law. Maybe EU needs to do what China would and just ban Apple products completely, no appeal no recourse. We might see some compliance then.

 

[I7guy]

Prior to a legal prohibition coming into force as a law, no one is found acting illegally against them, yes.

And the DMA exactly like prohibition should be disappeared.

Neither have they reduced them for large customers, as is to be expected in markets vastly increasing in size and economies of scale. We don‘t pay 2007‘s prices on other digital services in competitive markets.

So basically Apple has held the line on a price it charges for its service. If someone doesn’t like to pay the price for a particular good you go somewhere else or deal with it’s. In this case there is a somewhere else.

Economic findings and analysis do not require legal verdicts of guilt.

It’s too bad bad laws don’t require verdicts of annulment.

 

[jlc1978]

…and the same is true for costs.
Compared to previous distribution of software on physical media and through physical stores.
I costs Apple next to nothing to onboard a new developer or app - and distribute their app.

Pricing is based on value, not costs. Apple and others have greatly reduced the upfront costs to bring an app to market and reduced a lot of the administrative burden involved with sales, which is a boon to smaller developers.

What’s reasonable is leaving pricing for a competitive market to decide.
By allowing developers the alternative to distribute their apps on their own, without being forced to use a dominant company’s intermediary service.
And a competitive market is characterised by choice of distributor/service provider. Not by facing a dominant firm in a “take it or leave it” basis.

Sure, and I'm all for that; I just think small developers will find it hard to beat Apple's cost/value proposition with other stores; especially since I think most alternatives will result in all in costs around Apple's 15% anyway.

I'm also against apple being forced to host competing App Stores without being paid for it, either with an upfront annual fee or some other charge on perhaps a per download basis/monthly hosting fee based on revenue, similar to some of EPIC's licensing schemes.

This is just pro-Apple propaganda, in the early 2000s most indie Mac apps were not distributed in the way you describe but rather were over the internet already.


Only larger sellers that actually wanted to sell boxed software were hit by these distribution fees. The App Store did not meaningfully lower the cost of distribution because by the time it came along much of software distribution was already moving to the internet with very very minimal distribution costs.

Which points out how the two markets evolved very differently. For years, the only way to get software was on disk (or cassette) from a store or an add in Byte/Computer Shopper/etc. Flight simulator original came in a baggy, as did many products. Later you had shareware, where a developer hoped enough people paid to cover distribution costs and make some money. Piracy was rampant with things like bit copiers; although piracy is still a problem.

The Mac App Store was late to the game and established distribution channels were already in place; but the Mac App Store has never been the issue, it's Apple's sole control of distribution of apps.

iOS distribution evolved differently, and mimicked the phone market where sales were handled on phone by the carrier.Apple is grudgingly changing, but I suspect they will still be the major player even as independent app stores evolved;ve.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If someone doesn’t like to pay the price for a particular good you go somewhere else or deal with it’s. In this case there is a somewhere else.

There isn't - cause they can't distribute the same product (app) to the same consumers elsewhere.

Pricing is based on value, not costs

Pricing in competitive markets tends to converge towards marginal cost.

I just think small developers will find it hard to beat Apple's cost/value proposition with other stores; especially since I think most alternatives will result in all in costs around Apple's 15% anyway

I tend to agree.
Small developers only account for a small percentage of all App Store revenue though.

 

[I7guy]

There isn't - cause they can't distribute the same product (app) to the same consumers elsewhere.

No, it is the same product, you’re making an artificial distinction.

Pricing in competitive markets tends to converge towards marginal cost.

Then car prices should be near zero after 100 years of getting good at manufacturing cars. Right? Should be the marginal cost, but it’s too general a statement to be true in all situations.

I tend to agree.
Small developers only account for a small percentage of all App Store revenue though.

 

[bcortens]

No, it is the same product, you’re making an artificial distinction.

Then car prices should be near zero after 100 years of getting good at manufacturing cars. Right? Should be the marginal cost, but it’s too general a statement to be true in all situations.

The marginal price of cars is almost certainly no where near zero precisely because of how much physical material and labour goes into producing each car.

 

[I7guy]

The marginal price of cars is almost certainly no where near zero precisely because of how much physical material and labour goes into producing each car.

The marginal costs of data centers and other digital products aren’t zero either. What do you believe is the budget for all of apples infrastructure?

 

[bcortens]

The marginal costs of data centers and other digital products aren’t zero either. What do you believe is the budget for all of apples infrastructure?

I didn’t say it was - the point is that I have my doubts (given the bulk price of storage and downloads from AWS) that apples marginal costs for app hosting are 30% of each transaction for most monetized apps.

 

[I7guy]

I didn’t say it was - the point is that I have my doubts (given the bulk price of storage and downloads from AWS) that apples marginal costs for app hosting are 30% of each transaction for most monetized apps.

Apple doesn’t have to charge down to marginal cost. They are free to charge a reasonable fee.

The eu would like Apple to charge zero, but they (the eu) are way too scared to actually come right out and say that.

 

[AppliedMicro]

No, it is the same product

iOS apps and Android apps may look similar (and even share components) but are not the same product.
They don‘t run/work with the same devices and thus don not target the same consumers.

Then car prices should be near zero after 100 years of getting good at manufacturing cars. Right? Should be the marginal cost

„Zero“? You’ve got to be joking!? 😶

Do you know what raw materials and components go into a car!?
The marginal cost of producing a car is very far from zero (unlike apps in Apple‘s App Store to Apple).

The marginal costs of data centers and other digital products aren’t zero either

Data Centers are pretty much (short- to medium-medium) fixed costs to Apple.
But the marginal costs of distributing an app - or even onboard a new developer - is close to zero.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple doesn’t have to charge down to marginal cost. They are free to charge a reasonable fee.

Yes. But in competitive markets, their prices are expected to converge towards marginal cost.

Which was and is the point: The fact that they remain high - despite low marginal costs and extremely high economies of scale - are indicative of supracompetitive pricing.

The DMA is intended to promote competitive pricing.

 

[I7guy]

Yes. But in competitive markets, their prices are expected to converge towards marginal cost.

There is no expectation of this. Apple as a company is free to charge within the law.

Which was and is the point: The fact that they remain high - despite low marginal costs and extremely high economies of scale - are indicative of supracompetitive pricing.

Nope. It’s an indicator of what the market will bear as in every other company that seeks a product and the consumer can only get that product from the company.

The DMA is intended to promote competitive pricing.

The DMA is is intended to resuce
The power of apple. None of what’s in the law promotes competition. It’s promotes ip theft.

 

[I7guy]

iOS apps and Android apps may look similar (and even share components) but are not the same product.

They are the same product.

They don‘t run/work with the same devices and thus don not target the same consumers.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t the same product.

„Zero“? You’ve got to be joking!? 😶

There is no joke here other than the DMA. Something that’s been manufactured for 130 years should cost way less than they do today.

Do you know what raw materials and components go into a car!?
The marginal cost of producing a car is very far from zero (unlike apps in Apple‘s App Store to Apple).

Cars should cost way less. The entire supply chain to produce gas powered vehicles has been around for 125 years. I’m just piggy backing on your logic.

Data Centers are pretty much (short- to medium-medium) fixed costs to Apple.

Only some of it. But it’s still far from zero along with programming and engineers salaries.

But the marginal costs of distributing an app - or even onboard a new developer - is close to zero.

Sure once the first few billions are spent. The first app to be distributed probably cost Apple a few billion. But this is a lot of fuzzy math.

 

[surferfb]

Yes. But in competitive markets, their prices are expected to converge towards marginal cost.

Which was and is the point: The fact that they remain high - despite low marginal costs and extremely high economies of scale - are indicative of supracompetitive pricing.

The DMA is intended to promote competitive pricing.

Why haven’t the Play Store’s costs reduced dramatically then? The Play Store is open and competes with Samsung, Amazon, and other huge companies. Why hasn’t one of them offered lower prices way below Goole’s and undercut them?

And what does the DMA do to encourage more competitive pricing on Android App Stores?

 

[jakey rolling]

MAGA is not on the traditional "right" in terms of many of its policies -- especially those pertaining to economic policy. It is a mostly populist agenda with many positions that would have found a home in the traditional Democratic party.

By "traditional" you mean the one that was around in the 1860s.

 

[turbineseaplane]

MAGA is not on the traditional "right" in terms of many of its policies -- especially those pertaining to economic policy. It is a mostly populist agenda

Who in the country wants to eliminate our massive competitive edge in science and round people up with no due process and send them to a foreign prison indefinitely?

Who wants to have everything cost more for "reasons" and no longer be an ally of anyone but the absolute worst people on the planet?

 

[Madhatter32]

By "traditional" you mean the one that was around in the 1860s.

No, I meant the both political parties of the 1960s through the 1980s.

 

[Madhatter32]

Who in the country wants to eliminate our massive competitive edge in science and round people up with no due process and send them to a foreign prison indefinitely?

Who wants to have everything cost more for "reasons" and no longer be an ally of anyone but the absolute worst people on the planet?

Sounds like you are coming from a purely partisan position but it's actually more nuanced than you suggest. My point was that the populist impulse for tariffs used to be a policy position firmly embraced by Democrats. But I do generally agree that populism (or mob rule) in either party is not a good thing. Also, I'm not in favor of protectionism -- but at least understand that looking for trading balance is something a little different.

I do think, however, given your post, that you mostly misunderstand the nature of "due process" afforded for residents that are in the country illegally. That "due process," clearly defined by law, looks very different from the kind citizens and legal residents enjoy.

So, anyway, like I said, today your choices are popularism vs. Marxist progressivism. Gone is the liberal / conservative dichotomy. Pick carefully.

 

[raylo32]

You almost make sense until you get to the "Marxist" nonsnse. The dems have in no way gone that far to the left. Yes, AOC and some others are a bit out there but by and large they have been left where they have traditionally been (center left) by the GOP that went off the deep end crazy right. The "Marxist" meme is just teed up by the GOP disinformation and propaganda machine to poison the debate.

Edit: to further my point above, the GOP... well MAGA... use the "Marxist" label and propaganda to try to create a false and stark choice. When in fact the real choice is between relative center left normalcy and crazy wacko RW lunacy. I know, MAGA doesn't WANT normalcy. We all get that. You want to "own the libs" and enjoy all the MAGA reality show fake drama. But using propaganda to create a false choice to queer the debate is disgusting and counterproductive to having any rational system of governance.

Sounds like you are coming from a purely partisan position but it's actually more nuanced than you suggest. My point was that the populist impulse for tariffs used to be a policy position firmly embraced by Democrats. But I do generally agree that populism (or mob rule) in either party is not a good thing. Also, I'm not in favor of protectionism -- but at least understand that looking for trading balance is something a little different.

I do think, however, given your post, that you mostly misunderstand the nature of "due process" afforded for residents that are in the country illegally. That "due process," clearly defined by law, looks very different from the kind citizens and legal residents enjoy.

So, anyway, like I said, today your choices are popularism vs. Marxist progressivism. Gone is the liberal / conservative dichotomy. Pick carefully.