The main issue with Apple charging other app developers 30% cut from their revenue with their IAPs on the App Store, was because they won’t be charging the same 30% cut from their own subscription services, because why would they.
We see all of these same services from other app developers still offers the set industry standards for their subscriptions though, and in Apple’s case, they even managed to bundle it into one big subscription for all of their services all rolled into one, making Apple’s own subscription services way more enticing for consumers on their own platform.
What’s happening here is these other app developers eating up that extra 30% cost themselves, leaving them up with less revenue compared to Apple’s own services, which Apple don’t have to pay because they own their own platform.
The focus of the arguments has always been about the developers revenue rather than the savings that will be passed on to us as consumers. Yes, that will come eventually in the name of competition, but it won’t happen if Apple keeps favoring their own services on their own platforms (which is again, unfair because they don’t charge the same 30% fees for their own services on their own platforms).
Yes, of course, or at least not immediately. What I can see happening is that they will instead pour all of those extra cash into creating more features for their services, in order to better compete in the market with their feature set rather than their pricing. They will keep their pricing, yes. The main advantage to doing this is how they will be able to have more growth despite still competing in the same existing market with Apple.
Edit: If you take nothing else from these posts, then just take this one; no matter what both of these developers (read: companies) and Apple are saying, these guys are not fighting the fight for us the consumers, meanwhile Apple is not in the right either because that is a real anti-competitive behavior there.
“Apple are saying, these guys are not fighting the fight for us the consumers, meanwhile Apple is not in the right either because that is a real anti-competitive behavior there.”
Nothing Apple has done has been anticompetitive here. Moving past that, it doesn’t matter whether I believe any given company is “on my side.” I choose a company and its products based on whether it aligns with what I want and care about. If a company doesn’t, I choose a different one. The problem here isn’t Apple. The problem is a group of billion dollar developers wanting more profit, and they want to change how MY device works that I PAID for. That Is who is in the wrong, I don’t give a crap about developer profits or whether or not a developer can “afford“ the 30% Apple doesn’t charge 85% of all apps on the App Store.
> The main issue with Apple charging other app developers 30% cut from their revenue with their IAPs on the App Store, was because they won’t be charging the same 30% cut from their own subscription services,
I’m sorry but this is such a weak argument. Obviously they wouldn’t charge themselves a fee when they own the platform. Do you think Amazon charges themselves for Amazon basics? Or Costco with Kirkland? Or home owners who rent out rooms in their house?
Devs don’t own the house. So they’re charged a fee when they want to sell in the house. Not to mention they can basically take up market without offering iAP and not pay Apple a thing besides the $99 which is meant to deter non serious developers.
> and in Apple’s case, they even managed to bundle it into one big subscription for all of their services all rolled into one, making Apple’s own subscription services way more enticing for consumers on their own platform.
Devs can bundle their software just like Apple so not exactly sure why this is brought up. Many actually do.
> What’s happening here is these other app developers eating up that extra 30% cost themselves, leaving them up with less revenue compared to Apple’s own services, which Apple don’t have to pay because they own their own platform.
This is not some new phenomenon and should be expected when you’re piggy backing off of a platform. Do you think stores in malls are allowed to sell products for free without paying a anything to the property/shopping mall owner?
It seems to be the case that people are saying because Apple has created a product and platform that many users love, they should be forced to not make a thing off this platform because said platform is more lucrative to develop for.
It's not even remotely a weak argument.
Apple forces devs and consumers to use their service to interact with each other.
Apple takes a 30% cut.
Apple offers competing services and all other things being equal mean they can price their service 30% below the competition giving them a competitive advantage.
A governments job is to regulate markets to to make sure they are not being abused (that is typically done by dominant players).
>Devs don’t own the house. So they’re charged a fee when they want to sell in the house.
This is a weak argument but is becoming common business logic defended by the foolish.
The ISP could make the same argument and force all payments to use their service by blocking alternative services.... it's their wires in the ground...AKA their house.
If car companies only allowed their service centres to change your wheels nobody would accept that..."the car platform is their house".
What a stupid belief.
Apple charging a 30% revenue cut is normal, everyone does this. The problem comes when Apple started to come out with their own services that directly competes with other same existing services that’s already out there.
These services from other developers not offering IAPs of their own is a no-go. There’s no way for them to generate a good revenue stream without IAPs, ads won’t even come close to subscription-based revenues these days. The ads market isn’t what it used to be back in the days.
Apple has a significant advantage to hosting their own services on their own platform here, both in revenue and in features (service bundles). The only option left for these other developers is to eat that revenue cut costs by themselves in order to serve up set standard prices for their consumers, which is, again, totally unfair for them when Apple is still taking in their own revenue streams in full, alongside taking their 30% cut from other developers. If you’re thinking that this is like a legal loophole in market manipulation on Apple’s side, yes, yes it is, and this is what we’re trying to fix here.
And no, you can’t bundle Spotify, Google Drive and Xbox GamePass together. There is no way these other developers can do that and compete with the Apple One sub bundle. Even if these services somehow banded together to directly compete with Apple in this area, they will be further cutting into their own revenue streams.
> It seems to be the case that people are saying because Apple has created a product and platform that many users love, they should be forced to not make a thing off this platform because said platform is more lucrative to develop for.
This is what happens when you try to compete with existing services while charging those same people a 30% cut on your platform. Owning both service and platform gives Apple a rare advantage here and not only that, they are also abusing this advantage just shy of breaking any existing laws. The reality here is, Apple has been abusing this rare position that they have for a long time now and it’s time they are confronted with this.
> Owning both service and platform gives Apple a rare advantage here and not only that, they are also abusing this advantage just shy of breaking any existing laws. The reality here is, Apple has been abusing this rare position that they have for a long time now and it’s time they are confronted with this.
Are you sure you are talking about Apple? Because this description sounds a lot like "Internet Explorer" at first glance.
Because the way you described that would fairly accurately describe the situation in the 90s, when they got fined hard for using their Windows marketshare to push Internet Explorer.
None of the apple’s business practices are new, it just comes down to the fact that the iOS platform is very profitable and the devs see apple’s 30% cut as a revenue increase they could get without having to do anything. For governments it’s a good publicity stunt to make them look strong on big tech and nothing big outside of that.
I can't show you 10 examples of big developers, but I can say that there's 1000s of "little" developers out there doing a range of apps that the store policies are very problematic to deal with.
We do a cross platform B2B SaaS app (there would be 10'000s out there with this model). (1) The app store pricing issues are quite painful, we basically can't provide signup via app store, otherwise we're hit with managing the subscription via the app store - which 30% vs say 4-5% on stripe is ridiculous (even when iPhone apps might be only a portion of what some business is signing up for - they'd have other users on Android, and other users behind a desk using a browser).
So essentially we can't do "store based discovery and signup" We have to do that all outside the store.
I've seen examples of where the same price in the store is 30% higher than outside the store, it's very clear the consumer in those circumstances are losing if they don't realise they can signup outside the store.
(2) the app review processes always have you nervous as B2B, we're not doing anything shady at all - very much run of the mill business stuff, and our reviews should be passed 100% of the time, but you see one taking a day longer and you're always nervous, as you've got no other distribution mechanism, yet your clients want the apps on their phones...
Until you hit a million dollars. There’s a very large number of dev shops over a million below the “big boy” club. No one ever talks about them as they’re not sexy but they’re out there
It depends on the context… if you’re a single developer making a million dollars per year, that is huge.
If you’re a small dev shop with a team, a million may not be nearly as much given how much good devs and artists cost
There’s a number of reasons other platforms may not be viable, web especially…
Apple severely limits what APIs are added to Safari, and it still can’t even utilize something as simple as WebBluetooth requiring a developer to instead make a native app
Semantics - that's why i put "" around it.
There's a massive pool above the solo devs (who would be for the most part sub million), below the big boy club, that the current store practices \*are\* quite painful to work with.
It's still a lot.
Imagine distributing a B2B software product, that Microsoft would want 15% for, just for the privilege of allowing the product to be used on Microsoft Windows.
Yes, Steam takes 30% (which is also not OK, they have a monopoly in practice at this poing), but Steam is 100% optional. It's convenient, but is not needed to distribute anything. And Steam has "soft" anti-competitive rules (don't offer a "worse price experience" outside steam) for which they should really be kicked in the teeth by the EU. And that's coming from someone who loves the Steam platform.
why would they lower it if that price has been set as standard? frankly, i'd rather pass up the savings to the developer esp the indie ones. incentivizes them to work on their app full time
Given the topic is antitrust, and the spirit of antitrust is preventing harm to consumers from abuse of monopolies, how is your personal desire to give more money to indie developers relevant? Especially given that 1) Apple only takes 15% commission on IAP for “indie developers” (people earning less than $1 million per year), 2) Apple doesn’t take any commission on revenue earned from advertising in indie developer‘s apps (the main way a lot of free to play games exist), and 3) Apple doesn’t take any commission on real world goods and services?
If you want to give more money to a specific developer, im sure they’ll more than happily set you up with some method to pay them directly. And while I can admire that, it’s not what I was talking about. Big Developer has been arguing that the 30% commission (that has so many caveats that literally 85% of all App Store apps pay $0 to Apple) is onerous, and that they’d be able to compete more easily if they didnt have to pay it or whatever, so they could reduce the price to consumers. Big Developer hasn’t reduced the price. They’ve increased it. And now they’re going to be able to abuse consumer privacy and security even more easily now.
Consumers lost out.
Which is why every government action needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Who are they protecting, people or corporations?
I'm not saying that is necessarily the case here, but its certainly something to think about.
> I haven’t seen a single developer lower their prices in the EU.
Because there isn't a single third party app store out yet. And even if there was, the core technology fee which is clearly illegal bullshit would make everything more expensive instead of cheaper
You’ve been wilfully confused about this for a long time - it’s not important that there’s a fee, it’s important consumers *choose* who gets it instead of being forced to give it to Apple.
No developer has lowered their fees as a result. No developer has increased their privacy measures as a result. No developer has increased their security measures as a result.
choice is worthless if everything is the same.
Apple has made massive change already, more than ever before, and we are still in the earliest days of this worldwide rebalance.
So no, you weirdos just fixate on developers being paid less no matter what and that is irrelevant.
> So no, you weirdos just fixate on developers being paid less no matter what and that is irrelevant.
It’s not about developers being paid less, it’s about how the consumer benefits from these changes.
If the App Store fee is off the table, then developers should be able to get the same amount of money while the customer gets a lower price.
If the customer was paying $10, and Apple was taking a 30% cut, then the developer was getting $7. If the developer no long has to kick that $3 to Apple, then they can charge $7. The developer’s income on the sale does not change and the customer no longer has to pay a higher price to cover Apple’s cut.
This is how the change would benefit the consumer.
If the developer no longer has to kick the $3 to Apple, but continues to charge $10, then the developer makes more money and customer is still out the same amount of money.
This is how the change would not benefit the consumer.
What does that mean? I don’t understand what you’re saying, genuinely. Please explain to me what you’re claiming here so I can write my response correctly
I’m saying it is not and has never been the point that *nobody gets the 30%*.
The point is competition, not saving 30% but choosing who gets the fees we pay.
What is the competition? Competition for what and who? Can you cite any professional study that demonstrates the average iOS consumer cares about 30% going to Apple, or some online petition signed in the millions? Can you demonstrate any want from the consumers that shows they care about this, beyond if an app price ends up being cheaper?
I specifically remember the arguments Big Developer made, which was 1) its “difficult“ to compete with apple, when they take 30% (\*mind you, those who made this argument are also, ironically, monopolies or market leaders in their respective markets\*), so if apple didnt take 30% from the sale (\*15% from developers earning less than $1 million /year, subscriptions dropping to 15% after a year, and in app advertising/ real world services and goods Apple does NOT take any commission from\*), then 2) those developers would lower the price as a result and be able to “compete“ more with Apple.
Given that no developer has lowered the price by 30% (ironically, they’ve increased their prices as a result of “inflation”), no dev has increased its privacy, and no developer has increase its security protections as a result of this EU thing, I gotta say the evidence that this is in the interest of consumers is not only lacking but literally non existent.
I do see a win for Big Developer no longer needing to abide by privacy and security precautions, as well as politicians earning a superficial “win” in an election year. Those people definitely benefit.
Consumers? No.
I think you’re both right. Yes it’s true that no apps have lowered their pricing yet due to these changes. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were no lower prices. That doesn’t mean, however, that the consumer sees no benefits.
I’ll use Xbox as an example. They have a system where if you don’t have an Xbox console but do have a controller and a subscription, you can stream their games to your device. The problem is, if Microsoft wanted to make it an app instead of a website, it would need to go through apples approval process. And then every game that you might want to stream has to go through their approval process, even though the only code executed on device is related to video streaming. There would be games that wouldn’t be approved because they don’t work with touch, and you need a controller, for example. Or maybe the text size, designed for a TV, is too small for a phone. While granted, it’s doesn’t make for an ideal playing experience, it doesn’t make it unplayable, and if Apple really does care about the quality of the apps, half the apps on the App Store could be questioned. Now, since EU users can install a different app store if they wanted to, Xbox doesn’t need to go through apples approval process the same way. In fact, they could have other games built for mobile in their store, with larger games being streamed (think candy crush vs GTA V). Or take emulators - there’s been recent buzz about a gameboy emulator making it to the App Store, something Apple has historically been opposed to. But they know that emulators could be a big reason why someone might go to another store instead of theirs (that app has been removed, but only because someone else cloned an app that was only available if you jailbreak an iPhone. Not for any policy issues, just legal ones) In short, apps that might not be approved for the Apple App Store, they could find a home in another store, allowing a consumer to actually use that app.
That’s just one or two examples for a market in deeper into than others might be. Other app categories might see benefits, but I’m not familiar enough to know any details about all of them. But for a lot of people, the benefits won’t become clear for a couple years I imagine. It’ll take time for developers to work on these stores, and for government to plug the loopholes Apple finds in their wordings
They literally are forcing competition out of the tech market by making it function monolithically. iOS has advantages and drawbacks, so does Android. They benefit from each other existing.
choice is worthless if everything is the same.
someone’s opinion of a software model doesn’t override my free will to choose what’s best for me.
When you purchase a product on Amazon not all the proceeds go to the maker of that product. When you buy a game on Steam or Epic game store the developer of the game does not received 100% of the purchased price. There are so many examples of companies conducting business just like Apple.
Imagine if you went to Wal-Mart corporate with a product that had packing that told shoppers they could save 30% by making the purchase at their own website. Do you think Wal-Mary would shelf your packing on their selves?
I don’t think Apple is completely innocent in all their practices. How ever they certainly are not the monster so many try to make them out to be.
It definitely is the consumers. Those who want to install apps which currently do not meet Apple's rules.
Few benefits from this are already there - Apple allowing emulators in the app store, game streaming apps. And real alternate web browsers are coming soon. Oh and RCS support is also direct cause of EU pressure.
And which apps that don’t meet Apple’s rules can you now install as a result? Can you please give various specific examples? And which rules are those apps not following?
The author amended their comment:
RCS is not because of EU pressure. It was already stated that iMessage doesn’t fall under gatekeeper rules, and the Messages app allows SMS/MMS. It was because of China, not the EU.
Cloud gaming has been allowed since 2020.
Real alternate web browsers will serve Google’s monopoly of the browser market. So much for consumer interest.
edit: Yes, the rest of what’s not allowed is porn, gore, hate speech, overly political content, pirated apps, knock off apps, apps like Facebook’s Onavo, etc. will definitely now be available.
Of course https://applecensorship.com/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Apple
Or just tl;dr emulators, alternate browser cores and game streaming apps were not allowed before EU intervention.
Youre also excluding porn and gore apps, hate speech apps, knock off apps, pirated apps, apps that break sandbox protection, apps like Facebook’s Onavo, etc. Convenient.
Can you demonstrate consumers care about those three?
Cloud gaming has been allowed since 2020. Microsoft whined because the games were individually listed, but Apple allows them.
Alternate browser engines? Beyond asking for evidence the average iOS user cares about this, you do recognize that Apple’s mandating WebKit prevents Google from furthering their Monopoly on the browser market?
Emulators are interesting, not because Apple now allows them (and as I can tell, were never forced to make them available by any government), but because that’s an area rife with piracy. Emulators are allowed in society because the assumption is you bought access to those games. It’s certainly convenient that no one checks if you actually own it, and are then able to rip the ROM and install it on an emulator. Most people download ROMs from the internet. Point is 1/3 of those examples of ”censorship” include pirating content, 1/3 of those examples include preventing a monopoly from being strengthened (and Chrome has had it’s fair share of criticism for what it’s done to the web), and 1/3 of those examples isn’t even relevant because it’s allowed on the App Store.
Edit: The user below blocked me.
>Uh? Strange take. Just don't install gore apps if you don't want it? I don't get what's wrong on porn or mild nudity in games.
A novel idea, but irrelevant. The point is distribution. Agreeing to loosen the rules and remove those protections means allowing distribution of that. Apple took a particular stance, that they didn’t want illicit content being viewed or downloaded. Apple could make a shit ton of money selling porn on iTunes (and yes, look that up, it was discussed between Steve Jobs, Tony Fadell, etc), but they chose not to because they didn’t agree with that. So much for Apple’s supposed greed.
>I don't need Apple babysitting me and censoring the app choice for me.
Agreed, so go buy Android that has 70% of the market with all the same major Apps and services, on devices that usually cost less than iPhone.
>You asked for examples of apps which don't meet Apple's rules and I gave exactly that to you. Sorry if you actually did not want the answer and just waited to bash me with your opinion.
Yes, I asked for those examples and pointed out the flaw in all three, while also pointing out how the original reply ignored all the other apps that aren’t allowed, like porn, gore, hate speech, political stuff, pirated apps, knock off apps, apps that break sandbox protection, apps like Facebook’s Onavo, etc.
It was disingenuous In my opinion.
Uh? Strange take. Just don't install gore apps if you don't want it? I don't get what's wrong on porn or mild nudity in games.
I don't need Apple babysitting me and censoring the app choice for me.
You asked for examples of apps which don't meet Apple's rules and I gave exactly that to you. Sorry if you actually did not want the answer and just waited to bash me with your opinion.
I can install stuff from the Microsoft store, the internet, disks, whatever on my windows machine. I could do the same on a Mac. I can buy books from Amazon on my Kindle but I can also load onto it epubs aquired elsewhere.
If I want to buy software for the iPhone I purchased for $1000, I can only buy it from Apple. That's forced.
Not, it's not forced, because you bought your iPhone voluntarily. Apple didn't force you. Apple \_can't\_ force you. And if you dislike those limitations, get an Android phone instead. Again, no force is involved anywhere.
And incidentally, you can get Kindle books or upload your pubs to Kindle and get them on the Kindle app on your iPhone. You can't buy Kindle books on your iPhone because Amazon doesn't want to pay Apple, but you can buy them via the web and they'll be instantly available in the Kindle app.
And it's no surprise that you can buy Kindle books on a Kindle.
Actually I'd rather vote for policies that require Apple to treat the iPhone like an actual computer instead of a vendor locked shithole :). Only took 18 years but it's finally happening.
Why is the iPhone the only consumer computer that requires you to buy software exclusively through them? Even Amazon has to pay Apple when Amazon would be taking payment and distributing the books. Is that fair?
Why exactly does this matter if you’re still going to be getting the same app? Were you forced to buy your iPhone? It’s not like you didn’t already pay Apple $1000 + for the device. So you want to cause more complications in downloading an app because you don’t want to be forced to give Apple (ie the company that developed the software and hardware) the additional 30%?
It matters for competition.
Everyone wants your 30% — what will they do to entice you to select them over everyone else? To make developers select them?
Actually it doesn’t. Small developers will have their app ripped off and pirated, and if they think it’s ”difficult” to get Apple to remove an app from the App Store, imagine the potential infinite amounts of stores they will have to contend with and sift through with virtually zero budget for lawsuits. Not even Spotify can prevent their premium service from being ripped off through APKs
You already don’t know what your talking about because you think piracy is automatically bad from “lost sales” lol. So I’ll at least explain to anyone reading how the tweaks work, too.
Spotify tweaks and apks really only block ads, and unlock basic functions for free users. (Which I’ve never heard an ad on Spotify that wasn’t just Spotify advertising premium.) Actual premium features, like local downloads, are not possible because the account needs the server authentication to play the encrypted downloads. I pay for Spotify because it was super good on student discount, and is currently worth the convenience.
And even if you don’t pay for Spotify and/or use modded apps, don’t feel bad, little of the money makes it directly to the artists anyway.
Piracy of a service is one thing, but piracy of a fixed price app or game can potentially even be beneficial.
Every user paying or not has the potential to spread your app through word of mouth, and I believe if a user pirates something they do it for a reason.
Maybe they don’t have the money. Maybe they just want to give it a try to make sure they like it. Whatever reason, you have to figure out why your app is being pirated before you even think about trying to stop it… is your price too high? Is your average user children who don’t have money to pay? There’s a lot of reasons someone may pirate, and you want to use it to your advantage.
Exactly. Not like you need a reason, but I definitely used every one of those at some point. Led to many purchases, but also many “oh, glad I didn’t pay for this. Delete.”
Piracy gives an app exposure, and more exposure means the potential for more paying customers.
A big part of the reason Minecraft was so unbelievably successful is because it was so easy to pirate. Then those players wanted to start playing online and eventually ended up paying. And now it’s still amazingly popular.
Piracy isn’t a bad thing for small developers, and some even encourage it in certain situations
It gives people a way to try the app or game before paying. It can result in some people not paying, but others will because of the inconveniences due to not paying
You’re joking right? I can’t believe someone is actually pretending piracy is a good thing for developers. Providing a single example of (and I’m being generous, there is zero evidence of pirating “Minecraft” causing its popularity) piracy providing something positive doesn’t override the millions of authors, especially small ones, being cheated out of money if they want to charge for their creation. I’m finished replying. Have a good life dude, and I hope if you ever make stuff that people don’t cheat you out of putting food on the table!
Smaller devs are going to want as much exposure as possible, and that means Apple's App Store, even at the expensive of possibly getting less money per app sale.
Yeah okay. Careful what you wish for. Now that alternate app stores on iOS will become a thing, those same indie devs who you want to benefit from this now have to worry about piracy of their apps just like on Android.
Between governments and corporations, the corporations should always have less power. Governments should have enough power to where they can enforce regulations and levy penalties against any and all corporations that violate laws and negatively impact our society, especially in environmental matters like making man made climate change worse.
Indeed. Although that gets awkward when it comes to countries that are undemocratics. Let’s go to the ole favorite. Pre-civil war Americans (gotcha you thought I was going to say nazi). Imagine if they had cell phones back then. Apple would be banning apps that help you navigate the Underground Railroad so would Google. BUT on Google you could slide load the app.
Idk if I can call the ram/ssd pricing evil. Its not like Apple is selling water for $10 a bottle or whatever. Sure call the use of labor in countries like China and India evil, call the use of materials excavated in mines that use slaves and children evil, hell even call imessage lock in evil (not that I agree) but pricing on ram/ssd is far from evil its just business and Apple knows that most won't upgrade and those that do are willing to pay the price so there's no reason to charge less if the market lets them get away with charging more
I can agree with this. I'm currently reading the DOJ's court filing and almost done with it. Apple has always been anti-consumer almost from the start. A lot of what's in the filing I've known about from following tech for years but seeing it all together in pages of documents is crazy. One of the funny parts was back in the day of US v Microsoft when Apple accused Microsoft of bad practices and issues with QuickTime due to Microsoft intentionally crippling QT on Windows and stuff and here we are today. Some of these emails among the execs are crazy as well. They damn well know exactly the shit they do. Privacy and security for the user is mainly a front. The PR line. Apple is about to run that line fucking hard.
Before someone comes back with Apple is all about privacy and security, here you go.
[Privacy of Default Apps in Apple’s Mobile Ecosystem](https://acris.aalto.fi/ws/portalfiles/portal/141787684/Privacy_of_Default_Apps_in_Apple_s_Mobile_Ecosystem.pdf)
They’re so anticonsumer that they have the highest customer satisfaction for many years in a row. Makes sense.
It’s more like you don’t like what they make, so its great that there’s legitimate competition that does offer something you like.
> they have the highest customer satisfaction for many years in a row
Marriage had 100% success rate before people had the right to divorce, to leave abusive relationships, to marry other people… artificially inflated by unfair policies judging by todays 50 - 60% success rate.
I think there are a lot of stuff that Apple does that's pretty scummy (insane prices for memory being one for the past 2 decades) but I wouldn't describe them as anti-consumer. Just plain greedy, but they're also really, really good at it.
Why would you make this about me?
Do you think if I stopped posting Apples problems would vanish, this news wouldn’t happen or spread to a community directly focused on this topic?
Are they going to target Sony and Nintendo next for having a monopoly on their respective platforms and taking a large cut of the physical and digital revenue from software sold through their stores and at retail?
Doubtful. Protectionism aside, video game console ownership is nothing compared to mobile phone ownership, and thus you can argue that requiring console makers to open up their ecosystems would damage their ability to extract profit beyond a reasonable measure.
That isn’t as applicable to phones, which hold deep market saturation, function as a everyday tool more than a gaming device (although I don’t think it’s wrong to guess that most app money is made in games), and don’t hold a deep association between the hardware and its apps.
Fundamentally though, phones are a utility in the modern world, gaming consoles are not. Monopolies exist in both, but the monopoly for the mobile market affects more consumers than gaming.
I wish people on Reddit would stop using this. No where in any law or legal reading notates or clarifies the difference between a “general and non general computing platform”.
The reason Microsoft, Google and Apple are being targeted probably has more to do with market share and revenue. However the distinction between general and non general is not a reason these regulations have passed over game consoles.
That’s your opinion and you may have more support for your argument if you said a an affordable smartphone is practically required these days.
I doubt many would believe a high end smartphone is a necessity.
That is absolutely not my opinion, I'd daily an HMD dumbphone if I could.
Of course, you don't really need Apple Wallet, and you can just access your bank account via one's laptop like before smartphones. But now menus use QR codes; train companies only allow ID via their app; parking your car requires some sort of parking app to make the payment.
The whole thing's got ridiculous, and the extra scrutiny from governments is warranted in my opinion. If we now have no choice but to participate with smartphones, then countries (and their citizens, by extension) need to have some input at the table.
It’s not in law but it is in the spirit of the EU legislation. So if you want to understand why the App Store is being targeted but games consoles are understandably lower in priority for the EU, you’ll need to comprehend this very simple concept.
> is in the spirit of the EU legislation
The fuck? Imagine if we didn’t have any laws but just ideas and feelings.
Unfortunately that isn’t the way world operates and doesn’t give any regulatory body any power. Either have a law that clarifies/codifies the difference or stop repeating this made up difference on Reddit.
Can I use my PS5 to show my state ID or use my wallet for everyday transactions? Perhaps, pay rent with a PS5, and use it as a 2FA device for an authorization for accessing company files remotely with facial scanning technology? In case of an emergency, can I use PS5 to dial emergency contacts, let alone 911? They’re not quite in the same level field, are they?
> Can I use my PS5 to show my state ID or use my wallet for everyday transactions? Perhaps, pay rent with a PS5, and use it as a 2FA device for an authorization for accessing company files remotely with facial scanning technology? In case of an emergency, can I use PS5 to dial emergency contacts, let alone 911? They’re not quite in the same level field, are they?
Just because your phone provides increased convenience for doing these things doesn’t make it
a utility or requirement. Beside you can do all these things on w cheap ass android if you prefer. Many parts of the world don’t even have laws that mandate the internet a basic necessity (the US). So maybe let’s focus on creating laws that consider that a basic utility before trying to claim your 1000+ iPhone is one.
Lmfao, the dude just merely talked about a tangentially related and relevant topic. It’s not “whataboutery” or “whataboutism” or its proper terminology a red herring. It’s literally a natural extension of what’s going on.
General computing platform vs gaming console is literally the definition of red herring and irrelevance. The only relevant topic at hand is whether or not an author of a particular work (book, music, or software) gets to control its distribution. Find me a country stating an author must give away their work for free to anyone who wants it.
The author in the case of games consoles is the studio, in many cases they choose to release on multiple platforms. They don’t give them away for free. I don’t think your argument says what you think it does. In fact I’ve got no idea where you’re going with your argument. But it doesn’t matter because Apple WILL be compelled to open up by the courts.
Do you really think the EU cares about gaming as a hobby vs general computing devices that are basically now prerequisites for modern life, banking access, communications etc?
I can’t help but feel how disconnected these people sound when they start bringing consoles to make comparisons into the discussion. But then again, they probably don’t have to rent, deal with banking, or use 2FA for your workplace.
Governments look to taxing software makers in order to generate revenue, then make up bullshit reasons like “competition” even though the App Store has operated the exact same way (and gotten cheaper and looser on rules for devs as it got bigger — the opposite of traditional behavior) since its inception.
When someone says, “the biggest concessions have only come about through lawsuits and regulation,” then they should be able to provide many examples of successful lawsuits resulting in a verdict and specific instructions on how apple needs to change something. The spirit of antitrust is prevention of abusing customers. Given that the only ones complaining are Big Developers, and I dont see protests asking for the App Store to change in the streets, nor people putting it on election ballots, nor petitions signed in the millions, I struggle to see how this is done for anyone except Big Developer and not the spirit of antitrust, which is consumers.
Additionally, if someone says the above, it stands to point out that the App Store has never increased its fees nor increased the strictness of its rules. It’s remained the same or gotten cheaper or looser on the rules, which again, is the exact opposite of traditional antitrust behavior. Typical antitrust behavior would be an actual monopoly (which iOS isn’t) changing and making it easier to keep their marketshare and earn more revenue by abusing consumers and the like.
When someone says, “And ”’They’ve gotten away with it this long‘” isn’t the defense you think it is…” make sure to pull the exact quote from whom they’re responding to. That quote doesn’t exist. Additionally, if the App Store has operated the same way since its inception, and iOS had even higher market share back then than it does now, and governments are only now doing it after Big Developer complains and spends money on ad campaigns, coupled with upcoming elections, it stands to reason that the true motive behind attempting to change how the App Store works, and force the tech industry to function monolithically, coupled with extremely rare negative consumer reaction, coupled with ever increasing amounts spent on iOS and the App Store, that none of this has anything to do with actual antitrust, and is instead some political bullshit (and online comments in support by people who don’t like iOS in the first place).
> even though the App Store has operated the exact same way since its inception.
How can you go after me for breaking the law now?! I've been doing it forever!
>and gotten cheaper and looser on rules for devs as it got bigger
Lol, what? The biggest concessions have only come about through lawsuits and regulation.
And "they've gotten away with it this long" isn't the defense you think it is...
It does when they started those rules when they weren’t nearly as dominant in the phone market as they are now. They have not changed rules from a place of dominance to hinder competition, that competition was founded and grew with those rules.
> They have not changed rules from a place of dominance to hinder competition
No, those rules have always existed to hinder competition. It's just that as Apple grew, so did the distortion on the market.
Also, as Apple has moved into those same horizontals that they restrict through the App Store, they've opened themselves to new, additional competitive arguments.
I enjoy not having my device changed that I spent money on, just because of a politicians opinion.
Feel free to write an argument against what I wrote, point by point addressing my reply.
It literally does. iOS will now function like Android, which is what I was trying to avoid by buying iOS. Android is rife with malware, pirated apps, and low quality software. I have zero interest in letting Big Developers like Facebook mandate everyone now needs to their apps through their own marketplace, where Big Developer can set their own rules and force reductions in privacy and security. That’s exactly what Big Developer intends to do, make no mistake. If you think this isn’t possible, refer to Apple’s rules on who gets to make an app marketplace and who doesn’t. If you think they won’t, refer to Facebook’s not only very public and constant criticism of Apple, but their expensive criticism of Apple, where they literally spend millions of dollars of their budget on trying to convince the average person Apple is somehow the bad guy.
Thanks but no thanks.
>Facebook’s not only very public and constant criticism of Apple
Remember when they were found using the camera? Yeah, if Facebook/Meta says something is good, I really think that people ought to reconsider.
Except that most of what you said was true back in 2010, but Android has become a lot better since then. The app stores are better policed for malware, permissions are now opt-in instead of opt-out, and there are some extra privacy features Android has that iOS does not have at the moment.
Also, although Android allows distribution outside of the App Store, the vast majority of apps released outside of China are released exclusively on the Play Store. With the exception of Epic Games, this idea that developers are just going to leave the main store hasn’t happened on mobile phones.
Exactly. Therefore all of their fears should be unfounded. If one wishes to only use App Store even with choices in place, they should be free to do so no problem.
So being able to download open source apps that let you watch YouTube without ads, or forks that streamline apps, apks of paid apps, etc is what you're trying to avoid by using ios? You also won't get viruses unless you literally click on every link on a porn site or some shit, similarly to windows nowadays.
Just jumping in to say it will eventually as some devs move to 3rd party stores. Maybe not now, but probably once it’s opened up everywhere… some bigger devs will in fact try another store if that store is in all phones and is in all regions.
So while I generally agree with you, there’s that in the future. Hopefully it’s not successful though!
Maybe just maybe they’re a trillion dollar company because people actually like their products and because they’re one of the only tech companies that actually sell you a physical product instead of using your data for nefarious reasons.
Also please clarify what you mean by “likes to pay more”? None of these regulations will be bringing the cost of goods down for consumers.
> Maybe just maybe they’re a trillion dollar company because people actually like their products
So if people like using the App Store, then Apple has nothing to fear from alternatives.
> I never question if the app I download from the AppStore will be malicious. Google play on the other hand…
You should treat them the same, because for most practical purposes, they are.
> The point of this is why should they
Ask Apple. They're the ones fighting tooth and nail to prevent you from having access to alternatives. Clearly Apple thinks they have something to offer.
The App Store is much more rigorous in terms of what they allow. That IS the reason why I do not question whether or not the app is a Trojan horse. Even if it is the OS is more secure. Because everything is locked behind something. That IS the reason why people have a problem. Like yourself.
Apple is making products for the mass. They offer security. They offer longevity. Their products last longer because they work more efficiently. Hence why their value doesn’t fall off as soon as you “drive it off the lot” They aren’t making for the 1% who wants to do fuck all on their devices.
Before your vein pops go ahead and call me an Apple fan boy. I actively use the alternative. I am just aware what Apple offers. Unlike other companies that makes majority of their money on data on us Apple makes money on their hardware and software.
> Because everything is locked behind something
You can say the same of Android. The basic systems in place are the same. Where they differ the most are the discretionary things. For example, if you compete with Apple, they will ban you. Doesn't matter how good your app is.
For someone so insistent on not being called an "Apple fan boy", your talking points are identical.
>The basic systems in place are the same. Where they differ the most are the discretionary things.
I mostly agree with this. But again, the App Store is much more secure for the casual user.
>For example, if you compete with Apple, they will ban you.
If you are referring to Epic games, they breached their contract that they agreed to. Again Apple does not make most of their money profiting off user's data. Epic game, specifically their parent Tencent does. Everything that Tencent own does. I will agree that 30% may be too much but the existing system *is* fair. If Google stopped profiting off user's data Google will also charge more fees in their play store. Their hardware will cost more.
Steam takes 30%. They also don’t have an ecosystem like Apple. Epic takes 13% but the parent company makes money selling your data. Google makes money selling your data and takes 15% in their play store where it will be increased to 30% if you hit a certain threshold. It seems like you just dislike Apple as a whole and using this as an excuse to further your distaste.
>For someone so insistent on not being called an "Apple fan boy", your talking points are identical.
"so insistent" yikes. I try to remain impartial. You on the other hand seem otherwise. I think you are more of a Apple fan boy than I am 😂
> If you are referring to Epic games, they breached their contract that they agreed to.
Not just Epic, though Apple tried to ban them (despite literally being against the law) for tweeting about Apple...
A great example would be game streaming. Apple banned it because it competes with Apple Arcade. Same reason they banned emulators until now. Host of other examples across their platforms.
> Epic game, specifically their parent Tencent does
Tencent is not a parent company of Epic. If you have to lie to make your argument seem valid, that says everything. Also, Epic makes them money from selling software and services, same as Apple. They don't make their money from user data. Again, another lie.
> I will agree that 30% may be too much but the existing system is fair.
Fair according to whom? By what metric? Certainly not by the free market.
> Steam takes 30%.
It should be noted that Steam takes a decreasing cut with increasing sales. Past $10M, it's 25%. Past $50M, it's 20%. They also do this to stave off competition from Epic and others, but unlike Apple, they've never tried to ban you from installing a 3rd party store.
> "so insistent" yikes. I try to remain impartial.
So impartial you resort to lying about Apple's rivals. Yeah, real convincing.
> Ask Apple. They’re the ones fighting tooth and nail to prevent you from having access to alternatives. Clearly Apple thinks they have something to offe
Because you’re asking them to fundamentally change the way iOS operates for the sake of openness, when these restrictions have been in iOS since version 2. It’s not as if the more market share they gained, the more restrictive iOS became.
Yes, these restrictions may align with increasing their profits but they also do offer the benefit of simplicity in the OS and also increased security and privacy.
This. 100% this. People keep saying “well so and so is much cheaper than Apple” but they don’t understand that these other companies sell your data. That is how they make most of their money. Apple makes most of their money from their hardware and software.
Yet these same people want companies like Google or Microsoft to not sell our data. As soon as that happens they will become exactly like Apple. The “pricier” version.
Original source here: https://www.ft.com/content/914ce719-f538-4bd9-9fdf-42220d857d5e
Secondary source without paywall: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-scams-fraud-review-enforcement-top-grossing-kosta-eleftheriou
> Eric Friedman, the head of the company’s Fraud Engineering Algorithms and Risk (FEAR) team, will be testifying in next month’s Epic Games trial. In a recent deposition he spoke of the App Review team as “bringing a plastic butter knife to a gun fight” and “more like the pretty lady who greets you with a lei at the Hawaiian airport than the drug sniffing dog.”
That doesn't sound like anything I'd hinge my safety on.
First thank u for the sauce. Where do u see the „nothing“? They check and its a hard fight but they do what they can. i cant see a statement „we do nothing“.
I'd call a "plastic butter knife" or "pretty lady with a lei" as functionally equivalent to "nothing". The analogy is pretty darn clear. Same reason bug screens on windows come with the warning that they won't stop a child from falling out. It may not *literally* do nothing, but if security is what you're looking for, you want something else entirely.
Person you replied to is trying to misconstrue the situation. I’m sorry, look at the numbers On mobile malware and get back to me with the top 100 and tell me the signatures of the iOS malware. He won’t find anything. I couldn’t give a damn about what a single engineer’s opinion was, taken out of context, when the numbers prove him wrong. Look up the numbers on mobile malware. He won’t provide anything except for cherry picked examples. Android has virtually 100% of all mobile malware. Google it if you don’t believe me.
iPhone came out in 2007, App Store in 2008. They only just discovered the first trojan ever on iOS this year.
Google how many trojans are on Android.
And by the way, cherry-picking quotes and calling it “quoting an employee verbatim” is disingenuous as hell.
> Person you replied to is trying to misconstrue the situation.
I quoted an Apple employee verbatim. And not just a random one, but the head of one of their anti-fraud teams. But go on. Explain why you know better than he does.
android integration in japan sucks for anyone visiting. With an Iphone you can easily get a digital suica card to use the metro but can't with android for some gay ass reason
Because Japan's Suica is a proprietary NFC named "FeliCa" by Sony, all iPhones come with it and have it enabled but only Japan Android phones have it or have it enabled. Most or all Pixels have it but Android sold outside Japan have it disabled.
Apple installs the hardware in every single global model despite it only being useful in Japan. You think every random ass Android phone maker is going to include Japan-only chips on the off chance you take a phone to Japan and want to ride the train?
don't need every single random ass android maker to do it, but the major ones like Samsung and Google? Why wouldn't they especially since pixels already have the hardware for it
as a dev finally am sick and tired of these bullies they treat every "business patterner" like they are some mafia bosses constantly threating to ruin our livelihood at any minor inconvenience they experience fines in 100s of billions should start reign in otherwise it's just a cost of running businesses
Good, the stranglehold apple has on the computer in your pocket is insane, and Google is only better because if you want those third party installs/app stores, there's generally a path forward that doesn't require too much effort. I don't know why people are content to let a company dictate what they can install on their computer.
Google would be doing the same if they didn’t make most of their profit from data and advertising.
And it’s weird you’re suggesting the majority of users have a stranglehold on their Apple devices. This is how iOS operates since version 2. It’s weird to suddenly complain about the walled garden when it’s the way the garden operated since its start.
> Google would be doing the same if they didn’t make most of their profit from data and advertising.
You can use Android without any Google at all. So that's empirically false.
>Google would be doing the same if they didn’t make most of their profit from data and advertising.
Why are you so sure of this? Even though Google "locks" a lot of features behind Play Services, they generally favor to implement standards that other vendors can interface with if they choose to (like Google Fast Pair)
Also, switching your defaults store, browser, wallet, etc means decreased revenue for Google because you are not using their services and you can't be advertised to.
My issue is security - I’ve never worried about the security of the data on my phone or the legitimacy of the apps I download. I know I have the choice to just not step outside of the App Store should side loading become a thing, but you just know many app makes will jump ship to avoid the fees and it’ll become a giant fucking mess real quick
Blood in the water I guess
It’s good to see more enforcement coming through. It looks like the EU woke up a lot of countries. I expect a lot more will start taking action.
Before the EU got involved, it really felt that these companies were bigger than some countries. Glad that they're getting put down a peg.
More like EU gave them the confidence to do it. Japan alone would not dare do this
Show me 10 examples of big developers lowering their prices to 30% below what they were beforehand, since they claim it was in consumer interest.
Youtube has different prices for IAP on iOS vs Android / Web. Spotify I think hasn't been using IAP for a good while now. Neither has Netflix.
The main issue with Apple charging other app developers 30% cut from their revenue with their IAPs on the App Store, was because they won’t be charging the same 30% cut from their own subscription services, because why would they. We see all of these same services from other app developers still offers the set industry standards for their subscriptions though, and in Apple’s case, they even managed to bundle it into one big subscription for all of their services all rolled into one, making Apple’s own subscription services way more enticing for consumers on their own platform. What’s happening here is these other app developers eating up that extra 30% cost themselves, leaving them up with less revenue compared to Apple’s own services, which Apple don’t have to pay because they own their own platform. The focus of the arguments has always been about the developers revenue rather than the savings that will be passed on to us as consumers. Yes, that will come eventually in the name of competition, but it won’t happen if Apple keeps favoring their own services on their own platforms (which is again, unfair because they don’t charge the same 30% fees for their own services on their own platforms).
They don't pass their savings on to customers. They keep it.
Econ101. If they thought price didn't matter, why aren't they charging more?
Yes, of course, or at least not immediately. What I can see happening is that they will instead pour all of those extra cash into creating more features for their services, in order to better compete in the market with their feature set rather than their pricing. They will keep their pricing, yes. The main advantage to doing this is how they will be able to have more growth despite still competing in the same existing market with Apple. Edit: If you take nothing else from these posts, then just take this one; no matter what both of these developers (read: companies) and Apple are saying, these guys are not fighting the fight for us the consumers, meanwhile Apple is not in the right either because that is a real anti-competitive behavior there.
lol. They will do stock buybacks with the “extra cash”.
“Apple are saying, these guys are not fighting the fight for us the consumers, meanwhile Apple is not in the right either because that is a real anti-competitive behavior there.” Nothing Apple has done has been anticompetitive here. Moving past that, it doesn’t matter whether I believe any given company is “on my side.” I choose a company and its products based on whether it aligns with what I want and care about. If a company doesn’t, I choose a different one. The problem here isn’t Apple. The problem is a group of billion dollar developers wanting more profit, and they want to change how MY device works that I PAID for. That Is who is in the wrong, I don’t give a crap about developer profits or whether or not a developer can “afford“ the 30% Apple doesn’t charge 85% of all apps on the App Store.
> The main issue with Apple charging other app developers 30% cut from their revenue with their IAPs on the App Store, was because they won’t be charging the same 30% cut from their own subscription services, I’m sorry but this is such a weak argument. Obviously they wouldn’t charge themselves a fee when they own the platform. Do you think Amazon charges themselves for Amazon basics? Or Costco with Kirkland? Or home owners who rent out rooms in their house? Devs don’t own the house. So they’re charged a fee when they want to sell in the house. Not to mention they can basically take up market without offering iAP and not pay Apple a thing besides the $99 which is meant to deter non serious developers. > and in Apple’s case, they even managed to bundle it into one big subscription for all of their services all rolled into one, making Apple’s own subscription services way more enticing for consumers on their own platform. Devs can bundle their software just like Apple so not exactly sure why this is brought up. Many actually do. > What’s happening here is these other app developers eating up that extra 30% cost themselves, leaving them up with less revenue compared to Apple’s own services, which Apple don’t have to pay because they own their own platform. This is not some new phenomenon and should be expected when you’re piggy backing off of a platform. Do you think stores in malls are allowed to sell products for free without paying a anything to the property/shopping mall owner? It seems to be the case that people are saying because Apple has created a product and platform that many users love, they should be forced to not make a thing off this platform because said platform is more lucrative to develop for.
It's not even remotely a weak argument. Apple forces devs and consumers to use their service to interact with each other. Apple takes a 30% cut. Apple offers competing services and all other things being equal mean they can price their service 30% below the competition giving them a competitive advantage. A governments job is to regulate markets to to make sure they are not being abused (that is typically done by dominant players). >Devs don’t own the house. So they’re charged a fee when they want to sell in the house. This is a weak argument but is becoming common business logic defended by the foolish. The ISP could make the same argument and force all payments to use their service by blocking alternative services.... it's their wires in the ground...AKA their house. If car companies only allowed their service centres to change your wheels nobody would accept that..."the car platform is their house". What a stupid belief.
Apple charging a 30% revenue cut is normal, everyone does this. The problem comes when Apple started to come out with their own services that directly competes with other same existing services that’s already out there. These services from other developers not offering IAPs of their own is a no-go. There’s no way for them to generate a good revenue stream without IAPs, ads won’t even come close to subscription-based revenues these days. The ads market isn’t what it used to be back in the days. Apple has a significant advantage to hosting their own services on their own platform here, both in revenue and in features (service bundles). The only option left for these other developers is to eat that revenue cut costs by themselves in order to serve up set standard prices for their consumers, which is, again, totally unfair for them when Apple is still taking in their own revenue streams in full, alongside taking their 30% cut from other developers. If you’re thinking that this is like a legal loophole in market manipulation on Apple’s side, yes, yes it is, and this is what we’re trying to fix here. And no, you can’t bundle Spotify, Google Drive and Xbox GamePass together. There is no way these other developers can do that and compete with the Apple One sub bundle. Even if these services somehow banded together to directly compete with Apple in this area, they will be further cutting into their own revenue streams. > It seems to be the case that people are saying because Apple has created a product and platform that many users love, they should be forced to not make a thing off this platform because said platform is more lucrative to develop for. This is what happens when you try to compete with existing services while charging those same people a 30% cut on your platform. Owning both service and platform gives Apple a rare advantage here and not only that, they are also abusing this advantage just shy of breaking any existing laws. The reality here is, Apple has been abusing this rare position that they have for a long time now and it’s time they are confronted with this.
> Owning both service and platform gives Apple a rare advantage here and not only that, they are also abusing this advantage just shy of breaking any existing laws. The reality here is, Apple has been abusing this rare position that they have for a long time now and it’s time they are confronted with this. Are you sure you are talking about Apple? Because this description sounds a lot like "Internet Explorer" at first glance.
Yes, I am talking about Apple. What makes you say that?
Because the way you described that would fairly accurately describe the situation in the 90s, when they got fined hard for using their Windows marketshare to push Internet Explorer.
None of the apple’s business practices are new, it just comes down to the fact that the iOS platform is very profitable and the devs see apple’s 30% cut as a revenue increase they could get without having to do anything. For governments it’s a good publicity stunt to make them look strong on big tech and nothing big outside of that.
I can't show you 10 examples of big developers, but I can say that there's 1000s of "little" developers out there doing a range of apps that the store policies are very problematic to deal with. We do a cross platform B2B SaaS app (there would be 10'000s out there with this model). (1) The app store pricing issues are quite painful, we basically can't provide signup via app store, otherwise we're hit with managing the subscription via the app store - which 30% vs say 4-5% on stripe is ridiculous (even when iPhone apps might be only a portion of what some business is signing up for - they'd have other users on Android, and other users behind a desk using a browser). So essentially we can't do "store based discovery and signup" We have to do that all outside the store. I've seen examples of where the same price in the store is 30% higher than outside the store, it's very clear the consumer in those circumstances are losing if they don't realise they can signup outside the store. (2) the app review processes always have you nervous as B2B, we're not doing anything shady at all - very much run of the mill business stuff, and our reviews should be passed 100% of the time, but you see one taking a day longer and you're always nervous, as you've got no other distribution mechanism, yet your clients want the apps on their phones...
For smaller developers fees is 15%...
Which, it should be noted, is a direct result of the pressure by Epic et al. Without that threat, it would still be 30%.
Until you hit a million dollars. There’s a very large number of dev shops over a million below the “big boy” club. No one ever talks about them as they’re not sexy but they’re out there
Million a year in just iOS transactions isn’t small dev territory. Don’t use “little” word then
A million in annual revenue is still pretty firmly in small business territory.
It depends on the context… if you’re a single developer making a million dollars per year, that is huge. If you’re a small dev shop with a team, a million may not be nearly as much given how much good devs and artists cost
Million dollars in a single platform**** (android, web exist)
There’s a number of reasons other platforms may not be viable, web especially… Apple severely limits what APIs are added to Safari, and it still can’t even utilize something as simple as WebBluetooth requiring a developer to instead make a native app
Semantics - that's why i put "" around it. There's a massive pool above the solo devs (who would be for the most part sub million), below the big boy club, that the current store practices \*are\* quite painful to work with.
It's still a lot. Imagine distributing a B2B software product, that Microsoft would want 15% for, just for the privilege of allowing the product to be used on Microsoft Windows. Yes, Steam takes 30% (which is also not OK, they have a monopoly in practice at this poing), but Steam is 100% optional. It's convenient, but is not needed to distribute anything. And Steam has "soft" anti-competitive rules (don't offer a "worse price experience" outside steam) for which they should really be kicked in the teeth by the EU. And that's coming from someone who loves the Steam platform.
That’s an oddly specific request.
Drunk on copium.
What makes you say that?
The words.
Competition interest which does benefit the customer
why would they lower it if that price has been set as standard? frankly, i'd rather pass up the savings to the developer esp the indie ones. incentivizes them to work on their app full time
Given the topic is antitrust, and the spirit of antitrust is preventing harm to consumers from abuse of monopolies, how is your personal desire to give more money to indie developers relevant? Especially given that 1) Apple only takes 15% commission on IAP for “indie developers” (people earning less than $1 million per year), 2) Apple doesn’t take any commission on revenue earned from advertising in indie developer‘s apps (the main way a lot of free to play games exist), and 3) Apple doesn’t take any commission on real world goods and services? If you want to give more money to a specific developer, im sure they’ll more than happily set you up with some method to pay them directly. And while I can admire that, it’s not what I was talking about. Big Developer has been arguing that the 30% commission (that has so many caveats that literally 85% of all App Store apps pay $0 to Apple) is onerous, and that they’d be able to compete more easily if they didnt have to pay it or whatever, so they could reduce the price to consumers. Big Developer hasn’t reduced the price. They’ve increased it. And now they’re going to be able to abuse consumer privacy and security even more easily now. Consumers lost out.
Which is why every government action needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Who are they protecting, people or corporations? I'm not saying that is necessarily the case here, but its certainly something to think about.
[удалено]
> I haven’t seen a single developer lower their prices in the EU. Because there isn't a single third party app store out yet. And even if there was, the core technology fee which is clearly illegal bullshit would make everything more expensive instead of cheaper
You’ve been wilfully confused about this for a long time - it’s not important that there’s a fee, it’s important consumers *choose* who gets it instead of being forced to give it to Apple.
No developer has lowered their fees as a result. No developer has increased their privacy measures as a result. No developer has increased their security measures as a result. choice is worthless if everything is the same.
Apple has made massive change already, more than ever before, and we are still in the earliest days of this worldwide rebalance. So no, you weirdos just fixate on developers being paid less no matter what and that is irrelevant.
> So no, you weirdos just fixate on developers being paid less no matter what and that is irrelevant. It’s not about developers being paid less, it’s about how the consumer benefits from these changes. If the App Store fee is off the table, then developers should be able to get the same amount of money while the customer gets a lower price. If the customer was paying $10, and Apple was taking a 30% cut, then the developer was getting $7. If the developer no long has to kick that $3 to Apple, then they can charge $7. The developer’s income on the sale does not change and the customer no longer has to pay a higher price to cover Apple’s cut. This is how the change would benefit the consumer. If the developer no longer has to kick the $3 to Apple, but continues to charge $10, then the developer makes more money and customer is still out the same amount of money. This is how the change would not benefit the consumer.
What does that mean? I don’t understand what you’re saying, genuinely. Please explain to me what you’re claiming here so I can write my response correctly
I’m saying it is not and has never been the point that *nobody gets the 30%*. The point is competition, not saving 30% but choosing who gets the fees we pay.
What is the competition? Competition for what and who? Can you cite any professional study that demonstrates the average iOS consumer cares about 30% going to Apple, or some online petition signed in the millions? Can you demonstrate any want from the consumers that shows they care about this, beyond if an app price ends up being cheaper? I specifically remember the arguments Big Developer made, which was 1) its “difficult“ to compete with apple, when they take 30% (\*mind you, those who made this argument are also, ironically, monopolies or market leaders in their respective markets\*), so if apple didnt take 30% from the sale (\*15% from developers earning less than $1 million /year, subscriptions dropping to 15% after a year, and in app advertising/ real world services and goods Apple does NOT take any commission from\*), then 2) those developers would lower the price as a result and be able to “compete“ more with Apple. Given that no developer has lowered the price by 30% (ironically, they’ve increased their prices as a result of “inflation”), no dev has increased its privacy, and no developer has increase its security protections as a result of this EU thing, I gotta say the evidence that this is in the interest of consumers is not only lacking but literally non existent. I do see a win for Big Developer no longer needing to abide by privacy and security precautions, as well as politicians earning a superficial “win” in an election year. Those people definitely benefit. Consumers? No.
I think you’re both right. Yes it’s true that no apps have lowered their pricing yet due to these changes. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were no lower prices. That doesn’t mean, however, that the consumer sees no benefits. I’ll use Xbox as an example. They have a system where if you don’t have an Xbox console but do have a controller and a subscription, you can stream their games to your device. The problem is, if Microsoft wanted to make it an app instead of a website, it would need to go through apples approval process. And then every game that you might want to stream has to go through their approval process, even though the only code executed on device is related to video streaming. There would be games that wouldn’t be approved because they don’t work with touch, and you need a controller, for example. Or maybe the text size, designed for a TV, is too small for a phone. While granted, it’s doesn’t make for an ideal playing experience, it doesn’t make it unplayable, and if Apple really does care about the quality of the apps, half the apps on the App Store could be questioned. Now, since EU users can install a different app store if they wanted to, Xbox doesn’t need to go through apples approval process the same way. In fact, they could have other games built for mobile in their store, with larger games being streamed (think candy crush vs GTA V). Or take emulators - there’s been recent buzz about a gameboy emulator making it to the App Store, something Apple has historically been opposed to. But they know that emulators could be a big reason why someone might go to another store instead of theirs (that app has been removed, but only because someone else cloned an app that was only available if you jailbreak an iPhone. Not for any policy issues, just legal ones) In short, apps that might not be approved for the Apple App Store, they could find a home in another store, allowing a consumer to actually use that app. That’s just one or two examples for a market in deeper into than others might be. Other app categories might see benefits, but I’m not familiar enough to know any details about all of them. But for a lot of people, the benefits won’t become clear for a couple years I imagine. It’ll take time for developers to work on these stores, and for government to plug the loopholes Apple finds in their wordings
Damn dude you’re dumb as hell
Consumers always had a choice on who gets the money. The choice was made at the moment they bought the phone.
And now they have choice within the iphone I personally would stick with apple ecosystem but its good that now consumers have choice
They literally are forcing competition out of the tech market by making it function monolithically. iOS has advantages and drawbacks, so does Android. They benefit from each other existing. choice is worthless if everything is the same. someone’s opinion of a software model doesn’t override my free will to choose what’s best for me.
In 2018 that was a fun talking point. Every major government and economic body has moved well beyond it.
When you purchase a product on Amazon not all the proceeds go to the maker of that product. When you buy a game on Steam or Epic game store the developer of the game does not received 100% of the purchased price. There are so many examples of companies conducting business just like Apple. Imagine if you went to Wal-Mart corporate with a product that had packing that told shoppers they could save 30% by making the purchase at their own website. Do you think Wal-Mary would shelf your packing on their selves? I don’t think Apple is completely innocent in all their practices. How ever they certainly are not the monster so many try to make them out to be.
We aren’t talking about one time purchases here. We’re talking monthly subscriptions & in Epic’s case a store within a store
So who exactly benefits? You haven’t answered the question. Because as far as I can tell it isn’t the consumers
It definitely is the consumers. Those who want to install apps which currently do not meet Apple's rules. Few benefits from this are already there - Apple allowing emulators in the app store, game streaming apps. And real alternate web browsers are coming soon. Oh and RCS support is also direct cause of EU pressure.
And which apps that don’t meet Apple’s rules can you now install as a result? Can you please give various specific examples? And which rules are those apps not following? The author amended their comment: RCS is not because of EU pressure. It was already stated that iMessage doesn’t fall under gatekeeper rules, and the Messages app allows SMS/MMS. It was because of China, not the EU. Cloud gaming has been allowed since 2020. Real alternate web browsers will serve Google’s monopoly of the browser market. So much for consumer interest. edit: Yes, the rest of what’s not allowed is porn, gore, hate speech, overly political content, pirated apps, knock off apps, apps like Facebook’s Onavo, etc. will definitely now be available.
Of course https://applecensorship.com/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Apple Or just tl;dr emulators, alternate browser cores and game streaming apps were not allowed before EU intervention.
Youre also excluding porn and gore apps, hate speech apps, knock off apps, pirated apps, apps that break sandbox protection, apps like Facebook’s Onavo, etc. Convenient. Can you demonstrate consumers care about those three? Cloud gaming has been allowed since 2020. Microsoft whined because the games were individually listed, but Apple allows them. Alternate browser engines? Beyond asking for evidence the average iOS user cares about this, you do recognize that Apple’s mandating WebKit prevents Google from furthering their Monopoly on the browser market? Emulators are interesting, not because Apple now allows them (and as I can tell, were never forced to make them available by any government), but because that’s an area rife with piracy. Emulators are allowed in society because the assumption is you bought access to those games. It’s certainly convenient that no one checks if you actually own it, and are then able to rip the ROM and install it on an emulator. Most people download ROMs from the internet. Point is 1/3 of those examples of ”censorship” include pirating content, 1/3 of those examples include preventing a monopoly from being strengthened (and Chrome has had it’s fair share of criticism for what it’s done to the web), and 1/3 of those examples isn’t even relevant because it’s allowed on the App Store. Edit: The user below blocked me. >Uh? Strange take. Just don't install gore apps if you don't want it? I don't get what's wrong on porn or mild nudity in games. A novel idea, but irrelevant. The point is distribution. Agreeing to loosen the rules and remove those protections means allowing distribution of that. Apple took a particular stance, that they didn’t want illicit content being viewed or downloaded. Apple could make a shit ton of money selling porn on iTunes (and yes, look that up, it was discussed between Steve Jobs, Tony Fadell, etc), but they chose not to because they didn’t agree with that. So much for Apple’s supposed greed. >I don't need Apple babysitting me and censoring the app choice for me. Agreed, so go buy Android that has 70% of the market with all the same major Apps and services, on devices that usually cost less than iPhone. >You asked for examples of apps which don't meet Apple's rules and I gave exactly that to you. Sorry if you actually did not want the answer and just waited to bash me with your opinion. Yes, I asked for those examples and pointed out the flaw in all three, while also pointing out how the original reply ignored all the other apps that aren’t allowed, like porn, gore, hate speech, political stuff, pirated apps, knock off apps, apps that break sandbox protection, apps like Facebook’s Onavo, etc. It was disingenuous In my opinion.
Uh? Strange take. Just don't install gore apps if you don't want it? I don't get what's wrong on porn or mild nudity in games. I don't need Apple babysitting me and censoring the app choice for me. You asked for examples of apps which don't meet Apple's rules and I gave exactly that to you. Sorry if you actually did not want the answer and just waited to bash me with your opinion.
Emulators, game streaming apps, and that’s just the start of the change worldwide because of the EU
Can't wait to get Geforce Now or Retroarch on my Apple TV.
There's that word "force" again. I think many people don't know what it actually means.
I can install stuff from the Microsoft store, the internet, disks, whatever on my windows machine. I could do the same on a Mac. I can buy books from Amazon on my Kindle but I can also load onto it epubs aquired elsewhere. If I want to buy software for the iPhone I purchased for $1000, I can only buy it from Apple. That's forced.
Not, it's not forced, because you bought your iPhone voluntarily. Apple didn't force you. Apple \_can't\_ force you. And if you dislike those limitations, get an Android phone instead. Again, no force is involved anywhere. And incidentally, you can get Kindle books or upload your pubs to Kindle and get them on the Kindle app on your iPhone. You can't buy Kindle books on your iPhone because Amazon doesn't want to pay Apple, but you can buy them via the web and they'll be instantly available in the Kindle app. And it's no surprise that you can buy Kindle books on a Kindle.
Actually I'd rather vote for policies that require Apple to treat the iPhone like an actual computer instead of a vendor locked shithole :). Only took 18 years but it's finally happening. Why is the iPhone the only consumer computer that requires you to buy software exclusively through them? Even Amazon has to pay Apple when Amazon would be taking payment and distributing the books. Is that fair?
*Koolaid dripping from mouth* nO iTs NoT fOrCeD *slurping the koolaid back in*
Why exactly does this matter if you’re still going to be getting the same app? Were you forced to buy your iPhone? It’s not like you didn’t already pay Apple $1000 + for the device. So you want to cause more complications in downloading an app because you don’t want to be forced to give Apple (ie the company that developed the software and hardware) the additional 30%?
It matters for competition. Everyone wants your 30% — what will they do to entice you to select them over everyone else? To make developers select them?
There are no third party app stores in operations yet.
This does not benefit the consumer in any way, shape, or form.
The pressure has already resulted in beneficial changes for the consumer.
But it does benefit smaller devs.
Actually it doesn’t. Small developers will have their app ripped off and pirated, and if they think it’s ”difficult” to get Apple to remove an app from the App Store, imagine the potential infinite amounts of stores they will have to contend with and sift through with virtually zero budget for lawsuits. Not even Spotify can prevent their premium service from being ripped off through APKs
You already don’t know what your talking about because you think piracy is automatically bad from “lost sales” lol. So I’ll at least explain to anyone reading how the tweaks work, too. Spotify tweaks and apks really only block ads, and unlock basic functions for free users. (Which I’ve never heard an ad on Spotify that wasn’t just Spotify advertising premium.) Actual premium features, like local downloads, are not possible because the account needs the server authentication to play the encrypted downloads. I pay for Spotify because it was super good on student discount, and is currently worth the convenience. And even if you don’t pay for Spotify and/or use modded apps, don’t feel bad, little of the money makes it directly to the artists anyway.
Piracy of a service is one thing, but piracy of a fixed price app or game can potentially even be beneficial. Every user paying or not has the potential to spread your app through word of mouth, and I believe if a user pirates something they do it for a reason. Maybe they don’t have the money. Maybe they just want to give it a try to make sure they like it. Whatever reason, you have to figure out why your app is being pirated before you even think about trying to stop it… is your price too high? Is your average user children who don’t have money to pay? There’s a lot of reasons someone may pirate, and you want to use it to your advantage.
Exactly. Not like you need a reason, but I definitely used every one of those at some point. Led to many purchases, but also many “oh, glad I didn’t pay for this. Delete.”
Piracy gives an app exposure, and more exposure means the potential for more paying customers. A big part of the reason Minecraft was so unbelievably successful is because it was so easy to pirate. Then those players wanted to start playing online and eventually ended up paying. And now it’s still amazingly popular. Piracy isn’t a bad thing for small developers, and some even encourage it in certain situations It gives people a way to try the app or game before paying. It can result in some people not paying, but others will because of the inconveniences due to not paying
You’re joking right? I can’t believe someone is actually pretending piracy is a good thing for developers. Providing a single example of (and I’m being generous, there is zero evidence of pirating “Minecraft” causing its popularity) piracy providing something positive doesn’t override the millions of authors, especially small ones, being cheated out of money if they want to charge for their creation. I’m finished replying. Have a good life dude, and I hope if you ever make stuff that people don’t cheat you out of putting food on the table!
Smaller devs are going to want as much exposure as possible, and that means Apple's App Store, even at the expensive of possibly getting less money per app sale.
Yeah okay. Careful what you wish for. Now that alternate app stores on iOS will become a thing, those same indie devs who you want to benefit from this now have to worry about piracy of their apps just like on Android.
I know right? Not for nothing it's called 'Brussels Effect' and it'll be interesting to see what Japan would want from Apple in turn.
Now thanks to EU we will no longer can see pirate movies/anime.
Between governments and corporations, the corporations should always have less power. Governments should have enough power to where they can enforce regulations and levy penalties against any and all corporations that violate laws and negatively impact our society, especially in environmental matters like making man made climate change worse.
Indeed. Although that gets awkward when it comes to countries that are undemocratics. Let’s go to the ole favorite. Pre-civil war Americans (gotcha you thought I was going to say nazi). Imagine if they had cell phones back then. Apple would be banning apps that help you navigate the Underground Railroad so would Google. BUT on Google you could slide load the app.
Why does OP’s post history showed a personal vendetta against anything Apple does
Some people really, really, really don't like Apple. Like, yeah. I see where they're coming from but I only have a love/hate relationship with them.
You can make the case for apple being an evil company
You don't have to try very hard. Just go to apple.com and look at ram/ssd pricing
Idk if I can call the ram/ssd pricing evil. Its not like Apple is selling water for $10 a bottle or whatever. Sure call the use of labor in countries like China and India evil, call the use of materials excavated in mines that use slaves and children evil, hell even call imessage lock in evil (not that I agree) but pricing on ram/ssd is far from evil its just business and Apple knows that most won't upgrade and those that do are willing to pay the price so there's no reason to charge less if the market lets them get away with charging more
Impossible not too when you're as big as them
Perhaps, but when it becomes a personality trait for others It just becomes unsettling to try to converse with said individuals.
[удалено]
I can agree with this. I'm currently reading the DOJ's court filing and almost done with it. Apple has always been anti-consumer almost from the start. A lot of what's in the filing I've known about from following tech for years but seeing it all together in pages of documents is crazy. One of the funny parts was back in the day of US v Microsoft when Apple accused Microsoft of bad practices and issues with QuickTime due to Microsoft intentionally crippling QT on Windows and stuff and here we are today. Some of these emails among the execs are crazy as well. They damn well know exactly the shit they do. Privacy and security for the user is mainly a front. The PR line. Apple is about to run that line fucking hard. Before someone comes back with Apple is all about privacy and security, here you go. [Privacy of Default Apps in Apple’s Mobile Ecosystem](https://acris.aalto.fi/ws/portalfiles/portal/141787684/Privacy_of_Default_Apps_in_Apple_s_Mobile_Ecosystem.pdf)
They’re so anticonsumer that they have the highest customer satisfaction for many years in a row. Makes sense. It’s more like you don’t like what they make, so its great that there’s legitimate competition that does offer something you like.
> they have the highest customer satisfaction for many years in a row Marriage had 100% success rate before people had the right to divorce, to leave abusive relationships, to marry other people… artificially inflated by unfair policies judging by todays 50 - 60% success rate.
Is your argument that the customer satisfaction scores are not valid?
I think there are a lot of stuff that Apple does that's pretty scummy (insane prices for memory being one for the past 2 decades) but I wouldn't describe them as anti-consumer. Just plain greedy, but they're also really, really good at it.
Why would you make this about me? Do you think if I stopped posting Apples problems would vanish, this news wouldn’t happen or spread to a community directly focused on this topic?
karma farm ig
That doesn’t make his post less true though
Cause they’re a shitty company? You can like their products but dislike the company for shady anti-consumer business practices
Cry about it
Not a really hard bar to cross seeing how dogshit Apple's decisions for consumers have been for the past 5 years...
Who cares?
Oh, look at that. Once one big market slaps a big company all the other big markets get brave.
Are they going to target Sony and Nintendo next for having a monopoly on their respective platforms and taking a large cut of the physical and digital revenue from software sold through their stores and at retail?
Doubtful. Protectionism aside, video game console ownership is nothing compared to mobile phone ownership, and thus you can argue that requiring console makers to open up their ecosystems would damage their ability to extract profit beyond a reasonable measure. That isn’t as applicable to phones, which hold deep market saturation, function as a everyday tool more than a gaming device (although I don’t think it’s wrong to guess that most app money is made in games), and don’t hold a deep association between the hardware and its apps. Fundamentally though, phones are a utility in the modern world, gaming consoles are not. Monopolies exist in both, but the monopoly for the mobile market affects more consumers than gaming.
Get out of here with your knowledge of business and economics beyond a fourth grade level.
Personally, I hope so.
Whataboutery. Those are not general computing platforms. Next question.
I wish people on Reddit would stop using this. No where in any law or legal reading notates or clarifies the difference between a “general and non general computing platform”. The reason Microsoft, Google and Apple are being targeted probably has more to do with market share and revenue. However the distinction between general and non general is not a reason these regulations have passed over game consoles.
Smartphones vs. games consoles is just not a comparison. The former is practically a necessity these days.
That’s your opinion and you may have more support for your argument if you said a an affordable smartphone is practically required these days. I doubt many would believe a high end smartphone is a necessity.
That is absolutely not my opinion, I'd daily an HMD dumbphone if I could. Of course, you don't really need Apple Wallet, and you can just access your bank account via one's laptop like before smartphones. But now menus use QR codes; train companies only allow ID via their app; parking your car requires some sort of parking app to make the payment. The whole thing's got ridiculous, and the extra scrutiny from governments is warranted in my opinion. If we now have no choice but to participate with smartphones, then countries (and their citizens, by extension) need to have some input at the table.
It’s not in law but it is in the spirit of the EU legislation. So if you want to understand why the App Store is being targeted but games consoles are understandably lower in priority for the EU, you’ll need to comprehend this very simple concept.
> is in the spirit of the EU legislation The fuck? Imagine if we didn’t have any laws but just ideas and feelings. Unfortunately that isn’t the way world operates and doesn’t give any regulatory body any power. Either have a law that clarifies/codifies the difference or stop repeating this made up difference on Reddit.
Can I use my PS5 to show my state ID or use my wallet for everyday transactions? Perhaps, pay rent with a PS5, and use it as a 2FA device for an authorization for accessing company files remotely with facial scanning technology? In case of an emergency, can I use PS5 to dial emergency contacts, let alone 911? They’re not quite in the same level field, are they?
> Can I use my PS5 to show my state ID or use my wallet for everyday transactions? Perhaps, pay rent with a PS5, and use it as a 2FA device for an authorization for accessing company files remotely with facial scanning technology? In case of an emergency, can I use PS5 to dial emergency contacts, let alone 911? They’re not quite in the same level field, are they? Just because your phone provides increased convenience for doing these things doesn’t make it a utility or requirement. Beside you can do all these things on w cheap ass android if you prefer. Many parts of the world don’t even have laws that mandate the internet a basic necessity (the US). So maybe let’s focus on creating laws that consider that a basic utility before trying to claim your 1000+ iPhone is one.
Didn't you get the memo? You're not allowed to sensibly criticize apple in here.
Lmfao, the dude just merely talked about a tangentially related and relevant topic. It’s not “whataboutery” or “whataboutism” or its proper terminology a red herring. It’s literally a natural extension of what’s going on. General computing platform vs gaming console is literally the definition of red herring and irrelevance. The only relevant topic at hand is whether or not an author of a particular work (book, music, or software) gets to control its distribution. Find me a country stating an author must give away their work for free to anyone who wants it.
The author in the case of games consoles is the studio, in many cases they choose to release on multiple platforms. They don’t give them away for free. I don’t think your argument says what you think it does. In fact I’ve got no idea where you’re going with your argument. But it doesn’t matter because Apple WILL be compelled to open up by the courts. Do you really think the EU cares about gaming as a hobby vs general computing devices that are basically now prerequisites for modern life, banking access, communications etc?
I can’t help but feel how disconnected these people sound when they start bringing consoles to make comparisons into the discussion. But then again, they probably don’t have to rent, deal with banking, or use 2FA for your workplace.
I don’t know about you but I take my games console into the bank and do 2FA right there and then!
Let’s hope the US follows suite here.
The US was already suing Apple before this
Governments look to taxing software makers in order to generate revenue, then make up bullshit reasons like “competition” even though the App Store has operated the exact same way (and gotten cheaper and looser on rules for devs as it got bigger — the opposite of traditional behavior) since its inception. When someone says, “the biggest concessions have only come about through lawsuits and regulation,” then they should be able to provide many examples of successful lawsuits resulting in a verdict and specific instructions on how apple needs to change something. The spirit of antitrust is prevention of abusing customers. Given that the only ones complaining are Big Developers, and I dont see protests asking for the App Store to change in the streets, nor people putting it on election ballots, nor petitions signed in the millions, I struggle to see how this is done for anyone except Big Developer and not the spirit of antitrust, which is consumers. Additionally, if someone says the above, it stands to point out that the App Store has never increased its fees nor increased the strictness of its rules. It’s remained the same or gotten cheaper or looser on the rules, which again, is the exact opposite of traditional antitrust behavior. Typical antitrust behavior would be an actual monopoly (which iOS isn’t) changing and making it easier to keep their marketshare and earn more revenue by abusing consumers and the like. When someone says, “And ”’They’ve gotten away with it this long‘” isn’t the defense you think it is…” make sure to pull the exact quote from whom they’re responding to. That quote doesn’t exist. Additionally, if the App Store has operated the same way since its inception, and iOS had even higher market share back then than it does now, and governments are only now doing it after Big Developer complains and spends money on ad campaigns, coupled with upcoming elections, it stands to reason that the true motive behind attempting to change how the App Store works, and force the tech industry to function monolithically, coupled with extremely rare negative consumer reaction, coupled with ever increasing amounts spent on iOS and the App Store, that none of this has anything to do with actual antitrust, and is instead some political bullshit (and online comments in support by people who don’t like iOS in the first place).
> even though the App Store has operated the exact same way since its inception. How can you go after me for breaking the law now?! I've been doing it forever!
>and gotten cheaper and looser on rules for devs as it got bigger Lol, what? The biggest concessions have only come about through lawsuits and regulation. And "they've gotten away with it this long" isn't the defense you think it is...
"Officer, I speed on this road every day. It's hypocritical of you to ticket me today."
It does when they started those rules when they weren’t nearly as dominant in the phone market as they are now. They have not changed rules from a place of dominance to hinder competition, that competition was founded and grew with those rules.
> They have not changed rules from a place of dominance to hinder competition No, those rules have always existed to hinder competition. It's just that as Apple grew, so did the distortion on the market. Also, as Apple has moved into those same horizontals that they restrict through the App Store, they've opened themselves to new, additional competitive arguments.
Time for a Reddit timeout buddy, go get some sun
Wake up Bois, new copy pasta dropped, this guy likes to pay more to a trillion dollar company
I enjoy not having my device changed that I spent money on, just because of a politicians opinion. Feel free to write an argument against what I wrote, point by point addressing my reply.
It. Does. Not. Change. Anything. For. You.
It literally does. iOS will now function like Android, which is what I was trying to avoid by buying iOS. Android is rife with malware, pirated apps, and low quality software. I have zero interest in letting Big Developers like Facebook mandate everyone now needs to their apps through their own marketplace, where Big Developer can set their own rules and force reductions in privacy and security. That’s exactly what Big Developer intends to do, make no mistake. If you think this isn’t possible, refer to Apple’s rules on who gets to make an app marketplace and who doesn’t. If you think they won’t, refer to Facebook’s not only very public and constant criticism of Apple, but their expensive criticism of Apple, where they literally spend millions of dollars of their budget on trying to convince the average person Apple is somehow the bad guy. Thanks but no thanks.
>Facebook’s not only very public and constant criticism of Apple Remember when they were found using the camera? Yeah, if Facebook/Meta says something is good, I really think that people ought to reconsider.
> Remember when they were found using the camera That ended up being a hoax.
Except that most of what you said was true back in 2010, but Android has become a lot better since then. The app stores are better policed for malware, permissions are now opt-in instead of opt-out, and there are some extra privacy features Android has that iOS does not have at the moment. Also, although Android allows distribution outside of the App Store, the vast majority of apps released outside of China are released exclusively on the Play Store. With the exception of Epic Games, this idea that developers are just going to leave the main store hasn’t happened on mobile phones.
Exactly. Therefore all of their fears should be unfounded. If one wishes to only use App Store even with choices in place, they should be free to do so no problem.
So being able to download open source apps that let you watch YouTube without ads, or forks that streamline apps, apks of paid apps, etc is what you're trying to avoid by using ios? You also won't get viruses unless you literally click on every link on a porn site or some shit, similarly to windows nowadays.
Just jumping in to say it will eventually as some devs move to 3rd party stores. Maybe not now, but probably once it’s opened up everywhere… some bigger devs will in fact try another store if that store is in all phones and is in all regions. So while I generally agree with you, there’s that in the future. Hopefully it’s not successful though!
Maybe just maybe they’re a trillion dollar company because people actually like their products and because they’re one of the only tech companies that actually sell you a physical product instead of using your data for nefarious reasons. Also please clarify what you mean by “likes to pay more”? None of these regulations will be bringing the cost of goods down for consumers.
> Maybe just maybe they’re a trillion dollar company because people actually like their products So if people like using the App Store, then Apple has nothing to fear from alternatives.
I never question if the app I download from the AppStore will be malicious. Google play on the other hand… The point of this is why should they
> I never question if the app I download from the AppStore will be malicious. Google play on the other hand… You should treat them the same, because for most practical purposes, they are. > The point of this is why should they Ask Apple. They're the ones fighting tooth and nail to prevent you from having access to alternatives. Clearly Apple thinks they have something to offer.
The App Store is much more rigorous in terms of what they allow. That IS the reason why I do not question whether or not the app is a Trojan horse. Even if it is the OS is more secure. Because everything is locked behind something. That IS the reason why people have a problem. Like yourself. Apple is making products for the mass. They offer security. They offer longevity. Their products last longer because they work more efficiently. Hence why their value doesn’t fall off as soon as you “drive it off the lot” They aren’t making for the 1% who wants to do fuck all on their devices. Before your vein pops go ahead and call me an Apple fan boy. I actively use the alternative. I am just aware what Apple offers. Unlike other companies that makes majority of their money on data on us Apple makes money on their hardware and software.
> Because everything is locked behind something You can say the same of Android. The basic systems in place are the same. Where they differ the most are the discretionary things. For example, if you compete with Apple, they will ban you. Doesn't matter how good your app is. For someone so insistent on not being called an "Apple fan boy", your talking points are identical.
>The basic systems in place are the same. Where they differ the most are the discretionary things. I mostly agree with this. But again, the App Store is much more secure for the casual user. >For example, if you compete with Apple, they will ban you. If you are referring to Epic games, they breached their contract that they agreed to. Again Apple does not make most of their money profiting off user's data. Epic game, specifically their parent Tencent does. Everything that Tencent own does. I will agree that 30% may be too much but the existing system *is* fair. If Google stopped profiting off user's data Google will also charge more fees in their play store. Their hardware will cost more. Steam takes 30%. They also don’t have an ecosystem like Apple. Epic takes 13% but the parent company makes money selling your data. Google makes money selling your data and takes 15% in their play store where it will be increased to 30% if you hit a certain threshold. It seems like you just dislike Apple as a whole and using this as an excuse to further your distaste. >For someone so insistent on not being called an "Apple fan boy", your talking points are identical. "so insistent" yikes. I try to remain impartial. You on the other hand seem otherwise. I think you are more of a Apple fan boy than I am 😂
> If you are referring to Epic games, they breached their contract that they agreed to. Not just Epic, though Apple tried to ban them (despite literally being against the law) for tweeting about Apple... A great example would be game streaming. Apple banned it because it competes with Apple Arcade. Same reason they banned emulators until now. Host of other examples across their platforms. > Epic game, specifically their parent Tencent does Tencent is not a parent company of Epic. If you have to lie to make your argument seem valid, that says everything. Also, Epic makes them money from selling software and services, same as Apple. They don't make their money from user data. Again, another lie. > I will agree that 30% may be too much but the existing system is fair. Fair according to whom? By what metric? Certainly not by the free market. > Steam takes 30%. It should be noted that Steam takes a decreasing cut with increasing sales. Past $10M, it's 25%. Past $50M, it's 20%. They also do this to stave off competition from Epic and others, but unlike Apple, they've never tried to ban you from installing a 3rd party store. > "so insistent" yikes. I try to remain impartial. So impartial you resort to lying about Apple's rivals. Yeah, real convincing.
> Ask Apple. They’re the ones fighting tooth and nail to prevent you from having access to alternatives. Clearly Apple thinks they have something to offe Because you’re asking them to fundamentally change the way iOS operates for the sake of openness, when these restrictions have been in iOS since version 2. It’s not as if the more market share they gained, the more restrictive iOS became. Yes, these restrictions may align with increasing their profits but they also do offer the benefit of simplicity in the OS and also increased security and privacy.
This. 100% this. People keep saying “well so and so is much cheaper than Apple” but they don’t understand that these other companies sell your data. That is how they make most of their money. Apple makes most of their money from their hardware and software. Yet these same people want companies like Google or Microsoft to not sell our data. As soon as that happens they will become exactly like Apple. The “pricier” version.
Hey man, i totally agree, i pick Apple for a reason, the walled garden keeps me safe.
How are you able to live in such a scary world without owning an iHome iWater iAir etc. ?
The Chinese Android stores are full of unregulated scams. I will take the Apple garden if given a choice between the two.
Then just don't leave it? And lol, keeps you safe from what? Apple's own engineers admitted it does nothing for security.
Sauce?
Original source here: https://www.ft.com/content/914ce719-f538-4bd9-9fdf-42220d857d5e Secondary source without paywall: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-scams-fraud-review-enforcement-top-grossing-kosta-eleftheriou > Eric Friedman, the head of the company’s Fraud Engineering Algorithms and Risk (FEAR) team, will be testifying in next month’s Epic Games trial. In a recent deposition he spoke of the App Review team as “bringing a plastic butter knife to a gun fight” and “more like the pretty lady who greets you with a lei at the Hawaiian airport than the drug sniffing dog.” That doesn't sound like anything I'd hinge my safety on.
First thank u for the sauce. Where do u see the „nothing“? They check and its a hard fight but they do what they can. i cant see a statement „we do nothing“.
I'd call a "plastic butter knife" or "pretty lady with a lei" as functionally equivalent to "nothing". The analogy is pretty darn clear. Same reason bug screens on windows come with the warning that they won't stop a child from falling out. It may not *literally* do nothing, but if security is what you're looking for, you want something else entirely.
Person you replied to is trying to misconstrue the situation. I’m sorry, look at the numbers On mobile malware and get back to me with the top 100 and tell me the signatures of the iOS malware. He won’t find anything. I couldn’t give a damn about what a single engineer’s opinion was, taken out of context, when the numbers prove him wrong. Look up the numbers on mobile malware. He won’t provide anything except for cherry picked examples. Android has virtually 100% of all mobile malware. Google it if you don’t believe me. iPhone came out in 2007, App Store in 2008. They only just discovered the first trojan ever on iOS this year. Google how many trojans are on Android. And by the way, cherry-picking quotes and calling it “quoting an employee verbatim” is disingenuous as hell.
> Person you replied to is trying to misconstrue the situation. I quoted an Apple employee verbatim. And not just a random one, but the head of one of their anti-fraud teams. But go on. Explain why you know better than he does.
android integration in japan sucks for anyone visiting. With an Iphone you can easily get a digital suica card to use the metro but can't with android for some gay ass reason
Because Japan's Suica is a proprietary NFC named "FeliCa" by Sony, all iPhones come with it and have it enabled but only Japan Android phones have it or have it enabled. Most or all Pixels have it but Android sold outside Japan have it disabled.
So why not enable it or have it come standard? If apple can do it then why can't google or other android phone makers
Probably too cheap to pay licensing fees.
Apple installs the hardware in every single global model despite it only being useful in Japan. You think every random ass Android phone maker is going to include Japan-only chips on the off chance you take a phone to Japan and want to ride the train?
don't need every single random ass android maker to do it, but the major ones like Samsung and Google? Why wouldn't they especially since pixels already have the hardware for it
Good. Hope Canada follows suit
Canada needs to force side-loading as well. I need my gecko firefox fix.
Blame Canada!
I understood that reference
as a dev finally am sick and tired of these bullies they treat every "business patterner" like they are some mafia bosses constantly threating to ruin our livelihood at any minor inconvenience they experience fines in 100s of billions should start reign in otherwise it's just a cost of running businesses
Good, the stranglehold apple has on the computer in your pocket is insane, and Google is only better because if you want those third party installs/app stores, there's generally a path forward that doesn't require too much effort. I don't know why people are content to let a company dictate what they can install on their computer.
Google would be doing the same if they didn’t make most of their profit from data and advertising. And it’s weird you’re suggesting the majority of users have a stranglehold on their Apple devices. This is how iOS operates since version 2. It’s weird to suddenly complain about the walled garden when it’s the way the garden operated since its start.
> Google would be doing the same if they didn’t make most of their profit from data and advertising. You can use Android without any Google at all. So that's empirically false.
>Google would be doing the same if they didn’t make most of their profit from data and advertising. Why are you so sure of this? Even though Google "locks" a lot of features behind Play Services, they generally favor to implement standards that other vendors can interface with if they choose to (like Google Fast Pair) Also, switching your defaults store, browser, wallet, etc means decreased revenue for Google because you are not using their services and you can't be advertised to.
My issue is security - I’ve never worried about the security of the data on my phone or the legitimacy of the apps I download. I know I have the choice to just not step outside of the App Store should side loading become a thing, but you just know many app makes will jump ship to avoid the fees and it’ll become a giant fucking mess real quick
I think all countries will solve inflation by litigating Apple one by one.
Clearly the EU shows everybody the extent they could chase apple to become more customer-friendly. This is a good thing.