The app store is already compelling for developers AND users. The app store gives developers access to millions of users and gives users access to millions of apps. How much more compelling do you want? Adding another app store is not compelling for users, it'll introduce confusion and significantly decreases the value-add that Apple's commitment to quality and value bring via the app guidelines.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New U.S. Antitrust Bill Would Require Apple and Google to Allow Third-Party App Stores and Sideloading
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sure it is!
Not all types of Apps users may want are allowed or supported by Apple
There are also things we are not getting, period, because they aren't financially viable to create and distribute with Apple taking such exorbitant cuts of revenue.
Give users choice.
Let's stop parroting Apple crafted narratives that are really just protecting their revenue lock up.
You sound like you speak from experience. Are we apartment hunting?
Your hyperbole aside, do you have anything concrete to back up your claim?
Its an opinion and I re-edited the post to reflect an opinion. But nobody has the keys to a successful prediction of the future.
I willa argue that it does. Anyone else can build another mobile platform. A number have tried and failed. Doing it right takes so much effort and risk that the market has consolidated to all but a few players. As long as consumers know that the Apple Store and the iPhone is a closed platform, how that platform operates is legit.
What percentage of people that download the emulator do so to only run games they own? When an app is predominately used with pirated content the pirates ruin the system for the rest of us.
What’s funny is that all these developers angry at Apple about the store will also openly admit that they can’t abandon Apple’s platform because it’s so much more profitable.
Did it ever occur to them that perhaps the reason iOS is such a profitable platform is because of the way Apple has built it, including encouraging users to pay for and download apps with a safe, curated experience?
I mean, on desktops, the most open platform, people don’t download apps nearly as often. On Android they never use alternative stores. Maybe, just maybe, Spotify, Epic, and the others have benefited from the way Apple has built its platform, rather that been harmed by it.
Did it ever occur to them that perhaps the reason iOS is such a profitable platform is because of the way Apple has built it, including encouraging users to pay for and download apps with a safe, curated experience?
I mean, on desktops, the most open platform, people don’t download apps nearly as often. On Android they never use alternative stores. Maybe, just maybe, Spotify, Epic, and the others have benefited from the way Apple has built its platform, rather that been harmed by it.
Do they mean it's profitable because of the way Apple built it, or do they simply mean the sheer scale of the user base and the numbers there mean they can't abandon it?
I guess I'm in the minority, but I really am skeptical that the locked down nature of the iOS App Store has been the big reason for iOS explosion in growth. I think iOS would be amazing popular no matter what.
I think third party apps have been a huge reason (and the hardware) -- but much much much less further down the list would be the specifics of a very locked down App Store itself.
To me this has the potential to be like breaking up something like Amazon and AWS.
The result of doing things like that almost always is bigger and better versions of both.
iOS itself would still be amazing and the potential things that could get built by not having to conform to not just the financial burden of the App Store, but also the editorial control of what is allowed or not, I think could be an absolute extra boon for the platform.
The result of doing things like that almost always is bigger and better versions of both.
iOS itself would still be amazing and the potential things that could get built by not having to conform to not just the financial burden of the App Store, but also the editorial control of what is allowed or not, I think could be an absolute extra boon for the platform.
The iPhone would have been a success no matter what, but with the introduction of the App Store in 2008, Apple made downloading software easy and accessible to regular users, and helped create the entire app economy. And by making sure apps were high-quality (at least compared to Android), they attracted higher-paying customers that make the platform more profitable for everyone.
Developers can complain about Apple’s walled garden, but the fact remains that without Apple, there wouldn’t be a garden at all. Would a company like Spotify or Tile be possible without the iPhone and the App Store? I don’t think so.
This isn’t meant to be a defense of Apple locking down iOS, or an argument that they should or shouldn’t be allowed to do so. It’s just something that I wanted to point out.
I’m not talking about the Apple lawsuit. I’m talking about the Google one. If it was just about commission they would have no grounds as they can just offer it as a side load. But they get a severe disadvantage side loading on Android. That is the Google suit too.
Hey Einstein you know very well what I’m referring to. Of course it’s not going to be the same line by line. But people are demanding iOS to be turned into Android from a usability perspective.
I'm not really following you on that I guess....especially the Spotify part.
The bill will never work, not least because Apple can simply cite “security, privacy and digital safety” as a blanket reason for everything they do.
It sounds scary, but I don’t see it ever being approved, or Apple being impacted in any way.
This is much ado about nothing.
It sounds scary, but I don’t see it ever being approved, or Apple being impacted in any way.
This is much ado about nothing.
I don’t live in the USA. But has far as I understand the Conservatives are very much into the ideology of absolute Free Market when it comes to economics. At least they present themselves systematically as the bastions of the Free Market
But are they?
The App Store mantra, in particular in iOS, is the absolute opposite of a Free Market … governing the mobile devices of over 50% of Americans … yet Conservatives are against legislation to protect Free Market for All … now in digital form.
Here is the thing. I believe the Conservatives don’t actually believe in a Free Market for All. Only for some. The non Free Market would than “owned” by centralized powerfull institutions managed to occupy that space and everyone but some would play within the confines es of these markets. This is how Conservatives believe in the Free Market as far as I understand … inevitably concludes in a non free market … and it creeps to non free citizenship.
This has been the case in the US since ever. Case in case slavery was institutionalized based very much on these economic precepts. There is even a line of thought in the Conservatives that believe the Constitution should be applied only for some … the ones with behavior advanced enough …
Cu.
Last edited:
It is the epitome of a free market and capitalism at work. People have voted with their dollars for the Apple ecosystem. Nobody is forced to buy an iphone, nobody is forced to enroll in the developer program. Anyone who says otherwise is just spin.
People may choose to be a developer because they want to earn $$$. That again is the free market at work.
Somewhat agree. And Google kicked Epic out of the App Store for the same reason that Apple did. If opportunity to side-load was a viable option the Google suit would have gone nowhere. What the developers want is the ease of use of the supported App Store without the sales commission. I think every manufacturer selling products through Amazon or WalMart would like that as well.
Not sure why you think the iOS App Store is not a free market. They created a device, the supporting software and the a market where one did not exist. Participation in the application iOS market is the same regardless of size or market share. There is still no discount for volume orders. Within those standardized rules for that App Store, the preponderance of the participants abide by the same rules. This is arguably the definition of a free market. What is being proposed is to impose new and draconian rules on the market that Apple created from nothing.
And let's not forget that the vast majority of the cell phone users and manufacturers assumed Apple would fail. They created this despite the pre-launch negative press. (Many thought the iPod would fail as well.)
Somewhat agree. And Google kicked Epic out of the App Store for the same reason that Apple did. If opportunity to side-load was a viable option the Google suit would have gone nowhere. What the developers want is the ease of use of the supported App Store without the sales commission. I think every manufacturer selling products through Amazon or WalMart would like that as well.
That's true. The 30% cut seems to be the big sticking-point... especially for the large developers.
Just curious though... what does a physical retailer get? I know it's totally different in that it's a wholesale/retail model... but hear me out.
If a shirt was listed for $10 at Walmart... does Walmart get $3?
That's how the App Store and Google Play work. You make a $10 sale and Apple and Google automatically get $3
Those are the rules and you must obey them if you want to be in the App Store. I just think those rules need to be updated/revisited.
Hell... even Phil Schiller asked 10 years ago "Why are we still doing 30% anyway?"
There is a difference between a product and an entire industry. Apple does not have a monopoly in any industry.
The retail clothing market is not analogous to the App Store. I’m sure one could put together some tenuous comparison, but Apple is not risking money by hosting an app in the App Store. There is no up front purchase of X amount of units of an app with the chance that none of them will sell. Apple’s end is pure profit, no risk.That's true. The 30% cut seems to be the big sticking-point... especially for the large developers.
Just curious though... what does a physical retailer get? I know it's totally different in that it's a wholesale/retail model... but hear me out.
If a shirt was listed for $10 at Walmart... does Walmart get $3?
That's how the App Store and Google Play work. You make a $10 sale and Apple and Google automatically get $3
Those are the rules and you must obey them if you want to be in the App Store. I just think those rules need to be updated/revisited.
Hell... even Phil Schiller asked 10 years ago "Why are we still doing 30% anyway?"
Yeah I figured.
I was just trying to find another example of a retailer that collect 30% of every purchase.
WalMart's cut is probably much higher than 30% on clothing. And the actual manufacturer's selling price is likely about 50% of the $10 retail price. In manufacturing there is both a distributor and a retail markup. As the link shows clothing may be marked up as much as 80% from the manufacturer. But there is a range. And some drive quite hard bargains.That's true. The 30% cut seems to be the big sticking-point... especially for the large developers.
Just curious though... what does a physical retailer get? I know it's totally different in that it's a wholesale/retail model... but hear me out.
If a shirt was listed for $10 at Walmart... does Walmart get $3?
That's how the App Store and Google Play work. You make a $10 sale and Apple and Google automatically get $3
Those are the rules and you must obey them if you want to be in the App Store. I just think those rules need to be updated/revisited.
Hell... even Phil Schiller asked 10 years ago "Why are we still doing 30% anyway?"
Distributor margin, profit and retail price in FMCG & others
Margins for distributors can range from 3% to 30% of the selling price, and double that for retailers. What is normal and which factors are important?
On an aside, you can have some fun looking at Amazon's fees here: https://sell.amazon.com/pricing.html?ld=seussoagoog-sitelink-pricing-D#referral-fees
I just typed in some random numbers: $10 Small Book (My cost). $15 Retail Price. (this is similar to the 30% that Apple offers). Deducting the "Referral Fee" and the "Fulfillment by Amazon Fee". I would lose $1.89 on each sale.