New U.S. Antitrust Bill Would Require Apple and Google to Allow Third-Party App Stores and Sideloading

[PlayUltimate]

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.

Many retailers require a buy back so that their purchase is risk-free as well. Also the 30% is not pure profit. There is some cost to Apple for the services that the Apple store provides. Further, there is no cost to the seller. Apple's model is a retail consignment model; there is no cost to the seller until a product is sold. In a grocery store, shelf space needs to be paid for. IMO the 15-30% cut is quite reasonable for the marketplace and support that Apple provides.
And think about this, Uber works on a commission model as well and is still not profitable.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Many retailers require a buy back so that there purchase is risk-free as well. Also the 30% is not pure profit. There is some Apple cost for the services that Apple store provides. Further, there is no hosting cost that is required by the seller. Apple's model is a retail consignment model; there is no cost to the seller until a product is sold. In a grocery store, shelf space needs to be paid for. IMO the 15-30% cut is quite reasonable for the marketplace and support that Apple provides. And think about this, Uber works on a commission model as well and is still not profitable.

I think so too. If I was a developer... I would have no problem with the percentage considering all the services Apple would give me. I'd be a small developer so I'd only have to pay 15% anyway.

But it gets tricky when you're a huge developer... and you have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars. That's when the flat-rate percentage might need to be revisited.

And it's weird that you actually have to pay more when you get more successful.

Shouldn't it go the other way? Usually you get a discount on fees when you sell more.

I think it's nice that small developers only pay 15% so they end up with more income in the end.

But it's almost like Apple is punishing bigger developers. Though I guess you could say the bigger developers require more resources from Apple?

I dunno. I just wish this could be fixed and everyone could be happy.

 

[RobArtLyn]

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.

Please name something specific, because otherwise this is just a guess.

 

[PlayUltimate]

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.

If people are not willing to pay a price that makes economic sense, then it is likely not a good business idea.

But you can always create and distribute your own progressive web app from completely outside of the store. And then charge a "fair" price on the web.

Progressive Web Apps (PWA) on iOS 13 & 14, iPhone & iPad

Progressive Web Apps are great solutions for business success despite the iOS 13 & 14 not supporting all modern web platform features. Learn why PWAs are better than native apps for your business

love2dev.com

However, most of what I am hearing is that devs want to be able to do everything that they are doing now and not have to pay for it.
Basically, use Apple's tools, use Apple's software, use Apple marketing, and distribute the apps through a vibrant marketplace and have the developer's cost be $0.

 

[nsayer]

What about folks who’s Mac is always with them? Should they not have equal choices across OSs?

What about your situ being mobile-focused makes the EULA different?

I ask because I, and others, it seems, find the argument against variant standards to break down under logic.

As I said before, it's a very thin difference. And I won't really argue against those who want to apply it to iPhone as well. I am personally just far less likely to flip that switch on my phone than an iPad or a mac. And I hope that if anything changes, there is a switch you have to flip and nothing changes until you do.

 

[Jeaz]

No one has proven that the consumer will pay less. Just a different entity getting the cut.

I think it’s not too wild to guess that any new stores will try attract customers with both exclusives and lower prices.

 

[I7guy]

I think it’s not too wild to guess that any new stores will try attract customers with both exclusives and lower prices.

So the devs are going to be making even less than before? I'm not sure how well that will fly.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I think it’s not too wild to guess that any new stores will try attract customers with both exclusives and lower prices.

Lower than $1 ?

Or Free?

You're right though... exclusives will probably get people's attention if there are certain apps that only appear in these alt stores. Imagine the next Candy Crush or whatever being exclusive to XYZ store. That might move the needle.

But I'm not sure pricing will be the thing. I certainly won't rush to some other store just because they sell an app for $0.79 versus the App Store's $0.99

 

[Nuno Lopes]

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.

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.)

A common definition form Free Market: In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by buyers and sellers negotiating in an open market. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, and from all forma of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities.

I guess we have different definitions of free market. In a free market for instance the recent event where Apple banned an legal emulator for the App Store clearly, not letting the common laws of supply and demand work clearly is not inline with the concept. Amongst many other events of the kind. Need not to go further but simply reading to policy can easily find supply and demand control mechanisms … control by Apple of course … and it’s quite obviously it preventives it’s services … some complaints werenput

I love how people seam to bend well known definitions to fit a particular point of view. Really impressed by the ability of some people to play this game… it’s just weird …

I find also interesting argument where a non free market is the epitome of a free market because people voted trough their wallets when most not even know how it’s regulated … to be honest not even the ones that read the policies … simply were looking for a good smartphone. It’s a brilliant distortion field. Just Wow!

Now it’s not the job of the market to keep it self free has companies try to get control of it … it’s governments democratically elected … no wallets attached. I know that some people don’t like that …

 

[PlayUltimate]

I guess we have different definitions of free market. In a free market for instance the recent event where Apple banned an legal emulator for the App Store clearly, not letting the common laws of supply and demand work clearly is not inline with the concept. Amongst many other events of the kind.

Are you saying that a store cannot limit the goods that the store is selling. Should an organic grocer be forced to sell non-organic goods? Who decides the products a store should sell? Considering there are over 2.2M apps available on the store , it seems like a pretty open market to me. (albeit, there are those that would argue that it is closed because one specific app was not allowed.)

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Are you saying that a store cannot limit the goods that the store is selling. Should an organic grocer be forced to sell non-organic goods? Who decides the products a store should sell? Considering there are over 2.2M apps available on the store , it seems like a pretty open market to me. (albeit, there are those that would argue that it is closed because one specific app was not allowed.)

But the App Store is not Store, its something else, let’s call it Meta Business. A Store when it sells a good, the good is no longer part of the store, its owned by the buyer. So a grocery store does not install a device into the groceries, using your metaphors, to than collect 30% of the meal made by a Chef in a NYC restaurant. It simply charges for the groceries not what the groceries have become. Even say the so called Store is part of of an organization that also develops access … say the roads in NYC ...

Anyway, I’m don’t see much bad in this depending on the size of such a business. With both Google and Apple App Stores close to 100% market share you bet it does have a degree of control on flow of the free market where digital goods and services to consumers are concerned.

Cheers.

 

[I7guy]

A common definition form Free Market: In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by buyers and sellers negotiating in an open market. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, and from all forma of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities.

Apple, Samsung, Costco sets the prices of their products. Consumers are free to purchase them or not, or negotiate another price. Don't know about artificial scarcities since the world seems to be in one now.

I guess we have different definitions of free market. In a free market for instance the recent event where Apple banned an legal emulator for the App Store clearly, not letting the common laws of supply and demand work clearly is not inline with the concept. Amongst many other events of the kind. Need not to go further but simply reading to policy can easily find supply and demand control mechanisms … control by Apple of course … and it’s quite obviously it preventives it’s services … some complaints werenput

So if Costco decides to stop selling a popular product, that's not within the definition of a free market?

I love how people seam to bend well known definitions to fit a particular point of view. Really impressed by the ability of some people to play this game… it’s just weird …

What's weird..that people may have different opinions than you or have varied definitions of common terms?

I find also interesting argument where a non free market is the epitome of a free market because people voted trough their wallets when most not even know how it’s regulated … to be honest not even the ones that read the policies … simply were looking for a good smartphone. It’s a brilliant distortion field. Just Wow!

That's one way to spin it.

Now it’s not the job of the market to keep it self free has companies try to get control of it … it’s governments democratically elected … no wallets attached. I know that some people don’t like that …

I'm going to use verbiage I've read here...it's really nice the government can come in like Monday morning quarterbacks and by giving paying Paul by taking from better they create competition through anti-competitive means.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I'm going to use verbiage I've read here...it's really nice the government can come in like Monday morning quarterbacks and by giving paying Paul by taking from better they create competition through anti-competitive means.

I understand that the democratic process and the free market may be an inconvenience to some … but hey … those are the rules of engagement for now at least.

PS: No, people don’t have different definitions for common terms. But people do redefine concepts as they see fit in context … its part of the human nature. There is very little Free Market within the realm of mobile computing (digital goods and services) at the moment due the emergence of the App Stores … Fundamentally what sustains the so called free market are the things outside of these markets, otherwise would be unsustainable … but even these are being under “attack” …

 

[Michael Scrip]

I understand that the democratic process and the free market may be an inconvenience to some … but hey … those are the rules of engagement for now at least.

PS: No, people don’t have different definitions for common terms. But people do redefine concepts as they see fit in context … its part of the human nature. There is very little Free Market within the realm of mobile computing (digital goods and services) at the moment due the emergence of the App Stores …

But isn't there a Free Market within the App Store?

Isn't my calendar app competing with all the other calendar apps on the App Store? Don't all developers set their own prices based on what the... ahem... market will bear?

Why does my calendar app need to also be on some other random store for it to be considered a Free Market?

 

[I7guy]

I understand that the democratic process and the free market may be an inconvenience to some … but hey … those are the rules of engagement for now at least.

And there are check and balances as part of the process...as inconvenient it is to some as well.

PS: No, people don’t have different definitions for common terms.

Yes there are: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/economics/free-market/

But people do redefine concepts as they see fit in context …

Sure I'll agree.

its part of the human nature. There is very little Free Market within the realm of mobile computing (digital goods and services)

Based on the link above, there sure is.

at the moment due the emergence of the App Stores … Fundamentally what sustains the so called free market are the things outside of these markets, otherwise would be unsustainable … but even these are being under “attack” …

Ok.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

But isn't there a Free Market within the App Store?

Isn't my calendar app competing with all the other calendar apps on the App Store? Don't all developers set their own prices based on what the... ahem... market will bear?

Why does my calendar app need to also be on some other random store for it to be considered a Free Market?

Answer here

 

[turbineseaplane]

If people are not willing to pay a price that makes economic sense, then it is likely not a good business idea.

That's way too broad..

You can have a great business idea that simply doesn't have enough margin to account for a 30% cut going to Apple.

A lot of great businesses and ideas run on very thin margins.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Yes there are: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/economics/free-market/

Not just free from government regulation controls … simply in a free market prices and availability are entirely defined by supply and demand. Nothing of this is the case of iOS or Android digital marketplaces governed both by App Store and Play Store.

Rationally we can at least agree with this can’t we?

 

[Nuno Lopes]

A lot of great businesses and ideas run on very thin margins.

Absolutely … initially at least. Some even are run at a loss for years … growth provided. Amazon is a good example of that.

The distinction between let’s call it analog goods and services and digital … is fundamentally artificial. They are simply goods and services.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Answer here

You're gonna have to break that down...

I saw "the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by buyers and sellers negotiating in an open market"... which is what I was talking about. Developers set the price and consumers decide if that price is worth it.

I could set my calendar app at $100... but that would be foolish. No one would buy it.

I'd have to keep my price inline with other calendar apps in the... market.

I'm competing with other calendar apps on the App Store.

 

[Ethosik]

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.

But Epic doesn't NEED to pay the 30% with Android. They can just continue to offer it as a side load only option and take up 100% of the costs. Epic explicitly stated they were at a disadvantage from Google due to the side-loading and calling out just the barrier to enable side loading was enough to turn potential customers away. Epic specifically called this disadvantage out in their lawsuit.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Developers set the price and consumers decide if that price is worth it.

Yes. But entry or exit let’s say in iOS and Android digital markets are not defined by supply and demand but a policies that go far beyond that. In a free market you exit it because either there is no demand or you lost to competition. No other reason.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Yes. But entry or exit let’s say in iOS and Android digital markets are not defined by supply and demand but a policies that go far beyond that. In a free market you exit it because there either there is no demand or you lost to competition. No other reason.

Gotcha.

Ok then... when did Apple claim that the App Store was a "free market" anyway? Seems like that term started on page 24 of this thread.

Developers know Apple's rules. They can decide whether or not they want to play in Apple's marketplace.

13 years in... a million apps... it seems to have been working...

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Ok then... when did Apple claim that the App Store was a "free market" anyway? Seems like that term started on page 24 of this thread.

It started here.

I just find it amusing that some are against government regulation in this context advocating reasons as per definition of Free Market to than defend marketplaces covering 99% of the population that fundamentally function contrary to Free Market precepts (Google Play + App Store combined).

As someone posted before … the App Store maybe some kind of a store … but iOS and the iPhone aren’t, neither are marketed to consumers as such. The same goes for Android and Google Play.

PS: Although I do understand the rationale given a shareholder. Pure and simple … “don’t touch the value of my shares”.

PS: I’m not saying that non free markets do not work either. But I’m very much pro a Free Market. In history this model seam to have generated more wealth, more innovation, more quality and a better distribution of benefits … and the medium to long run. So I’m not not inclined argue against this.

 

[Wildkraut]

Latest News: https://appleinsider.com/articles/2...on-bill-taking-aim-at-apple-google-app-stores