Sure but there’s lots of shopping malls, right? And businesses have the choice of what mall they want to be in, correct?Not sure how it is in the US, but here in the UK shops do give the mall a percentage of every sale, on top of the rent.
Sure but there’s lots of shopping malls, right? And businesses have the choice of what mall they want to be in, correct?Not sure how it is in the US, but here in the UK shops do give the mall a percentage of every sale, on top of the rent.
Not to mention consumers can also shop at multiple malls without issue. iPhone users can shop at only one mall that Apple controls. Though not in the EU anymore. 😆Sure but there’s lots of shopping malls, right? And businesses have the choice of what mall they want to be in, correct?
Sure but there’s lots of shopping malls, right? And businesses have the choice of what mall they want to be in, correct?
Huh, sounds like they’re in need of monopoly regulation then.Actually as someone who works for a large investment firm that owns a lot of malls, no they don't really have a choice. The majority of major mall outlets make a loss just to keep the brand present in the mall and they make the profit on low overhead online sales.
Also most of the malls are owned by the same company.
Malls do take a cut. I owned a restaurant and every mall wanted a percentage of gross. ended up in a mini mall type location that also took a cut. Facts are good! I am no Apple defender…quite the opposite. But Spotify a nd Epic are the bad guys in this. Apple has every right to charge these weasels!Do you think malls get 30% of everything sold in them?
Hint: they do not. They get a flat rent fee. *Which is exactly what developers have been asking for!!*
Huh, sounds like they’re in need of monopoly regulation then.
What is it with the European Union/Commission/Economic Area/Zone/Region whatever they call themselves and forcing companies to market/advertise for other companies in competition? Who wants to do business with someone who just funnels you to someplace else?
I am not against this suggestion if only for the reason that the bulk of iOS App Store revenue comes from freemium games. The money that Apple is making from non-gaming apps is likely less than 5% of overall revenue. The amount of money given up in exchange for avoiding all that bad PR would be a rounding error on Apple's balance sheet.As I said in a previous comment Apple should modify IAP commission to only apply to games. For other apps that want to use IAP charge them a smaller fee to cover the payment processing and support.
My understanding is that this is the result of a settlement with Japan's free trade commission. Apple did not create the reader app rule out of some sense of altruism.Also if this was so important than why does Apple allow Spotify and Netflix to bypass their IAP system altogether?
It's also what Apple, in all their self-righteousness, seems to genuinely believe (I assume you are referring to the press release below).Also if you read the press release Apple put out regarding Spotify it’s quite clear that Apple believes the only reason Spotify is successful is because of Apple. I think that’s ludicrous.
Seems like if there aren't enough people to enforce regulations, we need to hire some more then.Yes they probably are.
But it's difficult to even get that heard when there's two big tech companies slugging it out in public over a technicality in comparison and taking all the attention away from actual issues.
Well, if the estimated number of iOS developers is actually 2.8 million, as google suggests, Apple are making over a quarter of a billion dollars to "check developers' legitimacy", if what you suggest is right.The question then is - do you consider $99 a year enough to cover everything, or is it more of an entrance fee so the people actually signing up for a developer account are legitimate ones.
They don't. And for the most part, as a customer. You never need to see how the sausage is made.What is with this weird sentiment that Apple like owns us or something.
It's a membership fee, but it doesn't cover App distribution for free.Yes, it is. The Developer Fee is the equivalent of rent. The fee covers, among other things, the Xcode developer tools and app distribution.
Choosing a Membership - Support - Apple Developer
developer.apple.com
About the Apple Developer Program
If you’re interested in creating apps for distribution on the App Store, Apple Business Manager, or Apple School Manager, join the Apple Developer Program.* Membership includes access to beta OS releases, advanced app capabilities, and tools needed to develop, test, and distribute apps and Safari Extensions.
View attachment 2371593
Everything with exception to Spotify provides a tangible service or physical good. For which the rules were made to allow those as exemptions. Same for banks and financial services. Spotify and Netflix (and others I'm sure) don't allow you to purchase via the App. So in turn they pay nothing to Apple anyway. They have no argument, as they get exactly what they want. A FREE RIDE. All they lack is a convenient way to allow the end user to link out and pay them directly for a subscription. And in the words of Cricket Green, "I must say NO!". They seem to be doing just fine without having the ability to subscribe via the app. Everyone seems to be able to sign up for their services just fine on their own without a link out from the App. There is no problem.Replace Spotify with McDonald's, Starbucks, Uber, Amazon, Netflix, Target, Walmart, etc. They're all on the App Store and they don't pay Apple anything beyond the Developer Fee just like Spotify.
Perhaps McDonald's, Starbucks, Uber, Amazon, Target, Walmart, and everyone else should be removed from the App Store.
Based on whatever the EU's response is to Spotify, we'll soon find out whether or not there's a problem. Their response to this will go a long way in telling how they meant for the law to be applied. It's not a given that Apple is in the legal right on this, nor Spotify for that matter.Everything with exception to Spotify provides a tangible service or physical good. For which the rules were made to allow those as exemptions. Same for banks and financial services. Spotify and Netflix (and others I'm sure) don't allow you to purchase via the App. So in turn they pay nothing to Apple anyway. They have no argument, as they get exactly what they want. A FREE RIDE. All they lack is a convenient way to allow the end user to link out and pay them directly for a subscription. And in the words of Cricket Green, "I must say NO!". They seem to be doing just fine without having the ability to subscribe via the app. Everyone seems to be able to sign up for their services just fine on their own without a link out from the App. There is no problem.
Various large corporations and trade bodies have been lobbying very hard in the EU for Apple to open its marketplace, for the simple reason that that is where the money is and they want a piece of the pie. The EU has sold all of these recent changes as good for consumers, and maybe that's the case, but this has all been motivated by the multiple millions spent on lobbying by Apple's competitors.
Personally, I think Apple's cut of subscriptions was always too much and it was inevitable that they would be brought down a peg or two in legislation or in lawsuits or in monopolisation inquiries, but on the other hand we should accept that Apple is providing a uniquely successful global platform that is essentially very easy to develop and distribute on, it has made many billions for developers of all sizes, and it is essentially secure and consumer-friendly. Apple deserves its success.
However, Apple should still have been wiser and not cut so much into the subscriptions, not least because many businesses have very low margins and do not enjoy the 27% margin Apple has on its products. In this sense, Apple is now having to deal with past greed and a lack of political foresight.
If they have an issue it would be for the 27% and or half a euro fee. Since the barrier for entry is gone.Based on whatever the EU's response is to Spotify, we'll soon find out whether or not there's a problem. Their response to this will go a long way in telling how they meant for the law to be applied. It's not a given that Apple is in the legal right on this, nor Spotify for that matter.
Those are all part of the iOS and macOS platform, not the app store itself.It is my opinion that the App Store does play a role in facilitating a transaction between the company and the consumer. Apple put in a lot of effort in getting users to trust in the safety and security of the App Store. They make it easy to pay using iTunes and biometrics and convenient to create a new account via Sign in with Apple.
I am not sure how relevant that still is today. I guess we could debate till the cows come home as to what a reasonable cut entails, but the point is that Apple does deserve something over and above that users have already paid for their hardware.
I think apps that are basically just wrappers for web services shouldn’t have to pay a commission to Apple. And apps like Facebook and Instagram don’t because they’re free to use. For Apple this seems less about access to dev tools and support and more that Apple believes anyone who buys an iOS device is their customer and if Spotify wants them as a customer they have to pay Apple for the privilege. But without my ISP & cell provider none of this would work so should Apple and Spotify be paying them?I am not against this suggestion if only for the reason that the bulk of iOS App Store revenue comes from freemium games. The money that Apple is making from non-gaming apps is likely less than 5% of overall revenue. The amount of money given up in exchange for avoiding all that bad PR would be a rounding error on Apple's balance sheet.
That said, why only games? The only reason I can think of is their business model - games, like most other software distributed over the internet, tend to entail high fixed costs and low / zero marginal costs. The very sort of business who can survive being taxed 30% by Apple. And if we use this line of reasoning, there really isn't any reason to carve out an exception for companies like Netflix who face a similar cost structure.
My understanding is that this is the result of a settlement with Japan's free trade commission. Apple did not create the reader app rule out of some sense of altruism.
Japan Fair Trade Commission closes App Store investigation
Apple will let developers of “reader” apps around the world link to an external website to set up or manage an account beginning early next year.www.apple.com
So I am guessing that if Apple had their way, the reader rule wouldn't have existed either.
It's also what Apple, in all their self-righteousness, seems to genuinely believe (I assume you are referring to the press release below).
The App Store, Spotify, and Europe’s thriving digital music market
Today, the European Commission announced a decision about the App Store and competition in the digital music market.www.apple.com
I guess my response would be a somewhat sheepish "Well, Apple isn't entirely wrong, but they aren't entirely right either". Apple has done a tremendous amount of good for developers by them creating the iPhone in the first place, by popularising the concept of an App Store to the mass market, and by continuing to improve on it year after year. You just need to compare it with the Android play store to realise that while not perfect, the current success of the iOS App Store wasn't by chance or luck either. It happened because Apple really invested a lot in developing it, the same way you would tend to a garden.
If there was one criticism to be had of Apple's response, it would be their lack of acknowledgement that developers too have done a lot for Apple and the App Store. I mentioned how I use a number of iOS-only apps, and credit to the developers for pushing the limits of iOS and for not abandoning the platform even when Android came along (though the money on iOS is good too).
Would Spotify have seen the same amount of success today if we were all still using blackeberries and Nokia phones? Who can really say. The issue is that Spotify hasn't exactly been entirely honest or forthcoming with their claims against Apple either.
I dunno about this year's WWDC, but it seems like it might get a tad awkward.
I'm going to caveat all the following with, "Maybe phone app stores shouldn't work like this, but this is kinda how they work now, minus the whole, to use said product you have to be "on the device" and you have to switch devices to use said product somewhere else. Maybe they should be more like streaming services or game platforms where platform owners pay the app developers/studios to have their apps/movies on their platforms, sometimes resulting in exclusivity deals. Ultimately worse for the consumer. Though, if your app is garbage, no one will want it, forcing better development. But, that's super complex, like, who determines if it's bad, does it get limited time to showcase before fees are negotiated etc. Not sure i want that nightmare."Right now Spotify informs subscribers "You can't upgrade to Premium in the app" so subscribers have to manually go to spotify.com to upgrade from Free plan. Apple gets $0.00 using this method.
View attachment 2371586
But if Spotify were to put a link in the app instead of the above message, that'll cost them 27 percent of subscription revenue. For a link? WTF?
Perhaps this in part explains why Spotify would like all transactions & money fly under the radar – you know, not being tracked by any third party such as Apple.
So Apple tracks you like google, and stifles competition? Why am I not surprised. Apple sell the hardware and operating system, and then force you to use their marketplace. I'm getting really tired of the apple taxes, such as only being able to use Siri to switch on my front door light if I'm connected to my home wifi, unless I fork out on an Apple TV or HomePod which I don't need as I have google nests which work with any operating system. and now they want 27% of Spotifys income from a click, whilst doing nothing to serve the content?
Everyone is saying apple should leave the EU, but if Spotify quit iOS I think there would be a bigger effect as most people in UK at least seem to use Spotify.
I look forward to laughing at the downvotes.