131–140 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or do as Tinder, and charge 30% more in the app compared to their prices on tinder.com
You have to raise the price by 43%: 1.43 * 0.7 = 1.00
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Distribution. Access to iOS devices.
Access to a market that they solely own, the definition of antitrust.
By that definition Microsoft has a monopoly over XBox games, Tesla has a monopoly over their car apps, Sony has a monopoly over their DSLR apps etc, Salesforce has a monopoly over their marketplace apps etc.
Any antitrust action based on your definition would actually set a precedent that would unravel every single marketplace product. Hence pretty unrealistic.
Honestly, Apple's response is actually pretty reasonable, all things considered. Read the full letter — it was clear, fair, and professional — despite coming off the back of a lot of bad press. I see plenty of comments are focussing on this quote, re their Basecamp apps: > These apps do not offer in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years Apple hav…
Some people are going to quibble with you over the costs paid for developers licenses, but I think that's missing the real problem. Apple is welcome to provide a platform for developers to distribute apps on, on that platform I believe they should be able to charge whatever they determine is reasonable. Apple SHOULD NOT be allowed to have a legal monopoly on making that platform. It's not really a fair price (doesn't…
Yeah, I thought I'd phrased it clearly enough saying "effectively" nothing was given in return, but obviously not!
I see a new perspective in the rest of your comment. Thanks for sharing.
It seems like we soon see movement on this issue given the EU antitrust and other social unrest. People are tired of things being not only unfair but not even remotely reasonable. It is laughable that Apple Music on Android doesn't use the built in IAP but forces you to pay via Apple. This will come back to haunt them. It doesn't matter that the ToS don't forbid this but in civil suits, it doesn't give them a leg to…
The number is never the issue. The issue is that apple has artificially blocked any competing channels from distributing to iOS.
I don't believe they should be allowed to have a legal monopoly on app distribution. In fact, I'd go as far as the ruling for IE with Microsoft around basically the same issue but for web apps -
Not only are you not allowed a legal monopoly on app distribution, you MUST ask the user which app distribution methods they'd like to enable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But 50% of the smarphone market users might want to install software on they own property which Apple has clearly shown to be quite possible, if only Apple wouldn't stand in the way as the sole gatekeeper. It might not be specifically anti-trust violation, but if Ford behaved the same as Apple there would be 1-2 cars to pick from world wide!
Apple is about 20% of the market, not 50%. This isn't anti-trust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Isn't that a little like comcast charging websites for access to their customers? Not exactly, as Comcast don’t provide the infrastructure to Basecamp to host and deliver the binary of its app. Basecamp can’t be said to be ‘freeloading’ on Comcast. Basecamp would come back and say ‘well, we pay our developer fees’ but developer fees don’t differentiate whether Apple has to maintain app updates for hundreds of downl…
Comcast also doesn't restrict all its users to exclusively acquire software from the Comcast Store™. Apple does.
I actually feel misled by Hey’s comments pointing out that Netflix, etc. require a subscription to make the app useful. It wasn’t until I little additional digging revealed that the main difference you can order it straight away, and Apple still charges them the 30% fee. To get around this, Netflix charges for in-app or you can order cheaper directly from their site. I don’t believe Apple’s store T&C’s indicate Netflix is violating anything through this model.
Really this is about how much is too much for Apple’s fee structure. I suspect regulators may try to force Apple to allow other App Stores (like Android) but then the usual problems will surface re: security, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Apple gives you one on a silver platter and for a pretty fair cost per acquisition compared to other channels. For the Apple system, isn't that the only available channel to sell and distribute apps? It's not like there are other alternatives, or am I missing something?
Facebook, Google, Twitter etc all offer advertising products targeted at app installs. So if you imagine a fictitious world where anyone could just install apps off the web then you would need to buy ads through the main 3 players above to get any visibility. Just like how it works today for SaaS or eCommerce products. And given that we know roughly how much CPC and volume is for certain keywords e.g email app then i…
Instead in this insane reality I have to pay Apple $100 every year for the privilege of distributing an app to my already existing user base.
Maybe the pandemic finally offers enough motivation for EU and US to make a strong decision about this. The (smart)phone market, for many people the only computing device they own, is utterly dominated by 2 monopolies under Apple and Google. The CEOs should get a medal and all the honours for providing society this good platforms then promptly forced to allow separate AppStores on equal footing.
> 2 monopolies Uh... Also, monopoly has a very specific definition. It does not mean "company with large marketshare".
Apple demands that taxes are paid and laws are adhered to in their kingdom of apps. Meanwhile, they are tax evaders themselves.