[deleted]
Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B
21–30 of 411 posts
Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B
#22Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something .
The honest answer is that Apple shouldn't own iOS and its main app store at the same time. But there is not legal / regulation framework to prevent that.
Case in point: Steam is taking 30% too. But you've heard much less fuss over it, right? Why? Is it because of players' cult-like behavior around Steam? (probably partially) But more importantly it's because Valve doesn't own Windows and Steam Deck is a far smaller fry.
Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B
#23Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something .
This question is valid only if Apple lets apps host their own apps, bring their own payment system. Apple bans all such activities, has held the entire app ecosystem and seeks rent. If they think their offering is superior, then they should be OK competing. The fact that they have not opened it up says that they are happy to overcharge. Remember, competition is always good. Let Stripe and Apple duke it out on payment…
> Apple lets apps host their own apps, bring their own payment system.
And also not require those apps to be also approved by Apple, which they are trying to do with AltStore and the DMA.
Users should be able to go to a dev's website, pay them directly, and download the ipa and install it with a click from the website. Having to go through any kind of "app store" at all should be optional.
Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B
#24The financial penalty is peanuts for AAPL. More interesting would be if they'd be forced to allow other app stores.
I think both third party app stores (without aggressive scare screens) and third party payments will be globally available on both platforms in the next few years. But it will take some time for enough piecemeal jurisdictions to require it for it to become burdensome for the companies to have different options in different regulatory regimes, and to make it no longer worth blocking in jurisdictions which haven't rule…
Yeah but Apple always required signing, and Google is moving to that too, so they can simply charge you an exorbitant amount to get your app signed, moving the money maker from the store to the dev environment.
Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B
#25Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something .
How much of a fee do you think you should pay to install applications on your computer? The same amount as that.
Or provide alternative ways to install software.
This is a problem of their own creation.
Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B
#26Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B
#27In English law, is there a clearly defined, well understood, written standard of “fair”?
I don't know, but when every single business on the planet has to pay you 30% for access to mobile device users, it definitely isn't.
> when every single business on the planet has to pay you 30% for access to mobile device users
That doesn’t describe Apple’s situation though. Most businesses don’t distribute software at all; those that do mostly don’t need to distribute native iOS apps; those that do mostly don’t need to pay App Store fees; those that do mostly have to pay 15%. It’s only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction that need to pay 30%.
Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B
#28Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B
#29[flagged]
apparently people will make this same comment every single time whether it's a $2M fine or a $2B fine
Why even have fines when they amount to an insignificant cost of doing business? What is the purpose? If the purpose is to deter companies from doing some thing, then a fine that equals a tiny number of days revenue is not providing any kind of deterrence.