431–440 of 627 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is about allowing alternative payment systems for purchases made in-app. Not necessarily alternative app stores / install mechanisms, which is a separate issue.
But they are tightly related. Russia just issued a similar warning concerning iOS app distribution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So what Apple/Google should've done is give larger publishers a volume discount. From Apple/Google's perspective this is a terrible strategy. The problem is that, if we assume the Pareto Principle holds, the larger publishers probably generate 80% of revenue on the App Store. So assuming 5% is operating at cost, you are talking about them probably sacrificing 70%-75% of their current profits (i.e. moving to 5% marg…
Not only that, "we charge 10% to the big monster and 30% to the little guy" is terrible PR against the amount of money they would generate from just the little guy. It's so bad that by that point they might as well just charge the lower rate to everybody. Especially when they're trying to stave off legislation.
Good. I've been saying this awhile, most notably when Apple (of course followed by Google) introduced a discount on commission for smaller developers. This is completely backwards. I know why they did it. They wanted some positive PR that didn't cost them anything. Thing is, it's the larger publishers who are going to lobby regulators and challenge things in court. It's those same publishers who already have their ow…
That's exactly it, so many users are afraid that this will mean every random app you download will have a credit card entry field. Nope. Those random apps will still benefit from the simplicity of the system IAP, one tap, auth, done. The ones asking for a credit card will drop in ratings and search results. The big players are the ones that will switch, amazon, Netflix, Spotify, Hulu, etc. And beyond that, competitor…
Ratings and general search are already useless in appstores, dominated by apps filled with pay2win dark patterns and optimized/gamed to be higher in ratings. The times where you could go to top games section and find a genuine good app are over more than a decade ago. So you can find the app you need only be it's exact name or via link from external source.
So now appstore is nothing more than a very restrictive guardian/censor. No value lost.
As a consumer, I’m pretty sad about this. I don’t miss the days of having to go through 5 different user flows to cancel 5 different subscriptions. With iTunes, all of my purchases and subscriptions are in once place. Losing that sucks.
I have a question about monopolies and market abuses. Apple released their phone in 2007, the App Store in 2008, and in-app payments in 2009. During that time their marketshare was fairly small, and it didn't start to really grow until they expanded availability to the Verizon network in 2011. Right at launch of the App Store, Apple announced its sales commission would be 30%. Then they extended that same fee to in-a…
You are framing this as if there is a magical "growth curve" that must take you from an inovative startup to a 800 pound gorilla that has a complete chokehold over the market. No, if regulators do their job, nobody gets to ask that question because there is continuous competition. Getting to that monopoly or oligopoly requires sustained effort from would be monopolists, it's a strategy they have been executing for mo…
You're presuming that market abuse has occurred and that market abuse is the only way to get popular, but I don't see that's a given. Maybe people simply genuinely like iPhones just the way they are, and maybe network effects just legitimately lead to the most popular platforms dominating.
Apple don't have a monopoly on the phone market anyway, they only have 27% of the South Korean phone market. In the US it's 65%, high but not a monopoly, but it only went over 50% in 2020.
What changed to make them a market abuser and when did it happen, as you allege? That's the question OP is asking.
I have a question about monopolies and market abuses. Apple released their phone in 2007, the App Store in 2008, and in-app payments in 2009. During that time their marketshare was fairly small, and it didn't start to really grow until they expanded availability to the Verizon network in 2011. Right at launch of the App Store, Apple announced its sales commission would be 30%. Then they extended that same fee to in-a…
It was merely a less awful deal than most other indie commission models, with sites like Kongregate and their ilk demanding >80%. Against that kind of flaying and skinning, 30% was an improvement!
I've said it before. A very good agent, who actually works for their client and arranges them with repeat lucrative contracts, gets 15%. App stores, as gatekeepers to their walled gardens, extort twice that.
Btw - if they want to get into recurring payment scene, let them compete with payment processor fee structures. For the privilege of arranging trusted, mostly secured payments and handling the back office accounting, 3% should be a damn good ceiling. The payment industry is making money hand over fist with that kind of cut.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the FSF, the distribution of a binary computer program which substantially relies upon GPL libraries is considered a derivative work and would require you to abide by the terms of the GPL license. Similarly, an iOS app which substantially relies upon (and must be compiled with) Apple's libraries in order to work is subject to whatever the terms Apple includes in their software license. Of course Apple is…
Developers will avoid Apple libraries. Native apps already are not so popular with Cordova, Flutter, React Native and other options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not necessary to break Apple up to implement a policy that requires Apple to apply the same process to their own apps. There are other standalone arguments calling for a breakup, but agreeing with the parent doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that a breakup is required.
> It's not necessary to break Apple up to implement a policy that requires Apple to apply the same process to their own apps. It works in theory, but when the application team and review team both report to the same CEO, the review team will be pressured to bend the review policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The commission fee that Apple charges, 30% is partially to cover operating/marketing etc. Then by all means, please charge me separately for these things. Because I don’t need them. Apple doesn’t do marketing for me, never promoted my app. People find my app through my own marketing channels. Charge me roughly 2 % for In App Purchases just like Stripe and PayPal. Charge me a traffic fee for whatever download traffi…
> Charge me roughly 2 % for In App Purchases just like Stripe and PayPal. This is so disingenuous and I'm so tired of seeing Apple's fee pegged at 30% (even though it 15% for the VAST majority of developers) and then turn around and pretend Stripe/PP offer anything close to 2%. Paypal is 3.5% + $0.49 Stripe is 2.9% + $0.30 At low price points (you know, the price points that almost all IAP/Paid App are at save for lo…
- Stripe is cheaper in the EU for EU cards. 1.4% plus €0.25
- Apple didn’t even notify me about individual refunds for what? 10 years? And it’s still unreliable and annoying so that I don’t even bother, because I get like 3 refunds per month. You could actually get a refund and still keep the app for a long time.
- People complain to me if they want a refund, but Apple gives me no control. I have to redirect them to Apple customer support. I am perceived as the bad person and this costs me money in terms of customer support and I can’t even help people, because Apple wants to own the relationship between app devs and customers.
There are so many silly things about the App Store that your quotation of 15% as a generous service is laughable.
Edit: but yes, Stripe and PayPal are more than 2% in reality, but far from 15% or even 30%, except for micro transactions.