81–90 of 350 posts
What stops digital only apps like fortnite to start selling some physical good like t-shirt at a premium price and bypass a Apple's 30% fee?
They could price the shirt according to what you buy in the shop, but Apple will surely change its terms & conditions to close such a loop hole.
For any app which has an existence beyond the app store, customers can already pay without Apple. Customers can pay for Microsoft Office, Amazon Prime, or Netflix on their own through conventional channels. Apple's position is that if you are delivering digital goods to be used on their devices, then you must offer an additional way to pay. From the consumer's perspective my choices have now grown. Where before I cou…
- Either pay X, your purchase is handled through Stripe / Paypal, and your relationship is with the company directly.
- Or pay X + 30%, and your relationship is with Apple
Certainly I can see some advantages to the second option, but how many customers do you think would willingly pay a 30% premium for that given the choice.
At 5-10% (i.e. a few percentage points above established and legit payment processors, but ones that are a little less full-service), I think it becomes a much more reasonable argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm on the same opinion, once the device is mine I should be able to install whatever I want. What would happen if I couldn't install the software I want on a desktop device? I really don't get how apple has survived so long with such a tight leash on IOS.
Because you're not their target market. Their target market don't want to know about the technical details. They're not nerds like us.
Apps and IAP is now down to 15%. And 10% for Subscription.
That also puts Spotify And Amazon Prime or other Streaming Services to the 10% category.
I honestly dont like the idea of an Open Platform where you can side load Apps. If you want that Android is your choice. Apple tries to built an App Platform on its Appliance or Phone. Android tries to built a Pocket Computer that acts like and look like a Phone. These are two fundamentally different sets of trade offs.
I am of the opinion that the only fair option is to allow 3rd party stores with the same permissions as the official app store. Apples curation isn't (as they suggest) preventing malware, theft of information, etc - this if verifiably false given recent history with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard content. The ability to change content of payment screens post-approval (as epic have just done) also means that cura…
I agree with this. The only winners in the current situation are Apple. By opening it up to competitor app stores, yes competitors would benefit, but so would developers and so would their users. The App Store as it stands has completely stagnated to the point where it’s useless to me outside of actually downloading or buying an app. It’s been years since I’ve been able to discover new apps though it, now relying for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can have your cake and eat it. Sandboxing-type security is damn good on mobile OSes. We tend to associate desktop with the insecure but it's not because of the lack of an app store. It's because desktop OSes do not sandbox, ask user permission, etc. Modern mobile OSes do so it's really night and day. This takes care of 90% of why mobile OSes are more secure than desktop ones - not app stores. I'm sure that there…
Apple's position is that if you want to deploy apps onto the iPhone, then you must provide a way for the user to signup with Apple as the intermediary. This actually increases user choices because for any app which has an existence outside the app store, users can now choose to either pay the conventional way or have Apple intermediate. Before users had to accept Microsoft's way or don't use Microsoft Office. I'm oka…
If Apple was really benevolent here, they'd have an open login platform that could be decentralized and implemented by third parties.
That would be a real beneficial choice to the consumer. Of course, that's not what they're doing because their goal is not to promote consumer choice. It's to reinforce their monopoly by requiring deep integration on the part of the app developer.
I am of the opinion that the only fair option is to allow 3rd party stores with the same permissions as the official app store. Apples curation isn't (as they suggest) preventing malware, theft of information, etc - this if verifiably false given recent history with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard content. The ability to change content of payment screens post-approval (as epic have just done) also means that cura…
> Apples curation isn't (as they suggest) preventing malware, theft of information, etc - this if verifiably false given recent history with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard There are many things that go wrong with the App Store, but you have to realise this is a ludicrous assertion. Pasting from clipboard is an entirely different class than rootkits, backdoors, trojans, and other malware that have a vanishingly s…
The problem for Epic — and, I suppose, for me — is that to this observer it seems exceedingly likely that Apple is going to win this case, last night’s decision notwithstanding. Current Supreme Court jurisprudence is very clear that businesses — including monopolies — have no duty to deal with third parties, and if they do choose to deal with them (or are even compelled to), that they can choose the terms on which to do so. The only exceptions are if the monopoly in question changes the rules in an unprofitable way with the express purpose of driving out a competitor, or if any company — not even a monopoly — changes access to after-market parts and services.
Current US antitrust law does not favor Epic in this matter. Of Epic's ten claims, their strongest claim is probably the one tying in-app payment processing to app distribution services, but even that one is far from a slam dunk. And even if they were to succeed on that particular claim, the likely outcome would be that they would get to keep their payment system in Fortnite, not that they would be able to run their own app store.
I think people need to temper their expectations unless the laws change in the years it takes for this case to make it through the courts. A court ruling that Apple must allow third-party in-app payment systems is a somewhat realistic outcome, whereas a court ruling that Apple must permit third-parties to run their own app stores is probably a non-starter.
Note how many sources wanted to stay anonymous "for fear of upsetting Apple". Apple knows they can end businesses with the click of a finger. That's what they tried to do by ending the dev license for Unreal Engine. And Apple wants everybody to know that they know. I'm almost certain that the Unreal Dev license revocation is a result of a similar email chain as what happened to Kindle - https://www.macrumors.com/2020…
If I invest my own time and capital into developing a product, which can only be sold through a single outlet, and which could be arbitrarily banned at any point in time, that's simply too much risk to bear. Apple, as the arbiter of what is sold through their store, have far too much power. Why would I put full control of my business into their hands? I, for one, wouldn't.
Multiple competing stores are the solution to most of the problems. It would certainly de-risk selling on Apple platforms. And it would allow for proper competition over pricing. Customers could purchase from the store which provided the most value. As would allowing "sideloading" so that users who wish to have proper control over their own property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having 3rd party stores will be net negative for me as a user. Currently I have trust to Apple, if I am or my kid charged wrong or tricked into some subscription etc, I have proof with experience that Apple will fix it. Now let’s say if we have many stores, some stores will try to be smart, will make exclusive deals, force people to install their stores to maybe play a one popular game. As a user I will end up with 1…
At a micro level I can understand this point, but the proper functioning of markets requires competition. You likely wouldn't advocate one supermarket, one car company or one hardware manufacturer. Even if you would prefer to use Apple's Store it's wrong to deny others (both producers and consumers) free choice.
I am thinking Apple is like a union for their users. And they are regulating developers and they have huge negotiating power because they are gateway to user’s phone. I don’t see them as market participant, I more likely see them as market regulator.