It’s ridiculous that Apple takes 30% of a transaction between two independent third parties, one of which may have no idea their virtual attendees are even using iPhones.
For the app? Sure. Hosting, vetoing, version control, etc. (Even if we forget that developers already have to pay $99 a year). I'm fine with that. I would be more than fine if that $99 got more expensive the more app downloads you had.
For just processing an IAP? With no volume discounts? It's ridiculous.
Sure, they don't want the "free app + unlocking IAP" but they could think this better.
It gets even more ridiculous if you consider that there are cases with price bindings (e.g. books) or small not very flexible margins (per song buying of music) and apple is them self competing in this area without this cuts.
Similar ridiculous is that they effective prevent apps which just provide the service for existing member without any payment/sign-up services in the apple app.
This is a active intrusion on the free marked undermining the fundamental concepts of it (choice and transparency).
At least in my opinion.
Even for the app - if its a cost argument, then allow others to compete on a cost basis. Of course, apple will not let you set up your own app store with the same guarantees that apple provides around privacy security etc. If its a discovery and cost of marketing argument than I dont understand the perpetuity of payments, you can pay a first time purchase fee but subscriptions afterwards should not have any fees tacked on.
App stores, and their restrictions, aren't ridiculous. They are a consequence of an Internet filled with viruses, malware, and spam.
The only thing I blame Apple for is not allowing installing apps from third-party sources, after you tick a checkbox in settings, like Android does. I would even accept a loss of warranty on doing that, because I'm a big boy, I understand the consequences, and I want to take that risk.
Otherwise let's be honest, people actually love a curated app store, and you're in a tiny minority.
You have no idea which opinion is in the minority. In reality most non-tech people don't even know that Apple rules the app store with an iron fist. One benefit of Epic's lawsuit is the publicity giving millions of young people an inkling of what's going on.
People may not know Apple's rules, but they enjoy the benefits regardless, safety being one of the clear perks of using an iOS device. And yes, Apple's devices are much safer than alternatives.
Btw, if you want to play the knowledge game, do the non-tech people know that Epic's Privacy Policy [1] explicitly allows them to sell their data for marketing purposes?
Personally, I'll always side with the company that respects my privacy.
Yes, I'm OK with that, because it's in the contract. It's what developers sign on when joining Apple's App Store.
This isn't about being dangerous or not, but about Apple's App Store being clearly Apple's property. Like it or hate it, you don't go and shout on someone's property, against the host's rules, without expecting to be kicked out.
As a developer, if you don't like it, then don't distribute your apps on Apple's App Store. As a consumer, if you don't like it, then don't buy Apple's products. It's as simple as voting with your wallet.
And I realize that due to Apple's size, it's not easy to avoid their App Store. But complaining about it won't help.
Also, fuck Facebook, fuck Epic Games. I may regret this later, but I'm always glad when privacy-invading companies suffer.
I mean as a user not as a developer, are you fine if a judge will declare that Apple can force developers not to say certain things, not to link to certain pages that Apple does not want? If you are OK with Apple doing that then are you OK with Google and Microsoft doing the same?
Second question, why as a user you are OK with Apple preventing developer to inform you of better deals? It is just a piece of text with a link, you are not forced to click the link, is this information causing you some kind of "damage/distrss"? When the average user buys an iPhone do they get a giant EULA read to them and there it says in the clear "by using our product you agree that Apple will hide better financial deals for you because it can hurt our shareholders ?"
If judges in US will premit Apple to do whatever they want Google will have the green light to be as shitty as Apple, lock the store, do even more censorship, maybe Chrome and Google Search can also hide websites that Google does not like, you can use Safari if you don't like it.
So basically under the cover of having packaged technology much of which was developed with public funds, Apple is acting as a monopolist provider of security protection. Nice linux-based networked computing device you got here, shame if something were to happen to it. Why is policing the streets a common good, and policing apps left to a pair of oligarchies?
policing apps is not left to oligarchies. It's a crime to install malware on someone's machine, and it is enforceable. But sometimes you as an individual want a "pre-crime" agency, and maybe it's best not to have the "pre-crime" agency be the state. And that's why, for better or worse, we have mallcops and neighborhood patrols.
The flaw in you comparison is thinking that whoever is in control of this will think in your well being and not actually cheat.
This exact thread is over this "good dictator" being caught cheating and thinking about their own well being first, with their users being damaged and treated as second-class citizens.
The company have a great marketing strategy that makes you and others first you are first class, while in reality their goals and objectives comes first in detriment to your expectations about it.
But somehow this marketing campaign is so good, that even when caught in the act, a lot of their users are still in denial.
BTW, about mall cops and "pre-crime"; mall cops cant arrest anybody before they commit a said "crime". Also, the definition of what is a crime and not is pretty dangerous and used by people with malice over and over to resort some form of control and manipulation over public opinion (see Bush "War on terror" for instance used to bomb Saddam and cap citizens rights and get reelection, which is basically "War on drugs" 2.0).
In some android phones you don't even need that checkbox anymore instead a android dialog will pop open to ask you if you want to install the app from a untrusted source...
Through might a a vendor specific change.
Also the idea that you must "protect" you customers from "external payment services which might grab you data" is ridiculous it's assuming the user is generally incompetent
and can't do any decision by themselves.
Warning them is a different matter.
Requiring a min app price of 5€ (30% cut) or 1.5 (100%) cut for apps with non apple in-app payment would also be understandable.
But having intentionally vague formulated rules for which if you brake them you often either get no usable feedback or are called by phone is not ok.
Calling by phone in such situations is not good service but a common strategy to prevent paper trails which could show abusive behaviour.
> I would put a correction that Apple users specifically like walled gardens the app stores.
I don't disagree with you, but I don't think it's specifically liking walled gardens: it's rather about hating fragmentation.
It's the same thing with gamers who complain about Epic exclusives that want their entire game library on Steam, or people who complain about Disney/Hulu/Prime licensing titles that were previously on Netflix.
Android doesn't do this. By the Play Store guidelines. this kind of app would be permitted to use its own payment processing instead of in-app purchases.
The fact that every major digital platform just so happens to have the exact same fee and that it hasn’t decreased in 20 years is a clear indicator that this number is not subject to market forces.
A general solution would be great. The mobile operating system is the most important platform to discuss this issue. There are only two players in this space. And the anti-trust case against Apple is much much stronger than against Google. Therefore they rightfully get more attention.
I don't think Apple had such a model with the Pipin game console, or a successful or global one at that. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo do as an example. Stating that they are the first is just incorrect. One could perhaps state that they are making the most profit out of it. But unless we take a stance on profit being bad I'm wondering why this needs to be a hot topic at all.
I believe their point is that Game consoles have been doing the same thing for decades, which you might or might not see as being the same thing as the AppStore does. There's also Steam and some other game stores too (although I'm not sure if he's referring to that).
iTunes store came out April 2003. Steam came out September 2003. Xbox launched Nov 2001, but Xbox Live Arcade didn't launch until Nov 2004.
Digital sales of game console games didn't become a major thing until after 2010. I shipped a $15 digital-only XBLA game on X360 in 2010. People thought we were crazy to go digital-only.
The historical economics of video game physical distribution is very very different. A 30% digital cut was a massive improvement. Physical manufacturing, storage, distribution, brick and mortar middle men, platform fee added up to well over 50%. So a 30% digital cut was much better. Digital is now the majority of sales, but that is a very recent development.
Reasonable minds can debate and disagree over what digital cut would be considered "fair". In a healthy, competitive market we wouldn't have to debate "fair". The market would decide. The cost of digital distribution has massively shrunk as technologies have progressed from specialty to commodity. The fact that the digital tax has been the exact same for 20 years is clear evidence that it is not subject to market forces. Whether it should or shouldn't be is yet another question.
Sorry, their whole point was not about digital sales or the 30% number, but more about the fact that console manufacturers have been making virtually all their money by charging a markup from game makers since the eighties (remember that consoles themselves normally sell at a loss). Once again, you might see it as being the same or not as what Apple does.
You can hate me as much you like but there was nothing there before Apple that created this kind of control over arbitrary applications that you can run on computers. Let this settle.
Sure there was. Remember cartridges for the game consoles? Or the clipper chip? (mostly about data but still a central form of control) Or HDCP. Or CSME which has PAVP. AGESA has a similar thing. Or the ACM validated by the ROM in all Intel CPUs. You can't even load an OS before you get it allowed by them.
I think you meant to say: not directly visible by the user at the scale in terms of single-vendor profits. But that's a different thing which needs different treatment. Either antitrust laws or new laws will have something to say about that, because it boils down to 'power' that is currently legal as-is.
You can be emotional about it, but that doesn't help the discussion.
