19 ms·

Unfortunately for Apple, I do think the App Store being an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS is in fact causing prices of Apps, in many

• threeseed 8y ago
  Apple provides a service for that 30% though. They handle the payment processing, they build, moderate and curate the App Store apps and they provide a lucrative channel to market for app developers. So allowing Spotify et al to get all the benefits of the channel without paying for it is actually unfair to Apple.
  • dd36 8y ago
    So charge the developers for that underwriting service.
  • lighthazard 8y ago
    This was true a few years ago but in 2018, it's not a curated place to get software. It's the only marketplace to get software for your device. 30% is disproportionate to what's being offered today.
  • samat 8y ago
    This argument will easily hold if there were any way to have a competing store on iOS devices. Apple banning any competition in that field makes ‘buy they provide value for the money’ look like forcing consumers hand. Not sure if I want to have a second AppStore (APNS, etc, etc.)
    • threeseed 8y ago
      No. The argument holds irrespective of whether there is 1 store or a million stores. Spotify wants to use Apple's distribution channel without paying for it. That's unfair and doesn't reflect what happens in the real world. If I sell my software through a retail store they still take a cut.
      • drawnwren 8y ago
        I suspect Spotify would prefer to have their app on iOS without using Apple's distribution channel if they could.
        • dwaite 8y ago
          Only because they could then do direct sign-up and billing without having to pay anyone a cut.
          • Tsubasachan 8y ago
            One of the most powerful things the internet has done for us: cut out the middlemen. Even Amazon is not safe, I foresee a future where people will order directly from the factory.
      • sulam 8y ago
        Let’s use the Kindle app as an example then. The app cannot link to their site when I search for a book I don’t have. If it did, the app would be banned. So Apple is trying to extract a 30% premium from Amazon and the only way for them to avoid that is to give me a shitty experience that quantifiable harms me (I waste time to search for and then hop through the download behavior, adding friction to what should be a seamless flow). In return for their 30% they are adding very little value. Amazon does it’s own payment processing, curation is surely not worth almost a third of every book I buy, storage is paid for by Amazon, and the transmission costs are paid for by me.
  • zuminator 8y ago
    So if Ann's a developer and doesn't want their payment processing, and Bruce is a consumer and doesn't want their curation, then the buyer and seller should be able to dispense with the surcharge if they dispense with the "service." But they can't (without jumping through hoops.) And what's more, if Trusty App Corp. were to come along and set up a 20% cut Trusty App store that could be conveniently installed via an exploit, they would be undoubtedly sued for IP violations, due to the state protecting Apple's exclusive right to Apple IP. This is pure rent-seeking on the part of Apple, and ultimately antitrust laws exist to discourage rent-seeking even more than discouraging monopolies per se.
  • nothrabannosir 8y ago
    > Apple provides a service for that 30% though. Money is universally reviled, and rightfully so: it is a dark, vile, evil thing. It brings out the very worst in the very best of us. It brings entire countries to their knees. Money corrupts. Money is awful. But there is one thing that money does better than anything else, bar nothing. No contest. No competitor on the horizon. Many have tried, all have failed. Money quanitifies value. It is not up to you to defend how much money Apple should get. It is not up to us to contradict it. It is up to the market. This is the one and only thing it does well, so let's at least give it that. Because allowing Apple to get all the benefits of determining the value of their app store, without letting the market give it a go, is actually unfair to Money.
    • gobengo 8y ago
      > It is up to the market. Insofar as Apple is a US Company, the US Government also gets a say. Profit is a privilege. The US has a mixed economy, not a 'free market'.
    • hamandcheese 8y ago
      > Money quantifies value Money quantifies value... in our money based economy. Which is basically a tautology. Money in many cases fails to quantify utility and the same quantity of money has wildly varying utility from market to market.
  • ken 8y ago
    - Payment processing, yes (though no other payment processor charges anywhere near 30% -- Stripe is 2.9%, I think?). - Build, not exactly -- only in the sense that they can handle minor upgrades via bitcode for new ARM variants, if you choose to enable that. - Moderate/curate, sure. - Provide a lucrative channel? Yes, but only because they've made it the only channel by fiat. I'm not sure I see 30% worth of mandatory value here. Is Apple's moderation so good it's worth 27% the cost of my app? Do developers think they're paying for bitcode upgrades, and do they think that justifies the fee? Recompiling for new minor architectures isn't difficult. For that matter, is there more value provided in moderation for a more expensive app? If they approve my app at $5, and then I up the price to $25, did their moderation process retroactively become more valuable to anyone?
    • ksec 8y ago
      Apple do offer iTunes Credit and often does discount of up to 15% from Retailers. ( I am betting those iTunes Credit are wholesale at anywhere between 13% to 10% discount, and Retailers takes in ~10 - 8% after deducting processing fees ) Still, not many buy iTunes Credit. Most just use Credit Card direct from Apple Pay. But even if we have included all these, the 30% is still excessive. The problem Apple is having is similar to their phone, it is not about the price tag or the 30% charges, it is people paying for it fail to see or justify its value. Apple will need to offer more "values". From Developers to its Users.
    • sbuk 8y ago
      Storage/hosting, support and distribution (bandwidth) are missing frim the list. Arguably, it may not cover 30%, but it does provide for more than 2.9%
      • Oletros 8y ago
        Spotify/Kindle/etc subscriptions and purchases are not hosted or distributed by Apple.
        • sbuk 8y ago
          No, but the apps are. Spotify comes in at 98MB, and Kindle at 113MB. That is a lot of bandwidth. Since Amazon don't offer IAP, they get that for free, Spotify do offer IAP, so contribute that way.
  • darpa_escapee 8y ago
    If Apple's involvement is worth a 30% cut, surely they can compete in the free market with other App stores and distribution methods.
• delinka 8y ago
  "...an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS" If the court allows the definition of 'trust' to include "a company gatekeeping developer access to their own operating system" when that operating system represents a much smaller share of the market than the next biggest competitor.
  • GeekyBear 8y ago
    Didn't we already go through this in the courts when game consoles like Nintendo, XBox, and PlayStation put the same restrictions on game developers?
    • delinka 8y ago
      Honestly I don’t recall. Do you have any links I could read?
      • bilbo0s 8y ago
        I think he is referring to the Tengen case.
    • MBCook 8y ago
      Back in the NES era with licensing restrictions, yes. I believe it was Tengen vs Nintendo? Also Atari vs Activision? But the Switch, PS4, and XBox One ALL have closed app stores exactly the way Apple does. If Apple loses a lot of people will have to find a new business model.
      • p1necone 8y ago
        I would love game consoles to have third party stores. As it stands I almost never buy console games through the PSN store/xbox store/whatever because (at least with AAA titles) games remain at initial launch price way too long, and are usually more expensive than retail stores.
        • p1necone 8y ago
• shaggerty 8y ago
  How is it a problem for consumers if you can get a cheaper subscription to Spotify by buying it off the App Store?
  • kodablah 8y ago
    I think it's "off" meaning "outside of". It's a problem for consumers when confusing marketplace rules coupled with single-company-enforced limited options unnecessarily cost them more. That said, not sure I would want it illegal.
• ihuman 8y ago
  How long have you been using the iOS app store for? IMO App prices now are lower than they were when the app store first opened in iPhoneOS 2, and way lower than they were before the iPhone. I remember simple games for Palm OS costing at about $20 [0] . Nowadays that game would either be <=$5, or free to play. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20040418012411/http://astraware.com:80/palm/featured/bejeweled?skucode=0011-009-0009 https://web.archive.org/web/20040418012411/http://astraware....
  • lbacaj 8y ago
    I have had an iPhone since the first one and access to the App Store since they introduced it in the 3G. I completely agree that prices on Apps have come down but that is just what happens when a new market is created. Supply and demand has to set in. Developers are guessing what people will pay at first and if they find they can sell millions more if they just drop the price to 99c then they might just do that. In my opinion the Apple App Store has had very little to do with those prices coming down. While I do admit the App Store was incredibly innovative and has ushered in an era of new ways for developers to create/distribute/monetize this stuff it is hard to deny that if there was any competing way to load Apps that the 30% fee Apple collects would stand... not to mention the many practices that developers (and consumers) disagree with that Apple regularly does such banning apps that may compete with their products or somehow upset them. Edit: I don’t want to come off as overly negative here, I love Apple and their products. I am simply arguing that a little competition here would do consumers good.
    • sbuk 8y ago
      How would it do consumers good?
  • myhf 8y ago
    Price of "Angry Birds" in 2009: $0.99 one-time Price of the same "Angry Birds" in 2018: $0 to install, $1.99 per 80 gems, no way to disable in-app ads or purchases. Free-to-play is an increase in price.
    • 8y ago
• jm20 8y ago
  This is really only an issue with low-margin licensing subscriptions like Spotify and Netflix, where they would lose money on every purchase if 30% of their margins went to Apple. While I definitely think there are some problems with the App Store, the fact is that it is so easy and streamlined for people buying apps that it’s worth the 30% for the vast majority of developers.
  • AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > While I definitely think there are some problems with the App Store, the fact is that it is so easy and streamlined for people buying apps that it’s worth the 30% for the vast majority of developers. If people would still choose it even if there were competitors, then why is competition prohibited? The answer is that the App Store would still exist, but might have to charge less or lose business to lower cost competitors. So you would get everything you want and with lower costs.
    • dwaite 8y ago
      The security model is based on an entitlement system. Which other stores are trustworthy enough to be allowed to issue entitlements? If the idea would be that an arbitrary other store can publish apps with limited entitlements, doesn't that just shift the "abuse" argument around? If the idea is that users would be able to vet which apps or app stores should get entitlements... well, we've seen how well that works on Android.
      • AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > The security model is based on an entitlement system. Which other stores are trustworthy enough to be allowed to issue entitlements? That's up to the user to decide. It's a lot easier to choose curators from among well-known companies like Apple and Amazon than to choose individual apps that are inherently developed by small shops or individuals. > If the idea is that users would be able to vet which apps or app stores should get entitlements... well, we've seen how well that works on Android. Exactly. Some of them do a better job than Google itself. There is probably less malware in F-Droid than on iOS. And if you like Apple's store then... keep using it. Just because other stores would be available doesn't require you to use them.
• sunflowerfly 8y ago
  Apple does not hold a monopoly, Android is the dominate platform. To use antitrust law you must first prove a monopoly exists, then prove the monopoly is being used in anti-competitive ways.
• nickm12 8y ago
  Setting aside the question of the impact of prices completely, the fact that Apple controls the sites that apps can link to should be abhorrent to anyone. At one point, they even tried to control what programming languages were used to write apps for iOS.
• Tsubasachan 8y ago
  Developers love Apple because there is no piracy or competition from F-droid. Also the Apple clientele are proven to be bigger spenders. I love the Android community because they come up with cool things like DNS66 or YouTube Vanced. Ad blocking on iOS is halfhearted. All that said Apple can do what they want consumers have a choice: buy an Android phone.
  • GordonS 8y ago
    Is piracy really an issue on Android? I've never pirated an Android app in the 10 years or so I've been using Android, and I don't know anyone who was. Would love to see some unbiased numbers on this.
    • Tsubasachan 8y ago
      Well providing numbers for something that is illegal and happens on shady websites is difficult, just as nobody can tell you exactly how much cocaine enters the port of Rotterdam each year. But I found this to be an interesting read. https://www.xda-developers.com/piracy-testimonies-causes-and-prevention/ https://www.xda-developers.com/piracy-testimonies-causes-and...
    • screye 8y ago
      I think part of the problem is that whales use Apple. Despite having 80+% of the market mobile market share, most of these customers are low spending people looking for vfm phones and good enough free apps. Apple is the one that captures the top 5% of customers who spend on subscription services and expensive apps. This gives the false appearance of Android being piracy heaven. Because, why else would a 4 times bigger consumer base generate a smaller revenue.
• syntheticcdo 8y ago
  Your Spotify example is a good argument FOR Apple's model. In that case, consumers have a choice to either a) purchase a Spotify subscription via the web app, or b) purchase the subscription in app -- at a higher cost. Some consumers still choose to purchase in app- for a variety of reasons: ease of use, speed, accessibility, streamlined with the rest of their Apple purchases, who knows. People choosing to overpay for Spotify shows the Apple ecosystem and model provides value to at least some consumers. Whether it is worth 30% is a different question.