4 ms·
My understanding is that this change in policy was directly in response to pressure from the EU and FTC probes.
by sgk284 16y ago
My understanding is that this change in policy was directly in response to pressure from the EU and FTC probes.
- trotsky 16y agoIt's interesting the extent to which apple is pre-emptively trying to avoid anti-trust actions by allowing apps like opera and gv and backpedaling on ad network competition. I assume that's because they see it as a real possibility that an EU remedy could be something like forcing them to natively support competing app stores. That would be a huge blow to apple revenue.
- roc 16y agoare you suggesting they make a notable amount of direct money off the app store? Or are you suggesting the more indirect: more app stores->less confidence, more confusion, less sales->less device sales->less revenue
- trotsky 16y agoThanks for correcting me in a polite way - I see that analysts place app store profits at only about 1% of apple's gross profits since the store opened. Huge was obviously a poor choice of words, but still the numbers are compelling - $189M in gross profit on ~$1.3B gross revenue (assuming the $1B paid out * 1.3) - 14.5% margins even while including operating costs associated with free apps. One can also assume that the 1% contribution to profit is a growing figure since it includes the entire time the app store has been open but sales have been increasing steadily. While apple calls it "a bit over break-even", that has always been the line with itunes as well yet there are various pieces of evidence that suggest that is somewhat of a fib. I think you make an even better point than I was thinking of though. Apple clearly values the tight control they have over applications highly. Whatever their motivations there - ux, security, platform lock in, vertical integration, control over competitors - they surely believe that ceding that control would have a negative effect on their bottom line.