7 ms·

actual harm => consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut (which is more like a shak

actual harm => consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut (which is more like a shakedown). I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay any percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee. You pay a % of revenue when someone is your partner or an investor in your company. Apple is neither. In fact, they've shown to be the opposite of a trusted investor/partner as they've copied successful apps and integrated them into their own platform. The App Store should be a fixed fee, something like $19/month, for your app to be on sale there. On another note, regarding your first comments, in the late 90's Microsoft went through DOJ depositions and demands for breaking up simply because they bundled Internet Explorer with their operating system. It didn't charge Netscape money for access to Windows and IE wasn't generating any income. But the furor at the time was huge and the anti-MSFT attitude has prevailed to this day. Why not the same feelings for Apple who's made this far more extreme and far more anti-competitive.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
> actual harm => consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut (which is more like a shakedown). So what? All markets work like this. Food prices go up whenever there fuel prices increase, so the grocery store increases the cost to cover the higher cut taken by the supply chain. Apple created this entire market - they could've been far more anti-competitive than they are. Why should the free advertising, access to a market that has users that spend more on average, be free to anyone? > I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay any percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee. You're the one making the claim - you have to prove why it's wrong to charge a percentage of revenue first. The Internet Explorer argument just doesn't apply. They had market dominance - Apple does not.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > So what? All markets work like this. Food prices go up whenever there fuel prices increase If it were a monopoly then anti-competitive practices, that would result in price increases, would be illegal . > Apple created this entire market It doesn't matter if they created the whole market. That is completely irrelevant to the legality of anti-competitive practices. Now, they are a monopoly, and they are no longer to allowed to engage in anti-competitive behavior. > they could've been far more anti-competitive than they are The idea that they could do worse, is not an argument against something as for why it is not bad. Apple could do many things that are worse than what they are doing now. Maybe, in the future they will hire assassins to kill anyone who does not own an iphone. But that hypothetical world, does not make the current world any better. It is not an excuse. > Why should the free advertising, access to a market that has users that spend more on average, be free to anyone? Because the purpose of laws are to help consumers, not to protect apple. The reason why the law should force apple to allow competitors, is because by doing this, this helps consumers. > They had market dominance - Apple does not. Apple absolutely has market dominance over apps that are sold on the iphone. They prevent competitors from running app stores on that platform. This is a huge market.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    It's not a monopoly. There is an alternative which dominates the market share. This simply is not a monopoly. > Apple absolutely has market dominance over apps that are sold on the iphone. This is just wrong. This would hold true if no alternative exists. There currently is not an app the iPhone offers that isn't matched in functionality anywhere else. This doesn't pass basic legal sniff tests.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > This is just wrong. This would hold true if no alternative exists. There currently is not an app the iPhone offers that isn't matched in functionality anywhere else. There is no alternative for buying apps on the iPhone. > It's not a monopoly. There is an alternative which dominates the market share. Yes it is. There is not a single alternative, for buying apps on the iPhone. They control that market, and have 100% market share over the iPhone app store market.
- bluedevil2k 6y ago
  > Apple created this entire market Which market? 3rd party software on a computing device? Sorry, that was dozens of years prior. Packaged apps on a mobile device? Sorry, I had those on my Treo in 2001. They haven’t really created any market, they just created a software monopoly on their hardware using existing ideas.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Aside from trying to be smug, I'm not sure the point of this comment. No one cares that a small handful of people owned a Treo in 2001. It wasn't relevant then and it isn't now. In any case, if it isn't a market, then there is no case here, so not sure what your comment means for you. > They haven’t really created any market, they just created a software monopoly on their hardware using existing ideas. The monopoly where the competitor has far, far higher marketshare. I'm sorry, I've never read about that in the history books.
    - bluedevil2k 6y ago
      Treo’s were extremely relevant! It was a device that early adopters loved and inspired Apple to make the iPhone which “crossed the chasm” into the mainstream. (Read “Crossing the Chasm” to learn about early tech and its influence) There are no competitors on the iPhone. The iPhone isn’t the anti-competitive issue, the App Store is! No one has a market share but Apple on that front.
Someone 6y ago
“consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut” I think it will be hard to defend that argument in court, given the historical development of prices for apps. Also, Apple will likely argue that prices could go down because they provide developers a huge market relatively cheaply, so that they can make up Apple’s cut with increased number of sales. I also think one could argue Apple is your partner when you publish on the App Store (evil partner, maybe, but developers sign a contract with them)
zepto 6y ago
This isn’t a clear argument. Many customers and developers want the service the App Store provides and are willing to pay for it. I.e. it’s not a shakedown, it’s a service just like any other. But even if you argue that people should be allowed to have someone else provide a different service (which is technically problematic since they will still need to use Apple’s API’s), there is no reason to presume that more stores equates to lower prices. It doesn’t in streaming for example, because of exclusive content. It also means developers will need to support multiple stores and pass that cost on to the customers.
- bluedevil2k 6y ago
  They might want the App Store, we don't if they're willing to pay for it because they have no choice. And it's absolutely a shakedown. It's not a service, it's a requirement. A service implies app developers have options. They do not. Apple could raise the price to 70% of the revenue and app developers would have no choice but to pay. It's not much different than the mob saying "it'd be a shame if this business went away for a while, wouldn't it" and demanded protection money.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    The App Store is as much the product as the iPhone. Without the app store the iPhone is literally just a piece of hardware. The idea that the App Store isn't a product in and of itself is a falsehood. > A service implies app developers have options. They do not. They do - it's called Android.
    - bluedevil2k 6y ago
      I've heard this argument before... Internet Explorer is as much the product as Windows. Without Internet Explorer Windows is literally just a piece of software. They have options - it's called a Mac
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        Ah hah! I'm glad you brought this up. What did Internet Explorer have? DOMINANT MARKETSHARE. That was the problem - not that a program came bundled with software. Such a basic fact conveniently ignored because Apple Bad. > Without Internet Explorer Windows is literally just a piece of software. A piece of software that can do many things - an iPhone without apps just doesn't work. Apps run everything - from making phone calls to keeping notes. Windows without internet can still be used. Bad analogy.
giantrobot 6y ago
I'm super amused by people bemoaning Apple's cut of sales on the App Store. I remember mobile software before the App Store. Buying software for a Palm or PocketPC device was a fucking shit show. There were multiple competing stores and sometimes even the developer's own site. The prices were ridiculous, partly because everyone had to implement their own payment and distribution systems. If the software didn't work or there was a problem it was rare to get a refund. Most of the time your contact info was readily sold to "partners". Apple's cut of sales for the service they provide is pretty small compared to the costs of doing it yourself. There's many of thousands of developers that are enabled by the fact they don't need to host their apps, handle billing, or handle user accounts and PII. If you seriously think prices to end users would decrease if Apple took a smaller cut you're deluding yourself. If developers are making sales at current prices there's zero reason for them to drop prices even if their overhead drops. Prices are set by what the market will bear and only have their lower bound set by the developer's overhead.
- ahnick 6y ago
  Prices are set by what the market will bear That's the entire issue right there. When Apple is the market, then they can make it whatever they want. If Apple has to legitimately compete with other "App Stores", then the market will find a lower price than 30%.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Play charges 30% as well, it seems to be the market price. If that is exorbitant, what SHOULD the price be?
    - bluedevil2k 6y ago
      A flat monthly fee
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        That doesn't answer the question. A flat monthly fee could be $1 dollar or $100,000.
chipotle_coyote 6y ago
> actual harm => consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut (which is more like a shakedown). Out of all the arguments against Apple's App Store policies, this has always struck me as the weakest. I remember app prices for Palm Pilots, and for that matter, app prices in general before the App Store came along -- and they were way, way higher. In 2005, a program like Pixelmator for iOS would have at least been $40; on iOS, it's $5. And how much do you think LumaFusion, a multitrack video editor, would have gone for in 2005? If it had been under $200 reviews would have been calling it a steal. It's $30. And that seems insanely high. So the problem with the "Apple's cut artificially inflates prices" argument is that prices have demonstrably been in free fall during the app era. We can argue that LumaFusion would be able to cut their price to $25, or Pixelmator to $4, and that somehow "proves" that developers have to increase their price, but it's not super compelling. > I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay any percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee. You pay a % of revenue when someone is your partner or an investor in your company. Apple is neither. Well, Apple is acting as a payment processor, and payment processors charge you a percent of revenue. I don't think anybody's gonna run credit cards for you for a flat $19 a month fee; if Apple charged only what Stripe did (30¢ + 2.9%), LumaFusion's fees would be over $19 on their 11th copy sold per month and Pixelmator would hit it on sale 65.
sercand 6y ago
> consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut. I don’t think so. When we determined our app’s monthly price we have A/B tested several price like $5/month, $8/month, $15/month. And we have chosen the one that we earned most (It was the expensive one). If the Apple’s cut will become 10%, we won’t change our price because would earn less. Therefore, Apple’s cut won’t change most of the apps’ price.
- fungos 6y ago
  Nice to know, so they can happily charge 95% from your app?
  - sercand 6y ago
    Oh no, they should close the App Store where my business lives and we should return to iPhoneOS 1 era. When we returned to iPhoneOS 1 era, all of us should just develop PWA websites without dealing with 30% cut.
jVinc 6y ago
Apple doesn't have a monopoly, people are free to chose other platforms. You can't claim harm on end-users due to higher costs when literally every single costumer of Apple chose their product and ecosystem despite it being more expensive. > Why not the same feelings for Apple who's made this far more extreme and far more anti-competitive. Because you can't abuse a monopoly when you don't have a monopoly. Apple isn't being anti-competitive. In fact by the very nature of your argument that they are hurting themselves by having high prices and are welcoming competition as consumers could chose cheaper alternatives, which most actually do as Apple only sits on like 14% of the market. Microsoft on the other hand tried to misuse their near 100% position one market to corner a different one in order to kill of competitors and take it for themselves.
nodamage 6y ago
> On another note, regarding your first comments, in the late 90's Microsoft went through DOJ depositions and demands for breaking up simply because they bundled Internet Explorer with their operating system. The crucial point of the Microsoft case was that their operating system had 90% market share, which Apple does not.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

> actual harm => consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut (which is more like a shakedown). So what? All markets work like this. Food prices go up whenever there fuel prices increase, so the grocery store increases the cost to cover the higher cut taken by the supply chain. Apple created this entire market - they could've been far more anti-competitive than they are. Why should the free advertising, access to a market that has users that spend more on average, be free to anyone? > I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay any percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee. You're the one making the claim - you have to prove why it's wrong to charge a percentage of revenue first. The Internet Explorer argument just doesn't apply. They had market dominance - Apple does not.

stale2002 6y ago
> So what? All markets work like this. Food prices go up whenever there fuel prices increase If it were a monopoly then anti-competitive practices, that would result in price increases, would be illegal . > Apple created this entire market It doesn't matter if they created the whole market. That is completely irrelevant to the legality of anti-competitive practices. Now, they are a monopoly, and they are no longer to allowed to engage in anti-competitive behavior. > they could've been far more anti-competitive than they are The idea that they could do worse, is not an argument against something as for why it is not bad. Apple could do many things that are worse than what they are doing now. Maybe, in the future they will hire assassins to kill anyone who does not own an iphone. But that hypothetical world, does not make the current world any better. It is not an excuse. > Why should the free advertising, access to a market that has users that spend more on average, be free to anyone? Because the purpose of laws are to help consumers, not to protect apple. The reason why the law should force apple to allow competitors, is because by doing this, this helps consumers. > They had market dominance - Apple does not. Apple absolutely has market dominance over apps that are sold on the iphone. They prevent competitors from running app stores on that platform. This is a huge market.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  It's not a monopoly. There is an alternative which dominates the market share. This simply is not a monopoly. > Apple absolutely has market dominance over apps that are sold on the iphone. This is just wrong. This would hold true if no alternative exists. There currently is not an app the iPhone offers that isn't matched in functionality anywhere else. This doesn't pass basic legal sniff tests.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > This is just wrong. This would hold true if no alternative exists. There currently is not an app the iPhone offers that isn't matched in functionality anywhere else. There is no alternative for buying apps on the iPhone. > It's not a monopoly. There is an alternative which dominates the market share. Yes it is. There is not a single alternative, for buying apps on the iPhone. They control that market, and have 100% market share over the iPhone app store market.
bluedevil2k 6y ago
> Apple created this entire market Which market? 3rd party software on a computing device? Sorry, that was dozens of years prior. Packaged apps on a mobile device? Sorry, I had those on my Treo in 2001. They haven’t really created any market, they just created a software monopoly on their hardware using existing ideas.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Aside from trying to be smug, I'm not sure the point of this comment. No one cares that a small handful of people owned a Treo in 2001. It wasn't relevant then and it isn't now. In any case, if it isn't a market, then there is no case here, so not sure what your comment means for you. > They haven’t really created any market, they just created a software monopoly on their hardware using existing ideas. The monopoly where the competitor has far, far higher marketshare. I'm sorry, I've never read about that in the history books.
  - bluedevil2k 6y ago
    Treo’s were extremely relevant! It was a device that early adopters loved and inspired Apple to make the iPhone which “crossed the chasm” into the mainstream. (Read “Crossing the Chasm” to learn about early tech and its influence) There are no competitors on the iPhone. The iPhone isn’t the anti-competitive issue, the App Store is! No one has a market share but Apple on that front.

Someone 6y ago

“consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut” I think it will be hard to defend that argument in court, given the historical development of prices for apps. Also, Apple will likely argue that prices could go down because they provide developers a huge market relatively cheaply, so that they can make up Apple’s cut with increased number of sales. I also think one could argue Apple is your partner when you publish on the App Store (evil partner, maybe, but developers sign a contract with them)

zepto 6y ago

This isn’t a clear argument. Many customers and developers want the service the App Store provides and are willing to pay for it. I.e. it’s not a shakedown, it’s a service just like any other. But even if you argue that people should be allowed to have someone else provide a different service (which is technically problematic since they will still need to use Apple’s API’s), there is no reason to presume that more stores equates to lower prices. It doesn’t in streaming for example, because of exclusive content. It also means developers will need to support multiple stores and pass that cost on to the customers.

bluedevil2k 6y ago
They might want the App Store, we don't if they're willing to pay for it because they have no choice. And it's absolutely a shakedown. It's not a service, it's a requirement. A service implies app developers have options. They do not. Apple could raise the price to 70% of the revenue and app developers would have no choice but to pay. It's not much different than the mob saying "it'd be a shame if this business went away for a while, wouldn't it" and demanded protection money.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  The App Store is as much the product as the iPhone. Without the app store the iPhone is literally just a piece of hardware. The idea that the App Store isn't a product in and of itself is a falsehood. > A service implies app developers have options. They do not. They do - it's called Android.
  - bluedevil2k 6y ago
    I've heard this argument before... Internet Explorer is as much the product as Windows. Without Internet Explorer Windows is literally just a piece of software. They have options - it's called a Mac
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      Ah hah! I'm glad you brought this up. What did Internet Explorer have? DOMINANT MARKETSHARE. That was the problem - not that a program came bundled with software. Such a basic fact conveniently ignored because Apple Bad. > Without Internet Explorer Windows is literally just a piece of software. A piece of software that can do many things - an iPhone without apps just doesn't work. Apps run everything - from making phone calls to keeping notes. Windows without internet can still be used. Bad analogy.

giantrobot 6y ago

I'm super amused by people bemoaning Apple's cut of sales on the App Store. I remember mobile software before the App Store. Buying software for a Palm or PocketPC device was a fucking shit show. There were multiple competing stores and sometimes even the developer's own site. The prices were ridiculous, partly because everyone had to implement their own payment and distribution systems. If the software didn't work or there was a problem it was rare to get a refund. Most of the time your contact info was readily sold to "partners". Apple's cut of sales for the service they provide is pretty small compared to the costs of doing it yourself. There's many of thousands of developers that are enabled by the fact they don't need to host their apps, handle billing, or handle user accounts and PII. If you seriously think prices to end users would decrease if Apple took a smaller cut you're deluding yourself. If developers are making sales at current prices there's zero reason for them to drop prices even if their overhead drops. Prices are set by what the market will bear and only have their lower bound set by the developer's overhead.

ahnick 6y ago
Prices are set by what the market will bear That's the entire issue right there. When Apple is the market, then they can make it whatever they want. If Apple has to legitimately compete with other "App Stores", then the market will find a lower price than 30%.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Play charges 30% as well, it seems to be the market price. If that is exorbitant, what SHOULD the price be?
  - bluedevil2k 6y ago
    A flat monthly fee
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      That doesn't answer the question. A flat monthly fee could be $1 dollar or $100,000.

chipotle_coyote 6y ago

> actual harm => consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut (which is more like a shakedown). Out of all the arguments against Apple's App Store policies, this has always struck me as the weakest. I remember app prices for Palm Pilots, and for that matter, app prices in general before the App Store came along -- and they were way, way higher. In 2005, a program like Pixelmator for iOS would have at least been $40; on iOS, it's $5. And how much do you think LumaFusion, a multitrack video editor, would have gone for in 2005? If it had been under $200 reviews would have been calling it a steal. It's $30. And that seems insanely high. So the problem with the "Apple's cut artificially inflates prices" argument is that prices have demonstrably been in free fall during the app era. We can argue that LumaFusion would be able to cut their price to $25, or Pixelmator to $4, and that somehow "proves" that developers have to increase their price, but it's not super compelling. > I don't see any reason why a company needs to pay any percent of their revenue instead of a flat fee. You pay a % of revenue when someone is your partner or an investor in your company. Apple is neither. Well, Apple is acting as a payment processor, and payment processors charge you a percent of revenue. I don't think anybody's gonna run credit cards for you for a flat $19 a month fee; if Apple charged only what Stripe did (30¢ + 2.9%), LumaFusion's fees would be over $19 on their 11th copy sold per month and Pixelmator would hit it on sale 65.

sercand 6y ago

> consumers end up paying more for the apps because the app developers have to increase their price to cover Apple's cut. I don’t think so. When we determined our app’s monthly price we have A/B tested several price like $5/month, $8/month, $15/month. And we have chosen the one that we earned most (It was the expensive one). If the Apple’s cut will become 10%, we won’t change our price because would earn less. Therefore, Apple’s cut won’t change most of the apps’ price.

fungos 6y ago
Nice to know, so they can happily charge 95% from your app?
- sercand 6y ago
  Oh no, they should close the App Store where my business lives and we should return to iPhoneOS 1 era. When we returned to iPhoneOS 1 era, all of us should just develop PWA websites without dealing with 30% cut.

jVinc 6y ago

Apple doesn't have a monopoly, people are free to chose other platforms. You can't claim harm on end-users due to higher costs when literally every single costumer of Apple chose their product and ecosystem despite it being more expensive. > Why not the same feelings for Apple who's made this far more extreme and far more anti-competitive. Because you can't abuse a monopoly when you don't have a monopoly. Apple isn't being anti-competitive. In fact by the very nature of your argument that they are hurting themselves by having high prices and are welcoming competition as consumers could chose cheaper alternatives, which most actually do as Apple only sits on like 14% of the market. Microsoft on the other hand tried to misuse their near 100% position one market to corner a different one in order to kill of competitors and take it for themselves.

nodamage 6y ago

> On another note, regarding your first comments, in the late 90's Microsoft went through DOJ depositions and demands for breaking up simply because they bundled Internet Explorer with their operating system. The crucial point of the Microsoft case was that their operating system had 90% market share, which Apple does not.