7 ms·

> I personally don’t care about alternative app stores That's because it's difficult to imagine how alternative app stores would force first party app stores t

by bloppe 2y ago

> I personally don’t care about alternative app stores That's because it's difficult to imagine how alternative app stores would force first party app stores to be better, or risk losing business. For a start, everything would become much cheaper for you. They would also have a real incentive to provide new features and innovations. You don't have to switch to a third party app store to realize the benefits that follow from allowing them to exist.

Someone 2y ago
> For a start, everything would become much cheaper for you That, I doubt. Most stuff already is dirt-cheap on the App Store (and riddled with ads). It’s not like, for example, getting into Apple’s App Store is so expensive that it adds dollars to the price of apps.
- pjc50 2y ago
  Merely being in the app store makes everything 30% more expensive! Including any subscriptions through the app, which is just ridiculous. This was the whole basis of the Epic lawsuit. And you can't tell people to sidestep the Apple cut by not putting the payment through them, that will get you banned from the app store.
  - rahkiin 2y ago
    You’re saying if they drop the 30%, those cheap apps would cost 66 cents instead of 99? Or would they stay 99 and thus no change for the consumer? The DMA is about developer choice, not consumers
    - vmg12 2y ago
      There will always be beneficial change for consumers if input costs drop in competitive markets. Markets are dynamic systems. Even if the costs don't drop, the person that is actually providing you value via the app will get the money where they can use it to hire more people to improve the product you use.
    - moooo99 2y ago
      > The DMA is about developer choice, not consumers Ultimately it is about both. The idea behind that is pretty much the idea of capitalism: competition drives innovation. While I personally do not care about the alternative stores, I care very much about stuff like the in app purchases. I am not using Apples subscriptions and all the rules and steps to circumvent the rules make it horribly inconvenient to deal with subscriptions. I also hate the fact that I cannot buy an ebook in app because of Apple‘s 30% cut
  - ben_w 2y ago
    I think that profit margin would often, though perhaps not always, go to the developers rather to the consumers. That some already offer same thing at 30% discount on their website may be a sign of cheaper future, or may be a way to get price sensitive people to buy more. Subs, kinda agree. Also it's only 30% for the top of the market (15% for a lot of apps), and only for digital goods (so not my banking apps or Amazon), and it has to be stuff bought in app (so not two of my last three employers). And even 30% was good when it was new. Only looks bad now because the market grew so much — but the market did grow, and I was expecting monopoly action around when they first passed one trillion dollar valuation. With Epic especially, that felt like one arrogant giant swiping at another giant. Especially due to concerns that Fortnite was designed to be addictive, that loot boxes are gambling.
  - briandear 2y ago
    Devs under $1 million pay only 15%.. that’s far less than the retail markup of items in your local grocery store. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/small-business-program/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/small-business-program... I think many, especially smaller, developers don’t realize the value they get for that commission: distribution, payment processing, billing, tax processing/collection, dispute handling, marketing (i.e. a storefront,) management of versions/updates for users, not to mention security benefits (for users.) If people don’t like that, nothing is stopping them from choosing not to sell to Apple device owners. If Apple device owners don’t like it, they can switch to a competitor.
    - kevingadd 2y ago
      Apple is on record that the 15% cut applies to a vanishingly small amount of App Store purchases. So it's not particularly meaningful.
    - oblio 2y ago
      > Devs under $1 million pay only 15%.. that’s far less than the retail markup of items in your local grocery store. So now we're competing with the "local grocery store", even on the "information superhighway"?
    - pjc50 2y ago
      > If people don’t like that, nothing is stopping them from choosing not to sell to Apple device owners. If Apple device owners don’t like it, they can switch to a competitor. The whole point of this regulation is to enable both sides to make that choice without having to give up on the iPhone and the rest of their app purchases etc. in that ecosystem.
    - moooo99 2y ago
      But we’re not talking about a grocery store as a comparison, we’re dealing primarily with transaction processing. And for that Apples IAP fee of 30% is about ten times higher than elsewhere.
  - vmg12 2y ago
    Things are more than 30% more expensive. For a developer to get the same profit on the apple app store with Apple taking 30% of revenue they have to charge 43% more.
- Gareth321 2y ago
  > Most stuff already is dirt-cheap on the App Store (and riddled with ads). Are we using the same App Store? Anything of worth is behind a $10 monthly subscription. Apple has intentionally made subscriptions the only viable commercial model on the App Store. Then they take 30% (with some exceptions). They forbid competition, so developers aren't free to distribute to iOS customers in any other way.
  - happymellon 2y ago
    Your missing the $100 developer fee. Just Apple nickel and diming in every way possible. It's riddled with adverts because it's the only way to get revenue out of such a terrible system.
    - dijit 2y ago
      "I hate apple" "I love valve" ... but they have exactly the same business model, and people genuinely promote valve as if they want it to be a monopoly. (though I am aware that it's not one now- first-party launchers are universally reviled by gamers).
      - jonhohle 2y ago
        Steam was not appreciated when it launched. It made a foothold as a requirement for HL2. Valve has done a good job making relatively painless over the last 20 years, but it was originally reviled.
        fph 2y ago
        And didn't Apple also have 20 years time to make their app store better?
      - happymellon 2y ago
        > they have exactly the same business model I'm not sure how. Valve allow you to install whatever game store you want on the Steam Deck. They win custom by making a better experience than everyone else, Apple win because they have formed an environment where you have no other option. If Apple wanted the same business model, they would allow alternative storefronts, they wouldn't block updates if they decided they didn't like you anymore, and they wouldn't block you from even replacing the OS on the device you bought if you wanted to. In fact, I'm not entirely sure apart from running stores that they are the same thing at all.
dylan604 2y ago
> For a start, everything would become much cheaper for you. That's such a fallacy that pro alt-app store people like to trot out. What evidence do you have that will happen? Are you basing it one the assumption that if devs no longer pay Apple a cut that the devs would lower their prices? Why do you think that would happen and the devs wouldn't just leave prices where they are and keep this cut no longer going to Apple? Why would devs leave that money on the table? Why do you think the alt-store would also not take the same cut or only slightly lower? Why would they leave money on the table? At the end of the day, the biggest alt-store push is by devs wanting more money in their pockets, not the end users.
- jakubmazanec 2y ago
  Are you questioning the basic function of competition in a free market? Why would devs lower prices? Because other devs would release better apps cheaper.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    No, I'm questioning your belief in the charity of developers or their lack of greed. "Better apps cheaper" is also a fallacy. If that were the case, they'd be doing it on whatever app store is available, not just some alt-store.
    - jakubmazanec 2y ago
      > your belief in the charity of developers or their lack of greed Straw man. > they'd be doing it on whatever app store is available, But they can't do that, that's the issue.
- pjc50 2y ago
  The same dev will often literally sell you the same IAP/subscription off their own website for 30% less. Under the current system.
Nursie 2y ago
> For a start, everything would become much cheaper for you. People say this, but of all the apps I have on my phone, I'm not sure I actually paid for any. Browser, smart-device controllers, a few games, streaming services (that I pay for direct), messengers of various sorts, banking, transport, ticketing, government apps. I know people must pay for apps as Apple make a lot of money off it, but it's not really something I do.
- oblio 2y ago
  We can add this comment as a data point of 1 and compare this to the tens of billions Apple makes from the AppStore, then we can try to figure out which side is more relevant for lawmakers (who inherently have to lean towards statistics).
  - Nursie 2y ago
    Sure, I can’t deny they make money, I’d really like to know what the actual statistics are. Besides, we weren’t really talking about lawmakers - the claim was things would get cheaper for you. My point is that for some of us they could not.
    - oblio 2y ago
      Let me Google that for you... > Of the $127 billion in total consumer spending globally in 2024, $91.6 billion came from the App Store, up 24% year-over-year. Google Play consumer spending declined by 1.5% year-over-year to reach $35.7 billion globally.
      - Nursie 2y ago
        That doesn’t answer the question really, does it? What proportion of users use paid apps? I can easily find those figures on App Store revenue you gave, and on the proportion of paid apps in the app stores (5% on iOS, less for Android), but not the details on distribution of payments vs number of users or whatever. Do we have a few users spending a lot and lot of users spending little to nothing? Or am I in a tiny minority as implied? Given there are approx 1.38 billion iOS users, that’s a mean of $60ish per user per year… a few larger users could easily be skewing that.
swat535 2y ago
For those advocating for multiple app stores, I have a 2 questions. EU users might be best suited to respond, as they are currently experiencing this change (though I believe the impact will be different once it's rolled out globally). 1. How do you think having multiple app stores will affect user experience and app discoverability? It seems likely that not all apps will be available in every store, meaning users may have to search across multiple platforms to find what they need. We’ve seen similar issues in the gaming industry, where each company has its own launcher, or in the movie industry, where content is locked behind different providers, making it difficult to figure out where to access it. This is why platforms like Netflix and Steam initially succeeded. Meanwhile, the Windows/PC model has shown that an open ecosystem can be a security and privacy nightmare for the average user. 2. On that note, how do you envision ensuring privacy and security in these alternative app stores? Risks could range from major tech companies like Google or Facebook running their own stores and collecting even more user data, to scammers creating fake stores that steal credit card information.
- latexr 2y ago
  I’ll speak only for iOS since that’s what I’m most familiar with. The important thing to realise is that no one wanted alternative stores. Not really. What everyone wanted was for the existing store to not be stressful oppressive garbage. If Apple didn’t have draconian rules where they charge too high margins and repeatedly reject apps for stupid petty reasons, they wouldn’t have found themselves in this situation. The other big players would even likely accept having to sell via in-app purchases (offering better consistent protection to consumers) if Apple weren’t egregiously eating into their margins. Don’t take my word for it, we have (now public) internal emails where Apple executives discuss these very issues and question how long they could keep it up. Alternative stores were the next best thing. When it became clear that Apple wouldn’t fix their behaviour, the only choice was to fight for legislation where they don’t have as much of a say. Make no mistake, they (Tim Cook in particular) brought it on themselves. As to your specific questions: 1. App discoverability has been unusable for years. The App Store is the last place where I look for apps. 2. The App Store is already filled with privacy-violating apps and scams. Apple ensures jack shit. Scammers don’t need to create fake stores, they are already doing pretty well for themselves in the main store selling flashlight apps with expensive weekly subscriptions. Is this situation worse for non-technical users? Maybe. Right now there are big scary warning when trying to add third-party stores, and that does make some sense. But Apple will have to get off their ass and make better privacy protections at the OS level.

by bloppe 2y ago

Someone 2y ago

> For a start, everything would become much cheaper for you That, I doubt. Most stuff already is dirt-cheap on the App Store (and riddled with ads). It’s not like, for example, getting into Apple’s App Store is so expensive that it adds dollars to the price of apps.

pjc50 2y ago
Merely being in the app store makes everything 30% more expensive! Including any subscriptions through the app, which is just ridiculous. This was the whole basis of the Epic lawsuit. And you can't tell people to sidestep the Apple cut by not putting the payment through them, that will get you banned from the app store.
- rahkiin 2y ago
  You’re saying if they drop the 30%, those cheap apps would cost 66 cents instead of 99? Or would they stay 99 and thus no change for the consumer? The DMA is about developer choice, not consumers
  - vmg12 2y ago
    There will always be beneficial change for consumers if input costs drop in competitive markets. Markets are dynamic systems. Even if the costs don't drop, the person that is actually providing you value via the app will get the money where they can use it to hire more people to improve the product you use.
  - moooo99 2y ago
    > The DMA is about developer choice, not consumers Ultimately it is about both. The idea behind that is pretty much the idea of capitalism: competition drives innovation. While I personally do not care about the alternative stores, I care very much about stuff like the in app purchases. I am not using Apples subscriptions and all the rules and steps to circumvent the rules make it horribly inconvenient to deal with subscriptions. I also hate the fact that I cannot buy an ebook in app because of Apple‘s 30% cut
- ben_w 2y ago
  I think that profit margin would often, though perhaps not always, go to the developers rather to the consumers. That some already offer same thing at 30% discount on their website may be a sign of cheaper future, or may be a way to get price sensitive people to buy more. Subs, kinda agree. Also it's only 30% for the top of the market (15% for a lot of apps), and only for digital goods (so not my banking apps or Amazon), and it has to be stuff bought in app (so not two of my last three employers). And even 30% was good when it was new. Only looks bad now because the market grew so much — but the market did grow, and I was expecting monopoly action around when they first passed one trillion dollar valuation. With Epic especially, that felt like one arrogant giant swiping at another giant. Especially due to concerns that Fortnite was designed to be addictive, that loot boxes are gambling.
- briandear 2y ago
  Devs under $1 million pay only 15%.. that’s far less than the retail markup of items in your local grocery store. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/small-business-program/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/small-business-program... I think many, especially smaller, developers don’t realize the value they get for that commission: distribution, payment processing, billing, tax processing/collection, dispute handling, marketing (i.e. a storefront,) management of versions/updates for users, not to mention security benefits (for users.) If people don’t like that, nothing is stopping them from choosing not to sell to Apple device owners. If Apple device owners don’t like it, they can switch to a competitor.
  - kevingadd 2y ago
    Apple is on record that the 15% cut applies to a vanishingly small amount of App Store purchases. So it's not particularly meaningful.
  - oblio 2y ago
    > Devs under $1 million pay only 15%.. that’s far less than the retail markup of items in your local grocery store. So now we're competing with the "local grocery store", even on the "information superhighway"?
  - pjc50 2y ago
    > If people don’t like that, nothing is stopping them from choosing not to sell to Apple device owners. If Apple device owners don’t like it, they can switch to a competitor. The whole point of this regulation is to enable both sides to make that choice without having to give up on the iPhone and the rest of their app purchases etc. in that ecosystem.
  - moooo99 2y ago
    But we’re not talking about a grocery store as a comparison, we’re dealing primarily with transaction processing. And for that Apples IAP fee of 30% is about ten times higher than elsewhere.
- vmg12 2y ago
  Things are more than 30% more expensive. For a developer to get the same profit on the apple app store with Apple taking 30% of revenue they have to charge 43% more.
Gareth321 2y ago
> Most stuff already is dirt-cheap on the App Store (and riddled with ads). Are we using the same App Store? Anything of worth is behind a $10 monthly subscription. Apple has intentionally made subscriptions the only viable commercial model on the App Store. Then they take 30% (with some exceptions). They forbid competition, so developers aren't free to distribute to iOS customers in any other way.
- happymellon 2y ago
  Your missing the $100 developer fee. Just Apple nickel and diming in every way possible. It's riddled with adverts because it's the only way to get revenue out of such a terrible system.
  - dijit 2y ago
    "I hate apple" "I love valve" ... but they have exactly the same business model, and people genuinely promote valve as if they want it to be a monopoly. (though I am aware that it's not one now- first-party launchers are universally reviled by gamers).
    - jonhohle 2y ago
      Steam was not appreciated when it launched. It made a foothold as a requirement for HL2. Valve has done a good job making relatively painless over the last 20 years, but it was originally reviled.
      - fph 2y ago
        And didn't Apple also have 20 years time to make their app store better?
    - happymellon 2y ago
      > they have exactly the same business model I'm not sure how. Valve allow you to install whatever game store you want on the Steam Deck. They win custom by making a better experience than everyone else, Apple win because they have formed an environment where you have no other option. If Apple wanted the same business model, they would allow alternative storefronts, they wouldn't block updates if they decided they didn't like you anymore, and they wouldn't block you from even replacing the OS on the device you bought if you wanted to. In fact, I'm not entirely sure apart from running stores that they are the same thing at all.

dylan604 2y ago

> For a start, everything would become much cheaper for you. That's such a fallacy that pro alt-app store people like to trot out. What evidence do you have that will happen? Are you basing it one the assumption that if devs no longer pay Apple a cut that the devs would lower their prices? Why do you think that would happen and the devs wouldn't just leave prices where they are and keep this cut no longer going to Apple? Why would devs leave that money on the table? Why do you think the alt-store would also not take the same cut or only slightly lower? Why would they leave money on the table? At the end of the day, the biggest alt-store push is by devs wanting more money in their pockets, not the end users.

jakubmazanec 2y ago
Are you questioning the basic function of competition in a free market? Why would devs lower prices? Because other devs would release better apps cheaper.
- dylan604 2y ago
  No, I'm questioning your belief in the charity of developers or their lack of greed. "Better apps cheaper" is also a fallacy. If that were the case, they'd be doing it on whatever app store is available, not just some alt-store.
  - jakubmazanec 2y ago
    > your belief in the charity of developers or their lack of greed Straw man. > they'd be doing it on whatever app store is available, But they can't do that, that's the issue.
pjc50 2y ago
The same dev will often literally sell you the same IAP/subscription off their own website for 30% less. Under the current system.

Nursie 2y ago

> For a start, everything would become much cheaper for you. People say this, but of all the apps I have on my phone, I'm not sure I actually paid for any. Browser, smart-device controllers, a few games, streaming services (that I pay for direct), messengers of various sorts, banking, transport, ticketing, government apps. I know people must pay for apps as Apple make a lot of money off it, but it's not really something I do.

oblio 2y ago
We can add this comment as a data point of 1 and compare this to the tens of billions Apple makes from the AppStore, then we can try to figure out which side is more relevant for lawmakers (who inherently have to lean towards statistics).
- Nursie 2y ago
  Sure, I can’t deny they make money, I’d really like to know what the actual statistics are. Besides, we weren’t really talking about lawmakers - the claim was things would get cheaper for you. My point is that for some of us they could not.
  - oblio 2y ago
    Let me Google that for you... > Of the $127 billion in total consumer spending globally in 2024, $91.6 billion came from the App Store, up 24% year-over-year. Google Play consumer spending declined by 1.5% year-over-year to reach $35.7 billion globally.
    - Nursie 2y ago
      That doesn’t answer the question really, does it? What proportion of users use paid apps? I can easily find those figures on App Store revenue you gave, and on the proportion of paid apps in the app stores (5% on iOS, less for Android), but not the details on distribution of payments vs number of users or whatever. Do we have a few users spending a lot and lot of users spending little to nothing? Or am I in a tiny minority as implied? Given there are approx 1.38 billion iOS users, that’s a mean of $60ish per user per year… a few larger users could easily be skewing that.

swat535 2y ago

For those advocating for multiple app stores, I have a 2 questions. EU users might be best suited to respond, as they are currently experiencing this change (though I believe the impact will be different once it's rolled out globally). 1. How do you think having multiple app stores will affect user experience and app discoverability? It seems likely that not all apps will be available in every store, meaning users may have to search across multiple platforms to find what they need. We’ve seen similar issues in the gaming industry, where each company has its own launcher, or in the movie industry, where content is locked behind different providers, making it difficult to figure out where to access it. This is why platforms like Netflix and Steam initially succeeded. Meanwhile, the Windows/PC model has shown that an open ecosystem can be a security and privacy nightmare for the average user. 2. On that note, how do you envision ensuring privacy and security in these alternative app stores? Risks could range from major tech companies like Google or Facebook running their own stores and collecting even more user data, to scammers creating fake stores that steal credit card information.

latexr 2y ago
I’ll speak only for iOS since that’s what I’m most familiar with. The important thing to realise is that no one wanted alternative stores. Not really. What everyone wanted was for the existing store to not be stressful oppressive garbage. If Apple didn’t have draconian rules where they charge too high margins and repeatedly reject apps for stupid petty reasons, they wouldn’t have found themselves in this situation. The other big players would even likely accept having to sell via in-app purchases (offering better consistent protection to consumers) if Apple weren’t egregiously eating into their margins. Don’t take my word for it, we have (now public) internal emails where Apple executives discuss these very issues and question how long they could keep it up. Alternative stores were the next best thing. When it became clear that Apple wouldn’t fix their behaviour, the only choice was to fight for legislation where they don’t have as much of a say. Make no mistake, they (Tim Cook in particular) brought it on themselves. As to your specific questions: 1. App discoverability has been unusable for years. The App Store is the last place where I look for apps. 2. The App Store is already filled with privacy-violating apps and scams. Apple ensures jack shit. Scammers don’t need to create fake stores, they are already doing pretty well for themselves in the main store selling flashlight apps with expensive weekly subscriptions. Is this situation worse for non-technical users? Maybe. Right now there are big scary warning when trying to add third-party stores, and that does make some sense. But Apple will have to get off their ass and make better privacy protections at the OS level.