The evolution of Tech is literally about whatifery. Apps only paying 15% are by definition niche. They are massive in number but they’re not changing the world.
1 Like
Yeah that makes sense, really hate this stuff.
Forget what the case was but remember something from my Intellectual Property module where CDs with a certain programme on were being classed wholly differently to the direct download of said programme. Law really needs to catch up to reality here.
That is false. You are saying for example that Netflix is niche. It is a free app with no (new) App Store revenue. It doesn’t suit your argument, but it doesn’t mean it is not true.
You are saying Facebook is niche. And Twitter. You don’t have to be earning millions of dollars in the App Store to not be niche.
2 Likes
It’s bold of you to assume this would happen, I think.
I recall the bigger issue here is that it puts Apple in control of handling customer support, namely refunds, and the refund policy. The developers bemoaning the fees don’t like that either, and that’s what they’ll start moaning about louder should the fees for iAPs be waived.
They’re complaining about the fees because it’s the best argument they have to get regulators to sympathise. But I don’t think they want customers being able to pay through Apple at all. We’ve seen from Epic’s endgame that what they want here isn’t the reigning in of fees, but the ability to ask for your credit card and process payments themselves in their apps. As customers, that drags us out of Apple’s protection, and so just can’t help but question what their worst intention might be for wanting that. At best it’s less convenience for us. At worst it’s the total loss of protection. And when people start kicking up a shindig over being shafted by shady developers, who will the regulators go after? History tells us this will be Apple. They’ll want Apple to step in and protect us, which is what they’re already doing. By disallowing developers to direct people to pay elsewhere, they’re protecting themselves from liability if and when a developer scams a user from doing that.
Something that’s often overlooked with this stuff too, is that Apple is also handling compliance’s with local laws in so many different countries, such as some counties allowing users the right to cancel their purchase within 14 days, or some countries enforcing pro-rata refunds, the latter of which developers like Hey don’t want to comply with, which Apple would force them to.
5 Likes
The ease of the App Store is so key for me.
I wanted to read an LA Times article last week (about sharks and drones!!) but it’s behind a pay-wall. You can’t pay per article (The time I wasted trying to find it for free or get around the paywall, they’d have had a few quid off me very easily!) and from my searchings, it’s very very difficult to cancel their subscription, having to call them to do it.
I joined Apple News. Read the article. Then cancelled it. Easy.
3 Likes
Another reason why companies want to be able to bill direct. Because they often have shady tactics and policies and difficult to cancel flows. You know where you stand with Apples payments and subscriptions.
There is zero benefit to the consumer for others to have their own stores.
4 Likes
I agree. I’ve said numerous times that I think the App Store is by far the best solution for the vast majority of apps. There are huge benefits which make it worth it a lot of the time.
1 Like
From what I’ve read this is definitely a big issue. From a dev perspective, your customers are not your customers, they’re Apple’s customers. And this obviously has various advantages and disadvantages.
But there are all sorts of reasons why anyone (devs / YouTubers / podcasters / media companies) wants to have a direct relationship with their customers and they’re defnitely not all nefarious. This is not just an issue with the App Store, but major platforms in general.
4 Likes
I’m definitely not saying that. 
Free apps and services that monetise through ads are not paying 15% of their revenue to Apple.
You’re in luck.
2 Likes
Dont we have an idea based on the fact there is a whole direct sell possibility on android?!
I am not sure how your okay with Sony charging 30% while preventing 3rd party retailers selling codes (aka competition) and setting the prices games have to be sold at? the developers cant do the prices themselves and with a disc-less ps5 there is literally no competition when sony blocked the retailers selling digital code cards. Who knows what new games and services we would get that just aren’t viable with a 30% cut and forced price setting by sony?! Sony decides your game is worth £15 thats all you get minus the 30%.
4 Likes
I’m trying to think of a single massively successful Android app that isn’t available on iOS? 
I didn’t say I was okay with it(?). But I do personally think that physical disks are a viable substitute, which in some cases are both superior and cheaper (digital PS5 aside!).
The comparison to consoles is interesting because on the whole you don’t see developers up in arms about the 30%. Sony and Microsoft must presumably be doing a lot of work to build developer relations and work together for mutual benefit. You don’t seem to get situations where Ubisoft / EA / Bungie will work on a game for two years and then the console holders decide they won’t allow it to be sold. Right or wrong, Apple just seems to have a PR issue here.
But I do also think the comparison doesn’t hold up because consoles are a relatively niche business versus phones. The issue with the App Store and Google Play is that they are literally how the whole world accesses apps and services. Despite how Apple wants to frame it, they are most people’s only / primary computer. It’s just a market that matters far more to far more people.
I’m not sure if you’re being ironic but given that big publishers routinely invest 10s / 100s of millions of dollars in new games, I’m assuming that the current rules aren’t a hindrance to innovation. But again, I think this comes down more to the relationships between them and Sony / MS then the commissions.
In all honesty, you’d probably have an easier time finding a successful iOS app that isn’t on android! 
1 Like
Joking aside, this comes back to the importance of iOS above and beyond it’s market share. It’s just not viable to have a large scale app or service that isn’t on iOS.
I mean you cant write off the whole digital only console as an aside when its exactly where consoles are heading in the future. Right now sony would no doubt claim “but consumers can get a disc version” until they cant.
You forget that all console manufacturers require NDA’s to even get a hold of the development kits and agreements. The epic case has cracked the lid a little about what goes on but studios are hardly in a strong position to do anything about it, they just accept the 30% as a fact of life but sony is going further by restricting the sales price (allegedly as its not to trial yet) and preventing competition from other 3rd parties to maximise their profits and lock out competition, retailers are finished at this rate because every digital ps5 sale ends their revenue as they cant even sell code cards for digital games thanks to sony.
You say consoles are niche but they are no doubt in more homes than PC’s and they are x86 based so whats to stop the innovation where apps etc could be bought of a website allowing consumers to do more with them. They are artificially limited to ensure they are wholly controlled by their manufacturer the same way people claim iphones are but they also have much more diverse NDA’s to prevent people speaking out about the problem and they have price fixing to prevent direct sales.
I dont see how you can have a strong go at apple without seeing the parallels with consoles that are PC’s in a box. Consumers know the restrictions consoles have over PC’s but they buy them anyway just like they buy iPhones instead of android phones.
Apple has their games subscription service where they have no doubt spent a large amount of cash on developers so…
Which actually means that your argument about lost innovation may be moot because they could simply do it on android and show what people are missing out on but it doesnt happen because iOS is still worth it, globally iOS is very much a smaller market than the Play store, only in America is it even close and there Android is still king.
I mean android has 3rd party stores but even amazon seems to struggle to get traction but amazon probably charge much the same as google/apple/sony/ms/nintendo do for sales.
Why cant I use my nintendo switch as an android device given it runs very very similar hardware as the nvidia shield? nintendo makes a profit on their console sales and there have certainly been plenty of sales there.
I know you dont see a similarity and seem to be happy for consoles to eliminate competition and control everything while arguing consumers are missing out on iphones because of the same control/cost but I cant see how they are dissimilar. Hell its even worse, epic is giving sony money it got from other sales on other devices because the person played on a PS because sony wouldnt let them do cross play without being paid for heavens sake. Can you imagine apple insisting on a cut of sales from android users because the person had an iphone in the past.
I dont think you can slate apple as you have without directing criticism at sony etc as well.
6 Likes
Again, I didn’t say that I’m okay with it. And I’m not defending Sony.
All I’m saying is that there currently is a choice. You can buy a digital or disk PS5, and you can buy disks or digital games. The choice isn’t go and buy an Xbox cos you don’t like Sony, although obviously you can do that too.
I agree that the market is going digital only and this is going to become a bigger issue.
I do think consoles should be less locked down. But I also don’t think anyone buys a console expecting to do their internet banking or grocery shopping on it.
People’s phones are their computers. We are headed towards a world where it’s won’t be viable for companies to reach customers without iOS and Android apps. That’s the reason I think it warrants regulation.
If Apple chose to lock down the Mac, I wouldn’t like it but in the grand scheme of things it is a minority platform with a small impact.
I get that its Apple’s platform but it was also AT&Ts network until they got too powerful and had remedies forced upon them. I could just be crazy but does not one else see this coming?
2 Likes
Quite a few PSVR games are digital only I believe and other smaller games are only digital, choice removed.
No one bought a phone to do that back in the earlier years, the iphone helped make these things more common although I did have earlier smart phones.
This is the opposite of whats happening, more and more apps are now solely web based on PC’s (where they can get you to install any program you want) with browser support on the mobile. Google has actually been trying to push this as well with PWA’s
These are wholly not the same, people in those regions had no choice for service outwith AT&T unlike mobiles where most people dont choose apple. The same goes for comparing them against BT in yesteryear pre Openreach.
Thats the bit I dont get, just because you cant do xyz with apple and they change the same as everyone else it doesnt make it a monopoly, it doesnt have control of the smartphone market which is the market and by all stats it doesnt have even half the market.
Consumers have a choice and if developers stop making apps for iphone on mass people will leave iOS because the competition is better, its how nokia lost its dominance pre iphone.
Consumers switched and nokia died in the original sense because the competition was better. Just because android isnt very appealing for apple users right now it doesnt mean they have a monopoly or that this will be the same way forever.
Hell google could offer a migration service where they allow you to take your purchased apps across and they eat the costs to encourage migration but google is happy enough with their numbers as is.
Apple doesnt force developers to use IAP for their sole revenue, they can do it via ads, charge for the app or even have consumers log in directly like netflix does. If apple kicked netflix because it wasnt getting a cut and only costs it would have more of an argument but even then its not a monopoly just because its doing something consumers wouldnt like, if anything that gives the competition a chance to shine so apple doesnt kick netflix because the competition would capitalise on it. This competition wouldnt exist if apple had a monopoly.
3 Likes
Perhaps I could have used a different example. My point isn’t that Apple is a monopoly. But you also don’t need to be a monopoly to be regulated.
And even then, the classification of a Monopoly is very much dependent on the market classification. The EU very has decided that Apple has a monopoly in the distribution of music streaming apps to owners of Apple devices.
I’m not trying to argue they’re a monopoly. I just think that Apple is losing the window to make changes on its own terms before it’s forced to do so.
Monopoly or not I’m finding it really hard to believe how much people don’t want to be given a choice within a system. (Not the choice between systems)
Okay the app store is great, but if it’s so great then let it compete with other app stores and win.
Okay apple pay and customer services/resolutions is fantastic and really easy to use, then let other payment methods be allowed too and let them fail.
If the only reason ios works so well is because it’s so closed off then demand more from apple, demand that same level of excellence with the option to open a gate in their walled garden for those who want it. Don’t just accept the line that them limiting your choices is an act of benevolence.
2 Likes