It doesn’t “destroy” a safe system… it adds a locked door you have the key to that allows you to walk outside of the “walled garden” if you so choose to.
It doesn’t take away the ability to stay within the walled garden if you so choose to.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
App Store to Be 'Split in Two' Ahead of EU iPhone Sideloading Deadline
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It doesn’t take away the ability to stay within the walled garden if you so choose to.
So, you make a good point, maybe not the one you were intending. For those with the money to spend on the quality and polish of an Android flagship like Samsung mainly because it’s one of the few brands that have the quality of the iPhone but allows them to use the device MORE like they see fit, they’ll be able to buy a REAL iPhone instead of a wannabe.
We could see the Android flagship market disappear in the EU. Those looking for cheap phones will still buy cheap phones, that won’t change. But, Apple’s already making most of the profits in the premium phone market. They’re just going to make MORE of the most of the profits.
Nothing… at least not if they want to avoid getting massive fines from the EU
And what would you do if you also had the option of publishing apps on a store that charged half the rate?
I would vary pricing across the board to ensure I get the same amount of profit taking into account any overhead the other stores may add…
Except that’s not legal for Apple to do here.
The DMA is very specific that all features available to developers releasing on the first-party store must also be available to other developers not releasing there.
Apple can’t give preferential treatment like that either.
The fact that they have to take a loss to even have a chance at competing shows how broken and unfair the market actually is.FYI: the Epic Games Store doesn't make a profit. So 12% is a calculated way to lose money and try to gain market share rather than a viable way to run a profitable store.
Epic Games Store still hasn't turned a profit
The Epic Games Store still isn't turning a profit.www.eurogamer.net
"As reported by The Verge, the exec was talking during the current Epic vs Google court case. Here, Allison said while the Epic Games Store still isn't profitable, the company's focus remains on "growth". Additionally, according to emails shared during the trial, Epic had hoped to claim half of all gaming revenue for PC games."
um. um. what to say to this? here's a theory for you, the reason apple products integrate so well is because apple keeps in tight control of everything... i.e. a walled garden. You can't be open and integrated. sounds like you should be able to but. life doesn't work that way.
They also only let you sign up if you download one of their games without a subscription, and they only allow you to subscribe to the lowest tier of service with no extras.
Last I checked, they don’t even let you see prices from the main Netflix app.
I haven't seen anything in the DMA that would prevent Apple from charging a fee to apps sold outside the App Store. Do you have any evidence otherwise?
If you want to maximize profits, than that wouldn't make any sense. If I make the most revenue at $10 per user, than decreasing that revenue because my costs go down would mean less revenue and less profit.
Thank you for that uneducated opinion but if a device is compromised and iMessages can be read by this hacked side-loaded software than a compromise exists allowing the hackers to read those messages.
"The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products or services to end users through third-party online intermediation services or through their own direct online sales channel at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper."
"The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper."
👉 Not using Apple's sales channels (App Store) or services 👉 no commission for Apple.
"The gatekeeper shall not require (...) business users to use (...) an identification service (...) or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services."
👉 Not using Apple's IAP 👉 no commission for Apple.
And when someone is selling outside of the App Store, it's (literally and figuratively) not Apple's business how much they're making - or to charge a commission.
Last edited:
That's not what your own quotes say. For example the first quote simply says that Apple can't charge developers "to communicate and promote offers". That doesn't say that they can't charge a commission for platform access.
It doesn't say so, no. They're charging a developer fee for platform access already.
Commissions as a percentage of sales / revenue?
That'd just be moving App Store commission one level up to more general "access commissions" for any developer - something that's even more obviously anticompetitive rent seeking.
👉 Just slap Apple hard with an anti-circumvention proceeding, in that case.
"Given the substantial economic power of gatekeepers, it is important that the obligations are applied effectively and are not circumvented. To that end, the rules in question should apply to any practice by a gatekeeper, irrespective of its form and irrespective of whether it is of a contractual, commercial, technical or any other nature, insofar as the practice corresponds to the type of practice that is the subject of one of the obligations laid down by this Regulation. Gatekeepers should not engage in behaviour that would undermine the effectiveness of the prohibitions and obligations laid down in this Regulation."
Last edited:
Exactly. It's also what they're doing by charging a commission. That's my point.
So? Why should a developer not pay the $99 yearly developer fee?
They aren't charged as a percentage of revenue though.
Apple today are charging commissions for sales - not mere access.
Trying to "shift" these commissions from 1) charging on sales through Apple's own channels only today to 2) charging commissions on all sales through all (even outside) channels tomorrow screams circumvention. Especially if you you're thinking about about 12%/27% revenue share or something.
👉 Slap Apple with anti-circumvention proceedings and fine the hell out of them! 😼
Last edited:
I never suggested they shouldn't.
So?
No, it doesn't. Again, the DMA doesn't say the can't charge commissions on outside sales, so there is nothing to circumvent.
You don’t need to spoof GPS, if the system controls are deep enough to use available GPS I would assume it would fall back to other location data without (otherwise if there’s no GPS data available things would break). So for that you could just temp create a small faraday cage with like $3 worth of chicken wire or find a basement with no signal
Surely, given that the EU believe no-one can have a monopoly, there must be more than one EU council, yes? I mean one would be a monopoly, and that's not allowed in Europe. Duplicate the EU council so they give people choice, just like the app store.
Apple charges commissions on sales their service.
If you don't sell to through them - Apple is owed no commission. Period.
And if they change the rules and terms to merely relabel and charge similar "fees" (e.g. licensing fees), it's a clear circumvention designed to undermine that regulation. In particular since it was explicitly intended to combat the unilateral setting of unbalanced commercial terms and conditions.
"For the purpose of this Regulation, unfairness should relate to an imbalance between the rights and obligations of business users where the gatekeeper obtains a disproportionate advantage. Market participants, including business users of core platform services and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, such core platform services, should have the ability to adequately capture the benefits resulting from their innovative or other efforts. Due to their gateway position and superior bargaining power, it is possible that gatekeepers engage in behaviour that does not allow others to capture fully the benefits of their own contributions, and unilaterally set unbalanced conditions for the use of their core platform services or services provided together with, or in support of, their core platform services"
If it's not found as outright circumvention, the EU commission is empowered to adopt "implementing acts specifying the measures that the gatekeeper concerned is to implement in order to effectively comply with the obligations" or delegated acts that can extend obligations in relation to certain services provided with or in support of core platform services.
Last edited:
Was just making the numbers up when writing this (well, based on the Dutch dating app decision and its aftermath, I think) and hadn't read this:
U.S. Developers Can Now Offer Non-App Store Purchasing Option, But Apple Will Still Collect Commissions
Apple is making major changes to its U.S. iOS App Store policies, and developers are now able to direct customers to a non-App Store purchasing...
www.macrumors.com
But yeah... feeling pretty prescient right now. 😂
Some of these people are acting like they are putting their lives in jeopardy every time they use a PC or Mac.