App Store to Be 'Split in Two' Ahead of EU iPhone Sideloading Deadline

[spazzcat]

It's a silly example, but it stands. My hardware, my rights.

Simple.

You may own the hardware, but you do not own the software, you own a license to use the software and developer states how you can use it in the license.

 

[G5isAlive]

Sure. Now remind us, where are all those apps that force you to go outside of the Google Play store on Android?

Oh right, there aren’t any.

so then what is the point?

 

[bsolar]

You may own the hardware, but you do not own the software, you own a license to use the software and developer states how you can use it in the license.

While this is true, note that different jurisdictions have very different takes on which limitations a license can impose to an end-user, even one that willingly accepts such limitations.

 

[gsurf123]

I can't find it, but someone posted about being able to host their apps on AWS for free and not have to pay Apple anything for all of the great apps they are going to create and give away. That is really pulling one over on Apple...creating nerd utilities that you cannot sell.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

You may own the hardware, but you do not own the software, you own a license to use the software and developer states how you can use it in the license.

If I can't install what I want on the hardware, I don't own it.

 

[Iconoclysm]

imessage. facetime. app store.

split apple up, regulate them and teach them a lesson they'll never forget.

great job, eu!

Facetime, the technology that Apple tried to open source...definitely monopolistic practices there....

 

[mrochester]

Have we had any inkling what Apple’s commission will be for apps sold outside the Apple App Store?

 

[Iconoclysm]

If I can't install what I want on the hardware, I don't own it.

Then don't buy it?

 

[gsurf123]

How would the EU benefit from a capitalistic standpoint? EU produces no apps. The companies that would create new app stores (and apps) would be American companies such as Steam, Meta, Epic and others. All American companies.

And all of those companies either harvest your data for profit or charge licensing fees. Nothing will be free.

Don't forget the EU created a phone and dominated with it until RIM and then Apple and Android. There product was obliterated from the marketplace as was RIM's. If someone is counting on innovation from Europe it will be a long wait. With the exception of Germany they bring very little to the table, but this is expected of socialist environments.

 

[iZac]

What makes you think the alternate app stores, and/or sideloaded apps won't be running in a strict sandbox, same as Appstore apps?

The same optimism that makes people think they'll win the lottery

 

[gnipgnop]

As I said earlier, true competition doesn't exist without a referee (government). Apple isn't playing fair, and they are not the authority.

If Apple wasn't playing fair then the EU wouldn't have needed to pass new legislation. The EU could have just taken Apple to court and won.

 

[testcard]

EU: It’s unfair that only McDonalds gets to sell the Big Mac. McDonald’s must allow it to be sold in Burger Kings and Taco Bell too.

I’m constantly in awe of how absolutely stupid EU regulators are. Somehow they manage to be worse than America.

And that, my friend, explains Brexit.

 

[trip1ex]

But as controller of their app, they can charge whatever they want for their app, including- if they wished- MORE than it was previously offered in the App Store. Get too greedy and competitor "artists" will see an opportunity to offer similar functionality for less... so that threat of competition somewhat polices the "too greedy" scenario.

Yep this is why prices will fall if Apple's commission goes away. Exactly my point.

 

[bsolar]

And all of those companies either harvest your data for profit or charge licensing fees. Nothing will be free.

I can see FOSS stores popping up. FOSS software distribution is nothing new and some FOSS licenses are outright incompatible with the Apple App Store, so there might actually be some software available there which would not be available on the official App Store.

Personally the main app I would likely install in a side-loading world would be a version of Firefox with better extension capabilities, hopefully with a full-fledged uBlock Origin available.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

If Apple wasn't playing fair then the EU wouldn't have needed to pass new legislation. The EU could have just taken Apple to court and won.

Silly take. Rules and laws evolve based on the current situation. Society isn't static.

Just like sports.

 

[bsolar]

Yep this is why prices will fall if Apple's commission goes away. Exactly my point.

If that is true it would mean Apple is able to artificially keep the prices higher than what free market competition would deliver.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Yep this is why prices will fall if Apple's commission goes away. Exactly my point.

Only if the developer chooses to make their app price fall. They could keep it the same or raise it even higher than it was when it was in the App Store. It's their "art." They can charge whatever they want for it. The potential loser here is Apple in getting cut out of first in line for 30% right off the top.

If developer values the relationship with Apple enough to keep selling in the App Store, they keep allowing Apple to be first at taking that big cut. If developer doesn't value that relationship to trade 30% for it anymore, they can opt to pull the app and sell it direct so that THEY get to take that 30% for themselves... or some lessor amount if THEY opt to charge less for the app.

OR, dev could leave it in the store AND offer it direct. They'll make more money on the latter for customers willing to buy direct from them and less money on the former because Apple gets first cut of each sale. I've purchased many apps direct from app developers over the years for my Mac... some of which have also been for sale in the Apple Mac App Store. There was no real consequence for me either way but I like that the developer made more money for their app that I use. Apple is not exactly going to be destroyed by losing a little of that universal 30% cut of every app.

If I'm Apple or if I prioritize being a shareholder over being a consumer, I HATE this... because I know that all of the spin that's been spun for the last few years is about to be shown to be much ado about nothing. All of the EU will not be hacked. All EU iDevices will not be bricked. All EU iDevices will not be loaded with viruses. All EU bank accounts will not be emptied. Etc. Much like how the new iPhone would be a lint magnet, with a wobbly port and broken tongues galore turned out to be NOTHING, this too will turn out to be nothing like the fear hype that is slung around.

And once it is proven in a region as big as the EU to be better for consumers, there is room for the same consumer benefits to spread to other regions where other consumers may want those benefits of choice and lower costs.

If in doubt, stand by and anyone can see for themselves. The EU will continue to exist and prosper, etc as any other region. They'll just have more ways to use their iDevices than the rest of us... and more options to buy select apps than the rest of us. And good for them!

 

[gnipgnop]

Silly take. Rules and laws evolve based on the current situation. Society isn't static.

Just like sports.

You're the one that claimed Apple "wasn't playing fair". Meanwhile the EU will allow companies below the cap to do all of the things that aren't allowed above the cap. So the "not fair" part is really just Apple's revenue level.

 

[G5isAlive]

Actually it is that simple. If the "starving artist" is selling his or her own creation directly, they can "control" the price for their offering. It won't get pressured down by many competitors selling their app if they are their own seller of their app. The only competition they could endure- which would be the same in the "as is" model- is other "artists" creating a very similar app and buyers opting for the other app instead.

So, app creator feels competitive pressure to be sure their app is the most desirable one among competitors. That's good for us app consumers.

But as controller of their app, they can charge whatever they want for their app, including- if they wished- MORE than it was previously offered in the App Store. Get too greedy and competitor "artists" will see an opportunity to offer similar functionality for less... so that threat of competition somewhat polices the "too greedy" scenario. Again, this is good for us consumers too.

However, no need to cut their own throat to "< 30% off the top" if they are in control of their own pricing. But they could opt for- say- keeping a chunk of what was going to Apple while still passing through a better price to consumers. Again, this would good for us consumers too... while greatly benefiting the "artist" as well.

The only scenario where we consumers lose in such an arrangement is the "get very greedy" for a highly desired app scenario. Again, competition seeing high demand but too-high pricing will clone the desired functionality and offer competitive pricing. So our short-term loss becomes a long-term gain.

The only scenario where the "artist" loses is in opportunity loss by perhaps pulling their app from the App Store and finding that even with the 30% cut, they made more money by being there than going their own way. If I'm this developer, I don't pull my app from the App Store to maintain those sales... but I probably do sell direct too for a lower price. Customers who buy direct from me will be more profitable sales while getting a lower price. Customers who will only buy my app from the App Store can still buy my app from the App Store.

the problem with all this is... it assumes equal footing in different markets. The starving artist selling out of his barn in a small town just doesn't have the exposure to customers that the artists who group together to sell under one roof and attract a crowd. Just saying. Lots of variables, just isn't black and white as some would think.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

You're the one that claimed Apple "wasn't playing fair". Meanwhile the EU will allow companies below the cap to do all of the things that aren't allowed above the cap. So the "not fair" part is really just Apple's revenue level.

What's not fair is two parts.

1) their revenue model
2) their rules on what and what can not be put on the App Store.

 

[bsolar]

Only if the developer chooses to make their app price fall. They could keep it the same or raise it even higher than it was when it was in the App Store. It's their "art." They can charge whatever they want for it. The potential loser here is Apple in getting cut out of first in line for 30% right off the top.

If developer values the relationship with Apple enough to keep selling in the App Store, they keep allowing Apple to be first at taking that big cut. If developer doesn't value that relationship to trade 30% for it anymore, they can opt to pull the app and sell it direct so that THEY get to take that 30% for themselves... or some lessor amount if THEY opt to charge less for the app.

OR, dev could leave it in the store AND offer it direct. They'll make more money on the latter for the willing to buy direct from them and less money on the former because Apple gets first cut of each sale.

On top of that, Apple would be compelled to offer an even better deal to developers, either through lower fees or more/better features.

Opening up the competition would also push Apple to deliver a better App Store unless they believe they cannot compete and simply give up, which I don't see happening.

 

[mrochester]

Only if the developer chooses to make their app price fall. They could keep it the same or raise it even higher than it was when it was in the App Store. It's their "art." They can charge whatever they want for it. The potential loser here is Apple in getting cut out of first in line for 30% right off the top.

If developer values the relationship with Apple enough to keep selling in the App Store, they keep allowing Apple to be first at taking that big cut. If developer doesn't value that relationship to trade 30% for it anymore, they can opt to pull the app and sell it direct so that THEY get to take that 30% for themselves... or some lessor amount if THEY opt to charge less for the app.

OR, dev could leave it in the store AND offer it direct. They'll make more money on the latter for customers willing to buy direct from them and less money on the former because Apple gets first cut of each sale. I've purchased many apps direct from app developers over the years for my Mac... some of which have also been for sale in the Apple Mac App Store. There was no real consequence for me either way but I like that the developer made more money for their app that I use. Apple is not exactly going to be destroyed by losing a little of that universal 30% cut of every app.

What’s not clear is how much of a commission Apple will charge developers who sell directly to consumers.

 

[Merode]

We've had this approach on Mac forever and the world did not end. Why are so many people bothered by this move?

 

[spazzcat]

If I can't install what I want on the hardware, I don't own it.

There is a lot of hardware in this world where you can't install what you want on it.

 

[spazzcat]

Yep this is why prices will fall if Apple's commission goes away. Exactly my point.

Prices don't fall, someone else just keeps more.