I didn't say it was 100% but there have been a lot more alternative retail outlets for Sony, MS, and Nintendo games than for iOS apps (outside the EU). This is essentially about trying to foster app access competition by giving third party iOS app developers and consumers alternatives to the App Store (outside the EU). The UK class-action lawsuit seems to be arguing that Apple's anticompetitive alternative iOS app store restrictions prevented potential lower cost alternatives to exist for developers and consumers.
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.
Apple Faces £1.5 Billion UK Lawsuit Over App Store 'Overcharging'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I didn't say it was 100% but there have been a lot more alternative retail outlets for Sony, MS, and Nintendo games than for iOS apps (outside the EU). This is essentially about trying to foster app access competition by giving third party iOS app developers and consumers alternatives to the App Store (outside the EU). The UK class-action lawsuit seems to be arguing that Apple's anticompetitive alternative iOS app store restrictions prevented potential lower cost alternatives to exist for developers and consumers.
Wonder why they won’t do that 🤔
Then that’s fine.
If you put in the guard rails ins way that’s prominent, easy to learn and implement you can’t do any more.
Might not be overcharging. Just depends what you get for your money.
Where are the digital alternatives for all app stores? The hair splitting is getting old. Either companies can close platforms or all companies need to be made to open up their platforms.
Apple already received multiple warnings at forehand. Apple chose not to comply. Apple complies with the much stricter demands in China.
It will be interesting to see if alternative app stores are actually effective.
Let's say a developer gets 1,000 downloads a day from the official Apple Apple Store... but only 50 downloads a day from alternative app stores.
Will it be worth it to keep maintaining their apps on the alternative app stores? They'll have to provide updates to multiple stores... and deal with accounting, taxes, and other stuff from multiple store too. It might be a lot of extra work for very little gain.
Developers might not like Apple's App Store policies... but the official App Store could be the best place sell their apps.
How hard is it for Apple to play by the rules?
Which rules?
Do you mean the rules that were created 15 years after the App Store was introduced?
🤔
Because there is a 23 year gap between the launch of the Mac and iPhone.
over those 23 years then a lot changed in technology and OS changed with it.
You simply didn’t have todays connectivity when the Mac launched for a start off.
It is a lot harder to take something away then to launch a product without it in the first place.
You seem to be confused. The new administration you’re referring to is probably the US President. As the title suggests, this has nothing to do with laws and regulations in EU and UK.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
It's not an either-or decision, as in either Apple's App Store or "my" own store. Most developers with any business sense will choose BOTH... and probably other stores too. Apples store is default. The world is accustomed to using it to find new apps. Some people buy the "Wolf! Wolf!" scare tactics about security, etc such that they may be afraid to try buying direct. Etc.
To your example, if you can have 1050 downloads a day by being in both stores, why choose to cut 50 off that (or 1000 off that if you are a business fool)? Sell the 1050/day. If getting into a third store adds another 50, take the 1100 sales over 1050 or only 1000.
Is it "worth" running their own store vs. just letting Apple be the one source? Well first, is the 50/day in your example worth it? It's not like running a store on a website is expensive. Websites are dirt cheap once they are programmed and these people are programmers so they probably pay themselves for programming. They sell software so there's no warehousing, shipping & physical fulfillment. It's not like they have to spend a fortune to host software- even the biggest apps we can download don't take up much space.
Whether all in exclusively with Apple or selling on any number of stores, there is always accounting, always taxes, etc. to do. If I have to register sales to 1000, it's not an enormous burden to register sales of 50 more too. Conceptually, those 50 are more profitable sales, so I will probably be happier about registering them.
Lastly, look to the Mac as an example. There is an Apple Mac App Store and there are tons of developers with their own app stores. Why don't they all close their app stores and only sell their apps through the Apple Mac App Store? It must not be too expensive, too onerous, too difficult, etc. I suspect that many choose to keep their own stores and even sell through many other third party stores too because wide distribution through many stores is more profitable overall for them than selling through only 1 store.
But- all that written- I definitely do NOT exit the Apple App Store and the 1000/day in your example. Even with Apple taking a big bite of each sale of a product that "I" make this time, maybe those customers will opt to directly support the developer of a good app by buying the new version next time direct from "me." So I take a big hit to gross revenue in transaction #1 but maybe get ALL of the revenue in transaction #2+... that is, if I'm able to sell MY creations direct to consumers interested in them.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Not hard at all... just not as easily profitable vs. having a complete lock on a Company Store model.
Apple already readily supports third party store models with Mac. Buy your Mac app from the Apple Mac App Store or straight from the developer or in bundle offers from other retailers, etc. No cataclysms. No destruction. Bank accounts are not emptied, etc. It "just works" fine with Mac Apps. It can "just work" fine with iOS apps too. But Mac-ifying that model would not be as easily profitable as the "as is."
All Companies who ever work their way into a Company Store model always fight as hard as they can to preserve it. Why? It's very profitable to be the ONLY store for anything people want to buy. Apple is doing nothing different than countless companies before them who found their way into a Company Store model. BUT, they should do something different... because all of those end the same way... as will this one.
Proactively change or there will be forced reactive changes. Do it the best possible way as you can or let widely diverse ideas from bureaucrats implement NOT "best possible way" changes through legal settlements & actions. Apple should take their own advice now that they've won the capitalism game: "think different." Or else.
Last edited:
You will be able to split it roughly as
Small developers - ie hobbyists and genuinely small developers will work with apple still as they do have the hassle or going through sorting out the multiple stores, and that before deal with the tax man,
Large developers - will be able to do this or in the case of Fortnite developers setup there own App Store.
Anyone under the illusion that this is about consumer choice is somewhat deluded
This is other big business wanting to not have to pay apple, and the lawyers wanting to earn fee’s.
They are who will win, it won’t be the consumer.
You know what the biggest cry was for when the big crowdstrike issue hit was. That’s right why isn’t Microsoft involved in all of this, checking it before goes out. When it is distributed out by crowdstrike directly and never hits Microsoft unless Microsoft use crowdstrike themselves.
LMAO these people are so stupid. It was the ONLY gateway when it was new too, because so was iPhone, and the concept of the smartphone, and the concept of the app store, and the concept of mobile apps. All invented and taken mainstream by Apple. Delusion does not fully cover the incompetence of EU lawmakers.
Kent argues that while the App Store was initially "a brilliant gateway" for services, it has become "the only gateway" for millions of consumers, with Apple acting as a monopolist by blocking access to alternative platforms that could offer better deals.
Apple doesn’t want to compete with others, invest in R&D, losing profit.
If the UK and the EU were serious about consumer choice, then batteries for portable power tools would be the same format so you could buy from any source and interchange them from the manufacturers. Yet, at least in the UK, this is not the case.
I believe that Europe and the UK just want a slice of Apple's profits through fines and taxes. Those of us who buy Apple products are hardly unaware of Apple's app store and in any case Apple's iPhones and iPads are functional without having to install any additional software. I worry that this case will be won because it makes money for somebody, not because it is just. Sometimes removing proprietary features reduces choice and the way businesses operate in the UK there a snowball's chance in hell this would actually reduce app pricing. If the UK wanted to help consumers, Parliament should pass a law that makes Apple guarantee the quality and security of the apps it allows in the store.
I believe that Europe and the UK just want a slice of Apple's profits through fines and taxes. Those of us who buy Apple products are hardly unaware of Apple's app store and in any case Apple's iPhones and iPads are functional without having to install any additional software. I worry that this case will be won because it makes money for somebody, not because it is just. Sometimes removing proprietary features reduces choice and the way businesses operate in the UK there a snowball's chance in hell this would actually reduce app pricing. If the UK wanted to help consumers, Parliament should pass a law that makes Apple guarantee the quality and security of the apps it allows in the store.
There was competition way before these asinine lawsuits reared their heads.
It's called Android
Well said! Thanks for the reply.
I just though of another scenario and outcome:
If Apple is forced to allow alternative app stores in more countries... Apple will decide to reduce their commission fees to compete.
Then maybe a developer won't need to put their apps in alternative app stores.
15% or 30% always seemed a little high...
The UK is not in the EU. In fact IMO one of the few things that Brexit has going for it is that these nonsensical attacks on Apple weren't happening here in the UK like they are in the EU. Until now.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
There was Netscape when IE was the browser in this situation. Why can't we all still be using IE in 2025! GOV should have never broken Microsoft's lock on browsers, right?
This is not about another choice of Platform or OS. It's about ceding that Apple has become so big and dominant, the Company Store model is inhibiting competition for Apple's own customers and those who are actually creating what is being sold.
The true genius of Apple is to have consumers arguing FOR a Company Store model as if there is some benefit to such a model for consumers. There's not. It's just ridiculously profitable to own & run a Company Store model selling ANYTHING to very large numbers of consumers.
Believe whatever we want about this, but this is already basically OVER. It's only a matter of time until Apple evolves. Once GOV gets after one of these, the end is always the same.
This post was not typed in the IE browser (hallelujah). And I won't have to pay AT&T long distance to call anyone either (hallelujah too).
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Well said! Thanks for the reply.
I just though of another scenario and outcome:
If Apple is forced to allow alternative app stores in more countries... Apple will decide to reduce their commission fees to compete.
Then maybe a developer won't need to put their apps in alternative app stores.
15% or 30% always seemed a little high...
That's actually a very positive outcome... exactly the kind of thing that competition in a fair market is supposed to do. Competition drives all to compete... including the dominant players. Else, the upstart small competitors will increasingly eat share of the overall pie because they are outcompeting the big established player.
Dominant player can hold to their Company Store cuts all they want and just watch customers try more competitive options, not suffer fire & brimstone annihilation and that information spreads to other consumers. Share falls & falls until either dominant gets competitive or just loses the market.
Competition always works FOR consumers. No competition always works AGAINST consumers. Company Store models are NEVER good for consumers... as, inevitably, the seller exploits controlling 100% of the market.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
EU led the way. Britain, Brazil and a few others are on deck. More will follow. All entities who believe in Capitalism believe that it should benefit BOTH the seller AND the consumer. The best way to make Capitalism work for consumers is to stimulate LOTS of competition. Competitors will drive up value and/or drive down prices trying to out-compete other competitors.
When there is no competitors, there is no motivations like that. It's all about the seller. Seller just spins such arrangements like there are these big benefits for customers... to preserve the arrangement. It's VERY profitable to be the only store in the world.
Security is a very desirable card to play because everyone universally wants security and invisible villains are easily imagined and hard to rule out. However, we'll soon reach the 1 year anniversary of the EU law going into effect and Apple complying. What we all should have learned from it is that all of that enormous spin about security was nonsense. No criminal syndicates wiping out any EU Apple people. No homes lost. No bank account emptied. I've not even seen 1 story about 1 virus tied to this... IN ALMOST A YEAR now. Where was that "Wolf! Wolf!" Else, the villagers eventually wise up and stop coming.
If the wall of security risk was not true, what else spun in support of a lone Company Store is also not true? "Think different."
Last edited:
In the mobile market dominated but two operating systems (iOS and Android), there are several Android app store alternatives. There are even iOS app store alternatives but only for the EU market for now. Apple's significant app access (alternative iOS app store) restrictions in a major segment of the critical mobile market is the anticompetitive issue driving the UK lawsuit.