Thanks to the availability of alternative stores for marketing their products, game developers can have more flexibility in where and how they market their games including terms, potentially better commission rates, etc.
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
Thanks to the availability of alternative stores for marketing their products, game developers can have more flexibility in where and how they market their games including terms, potentially better commission rates, etc.
And if that’s an issue, customers can buy a phone with or developers can develop for the other platform with 50% market share. The free market works!
Apple’s owns its IP and should determine how it used. If you don’t like it, Android exists.
As is (and should be) its right as iOS is Apple’s property.
I don’t think in any instance would the developer have received a discount on the fee Sony charges for developing for its console, regardless of where the game was sold.
That’s why Apple charges the core technology fee for apps sold outside the Apple App Store.
You're still talking about the number of stores.
But the real issue is the fees to the platform owners.
If a developer sells a PlayStation game at Target... they have to pay a fee to Sony.
If a developer sells a PlayStation game at Walmart... they have to pay a fee to Sony.
If a developer sells a PlayStation game at Best Buy... they have to pay a fee to Sony.
If a developer sells a PlayStation game at GameStop... they have to pay a fee to Sony.
There is no way for a game developer to escape paying a fee to the platform owners... regardless of where the game is sold. Would you agree?
So using this information... Apple should have the right to collect a fee from apps sold in their own app store... and apps sold in any other alternative app stores as well, right?
🤔
It’s pretty much the same thing. There is no law opening up the gas company so that anybody can take their gas for free and resell it. As far as the UK lawsuit goes, grab your popcorn.
WHO said it’s critical. A lifestyle company that sells a discretionary product is critical. What does that make the gas company product.
Yep and that’s the way it has been for 17 years and still the iPhone is a minority in market share.
We’ll see if there is an issue or not.
The existence of an alternative does not mean a company can engage in "anticompetitive" behavior or do whatever they want. The so-called free market in this situation isn't being allowed to work because Apple is blocking app store competition in around 50% or more of the mobile market in the UK.
And Microsoft owns Windows IP but that doesn't mean they can absolutely do whatever they want just because alternative desktop operating systems exist.
And Windows is Microsoft’s property but that doesn't give them the right to do whatever they want.
Developer fees may be similar but the commissions charged, terms offered, etc. regarding the sale of the game can vary by store....when alternative stores/options can exist.
I am not so much talking about the "number of stores", just the existence of alternatives (one or many) which may provide more favorable terms, commissions, exposure, etc. for the game developer instead of having only one option.
Individual gas companies don't dominate the market like Apple does with iPhone/iOS. Again, Apple has approximately 50% or more share of the mobile market in the UK and owns the ONLY store where apps for that significant portion of the market can be bought/sold. Hence the issue.
I said it was a critical. Smartphones have become essential tools for daily life, providing communication, entertainment, business tools, and mobile access to a wide range of information. The high demand makes the market integral to many industries and consumers/users in the U.S., UK, and around the world. The market generates billions of dollars annually, supporting not only manufacturers but also software developers, accessory providers, and many other businesses.
iPhone/iOS share has exceeded 50% in various countries/regions including the UK. That’s not a minority share.
Multiple stores are great... but developers still have to pay a fee to the platform owners.
iOS developers loudly complain that they "lose" money because of Apple's fees. Right? That's what started this whole thing!
But video game developers don't complain when they "lose" money because of Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo fees.
That's the disconnect.
People think having alternative app stores will let iOS developers avoid Apple's 15% or 30% fee. But that's not necessarily true.
Apple could still demand a cut from any app purchased from any app store.
Just like how Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo get their cut whether you buy a game at Walmart or Best Buy or GameStop.
The video game market isn't as concentrated as the one for smartphone apps and OS.
There are Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo consoles - and Personal Computers on of that.
Pretty much the gas company dominates a market. But nobody plays Robin Hood with the gas company.
No it’s not critical. A discretionary lifestyle product is not critical. “Oh my Gucci bag is critical”.
But not an iPhone. And people don’t need a smartphone. They need to make calls, access intranets etc. multiple ways to do that. I used to do it without a smartphone.
Doesn’t mean it’s correct to over regulate a market.
And overall has a minority share worldwide. 40% in the UK and 23% or so in the EU.
They do.
They need a smartphone to keep in touch with friends, family and colleagues, do their everyday banking and find one's way.
The notion that smartphones aren't a practical necessity is outdated.
Last edited:
They don’t and they clearly don’t need an iPhone.
There are other ways to keep in touch.
What’s outdated is a smartphone is a necessity.
Not when all of them use WhatsApp.
Yes, there’s postal letters and email - both of which are outdated as well.
Maybe not the hillbillies that still rely on their as guzzlers to shop at the nearest Walmart (11 miles away. „That‘ll be 2 gallons of milk, 143 oz. of laundry detergent and a semi-automatic“) and deposit their checks at the bank.
For anyone living and commuting in a modern European city, it‘s basically a necessity.
The free market solution is to vote with your wallet and buy an Android device. Not force Apple to give stuff to developers for free.
Windows has approximately 72% market share, and its nearest competitor (Apple) has a 15% in the desktop market. So Windows is an actual monopoly. Which can and should be regulated differently. Apple has roughly 50% in the UK, Android has roughly 50%. If Android was closed like Apple was you'd have a point, but they're not. Anyone who wants an open ecosystem has a very viable option.
Again, a monopoly. Apple is not a monopoly.
WhatsApp exclusive domain is a smartphone?
Anyway you have a self fulfilling and circular argument. iPhones are critical and critical things should be regulated. The dma should regulate critical things.
Not technically, but practically. I can‘t just run to my PC at home every couple of minutes to check my WhatsApp when my friends or colleagues are spontaneously meeting somewhere. Neither is it practical to always carry a laptop with me (and it would still need internet).
Nothing circular about it.
That smartphones are indispensable in modern life is observation and (widely shared) opinion.
Agreed. I get the argument but one can use an Android or a Mac/PC if they wanna use apps without Apple's app store.
Also, many services have web apps, which Apple supports. You can even use Apple Pay for purchases within web apps.
It’s exactly a circular argument. You have deemed smartphones at the same level as air, food and water, which is ludicrous.
But the developers still have alternative ways to market their products under potentially more favorable terms, unlike with Apple/iOS which only allows one choice (outside the EU) and restricts competition/choice.
I assumed you meant gasoline (as in oil) company but if by gas company you are talking about natural gas companies that is a very different situation as those are often given "natural monopoly" designations which can mean state and/or local governments have much more control of how they operate including price regulations/requirements, service regulations/requirements, etc.
I disagree but a product doesn't necessarily have to be labeled as "essential" or "critical" anyway.
There are a lot of things that people don't "need" but that doesn't make those products immune from competition laws, regulations, etc.
That's subjective. Just because you or someone else may view something as "overregulation" doesn't necessarily make it so.
According to Statcounter, iOS share has been over 50% in the UK many months over the past several years. Also, iOS users buy more apps/in-app products on average than Android users thereby potentially making Apple's share of the app store market much greater.
Nothing stopping developers from advertising on TV, social media, the internet, magazines, newspapers, billboards, word of mouth.
And the free market is when I can vote with my wallet and buy iPhone/iOS apps from the App Store, AltStore PAL, etc. but Apple is preventing that "free market solution" from existing outside the EU.
One doesn't necessarily need to have "72% market share" in the UK or elsewhere to be viewed as engaging in anticompetitive behavior, preventing a so-called free market from existing, etc.
A company doesn’t necessarily have to be labeled a monopoly to be in violation of competition laws. Also, what defines a monopoly can vary by jurisdiction. My point, again, was that just because iOS is Apple's property and Windows is Microsoft's property does not necessarily give either company free rein to do whatever they want.
Yes, so? That doesn't necessarily change the issue of Apple restricting where iOS app developers can sell their products, payment systems they can use, other potentially more favorable terms, etc.