It’s more like Post gets Costco to sell it’s cereals and Costco has a rule that Post can’t out a sign up that says Sam’s club has their cereals cheaper.
But let’s go down this rabbit hole of analogies.
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.
EU Fines Apple $2 Billion for Anti-Competitive Behavior Toward Spotify
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But let’s go down this rabbit hole of analogies.
f
But that isn't the argument people were making. The point is that Apple wants to claim that they should be paid for providing the platform and dev tools. But if that is what they claim then they have to also want to collect a commission from all apps not just ones that sell digital goods because apps that sell a subscription to a digital product don't actually cost apple more or less than apps that sell a physical good.
As an aside: It would be trivial for a company of Amazon's size to implement logic in the app that tracks how much people spend on physical goods and remit a commission to Apple.
But that isn't the argument people were making. The point is that Apple wants to claim that they should be paid for providing the platform and dev tools. But if that is what they claim then they have to also want to collect a commission from all apps not just ones that sell digital goods because apps that sell a subscription to a digital product don't actually cost apple more or less than apps that sell a physical good.
As an aside: It would be trivial for a company of Amazon's size to implement logic in the app that tracks how much people spend on physical goods and remit a commission to Apple.
Which is what Apple played out in their heads and they came out with exceptions which is fair. Uber will never be profitable as a native app. And if they left, it's unlikely any new ride share app will ever be profitable with 30% cut. However, Microsoft leaving the App Store can easily churn out Office replacements that can be profitable. Exceptions make sense.
No it isn't...
If Post puts an order form in the box to buy something else from Post, Costco doesn't get a share of that order.
Post wouldn't be advertising in Costco, their advertising inside their own product in a way that isn't visible from within Costco itself.
Last edited:
Why is it fair? What is the justification? There doesn't seem to be a logical one which is why they are going to keep losing cases like this.
Can you explain the difference between
- Apple is currently the sole provider of an App Store where developers can distribute their apps to iOS users
- Apple currently has a monopoly on distribution of apps fron developers to iOS users
You can’t manage your subscription in-app.
That is a degraded experience.
Apple has made that the only allowed way to sign up in-app and prohibited Spotify from informing customers about purchase choices. That’s the anticompetitive behaviour,
Are you defending corrupt government bureaucrats who can never ever tax us enough? Just because the govt says something doesn’t mean squat. Look at the facts: Spotify is #1.
It’s weird that’s some people here don’t see that Apple Music and Spotify are direct competitors and that Apple Music has an obvious advantage on an iPhone. The fact that spotify can’t even mention a price or a link should be enough. I’m an apple guy but that doesn’t mean i should nod my head at everything apple does.
Since you edited this after I responded:
Uber will never be profitable if they pay a 30% commission to Apple (leaving aside the problems with Uber's business model more generally) and Microsoft could definitely afford paying Apple's 30% commission, but they don't So why do they have an exception?
The exception isn't about profitability.
As I've said, trying to justify the exception categories isn't going to work long term the more regulatory scrutiny they invite.
So you believe that the $99 developer fee covers the costs of hosting, API support, listing on app store, approval process and the delivery and updates to likely over 100 million iPhones and iPads? Pretty sure it doesn't.
It goes in cycles, but this is a long anti-Apple cycle.
We don't need to agree with or defend everything Apple does, but the amount of "First" type of anti-Apple posts is seriously concerning. I have concerns about some people's mental health.
I'm close to giving MacRumors a break (again -- I took multiple breaks over the years; I even started out with a different account in the early to mid 2000s but deleted it and later started this account). The ignore button helps a lot though. I find several commenters to ignore in almost every thread.
Last edited:
As I and others have pointed out. If Apple needs to collect a fee to support the store it needs to get rid of all the exceptions for companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Netflix, McDonalds, Walmart, Uber, etc...
Apple criticised the EU decision, saying it would challenge it in court. A ruling at the Luxembourg-based General Court, Europe's second-highest, is likely to take several years. Until then, Apple will have to pay the fine and comply with the EU order.
People are right. The reason for the commission is because they are providing the developer tools for free. The way Apple makes money out of it is through commission of digital goods. Same as a Real Estate Agent is spending time. But is not charging you for his time. That's the business model that has allowed several developers to try out apps even before making any money. That's the business model that has allowed the explosion of apps and the entire App based startup ecosystem.
If you think it's not fair to people selling digital goods, you may be right. But selling digital goods is a highly lucrative, risk free business. All the costs and risks of selling hardware goods from storage, transportation, manufacturing pipeline... is just not there. And Apple laid the foundation for the entire industry for the sale of digital goods. So they think they deserve a commission in sale of digital goods, in their platform.
It's more like a company putting an "advertisement" on/in their product sold in a store, and that's not uncommon. A printer ink manufacturer, for example, may advertise on/in their product packaging alternative and cheaper places to buy their ink.
It's a large amount for sure, larger than was expected. I wonder if it's intended as a shot across Apples bows - mess with us on the DMA, and this is what things will look like.
What interests me most though it timing. Done on the same day of new product announcements. Was it deliberate by Apple to try to bury the bad news, or was it deliberate by the EU to spoil the good news day?
What interests me most though it timing. Done on the same day of new product announcements. Was it deliberate by Apple to try to bury the bad news, or was it deliberate by the EU to spoil the good news day?
Creating a great App with digital goods that will be paid for is very expensive, the idea that this is free or low risk is ludicrous.
Walmart and amazon are profitable, should they pay a commission on physical goods?
Trying to explain the exceptions is a fools errand because the justifications are never going to make sense in all cases.
Imagine you own a music store in a mall, the mall is the only place in the town in which stores are allowed. You pay your rent to the mall owner. But the mall owner forbids you from advertising a mail order business inside the store. And than the mall owner puts a music store directly next to yours which doesn't have to pay rent and can advertise their mail order business.
I'm sure you've had many answers. The developer fee doesn't come close to covering Apple's costs to run the App Store or the Mac App Store or develop all the programming software, APIs, etc. What it does is partially cover costs (at least for smaller developers or ones who might be offering only free apps that won't bring Apple in any revenue), but also serves as a barrier. This cuts down on some of the junk that would be submitted to the App Store.
If the 15/30% fees are legislated away, Apple will increase fees in other ways.
EU doesn't have the money to buy Apple.Looks like they are going to take Apple with them before that happens
Or it could mean that the EU knows Apple is complying with the DMA and had to scramble to get a huge multi-billion fine in there somewhere to save face.
