Apple under fire for their Idiotic decision to charge 27% for 3rd party payments

[TheSage79]

TLDR;

1) Apples 30% commission is for more than just Payment processing. 

2) You can argue 30% is too high, but that is where market forces have set it. If you think it should be different then you need to have a solid argument for what it should be. 

3) None of this actually matters to consumers because in the current system there has never been more choice or consumer focused competition in recent memory. 

4) It is an argument between developers and Apple over who gets what percentage of revenue and who has control. As long as consumers are not affected, then who cares. 

 

A couple of thing to consider here...

 

1) Apple has stated on several occasions that the 30% commission is not just for payment processing, but it is also for the development of, maintenance of, and access to, the entire value of the iOS eco-system. Apple invests a ton of money into the iOS ecosystem, and they absolute DO deserve to profit off of it. Which brings up point 2...

 

2) People argue that the 30% commission is too high and not subject to market forces - but that just doesn't make sense. First let's tackle 30% commission. If you argue that the 30% commission is too high then that implies you believe there is some other commission figure that the commission "should" be. The problem with that is that is there has never been a consistent figure of what that commissions rate "should" be. I have seen everywhere from 5% to 20% with no real reasons given why any specific rate should be chosen. Normally, such rates are not arbitrarily chosen but driven by market forces - which brings me the second half to this point. Apple charges a 30% commissions because thats where the market tells them too. The closest analog to the iOS eco-system, a system where a sole company makes the HW and SW platform for a product, and allows third parties to participate in that platform, is a Game console. The XBOX platform charges a 30% commission the and Playstation charges 30%. commission (I could not find any info on Nintendo, but I have seen anywhere from 10% - 30%). If you include other S/W distribution platforms like Steam, you see the 30% figure show up over and over again. This is where the market equilibrium settled. Developers may not like that, but thats where the market stands. Which brings up my next point... 

 

3) Do NOT fool yourself into thinking any of the complaints about iOS are consumer focused - they absolutely are not. This is about developer profits verses Apples profits - and nothing more. If you are a consumer, you are absolutely spoiled for choice when it comes to S/W on the iOS ecosystem. In fact, it can be argued that in the history of S/W, we have never had more choice. Don't believe me? Just go the the App Store and do a quick search for Weather apps. How many did you come up with? 20? 30? 100's? Heck, outside of S/W, just do a quick Google search for phone cases and see how many choices you get. Competition over consumers has never been more fierce and we as consumers are benefitting greatly because of it. We, as consumers, have never had it so good! Which brings up my final point...

 

4) Developers know that App revenue on iOS is consistently larger than App revenue on Android even though iOS only accounts for at best 25% market share world wide (most figures have them at 15%). This shows iOS, despite its 30% commission (and all of its restrictions), brings more value to developers than Android with its more open platform. Developers don't develope for iOS because of market share, they develop for iOS because that is where the money is - and they want more of it. Do you honestly think Epic, with its shady history, sued Apple for the people? Heck NO!. They want more money and nothing else. The have investors to pay and profits to make! If it makes business sense to sue, then they will sue. Do you think those App developers in the Netherlands filed a complaint for the people? Nope. Developers want more money and more control to do things like data collection (Its no coincidence that Facebook got a whole lot more critical of Apple's App Store once Apple started to crack down on privacy). They don't care about consumers... they care about their own profits. Don't fool yourself here. 

 

This is not to say Apple doesn't have shady practices of its own. It absolutely does - in spades (right to repair). But when it comes to the iOS eco-system, consumers are benefiting greatly from the current status quo. Why would we as consumers want to disturb that?  

[darknessblade]

2 minutes ago, TheSage79 said:

TLDR;

1) Apples 30% commission is for more than just Payment processing. 

2) You can argue 30% is too high, but that is where market forces have set it. If you think it should be different then you have a solid argument for what it should be. 

3) None of this actually matters to consumers because in the current system there has never been more choice or consumer focused competition in recent memory. 

4) It is an argument between developers and Apple over who gets what percentage of revenue and who has control. As long as consumers are not affected, then who cares. 

 

 

This is not to say Apple doesn't have shady practices of its own. It absolutely does - in spades (right to repair). But when it comes to the iOS eco-system, consumers are benefiting greatly from the current status quo. Why would we as consumers want to disturb that?  

It aren't consumers who are fining and forcing apple to change it but a ANTI-TRUST-REGULATOR

[TheSage79]

9 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

It aren't consumers who are fining and forcing apple to change it but a ANTI-TRUST-REGULATOR

Correct, which is why we should be concerned. Anti-trust exists because trusts hurt consumers. If consumers are benefitting from a business practice and not being hurt by it, then anti-trust regulators should have no reason to step in. If anti-trust regulators are stepping in when consumers are benefitting and not being hurt, then it follows that they are not stepping in for the benefit of the consumers. If anti-trust regulators are not stepping in for the benefit of consumers, then they are stepping in for the benefit of businesses instead. If anti-trust regulators are stepping in for the benefit of certain businesses, then it is likely consumers will be hurt for the benefit of businesses. 

[darknessblade]

14 minutes ago, TheSage79 said:

Correct, which is why we should be concerned. Anti-trust exists because trusts hurt consumers. If consumers are benefitting from a business practice and not being hurt by it, then anti-trust regulators should have no reason to step in. If anti-trust regulators are stepping in when consumers are benefitting and not being hurt, then it follows that they are not stepping in for the benefit of the consumers. If anti-trust regulators are not stepping in for the benefit of consumers, then they are stepping in for the benefit of businesses instead. If anti-trust regulators are stepping in for the benefit of certain businesses, then it is likely consumers will be hurt for the benefit of businesses. 

And that is exactly the case, and what is happening here.

Consumers are being hurt/detriment by apple, Please read the original articles again, as the Context of why apple was fined got mostly lost, due Certain groups of people bringing up tons of BS of why apple should be allowed to screw over customers.

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, darknessblade said:

  

Yet in all cases where i installed Linux. i did not have to change a single thing regarding settings.

But then again, i would already shrink the windows partition. or use a spare HDD. for said linux OS.

Which allows me to install it as a DUAL boot system with ease. and without any issues afterwards.

 

----

ALSO the reason there are soo many Linux distro's all originating from a Normal Linux Distro. is because Said OS does not have Feature XXX which you want. so they make that feature, call the linux distro different.

but then someone does not need feature XXX but wants feature YYY. so they create a distro as well.

 

Keep doing this for generations of features, and you get the 100+ Linux distro's we know today.

 

Just because there are over 100 versions does not mean it is a terrible OS.

----
As for IOS apple is also all to keen on Killing off features, just to make sure they are still in control

https://clearbridgemobile.com/apple-dropping-32-bit-app-support-will-impact-app/

So your point that if you have created a IOS app, it will be forever supported is also false

-----

 

You also speak of the Linux community gatekeeping. Please list some examples of this.

Where "DIE HARD Linux fans" do not want quality of life features.

  

 

AND yet again you are contradicting yourself by saying NO to jailbreaking YES to rooting.

 

So you do not want people to Jailbreak their Iphone, telling them to just get ANDROID.

but you are fine with Android people rooting their phone, to "install" a different OS/android fork. or use features you can only use with ROOT access

 

You do know android is OPEN-SOURCE, so its easier for the community to make and build Custom roms, that are just as good If not better than the original android build that is on phones.

 

ALSO you cannot compare the old way of rooting/installing a custom Android rom, to the current ways.

why do you think 99% of all custom rom sites say: "USE AT OWN RISK"

The reason most phones Have terrible Custom rom support is often due the fact, that it is a unpopular phone. thus the community has very little reason to support or build a custom rom for said Phone.  

 

And that is my exact point.

Each OS is different, and should be treated as such.

And i am not comparing IOS and ANDROID, i just point out that they are different. 

 

The only reason i used the android on Iphone argument is because Rejzor, said if you hate windows just USE XXXX

---

And if Microsoft where to be Monopolistic, nobody would even care of them getting forced to revert/change said decision, for doing so.

 

But apple OH no NOT apple..... They are not monopolistic AT ALL......, they only own 23-24% of the global market share

https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-share-of-apple-iphone/

Yet they own 42% in the Netherlands

https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/netherlands

Which is as i said multiple times before, the very Country where apple is getting fined and forced to implement these changes.

----------

It still baffles me why people support this !!ANTI CONSUMER Behavior!! Apple is doing.

 

Since if ANTI trust regulators say its Anti-consumer, it is ANTI CONSUMER Behavior.

 

I'm not contradicting myself anywhere. I'm literally telling you all this faux freedom is 300 tons of bullshit presented as honey sprinkled with fucking gold. Both jailbreaking and rooting are stupid, useless and annoying and solve nothing because Apple has proven billion times their "walled garden" simply works better and people literally go with it for that very reason. And same basically goes for Android phones too where whatever comes with the device makes sense and everything else just doesn't. BUT MUH ANTICONSUMER BEHAVIOR is all you're screeching the entire time.

 

No one forces you to buy anything Apple. Hundreds of millions of people haven't ever used anything Apple and probably never will. Either they don't like it, not want it or not agree with them in some way. And that's perfectly fine. What is dumb and weird is forcing yourself on it and then bitching that you don't like it. That's not anti-consumer, that's just stupidity. On user's end. For example, I don't like Volkswagen. It's why I wouldn't buy one. Not force myself to buy one, then bitch its engine isn't like Honda's and demand one. And then I'd do an equivalent of flashing a ROM and I'd swap the engine with Honda one in a Golf and go through all the legal trouble and homologations and then still complain it's still not like Honda and scream how VW is dumb and anti consumer for not making their cars with Honda engines because you like those. Just buy a fucking Honda.

[mr moose]

19 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Same could be said for people being pissy even when there are alternative means that cost you nothing to use. But muh whining over Apple.

Another bottom of the barrel argument.  Not even accurate at that,  as has been pointed out so many times it's not even a discussion anymore. 

[Sauron]

22 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Because typing "netflix" in Google is hard... If people can dig some god forsaken promo codes from fucking shadiest webpages one can imagine, making excuses "people don't know" in age when everyone fucking searches entire internet over to get lower prices is the lamest excuse I've ever heard.

I'm intrigued, why do you think Apple prevents this if you believe it makes no difference?

[darknessblade]

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

BUT MUH ANTICONSUMER BEHAVIOR is all you're screeching the entire time.

 

And yet you are screaming that Apple should be allowed to do this kind of behavior.

 

 

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I'm intrigued, why do you think Apple prevents this if you believe it makes no difference?

Don't expect a logical answer,  so far we have pointed out:

 

1. Developers don't have an alternative to reaching IOS consumers.  The response was "consumers have a choice".

 

2. That not letting developers source their own in app payments system while charging 30% for a 2% transaction is monopolistic abuse,  the response was that consumers knew it worked that way when they bought the phone.

 

3. Developers can't avoid the terms and conditions enforced by apple, the response was "consumers have an alternative".

 

4. 30% for an in app purchase is way too much, the response was "apple have to pay for ruining the store"

 

There has literally not been a single rational argument in support of apples behavior, there have been plenty of tangents and red herrings, plenty of snide insults in mocking and derisory language, but no actual reasonable contribution to the argument.   

 

 

[Sauron]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Don't expect a logical answer,  so far we have pointed out:

 

1. Developers don't have an alternative to reaching IOS consumers.  The response was "consumers have a choice".

 

2. That not letting developers source their own in app payments system while charging 30% for a 2% transaction is monopolistic abuse,  the response was that consumers knew it worked that way when they bought the phone.

 

3. Developers can't avoid the terms and conditions enforced by apple, the response was "consumers have an alternative".

 

4. 30% for an in app purchase is way too much, the response was "apple have to pay for ruining the store"

 

There has literally not been a single rational argument in support of apples behavior, there have been plenty of tangents and red herrings, plenty of snide insults in mocking and derisory language, but no actual reasonable contribution to the argument.  

I guess when you buy an iphone you're signing away your soul and can't complain because you could have bought an android phone instead

 

What would the counterargument be if android also had these restrictions? "Oh, then Apple isn't in the wrong, Google does it too" lmao

[mr moose]

32 minutes ago, Sauron said:

 

 

What would the counterargument be if android also had these restrictions? "Oh, then Apple isn't in the wrong, Google does it too" lmao

Yep, they already tried using that argument by pointing to consoles.  Sony does it so it must be OK.  NOPE, all this proves is consoles are shit for game developers just like apple is for app developers.

 

 

 

[RejZoR]

45 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

And yet you are screaming that Apple should be allowed to do this kind of behavior.

 

 

Yeah, at you people because you demand dumb things.

[TheSage79]

14 hours ago, darknessblade said:

And that is exactly the case, and what is happening here.

Consumers are being hurt/detriment by apple, Please read the original articles again, as the Context of why apple was fined got mostly lost, due Certain groups of people bringing up tons of BS of why apple should be allowed to screw over customers.

That's just it... I have yet to see anyone explain exactly how the consumers are being hurt by this. Developers? maybe. But consumers? not that I can see. Allowing a company to process its own payments doesn't increase consumer facing competition at all. If it doesn't increase consumer facing competition, It doesn't bring any sort of downward pricing pressure. If consumer facing competition doesn't increase then there is no increased pressure for the developers to improve their apps further. Where exactly is the benefit for the consumer in all of this? I can certainly see how it would benefit developers vs Apple - but I don't care about either of them if there is no benefit for me the consumer. This is why I am concerned about the anti-trust regulator stepping in. If consumers are not being hurt, then the only reason the regulator in the Netherlands is stepping in is to benefit one company over another. It doesn't help consumer at all and usually ends up hurting us. 

[RejZoR]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

I'm intrigued, why do you think Apple prevents this if you believe it makes no difference?

Thing is, they aren't. You can freely go to Netflix homepage, register there, go to Apple's App Store, download Netflix app, login to it using Netflix homepage credentials and boom, you're paying Netflix directly. It's not rocket science. And like I said before, people go to absurd lengths to save few bucks, yet they somehow don't know how to do Netflix subscription directly? Who are you kidding here?

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

Thing is, they aren't. You can freely go to Netflix homepage, register there, go to Apple's App Store, download Netflix app, login to it using Netflix homepage credentials and boom, you're paying Netflix directly. It's not rocket science.

Why are they preventing it within apps if it doesn't matter? It's a simple question, you should be able to answer it if you're convinced of what you're saying.

[RejZoR]

5 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Why are they preventing it within apps if it doesn't matter? It's a simple question, you should be able to answer it if you're convinced of what you're saying.

Is Steam actively encouraging and literally offering BUY FROM DVELOPER DIRECTLY buttons on their service? No. Can you still buy key freely from developer and activate it on Steam? Yes.

 

How the F is this any different?

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

Is Steam actively encouraging and literally offering BUY FROM DVELOPER DIRECTLY buttons on their service? No.

Wow, imagine actually answering a question directly rather than pointing at other services. Steam does not prevent this in any way, you can have as many links to your own websites in your game as you want. Are you going to answer on why Apple feels the need to prevent it if you think it makes no difference or are you just too proud to admit you're wrong?

[darknessblade]

32 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Thing is, they aren't. You can freely go to Netflix homepage, register there, go to Apple's App Store, download Netflix app, login to it using Netflix homepage credentials and boom, you're paying Netflix directly. It's not rocket science. And like I said before, people go to absurd lengths to save few bucks, yet they somehow don't know how to do Netflix subscription directly? Who are you kidding here?

 

Here you go

https://www.managementstudyguide.com/lawsuit-between-spotify-and-apple-corporation.htm

 

https://news.sky.com/story/us-court-rules-apple-must-ease-in-app-purchase-rules-after-epic-games-lawsuit-12404235

 

https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/08/28/lawsuit-claims-google-offered-netflix-favorable-terms-over-play-store-fees

 

https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/5/22421734/apple-epic-netflix-in-app-purchase-removal-emails

 

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/apple-epic-games-lawsuit-netflix-spotify-stock-price-judge-favors-2021-9

 

https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-says-japan-fair-trade-commission-closes-app-store-investigation-2021-09-02/

 

https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org/2021/09/10/1023834758/apple-app-store-epic-games-fortnite-verdict

 

You are aware that App makers are not allowed to link to outside sources for payment.

Why did you think Apple Kicked fortnite off the appstore?

Because they linked to their own website, and build in a 3rd party payment method. that CIRCUMVENTS apples payment system.

 

Also if you think that 30% is still fair. Read the following articles:

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/236883/20181229/you-can-no-longer-pay-for-netflix-on-ios-using-in-app-subscriptions.htm

 

https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/28/18159373/netflix-in-app-subscriptions-iphone-ipad-ios-apple

 

https://www.pcmag.com/news/netflix-doesnt-pay-apples-ios-tax-anymore

 

https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-the-apple-tax-on-its-853m-in-annual-ios-revenue/

 

The only reason you must go to Neflix their homepage to pay for the service is because they dropped ALL IN APP PAYMENTS, thus circumventing the apple tax.

As they do not allow ANY In app purchases AT ALL ANYMORE.

[Brooksie359]

19 hours ago, darknessblade said:

  

Yet in all cases where i installed Linux. i did not have to change a single thing regarding settings.

But then again, i would already shrink the windows partition. or use a spare HDD. for said linux OS.

Which allows me to install it as a DUAL boot system with ease. and without any issues afterwards.

 

----

ALSO the reason there are soo many Linux distro's all originating from a Normal Linux Distro. is because Said OS does not have Feature XXX which you want. so they make that feature, call the linux distro different.

but then someone does not need feature XXX but wants feature YYY. so they create a distro as well.

 

Keep doing this for generations of features, and you get the 100+ Linux distro's we know today.

 

Just because there are over 100 versions does not mean it is a terrible OS.

----
As for IOS apple is also all to keen on Killing off features, just to make sure they are still in control

https://clearbridgemobile.com/apple-dropping-32-bit-app-support-will-impact-app/

So your point that if you have created a IOS app, it will be forever supported is also false

-----

 

You also speak of the Linux community gatekeeping. Please list some examples of this.

Where "DIE HARD Linux fans" do not want quality of life features.

  

 

AND yet again you are contradicting yourself by saying NO to jailbreaking YES to rooting.

 

So you do not want people to Jailbreak their Iphone, telling them to just get ANDROID.

but you are fine with Android people rooting their phone, to "install" a different OS/android fork. or use features you can only use with ROOT access

 

You do know android is OPEN-SOURCE, so its easier for the community to make and build Custom roms, that are just as good If not better than the original android build that is on phones.

 

ALSO you cannot compare the old way of rooting/installing a custom Android rom, to the current ways.

why do you think 99% of all custom rom sites say: "USE AT OWN RISK"

The reason most phones Have terrible Custom rom support is often due the fact, that it is a unpopular phone. thus the community has very little reason to support or build a custom rom for said Phone.  

 

And that is my exact point.

Each OS is different, and should be treated as such.

And i am not comparing IOS and ANDROID, i just point out that they are different. 

 

The only reason i used the android on Iphone argument is because Rejzor, said if you hate windows just USE XXXX

---

And if Microsoft where to be Monopolistic, nobody would even care of them getting forced to revert/change said decision, for doing so.

 

But apple OH no NOT apple..... They are not monopolistic AT ALL......, they only own 23-24% of the global market share

https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-share-of-apple-iphone/

Yet they own 42% in the Netherlands

https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/netherlands

Which is as i said multiple times before, the very Country where apple is getting fined and forced to implement these changes.

----------

It still baffles me why people support this !!ANTI CONSUMER Behavior!! Apple is doing.

 

Since if ANTI trust regulators say its Anti-consumer, it is ANTI CONSUMER Behavior.

 

Having less than 50% market share doesn't make one a monopoly lol. At that point Android is more of a monopoly based purely on market share. 

[darknessblade]

12 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Having less than 50% market share doesn't make one a monopoly lol. At that point Android is more of a monopoly based purely on market share. 

And yet on android you can just link to a 3rd party payment system without any issue, that does not rely on android-pay/ the playstore

[Brooksie359]

21 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

And yet on android you can just link to a 3rd party payment system without any issue, that does not rely on android-pay/ the playstore

And so does apple. You just have to pay 27% for being hosted on the apple app store. 

[WhitetailAni]

22 hours ago, darknessblade said:

-Can you install android on a IPHONE "without Jailbreaking it": NO: YOU CANNOT.

Even then, Android on iPhones only works for the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus, and you don't get audio, cellular, or camera.  

On 2/19/2022 at 7:24 AM, RejZoR said:

I can't seem to find exact data how far back iOS 14 and thus iOS 15 goes? I know iPhone 6s from 2015 was eligible for iOS 15. Do you have any info on iPhone 5s? Is it stuck on iOS 13 or iOS 12 ? If it was eligible for iOS 14, then it would also get iOS 15, but I don't think that was the case.

6S and newer get iOS 15. 6 and 5S are stuck on iOS 12 as they don't have enough RAM - iOS 13 needs 2GB RAM minimum, and the 5S and 6 have only 1GB.

  

21 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Not to mention I don't understand people who Jailbreak iPhones. They literally pick up one of rare devices that works superbly out of the box and it's literally great the way it is because it's tightly controlled by the vendor of it and they go and fuck it up and make it more inconvenient to maintain and use. Android ROM's are not much different. Everyone throws them around as some sort of argument, but they are so inconvenient, so impractical, so clumsy and require user to invest so much time into them to even get them working they simply stop making any kind of sense.

Simple. They like controlling what they own, with themes and such, or quality-of-life improvements like not having to swipe up to unlock with Face ID, or adding shortcuts to the volume buttons to play/pause or change music tracks. Most people who jailbreak aren't dumb either and aren't jailbreaking because their friend said to.

  

On 2/20/2022 at 5:41 AM, RejZoR said:

Because typing "netflix" in Google is hard... If people can dig some god forsaken promo codes from fucking shadiest webpages one can imagine, making excuses "people don't know" in age when everyone fucking searches entire internet over to get lower prices is the lamest excuse I've ever heard.

Oh nice, that's one app.

What about Clash Royale?

Or Genshin Impact (I don't play but a lot of my friends do)?

Or a whole bunch of other iOS apps with in-app purchases?

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

How the F is this any different?

Because with Steam, you have the option to use Origin or others.

On iPhones, All You Have Is The App Store.

You can easily avoid Steam's profit cuts by buying from Origin, or directly from the dev. Then Origin takes a cut, or the dev gets all the profits.

On iPhones, you CAN'T avoid those profit cuts. You will give Apple 30%.

Or 29%. With a $5 purchase, that's a 5 cent difference.

Now please, answer this question directly. No comparisons to other companies, no huge rants. Just a simple question.

 

Why does Apple seek to prevent people using other payment methods if it doesn't matter?

 

Again.

Answer this question directly.

[Kisai]

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

Wow, imagine actually answering a question directly rather than pointing at other services. Steam does not prevent this in any way, you can have as many links to your own websites in your game as you want. Are you going to answer on why Apple feels the need to prevent it if you think it makes no difference or are you just too proud to admit you're wrong?

You do realize that it's standard operating procedure that if you use X store, you are expected to abide by X's rules? It's amazing that people can't understand.

 

I invite you into my house, I expect you to take off your shoes. You're instead standing in the entrance and complaining that taking your shoes off here is an inconvenience, and you don't have to do it at the disgusting hoarder neighbor's house. You take one step into my house with your shoes on, and I'm pushing you out and shutting the door, and you're no longer welcome.

 

If you sell on eBay or Amazon, you are forbidden from having links or language in the listing telling people to buy somewhere else. You don't get to go into Walmart and have all the merchandising vendors going "buy directly from us and save the Walmart tax"

 

It's a non-argument. Apple saying you can't offer alternative payments is about playing by the rules that everyone who uses the store agreed to. The app store is a digital goods store that Apple operates, and does all the work for. If you want to pay using a third party system, that does not get you out of the platform. 

 

This is only ever been about third parties wanting to eat the entire cake, and quite frankly the commission amount has never been the issue, it's always been about trying to have the ENTIRE cake. That is just what businesses do, they see an opportunity to reduce their costs, and take it. If it breaks a rule, they risk being banned from the store forever. Which is what happens on Amazon and eBay.

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/technology/dutch-watchdog-fines-apple-5-mln-euros-failure-comply-app-store-2022-01-24/

 

Quote

Apple said it still intends to charge a 27% commission on any in-app payments it does not process, only slightly below the 30% it charges on those it does process.

 

The ACM has rejected Apple's moves as putting an unreasonable burden on software developers and not amounting to compliance.

 

Well yes it's unreasonable. What would be reasonable is removing all Dutch dating apps, and any other app that serves the Dutch market that has IAP's used the same way. If you're not willing to do the bookkeeping to have a third party payment process, then you don't deserve to have IAP's at all.

 

[WhitetailAni]

15 minutes ago, Kisai said:

You do realize that it's standard operating procedure that if you use X store, you are expected to abide by X's rules? It's amazing that people can't understand.

Yes, but on iOS, you can only use store X - the App Store.

On Android, Windows, macOS, Linux, etc., there's many, many stores. Don't like store Y? Go use store R, or M, or W! There's many options.

Yes, you can install apps on macOS not from the App Store or from identified developers. It just takes knowing how to go "right-click + open". If only Apple allowed that on iOS where you could sideload by enabling something settings, agreeing to a disclaimer about "we are not responsible for harm to your device", and putting in your iCloud password.

[Brooksie359]

47 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

I already explained why one company with a reasonable slice of the market can still influence pricing on other platforms. 

I don't understand why people are always like "ohh, it's not 50% of the market yet, so it's not a monopoly". If a company controls and exploits a considerable chunk of the market, their actions will reach beyond their own ecosystem and have negative impacts on all consumers. And this is clearly happening here. 

 

And you should not rate the market share by devices sold but revenue. Most cheap phones are just used as simple phones and no apps or subscriptions are bought.

Ohh, look, now Apple has a market share of 64%! Is this enough of a monopoly for you if they control 2/3 of the market? 

 

2/3 of the market doesn't make a monopoly. Monopoly would imply that there is no reasonable alternative which in this case there clearly is (andriod). People keep on acting like Apple is a monopoly when it really isn't even close to one compared to actual monopolies that exist like isps and youtube.