Apple have 23 million the developers, but faced a rebellion from some, because it is ready to invite everyone to see the future of the platform, at the Worldwide Developers Conference.
And so it goes
Rebellion is not anything particularly new.
Apple policy, its ecosystems, and to maintain strict control of the application provided to the user, and a relatively consistent 30% cut of the revenue. The company didn’t let the app direct users to their own payment system.
Apple’s argument is that it provides a platform and Socrates of storage. It can point to bricks and mortar and retailers note that they also charge a fee for the brand, want to sell them. It may also be noted, because it provides the entire ecosystem, including access to customers, it has some right to charge for access to its system.
Developers do not always agree with, some people want to provide their products to the app through the store, but also to avoid to pay Apple a visit, although this is Apple, the establishment of the audience and the development of the tool makes possible.
They may be a little around the 30%App Store tax(company ownership 30% of sales), but I don’t think they can realistically argue that Apple owes them a free viewer provided.
Compromise is everything
There are always some developers(including some big names)who would like to think that Apple’s platform some form of utility, and as such it owes to other people easy access to those audiences.
That’s not the truth conditions.
In fact, anyone in business to understand there will be a cost of doing business, and therefore, the negotiation is what is important. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect zero-cost access, so some things have to give.
Unfortunately, Apple does not always help itself in this.
You need to be consistent to make a strong case, with examples, which Consistency has been over ridden, usually for commercial reasons. The video app and Long app subscriptions, Apple has negotiated transactions in the first and costs a reduced rate during the two years of subscription income.
That’s inconsistent.
It is not particularly fair, because the smaller developers impossible to negotiate favorable transactions.
There are developers to a new round of Antitrust investigation wending through Europe, Apple behave in monopolistic ways.
Their argument is based on the fact that the mobile communication market is composed of two main platforms on the dominant Android and Apple. Developers want to build mobile application must choose to support one or both of those platforms, because there is nowhere they can go. Both cost and access.
There are also arguments that when the Apple-supplied services(such as books)this appears to be the wrong competitors to provide a similar service must be more than 30%of income from within the Apple ecosystem for their own business competitors.
This will not give Apple an unfair advantage? Or more parameters, what is the appropriate cost of doing business?
After all, Apple can still adhere to the cost of running the store, the investment platform and to maintain all other elements, the use of the storage ecosystem should help to those doing business.
There is nothing unreasonable about?
The only question really is how much’?
If we accept run business has costs, and also accept a company, the operators should also have certain rights efforts, then the only real question is how much it should be a third party doing business in this space.
In order to reach a settlement, Apple can be simply enumerated which certain applications of the storage costs, adhere to the margin, and charge all developers a monthly fee based on income.
The thing is to read between the lines of some of the complaints I glanced at the past 24 hours, I can’t help but feel that some Complainants just want to avoid any amount of Cost, THIS also seems to be unreasonable.
Apple put this:
“It is disappointing that the European Commission is advancing the baseless complaints from some companies just need a freebie, don’t play by the same rules as everyone else,
“We don’t think this is correct—we want to maintain a level playing field, anyone with determination and a great idea can be a success.”
This sounds good as much as possible, but I think that a fair playing field the need to be consistent, and, at this time, in the development of the App Store ecosystem, Apple has been forced to make a change and adjust its approach, which means that some elements now seem inconsistent apply. These inconsistencies need to be coordinated, as their presence weakens Apple’s argument.
The next?
As the scale of business transaction of the application through the store continues to grow, Apple has improved its own digital efficiency, and many third-party fees, once the affected business income has changed.
This is a constantly changing business environment so I think it might be in the 30% of the cost, and this cost need to be reviewed–but I don’t see a viable argument that provides any developer the right to run a profitable business on Apple’s unique platform, do not agree to shoulder some of the costs.
I think the European future to a similar conclusion, eventually. The only question will be how Apple can charge, especially in situations when it is hosting service with the competition. But the charge seems to be an unrealistic expectation.
Please follow me on TwitterOr with my AppleHolic’s bar and Grill and the Apple discussion groups MeWe.
Copyright©2020 IDG Communications Company.
