[HN Gopher] EU says Apple's App Store breaks competition rules a...
___________________________________________________________________
EU says Apple's App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify
complaint
Author : headmelted
Score : 628 points
Date : 2021-04-30 10:37 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| Multicomp wrote:
| If the outcome of this is that they are rquired to enable app
| installation from sources that are not just their app store, then
| Apple will likely have a customer from me.
|
| Think about it, if they are required to support third party app
| stores, they might as well enable sideloading. Else someone will
| form an app store where you submit an app just to download it to
| your phone. Or maybe that testflight feature is made cross
| platform and more permanent?
|
| They still get their $100 sdk rental fee
| dannyw wrote:
| They will probably just force Apple to allow Spotify to use
| their own billing system.
| solarkraft wrote:
| I like 90% of the Apple ecosystem (they could tone down the
| constant rule exemptions for themselves), but side-loading is a
| requirement. Now that jailbreaking iPhones up to the X is
| possible again (checkra1n) it's fairly likely that I will buy
| one.
| shuckles wrote:
| How should Apple charge for the costs of building and maintaining
| SDKs for 3rd parties? There are plenty of UIKit SPI that
| undoubtedly took a lot of investment to turn into API. Apple also
| seems to spend considerable development resources building API
| which simply would not need to exist if there weren't third
| parties on iOS (e.g. IDFA and its associated controls). Sometimes
| they likely have to develop new technology, such as 3rd party
| integrations with Siri or CoreAudio. Finally, there's also the
| maintenance burden of API which Apple no longer uses but third
| parties do. I'm sure there's more work in providing a platform;
| this is just what I can think of as examples for now.
|
| Who should pay for this work? How would you go about accounting
| for it when calculating the "cost" of operating App Store? Is it
| fair to say that all this cost should be capitalized into the
| hardware price of an iPhone, given that most customers use only a
| small subset of the features on iOS? Should developers be charged
| by API call, similar to the business model of a cloud platform?
| nolok wrote:
| Ah yes, developing APIs wouldn't be possible if every software
| maker didn't give them a 30% rent on their revenue !
|
| Except Windows had already proved it's false. Those APIs are
| investment, you factor their r&d costs into the cost of your
| product, so the buyers of ios devices are already paying for
| that.
| shuckles wrote:
| You are arguing a straw man, and it's quite obvious the price
| of hardware doesn't cover the cost of iOS development because
| iPhones don't cost much more than Android flagships, where
| the smartphone maker gets the OS for nearly free (and with
| little after-sales support!).
| nolok wrote:
| You are weirdly confused trying to compare two different
| things. Apple's financial results are public and you should
| check them because you will see that they make a massive
| amount of profit on their iphones, and they actively
| separates those numbers from their "services" (appstore and
| icloud) numbers.
|
| Apple themselves disagree with you in their financial
| statement.
| shuckles wrote:
| It's really unclear what your point is or how you are
| engaging with my question about accounting for the
| "costs" of running the 2nd most successful application
| platform in history, after the web. It is undoubtedly
| much higher than the cost of running a store, but how
| much?
|
| iPhone gross margins are about 35%. Even if it was a loss
| leader, $350 for five years of iOS is obviously
| underpriced, so I'm not sure what you mean with your
| reference to financial statements.
| username90 wrote:
| > $350 for five years of iOS is obviously underpriced
|
| No it isn't, windows is much cheaper than that.
| shuckles wrote:
| Every major release of Windows costs over $100, and iOS
| has a major release annually. Trying to compare iOS and
| Windows without any adjustments whatsoever is almost
| comical.
| oaiey wrote:
| I was accidently tuning into the press conference. I was
| surprised how accurate their statement was and how well defined
| the commissioner spoke.
| Blikkentrekker wrote:
| It would be in the common good if antitrust control were far
| stronger than it actually is.
|
| If it were up to me, Google would be compelled to provide clearly
| visible links to other search engines and other Android app
| stores just as Microsoft was compelled to allow for different
| browser selection in the past, and Apple would be compelled to do
| allow different app stores for iOs.
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| If it is owners of Apple devices, isn't that by definition their
| own prerogative. Like if they didn't have app store at all and
| had only used their apps, would Spotify still complain?
| nolok wrote:
| Lots of comments around the line of "ok maybe 30% is too much,
| but we can all agree they offer a valuable service, so what
| percentage should they take ?"
|
| Uhhhh, not a percentage ? Do you imagine AWS billing you a % of
| your revenue instead of a given price for a given service ?
|
| Give a price to be listed in store, to be reviewed, to be
| downloaded by a user, ... And let company pay what they owe you.
| Let them pay through the provider they can negotiate and then pay
| you back the cost they owe you.
|
| It's ridiculous that it doesn't matter if my app has a 5$ sub or
| a 50$ sub, I owe them 30% anyway. What they provided is the same
| in both cases, they should be able to price it out to me. Their
| current pricing structure is not setup like a fee for services
| and infrastructure usage, it's setup like a tax.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| Forget about 30%! What about 100$ each year for the right to
| properly run your own application on your own iphone/ipad if
| you want it to work offline longer than a week? Or am I missing
| something?
| donmcronald wrote:
| > Or am I missing something?
|
| That's cheap compared to the code signing racket on PC.
| megous wrote:
| Why would you need to sign your own apps?
| kevingadd wrote:
| The developer pays the code signing fee once instead of
| each end user paying the fee on an ongoing basis. Not
| comparable
| xnyan wrote:
| Huh? I run a few of my own programs on mac, linux, and
| windows - have not paid a cent to do so.
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| It's honestly about the same, cost wise. $100 for Apple,
| I've seen as low as $170 for Windows. If anything, Apple is
| worse because I require an Apple device to sign, though you
| can work around that with hosted CI.
|
| Apple actually arbitrarily adjusts the price for non-US
| regions. For some reason they want twice as much from me
| here.
| travisgriggs wrote:
| Do open/free apps still need to pay these flat prices to be
| listed, downloaded, reviewed?
| heisenbit wrote:
| Functional pricing i.e. pricing according to what it is worth
| to the buyer is an indicator for a monopoly. This was one of
| the arguments that were used to go after IBM way back so there
| long standing precedence.
| dheera wrote:
| Likewise with delivery driver tips. Why is it a percentage of
| the order instead of a flat fee/tip? (Get rid of tips and pay
| fairly, seriously).
|
| The driver doesn't know what's in the box. They don't need to
| know what's in the box. At most it should be based on the size
| or weight of the box but not what's in it.
|
| What's next, tipping hotel bellhops based on the value of items
| in your luggage? Got a $5000 camera in there? Oh yeah that'll
| be a 1% or $50 tip. Oh, it's just $100 of clothes? I guess
| it'll be $1.
| jollybean wrote:
| The 30% cut is fine - VISA charges a % and so do many other
| businesses.
|
| It's the 'market power / monopoly' issue that is the problem.
|
| Apple needs to allow 3rd part app stores and direct downloads
| and that's it.
|
| They can keep their 15%/30% if they think the market will allow
| that.
|
| The 'security' issue is a canard because the Android world is
| not effectively less secure. Moreover, Apple could still make
| certain security/notarization requirements, strictly technical.
|
| Too many people are weirdly supportive of their control - it's
| totally fine and frankly understandable if you want to 'just
| use the App Store' - but it's not good to limit others.
|
| Vertical consolidation within industries is usually a bad
| thing, not always, but it's definitely bad when these
| power/monopolies are created.
|
| On the other side of the equation, Apple has a 'Monopsony' in
| other areas as well (exclusive buyer by force) which can be
| looked at.
|
| The M1 chip, design, great apps - compete there, but indirect
| downloads, 'self repair', probably battery/disk/memory upgrade
| replacement etc. should be open.
| dathinab wrote:
| The most ridiculous thing is it's a 30% cut on all in-app
| purchases and not allowing an alternative payment provider.
|
| _For in-app purchases the service is ONLY a payment service
| and nothing more._
|
| Industry standard cuts for payment providers are lessen then
| 5%, often much less like e.g. 1.5%.
|
| So IMHO this is basically extortion.
|
| For app purchases it's still an absurd cut as nearly all
| "costs" apple has per app are fixed. The cost which are not are
| super small.
|
| Furthermore most other "running" costs are more associated with
| the user then the app. (E.g. Os dev cost).
|
| And if you now want to argue with "but they provide a messaging
| service" and similar don't forget that they effectively
| prevented any 3rd party message services (btw. google did so
| too). So we can't even say if it's a grate service, we have no
| realistic comparison as any was already killed at he roots
| before it could came to be.
|
| Just imagine Microsoft effectively ("de-facto") preventing you
| from using any mail service but Outlock and also forces any
| "notifications messages" through Outlock and also prevents
| applications from using polling effectively so that you have to
| use interlock any messenger, chat app, and similar with Outlock
| or it won't work properly.
|
| This would be ridiculous, but that is basically what Google and
| Apple did on smartphones.
|
| So yeah, basically Apple de-facto forces you to use a set of
| services you might not want to use while taking extortion level
| cuts for what is basically a payment service (which is also
| forced onto you) and reasoning that "they need to do so because
| all the nice services they provide for free".
| [deleted]
| ziml77 wrote:
| For some reason a flat fee hadn't even crossed my mind, but
| that makes a lot of sense. The cost of an application doesn't
| change the distribution costs at all.
| vlozko wrote:
| There's fixed components to the cost as well as variable
| ones. Storage/CDN distribution is relatively fixed. I would
| say so is access to developer tools and APIs. What's variable
| are services that an app may take advantage of, such as push
| notifications, geolocation queries, iCloud access, and App
| Store approvals. More established companies tend to release
| new versions on a weekly or bi-weekly basis.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _What's variable are services that an app may take
| advantage of, such as push notifications, geolocation
| queries, iCloud access, and App Store approvals._
|
| Cool, so let competition roll out implementations of these
| services, and developers can decide on their own if its
| worth using Apple's services or their competitors.
|
| Consumers will be able to reap the benefits of increased
| competition, as the free market delivers to them better,
| cheaper and more efficient solutions.
| jpttsn wrote:
| Why would Apple agree to this? Is it not morally
| important that they consent?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _Why would Apple agree to this?_
|
| Because they're looking down the barrel of antitrust
| suits.
|
| > _Is it not morally important that they consent?_
|
| Is it morally important that they consent to following
| the law? No, it isn't. Antitrust laws are very clear, and
| if a company violates them, then they'll face penalties
| and prosecution.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > What's variable are services that an app may take
| advantage of, such as push notifications
|
| Why are push notifications an Apple service? Wouldn't we be
| better off moving that into the apps?
| npunt wrote:
| Apple runs APNS which handles delivery of non-local
| notifications to all iOS devices.
| rockinghigh wrote:
| So you can receive notifications even when the app is
| closed.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Doesn't seem worth it.
| jpttsn wrote:
| That summarizes exactly why I hope this type of
| legislation doesn't work out.
|
| Today I can trust that any apps I download will use APNS
| or nothing.
|
| Alternatively, a horror show of cheap and broken push
| implementations from developers who want to save a dime.
|
| Consumers would suffer a thousand cuts and the value of
| the platform would plummet, eventually hurting developers
| more.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| Then Apple can lower the cost and developers won't have
| to switch to save a dime. Then Apple can keep their
| platform value.
|
| Keeping the value of their platform up is no excuse for
| anti-competitive practices.
| carstenhag wrote:
| Saves a ton of battery, goes through all firewalls etc.
| Same applies to Google's Firebase push notifications.
| aylmao wrote:
| I agree that it's like a tax. The fact that, like taxes,
| there's no way to get around it is IMO the damaging part. You
| have to use their payment infrastructure: rolling out your own
| or using a competing one is out of the question.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| Abstractly AWS sort of _do_ charge you a % of your revenue. For
| the resources you consume from AWS for $C, those resources
| should be generating a revenue for you of $R, if $R<$C then
| you're making a loss from those resources. If you're making a
| profit, AWS takes a cut in line-step with how much resource you
| use (and therefore how much profit you make).
|
| This assumes that as your needs increase, your profit increases
| and so does your AWS bill. Granular, PAYG billing is really
| just a tax on what you _should_ be converting to profit in some
| sense.
|
| At least, it's an interesting way to look at capital allocation
| and ROI.
| nolok wrote:
| By your metric anything you pay is a % of your revenue, I
| think you understand what I meant in the context I meant it.
|
| Imagine a scenario where you realize you can double your
| prices without changing anything else nor losing customer,
| therefore _only changing your revenue by doubling it_. Your
| AWS bill doesn 't change. Your Apple store bill doubles. This
| is factually a tax on revenue.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| I did understand you, and wasn't disagreeing. Just offering
| up a comparison as someone currently doing AWS price
| projections based on unit costs / CLV and seeing a fairly
| even margin on AWS resource usage vs revenue-per-resource.
| Cost plus and all that.
|
| It struck me at the time, that the granular billing allows
| AWS to function less like a product seller and more like a
| tax.
|
| A weak comparison granted.
| fnord77 wrote:
| > Do you imagine AWS billing you a % of your revenue instead of
| a given price for a given service ?
|
| hey, thanks for the great business model idea!
| makecheck wrote:
| Especially since Apple hosts free apps that support themselves
| only through other means (e.g. ads). Thus, even a 100% fee
| would do _nothing_ to cover App Store costs in those cases.
|
| Worse, a lot of these "free" apps are made by huge companies
| like Facebook that really could afford to pay the huge sums it
| must cost to enable their apps.
|
| People like to focus on the percentage fee while conveniently
| not mentioning a lot of other things that matter:
|
| - Every developer that _isn't_ a huge company offering apps
| "for free" is subsidizing the cost of App Store upkeep for
| those big companies that do not lose any 30% fees.
|
| - Apple basically won't pay you for months unless you've passed
| a certain threshold. Thus, Apple "makes money" by being able to
| hold onto your money interest-free for awhile, multiplied by
| all the apps that are not making a lot of money.
|
| - Every developer of any size must pay $100 PER YEAR so "free
| apps" always make Apple money anyway. This fee does not go away
| even if you haven't been paid by Apple in awhile.
|
| - Despite $100 per year, developers can be mistreated by Apple
| (e.g. review time delays, bogus rejections, bugs left unfixed
| in developer tools). Yet it is abundantly clear that Apple does
| not treat developers equally.
| AnonHP wrote:
| > Uhhhh, not a percentage ? Do you imagine AWS billing you a %
| of your revenue instead of a given price for a given service ?
|
| ...
|
| > It's ridiculous that it doesn't matter if my app has a 5$ sub
| or a 50$ sub, I owe them 30% anyway. What they provided is the
| same in both cases, they should be able to price it out to me.
| Their current pricing structure is not setup like a fee for
| services and infrastructure usage, it's setup like a tax.
|
| I'm curious if you've ever made the same argument for credit
| cards, debit cards and the like. All of them charge a
| percentage to the seller too (and many a times it's a fixed fee
| plus a percentage).
|
| I do believe that 30% is quite high for Apple's poorer
| management of the App Store with respect to scams and other
| aspects (see the lawsuit against Apple by the developer of
| FlickType, Kosta Eleftheriou). And it's not just the 30% or 15%
| alone that the developer bears, but also the annual $99
| developer program membership fee.
| lutoma wrote:
| There's no monopoly on credit cards though. There's multiple
| providers, some countries have their own (cheaper) debit card
| networks, and you can still pay with cash.
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| This isn't remotely equivalent or comparable. First, you're
| free to choose other forms of payment. Visa isn't holding a
| gun to your head. I know many sellers simply adjust their
| prices if you're paying credit -- see almost every gas
| station in the US. You can't do that with Apple.
|
| Second, the fees actually benefit the customer. They're there
| to protect the customer from fraud, and to provide perks. I
| have no idea how I benefit from Apple's fees. Seriously.
|
| Comically, I think Apple should adapt Epic's model for
| unreal: free for the first $1MM of revenue, only then they
| start to take a cut.
| jonas21 wrote:
| > Comically, I think Apple should adapt Epic's model for
| unreal: free for the first $1MM of revenue, only then they
| start to take a cut.
|
| They're halfway there. Apple only takes 15% (instead of
| 30%) if your annual app store revenue is under $1M.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Technically not really true, it's based on a complex
| system where if your run rate ever exceeds $1m (even
| temporarily) you get bumped into the 30% bracket for this
| year and the next year, even if your revenue next year is
| 100k. (I'm still confused that they decided to make the
| system that complicated, it can't increase their profits
| THAT much.)
|
| This system coincidentally punishes non-subscription
| products like non-IAP games, where your "launch" produces
| a big revenue spike and then you have a much smaller long
| tail of revenue. To avoid getting punished by this, you'd
| have to optimize for a lower-revenue launch and more
| stable long-term revenue... i.e. a subscription.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > First, you're free to choose other forms of payment. Visa
| isn't holding a gun to your head.
|
| And you're free to choose another phone vendor. Apple isn't
| holding a gun to your head.
|
| > I know many sellers simply adjust their prices if you're
| paying credit -- see almost every gas station in the US.
| You can't do that with Apple.
|
| You can't do that with PayPal, either.
|
| > I have no idea how I benefit from Apple's fees.
| Seriously.
|
| The host the AppStore for you; allow you to search, access
| and download all apps and provide an infrastructure for
| updates and payment. Plus, they're doing basic fraud
| checking [0] and check that apps adhere to a basic quality
| and usability standard.
|
| It's a very different topic whether the 30% cut is too
| much, but its not like Apple does not provide anything in
| return.
|
| [0] Other comments pointed out that they failed quite badly
| in a case, but there's a difference between bad service and
| no service.
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| And you're free to use another ISP or start digging your
| own Fibre cables. The duopoly has extreme power over our
| lines and the impact is just like with utilities.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _And you 're free to choose another phone vendor. Apple
| isn't holding a gun to your head._
|
| You're "free" to choose one side of the same coin,
| because Apple and Google have a duopoly in the mobile app
| distribution market. They both abuse that market
| dominance to prevent competition in the mobile app
| distribution market from offering consumers better, more
| efficient and cheaper options.
|
| Google prevents mobile app distribution competitors from
| competing with the Play Store on feature parity because
| user installable 3rd party mobile app stores cannot
| implement automatic upgrades, background installation of
| apps, or batch installs of apps like the Play Store can.
| [deleted]
| donmcronald wrote:
| > I'm curious if you've ever made the same argument for
| credit cards, debit cards and the like. All of them charge a
| percentage to the seller too (and many a times it's a fixed
| fee plus a percentage).
|
| I always thought debit was a fixed fee. I just looked up one
| of the most common processors in Canada and it says the max
| fee is $0.035 going as low as $0.02 if you fall into a market
| segment that skews towards less than $20 per transaction.
|
| I intentionally pay debit for everything and keep a low fee,
| low interest credit card with no perks.
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| Non-credit rails are region specific and usually avoid
| higher fees typical of credit card rails (often even free).
|
| The processor fees for credit card rails exist primarily
| nowadays to support two things: fraud and perks.
|
| With a debit transaction, your fraud protection is usually
| much, much lower (often non-existent). It's usually
| equivalent to handing over cash. With a credit card, you
| can call them up and get the transaction reversed pretty
| trivially.
| amaccuish wrote:
| > Uhhhh, not a percentage ? Do you imagine AWS billing you a
| % of your revenue instead of a given price for a given
| service ?
|
| > ...
|
| Please just say what you think and not "..."
| nolok wrote:
| I did, the EU did, and as a result their fees got massively
| regulated in the EU, below 0.5% ; on top of other reasons why
| this comparison is not fair and equal as discussed in many
| comments below (no market monopoly associated, and percentage
| actually matching the costs and expanses of those card
| issuers to their own providers [banks] as opposed to apple's
| fee being disconnected from the reality of the underlying
| costs).
| carstenhag wrote:
| The EU regulated the Intercharge fees of credit/debit
| cards, but not the total fees that a Payment Service
| Provider can charge a merchant. Those can still be 3-4% or
| so.
| rickdeveloper wrote:
| ~This is a really bad idea in my opinion because the total cost
| of operating the App Store would be equally distributed amongst
| all apps, which hurts small developers and benefits big
| corporations disproportionately. An app like Facebook, which is
| downloaded billions of times, does cost Apple significantly
| more than a small indie app used by, say, thousands. You can't
| get around that. Having the small indie app paying for Facebook
| (indirectly) is a lot worse than the current system. Worse,
| Apple is unlikely to decrease its profit margin. This would
| mean small developers and big corps pay an equal share in the
| profits Apple is going to make.~
|
| ~A better idea would be to have a free tier and take a
| percentage above that. The first $1000 are a lot more valuable
| to the creator than everything beyond that.~
|
| edit: OP said per download, misread it. That makes sense.
| austinkhale wrote:
| This is a strange take considering Facebook is distributed
| for free in the App Store with the current model. Apps paying
| the 30% tax _already_ subsidize Facebook's distribution.
| charwalker wrote:
| Does FB have in app purchases on iOS? If so, is 30% going
| to Apple as the processor?
| lukeschlather wrote:
| Facebook is completely ad-supported. I guess the hole in
| Apple's revenue model is that they don't charge 30% of ad
| sales (of course I think this demonstrates how absurd the
| whole idea of charging a % of subscription revenue is.)
| nolok wrote:
| > the total cost of operating the App Store would be equally
| distributed amongst all apps
|
| No it would not, it would be distributed by usage. If you
| wonder "would that possibly work ?", welcome to the internet,
| it works that way.
|
| And it doesn't stop apple from offering special terms you can
| opt in for a flat 30% fee or entirely free if your app is
| entirely free (or ad supported) too.
| MperorM wrote:
| Or do like apple and charge both!
| yummies wrote:
| The most ridiculous example of this is Tesla's offering of in-
| app Autopilot upgrades. At $10k, imagine what Apple's cut is,
| for absolutely no value added.
| minhazm wrote:
| Apple does not take a cut of this. It's charged to your
| existing payment method on file. It's closer to a physical
| good, since it's an enhancement for an actual physical good.
| amelius wrote:
| Perhaps we should be selling dummy physical goods with our
| software then. E.g. software $1, coffee mug $100.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Some of the big loot box mobile games in fact use this
| model to pull in more revenue - they sell soundtracks or
| other goods at marked-up prices that happen to include
| in-game bonuses you'd otherwise be giving Apple 30% for.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| The mug has your personal QR code on it! It's unique!
| AlexandrB wrote:
| It's interesting that this _seems_ more shocking even though
| it 's not much different than Apple collecting 30% on one
| thousand $10 purchases.
| nolok wrote:
| It's because Apple's actual costs are pretty much fixed
| (storage, bandwidth, ...) so clearly on a low price / many
| customer scenario it seems fairer.
|
| That's why a per usage pricing would be fairer. And yes,
| the app having one thousand $10 purchases would pay way
| more than the app having a single $10000 purchase, but
| that's the point.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| But for Spotify or other apps that sell content Apple is
| not providing storage, bandwidth, or anything else. They
| do provide payment processing, but it's common for that
| to be a small percentage of purchase price already (e.g.
| ~1-2% for credit cards).
| nolok wrote:
| > But for Spotify or other apps that sell content Apple
| is not providing storage, bandwidth, or anything else.
|
| Indeed, I missed that layer when answering you. That's
| makes it even worse and unfair.
|
| > They do provide payment processing, but it's common for
| that to be a small percentage of purchase price already
| (e.g. ~1-2% for credit cards).
|
| And working with Visa doesn't stop you from offering
| Mastercard or Paypal or others. Apple mandates you use
| them.
| xxs wrote:
| >e.g. ~1-2% for credit cards
|
| It's capped in the EU - 0.3% for credit card, 0.2% for
| debit ones. That fee includes all the risks of
| chargebacks and fraud processing.
| shuckles wrote:
| Buying a physical good or an upgrade to a physical good isn't
| an "in-app" purchase. I don't think Apple is taking a cut
| here -- it's probably just Apple Pay.
| charwalker wrote:
| Apple Pay IS Apple. In app purchases are also subject to
| their % cut.
| shuckles wrote:
| I think you don't understand what you're talking about.
| If I buy a kiddie pool from the Shopify app with Apple
| Pay, it is not subject to the App Store in-app purchase
| terms. Similarly, if I book a massage through Yelp and it
| supported Apple Pay, there would be no App Store fee.
| Apple's cut is for digital goods whose consumption is
| facilitated through your app.
| [deleted]
| AlexandrB wrote:
| I recently had a change of heart on this issue when the
| prevalence of fraudulent apps on the App Store was
| documented[1]. It's hard to argue that Apple is providing
| significant benefit to either consumers or developers for their
| 30% cut when they seem incapable of reigning in obvious fraud.
|
| In addition, I think Apple pushing subscriptions as a solution
| for long term app funding (instead of upgrade pricing or other
| options) has resulted in apps as simple as text editors or todo
| apps needlessly becoming subscription services. Apple didn't
| invent SaaS, but they sure did popularize it for consumer-
| facing apps.
|
| Overall, Apple has not been a good steward of the App Store.
|
| [1] https://9to5mac.com/2021/02/11/app-store-scam-apps-how-to-
| sp...
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _Overall, Apple has not been a good steward of the App
| Store._
|
| I'd go one step further and suggest that neither Apple nor
| Google are good stewards of the mobile app distribution
| market, either.
| emptyadam wrote:
| I'd agree.
| asddubs wrote:
| interesting point i hadn't really considered, i guess the app
| store interface doesn't really lend itself to selling
| upgraded versions of your software, since you'd essentially
| be starting over in terms of ranking/ratings/etc every time
| you do that
| indigochill wrote:
| > Overall, Apple has not been a good steward of the App
| Store.
|
| But the question on my mind is: what precedent are we setting
| by legally mandating what a corporation can do on a platform
| they solely built? And are we pulling up the ladder after the
| incumbents have climbed it?
|
| It's one thing to mandate how much pollution a factory may
| leak into a shared water supply. But the Apple app store is
| not a utility or natural resource. Apple built it from
| nothing and they're its sole owner. If it's a crappy
| experience, the solution to me still seems to be to migrate
| to a competitor (I'm toying with the idea of trading my
| Galaxy for a Librem 5).
|
| There seems to be a mentality that megacorps have to have
| their hand held to not be public menaces, but by doing this
| my fear is we fortify Goliath rather than giving David a shot
| to kill him. The main reason I see this hasn't happened yet
| is that we've let the giants get away with corporate murder
| (e.g. Facebook's acquisition of both Instagram and WhatsApp),
| not because innovation is dead.
|
| And national regulation is a pretty patchwork solution anyway
| to corporations that can (and sometimes do) go toe-to-toe
| with national governments.
| y7 wrote:
| > What precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a
| corporation can do on a platform they solely built?
|
| This does not concern setting precedents. The antitrust
| laws are already there, this is just a case of them being
| applied.
|
| More broadly speaking, I'm not really sensitive to the
| argument "they built the platform, so they should get to
| choose to do with it whatever they want". Network effects
| are so large that there is effectively zero competition.
| What little competition there is can be easily squashed by
| Apple throwing a minuscule portion of its capital at it.
|
| We need strong regulation to counter this, and to give
| small businesses a chance.
| indigochill wrote:
| > Network effects are so large...
|
| Then are these network effects worth paying 30% for or
| not? If yes, you've just conceded the price is fair. If
| no, then Purism's Librem exists (and will not be bought
| by Apple).
|
| > We need strong regulation to counter this, and to give
| small businesses a chance.
|
| The same way it gave small railroad companies a chance?
| Or small oil, or small pharmaceutical, or small telecom?
| National legislation historically has been a method of
| pulling up the ladder behind robber barons, not of giving
| the little guy a chance.
| username90 wrote:
| > Then are these network effects worth paying 30% for or
| not? If yes, you've just conceded the price is fair. If
| no, then Purism's Librem exists (and will not be bought
| by Apple).
|
| EU forcing Apple to lower app store fees to 5% or
| something similar wouldn't remove the network effect
| though, there is no incentive for EU to allow Apple to
| extract that fee. Tell me this, what would EU lose by
| capping App store fees in general? App stores would still
| operate there, App store companies would still be very
| profitable, they would just be less of a leech on the
| economy.
|
| > The same way it gave small railroad companies a chance?
| Or small oil, or small pharmaceutical, or small telecom?
|
| Regulating those companies greatly reduced their ability
| to extract money from the market and therefore
| contributed to the plethora of small companies in other
| domains we see today. We don't see small companies in oil
| or pharma since those domains requires scale, which is
| why we instead of forcing competition force regulations
| on them to make them do the right thing.
|
| I mean, imagine if we let the oil companies take 30% of
| GDP as revenue, it would totally ruin the economy and
| prevent us from progressing as a society. You could argue
| that those oil companies deserved to get that much money
| since without them how would we get to work? But, fact is
| that giving large companies that much money doesn't
| benefit anyone but their shareholders.
| pyrale wrote:
| > what precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a
| corporation can do on a platform they solely built? And are
| we pulling up the ladder after the incumbents have climbed
| it?
|
| We are setting no new precedent. In the US, internet
| provider are regulated as utilities and are stripped of any
| power on the content they serve, and the platform thrived
| as a result. What would Internet look like today if AOL had
| applied Apple's policies?
|
| If we go by that precedent, destroying the closed gardens
| around platforms is the best thing that could happen.
|
| If we choose to ignore it, then shouldn't we welcome that
| network carriers demand their 30% share of Apple's profits?
| amelius wrote:
| Of fundamental importance is that they run a _platform_. A
| platform creates a new economy and letting one party (which
| is not the government) regulate a market is a bad idea.
|
| Also, there is the network effect and there is vendor lock-
| in. In the past other companies could not use Bell's
| telephone network, so the government stepped in. The same
| could happen with OSes.
| jollybean wrote:
| "what precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a
| corporation can do on a platform they solely built? "
|
| They key word is 'platform'.
|
| It's designed for 'broad public consumption', this is
| different than other, purely internal aspects of their
| service.
|
| So Ford or GM cannot stop you from buying other vendors
| stuff and tweaking your car. The very thought would be
| absurd. A car is designed to be at very least maintained,
| they can void warranties etc. but not have absolute
| control.
|
| BMW is stricter about those things, which is fine, but it's
| still outside of their control.
|
| Finally, I think the reach of the platforms actually does
| matter - once something becomes a public good, we treat it
| differently.
|
| Imagine if the electric company in 1921 only ever let you
| buy appliances 'made by them' suited for 'their
| electricity', it's just not good.
|
| A similar situation is MS using their platform monopoly to
| dominate other areas, such as MS Office, which I think
| should have been regulated as well. Using a platform
| monopoly, companies can definitely dominating adjacent
| economies - even while providing an inferior product or
| experience, which is bad for everyone.
|
| To your point, it's probably worthwhile for us to start
| defining in legal terms what we mean by 'platform' so the
| rules can be applied fairly.
| keenboy wrote:
| These are very legitimate points. In my uneducated opinion,
| allowing other app stores to compete with Apple's would
| reduce the power of incumbents and allow Apple to compete
| on a level playing field. If another app store is better at
| filtering out spammy apps, or takes a smaller fee, then I
| just might install from their app store. It pushes Apple to
| improve their services than gouge as deeply as possible.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Apple and Google have a duopoly in the mobile app
| distribution market, and they're abusing that duopoly in an
| anticompetitive manner to prevent companies from competing
| with them in mobile app distribution. Anti-trust
| legislation gives regulators the right to order and
| prosecute companies for abusing their market positions and
| for limiting the ability of the free market to deliver to
| consumers better, more efficient and less costly solutions.
|
| Microsoft in the late 1990's and early 2000's was in a
| similar situation. They abused their position in the PC
| operating system market in an anticompetitive manner to
| prevent competition in the browser market[1]. Microsoft
| built their OS and Internet Explorer, so who has the right
| to tell them what they can and cannot do with them? It
| turns out that the federal government and regulators around
| the world have that right.
|
| This is like asking why regulators have right to prevent
| Standard Oil from engaging in anticompetitive behavior,
| given that Standard Oil built their own pipelines and
| railroads, after all.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsof
| t_Cor....
| jpttsn wrote:
| Can you think of any situation where bundling would be
| acceptable?
|
| Should e.g. a restaurant have to provide an open market
| for silverware providers?
| username90 wrote:
| Restaurants doesn't sell silverware. And even if they did
| they wouldn't have 10% of EU as customers. EU puts their
| anti trust laws for marketplaces at 10% instead of
| defining it as a monopoly, at that size you have to play
| fair.
| jpttsn wrote:
| Restaurants sell a bundled experience. The use of their
| silverware is part of what I buy.
|
| You could argue that the restaurant shouldn't be a
| gatekeeper. Other parties could let me enjoy a cheaper
| meal, competing to offer the most discounted silverware.
| My $10 burger could be $9 if I could rent a paper plate
| from a third party and eat on the floor. After all, the
| restaurant shouldn't abuse it's monopoly, right?
| eloff wrote:
| It doesn't have a monopoly. Now if one restaurant chain
| controlled 50% of the market, suddenly you've got good
| reason to treat them as a platform and regulate them
| accordingly.
| jpttsn wrote:
| Once I'm in he restaurant, it has a monopoly. The same
| way Apple has a monopoly once I'm in the App Store.
|
| Apple is the only seller of apps on my Apple phone.
|
| Burger King is the only seller/provider of plates and
| cutlery at my local Burger King.
| eloff wrote:
| The difference is, if you don't like it you can leave the
| restaurant and choose any other. You have no lock in.
| Once you've bought an iOS device, you can't buy apps
| anywhere else.
|
| Even if you forget the sunk cost you just have two
| providers to choose from.
| username90 wrote:
| Does this restaurants operation constitute more than 10%
| of the silverware market? If not, there is your answer.
| SirSavary wrote:
| I go to a restaurant for food and drinks, not silverware.
|
| I'm not smart enough to make an argument about food
| pricing but some restaurants let you bring your own
| bottle of wine as long as you pay a 'corkage fee'
| alexvoda wrote:
| Microsoft also solely built Windows and the EU still forced
| them to introduce the browser selection screen. No new
| precedent here.
| Orphis wrote:
| Don't forget, they built the platform, but 3rd party apps
| are what gives it value. Very few people would use an Apple
| device if they didn't have access to their games or
| productivity apps.
|
| Moreover, users pay a high premium for their device to
| access the platform. Why should companies also pay in
| addition to the annual subscription fee to their developer
| program?
| donmcronald wrote:
| > has resulted in apps as simple as text editors or todo apps
| needlessly becoming subscription services
|
| On the PC I have a mail app that turned into a subscription
| service and there are downsides. I have a lifetime license
| and get all the updates because I bought it before it went
| subscription based.
|
| Now it feels like there's a relentless push for more features
| every month to justify the subscription. Every month there's
| some stupid update that does something I don't need or want.
|
| And the subscription costs 3x what I pay for my mailbox at
| Zoho. Sorry, but your stupid email client isn't worth more
| than what my email provider charges me.
|
| I won't say the name because I think they're a smaller
| company and they made good on all the lifetime licenses they
| sold afaik.
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| > And the subscription costs 3x what I pay for my mailbox
| at Zoho. Sorry, but your stupid email client isn't worth
| more than what my email provider charges me.
|
| Niche products will always charge more than the mass-market
| alternative. There isn't another sustainable business model
| for small companies.
| paulmd wrote:
| it's all relative - no system is perfect, some bad apps do
| slip through the cracks.
|
| compared to Android, though? far far better, Google
| _literally doesn 't even try_ to police that sort of stuff,
| they just list it all anyway and take their cut, when this
| stuff comes to light Apple delists it but Google is perfectly
| satisfied to keep raking in their cut. _That 's_ the
| difference.
| echelon wrote:
| > compared to Android, though? far far better
|
| Where's your data to support this?
|
| Both platforms host scams and malware, despite the fact
| that they claim operating an app store is a means of
| protecting consumers.
|
| Microsoft does just fine allowing downloads from the web
| and presenting a permissions and security screen. They even
| have a database of signatures for apps that get flagged.
|
| You don't see people screaming bloody murder that you can
| install software on your PC. We survived all this time just
| fine without the app store garbage.
|
| Consumer protection is a gaslighting scheme to gain control
| and project into other verticals and industries. It's a
| type of monopolism we've never seen before.
| nodamage wrote:
| > Where's your data to support this?
|
| Multiple mobile/security companies publish annual malware
| reports, for example here is Nokia's Threat Intelligence
| Report for 2020
| (https://www.nokia.com/networks/portfolio/cyber-
| security/thre...):
|
| _Figure 3 provides a breakdown of infections by device
| type in 2020. Among smartphones, Android devices are the
| most commonly targeted by malware. Android devices were
| responsible for 26.64% of all infections, Windows /PCs
| for 38.92%, IoT devices for 32.72% and only 1.72% for
| iPhones._
|
| I wouldn't say this is "just fine". Perhaps you (and most
| HN commenters) have the technical knowledge to avoid
| installing malware but the vast majority of people using
| these devices do not.
| egocentric wrote:
| Thank you for being open-minded.
|
| Since the article you posted, I've uncovered a _lot_ more
| about the prevalence of fraudulent apps on the App Store:
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-
| store-...
| joshstrange wrote:
| > has resulted in apps as simple as text editors or todo apps
| needlessly becoming subscription services
|
| I'm torn on this. Of course I prefer to pay once for software
| but that's not really realistic in today's world where iOS
| (or Android) development is rarely "Write once, post online,
| walk away". It's an ongoing process and there aren't very
| many apps out there that are "done" (even the big players). I
| understand that my Drafts subscription goes to pay the
| developer on an ongoing basis to support the product and add
| new features.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _I 'm torn on this. Of course I prefer to pay once for
| software but that's not really realistic in today's world
| where iOS (or Android) development is rarely "Write once,
| post online, walk away". It's an ongoing process and there
| aren't very many apps out there that are "done" (even the
| big players)._
|
| Why is that? The user interface hasn't significantly
| changed since the iPhone was launched. Why do apps need to
| be rewritten so many times?
|
| Why should users pay once for software and then... need to
| pay for the same software again in 2 years even though
| there's really _nothing_ that has improved?
|
| Pay for a text editor? Why the hell wasn't a text editor
| well written on the first iPhone?
| joshstrange wrote:
| I'm sorry but your comment is completely divorced from
| the situation on the ground when it comes to app
| development. The UI has changed overtime, sometime
| substantially, and there is now an entirely new language
| (Swift) you can write your apps in as well as a new
| design language based on that new language (SwiftUI). On
| top of that, APIs change version to version of iOS and
| customers expect things that are now possible on newer
| iOS versions even if your app was written on an older
| version. Also, a lot of app developers work directly with
| their app's communities to focus on what their users
| want.
|
| Drafts, Apollo, Things, Overcast, and more are apps I pay
| subscriptions on so that they continue to add new
| features and keep compatibility with new iOS releases.
|
| Have you not dealt with the annoyance of an app that
| hasn't been updated for a newer OS? Or one that isn't
| even providing "table stakes" to other apps in it's
| category?
| otachack wrote:
| And new devices + resolutions! Literally in just the past
| 5 years we got the bigger phones, notches, etc.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _your comment is completely divorced from the situation
| on the ground when it comes to app development_
|
| Perhaps it is.
|
| > _The UI has changed overtime, sometime substantially,_
|
| How so? I see an app in the store. I install it. An icon
| shows up on my screen. I tap it to open it. A window is
| shown where I can type text in. If I receive a phone call
| or text message, something is displayed on the screen to
| alert me to that fact. I can tap on that to be brought to
| the event source. Or I can ignore it. When I close the
| app, there's usually some way for changes to be saved
| (sometimes automatically).
|
| This workflow, as the user sees it, hasn't changed.
|
| > _there is now an entirely new language (Swift) you can
| write your apps in as well as a new design language based
| on that new language (SwiftUI)._
|
| Did that deprecate compatibility with apps written in the
| older language?
|
| > _APIs change version to version of iOS and customers
| expect things that are now possible on newer iOS versions
| even if your app was written on an older version_
|
| Like what? The context was a text editor app and todo
| apps. What has changed here?
|
| > _Also, a lot of app developers work directly with their
| app's communities to focus on what their users want._
|
| That's pretty cool. What about basic features without
| needing a subscription?
|
| > _Have you not dealt with the annoyance of an app that
| hasn't been updated for a newer OS? Or one that isn't
| even providing "table stakes" to other apps in it's
| category?_
|
| Yup. It's almost always an app that's written in some
| trendy language, using some cloud feature, or some paid-
| for app. I use lots of free software on my laptop without
| that problem.
|
| Notably, text editors from 30 years ago still work
| fantastically. Email clients from 30 years ago still
| mostly work great (unless using certain popular anti-
| consumer cloud email providers). Games from 20 years ago
| are a hit or a miss. A lot of times they work just fine
| with an emulator.
|
| And I've already paid for all of those. Once.
|
| Why should the iPhone be any different?
| joshstrange wrote:
| > > The UI has changed overtime, sometime substantially,
|
| > How so? I see an app in the store. I install it. An
| icon shows up on my screen. I tap it to open it.
|
| From iOS 6->7 there was a huge UI change where they went
| from a skeuomorphic design to a much flatter design.
| Every year since then they tweaked the design of iOS.
| Sometimes it might be as easy as building your app
| against the newer SDK to get the updated look but even
| that isn't always "easy". That requires the newer Xcode
| version, oh wait, your signing cert is expired so you
| need to generate a new one of those, oh wait, this API
| has been deprecated and you need to switch to the new one
| that you put off doing, and the list goes on. Then there
| are the new features that you are expected to support,
| not by Apple but by your users. Widgets are a great
| example of this for iOS 14. But again, every version of
| iOS (or Android for that matter) requires minor tweaks.
| Sometimes you can get away with ignoring those for 1-2
| versions but you are just setting yourself up for some
| painful tech debt down the road.
|
| > > there is now an entirely new language (Swift) you can
| write your apps in as well as a new design language based
| on that new language (SwiftUI).
|
| > Did that deprecate compatibility with apps written in
| the older language?
|
| I wouldn't put a firm date on Obj-C/Java being
| depreciated but Swift/Kotlin are clearly what Apple and
| Google respectively are betting the farm on. For iOS
| specifically, Swift continues to get the attention and it
| won't be long before we have some new framework that is
| Swift-only. Already the documentation is pretty heavily
| bent towards Swift and some frameworks don't make it easy
| to find the Obj-C docs/examples (and sometimes it just
| doesn't exist or you have to look at older versions of
| the SDK). Swift is clearly the future for iOS development
| and while you can still use Obj-C I'd be very wary of
| using it on anything new.
|
| > > APIs change version to version of iOS and customers
| expect things that are now possible on newer iOS versions
| even if your app was written on an older version
|
| > Like what? The context was a text editor app and todo
| apps. What has changed here?
|
| I'd say it's a combination of design and what's possible.
| Design and design trends change over time and if you
| ignore that then you will lose market share to another
| app that feels/is better to use. As for what is possible,
| the phones themselves have gained both hardware and
| software features that, if not leveraged, will also cause
| you to lose users. Screen size is a good one but take
| Dark Mode as a example. Some apps had themes and/or "Dark
| Mode" before it was introduced in iOS but not supporting
| it now can, once again, lead to you losing users who
| don't want to be blinded when they open their notes app
| (or Todo app). When it comes to "what's possible",
| Drafts, for example, has a whole concept of "Actions"
| that you can find in their Drafts Directory or make
| yourself. Things like "Save this note to Dropbox" or
| "Open Twitter with this note's content as the tweet" and
| the list goes on. I wrote a Draft Action for myself that
| grabs the current timestamp of what I'm watching on Plex
| and inserts it along with the name of the media into my
| note, I use this to make a note of scenes I like and
| might want to save for later or share with friends. Are
| actions strictly required for a notes app? No, I guess
| not but it was one of the top reasons I picked Drafts for
| my notes app (along with many other things).
|
| > > Also, a lot of app developers work directly with
| their app's communities to focus on what their users
| want.
|
| > That's pretty cool. What about basic features without
| needing a subscription?
|
| Some apps do that. Apollo lets you use the base app for
| free but for nice/power-user features you have to pay for
| a subscription. The developer of that app updates it
| regularly, fixes bugs, and is active on his app's
| subreddit. Apollo is a Reddit client so not only does he
| have to deal with normal app development issues but with
| changes Reddit might make to their platform/api.
| Similarly, Twitter apps have had a number of challenges
| to address in the last 5+ years when it comes to
| integrating with the Twitter API.
|
| > > Have you not dealt with the annoyance of an app that
| hasn't been updated for a newer OS? Or one that isn't
| even providing "table stakes" to other apps in it's
| category?
|
| > Yup. It's almost always an app that's written in some
| trendy language, using some cloud feature, or some paid-
| for app. I use lots of free software on my laptop without
| that problem.
|
| I mean... I have plenty of iOS games that have died
| because they were never updated. I paid for them once and
| now they don't run at all on my phone, they are buggy, or
| don't support my screen size. Mobile development is
| difficult and needs to be ongoing which leads us to
| subscriptions seeing how there isn't a better method out
| there that I'm aware of. I like the idea of fallback
| subscriptions (like what JetBrains does with their IDEs)
| but that's just not possible in the App Store or Play
| Store as they work today. Not to mention that idea falls
| apart when "services" are involved like with Carrot
| Weather/Weather Nerd or even something like Overcast that
| uses backend servers to sync your podcast feed.
|
| > Notably, text editors from 30 years ago still work
| fantastically. Email clients from 30 years ago still
| mostly work great (unless using certain popular anti-
| consumer cloud email providers). Games from 20 years ago
| are a hit or a miss. A lot of times they work just fine
| with an emulator.
|
| > And I've already paid for all of those. Once.
|
| > Why should the iPhone be any different?
|
| I guess it comes down to what you want out of a text
| editor. Maybe calling it a text editor isn't even really
| fair based on what I expect out of mine but take a look
| at something like BBEdit. It's been around for
| practically the entire lifetime of the Mac yet it
| continues to put out updates. Some of what's in those
| updates are just compatibility/bug fixes but speed and
| new features are also a big part of it too. Think of git,
| BBEdit has git support but 30 years ago that wasn't even
| a thing. Nowadays it is table stakes for most code
| editors. BBEdit charges for the new major versions of
| it's app and to me, if you are releasing on a regular
| schedule, that's pretty much the same as a subscription.
| Subscriptions allow a company to plan better and for
| users to get software at a much cheaper initial price
| while being able to leave at any point if they aren't
| happy with the software. I think this is overall a good
| thing.
|
| If you are happy with 30 year old apps then more power to
| you but that's not been my experience on the desktop nor
| mobile. I bought Prompt (an SSH client from Panic) when
| it first came out and then a few years later bought
| Prompt 2 (Prompt 1 was written pre-iOS 7 and looked very
| dated by the time I updated). Now Prompt 2 looks dated
| and has 1 foot in the grave and the other on a banana
| peal and I'm looking at apps like Termius as a
| replacement. I don't love going from 1-time to
| subscription but both Prompt apps made it very clear that
| if you pay 1 time then don't expect any updates, you get
| what you get and that's that. Termius may cost me more in
| the long run but if it is continuously updated and adds
| features then I'll be happy. For example, it's supports
| Mosh now but there might be some new protocol in the
| future that people switch to.
|
| Bottom line, tech marches on and apps that don't adapt
| will be left for ones that do. Subscriptions help solve
| part of that problem by incentivizing developers to keep
| their apps updated or people will leave for ones that do.
| inetknght wrote:
| Thank you for the very thoroughly detailed reply!
|
| > _I 'd be very wary of using it on anything new._
|
| That makes sense and I can understand it. On the other
| hand, the a text editor and todo app aren't exactly new
| apps ideas.
|
| > _" Save this note to Dropbox" or "Open Twitter with
| this note's content as the tweet" and the list goes on._
|
| Perhaps this is a failing on my part again but... how is
| that an app problem? If the user has a Dropbox account or
| Twitter account then don't those provide the services
| through the OS? So _every_ app works with Dropbox (or
| Nextcloud or Google Drive or their local filesystem) and
| _every_ app can share a link to Twitter (or to Nextcloud
| or Slack or Discord or Twitch or ...). Why does the app
| need special integrations with the provider?
|
| I would argue that's a failure of Dropbox or Twitter.
| They shouldn't provide APIs or toolkits that apps need to
| use. They should integrate with the OS and become a
| provider of services to the OS. Then _every_ app gets the
| ability to save things to Dropbox or post something to
| Twitter.
|
| > _Apollo lets you use the base app for free but for nice
| /power-user features you have to pay for a subscription._
|
| Cool. Apollo isn't a text editor or a todo app though.
|
| > _I have plenty of iOS games that have died because they
| were never updated. I paid for them once and now they don
| 't run at all on my phone_
|
| I assume they don't run on your current phone. Do they
| still run on your old phone?
|
| > _Mobile development is difficult and needs to be
| ongoing which leads us to subscriptions seeing how there
| isn 't a better method out there that I'm aware of._
|
| Mobile development doesn't need to be difficult. It's
| made difficult by Apple's continuously-moving goalposts.
|
| > _BBEdit charges for the new major versions of it 's app
| and to me, if you are releasing on a regular schedule,
| that's pretty much the same as a subscription._
|
| In many ways, I agree. But there's one important
| distinction. I can pull up my old Mac OS 9 machine and
| run my old BBEdit on it. I'd be willing to bet that if I
| bought BBEdit ten years ago for Mac OS X on Intel then it
| would still run on today's Mac OS X even if it doesn't
| have all of the fancy new features of a new version.
|
| > _Subscriptions help solve part of that problem by
| incentivizing developers to keep their apps updated or
| people will leave for ones that do._
|
| I don't have a problem whatsoever paying for new features
| that I want and use.
|
| What I have a problem with is this:
|
| > _apps as simple as text editors or todo apps needlessly
| becoming subscription services_
|
| Basic text editors and todo apps were solved decades ago.
| Why do users need to pay for simple text editors as a
| subscription service? That's a failure of Apple's
| ecosystem.
|
| You clearly want to migrate the discussion to continued
| developer support and new features. So let's do that
| then.
|
| Let me walk you through my experience. I want to use a
| terminal on my iPhone. I know that I get terminals for
| free in Mac OS, Linux, and even Windows has a command
| prompt. They're literally _free_. So I see the lack of
| one in iOS as anti-consumer. Or, most definitely, anti-
| power-user. But whatever. In Apple 's infinite wisdom,
| users shouldn't have a terminal emulator. So off to the
| app store I go to search for one.
|
| The first result for "terminal" is Termius. It says it
| needs `in-app purchases`. In-app purchases for a terminal
| emulator? That sounds like a scam.
|
| The next one, xTerminal, also needs in-app purchses.
|
| The third one, LibTerm, doesn't say that it needs in-app
| purchases. But it's 448.7MB in size. Why the hell does a
| terminal emulator need that much storage to install?
| Nope, sounds like malware.
|
| The fourth one, SSH Client, also wants in-app purchases.
|
| I've scrolled two pages and all four of the top results
| smell fishy. So I don't install a terminal on my phone. I
| keep using Linux because it does what I want for free.
|
| Tech marching on doesn't need to bring scammy baggage
| with it. Apple's walled garden ecosystem has brought
| that. And they're not policing their walled garden
| against anti-consumer behavior.
| joshstrange wrote:
| I'll try to keep this reply much more brief. I think the
| divide between what we think come largely from my
| expanding into talking about subscription service as a
| whole instead of just the examples you gave: text editor
| and todo app.
|
| I can completely understand why some people might be fine
| with a text editor or todo app that doesn't change much
| and I'll ceed the point to you that the speed of mobile
| platforms causes work that might not otherwise be needed.
| Some of that comes from it still being a changing
| landscape where technology is improving. Desktops/laptops
| have not seen as large of leaps in part because they
| started from a much higher point. For a long time mobile
| phones had to be pretty limited because if they weren't
| they'd burn through the battery in no time at all (see:
| lack of backgrounding in early iOS/Android). I think the
| desktop platform (Windows, macOS, Linux) started from a
| much more mature (and open) place and thus it was easier
| to write something that would stand the test of time.
| Even then, things like gedit still get updates, nothing
| is ever really "done".
|
| > Basic text editors and todo apps were solved decades
| ago.
|
| Yes they were, now people want non-basic versions of both
| which is was brings up to where we are today. Part of
| that "required churn" can be blamed on Apple/Google but
| some of it is due to things that just weren't possible
| before. I won't pretend that Siri is good but Siri
| Intents (I think that's what it's called) is a newer
| (last few years or so) addition and I think it's a decent
| example of "why would a todo app need a subscription".
| The platform changes and your users want you to take
| advantage of the new features so that they can say "Hey
| Siri, tell Things to remind me do X" (don't get me
| started on not being able to set defaults). Or, to bring
| back another example, I might want a widget on my home
| screen of the next few items on my todo list.
|
| Are these features necessary for todo app? No, in the
| general sense of "necessary" but yes in the sense of
| "needed to compete in the mobile stores". Platform churn
| aside, these new features require ongoing development and
| subscriptions mean you can roll out a feature as soon as
| it's ready instead of waiting for the next major point
| release so you have a list of features worth paying for
| all a once. Could a developer gate each feature behind a
| 1-time IAP? Sure but as a developer all I can think of is
| "there be dragons", that sounds miserable to support.
|
| I do want to address the terminal program point you made.
| I've used mobile terminal and later mTerm on my
| jailbroken iPhone. For moving around my local phone's FS
| it's decent enough but I hated using it for SSH. The UI
| was just too clunky for mobile which is why I paid for
| Prompt1/2. I understand the annoyance at paying for
| something that is free on desktop but I think that misses
| the amount of work it takes to get a good SSH client on
| mobile. Could Apple add a Terminal app in the next OS
| release? Sure they could but unless they put in a lot of
| work it would be a terrible experience. I'm not trying to
| pretend Apple is perfect or blameless but I understand
| the decision.
|
| Lastly, I agree with you that there are some apps that
| exist that don't require a subscription but one has been
| shoehorned in. I don't pay for apps like that, I guess I
| bristled up when you mentioned text editors (to which I
| pivoted to my notes app, Drafts) and todo manager (to
| which my mind jumped to Things), both of which I pay via
| a subscription. Your broader point about subscriptions
| being forced into some apps that don't make sense is
| correct, I just think sometimes people throw the baby out
| with the bathwater when it comes to subscriptions.
|
| PS: If you are looking for linux-like terminal on iOS I
| would suggest you look at iSH[0]. It's free, open source,
| and seems like it would be something you might like.
|
| [0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ish-shell/id1436902243
| inetknght wrote:
| Again, thank you for a well-reasoned good conversation.
|
| > _Your broader point about subscriptions being forced
| into some apps that don 't make sense is correct, I just
| think sometimes people throw the baby out with the
| bathwater when it comes to subscriptions._
|
| I'm willing to pay for something that I spend a lot of
| time in it. Clearly the developer deserves to benefit
| from my benefit.
|
| But I've been burned by phishing, scams, and malware. So
| I avoid anything that even looks like it. That
| undoubtedly throws out a lot of good software that I
| might enjoy. But it also means that the very same
| software has room to improve.
|
| Thirty years ago, software had demos. Demos weren't laden
| with advertisements beyond "buy the full product to
| access this feature!". They didn't have clearly paid-for
| reviews. Most worked without locking my data after a time
| bomb expired. Many of those demos resulted in me paying
| for the software. Some of those demos resulted in me
| deciding that I didn't like or need the software. The
| demo fulfilled its purpose.
|
| Way too many demos of games got me to buy the full
| release of those games. BBEdit, like you mentioned, had a
| Lite version.
|
| Demos seem to be gone from the modern walled garden.
| xionon wrote:
| > Notably, text editors from 30 years ago still work
| fantastically. Email clients from 30 years ago still
| mostly work great (unless using certain popular anti-
| consumer cloud email providers).
|
| What text editors and mail clients are you using
| regularly that (a) you paid for and (b) have not been
| regularly updated for 30 years and (c) still work on
| modern systems with modern file types and file systems?
|
| To be direct, I highly suspect that any 30 year old
| applications you're referencing receive regular updates,
| are tragically underfunded, and the developers would
| ultimately benefit from upgrade or subscription pricing.
|
| Of course, everyone loves a free lunch, but someone had
| to pay for the sandwiches.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _What text editors and mail clients are you using
| regularly that (a) you paid for_
|
| None. The text editors and mail clients I use are free.
| They have been regularly updated for 30 years. And they
| still work on modern systems with modern file types and
| file systems.
|
| Where appropriate, I do purchase and donate. Mozilla,
| Wikipedia, and some direct payments to certain
| developers, for example.
|
| Thunderbird is good software. Vim, grep, and xterm are
| among the best text utilities in the world. Or, if you
| want, emacs.
|
| > _To be direct, I highly suspect that any 30 year old
| applications you 're referencing receive regular updates,
| are tragically underfunded, and the developers would
| ultimately benefit from upgrade or subscription pricing._
|
| I appreciate your directness.
|
| Apps that don't to follow the latest anti-consumer trend
| don't need to be updated with new features every few
| months. They don't need bug fixes twice a day. Their
| development costs are massively less. And their
| development is often done because the developer needed
| the tool anyway. I'd call them altruistic. But I think a
| lot of apps would do better with more pro-consumer
| behaviors.
| devmunchies wrote:
| i'm fine them charging whatever percentage they want, as long
| as they open up app downloads so i can download an app from
| safari.
| balls187 wrote:
| AWS bills their services on usage. If AWS ever offered billing
| as a service (ala Stripe) they would most definitely charge you
| a % of the transaction amount, along with a flat rate per
| transaction.
|
| Apple doesn't charge developers 30% of revenue; they charge 30%
| of revenue made from purchasing from the app store, and in-app
| purchases.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| The issue here is that Spotify can easily pay 10k for being
| listed despite making billions. Meanwhile anyone making
| freeware, open source or small apps and just trying to get
| started is fucked.
| nolok wrote:
| Not an issue, already solved in many market: offering the
| normal pricing doesn't stop the provider (here Apple) to
| offer other special terms to those who want them.
|
| Example in another market: you can buy an Unreal Engine
| license, or you can get it for pretty much free but then owe
| a % of sales.
|
| Nobody is saying Apple cannot offer an alternative "30% all
| included flat price", the complaint is about them offering
| ONLY that.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| The issue is that if Apple lose a tonne of money when
| Spotify decides to go flat fee, someone has to make up that
| difference. So smaller Devs lose out as they're currently
| being subsidised...
| nolok wrote:
| Free apps maybe, but then again the "all free" is a myth
| since there are costs to pay by someone, and Apple is
| free to keep subsidizing them if they so desire (because
| an entirely free app is good for their customers).
|
| But non free apps with a smaller base you would be
| surprised I guess. Storage for hosting and GB for
| bandwidth is incredibly cheap.
|
| To give a frame of reference AWS pricing is currently at
| $0.023 per GB for storage and $0.09 per GB for bandwith
| out.
|
| That means 30% of a $0.50 sub is enough for covering the
| entire storage + distribution costs of one gigabyte for
| that user (and that's assuming you need to store an
| entire copy for each user, which you don't). Yes, there
| are other costs (website, review, ...), but then again
| how many subs are $0.50 ?
| ziml77 wrote:
| But what if you're selling content that you aren't making
| more than 30% profit on? There's flaws for both flat and
| percent. Something more nuanced might be required.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| What if my revenue won't pay the rent?
| tolmasky wrote:
| They should take whatever percentage they want, even 100%, _as
| long as_ they allow alternative ways to get apps onto the
| iPhone and to charge for in-app purchases. The problem isn't
| that their price is too high, it's that it's the only game in
| town. Allow alternatives and then the price they choose can
| compete with the rest of them. We can see exactly how valuable
| of a service it really is.
| nolok wrote:
| Oh I absolutely agree. Like another commenter said below,
| another similar thing are payment processors fees, but it
| works because 1. you're free to use another one, or checks,
| or cash, or bitcoin, or anything else, and 2. the EU has
| strongly regulated their fees and imposed massive limits on
| what they can charge in %.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| But are they similar? One could argue that Visa and PayPal
| have a monopoly on payments processed via the Visa
| network/PayPal credit. Consumers are free to choose another
| ecosystem, but if they don't, the business is forced to
| make business with them. Similarly, the consumer can choose
| to buy an Android (or have to phones/tablets), but if they
| choose Apple only, the business needs to work with Apple.
| ARandumGuy wrote:
| They're not similar, because Visa isn't in the music
| streaming business.
|
| Apple is directly competing with Spotify with their Apple
| Music streaming service. Since Apple has complete control
| over the iPhone ecosystem, they can set the rules to harm
| other streaming service, or let their own service
| completely break the rules.
|
| These anti-competitive rules aren't just about Company A
| relying on Company B to do business. It's about Company B
| also directly competing with Company A.
| trinix912 wrote:
| Yes, but if you have a VISA card you can still withdraw
| the money and pay in cash right? That's an alternative
| that doesn't involve switching over to another ecosystem.
|
| Also, the EU regulations cap the fees and set up
| identical rules for everyone (unlike Apple where its own
| services are left through without a second thought even
| though they don't necessarily operate to the code).
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > Yes, but if you have a VISA card you can still withdraw
| the money and pay in cash right? That's an alternative
| that doesn't involve switching over to another ecosystem.
|
| Isn't VISA somewhat similar to an ecosystem? It's not
| perfect (you can not switch over all apps when switching
| from/to Android), but you still need to change something
| on your side. Yes, exchanging a plastic card is easier
| than switching a phone, but it's not fundamentally a
| different paradigm.
|
| > Also, the EU regulations cap the fees and set up
| identical rules for everyone
|
| I agree that this is a good idea, but it's not a
| fundamental problem with Apple's payment structure.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| People will always take the cheaper option, so might as well
| make that the only option instead of causing what will surely
| be claimed in the future as a decision trap for consumers.
| Hey, maybe 30% already was the cheaper option and they did
| just that?
|
| Allowing sideloading apps or alternative app stores will send
| the platform straight to hell, by opening up new exploit
| vectors in an already insanely complex system, and/or
| creating new and perverse incentive models for app developers
| and app store providers.
|
| We're going to turn smartphones and the app ecosystem into
| what has become of journalism in the digital age of
| information because we want nice things for cheap/free.
|
| Cheap/fast/good. Apple has always aimed for the last two.
| You're going to have to sacrifice one to get the "cheap"
| part.
| tolmasky wrote:
| For starters, the AppStore is not "good" (from a customer
| perspective -- it sucks, the search is basically unusable
| except for exact string matches, and still then it shows
| you the competitor's ad for almost the whole screen before
| what you're actually looking for), and I don't even know
| what "fast" means in this context. Probably not review
| time, and definitely not "quickness of features" -- it took
| 5 years just to get demo videos. In reality, the
| fast/cheap/good thing (while for starters not being some
| actual "law"), is meant to apply to engineering and not
| market dynamics.
|
| You seem to have a lot of faith in Apple having performed
| some secret formula 10 years ago to determine the cheapest
| price. I guess we don't need free markets for price signals
| at all! If we all had Apple's formula, we could have a
| completely government run system that determined the right
| price for everything. What a wonderful system that would
| be!
|
| Anyways, I've covered in many other comments how Apple
| would be better off by allowing alternatives since they'd
| no longer be forced to balance this fine line of appearing
| "fair" while "strict":
|
| From: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26796547
|
| _> This is one of the tricky parts about AppStore
| discussions, it 's not about being for or against the
| AppStore. In fact, I wish the AppStore was MUCH pickier
| about the apps it let in, and I also wish there was an
| alternative to the AppStore to catch cases that didn't meet
| that strict bar. Then the AppStore could actually be about
| curation as opposed to fear-induced isolationism. Then
| Apple wouldn't have to inadvertently have political side-
| effects when it disallowed apps like HKMap.live._
|
| _> Being on the AppStore could still be advantageous
| beyond just "either that or you don't get to be on the
| iPhone at all." Apple payment processing, iCloud
| integrations, Family-sharing, etc. could all be tied to
| being ON the AppStore, so there'd still be a huge incentive
| to try to ship that way. And side-loading doesn't have to
| be easy or even on by default._
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| > For starters, the AppStore is not "good"
|
| That is your opinion. There is no merit in this
| subjective standpoint from a legal perspective unless
| you're willing to share the metric by which you arrived
| at this judgement.
|
| > the fast/cheap/good thing (while for starters not being
| some actual "law"), is meant to apply to engineering and
| not market dynamics
|
| That's exactly the context in which I mention it. The
| iPhone, operating system and app store are _huge_
| engineering projects.
|
| > I guess we don't need free markets for price signals at
| all!
|
| I don't know what point you're making with this. We're in
| a thread literally discussing removing a freedom from
| Apple.
|
| >> I also wish there was an alternative to the AppStore
| to catch cases that didn't meet that strict bar
|
| Setting aside the obvious difference, how is this
| different than outlawing murder, except for one day of
| the year or in one city? Attention will suddenly be
| directed towards the less stringent alternative. You're
| just opening up the gates for a race to the bottom,
| something we've already had enough of IMO (and FWIW, I
| agree with you here: "I wish the AppStore was MUCH
| pickier about the apps it let in").
|
| Remember all the "malware cleaners" that install viruses
| on Windows machines? Yeah, we're gonna get that on iOS.
| "But we already have that/similar" Yeah, it's gonna get
| worse, not better.
|
| Your entire second quote is invalidated as well by your
| suggestion for alternatives. Nobody that the app store is
| meant to protect is going to use the curated store
| because they will be tricked/coerced into using the
| alternatives where people with less scruples can exercise
| more control.
| tolmasky wrote:
| _> For starters, the AppStore is not "good" That is your
| opinion. There is no merit in this subjective standpoint
| from a legal perspective unless you're willing to share
| the metric by which you arrived at this judgement._
|
| _You_ brought up goodness with fast /good/cheap! And you
| certainly provided zero "metrics" in defense of its
| goodness, I at least provided _my perspective as a
| customer with a concrete issue_. I literally provided a
| specific metric, search quality, immediately following
| the sentence. You OTOH just take it as a given that the
| store is "good," unless your implication was that the
| AppStore is "fast and cheap but not good," but I doubt
| that's the point you were trying to make.
|
| _> I don 't know what point you're making with this.
| We're in a thread literally discussing removing a freedom
| from Apple._
|
| The point is you believe that Apple can ahead-of-time
| know the cheapest price for something. You posit that a
| competitor on the iPhone would be incapable of arriving
| at a lower price. And for the record, if you read my
| comments, I never say that Apple should be forced to
| allow this. I think _they should do this because it would
| be better for them and for me the customer_. I think they
| are silly to continue putting themselves in the ire of so
| many groups by being so obstinate about this product, but
| even separate from that, it would give them fantastic
| arguments in their relationships with developers:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26796845
|
| _> Setting aside the obvious difference, how is this
| different than outlawing murder, except for one day of
| the year or in one city? Attention will suddenly be
| directed towards the less stringent alternative. You 're
| just opening up the gates for a race to the bottom,
| something we've already had enough of IMO (and FWIW, I
| agree with you here: "I wish the AppStore was MUCH
| pickier about the apps it let in")._
|
| Yes, setting aside the _obvious difference_. I have
| provided a clear example. HKMap.live is an app that Apple
| took down to appease China. The AppStore creates a single
| point of failure for nations to target and cut off. Most
| people here think it was pretty shitty to remove that app
| while the citizens of Hong Kong were fighting for their
| voice. Maybe in your eyes that 's the exact same thing as
| "The Purge" (I honestly can't believe this is where this
| conversation has devolved), but it isn't for me.
|
| Here is a simpler example: Tor isn't on the Mac AppStore,
| but guess what, I can still get it on my Mac. And that's
| a good thing. I don't have the needs of a journalist
| abroad, but I'm glad they can safely surf the net even
| though _I don 't have those worries_. I can understand
| why Apple doesn't want that front and center on the
| AppStore to put a target on their backs from countries
| like China. See, there's actually a lot of stuff that
| doesn't cleanly fall between good and "murder level bad".
| Hell, even just allowing FireFox with its own rendering
| engine is a clear example of a thing that most people
| don't think is akin to allowing porn onto the store, but
| that Apple nevertheless does not want on the store.
|
| I frequently acknowledge that I probably would not use
| side-loading. I in fact would be someone that wants
| stricter rules on the store. I would actually like for
| Apple to boot every loot-box based game off the store for
| example. As far as I'm concerned, it's gambling that
| targets children. But I accept that that opinion is not
| shared by everyone, and thus I think we should have a
| system that allows for strict rules without also having
| them _necessarily_ affect every single person, with the
| sole decision-maker being Tim Cook.
|
| The other just ridiculously obvious difference is that I
| can opt-out of side-loading. No one is saying that every
| iPhone user should have to be forced to download every
| shady app on Earth from every second-tier AppStore.
| That's not the way it is on the Mac. It's so weird that
| you bring up Windows as the alternative to iOS rather
| than... the Mac, which seems like a much more obvious
| comparison point. I wonder if that's because the
| situation on the Mac isn't a catastrophic hellscape and
| thus doesn't serve sensationalist fear mongering.
|
| As I said in that comment, side-loading would not have to
| be on by default, or even easily turned on. It could also
| warn you on every single app install that doesn't go
| through the AppStore (which would be awesome, but Apple
| obviously can't do this on their own AppStore because it
| goes against their narrative of the safety of the
| AppStore. Unfortunate, because if they did, it might
| actually help prevent a lot of these spam subscriptions.
| At least with out-of-the-AppStore downloads they could
| put super scary warnings every single time). In fact, it
| could even be disallowed with parental controls. There
| are a lot of obvious options in between "only the
| AppStore" and "MadMax dystopia where anything goes."
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| > HKMap.live is an app that Apple took down to appease
| China. The AppStore creates a single point of failure for
| nations to target and cut off. Most people here think it
| was pretty shitty to remove that app while Hong Kongers
| were fighting for a voice.
|
| China has the great firewall. I'm not an expert on it,
| but I assume whether Apple allows alternative app stores
| is entirely beside the point of whether people in HK
| would be able to download and use a networked app.
|
| >> how is this different than $ACTIVITY, except for one
| day of the year or in one city? Attention will suddenly
| be directed towards the less stringent alternative
|
| > I have provided a clear example. HKMap.live
|
| You have not provided an argument as to how more
| attention, both positive and negative, wouldn't suddenly
| be paid to the alternative. If Apple allowed alternative
| apps stores, China could start applying pressure to them.
| Or, as I previously mentioned, firewall them. Apple, a
| $Trillion company, caved, why wouldn't a lesser
| organization?
|
| > It's so weird that you bring up Windows as the
| alternative to iOS rather than... the Mac
|
| Because Windows was the previous platform that most tech-
| unsavvy people used, and it was a cesspool of malware. My
| relatives didn't go from Windows machines to Macs or
| Androids, they went from Windows machines to iPads. It's
| those people I have in mind when I make these arguments
| as to the value of an app store. If there are relevant
| market metrics that show that I am wrong here, I'm glad
| to see them. I'm just speaking from personal experience:
| people who use iOS and Macs don't come to me with the
| same kinds of problems as Windows users (which I also
| struggled with for years). Therefore I have a strong
| interest in not letting iOS become something like
| Windows.
|
| I also still think that macOS is a more secure OS by
| design vs Windows, so that may be another reason I'm
| picking on Windows. And people are constantly complaining
| about that, too, how their computing platforms are being
| locked down and will soon be devoid of any freedoms. To
| me it always sounds like the argument is coming from a
| place where they see some nefarious villain twirling his
| moustache and devising schemes to keep the masses in the
| grip of control. I see an organization of many many
| humans making engineering tradeoffs to create what are,
| IMO, extremely impressive devices and systems.
|
| Let me be very clear about one thing:
|
| > Maybe in your eyes that's the exact same thing as "The
| Purge"
|
| > there's actually a lot of stuff that doesn't cleanly
| fall between good and "murder level bad"
|
| > the situation on the Mac isn't a catastrophic hellscape
| and thus doesn't serve sensationalist fear mongering
|
| > There are a lot of obvious options in between "only the
| AppStore" and "MadMax dystopia where anything goes."
|
| I was very clear that I wasn't comparing the situation
| with the app store to actual literal murder, but that
| comparison weaves throughout most of your reply. My point
| was entirely about the implementation and not at all
| about the regulated activity.
|
| >> "Ignoring the obvious difference"
|
| I'd be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that
| maybe the difference wasn't obvious to you, if you hadn't
| sarcastically quoted that exact phrase in your responses.
| tolmasky wrote:
| _> China has the great firewall. I 'm not an expert on
| it, but I assume whether Apple allows alternative app
| stores is entirely beside the point of whether people in
| HK would be able to download and use a networked app._
|
| The HKMap.live situation happened before the Chinese
| Firewall was in place in Hong Kong (2019), so that's
| really not an excuse. Regardless, the great firewall
| doesn't necessarily prevent person-to-person sharing of
| an app for instance. Ultimately, you should absolutely
| put the ball in their court to actively have to fight the
| spreading of the app as opposed to being a willing
| participant. BTW, Tor, that thing you ignored in the rest
| of your post, was designed exactly to fight against
| things like the Chinese Firewall.
|
| _> I also still think that macOS is a more secure OS by
| design vs Windows, so that may be another reason I 'm
| picking on Windows._
|
| This just makes no sense. If you are making a case
| against a change, you don't point to the worst
| implementation of it just because it's the worst,
| especially when the party that would _actually be
| implementing the alternative has already successfully
| done so on another platform_. It 's like a state arguing
| against marijuana legalization by pointing to a
| completely different country instead of many of the other
| US states that have successfully legalized it without
| catastrophic results. iOS is _also_ "more secure by
| design". So why do you assume iOS would become Windows
| and not macOS? There is no logic here, just the desire to
| use an outdated and more convenient comparison point. If
| you honestly believe that iOS without the AppStore would
| become Windows and not the Mac, then you have a very
| bizarrely low opinion of the engineers on iOS.
|
| _> I was very clear that I wasn 't comparing the
| situation with the app store to actual literal murder,
| but that comparison weaves throughout most of your reply.
| My point was entirely about the implementation and not at
| all about the regulated activity._
|
| Yup, and I have provided several great examples of why
| the situation is very different, including many examples
| of things that are not "bad" but Apple could not want on
| the store. Like Tor. And FireFox. All of which you
| ignored. I also showed examples of how it doesn't have to
| be a free-for-all that everyone must be subjected to, and
| that there are other ways to do it. Also ignored. I
| addressed the main substance of your argument, while
| still finding it hilarious that the best analogy you
| could come up with was an "abstract version of the
| purge".
|
| Listen, I am honestly glad that the circumstances in your
| life are such that Apple's decisions may not have a
| meaningful impact on your ability to escape censorship or
| fight for your right to be heard, but I hope someday
| you'll understand that these real scenarios that have
| actually taken place matter as much as your hypothetical
| worst-case scenarios that involve Apple implementing a
| slightly different system in the most un-Apply way, as
| opposed to the way they've done so with tremendous
| success on their other platform.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| I'm not here to argue on the fine points of China policy
| or human rights. I just don't think it's fair to conflate
| the decisions one company makes towards what it thinks
| are good for engineering or business with every possible
| outcome of those decisions or how others can exploit
| them. Similarly, I don't accept arguments against
| socialism because of the trainwrecks from the past that
| have claimed to be socialist.
|
| And yes, when presented with a wall of text consisting of
| mostly emotional arguments talking past my points, I
| started skimming.
|
| Finally, you really shouldn't stoop to ad-hominem like
| you did at the end of your post. You have no idea who I
| am or my life experience, and even if you did, it's still
| not a valid argument regardless of my circumstances. Try
| to be less sanctimonious.
| tolmasky wrote:
| _> I just don 't think it's fair to conflate the
| decisions one company makes towards what it thinks are
| good for engineering or business with every possible
| outcome of those decisions or how others can exploit
| them._
|
| If the consequences of the decisions a company makes
| aren't a good metric for whether they are good decisions
| or not, then what is? We're talking about the largest
| company on Earth that often has a larger effect on the
| world than many countries do, and you want to take
| "outcomes" off the table for argument?
|
| _> I 'm not here to argue on the fine points of China
| policy or human rights._
|
| Oh, I'm aware, as you seem more than willing to throw out
| anachronistic arguments (like using the Chinese Firewall
| as an excuse before it was in place), and then
| immediately try to change the subject when it's clear
| you're out of your depth.
|
| _> And yes, when presented with a wall of text
| consisting of mostly emotional arguments talking past my
| points, I started skimming._
|
| I'm not sure how you can know it's emotional when you've
| admitted to not having read it. I'm also perplexed as to
| why you bother responding if you aren't willing to read
| what you're responding to. It's like writing a review for
| a movie you haven't seen, it's not going to be a good
| review.
|
| *> Finally, you really shouldn't stoop to ad-hominem
| [...] Try to be less sanctimonious."
|
| Some would argue that blanket describing an entire post
| that someone invested time in writing as "emotional" to
| the point of not needing to be read is a fairly bold and
| "sanctimonious" value-judgement. I at least take the time
| to read your responses before drawing any conclusions.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| > Oh, I'm aware, as you seem more than willing to throw
| out anachronistic arguments (like using the Chinese
| Firewall as an excuse before it was in place), and then
| immediately try to change the subject when it's clear
| you're out of your depth.
|
| You were correct, and you seem to know much more about
| history than I do. All I can do is learn, but again, we
| aren't here to talk about the timeline of the HK
| protests. You may have a valid point bringing it up with
| Apple's pull on the world, but that's not the whole
| picture. That's all I was trying to say.
|
| > I'm not sure how you can know it's emotional when
| you've admitted to not having read it
|
| I read a lot of it but after the third time seeing you
| mention a detail I'd already told you wasn't relevant,
| yeah, I stopped trying so hard.
|
| Hopefully you trust me when I say I've read everything
| else you've written, not sure how you think I could keep
| replying to your quotes otherwise.
|
| > Some would argue that blanket describing an entire post
| that someone invested time in writing as "emotional" to
| the point of not needing to be read is a fairly bold and
| "sanctimonious" value-judgement
|
| Not the same thing as what you were trying to do at all.
| You tried to pigeonhole me into some class of person in
| order to undercut my arguments. I merely pointed out that
| you were letting your emotions run away with your
| arguments... indeed, you _did_ talk by my point, multiple
| times.
| wvenable wrote:
| The iPhone itself is never the cheaper option.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| But is the work of the app store flat fee for an app? I think
| if you have a massive userbase and drop an update etc. this
| requires way more of Apple's resources to keep up with, it
| should probably be a sliding scale right?
| voxic11 wrote:
| Why would the amount of work change depending on the size of
| the userbase? Isn't it more a function of the complexity and
| maybe the purpose of the application? Even if it did then the
| current model makes no sense since they don't charge free
| apps with huge userbases anything at all!
| kristiandupont wrote:
| In that case, the Facebook app should be paying the highest
| premium. But as it stands they are charged $100 per year.
| nolok wrote:
| I don't understand your point. If you're serving a file from
| AWS to ten people or to a massive userbase what happens ?
| Does AWS pricing change once you have a certain amount of
| traffic ? No, you pay per GB delivered. Apple should offer
| that kind of pricing, or a price per user (download) if they
| want.
|
| And Apple should also be free to offer the % as an
| alternative if they wish, "don't want to bother with details
| ? Just stay entirely within Apple's system and pay 30% and
| that's it". But not strip the possibility of paying by use.
|
| Because again, if I have 500 millions users, delivering a 5
| MB update costs the same for a 5$ sub as it does for a 50$
| sub, yet Apple's bills 10 times more to the second one.
| dropofwill wrote:
| AWS price per GB actually goes down as you reach different
| monthly checkpoints.
|
| To me it seems like payment processors are a more direct
| comparison and they usually do a combination of flat fee +
| percentage.
| xxs wrote:
| Payment processors bear the risk of fraud and extra
| checks for large sums. App stores have effectively zero
| risk.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Note however that payment processors are actually
| charging in proportion to their costs, because one of
| their major costs is fraud for which the cost (if it
| occurs) is proportional to the amount of the charge.
| nicky0 wrote:
| Your flat fee model would really suck for free apps.
| nolok wrote:
| Nobody stops Apple from offering an alternative "if your
| app is 100% free then there are no fees for you at all",
| beside the 100$/year they already have to pay.
| username90 wrote:
| Advertisements in apps is a way to circumvent the app
| store fee currently, yes. That is bad, it means that ads
| pay close 50% more compared to selling apps compared to
| what they should, meaning Apples policy likely massively
| increased the number of ad based apps compared to
| purchasable apps. Forcing them to pay their fair share
| makes sense for everyone.
| kevingadd wrote:
| There's already a flat fee for free apps (the developer
| fees), and every customer has already paid a flat fee
| (buying the phone)
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| You still don't end up at "percent of revenues" but rather
| some kind of AWS-like bandwidth charge for distribution.
|
| Which the developer should be able to opt out of by self-
| hosting.
| jpttsn wrote:
| Should they also be able to opt out of the font stack Apple
| licensed, and bring their own free font garbage?
|
| Opt out of the battery controller and encryption libraries,
| to roll their own for cheap?
| paulpan wrote:
| Agreed, though the same could be argued for credit card payment
| processors like Visa and Mastercard taking a 2-2.5% cut of
| every transaction.
|
| Shouldn't they also just be regulated to only accept a fixed
| amount instead? I'm genuinely curious why this example isn't
| brought up more often and is just assumed to be the norm.
|
| The irony in this % discussion is that Apple tried to use the
| same rationale against Qualcomm in their radio modem feud -
| Qualcomm wanted to charge a % on device price for using their
| radio modems whereas Apple pushed for a fixed amount. I'm sure
| AWS would love to bill % of revenue but perhaps due to
| competition, they can't do that.
| tokyoseb wrote:
| Credit card fees are already regulated the EU, i.e. card
| interchange fees are capped at 0.3%.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchange_fee#European_Union
|
| As to why it's not a fixed payment: I'm not sure if some of
| their costs/liabilities would scale with the size of the
| transactions?
| nolok wrote:
| Vast oversimplification: it's because of chargebacks and
| fraud. It works kind of like an insurance, someone needs to
| take the loss at some point and fixed amount doesn't work
| for that (or would massively hike the fees for cheap
| sales).
|
| That's why when EU capped the fee "so low" we also
| massively pushed for 3D secure deployment, so those lower
| fees would still easily cover it.
| paulpan wrote:
| Interesting. But aren't the banks responsible for
| handling chargebacks and fraud, not the credit card
| processing companies?
|
| My (albeit limited) understanding is that Visa and
| Mastercard ensure that the debit/credit transactions are
| securely and quickly occur, but if there are post-
| transaction issues like fraud or chargeback, then the
| credit card-issuing bank handles/resolves those issues.
|
| Conversely there's probably a subset of transactions that
| don't need this sort of "insurance", such as buying
| groceries. Currently the merchant still has to pay the
| 2%+ fee in the U.S. but would be nice to have the option
| for a customer to waive the "insurance" part and benefit
| from a 2% savings. It's akin to many merchants offering a
| lower "cash-only" rate.
| amaccuish wrote:
| > My (albeit limited) understanding is that Visa and
| Mastercard ensure that the debit/credit transactions are
| securely and quickly occur,
|
| Now in the EU, if online transactions are over a certain
| amount or flag up as suspicious, we _must_ use 2FA. So I
| have to stick my card in my card reader and generate an
| OTP. Works quite well tbh. My other bank sends me a push
| notification where I approve the payment.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > (or would massively hike the fees for cheap sales)
|
| I've come to the viewpoint that this would be a good
| thing. I think we've moved too far in the direction of
| never paying for anything with cash.
| xxs wrote:
| Most of North Europe is quite cashless, and it's
| perceived an improvement.
| adwn wrote:
| And why would that be?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| My bank or creditors don't need to know where I'm
| shopping or what I'm buying, and they certainly don't
| need to be selling that information to the highest
| bidders.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Paying for things using a payment card creates records
| associated with you and requires the permission of third
| parties.
| osrec wrote:
| I think the abolition of percentage fees needs to happen across
| a bunch of industries. Property, recruitment, certain aspects
| of finance (e.g. money transfer).
|
| It's really really annoying, and it feels like people put up
| with it because "that's how it's always been done".
| tomasreimers wrote:
| Your argument applies equally well to payment processors (Visa,
| Mastercard, Stripe, etc.) and, as a society, we seem to be okay
| with them just taking ~2% of Revenue despite their underlying
| costs (largely) being a flat fee.
|
| I'm not saying it's okay, simply that there's precedent fairly
| ingrained in our economy.
| Someone wrote:
| In the USA. The EU forced them to take a smaller cut (https:/
| /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchange_fee#European_Union)
| zajio1am wrote:
| EU alredy regulated interchange fees for cards to 0.2% for
| debit cards and 0.3% for credit cards:
|
| https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/lt/IP_15_.
| ..
| Twixes wrote:
| Yep, its great because I never feel bad about paying for
| tiny things by card. I remember how before this regulation
| the card companies were extracting so much profit (with a
| minimum fee) that it was often _expensive_ for a
| convenience store to accept cards. Some had lower bounds of
| what you could pay by card, to keep the fees at a
| manageable level. Now it 's not a problem, contactless
| payments are everywhere and for everything due to slim
| fees. The only downside is that credit card rewards are
| modest compared to the US
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| I'd argue that their cost scales to the price paid because
| credit card processors are taking on the liability for those
| transactions.
|
| Additionally, a 2% fee is nearly inconsequential. If
| Mastercard and Visa demanded 30%, there would be literal
| riots.
| dhdhhdd wrote:
| And yet interchange rates in Europe are capped at around
| 0.2%. 2% is still a lot of money.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| It does stack up, but if the cost was too high, many
| businesses wouldn't work with the credit processors. Amex
| is an example of this. There's payment options that avoid
| this retailers could incentivize.
|
| And Apple and Google charge 15 times that because there's
| no way around them.
| nolok wrote:
| But that's not a 1:1 comparison because you are not _forced_
| to use them, you 're free to go to another one, or not take
| them and use checks or cash or bitcoin or whatever you want.
|
| If Apple was not making it mandatory to go through them, it
| would be another story from my point of view.
|
| Note that payment processor fees are massively regulated in
| the EU as well, with very low limits. So by that precedent
| the EU coming and saying "30% is way too much" wouldn't be
| out of nowhere.
| Evan__ wrote:
| You're "not forced to use them" in exactly the same way
| you're not forced to use Apple.
| nolok wrote:
| That will be a crucial point of the ruling to come yes,
| as the full version is "You're not forced to use them to
| sell on the market", and it depends on what you define as
| "the market".
|
| If you consider selling apps to ios devices to be its own
| market, then yes you are forced to use Apple. If you
| don't consider that to be its own market but only a part
| of the actual "phones and tablets apps" market then no
| you are not forced to use Apple.
|
| I believe because of the size of their userbase that apps
| for ios devices are a market on their own, therefore "you
| are forced to use Apple" applies. Here the EU seems to
| agree.
| tolmasky wrote:
| There's a fairly big difference between a duopoly, which,
| for the record, major government services rely on (if you
| want the COVID tracking app its either iOS or Android, if
| you want an app that your senator will use, you probably
| have to make it for iOS, etc.), and services that you can
| actually wholesale replace in your product like a payment
| processor. Not to mention certain school courses that are
| taught with iOS, etc. Apple has worked very hard to
| position themselves as one of the only players in the
| space, and they've succeeded! There is certainly an
| argument that the duopoly situation is _fine_ , but it is
| in absolutely no way the "exact same" as with Apple and
| the AppStore.
| paulmd wrote:
| Consoles are also effectively a duopoly, and yet
| Microsoft has argued that they should be allowed to keep
| third-party app stores off the Xbox while also signing on
| to the lawsuit to try and force Apple to open up their
| own.
| tolmasky wrote:
| I feel like you stopped reading my comment as soon as you
| hit the word "duopoly". Look at the specific reasons I
| gave why phone AppStores are different: they are
| increasingly necessary for everyday life. COVID-tracking,
| political interaction, school courses, paying for
| parking, etc. etc. The day XBox becomes one of the few
| ways to do these things, and not primarily a means to
| play video games, then it would be appropriate for the
| calculus to change there too. You can bring up Keurig
| coffee cups too, but the implications just aren't the
| same.
| chrisandchris wrote:
| You're not forced to use them?
|
| So you have to pay your Spotify subscription by cash or
| checks. How many people will still subscribe to Spotify? I
| haven't ever seen a check in my live besides in TV.
|
| In some sense you are ,,forced" to use them. And in some
| sense it is ok, as long as one party does not has to much
| power.
| ableal wrote:
| > have to pay your Spotify subscription by cash or
| checks.
|
| Not a good example - Spotify takes PayPal, which can be
| topped up from a bank account transfer, trivially done
| with the bank app or site.
|
| https://support.spotify.com/us/article/payment-methods/
| (just learned there's also "pay by mobile" which adds it
| to your phone bill ...)
| nolok wrote:
| Paypal also support the SEPA bank direct debit I
| mentionned above as a source of funds, meaning you don't
| even have to initiate a bank transfer they do it for you
| and it's instant. Bank account -> paypal -> spotify, in
| one or two clicks and no waiting time.
| nolok wrote:
| FYI: Apple disallow you to redirect your users to
| subscribe outside of their app without their fee. You
| cannot tell your users "go to our website to subscribe by
| check for 30% less", that gets you banned. So yes, you
| are forced to use them.
|
| > 3.1.1 In-App Purchase: If you want to unlock features
| or functionality within your app, (by way of example:
| subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to
| premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must
| use in-app purchase. Apps may not use their own
| mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as
| license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, etc.
| Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external
| links, or other calls to action that direct customers to
| purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.
|
| Also, I don't know how common it is in the US but in the
| EU and here in France we have "prelevement" (~bank direct
| debit ?)
|
| Eg I (virtually, on my computer) sign an agreement for
| company X to take amount Y from my bank account every Z
| amount of time for a given service. It takes less than a
| minute to setup and sign directly on the provider website
| (no need to contact or connect to my bank). I can cancel
| it at any time through the provider or at my bank. Since
| a couple of years they are valid in the entire EU accross
| countries "prelevement SEPA" (Single Euro Payments Area).
| They're entirely free, for the customer AND the one
| billing them (there are bank fees depending on your bank,
| but no interchange fee, eg I use them to charge many of
| my customer and it costs me a flat fee of 25e/month for
| the web access).
|
| That's how I pay my amazon prime, my amazon purchases, my
| electricity bill, my mobile phone bill, ... So a certain
| swedish music company could bill me in france that way
| for virtually no fee.
| nodamage wrote:
| I paid for Spotify directly with a credit card on their
| website and then logged into my existing account inside
| the app. So, by definition, I wasn't _forced_ to
| subscribe through Apple.
|
| It's true that you're not allowed to _advertise_ that you
| can do this inside the app itself, but that 's not the
| same as saying you're not allowed to do it at all.
| benzoate wrote:
| Spotify even ran an email campaign to tell users that
| they can save money paying outside the App Store.
| hervature wrote:
| Wouldn't it be nice if banks charged a fixed fee for a loan
| no matter the size? Visa/MasterCard/etc are not comparable
| here because they are financing transactions which do have
| percentage based mechanisms such as % of fraud or % charged
| back.
| skeptical_dog wrote:
| The cost to the issuer is proportional to the size of the
| purchase in the case of credit default or fraud. So a fixed
| fee does not make sense for loans. This isn't the case for
| the App Store.
|
| BTW, Visa/MasterCard don't manage risk afaik -- the card
| issuing banks do that. Visa just connects the pos terminal
| etc to the right bank.
| hervature wrote:
| That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm responding to someone
| who said that we as a society have accepted % of revenue
| based charging BECAUSE Visa et al. have models like that.
| I'm pointing it out that they have % of revenue models
| because their costs are directly tied to revenue. I'm not
| even going to get into cash back and points and
| international transactions which are one-to-one
| relationships with how much is being charged, but do you
| really think the banks pay for the privilege of being
| part of Visa? No, Visa has costs at least somewhat
| proportional to the volume going through that bank.
| xwolfi wrote:
| Banks and loan are not a good comparison since you ll most
| likely understand a million euros loan will be harder to
| produce for the bank than a 1000 one. Taking a percent is
| fine.
|
| Tbh it would be fine if Apple charged per bandwidth usage.
| But taking 50 or 500 euros in wont change how much it cost
| them to deliver the app.
| hervature wrote:
| That was entirely my point. I was responding to a comment
| that says we have precedent in accepting % revenue models
| because Visa has one. I'm pointing out to them that in
| finance, percentage of dollar amount is normal and
| orthogonal to the App Store model.
| hk1337 wrote:
| Technically, AWS doesn't bill on percentage but they do bill on
| how long something is being used and how much data is run
| through whatever you're using, plus a number of other charges.
| nolok wrote:
| ... So usage, entirely different from revenue.
|
| If you manage to double your price without changing how much
| resources you need to use, AWS bill doesn't change. Apple's
| bill doubles.
| amelius wrote:
| Which reminds me: where is EU's browser ballot screen?
|
| And why don't similar rules apply to render engines?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Since this is an EU case, that should mean it'll actually do
| something, and won't take a decade and a half to conclude.
|
| The penalty won't be the big deal here, it'll be what Apple is
| prohibited from doing. And it'll be really exciting if the
| precedent set blows back on the entire 30%-rent-seeking-platform-
| industry.
| varispeed wrote:
| > Since this is an EU case, that should mean it'll actually do
| something
|
| Are you joking, right?
|
| Below is the quote from the linked article:
|
| > The EU ruled in 2016 that Apple had to repay 13 billion euros
| ($15.7 billion) in unpaid taxes to the Irish government, after
| the latter granted "undue tax benefits." Apple and the Irish
| government have contested the decision and the case is still in
| court.
|
| I believe there is going to be many years, many meetings,
| dinners, salaries, bonuses funnelled out, and in my opinion,
| also money changing hands under a table, before anything really
| happens. EU is all sizzle without the steak.
| hrktb wrote:
| The tax case takes so long because they have a participating
| government on their side, and it's far to be clear cut on a
| legal perspective. The app store issue is in many respects
| simpler.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| That happened because the Irish government refused apple's
| payment.
| endisneigh wrote:
| What percentage is acceptable to you? Perhaps all percentage
| based transactions are rent seeking and should be made illegal.
| I'm on board.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| The issue is it being a mandatory offering, as opposed to
| alternative stores. And it's designed to make a profit, not
| to secure iOS in any meaningful way. (For instance, the
| requirement on IAPs, despite them not requiring additional
| software distribution services or app review costs for
| Apple.)
|
| If Apple wants to secure or curate their platform, fine, but
| it's now a general computing device, and alternative
| platforms must be allowed, and most importantly, users must
| not be prevented from hearing about them.
|
| Imagine the pressure Apple would feel from consumers if they
| were even still permitted to charge 30% and require companies
| to use their app store... but they also were required to let
| apps tell users to go to their website for a cheaper price.
|
| Apple would need to drive it's prices down at least enough to
| make it worth eating their tax for a smoother experience. The
| fact Apple prevents consumers from being told about their cut
| or that things can be gotten cheaper elsewhere is the most
| insidious and obvious consumer harm in their entire schtick.
| endisneigh wrote:
| I don't understand why people say it's a general computing
| device. It's clearly not nor has it been advertised as
| such.
|
| If it actually was a general computing device you could
| just install an entirely different operating system onto
| it.
|
| If Apple allowed users to install Android on iPhones but
| didn't change iOS would that be an acceptable solution? If
| so, what's stopping someone from just getting an Android
| device now? If not- doesn't Android already fix all of the
| issues you're describing?
| saurik wrote:
| Most Android devices--and certainly all the good ones--
| are almost as locked down as iOS: Android has a bit more
| extensibility points, and sideloading has fewer
| restrictions, but it isn't like an Android device is some
| open "run anything you want" playing field (hell: the
| original Android G1 needed a jailbreak!!); and, really,
| if you analyze that market carefully, Samsung pretty much
| owns it with like 95% of the profit made across all
| vendors (and they have extra locked down devices).
| josephcsible wrote:
| Do you think Pixels are locked down, or do you not
| consider them "good ones"?
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| That's why Google and Samsung need to be sued in a
| similar fashion, too.
| saurik wrote:
| Agree. FWIW, in Epic's battle, they also chose to sue
| Google; we just don't hear as much about the case.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| The only thing between you and infinite control on most
| Android devices, including pixels, is repeatedly tapping
| the About entry in the menu.
| saurik wrote:
| Huh?... developer mode on an Android device doesn't even
| give you root access (which isn't that powerful these
| days due to SELinux), much less "infinite control": if
| you want to modify the lock screen or how notifications
| work or any other myriad things that Android doesn't
| provide extensibility points for, you need to jailbreak
| your device, just as you would for iOS. Some devices
| provide the ability to do an official "bootloader
| unlock", which actually gives you real control, but the
| vast majority do not.
|
| (aside) The lack of basic understanding of how all of
| these restrictions work is so annoyingly pervasive that I
| have seriously been in arguments with people at
| conferences who are _adamant_ about how open these
| Android devices are, and then when I challenge them what
| device they have they have a _jailbroken_ Samsung on
| Verizon (the worst combo) and I have to walk them down
| memory lane to remind them of what exploit they must have
| downloaded (as I used to know most of the key players; I
| 've taken a step back from the DEFCON scene, though, as
| the toxicity was getting to me).
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Apple plainly does so.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI-iJcC9JUc
| m4rtink wrote:
| That's the whole issue - it _is_ a general purpose
| computing device but Apple is trying to prevent users
| from using it as such for their selfish reasons.
|
| Not only is that anticompetitive, it's also dangerous
| (state actors can and do apply pressure on them to censor
| dissenting apps as Apple is the the single gatekeeper)
| and wasteful (you can't easily repurchase older
| unsupported devices due to the artificial limits inserted
| by Apple in what they can boot).
| endisneigh wrote:
| But it's not though, that's just your opinion - is
| anything with a PCB a general computing device? In any
| case I'd love if all things with any computing
| functionality be made completely open. Fridges, TVs,
| microwaves - etc
| saurik wrote:
| We classify a general purpose computing device from the
| perspective of what a user can do with it: if you can
| word process AND watch movies AND play games AND read
| books AND schedule appointments AND message people...
| well, that's not a "special purpose" device, it is
| "general purpose". Apple absolutely has made a general
| purpose computing device, and people buy it with that
| intent (the lawyer of the special district I am elected
| to the board of seems to literally have an iPad as his
| only computer).
| endisneigh wrote:
| Yes, it's general with respect to the functionality
| available - that doesn't mean you can do _anything_. Do
| you disagree?
|
| I don't understand how people can be shocked when Apple
| says their devices do A, B, C and D, but people complain
| and want government action so the devices do E.
| LegitShady wrote:
| The apple device does A, B, C, D, and E - but it requires
| you give apple a percentage of your revenue and not let
| you take money off app or they remove it. It's a general
| computing device as long as you pay apple's exploitative
| fees.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| A device having the capacity in raw computing power to be
| a general purpose computing device does not make it one.
| Nor does you wanting it to beone.
|
| I'm growing really frustrated with the attempts to force
| Apple via law to turn my 0 maintenance iPhone into
| another computer I've got to bloody manage.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Nobody's trying to force you to manage your iPhone. All
| we want changed is to have the choice to manage ours if
| we want to.
| minhazm wrote:
| I don't understand this logic. You go into buying an
| iPhone knowing all of the restrictions they place on it.
| Why would you buy it and then complain about the
| restrictions? Just don't buy it in the first place. You
| can buy one of the dozens of other cell phones on the
| market with an OS that's more open.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| I need an iPhone because of iMessage. All my friends use
| normal messaging, and without iMessage texting is
| impossibly slow. I've tried to get them to switch to
| WhatsApp but they refuse. It's a big enough deal that I'm
| willing to look past all of iOS's bullshit. But I'm not
| happy about it.
| endisneigh wrote:
| The inevitable problem is that fragmentation will occur.
| I'm curious, why not just get an Android phone?
| oaiey wrote:
| That has a simple answer: What banks / credit card companies
| take. Banks have to run infrastructure to transfer money and
| App Store have to run infrastructure for certain services
| like distribution, quality filtering, etc.
|
| Why is it simple: Banks have settled this over (maybe) 100
| years and have a (idealistically seen) competitive
| environment.
| dannyw wrote:
| Any percentage is accessible, Spotify just can't be forced to
| use it.
|
| Don't wanna use Spotify's own billing system? Don't use
| Spotify, there's Apple music.
|
| Voila. Competition.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Spotify doesn't have to be available on Apple devices at
| all. The competition you're describing already exists no?
|
| There's a contradiction in these arguments. Either Spotify
| benefits from Apple devices, in which case the fee is a
| cost of doing business that ultimately benefits them, or
| they don't benefit from the arrangement in which case they
| leave the platform.
|
| It's the same thing with the food delivery apps and other
| food apps. There are literally thousands of platforms like
| this. People should just leave if they don't like the
| rules.
| swongel wrote:
| So Apple is forcing its customers to bundle their phone
| with their billing platform.
|
| Which should be illegal (as we democratically decided to
| have these laws), having no choice in services is not a
| feature it's an additional price to pay for the product
| and customers legally didn't agree to that simply by
| buying a commodity phone (no contract, no consideration
| whatsoever for this additional price).
|
| > People should just leave if they don't like the rules.
| This is correct, Apple should just get out if they don't
| like the anti-trust rules of our market.
| endisneigh wrote:
| I'm curious - In the EU are businesses required by law to
| accept whatever form of payment the customer would like
| to use? Are vendors required?
| swongel wrote:
| No, you can't pay with any currency like Zimbabwean
| dollars and expect the EU to force businesses to accept
| it, no.
|
| But this article isn't about legal tender or how debts
| can be repaid it's about anti-trust and coupling
| commodities (like bread, and phones) with exclusive
| services without a service contract at the moment of
| purchase.
| itg wrote:
| Apple devices and services don't have to be available in
| Europe at all. Either Apple benefits from Europe, in
| which case they need to follow European rules and
| regulations, or they don't benefit from the arrangement
| in which case they leave the EU.
| endisneigh wrote:
| I agree completely. I look forward to seeing rules in the
| EU that ban percentage based fees and make all platforms
| open.
| asddubs wrote:
| it might just end in them not being allowed to reject
| apps for advertising alternate payment methods
| dannyw wrote:
| Actually, yes, Spotify does have to be available on iOS
| devices if Spotify chooses to. Apple will be slapped with
| aggressive enforcement action if they pull something like
| that.
|
| Apple isn't a deity.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| This is so utterly bonkers.
|
| You're essentially saying if a crisp manufacturer wanted
| to sell in Asda, but Asda didn't want to sell them, Asda
| could be slapped with enforcement action for not selling
| the crisps?
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| If Asda is the only shop for half of the population, then
| yes. Especially if Asda had their own crisps and don't
| allow anyone else to sell theirs.
| endisneigh wrote:
| What? According to what rule is Spotify entitled a
| presence on Apple devices?
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| That would be a huge breach of anti-monopoly laws - you
| are abusing dominant position in the market to fuck over
| your competition (on the music streaming market).
| quonn wrote:
| According to rules made by the EU presumably.
| [deleted]
| echelon wrote:
| > Either Spotify benefits from Apple devices [...] or
| they don't benefit from the arrangement in which case
| they leave the platform.
|
| Apple benefits from our society, and they've gamed their
| way into a Al Capone / Suez Canal / golden goose
| scenario. They've locked up everything under their
| control because they managed to weasel themselves into
| controlling 50% of the mobile phone market. This was, in
| retrospect, an illegal move.
|
| Either Apple benefits from government-sanctioned
| commerce, or they don't. They can easily be broken up or
| fined into oblivion. The industry will move on regardless
| of what happens to Apple.
| mirthflat83 wrote:
| Spotify isn't even using Apple's payment system
| hk1337 wrote:
| I believe the flip side of it is that Spotify would not
| even give the user the option. So, to use Spotify, you have
| to use their billing system.
| echelon wrote:
| That isn't a problem.
|
| I can count on my hand the number of merchants I haven't
| done business with because they weren't on Google Wallet,
| Apple Pay, or PayPal.
|
| Zero.
|
| The problem is one company controlling our entire
| industry.
| ChrisRR wrote:
| It's not so much the percentage, as the ability to operate
| outside of the app store if you so wish
| endisneigh wrote:
| Can't you just buy another phone? I honestly don't get it -
| did people not understand what they were buying when they
| purchased an Apple device?
|
| Did Apple ever advertise openness and reneg on that?
| gambiting wrote:
| That's irrelevant. EU has already ruled previously that
| if you, as a company, reach more than 10% of EU's
| population(about 30M people) then no, you can no longer
| get away with just saying "my platform, my rules".
|
| The easiest way to think about it is - John wants to sell
| Mark a product that works on Mark's iphone. Currently,
| John cannot do that without a) getting explicit
| permission from Apple b) giving Apple a substantial cut,
| regardless of whether John wants to use their services or
| not.
|
| This is what EU(and hopefully US very soon) has a problem
| with - Apple holds a gigantic market in their grasp and
| by controlling it so tightly and by forcing everyone to
| use their billing, they stifle legitimate business and
| competition.
| endisneigh wrote:
| I see if that's the rule then I support it. I await the
| end of percentage fees and hope all >10% platforms open
| up.
|
| By the way you have a link to that law ?
| gambiting wrote:
| I believe this has already passed into law, but
| admittedly I cannot find the specific link saying so.
| Here's the law anyway:
|
| https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_
| 20_...
|
| "Platforms that reach more than 10% of the EU's
| population (45 million users) are considered systemic in
| nature, and are subject not only to specific obligations
| to control their own risks, but also to a new oversight
| structure. This new accountability framework will be
| comprised of a board of national Digital Services
| Coordinators, with special powers for the Commission in
| supervising very large platforms including the ability to
| sanction them directly."
| breakfastduck wrote:
| Apple holds a gigantic market in their grasp and by
| controlling it so tightly and by forcing everyone to use
| their billing, _they give the customers what they want_.
|
| If iOS becomes the android wild west it'll kill the
| entire selling point of the iPhone.
|
| To me, the iPhone is the equivalent of buying a games
| console instead of a gaming PC. Less flexibility, less to
| worry about.
|
| 'Its just a phone'.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>If iOS becomes the android wild west it'll kill the
| entire selling point of the iPhone.
|
| What always baffles me, truly leaves me flabbergasted and
| confused, is.....who is going to force you to use any
| other app store other than the Apple Store??
|
| I'm on Android, and yes, there are other stores that
| exist - you can download the Amazon Fire store or many
| others, or even sideload
| apps......or......shocking......you can continue using
| the Play Store??? How is the mere existence of 3rd party
| stores going to affect your experience with the Apple
| Store?
|
| >>To me, the iPhone is the equivalent of buying a games
| console instead of a gaming PC. Less flexibility, less to
| worry about.
|
| Again, if you _could_ load a game on your PS5 not from
| PSN, can you explain to me _exactly_ how it would reduce
| your ability to only buy and download games available on
| the PSN?
| bzzzt wrote:
| >> What always baffles me, truly leaves me flabbergasted
| and confused, is.....who is going to force you to use any
| other app store other than the Apple Store??
|
| Think of the new privacy controls: Facebook doesn't like
| them. So they open their own iOS store, circumventing all
| Apple rules concerning privacy labels and do not track
| status.
| gambiting wrote:
| While I see the problem, I'm prepared to argue that it
| should have never been Apple's job to fix the inherent
| problems with Facebook. If an app is _so_ bad for your
| privacy that you can only install it through a special
| dedicated app store.....then maybe that 's enough to put
| people off? And even if it isn't.....well, I can't help
| it if people want to have shitty facebook tracking them.
| I'd definitely prefer that they have choice to install it
| themselves rather than they didn't, and regulatory bodies
| can regulate what data facebook can collect, not Apple.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Presumably stores would have exclusives which would mean
| it's now more inconvenient for the same outcome.
| gambiting wrote:
| But that's like saying that you shouldn't have more than
| one store per street, because they _might_ stock
| exclusive items and that would be really annoying for
| customers to have to visit two stores for their shopping
| rather than one. Surely it 's better to have only one
| store, even if it means your selection is limited by the
| store owner, think of all the inconvenience saved by not
| having any choice!
|
| I'm being sarcastic of course, but I don't think it's
| that far off. Right now there are whole categories of
| apps that you simply cannot have as a customer(and which
| business cannot produce) because apple won't allow them.
| Not having choice is easier than having choice, sure.
|
| And if - as an example - Epic releases Fortnite on their
| own store, rather than Apple store, and you as a customer
| don't want to go through the hassle of installing their
| store....then ultimately they lose out. But that's a
| business transaction then - if you want to buy something
| and the terms aren't convenient for yourself, then you
| just....don't.
| endisneigh wrote:
| The argument you're making can be used to say just buy an
| Android phone which already can do what you're
| describing, no?
| gambiting wrote:
| Of course, but that's where it loops back to what I said
| about earlier EU ruling - if you own a platform that is
| used by more than 10% of EU population, then it's not
| good enough to just say "well, if you don't like it you
| can go somewhere else", because like I said in my first
| comment, Apple is inserting itself into business
| transactions that it maybe shouldn't be inserting itself
| into. I will say it again - if you have a company making
| an app for iOS, and customers willing to buy this app,
| why should apple have a say into whether it's allowed,
| and demand a 30% cut from every transaction?
|
| Like, imagine if a company making car mats had to ask for
| permission from Mercedes to sell mats compatible with
| their cars. Or brake pads or oils or literally anything
| car related. We've regulated this through legislation
| years ago - manufacturers cannot say what is and isn't
| allowed with their cars post sale, they don't have that
| power. Why not software platforms next?
| Sakos wrote:
| > Apple holds a gigantic market in their grasp and by
| controlling it so tightly and by forcing everyone to use
| their billing, they give the customers what they want.
|
| Sorry, this is irrelevant. If people want a monopoly,
| that doesn't change the effects of that monopoly
| existing.
| swiley wrote:
| I don't care if Apple takes 90% I'm just tired of them
| telling people what software they're allowed to run. It makes
| everyone miserable even if they don't use the iPhone.
| endisneigh wrote:
| How does apple's decisions affect non iOS users?
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Most businesses must have mobile apps of some kind, and
| must support the two biggest options, iPhone and Android.
| So even if you don't own an iPhone, as a business owner
| there's a good chance you must make an iPhone app.
|
| Also, the entire web has to maintain Safari compatibility
| because iOS devices can only browse via Safari's engine.
| Ironically, this is the only thing protecting us from a
| complete Chrome monopoly... so I'm kinda in favor of it,
| but it's a problem we need to address as well.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Most businesses don't need mobile app - the entire basis
| of your argument is based off a false premise.
| swiley wrote:
| If there isn't a native client for iOS for a chat
| protocol then no one will use it. Apple has distorted
| chat over the internet so severely that there are many
| people who say they pick who they date partly based on
| whether or not they use iMessage for chat.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| I'm hopeful Apple might be forced to divest the App Store into
| a separate company entirely tbh.
| tgv wrote:
| That's my nightmare scenario. I fear it'll be the end of the
| mac as we know it. What upside do you see?
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| What has the app store got with Mac laptops? And why would
| splitting into a different company end the laptops?
| the-dude wrote:
| I wonder if they do that, if they will be pressured into
| allowing competing stores too. Seems inevitable.
| snovv_crash wrote:
| They wouldn't have any incentive not to
| philliphaydon wrote:
| Let's hope not.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Why don't you like that idea?
| berkes wrote:
| It would be interesting to see if that new company ventures
| into Android as well.
|
| I don't own an iPhone, but would welcome a professional
| alternative to f-droid, and Google play on my phone. A well
| curated appstore would be the first thing I configure on
| "moms new samsung".
|
| If the careful curation, the QA and "rent-seeking" of the
| Apple-app-store is truly as valuable as the users say it is,
| that store would be just as valuable on other phones than the
| iPhone, not?
| oliwarner wrote:
| The penalty might be tremendously significant, especially if
| they enforce something retroactively.
| adriancooney wrote:
| Is it fair to call Apple's platform rent-seeking? I think a 30%
| cut is certainly far too much but I wouldn't call it rent-
| seeking. The platform itself provides a lot of value and they
| are entitled to charge something for it.
| Method-X wrote:
| I agree. There is a lot of value in discovery. Just being on
| the App Store puts software in front of peoples eyeballs who
| otherwise may not ever know it exists. Is discovery worth
| 30%? I honestly don't know, but it's worth something.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Unless you're big enough to get featured, App Store
| discovery is pretty bad. Search has always been spotty and
| has not improved much. Meanwhile, if you want to associate
| your app with a keyword you can pay Apple (again) for iAds.
| This sometimes leads to competitors shoving their way to
| the top of the search screen when you're searching for a
| specific app name. Something that's pretty infuriating for
| me as a customer looking for a specific app.
| Method-X wrote:
| Good point, I stand corrected.
| norswap wrote:
| One might argue they already capture the value in the phone's
| price. Their hardware might be good, but if they switched to
| android overnight, iPhone sales would plummet.
|
| It's clear many companies think the 30% cut is too high, but
| giving up on Apple means giving up on 45% of the highly-
| lucrative US market.
|
| This means Apple is able to use its dominant position to
| squeeze the margin of other companies via the too-high 30%
| fee. A clear monopolistic practice.
|
| As for the value-add (since rent-seeking is about charging
| without value-add) -- it's smaller than you think. Contrast
| with Android, where you can at least install the app without
| going through the official App store. Apple's is simply
| charging for gatekeeping the access to its market (Google
| would like to do this too but historically hasn't bee in a
| position to do it as effectively).
| sneak wrote:
| They charge for it in the developer program membership fee
| already; that is all you have to pay to distribute free apps.
|
| Everything else is just for payment processing, at 10x markup
| over market rates. Ten times!
| oliwarner wrote:
| Is it fair? Yes.
|
| The cost to Apple is largely flat. A free app costs as much
| to host per user as a paid one, and both arguably cost less
| than a service client like Spotify. And what does Apple add?
|
| I hope the outcome of this is the dissolution of "free"
| distribution. It's not free, it's sending and revenue to
| Apple and Google, and the balance is (more than) paid off by
| paid apps. Flat fees for everyone, pay a cent or so per user
| per year. It's up to you to make that work.
| nolok wrote:
| The problem is that if Apples' services have a price, then
| they should price it out, like any provider.
|
| "Here's the price to have your app in the store, here is the
| one for one download, here is the one for an update".
|
| Having a blanket "buffet" pricing (sub is 1EUR or 100EUR ?
| Doesn't matter it's a set % you owe us !), making it illegal
| to let the user get the app another way, making it impossible
| for them to not pay through Apple (and then pay back Apple
| what you we them for the service you use) is why they're
| going to lose.
| jonplackett wrote:
| The more Apple have tried to strangle Spotify, the more I am
| determined to wait this out and get Spotify working properly on
| Siri and Watch.
|
| Every time I accidentally say "Siri play ${song_name}" without
| appending "on Spotify" and Siri nonchalantly replies that it
| cannot find ${song_name} in my Apple Music library, I double down
| on my determination not to let them win!
|
| Wasn't the default app thing declared a problem decades ago when
| Microsoft made you use IE? Why is Apple still allowed to force me
| to have Apple Music (and Apple Maps) as my defaults?
| okwubodu wrote:
| On iOS 14.5 Siri will occasionally ask which service you meant
| and use that as the default for a while.
|
| Although that's just a "soft" default. If I press play on my
| headphones with both Spotify and AM closed it still latches to
| Apple Music.
| pudmaidai wrote:
| I just asked to use Spotify as soon as I updated and now it
| doesn't ask anymore. I don't remember the exact query, but I
| know it exists.
| shuckles wrote:
| I have trouble reconciling complaints like this with the
| argument that Apple should charge for App Store something based
| on the cost of operating the store. How do you price the
| engineering hours and strategy risk that go into opening an
| Apple feature like Siri to 3rd parties? Should it only be users
| who pay for those costs through their hardware purchase?
| Certainly not, since it's impossible to predict those costs
| over the 5-6 year life of a new iPhone.
| jonplackett wrote:
| I'm paying for those costs with my PS1300 iPhone. Now I want
| to set whatever app as default that I like.
|
| Also it isn't like apple aren't offering those features - I
| can play music on Spotify with Siri already. They are just
| putting deliberate annoying barriers in the way to make their
| own product appear better.
| shuckles wrote:
| There's no way you are paying for 5 years of software
| development and your hardware for $1300. Suppose half the
| cost of iPhone was to build the physical object (likely
| low, given Apple's 35% overall gross margins), you're
| effectively saying that iOS is worth $10/mo, which is a
| gross underestimate. It is at least as complex a piece of
| software as Creative Cloud which costs $30/mo. As another
| benchmark, premium Android phones cost about as much as
| iPhone, but all the development costs of Android are
| primarily borne by a different vendor than the device
| maker.
|
| Developing a model for your voice assistant that can route
| requests to the right handler is non-trivial. I think in a
| forum of software developers, I shouldn't have to argue
| that there are many good faith reasons for this.
| username90 wrote:
| > you're effectively saying that iOS is worth $10/mo,
| which is a gross underestimate
|
| Windows costs me way less than that, why should iOS cost
| 500$?
| shuckles wrote:
| Why should the most successful commercial operating
| system in history with ongoing, major annual updates be
| as cheap as an operating system that's been in
| maintenance mode for almost a decade?
| jonplackett wrote:
| OK even if I accept your argument, I still don't believe
| that gives apple the right to stifle their competition by
| forcing them to jump through arbitrary hoops. Like I've
| said - they are already giving Spotify access to Siri.
| They just make it deliberately painful. And as a software
| developer I really don't think it would be remotely
| difficult to route calls for music to an alternative
| music app. They are already doing the hard work of
| deciding if a request is for music or something else.
|
| By your logic Microsoft are also fine to force everyone
| to use internet explorer forever because they put so many
| hours into making windows.
|
| That's an argument that was lost 20 years ago.
| shuckles wrote:
| I said nothing about the capabilities a platform
| provides. The point you are responding to is how to talk
| about a "fair price" for iOS, and who should pay for it.
| I don't know why you bring up requirements about what
| interoperability platform providers should or must
| provide in this context.
| briv wrote:
| Another reason I wish iOS devices, and some other computing
| devices, were not so locked down: preserving our environment and
| resources.
|
| The hand-wavy argument is, perhaps these business models are
| legal, but I don't feel our social and environmental progress is
| at a point where we can afford to have companies create
| "disposable" devices - "disposable" in the "long-term" of course,
| I understand iOS devices for example are supported quite well
| compared to average. And there is the problem for me, I don't
| believe "better than average" should be a valid defense for this
| practice. Yes, companies are entitled to end support of their
| software, leaving vulnerabilities in browsers or the OS, but on a
| locked down device, that can drastically alter its usefulness and
| its lifetime. Allowing customers who bought a device to repurpose
| it by installing their software of choice should be a
| possibility. A quick aside, I (sort of) get Apple's 7-day limit
| on side-loading iOS apps with a free Apple developer account, but
| my gosh does that feel petty and creates a sad barrier for
| creating fun little apps for a small group of friends.
|
| And this issue has some subtlety I think. More than my (naive?)
| arguments capture I'm sure. One aspect is I don't know if these
| ideas would preclude the security model on iOS, which I very much
| enjoy, to be fair. I understand security, flexibility and a great
| user experience can be hard to integrate together, especially in
| an intuitive matter, but I wish Apple - and others - would try to
| find other creative solutions to some of these problems and
| trade-offs.
|
| Another aspect is where to draw the "general computing device"
| line which would compel a manufacturer to have, somehow, a "long-
| term open device". Perhaps this would backfire and Apple would
| start trying to make a "non-general" computing device to avoid
| this sort of rule. I just wish we could have it all of course: a
| great security model, ease of use but the flexibility to use
| hardware as we wish 10 years down the line. Hopefully people
| working at all these companies want this too, and I can keep
| dreaming.
| IndySun wrote:
| If 30% goes to Apple AND the quality & privacy of every app was
| high and secure, as they boast, I wouldn't mind - but it is not.
| So I wonder what Apple ARE doing with that 15%-30% because it is
| not quality control or tight privacy across the board.
|
| The figure will come down to 10%-20%, and we can move on.
| kaiju0 wrote:
| I wonder if Apple will delist Spotify from the app store. It
| would be a power move on their part to say mess with us and lose
| what you have.
| krzepah wrote:
| Not related to this, but I got locked out of my apple account few
| days ago, this means : loose of everything I bought, cannot
| update any software. Only way to retrieve said account was trough
| a SMS system that was locked on a non mobile phone. They nicely
| allowed me after to use my email account for it (which was
| already linked), and promptly asked me to a new number.
|
| To my surprise, this account status went back to it's original
| state (which mean I STILL have to re-do all of this process) and
| I'm still locked out of it.
|
| But they took my money, they took my phone number. And they are
| happily locking me out every few because they basically do wtf
| they want.
|
| I'm not buying any apple product anymore and I'm making sure
| everybody I know about knows about it. This company is a lie.
| These people are doing racketing in day light.
| 6510 wrote:
| I think the legal question should be from the consumer
| perspective similar to purchased movies: Do I _buy_ an apple
| device or am I renting it? (note: I 'm not trying to answer it)
| Buying a product suggests to end users a specific set of
| benefits. If the assumption is far from usual we might have to
| stop describing the transaction as a purchase. For example: There
| are no apps for the iphone4 available in the store while they
| certainly exist. Perhaps its fair to ask: Why is there no support
| for android apps on iphones?
| grezql wrote:
| 5 months after I applied for 15% app store fee reduction, I still
| havent got it. First they said I needed the account owner to
| submit a form. Then when account owner submitted it, they ignored
| me until I emailed them. When I emailed they kept forwarding me
| to different departments. At last they said they fixed it but I
| still see 30% cut off my sales.
|
| Something tells me if it had been the other way, a fee increase
| to 45%, this would be implemented overnight with no forms, no
| questions asked.
|
| disgrace
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| They should fine apple some reasonable percentage of their global
| revenue for this. Otherwise they will continue these user hostile
| anti competitive practices.
| zibzab wrote:
| Unpopular opinion:
|
| This was a no brainer. Apple wanted 30% (or was it less for
| subscriptions?) on any business that used apps, no matter if they
| used apple infrastructure or not.
|
| Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30%
| of what any other business makes (in any industry)!!
|
| Also, I think apple brought this to themselves by picking a fight
| with Spotify (on Watch support).
| endisneigh wrote:
| Is the issue the percentage or skimming off the top? What
| percentage is acceptable? How did you come up with it?
|
| You might as well say that all percentage based transactions
| should be illegal.
| dannyw wrote:
| Any percentage is acceptable if Spotify isn't forced to pay
| it. Any percentage is also acceptable if Apple wasn't
| directly competing with Spotify.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Isn't Spotify benefiting from Apple devices? If not, then
| they can simply not be on Apple devices right?
|
| If they are benefiting, then is it unacceptable for them to
| pay for the benefit?
| kryptiskt wrote:
| Is Apple benefiting from selling in the EU? If they want
| to benefit from Europe, they got to obey the rules.
| acta_non_verba wrote:
| Side note: Please stop using EU and Europe
| interchangeably, they are not the same thing. 100s of
| millions of people live on the continent of Europe, but
| not in the EU.
| kryptiskt wrote:
| I'll do that when US people stop using America and
| Americans to describe themselves.
| acta_non_verba wrote:
| Yes, disenfranchising hundreds of millions of people on
| the European continent sure gets those Americans
| anoncake wrote:
| Why? That's hardly the fault of, say, the Swiss.
| nolok wrote:
| I don't disagree with you, but you couldn't really have
| picked a worst example (short of an an actual EU member
| country) given how their bilateral treaties with the EU
| means EU rules apply to do business in non-EU
| Switzerland.
| endisneigh wrote:
| I agree completely, but for now they are following the
| rules. I'll be happy to see the EU ban percentage based
| fees and make all platforms open.
| simion314 wrote:
| Is not about the percentage, are you aware that you can't
| even mention you can buy a subscription from the website
| in the iOS application? Apple does not allow alternative
| app stores and is actively blocking you to inform of
| alternative methods of payment.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Yeah I'm aware of those things. The EU should ban those
| things as well. Like I mentioned I'd like to see no
| percentage fees and all platforms open.
| zuhsetaqi wrote:
| > no matter if they used apple infrastructure or not.
|
| That's not exactly right. If Spotify (just as an example) would
| acquire all of their customers through their website or desktop
| app then they would pay nothing to Apple. That fee is only
| there if a user does use the InApp purchase option which
| Spotify doesn't have to offer. So they're paying only 30% to
| Apple if the their customer has subscribed through the iOS App.
| oaiey wrote:
| Where there are forbidden or prevented to inform the user
| that they can register somewhere else cheaper. This is
| explicitly mentioned by the EU commissioner in the press
| conference.
| piokoch wrote:
| I think argument about 30% is not that good. There is a number
| of services that Apple provides like software distribution,
| updates distribution, reviews (even though they don't benefit
| software creator directly, they build trust in the platform and
| attract more users), invoicing, regardless on the location
| (this one is really big - getting a single invoice from Apple
| instead of dealing with potentially thousands of documents) and
| also marketing.
|
| I spoke once to a guy who was selling English language courses
| on CDs in brick and mortar stores plus he was sending courses
| by snail mail. He's got interested in that new at that time App
| Store thing, so I've asked him about the fee. He said that
| comparing to his current packaging and distrubution costs,
| paying stores only to be able to put his product on a shelf
| those 30% is a laughably small fee.
| pimterry wrote:
| > invoicing, regardless on the location (this one is really
| big - getting a single invoice from Apple instead of dealing
| with potentially thousands of documents)
|
| Paddle.com do this as a standalone service for any digital
| product (I use them for my SaaS).
|
| It costs 5%, and that covers all payment transaction fees
| too, they handle local VAT for the whole world, includes
| subscriber management tools etc, and they directly handle
| support for all billing-related requests from your customers.
|
| 30% is extortionate.
|
| If it is a reasonable price, why not compete against
| alternatives fairly?
| simion314 wrote:
| Steam also has a tax but you still have a choice as a
| developer or as a gamer. Cyberpunk is on Steam, Gog, Epic and
| maybe other stores(there are many such games where you as the
| user can decide what store you trust , what is more
| comfortable for you or what company you like more).
|
| If you are an iOS developer and and 2 other stores would
| exists, then you would publish on all to maximize your
| profit, and hard core Apple fans still get their app from the
| Apple store but it could cost a bit more.
| bzzzt wrote:
| That would be great if stores weren't pushing so much for
| 'exclusives'.
|
| I fear that the endgame of multiple App stores is that the
| guarantee Apple gives (for instance with the privacy
| labels) will be sidestepped by businesses like Facebook who
| will force people through their own store without them.
|
| Seeing how many people don't read the small print and just
| install everything available to them that's the most
| probable outcome.
| simion314 wrote:
| >That would be great if stores weren't pushing so much
| for 'exclusives'.
|
| Exclusives are not that many and instead of fighting like
| idiots to have only one store we could ask laws to block
| artificial exclusives.
|
| On PC is not a big deal to install Origin and play a game
| if you are desperate, on iOS you can't install stuff
| without a big effort to jailbreak your device (though you
| can do it on OSX and I did not see any malware/viruses or
| similar complaints)
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Apple doesnt need to charge any fee (like how macs and pcs
| never charged a fee to install apps), they get enough
| benefits from the millions of apps that enrich their
| platforms, that they otherwise wouldn't ever build
| themselves.
|
| This whole perverse 'ecosystem' exists because of the skewed
| oligopoly dynamics of mobile phones.
| gcthomas wrote:
| Exactly this ^^^^.
|
| This would not be permitted on other platforms, but mobile
| devices seem to have a new level of monopoly.
| have_faith wrote:
| This is all fine if other stores existed on the phone that
| could compete with Apple's offering. If it's such good value
| then developers would choose the 30% cut over publishing on
| an alternative store with less fees (and potentially less
| benefits). But as Apple holds a monopoly on app stores on the
| iPhone this assumption that the cut justifies the value
| offered can never be tested in a real market setting.
| kwanbix wrote:
| 30% seems a crazy high number in my humble opinion.
|
| For the companies that can, that cost gets transferred to the
| purchaser.
|
| But for those who can't, for example Spotify who has to
| compete with Apple Music that has no %, it gets absorbed by
| the company.
|
| There is no way that the services that Apple provide are
| worth 30%. 10% would be already too much in my humble
| opinion.
|
| But then again you have the advantage for apple music who can
| go 10% lower than the competition in price.
| hrktb wrote:
| Said like that, your arguments sounds like "I had a friend in
| another business who was abused way harder, we should give
| Apple a break for abusing only a little"
|
| I think we'd agree reducing/eliminating undue middle-men fees
| should be a goal whatever the amount.
|
| In particular Spotify for instance gets little benefit from
| having Apple as a middlemen, while smaller players would sure
| appreciate the convenience. The argument would be to have a
| choice to rely or not on what Apple provides.
| robbie-c wrote:
| Apple don't let us do any of that ourselves, so it's
| impossible to say that 30% is an appropriate fee for doing
| it. If they allowed competitor App Stores or direct
| downloads, and didn't ban us from even mentioning other ways
| to purchase a subscription (and other such anticompetitive
| practices), I would find this more convincing.
| rattlesnakedave wrote:
| >Apple don't let us do any of that ourselves
|
| Every stupid app would have its own store if they did. As
| an iOS user, that would be detrimental to my user
| experience.
|
| We're seeing a similar phenomenon in the streaming space
| now, and it's horribly obnoxious. Hardware lock-in is the
| only thing keeping app distribution on iOS sane.
|
| Before the "but android" rebuttal, consider the more
| comparable (IMO) situation of wallet apps on android.
| oaiey wrote:
| They were very accurate about the following:
|
| (A) It is only about Music (other cases exists in parallel).
| (B) They declared that the 30% market share of their devices
| has a practical vendor-lock-in (so a monopoly without choice
| there). (C) Apple competes with other Music vendors and cut
| them by 30% AND blocking them from directly accessing the user
| AND that they abstract the user away from the App (leaving the
| other app zero information while they have a monopoly on
| information)
| slver wrote:
| The App Store, iOS and Apple's hardware are all Apple's
| infrastructure.
| simion314 wrote:
| something is missing here, maybe quote the thing you replied
| to or be more clear.
|
| Since is not clear, I might be off topic, Apple can not sell
| it's stuff in EU or can comply with the laws , it is fun when
| "our stuff, our rules, use something else if you don't like
| it" is applied to Apple.
| Oddskar wrote:
| It's far from the first time Apple tries to weasel it's way
| out of EU legislation. I remember it was this way with
| AppleCare years ago as well. One had to really fight them
| to uphold the minimum warranty guaranteed by national
| legislation.
| realusername wrote:
| I'm sure they'd like to not use those if they could.
| Someone wrote:
| I disagree. It's not that Apple wants 30%, it's that they get
| away with it.
|
| For most companies, such a demand would be fine, legally
| (suicidal, but fine. Companies are free to make stupid
| decisions)
| simondotau wrote:
| 30% has been an industry standard for digital sales for a
| long time, long before Apple adopted it.
| username90 wrote:
| Which is what EU intends to fix.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| That we've allowed Apple to have a monopoly on all Apple apps
| this whole time is insane to me. Google at least does allow
| users to install apps and an entire app stores off the market
| place, even if many don't take advantage of it.
|
| Walmart for example has an average margin of under 2% across
| their products. For every $1 they bring in, they only expect to
| make 2 cents. And here we have Apple, who often is simply
| providing a download button, advertising is extra, to take 30%
| off the top.
| harywilke wrote:
| narrator voice: they all used apple infrastructure.
| stby wrote:
| ... because they had to
| mrtksn wrote:
| >company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other
| business makes
|
| That's not a problem, there's no inartistic correct amount to
| make for enabling or providing value. For 30 years now,
| software makes much more than that as numerous industries no
| longer employ people but software.
|
| The problem is, when you own the platform and you start
| competing on that platform you have an advantage that can be
| misused. For Apple, the advantage that can be misused is to
| deny some API or the existence of competing businesses on their
| platforms. They can also do unfair pricing, for example it
| could be argued that %30 on Spotify is unfair when Apple has
| directly competing product.
|
| For Amazon for example, they can have analytics on the
| businesses on their platforms and create competing products and
| promote them unfairly.
|
| There are countless examples of Amazon doing this. Google was
| also fined many times for using their dominance in one area to
| force dominance in another.
|
| Essentially, it's the good old platform owner getting greedy
| issue.
|
| IMHO we need platform and product separation rules, similar to
| the Hollywood rules on separation of production and
| distribution.
| f6v wrote:
| > The problem is, when you own the platform and you start
| competing on that platform you have an advantage that can be
| misused.
|
| Except every platform ever built is there to get an unfair
| advantage. That's the endgame for all the companies. Why
| would you build a platform otherwise? There's a perpetual
| growth expectation after all.
| Oddskar wrote:
| I think Valve is a good example of how to do it. Sure they
| also take a sizeable chunk out of sales, but they seem to
| compete on the same terms with their games with everyone
| else on Steam.
|
| Going so far as to clearly make an unfair advantage doesn't
| make sense if your platform is already printing more money
| than you could reasonably spend. As is the case with Apple,
| and with Valve. Music sales are probably a drop in the
| ocean compared to what they make on hardware and the
| appstore overall. They just got greedy and started acting
| like assholes when it came to their competition.
| f6v wrote:
| > They just got greedy and started acting like assholes
| when it came to their competition.
|
| I think we can all find examples when platforms were not
| "greedy" and eventually got pushed out as irrelevant.
| That's why Apple and others will try to leverage their
| position to promote their new services.
| simion314 wrote:
| You can make a platform because you want to sell it. You
| lock your platform because you don't want someone with a
| better browser or OS to compete with your lower quality
| products.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Yes, the incentives are often perverse. However, there are
| many reasons to build a platform even if your endgame is
| not extracting all of the value yourself and that is, make
| money from the commission on the platform or protect your
| interest in other businesses through the platform(for
| example, Android and Chrome platforms protect Google from
| being pushed out of data collection for advertisement).
|
| Anyway, businesses might have that kind of aspirations but
| thats why we have governments. An important argument
| against influence of the businesses in the government and
| libertarianism.
| rusk wrote:
| How is that unpopular? I think all but a fairly vocal minority
| of people (probably direct/indirect beneficiaries) would agree.
| WA wrote:
| "Their platform, their rules" - there are many people who say
| this, especially on HN.
| bluescrn wrote:
| Because they're all trying to build platforms, probably
| numpad0 wrote:
| Are we doing "temporally embarrassed platformers" now
| anoncake wrote:
| Aren't startups just temporarily embarrassed FTAANGs?
| [deleted]
| ObserverNeutral wrote:
| >> Because they're all trying to build platforms,
| probably
|
| Or not building products which collide with platforms.
|
| As a general rule, if you have to use offensive lawsuits
| you are not smart enough to do it cleanly.
|
| This is true in business and everywhere else
| malka wrote:
| The problem is not the rules themselves.
|
| The rules applies to Spotify, but not to Apple music. Apple
| should make Apple music a separate entity, and make it pay
| 30%.
| harywilke wrote:
| No company should have the power to tell another company
| that they must split up into separate entities.
| gcthomas wrote:
| Apple has built itself up into a vertical monopoly, which
| used to be illegal. There is no good reason to allow
| anti-competitive behaviours. They shouldn't be allowed to
| host the platform and compete with applications at the
| same time.
| simondotau wrote:
| And yet vertical integration is a big part of why Apple
| products are so loved. By denying the option of vertical
| integration, you're forcing the totality of products we
| use to be incrementally a little bit more crap.
| malka wrote:
| you can have vertical integration. But having an
| advantage at one layer should no be leveraged as
| advantage to another layer.
|
| Apple is free to make a music player. But its music
| player should abide by the same rules as other players in
| the market.
|
| Either Apple Music has its income cut by 30%, or no one
| does.
| gambiting wrote:
| Company? No. But a government can absolutely do this and
| it's a thing that happens all the time, even in the US.
| dkirill wrote:
| No company, but the government should be able to
| gcthomas wrote:
| If only the refrain was "EU's territory, EU's rules". No
| platform can operate in isolation from the laws of the
| places they wish to trade.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| The vocal minority are very active on HN's voting mechanics.
| rusk wrote:
| Ssh don't mention "the thing"!
| zibzab wrote:
| Should add, the ruling is not really about the validity of the
| 30% fee.
|
| What EU seems to argue is this:
|
| 1. Apple is in phone business, Spotify music. So far so good...
|
| 2. Then apple wants to get into the music business too. Now
| they have an unfair advantage since Spotify must pay 30% to
| apple while apple music "pays" 0%. So apple use their dominance
| in one area (phones) to get an advantage in a totally different
| area (music), which is a textbook violation.
| SllX wrote:
| Original article didn't make that case, or present this side
| of the EU's argument.
|
| If that were the EU Commission's line of thought, it would be
| wrong on the basis of its presuppositions alone by trying to
| categorize these two companies into what businesses they are
| in and screwing up the timeline.
|
| Apple has been in the music business longer than the iPhone
| has existed, even in prototype form, and longer than Spotify
| or Beats Electronics existed (whose Beats Music service is
| the direct predecessor of the subscription component of Apple
| Music).
| GlobalFrog wrote:
| As said elsewhere, who was there first is not relevant,
| whereas having prefered treatment because of your monopoly
| at any stage is. Some are mentioning the App Store being
| the root of the monopoly, and that is probably true. But
| speaking from a legal EU point of view, especially as the
| EU is stating their case in the streaming music area only,
| wouldn't the simplest way for Apple to get away with it be
| to externalize 'enough' Apple Music and to have them pay
| the same fees as Spotify? Therefore, the only way to
| restrict anticompetitive practices here would be as others
| like Epic are doing: by proving the monopoly in enough
| different domains covered by the App Store? Would the
| antitrust laws in the US similar, that is proving monopoly
| has to be done by domain, or would a more global view be
| possible there?
| SllX wrote:
| > As said elsewhere, who was there first is not relevant
|
| You want to go back and re-read the comment I directly
| replied to where bullet point 1 was the EU
| (hypothetically at this point) making determinations
| about who was in what market and laid the foundations for
| bullet point 2 based on its own flawed presupposition and
| _then_ tell me that the timeline is irrelevant?
|
| I didn't point this out to make an argument _against_ the
| claims that Apple has any sort of claim to monopoly
| status (or that the EU has any basis for making that
| claim), but that _any_ legal argument at all made on that
| foundation would crumble because bad facts make bad law.
|
| > whereas having prefered treatment because of your
| monopoly at any stage is.
|
| Except Apple does _not_ have market dominance, let alone
| a monopoly, in Music or Phones.
|
| > Some are mentioning the App Store being the root of the
| monopoly, and that is probably true.
|
| Not having market dominance, let alone a monopoly, in
| phones, software, or software retail and distribution,
| that is actually not true.
|
| They have a monopoly on iPhone features, including the
| App Store, insofar as the iPhone is researched, developed
| and sold by Apple as a cohesive product, and it does not
| have out of the box functionality that Apple does not add
| themselves. You might as well claim Google has a monopoly
| on YouTube channels or that Amazon has a monopoly on
| Whole Foods shelves; more accurately, that Nintendo has a
| monopoly on the eShop and Sony has a monopoly on the
| PlayStation Store. It was a bad argument 13 years ago,
| and it is a bad argument today that doesn't even pass the
| sniff test.
|
| > especially as the EU is stating their case in the
| streaming music area only
|
| Why only streaming music? Spotify was originally an
| upstart competitor to _iTunes_ and the _iTunes Music
| Store_ , and the _iTunes Music Store_ was originally a
| competitor to record stores.
|
| Music itself is part of the larger News and Entertainment
| industry where ultimately the resource is someone else's
| leisure time and you want to be the one to fill it.
| Spotify knows this; that's why they experimented with
| video and they're huge into podcasts now.
|
| > wouldn't the simplest way for Apple to get away with it
| be to externalize 'enough' Apple Music and to have them
| pay the same fees as Spotify?
|
| Why should they have to? Because they have a competitive
| advantage? Businesses always look to edge out their
| competitors by accumulating advantages. Spotify was
| successfully out-competing iTunes, so Apple acquired
| Beats and folded Beats Music into iTunes and called it
| Apple Music.
|
| Spotify has almost 5 times the global market share of
| streaming music as Apple does, and has almost as many EU
| subscribers as Apple has _total_ subscribers, that is
| globally, give or take 10 million.
|
| What Spotify is doing here is trying to lower their costs
| because they have massive overhead in licensing fees,
| same as everyone else that licenses music. Part of their
| growth story is _exactly_ being on the iPhone at the
| right time to capitalize on its growth, and being
| featured in the App Store. In order to compete, they
| offer an ad-supported tier from which Apple sees exactly
| none of that money. I don't think you can even subscribe
| to Spotify from within the iPhone app anymore so Apple is
| still footing the bill for distribution and any money
| that Apple sees from prior subscriptions is now at the
| lower 15% rate that all subscription apps see for
| customers after their first year subscribed.
|
| > Therefore, the only way to restrict anticompetitive
| practices here would be as others like Epic are doing: by
| proving the monopoly in enough different domains covered
| by the App Store? Would the antitrust laws in the US
| similar, that is proving monopoly has to be done by
| domain, or would a more global view be possible there?
|
| I don't know how to parse this. Clarify and I'll get back
| to you.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Antitrust law focuses on the restraints of trade.
| Companies that are minor players in the market have been
| successfully pursued for antitrust violations, because it
| does not require a monopoly, or even market dominance.
| Monopoly law was the origin of antitrust law, but today
| is merely a _subset_ of it. (For example, bid rigging,
| market allocation, and price fixing are all antitrust
| violations.)
|
| Antitrust generally requires a substantial market
| position, and the use of that market position in one of a
| number of enumerated anti-competitive manners (the list
| differs between the U.S. and E.U.). One antitrust
| violation both the U.S. and E.U. have is the abuse of
| market position in one market (i.e., mobile devices) to
| anti-competitively establish market position in a
| different market (i.e., streaming music).
|
| Apple has approximately 1/3 of the EU market for
| smartphones, which is a substantial enough market
| position for a single market position that antitrust
| concerns come into play. (Legally, the comparison is not
| Apple vs Android; it's Apple vs Samsung, LG, Huawei,
| etc.) Note that Samsung, etc., would have similar
| antitrust concerns if they tried to launch their own
| streaming music services in the same fashion as Apple
| did.
|
| Note that if Apple had required an industry-standard fee
| for processing iOS subscription payments (generally, 2%
| or less depending on territory), or didn't require
| Spotify to use iPay, then there wouldn't have been any
| antitrust issues.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| Apple have been in the music business much longer than
| Spotify.
| xwolfi wrote:
| Exactly, it's time they let others use the phone they built
| in Shenzhen to listen to music with apps not made by Apple.
|
| There's 0 reason to over tax Spotify as punishment for
| trying to do it better. The capitalist thing to do would be
| to allow and enjoy fair competition in a pure and perfect
| market.
| pityJuke wrote:
| I guess he meant music streaming?
| ethbr0 wrote:
| > _Apple have been in the music business much longer than
| Spotify_
|
| Since 1968 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records
| Kye wrote:
| This has no connection with the computer company. There
| have been numerous disputes over the confusion.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Compute
| r
| mlok wrote:
| Your assumption is wrong and this is precisely why "The
| Beatles Apple" attacked "Steve Jobs Apple" on the
| Trademark front.
|
| Source : a part of the article you linked to : https://en
| .m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps#Apple_Corps_v._A...
| ethbr0 wrote:
| I think you missed the joke about first-isms.
| mlok wrote:
| If there was a joke I did miss it, that's for sure. And I
| still do :)
| Kye wrote:
| Same. I have no idea what the joke is.
| bogomipz wrote:
| Apple Corp was a company started by the Beatles back in
| the 1960s. The later Beatles albums were released on
| Apple Records as well. This Apple was also a source of
| much legal litigation between the Fab Four and the Apple
| company being discussed in this post. See:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps
|
| They have both been successful business ventures and
| interestingly the original idea for the Beatles' Apple
| Corp is actually very close to what Cupertino's Apple is
| today electronics, music and movies and retail:
|
| "On the founding of Apple John Lennon commented: "Our
| accountant came up and said 'We got this amount of money.
| Do you want to give it to the government or do something
| with it?' So we decided to play businessmen for a bit
| because we've got to run our own affairs now. So we've
| got this thing called 'Apple' which is going to be
| records, films, and electronics - which all tie up"
| echelon wrote:
| Apple is now a monopoly.
|
| They shouldn't be allowed to run an App Store, and they
| should probably have their services division peeled away
| into a separate company.
|
| All of the mega tech monopolies need to be broken up. What
| business do any of them have being movie studios,
| advertising firms, car dealerships (Apple?), banks, and
| fifteen different marketplaces rolled into one? This is
| absurd.
|
| Tech would be better if neither Apple nor Google ran their
| app stores, Amazon/Apple/Google weren't in the media
| business, and Google couldn't run a browser.
|
| Break them up.
| threeseed wrote:
| Your position is ridiculous and unworkable.
|
| By your definition companies like Sony, Microsoft,
| Nintendo, Epic Games, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, IBM, Stripe,
| Facebook, Samsung, Adobe etc would all need to be broken
| up as like Apple they are in multiple markets with
| similar market shares.
|
| YC itself would need to be broken up given your criteria.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| I don't see the problem with separating every platform
| company from every app store. They can obviously be
| operated by two separate entities, like Steam on Windows.
| treis wrote:
| >They shouldn't be allowed to run an App Store, and they
| should probably have their services division peeled away
| into a separate company.
|
| I think the ship has sailed on App stores. They're just
| better than the alternative and consumers are used to
| them. I'd consider them an integral part of the OS.
|
| The problem is the fees. 30% is excessive especially so
| for in-app purchases where the customer is already
| acquired. The easiest and cleanest solution is to just
| cap these to something more reasonable. Something like 5%
| or maybe CC transaction costs + a couple percent.
| valparaiso wrote:
| 30% is industry standard. Spotify takes 50% fee from
| Anchor; Tencent takes 50% fee in its China Android App
| Store and owns 48% of Epic Games.
|
| If you mention Tencent fee in Tim Sweeny Twitter you'll
| get instantly banned.
|
| Amazon's Twitch also takes 50%. But everyone's mad at
| Apple since they produce products and services everyone
| buys, even Google engineers mostly use iPhones and
| Macbooks.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > I think the ship has sailed on App stores. They're just
| better than the alternative and consumers are used to
| them. I'd consider them an integral part of the OS.
|
| If customers really want app stores then prohibit
| platform companies from operating them and third parties
| will do it. But they'll compete with each other instead
| of abusing a monopoly into high fees and prohibitions on
| apps that compete with the platform's business interests.
|
| Or if app stores fall out of favor as soon as they're not
| imposed on everyone by platform monopolies then it
| disproves your theory that most people independently want
| them.
| LegitShady wrote:
| % of revenue shouldn't be a thing. They're offering a
| service for distributing apps - there should be a
| standard fee and transaction costs. When I go to get
| tires on my car they don't charge me based on my income.
| When I purchase a book they don't charge a percentage of
| my income. On the app store suddenly you owe them a % of
| your revenue and you have to use them to get apps on
| iphone.
| [deleted]
| pembrook wrote:
| I'm not sure you understand what monopoly means.
|
| Nobody is mad that Apple/Amazon/Netflix/etc are creating
| competition for banks, movie studios, car dealers, etc.
|
| The complaints about these companies are the specific
| areas where they hold a dominant position and unfair
| advantage over other companies. The App Store in the case
| of Apple/Google, advertising in the case of Google, etc.
| The areas where these companies have a stranglehold on
| distribution is the problem.
|
| Amazon and Apple having movie studios and banking
| aspirations makes competition BETTER, not worse.
| Literally nobody is mad at Apple for having a credit card
| or funding movie productions.
|
| Apple has zero control over credit card distribution or
| automobile purchasing. Why the hell would you want to
| protect the big banks and lazy old car companies from
| having to compete with Apple?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The reason you don't want a platform monopoly operating a
| payment service isn't that they (currently) have a
| monopoly on payment services. It's that they would
| leverage the platform monopoly into one, and then there
| would be less competition in payment services.
| Prohibiting vertical integration prevents that sort of
| leveraging without having to micromanage every
| multinational conglomerate.
|
| The platform company should instead return their profits
| to the shareholders, some of which will invest them in
| upstart payment services or movie studios or car dealers.
| The reason they don't do it this way is that they lose
| the "advantage" of leveraging the platform monopoly.
| (There are also perverse tax differences, but that's a
| different problem.)
| pembrook wrote:
| > _Prohibiting vertical integration prevents that sort of
| leveraging without having to micromanage every
| multinational conglomerate._
|
| How is policing all forms of vertical integration in the
| corporate world not micromanagement of all businesses?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| It's macromanagement. It's a big clear fault line that
| regulators can see from outer space, instead of trying to
| evaluate whether Apple App Store charging Spotify a given
| percentage is anti-competitive based on a detailed
| analysis of their cost structure and having to argue
| about the allocation of fixed costs between business
| units.
|
| It also has the advantage of creating a de facto limit on
| entity size so we don't end up with corporations more
| powerful than elected governments.
|
| And it's not a prohibition on vertical integration
| whatsoever, only on vertical integration for companies
| with market power in any market.
| pembrook wrote:
| > _It 's a big clear fault line that regulators can see
| from outer space_
|
| Nothing in the world of regulation is a clear fault line.
| You're just creating different points for regulators and
| lawyers to fight about. How are you defining " _market
| power in any market?_ " Is it just if a company gets 20%
| of a market? 50%? 70%? 90%?
|
| This also gets extremely sticky in markets that are still
| developing.
|
| Take Saas for example. Mailchimp arguably has "market
| power" in email marketing (70%). Should they have been
| allowed to get into the social post scheduling business?
| Using your argument, you could call that unfair
| competition for social post schedulers like Buffer, since
| Mailchimp already holds market power over one area of the
| marketing stack.
|
| But what if it's more efficient for all businesses to
| keep their email marketing and social post scheduling in
| one tool? Are you going to force everybody to be
| inefficient and use separate tools for everything because
| you think it's better the for the "social media
| management Saas" market?
|
| Should that even be a market? How granular are you going
| to get over what's a market and what's just a product
| feature? Social post scheduling is both a feature, and a
| market of companies. This solves nothing and only creates
| more micromanagement headaches for regulators.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > How are you defining "market power in any market?"
|
| This is already a concept that exists under established
| antitrust law. It's complicated and ugly and could
| probably use some reform, but it's also a different part
| of the equation. "Does this company have market power" is
| a separate question from what do we do if they do, for
| which the proposal is to prohibit vertical integration.
|
| > Is it just if a company gets 20% of a market? 50%? 70%?
| 90%?
|
| Market power has very little to do with what percentage
| of the market the company holds. For example, in a market
| with two local ISPs where one has 95% of the market and
| the other has 5%, they could _both_ have market power
| because the market is so consolidated that the company
| with 5% could still be able to dictate terms to
| customers. On the other hand, a company with 99% market
| share might not have market power, if barriers to entry
| are low and any attempt to raise prices would cause new
| competitors to enter the market, as is the case with e.g.
| Walmart.
|
| > Mailchimp arguably has "market power" in email
| marketing (70%). Should they have been allowed to get
| into the social post scheduling business? Using your
| argument, you could call that unfair competition for
| social media management Saas tools like Buffer, since
| Mailchimp already holds market power over one area of the
| marketing stack.
|
| I don't see the trouble here. Mailchimp may or may not
| have market power (I don't know enough about that
| specific market to evaluate it), but knowing 70% isn't
| really that informative. If they do have market power
| then preventing them from leveraging it to destroy Buffer
| is good. If they don't then they wouldn't be prevented
| from entering the other market.
| echelon wrote:
| > I'm not sure you understand what monopoly means.
|
| Well, you'd best take that up with the EU and the US
| Department of Justice, then. You might be a little late.
|
| > Nobody is mad
|
| Half the people in this thread are mad. Companies putting
| up with app store bullshit and extortion are mad.
| Furthermore, this will only get worse as the mega
| monopolies extend their reach into more industries and
| force people to use their rails for everything, taking
| their pound of flesh with every interaction. Apple
| customers aren't even your customers in their model, for
| Christ's sake. Why do they get the monopoly on that? It's
| beyond evil and makes it hard to survive, let alone
| thrive.
|
| Having an iPhone, working for one of these companies, or
| owning their stock shouldn't cloud your judgment as to
| what's happening to our industry. Open your eyes and see.
| lucasyvas wrote:
| This observation only further solidifies the issue and
| directly supports the preceding comments.
| frereubu wrote:
| I'm not sure that's relevant is it?
| breakfastduck wrote:
| Yes, considering apple have been in the music business
| longer than App Stores have even existed.
| manicdee wrote:
| Is Apple charging 30% on all Spotify transactions through
| their phone/tablet App Store giving them an economic
| advantage for their own Music store?
|
| It's irrelevant for the example whether Apple was already
| in that space.
| frereubu wrote:
| I don't think that can be right. On the surface you're
| suggesting that if a company worked in a particular area
| before another company then the first company is entitled
| to use anti-competitive practices, which clearly isn't
| true.
| whomst wrote:
| I think the main point the (grand?) parent is saying is
| that "Apple is in the phone business" isn't a reasonable
| description of Apple. I agree that Apple hosting itself
| on its own platform is an abuse of market position
| (especially for something as peripheral as music), but to
| claim that music/audio isn't a/hasn't been core part of
| Apple's business model is ridiculous.
| frereubu wrote:
| Ah, gotcha. Yes, that does make more sense, thanks. But I
| still don't think it really addresses the second point,
| which is the crux of the argument as far as I can see.
| berkes wrote:
| Why does it matter "who came first"?
| HDMI_Cable wrote:
| I haven't read the EU report, but I'm guessing they're
| either talking about the streaming business, or they didn't
| care about the iPod.
| slver wrote:
| So then if Apple Music internally pays 30% to App Store,
| we're all good by this definition.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| That like how startbucks UK pays it's company in a
| different country a fee for using it's brand, and therefore
| has no profits in Uk and pays no tax here
|
| Totally legit
| ectopod wrote:
| The law says that the fees paid for IP in this way have
| to be plausible. Franchising is a long-established
| business model and nobody would run a franchise if the
| franchise fee ate all the profit. So Starbucks' franchise
| fees are not plausible. Why doesn't HMRC challenge this?
| I've no idea.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| In theory and superficially that makes sense, but they are
| the same company so it wouldn't make a difference in the
| end. It's not like Spotify can pay itself that 30%.
| villasv wrote:
| > it wouldn't make a difference in the end
|
| Yes it would.
| konschubert wrote:
| I am sure they are doing that already. And I don't think
| that's the law works.
| slver wrote:
| It's often how law works. For example companies often
| create subsidiaries in order to limit liability of the
| parent company.
| konschubert wrote:
| You have a point.
| falcor84 wrote:
| I think the problem is with 'internally'. As I understand
| it, the antitrust regulations could force Apple to spin
| Apple Music out.
| slver wrote:
| Let's take a step and ponder wouldn't you find it bizarre
| to have this sequence of events:
|
| 1. Apple creates iPod, and iTunes serves as its music
| store.
|
| 2. Apple creates iPhone, which has an iPod app.
|
| 3. Apple introduces App Store so other apps can be used
| on the iPhone.
|
| 4. iPod (Apple Music) competitors emerge.
|
| 5. EU says "that's it, Apple can't have iPod anymore on
| the phone unless iPod (Apple Music) becomes a separate
| company".
|
| No one (successfully) sued Apple for anti-competitive
| practices on iPod. Ergo if the iPhone never had an App
| Store, they'd be allowed to have 100% of the revenue of
| iTunes, and ban competitors out completely.
|
| By opening the iPhone platform to third parties, EU sees
| them as another type of entity completely. In effect the
| EU penalizes the creation of market places, because once
| you're market place, you lose control over your own
| products to the government.
| onwchristian wrote:
| Note: back in the iPod days, iTunes did serve as a music
| store for the iPod, but you could buy MP3 files from
| other providers as well, and transfer them to the iPod
| via iTunes. This whole process didn't "cost" the provider
| or user any extra.
|
| Now, it's true that iTunes did get significant traction
| because of convenience for users of iPods, however there
| were definitely options for other music distributors. In
| fact, back in those days, I tended to still buy CDs
| because they were DRM-free and similarly priced, and I
| could rip the songs at my selected quality settings to
| transfer to my iPod.
| realusername wrote:
| > No one (successfully) sued Apple for anti-competitive
| practices on iPod
|
| Because they never had the market share and power in the
| music market that they have now on the mobile market
| that's why. You kind of answered why they are getting
| sued now yourself.
| slver wrote:
| You're in effect saying "no, EU didn't sue iPhone because
| it added an App Store to iPhone, it sued iPhone because
| it was successful".
|
| Is that better? Become successful, get sued? Android has
| 87% market share, iOS has 13%. That's not even a
| monopoly.
|
| Of course we can define arbitrary categories like "Apple
| has monopoly on the iOS market". Which makes the concept
| of monopoly absolutely nonsensical, because then everyone
| has a monopoly. I have a monopoly on the slver username
| on HN, so I guess EU might sue me any moment now.
|
| Also, let's recall EU suing Microsoft and forcing them to
| offer Windows without a media player. So what did this
| result in? It resulted in lots of nephews children and
| grandchildren having to visit their relatives and help
| them install Windows Media Player. I'm from EU and I want
| to like all their decisions, I'm team EU. But they're
| complete idiots sometimes when dealing with tech.
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| All these laws are not about "monopolies", that is just
| the wording people commenting use. So, yes the "concept
| of monopoly" is wrong here, which is why nobody is
| actually doing that and you are attacking a strawman.
| realusername wrote:
| What a moot argument, there's absolutely zero competition
| in the mobile market. The living proof of that is that
| the only tariff changes Apple ever made in their whole
| mobile history was because ... of a real threat of an
| anti-trust lawsuit. They basically admitting the fact
| themselves, you can't even make this up.
|
| Yes it's a duopoly and yes they are both abusing their
| market power. It got so bad that you have to get
| testimonials of mobile developers anonymously against
| those two companies because they are fearing retaliation
| against them (yes that does sound like a mafia).
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _The living proof of that is that the only tariff
| changes Apple ever made in their whole mobile history was
| because ... of a real threat of an anti-trust lawsuit._
|
| Not only that, this change highlighted the App Store and
| Play Store cartel[1] that engages in price fixing[2].
| Google also dropped their prices to match Apple's, but
| not any more or less.
|
| Instead of mobile app distribution prices being dictated
| by the free market, they're dictated by a cartel. Prices
| have only changed _once_ in a decade, and not in response
| to the market at all, but by the whims of the app store
| cartel.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing
| timmg wrote:
| If Apple never had an App Store, then this wouldn't be a
| problem, true. There would be no "30% cut for _almost
| nothing_ ".
|
| But would people buy as many iPhones if they were
| restricted to Apple-only services? Some might. I would
| expect more people would buy into more "open" ecosystems.
| I could be wrong -- and Apple has every right to shut
| down their App Store to find out.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Apple didn't invent music players, nor appstores, nor
| smartphones, nor digital music or music streaming. The
| entire argument is a red herring.
|
| But even if we take this absurd argument at face value,
| it's still wrong: third party applications add value to
| iPhone and make them worth bying. If you could not
| install games, bank app, etc. On an iphone, iPhones would
| be useless and noone would buy them in the face of
| competition. The whole reason Windoes Phone died is that
| there were no apps. iPhone would simply follow
| cafed00d wrote:
| Third party apps have been dominant on PCs and Macs on
| the open web for a decade prior to the iPhone. Third
| party apps such as FB.Connor even Spotify.com still run
| on the iPhone built on HTML5. Of course, I will concede
| that the desktop publishing industry and the banking,
| finance, spreadsheet industries benefited from native
| computer apps in the decades prior to that.
|
| Counter to the narrative of Windows phone's failure, why
| were BlackBerry and Nokia successful despite not having
| third party apps at the scale iPhone does?
|
| Third party apps add value to the iPhone -- you're right.
| They can also add confusion, adware, and bundleware if
| allowed to reign free; a curated, expensive gatekeeper is
| the cheap way to keep the crappy third party apps out;
| not a foolproof way, just a cheap way.
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| > " _why were BlackBerry and Nokia successful despite not
| having third party apps at the scale iPhone does?_ "
|
| They were in the process of dying around the same time as
| Windows Phone was and all for the same reason: the
| iOS/Android duopoly.
| friendzis wrote:
| > In effect the EU penalizes the creation of market
| places
|
| Nope. EU only forces you to compete in the marketplace on
| the same terms regardless of who owns the marketplace or
| the product.
| yyyk wrote:
| >In effect the EU penalizes the creation of market
| places, because once you're market place, you lose
| control over your own products to the government.
|
| Operating a marketplace generates billions for Apple, and
| without the Apple Store I doubt the iPhone would have any
| value today. This comes with legal duties. Apple can't do
| whatever with their marketplace, but must compete fairly
| within it.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > because once you're market place, you lose control over
| your own products to the government.
|
| This is bog standard anti-trust. Yes, if you become
| massively successful, in a market, then you are now no
| longer allowed to do certain things. That is how anti-
| trust law works.
|
| If you take over a market, or become massively
| successful, you become a monopoly/duopoly, and have to
| follow certain laws.
|
| These laws aren't hard to follow though. You just have to
| allow competitors to use your stuff, and you can't use
| your market power against them.
| mrep wrote:
| With that accounting methodology, between the 30% apple
| store cut and the 70% music publishers cut, Apple music is
| left with no revenue whatsoever to fund their service,
| therefore running it at a 100% loss and thus price dumping
| which is also illegal.
| laurent92 wrote:
| But this is an excellent accounting methodology then:
| Each sub-business should run as a separate business.
|
| It picks my interest: Companies internally run as
| communist economies, all resources are merged and shared,
| employees are not individually associated with a revenue
| because the group is worth more than its sum, on the
| outer, liberal economy. At what size / on which criteria
| should a group inside a company be considered an
| independent product-and-loss entity, in order to avoid
| supercorporations to make use of monopolistic behaviors?
| Should a 100-billion-dollars marketing operation inside
| Apple be allowed to function at a loss if it pumps
| interest in all of Apple's other products? Can Apple
| Music be disguised as a marketing operation instead of as
| an independent entity?
| kypro wrote:
| Whenever a company of significant size branches into
| another market where it has some unfair advantage thanks
| to it's dominance other industry it should come under
| scrutiny.
|
| The reason products like Alexa and the Fire tablet have
| been so successful for Amazon is basically because they
| have been able to promote them for free on the worlds
| largest marketplace and then sell them at a loss offset
| by the profits generate from other segments of their
| business like ecommerce and AWS. I've been so
| underwhelmed by every Amazon product I've ever brought
| I'm 100% convinced their success in hardware has been
| almost entirely due to their cannibalistic business
| practises than their ability to make solid hardware that
| people want to buy.
|
| This means in basically any market Amazon enters they
| don't need to make the best product, they just need to
| undercut and promote their products enough to kill off
| the competition. Google and Apple can also run this
| strategy very effectively with Google Search promoting
| Google products and Apple's hardware/appstore ecosystem
| promoting then locking users into their own hardware and
| software.
| phlo wrote:
| Since you mentioned that this piques your interest: There
| is an body of research and literature about this topic.
| The Theory of the Firm [0] is a good starting point.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm
| jgwil2 wrote:
| I think dumping is only illegal in the context of
| international trade. Not sure of the nuances but
| operating at a loss certainly isn't illegal in most
| contexts.
| matkoniecz wrote:
| Not entirely sure about legality within country, but
| anyway Spotify is a Swedish company (
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify ) .
|
| So it is international already.
| pydry wrote:
| It is technically illegal but thanks to a lack of
| appetite from antitrust prosecutors to do... well,
| anything very much combined with a high barrier of proof
| it's essentially allowed.
| dopidopHN wrote:
| Oh I'm sure they bill their branch in Ireland for this. In
| order to make sure to avoid any tax they own us.
| onetimemanytime wrote:
| That's the same as "The cocaine was in my left pocket your
| honor. See I have nothing in my right pocket :)"
| MichaelApproved wrote:
| That's good for internal bookkeeping but it's not enough to
| prevent the unfair advantage.
|
| Take this example: Apple Music "pays" 30% to parent Apple
| Corp. That 30% payment cuts into Music's revenue and now
| they're operating at a 25% loss.
|
| However, that _rough_ calculation still allows parent Apple
| Corp to consider Music to be profitable, since it's a net
| profit for Apple Corp. It's happy to take the 25% "loss" in
| the music division because it's just a paper loss. In cash
| terms, the Music division increases Apple Corps profit.
|
| The only real way for this division to be fair is to spin
| Apple Music off into its own company that is not owned by
| Apple Corp.
| moffatman wrote:
| I don't think you considered the loss of the 30% from
| each apple music customer's previous subscription to a
| competitor. There's no unfair advantage, the maximum
| profit apple can make by switching a customer away from
| spotify is spotify's profit.
| codys wrote:
| This assertion ignores that apple makes a profit off the
| 30% cut. In other words: it doesn't correspond to a real
| cost to Apple.
| moffatman wrote:
| It's known that music licensing costs are about 50% of
| gross subscription prices. So a subscription to spotify
| is about 50% to rightsholders, 30% to apple, and 20% to
| spotify as their profit. A subscription to Apple music is
| 50% to rightsholders, and 50% to apple. The additional
| profit Apple makes from converting a Spotify customer is
| only 20% (50%-30%), the same profit that any other
| competitor to Spotify (such as Tidal) would make on a
| conversion. Now, Apple could afford to lower their
| subscription costs to below Spotify's, selling below
| "cost" at say 75% rate. So they are still "making money"
| per subscription, but at a price which is unsustainable
| to Spotify, which seems at first glance unfair and is
| what I think the comment chain is picturing. But what's
| happening here is that Apple as a whole is actually
| making less money on an Apple Music customer (25% margin)
| than a Spotify customer (30% margin), so it's not
| profitable or a good business decision versus the
| alternative. And we don't see apple doing that, at least
| where I live both subscriptions are the same price. It
| only works if you are able to drive Spotify out of
| business, then jack up the prices, but that
| anticompetitive opportunity to "dump" is possible for
| Apple in essentially any market due to their vast vast
| cash reserves.
|
| In my view the potentially anti-trust advantages Apple
| has over Spotify mainly come from the fact Apple Music is
| preinstalled and is promoted to iOS users through push
| notifications.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| Disagree. If Apple only had their Music app, they
| wouldn't have to maintain the whole ecosystem that comes
| along with the app store that allows Spotify to exist as
| an iOS app. Maintaining that system is where the 30%
| goes. Would anyone then say Apple had an unfair advantage
| as to who could have a streaming platform on iOS?
|
| Spotify would be free then and are now to make a web
| based player like youtube or soundcloud.
| pyrale wrote:
| > Maintaining that system is where the 30% goes.
|
| Let's be honest here, the 30% spent by Europeans is
| mostly going to anonymous bank accounts in Jersey.
| fastball wrote:
| Strange how Spotify managed to create and distribute
| their app entirely without Apple's "help" on macOS, but
| would somehow be incapable of doing the same on iOS.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| What if spotify can get 1 customer at $1, but apple can
| get 2 customers at $0.7, to get $1.4.
|
| Alternatively, if for some reason there's just a single
| lump of music streaming revenue to be earned, maybe it's
| still shitty if Apple steals spotify's business but
| breaks even on the opportunity cost.
| LaMarseillaise wrote:
| > Now they have an unfair advantage since Spotify must pay
| 30% to apple while apple music "pays" 0%.
|
| I think this does not account for the opportunity cost. If
| Apple Music competes with Spotify, then Apple Music
| implicitly pays the 30% fee of the next best alternative. If
| Spotify operates at a loss with the fee, and Apple Music is
| otherwise an identical business, then Apple should prefer
| Spotify - it makes more money this way. The fee is basically
| irrelevant.
| paulpan wrote:
| Right, the percentage of Apple's cut isn't the key part of
| this EU case.
|
| Certainly doesn't help that it's the current 30% but it being
| 15% won't change the fundamental issues being argued -
| whether Apple is abusing its market power and shutting
| competitors out of or subjecting them to unfair practices in
| its iOS ecosystem. E.g. unfairly favoring its own Music app.
|
| I think it's a fairly straightforward case similar to
| Microsoft's antitrust case for bundling the Internet Explorer
| in its Windows OS a couple of decades ago. The argument then
| was that Microsoft favored its own browser and crowded out
| viable competitors like Netscape. If anything, the case is
| more obvious here since you can't even install any other
| music streaming alternatives on your iPhone if it's not in
| the App Store - in Windows you could download and install
| another browser (even if most users didn't).
| danity wrote:
| The main difference with Microsoft is that Apple does not
| have a monopoly in phones like Microsoft had with PCs.
| Apple phones make up only 13% of the phone market.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| pixl97 wrote:
| Apple has at least 30% market share in EU, you're giving
| the EMEA number.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Colloquial definitions of monopoly do not matter when it
| comes to antitrust laws[1]:
|
| > _Courts do not require a literal monopoly before
| applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used
| as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable
| market power -- that is, the long term ability to raise
| price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is
| used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and
| durable market power._
|
| --
|
| > _Apple phones make up only 13% of the phone market._
|
| iOS has 60% of the market in the US[2].
|
| [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-
| guidance/guide-a...
|
| [2] https://deviceatlas.com/blog/android-v-ios-market-
| share
| paulpan wrote:
| Depends on how one defines "monopoly". Back in the late
| 1990s, one could theoretically install non-Windows OSes
| like Linux, Unix or even purchase an Apple Mac. But yes,
| in practice Microsoft commanded the market and abused its
| market power.
|
| Also it's market-specific. As the other commenter noted,
| the market share is region-specific and in the EU higher
| than 13%. In the U.S. it's even higher at ~47%
| (https://www.statista.com/statistics/236550/percentage-
| of-us-...).
|
| You could argue that users technically have a choice to
| switch to Android but due to network effect (e.g. your
| family/friends all use iOS) and lock-in features like
| iMessage and Facetime, it's often a false choice.
| thow-01187 wrote:
| Every time App/Play store fees are discussed, it devolves
| into unproductive hair-splitting over the word monopoly.
| The proper term is captive market.
|
| > Captive markets are markets where the potential
| consumers face a severely limited number of competitive
| suppliers; their only choices are to purchase what is
| available or to make no purchase at all
| randomluck040 wrote:
| Isn't leveraging the market share with the iPhone/iPad for a
| lot of other things (Arcade, AirTag, ApplePencil, ...) in the
| same category?
| pornel wrote:
| Which is why Epic and Tile are complaining too.
| [deleted]
| dustinmoris wrote:
| I agree with this principle but in this specific case it's
| not true because Apple started their music business long
| before the iPhone and Spotify existed. In fact they started
| with the iPod and their music business with the iPod is what
| lead them to invent the iPhone and the AppStore. It's rich
| from other music businesses like Spotify to want to benefit
| from all of the R&D and innovation cost from Apple and the
| market they created whilst dismissing that in fact they
| entered the music market with the goal to eat shares from
| Apple and not the other way around.
| danielscrubs wrote:
| When they started have no bearing. It's using their power
| in one market to strongarm others in another. It's not
| about what is fair, it's about making sure the market is
| healthy.
| teknopaul wrote:
| starting first does not mean you are not abusing your
| monopoly.
|
| Another way of looking at this is that a 30% margin is
| preventing a lot of businesses from happening until Apple
| do it. The 30% is less of a concern that the fact that they
| can shut you down on a whim.
| bennysomething wrote:
| 30 percent fee is not a 30 percent margin. You are
| factoring in any costs of running and developing the
| service.
| weego wrote:
| That argument leads to the logical conclusion that Apple
| needs to be broken up so their music subsidiary have to
| pay their app store subsidiary the same 30% as Spotify
| do. Still not a logical defense.
| bennysomething wrote:
| How is that a logical conclusion? It's just one
| conclusion.
| Retric wrote:
| Apple doesn't get a cut of their advertising revenue, and
| according to Apple was only paid 15% on subscriptions.
| With credit card processing fees and other associated
| costs it's far from 100% profit.
| dustinmoris wrote:
| It's hardly abuse if Apple was the first to invent an
| iPod and iTunes and the online music business and then
| evolved their own products around their own offerings.
| They decided to let others into their own platform to
| enrich it, not to crush them. Spotify entered knowing
| that Apple already had a competing product. Why did they
| enter and start competing if they thought it was an
| unfair competition from the start? I find it hard to
| believe given the history of events. If it was in any way
| different then perhaps I could understand but to me it
| feels that Spotify just decided that now is the time to
| look for avenues to increase their profits and see the
| AppStore as the first opportunity to attack after never
| having had a problem before. Only a fool would start a
| business in a platform which tries to crush them so
| clearly that was never the case.
|
| EDIT (cannot reply):
|
| So if Apple would basically not have an AppStore for
| third parties and only distribute their own apps then it
| would be fair.
|
| If Apple was to not allow other Music apps on their
| AppStore then it would be fair.
|
| But when Apple allows others to distribute a competing
| product to Apple on Apple's own platform for a fee then
| it is considered unfair?
|
| I honestly don't understand this logic.
| simion314 wrote:
| It is not about who is first, is about fair competition,
| If Apple is the best then they should not be afraid to
| compete fair, let other web browsers exist, let
| alternative stores exist, let free apps show a Patreon
| link, let apps show the user the information that they
| have the choice to buy outside the store (defend this
| please, this information can harm the user somehow or it
| harms the pockets of some rich guy)
| f6v wrote:
| I don't think EU cares about fair competition, rather
| being petty about not having their own FAANG.
| [deleted]
| yunohn wrote:
| You know what? The funny thing is that all of FAANG has
| their international HQs in the EU (Dublin, Ireland) for
| tax evasion purposes. I'd argue they are more reliant on
| the EU then.
| briandear wrote:
| Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance is rational. Other
| EU countries have the ability to lower taxes right? It's
| ironic that the EU is suing Apple because Spotify doesn't
| want to pay 15% to Apple, yet the same people complaining
| of that have no problem with Apple attempting to avoid
| higher costs by having a non-Irish EU headquarters.
| yunohn wrote:
| Government taxes are a different ballgame than private
| company (Apple) profits. Interesting that you see them as
| the same thing. :/
| simion314 wrote:
| Yeah , the Apple tax makes Apple lazy and focus on how to
| suck even more, also makes some rich dudes richer while
| government tax goes into research, schools, roads etc.
|
| Apple tax should not exist, you should pay for what you
| use or have freedom to chose exactly how you can chose
| web hosting companies and plans.
| jquery wrote:
| Nobody thinks of FAANG as EU creations. Even if Nintendo
| is headquartered in the USA, it's still considered
| Japanese. IKEA is Swedish and so on. Where the companies
| were founded seems to play the largest role in their
| national identities.
| yunohn wrote:
| I was making a comment more about how the socialist EU
| can offer better corporate taxes than the more
| "capitalist" country (USA).
| simion314 wrote:
| But you could be wrong right? Maybe we should analyze if
| there is actual any merit for the complaints on Apple or
| about the tracking on the web instead of inventing some
| conspiracy.
|
| I would show you the example with Microsoft or Intel,
| this companies were found guilty and all the US nerds did
| not complain that EU is anti-american.(they were found
| guilty in US too)
| lwhi wrote:
| Apple are in the wrong here.
| piaste wrote:
| > So if Apple would basically not have an AppStore for
| third parties and only distribute their own apps then it
| would be fair.
|
| > If Apple was to not allow other Music apps on their
| AppStore then it would be fair.
|
| > But when Apple allows others to distribute a competing
| product to Apple on Apple's own platform for a fee then
| it is considered unfair?
|
| > I honestly don't understand this logic.
|
| I mean, it's kind of textbook vertical monopoly.
|
| Selling Windows is fine - you're competing over who makes
| the better OS. Selling Internet Explorer is fine - you're
| competing over who makes the better web browser.
|
| But using Windows to push Internet Explorer is not fine -
| you're using your unrelated OS superiority to fight off
| Netscape Navigator.
|
| It's a distorted market because the consumer is induced
| to go with iTunes over Spotify not because iTunes has the
| more appealing product, but because Apple makes iPhones.
| If the exact same software as iTunes was made by a non-
| Apple company, it wouldn't necessarily compete.
|
| --
|
| And I'm not sure it would be "fair" if AppStore didn't
| allow music apps, either. With web browsers and app
| stores, there's a decent case to be made that allowing
| those apps would compromise the iPhone product/ecosystem
| as a whole (although I'm personally of the "It's my phone
| and I demand to be able to install whatever the hell I
| want on it" philosophy and loathe walled gardens in all
| forms). Banning music apps simply because they compete
| with their own product would likely attract Vestager's
| ire just as well.
| iso1631 wrote:
| Of course Apple's music business was a whole separate legal
| minefield for decades
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
| maxerickson wrote:
| They bought out the name rights 8 years after iTunes
| launched.
|
| That payment was $500 million, but they were printing
| money from iPod+iTunes at that point (revenues of $9.5
| billion in 2006, $10.5 billion in 2007). I'd call it an
| ongoing headache more than a minefield.
| bennysomething wrote:
| How is apple entitled to 30 percent of what any other business
| makes?
|
| Apple developed a platform and says to developers "pay is 30
| percent to use it" sounds fair to me. Huge streaming service
| comes along "I want to use you platform but not pay the fee".
|
| How is that remotely fair? No one is making Spotify use it.
| What right has any one or any company got to demand special
| treatment. Many other app developers are fine with the fee. If
| they weren't, they wouldnt use it. It's a choice.
|
| Also "abusing market position" what does that mean. It's
| purposely broad, it can mean anything.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| >Also "abusing market position" what does that mean. It's
| purposely broad, it can mean anything.
|
| There's a reason for that. Not everything can be defined
| clearly. If every law gets defined down to a t, we will be in
| a very sorry state indeed. (off topic, but that seems to be
| happening more and more, with every lawsuit that goes to
| court and gets somewhat arbitrarily -and permanantly-
| defined)
| simion314 wrote:
| Think about the regular people or the artists, not the giant.
|
| Say we are a group of musicians and we hate the fact that a
| big chunk of our money is going to giants including ones from
| authoritarian countries... so we the musicians think . "let's
| make our own steaming platform, all the profit goes to the
| musicians"... what is the problem then?
|
| Did you found it ?
|
| If mobile devices, consoles and computers are locked then I
| will not be able to realize my dream of removing the
| parasites from the industry, I would be happy to pay for the
| SDK, to pay for a genous to review the app, to pay for the
| bandwith of the updates, but I will not be happy to let a
| parasite to suck 30% of my sales(NOT even profit)
| bennysomething wrote:
| No one is making anyone use apple platforms. They are free
| to choose from others.
| simion314 wrote:
| Sure . the free market with only 2 players that were
| caught in the past colluding to do illegal shit
| https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-
| tech-jo... , they would never collude to non compete on
| the Store tax or offering "transfer" services .
| bennysomething wrote:
| Again, no one is making Spotify use apple. They don't
| have too. They choose to because they ll make money. They
| just want to make more money by going to court and
| demanding a cheaper service. Why should apple have to,
| just because they happen to be in the same business?
| simion314 wrote:
| Nobody forces Apple to sell in EU, they follow China
| rules so they should follow EU rules too.
| f6v wrote:
| People pretend that for-profit entities are supposed to build
| platform as a public good. When in fact corporations are
| incentivized by the market to be a monopoly.
| bennysomething wrote:
| Apple aren't even close to a monopoly. If the app store
| wasn't useful to the public the public wouldn't use it.
| f6v wrote:
| > Apple aren't even close to a monopoly.
|
| Let's see if the EU says "No, it is" and shakes apple for
| some money.
| bennysomething wrote:
| So if the EU say it's s monopoly it is? Given there are
| multiple places to stream music I find it hard to think
| of it as a monopoly.
| simion314 wrote:
| You should not be allowed to build a platform and then
| compete unfair with apps for that platform.
| f6v wrote:
| Why build a platform then?
| simion314 wrote:
| Don't build one, build good products that users want and
| not forced to use. But this is from the users point of
| view. From a capitalistic point of view I agree you need
| to screw the users and environment as much as legally
| possible.
| bennysomething wrote:
| How do apple "screw" users. Anyone buying Apple products
| is making choice: keep my money or spend on a thing I
| find beneficial. I think anyone would be forgiven for
| calling this a first world problem. Getting screwed
| usually means having money stolen. Here it just means
| demanding someone else's services cheaper.
| simion314 wrote:
| >How do apple "screw" users.
|
| Apple forbids you to put a link or a text message in your
| app to inform the users that they could pay for a
| subscription or product on a webpage.
|
| So how can we spin "forcing developers not to inform
| users so users pay more and Apple makes more money" in
| such a way where this is not "screwing users". If I was a
| fanboy I would say that "most iOS users are poor old
| grandmas and to much information and options is too much
| for them AND for sure the grandma hit I agree on the TOS
| where Apple says that they force users to hide useful
| information"
| xxs wrote:
| >Unpopular opinion:
|
| Only if you own Apple stock... or well hackernews is overall
| unfriendly for anything Apple related.
| mhh__ wrote:
| How is hackernews in any way unfriendly to Apple?
|
| Anything involving Apple Silicon goes straight to the top of
| the frontpage, comments are full of people absolutely gushing
| over just about anything - I personally don't really care
| other than that I find it subtly funny the number of times I
| see people saying "Wow my new M1 Mac is so much faster than
| [Different Mac that's almost a decade old, but I'm either not
| used to thinking about Apple products in terms of their
| internals, or I'm forgetting the passage of time]"
| xxs wrote:
| unfriendly as in "unfriendly to discuss"... not the
| company, itself - which tends to be favored. (this is why I
| said unfriendly 'for')
|
| Just the topics. It's a download fest (on any side) for
| anything that doesn't fit their purpose. M1 is a prime
| example - it was top of the page and most of the comments
| were nothing about the technology, etc.
|
| About M1 - I find nothing spectacular about it, given the
| amount of transistors it has.
| beforeolives wrote:
| > Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to
| 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!!
|
| 1. No, this is limited to the AppStore, those businesses can
| operate elsewhere.
|
| 2. What's the alternative? How is any business entitled to free
| or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and maintain?
| Griffinsauce wrote:
| > 1. No, this is limited to the AppStore, those businesses
| can operate elsewhere.
|
| Defining "elsewhere" is important here.
|
| They cannot operate on the same platform through alternative
| installation methods or the web (considering how Apple limits
| PWAs to be dead in the water). They also cannot reach these
| users through other platforms because of the immense lock in
| that Apple builds up intentionally. [1]
|
| So they can operate "elsewhere" but they cannot reach those
| consumers. They are owned by Apple.
|
| Regardless of how you feel about the legalities or how much
| freedom you think a company should have, that is obviously
| bad for competition and consumers.
|
| [1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-
| imessage-an...
| flumpcakes wrote:
| > How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a
| platform that Apple built and maintain?
|
| I see the argument all the time - I don't think it's really
| in good faith.
|
| You could argue that it was in fact the app developers who
| built the platform. For the _average_ iPhone or Android user,
| how much time is spent in the default apps outside of core
| phone functionality (making calls, reading/sending sms)?
|
| I would assume most people spend time in 3rd party
| applications like WhatsApp, Facebook, Spotify, etc.
|
| The "killer app" of the iPhone isn't apple - it's the tens of
| thousands of 3rd party developers. If all 3rd party
| developers stopped developing for iOS then the iPhone would
| be a dead platform.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| > How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a
| platform that Apple built and maintain?
|
| Because we have a regulatory system designed to ensure that
| happens as capitalism doesn't really function if you don't.
|
| Also "platform" is bullshit. By "platform" we mean "Apple
| used it's control of the hardware to force control of all
| software on an unprecedented level so they could rent seek."
| There is no right to a "platform" here. Apple run an app
| store. People should be free to chose to use it or not, but
| they're not because Apple abuse their position as hardware
| manufacturer. That isn't a platform.
| tedd4u wrote:
| Why should people be forced to use Honda engines with Honda
| cars? Honda ONLY offers Honda engines, not any other
| manufacturer. The are abusing their control of the
| integrated car to force control of the drive system and
| engine. People should be free to choose to use Honda
| engines or not.
|
| Apple created an integrated product that billions of people
| prefer. I don't think it's for us to arbitrarily tell Apple
| which parts of their product have to be split into
| different categories we arbitrarily define for them.
| celsoazevedo wrote:
| You can replace that Honda engine with a different one
| (at your own risk) if that's what you want. Honda also
| doesn't force everyone to give them 30 or 15% of engine
| oil or washer fluid sales.
|
| The only way to install an app on an iPhone is via
| Apple's store. You can't download it from the dev's
| website and install it. You also can't use a different
| app store because Apple doesn't let you. And you also
| can't buy something on an app (eg: a subscription)
| without using Apple's payment system or even link to a
| donation page (why?).
|
| You can have a well integrated product and still give
| users and developers some freedom.
|
| For example, Android phones usually come with Google's
| Play Store, which is what the vast majority of users use.
| It's no different from Apple and the App Store. Then,
| optionally, you can download the apk (the .dmg or .exe
| equivalent) from the dev's website and install it. You
| can also install a different app store, if that's what
| you want (almost no one does it, but the option is
| there). Apps are still only allowed to do what the OS
| let's them do (eg: you still need to give them permission
| to access your location, camera, etc), so you're only
| missing the privacy given by the review process. And when
| it comes to payments, you can use Google's payment system
| or something else. Not very different from what happens
| on your computer.
|
| Some people say this is terrible because then Facebook
| can create their store to bypass Google's rules. In
| practice, Facebook knows most users won't sideload apps
| or install a different app store, so they follow Google's
| rules like everyone else.
| realusername wrote:
| > How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a
| platform that Apple built and maintain?
|
| Since smartphones became essential to a functioning modern
| economy.
|
| And it's not about prices, Apple is free to setup any price
| they want but they should have a choice to publish their app
| on their website without Apple if they want to.
| zibzab wrote:
| Well, Apple has created a bunch of rules to address #1.
|
| For example, you cannot sell the same goods outside the store
| with a 30% discount.
| deergomoo wrote:
| > How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a
| platform that Apple built and maintain?
|
| I'm sure many businesses would be perfectly happy to have no
| access whatsoever to the platform Apple built and maintain
| (platform meaning the App Store in this context), but if they
| want to ship on iOS (which is where all the money is), they
| have no choice.
| FredPret wrote:
| So Apple is providing these businesses with a platform that
| has captured hundreds of millions of high-income users.
| That's incredibly valuable
| simion314 wrote:
| >What's the alternative? How is any business entitled to free
| or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and
| maintain?
|
| Maybe look at OSX ? Why can Apple be happy with OK with one
| but not the other? If you want to imply that phones are not
| computers then tablets are not phones and more like
| computers, so we all know that if it OSX was created today
| would be locked.
| fastball wrote:
| Yeah, my stance has always been that companies should exist to:
|
| 1. deliver value.
|
| 2. capture a _fraction_ of that value.
|
| I think it is pretty clear in most cases that 30% is well above
| the value Apple is actually delivering with their App Store.
| It's not like Apple is building the apps for other people. You
| still have to build the app entirely on your own, the only
| thing Apple is doing is _letting_ you distribute your app /
| distributing it for you, which costs pennies. People keep
| saying "but you wouldn't have devices to distribute your app to
| without Apple" and while that is true, Apple is already
| capturing the value for that part of the deal - they're selling
| the devices to customers. If they were giving away iPhones for
| free, that would be one thing. But if the only reason you are
| able to charge 30% is because you've monopolized distribution
| on a device that the user "owns", that is not ok.
|
| Then there is the dubious value Apple claims to be providing to
| end-users by "maintaining the quality of the app store", but I
| don't think this is true anymore. Shit-tier apps get thru every
| day, and great apps get knocked for arbitrary reasons. Apps are
| pretty well sandboxed at this point, requiring explicit
| permission for most worrying features, so I don't really think
| Apple oversight is needed. Allow 3rd party app stores already.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| > I think it is pretty clear in most cases that 30% is well
| above the value Apple is actually delivering with their App
| Store.
|
| You're entitled to your opinion. And maybe it is not valuable
| to you. But I doubt you even know the costs to run the
| service so my opinion is that you are speaking from a place
| of ignorance.
|
| Part of the value of the service is that you don't have to go
| and build it yourself. I'm going to bet that you'd die before
| you built it. How valuable is your life?
|
| > Shit-tier apps get thru every day, and great apps get
| knocked for arbitrary reasons.
|
| My opinion is this will get much worse. Just because you are
| a cute tinkerer who just wants to publish the app you made
| for your grandma doesn't mean there aren't people out there
| who can't wait to get their malware onto the platform that
| carries the most wealthy consumers.
| fastball wrote:
| Haha what are you talking about? Building an app store
| is... not hard. It's some detail pages and file transfer.
| That's it. I would definitely not rather die than build
| one. I _actually_ laughed out loud when I read your
| comment, because I have in fact already worked on App
| Stores - I contributed to some of the jailbreak app stores
| (and ran my own repos) when I was a _teenager_. So yes, I
| think I have a pretty good handle on the costs (and they
| 've only come down since then).
|
| For your own edification on costs, just look at AWS prices
| to see how much it costs to store and transfer a file on S3
| (fractions of fractions of pennies) - that type of activity
| is the main expense. This is not my opinion, it is... how
| much this kind of thing costs. You seem to think that is
| unknowable or something to anyone that is not Apple, but
| that's obviously not the case.
|
| Hell, I'd almost be willing to bet that the existing
| developer account fees ($99pa for individual, $299pa for
| biz) could cover server costs for the iOS App Store (with a
| 0% cut).
|
| The other way we know that it is not _actually_ that
| expensive to operate is because otherwise Apple would allow
| other app stores and not be monopolistic about the whole
| thing. But they know that their model (taking 30% of
| revenue) would not be competitive in a free market, so they
| don 't allow a free market.
|
| > Malware
|
| Please re-read my comment, especially the part about
| sandboxing and 3rd-party app stores. The suggestion is not
| that anyone can put anything in Apple's app store, it is
| that people should be able to have 3rd party app stores on
| their phone, which they can enable/install at their own
| risk. And those other app stores can have their own rules,
| e.g. if nobody else did I would start one where we charge
| cost+, as outlined above with S3 costs. E.g. if it costs me
| $1000 to deliver your apps + updates to your users every
| month, I charge you cost + 30%, or $1300 (or w/e). Spotify
| et al would of course prefer to use my app store, because
| that is much cheaper than having to pay 30/15% of revenue
| to Apple for every sub.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| > I contributed to some of the jailbreak app stores
|
| You didn't build or work on an app store. You played with
| one. Much easier to modify something that already exists
| than to create something where there once was nothing.
|
| > just look at AWS prices to see how much it costs to
| store and transfer a file on S3
|
| Look, if it's so cheap and easy to do, why is everyone so
| hell bent on getting onto Apple's? They should just do it
| themselves!
|
| The answer is that it's not that simple.
|
| > Please re-read my comment, especially the part about
| sandboxing and 3rd-party app stores
|
| I reread it. You did not say anything about sandboxing
| _3rd-party app stores_. Thanks for wasting my time with
| that! You said "apps are pretty well sandboxed" and we've
| seen how well that's done to protect users' privacy. App
| Tracking and Transparency was created for a reason.
|
| You really need to cool it with the condescension ("Haha
| what are you talking about?", "I actually laughed out
| loud when I read your comment"); it adds nothing to your
| arguments, except the veneer of juvenility.
| fastball wrote:
| > You really need to cool it with the condescension
|
| > But I doubt you even know the costs to run the service
| so my opinion is that you are speaking from a place of
| ignorance.
|
| > You didn't build or work on an app store. You played
| with one. Much easier to modify something that already
| exists than to create something where there once was
| nothing.
|
| That's some impressive cognitive dissonance ya got there,
| you might want to try looking in a mirror. You have no
| idea how much involvement I had. Please stop arguing from
| a place of complete and total ignorance.
|
| > Look, if it's so cheap and easy to do, why is everyone
| so hell bent on getting onto Apple's? They should just do
| it themselves!
|
| Surely you can't be serious... this is literally the
| topic at hand. Apple won't _let_ anyone do it themselves.
| That is why they don 't do it themselves. People
| absolutely would do it themselves if Apple wasn't
| behaving anti-competitively. I'm glad you agree that
| Apple should open up iOS to 3rd-party app stores so that
| they can live or die on their own merits, rather than
| being prevented from existing in the first place, based
| on dubious claims of protecting users. Though again, it
| is worth noting that people (yours truly included)
| actually have done it themselves, through jailbreaking.
| And that many jailbreak apps have done _quite well_
| financially, handling the distribution themselves. This
| is success _in spite_ of Apple, as requiring users to
| jailbreak before they use your App Store is in fact a
| pretty high bar and does in fact make your system less
| secure.
|
| > You did not say anything about sandboxing _3rd-party
| app stores_... App Tracking and Transparency was created
| for a reason.
|
| Um, yes. That is exactly my point - the apps themselves
| are sandboxed and permissioned, at an OS level, so
| Apple's oversight (in the App Store) is a lot less useful
| than it once was (whether it _ever was_ particularly
| valuable is not a given). If an app wants access to your
| location, the user has to explicitly allow it to have
| that permission. It doesn 't matter what App Store the
| app is being distributed on, that sandboxing is there
| regardless.
|
| Also, isn't it a bit strange that Apple added such a
| feature in the first place? You'd think, since they were
| already gatekeeping apps that can be installed on your
| device, there would be no need, because Apple would catch
| apps that asked for permissions they didn't need, hmmm...
| just kidding, obviously this is because different users
| have different needs and Apple can't prescribe the same
| thing for everyone. Which is exactly why Apple should
| open up iOS to other app stores, and in order to keep iOS
| users secure they should focus on _more_ things like App
| Tracking and Transparency, not on monopolizing app
| stores.
| nodamage wrote:
| > Which is exactly why Apple should open up iOS to other
| app stores, and in order to keep iOS users secure they
| should focus on more things like App Tracking and
| Transparency, not on monopolizing app stores.
|
| This is self-contradictory. If Apple allows third-parties
| to distribute apps outside the App Store, they lose the
| ability to enforce their App Tracking and Transparency
| rules.
| fastball wrote:
| With all due respect, have you ever developed an
| application for iOS? Because it doesn't sound like it, as
| this is not how it works.
|
| Apps are sandboxed. In order to access certain features,
| they need to request permission from the operating
| system. e.g. there is a GPS chip in your iPhone. Apps,
| through the design of the OS (not the App Store), are
| unable to access the raw data coming from this unit
| themselves. Instead, they tell the OS "hey, I want access
| to location data", at which point the OS throws up a
| notification to the user asking if they want to allow the
| app access to that data. The user says yes, and the OS
| starts to provide the app with location data. At any
| point, the user can tell the OS "hey, stop giving this
| app access" and the OS will oblige. The App Store does
| not enforce this functionality at all, it is enforced at
| the OS level. Allowing 3rd party app stores would not
| change this. If Apple's App Store vetting process
| disappeared tomorrow, Spotify would not be able to get
| location data without the user's permission.
|
| As a side note, I keep saying "at the OS level", but this
| is a simplification on my part. In more than a few
| places, Apple has gone further and done things like have
| the Secure Enclave which has complex interactions with
| the OS / kernel to make certain actions difficult even if
| you break out of the OS-level sandbox.
| nodamage wrote:
| I have done mobile development (both iOS and Android) for
| a long time and am well aware how sandboxing works.
| You've misunderstood the issue if you think sandboxing
| sufficiently solves this problem.
|
| Let me flip the question, are you aware what types of
| data apps collect in order to fingerprint a device? These
| are the same low level APIs that apps need for legitimate
| purposes, you can't simply disable them or put a
| permissions prompt in front of each one.
| fastball wrote:
| Yes, I am very aware of what types of data apps collect
| in order to fingerprint a device. That is exactly why I
| firmly believe this problem should be solved at the OS
| level, not at the App Store level. Because I trust a
| technological solutions much more than I trust App Store
| reviewers at Apple.
|
| This is why I prefer an E2EE chat service to a service
| that is not but says "we promise we won't read your
| messages".
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| >> I doubt you even know the costs
|
| > You have no idea how much involvement I had
|
| You're absolutely right. I said "I doubt you even know,"
| not "I know for a fact you do not know," and am willing
| to be proven wrong. I made an assumption that I'm
| confident would apply to most people commenting on this
| story. I don't think I misrepresented it as anything
| other than an assumption.
|
| Until you show me some receipts I'm going to continue
| assuming you are not actually privvy to what it takes to
| run the app store.
|
| > Apple won't let anyone do it themselves
|
| You've misunderstood. People are free to build up a fleet
| of devices, the OS that runs on them, the backend
| services that make up the app store, all the customer
| support channels and tooling, find/hire/train all the
| employees that keep it running, etc etc etc. Apple can't
| stop people from trying that. Peoples' problem is that
| they don't want to take decades to get there, which is
| what Apple has done... lots of pain along the way, too.
|
| _That_ is part of the value proposition of the app store
| itself. The app store does not exist in a vacuum.
| fastball wrote:
| > I made an assumption that I'm confident would apply to
| most people commenting on this story
|
| Great, well, I'm not most people commenting on this
| story. If you've ever jailbroken an iOS device, there is
| a very high probability your device subsequently ran code
| that I wrote. I have distributed apps and tweaks to
| _literally_ hundreds of thousands of users through the
| repos I 've run. Don't make assumptions when you don't
| need to.
|
| > You've misunderstood.
|
| No, I think you've misunderstood. I did not say building
| hardware, an operating system, and an app store is easy.
| I said building an app store is easy. Let me quote
| myself:
|
| > People keep saying "but you wouldn't have devices to
| distribute your app to without Apple" and while that is
| true, Apple is already capturing the value for that part
| of the deal - they're selling the devices to customers.
|
| Look, I get it - you're holding on to the idea that Apple
| built the ecosystem, so they're allowed to do with it as
| they please. And in general I'm sympathetic to the idea
| that if you build something, you get to control it. The
| only problem is that it is not only Apple's ecosystem...
| the devices themselves _belong to the people they sold
| them to_ , and Apple should not be able to unilaterally
| prevent those participants from using the devices they
| _purchased_ as they wish in an anti-competitive way. This
| is _precisely_ why we have anti-trust laws.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| > If you've ever jailbroken an iOS device, there is a
| very high probability your device subsequently ran code
| that I wrote. I have distributed apps and tweaks to
| literally hundreds of thousands of users through the
| repos I've run. Don't make assumptions when you don't
| need to.
|
| It's starting to sound more and more like you do not
| actually work on the Apple app store, as you've had a few
| chances now to correct me on that. So I believe my
| assumption was actually correct, despite your dancing
| around the issue. You may have many impressive
| accomplishments, but unless working on Apple's app store
| is one of them, I'm not adjusting how much weight I put
| in your opinion, and I'm certainly not going to feel bad
| for the assumption I made... which, again, sounds to be
| correct.
|
| In fact, you being a jailbreaker and having built up all
| that infrastructure tells me that you are financially
| incentivized to get 3rd party app stores on the platform.
|
| And just so you know, no, I have not jailbroken any iOS
| device I own, because I trust Apple more than I trust
| you.
|
| > I said building an app store is easy.
|
| And I told you why I think you're wrong. In order to bake
| an apple pie, first you must invent the universe. I'll
| quote myself too: "The app store does not exist in a
| vacuum."
|
| > the devices themselves belong to the people they sold
| them to
|
| That is true for devices, but the use of the operating
| system is _licensed_ to you. Apple retains control of
| iOS: "The software...are licensed, not sold, to you by
| Apple Inc"
| (https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iOS14_iPadOS14.pdf)
| colinmhayes wrote:
| The app store makes tens of billions of dollars a year. You
| can't argue it delivers anywhere close to that amount of
| value.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| > You can't argue it delivers anywhere close to that
| amount of value.
|
| Why not?
| saynay wrote:
| I believe it is 30% for the initial subscription (or maybe
| first year?), and then 15% after that. If you are big enough,
| and probably aren't competing with a market Apple wants, you
| can negotiate to the 15% (maybe lower?) from the get go, e.g.
| Netflix.
| simonh wrote:
| It's 30% for the first year of subscriptions and 15%
| thereafter.
|
| According to Apple in 2019 Spotify didn't actually pay 30% on
| any of it's subscriptions at that time, and only paid the 15%
| on 0.5% of the App's users. The rest are ad supported and Apple
| gets 0% of the ad revenue.
|
| So for every Spotify app user Apple get's a 15% fee for, there
| are 199 Spotify app users Apple is distributing the App to for
| which they get nothing.
|
| https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-fires-back-spotify-pays-fees...
|
| OK, that's the fact side of things. As for opinion, I think
| it's ridiculous that App vendors can't point out alternative
| payment options in their apps. That's a step too far. I'm also
| a bit concerned about digital sales, I can see why Epic doesn't
| want to pay 30% on every skin or loot box sold in Fortnite, but
| it's a free app otherwise distributed on the App Store for
| nothing so I think some sort of deal needs to be struck there.
|
| Other than that, I think the iPhone is Apple's product. They
| get to decide how it works, and users get to decide whether
| that's acceptable or not. Apple (and NeXT) spent billions of
| dollars over many decades, taking huge commercial risks to
| build that platform. A decade ago we were constantly being told
| they were inevitably doomed and open always wins. Well no, some
| of us like the way Apple does things and don't want it to
| massively change. Some things sure, they're not perfect, but I
| do not support changes that would severely undermine the
| integrity of their product. You can always buy an Android
| phone.
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| > only paid the 15% on 0.5% of the App's users.
|
| That's the point.
|
| This is clearly because they removed the ability to subscribe
| in the app to avoid paying those 15%. So the rule imposed by
| Apple is costing them subscribers, all those who would have
| subscribed if it was available in the app (or even just if
| they could be informed about how to subscribe).
|
| The fact that Spotify has barely no customer who subscribe
| through their app is showing that there's anticompetitive
| behavior. In a healthy market they would have a share there.
| halostatue wrote:
| I don't necessarily think that's the case.
|
| I haven't ever subscribed to Spotify because I don't see
| any _value_ in Spotify as opposed to what I get from Apple
| Music. I'm smart enough to know how to subscribe to Spotify
| from the web.
|
| (There are other services like Pandora I would have paid
| for, in or out of the App Store, had they been available in
| my jurisdiction. Spotify just never interested me.)
|
| I know that makes me an outlier, but it seems to me that
| Spotify has a much heftier case to make that they're
| _missing_ customers because of Apple's payment rules.
|
| I personally don't want alternative app stores; they will
| reduce the security and trustworthiness of the iOS
| platform. I do think that Apple should be reviewing its app
| / in-app purchase pricing, and I do think that there is a
| market access concern problem. I don't have any good
| answers for it, because I _do_ think that some of the
| actions criticized have been net positives.
| rstupek wrote:
| Or most of Spotify's users want the free ad supported
| version?
| thayne wrote:
| But I think the key here, and probably a big reason Spotify
| went after Apple and not Google, is that on iOS you _have_ to
| use Apple 's app store. You can't distribute your app using
| your own infrastructure, or an alternative app store even if
| you want to.
| FredPret wrote:
| That fact is key to the advantage that the iPhone ecosystem
| offers. I, and millions of users like me, like the closed
| garden.
|
| I'm effectively outsourcing the duties implied by caveat
| emptor to Apple. I don't have the time/inclination to check
| the safety & honesty of each app developer.
| fouric wrote:
| > That fact is key to the advantage that the iPhone
| ecosystem offers.
|
| That's not an advantage - that's a disadvantage. Having
| an open ecosystem is a strict superset of the
| functionality of a closed ecosystem. If I can sideload,
| then I can sideload _and_ use Apple 's app store. If I
| can't sideload, then I can only use Apple's app store.
| It's a strict downgrade.
|
| > I, and millions of users like me, like the closed
| garden.
|
| Meanwhile, I, and millions of users like me (more, if you
| count every Android user as not liking walled gardens),
| do not like the closed garden.
|
| Popularity does not make you right.
|
| Absolute popularity doesn't even matter - only relative
| popularity does.
|
| > I'm effectively outsourcing the duties implied by
| caveat emptor to Apple. I don't have the time/inclination
| to check the safety & honesty of each app developer.
|
| Apple doesn't do those duties consistently - malware
| repeatedly appears on the app store, and Apple doesn't
| even attempt to make sure that the vast majority of apps
| adhere to their privacy labels.
| FredPret wrote:
| > "[banning sideloading] is a strict downgrade" Nope, I
| can buy my mom an iPhone and know that it's not possible
| to totally brick it by clicking a link from a dodgy
| text/email
|
| > "Popularity does not make you right" I'm not saying
| that the closed approach is fundamentally better than the
| open approach, but it sure is for some use-cases. That's
| why we have a phone OS duopoly.
|
| Regarding Apple's garden walls not keeping all the
| creepy-crawlies out, sure, but it's vastly better than on
| Android.
| daveidol wrote:
| > I can buy my mom an iPhone and know that it's not
| possible to totally brick it by clicking a link from a
| dodgy text/email
|
| If they add sufficient warnings about sideloading etc.
| then I don't see a problem.
|
| If your mom is incapable of listening to these warnings
| and follows some guide to install some walware then I'm
| sorry but maybe she needs parental controls enabled or
| just a nice talking to about how to use her phone?
| Forcing everyone else to lose out on game streaming or
| Spotify signups seems like an overreaction to the problem
| and an oversimplification of the solution space.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| And with alternative app stores you continue to have the
| choice of only using Apple's App Store, where Apple would
| hopefully continue to check each app.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "millions of users like me, like the closed garden."
|
| Alcapone was popular, but he was still a criminal and a
| murderer
| FredPret wrote:
| If you think about it really carefully, Apple vetting
| apps before I get to see them is not... exactly... the
| same thing as being a murdering gangster
| fouric wrote:
| It's pretty clear that the parent was not stating that
| those were the same thing, but instead that popularity
| does not mean correctness (either in the technical sense
| or the moral sense).
| rattlesnakedave wrote:
| Peak hackernews comment. This is an inane comparison.
| Murder is not the same as me being satisfied that every
| app publisher under the sun cannot make their own app
| store to pollute my phone further.
| ChrisRR wrote:
| And aren't even allowed to mention in your app that you can
| sign up outside of the app.
| simonh wrote:
| Sure I understand that, but personally as an iPhone user I
| don't care. Users benefit from consolidation in the app
| store space, it much easier for me to have all my apps come
| from one app store with one set of rules and policies. I
| benefit from the fact Facebook can't bypass the App Store
| rules for security and privacy through side loading and an
| alternate store. Why do you want to take that away from me?
|
| Also as a user I don't see any evidence that I am suffering
| from this, are app prices significantly lower on Android
| App Stores other than the Play Store? The vast majority of
| Apps are free, or rally pretty cheap. Show me the evidence.
|
| I think the idea that competition in this area will benefit
| users is highly dubious. Does it really benefit users on
| Android? Side loading didn't work out for Fortnite very
| well.
|
| At the end of the day it's Apple's product and they get to
| decide what code they do or don't write and what features
| they do or don't support and how they work. They get to
| decide, and are accountable for the security architecture.
| As long as hey are meeting trade, advertising and safety
| standards it's up to them.
| simion314 wrote:
| So if you personally won't benefit from it you should not
| be against someone else benefiting right?
|
| If you want to buy Cyberpunk 2077 you have the option of
| at least 3 stores, I did not see any Steam user getting
| damaged by the fact the game is on other stores too.
| ericmay wrote:
| As the topic has been beat to death a million times, the
| danger is that adding additional app stores will result
| in decreases in the exact thing the OP likes the App
| Store for. All of the hard work fighting for privacy,
| security, etc., goes out the window. Facebook will put
| their app on a 3rd party store and now we're back to them
| and others abusing privacy and tracking users and not
| sharing what and how they're tracking. Apple's benevolent
| dictator approach has revealed some _nasty_ stuff these
| companies and others were doing. With a third party app,
| companies don't have to tell me how they are using my
| data or give me an anonymous sign in option. Naturally
| they're fighting back.
|
| The App Store gives Apple a way to collectively bargain
| against app makers on behalf of users. Take that away and
| we lose what little power we have.
| ericwooley wrote:
| You can sideload on Android and yet there are stories all
| the time about Google removing some app and destroying
| some ones whole business. It's false to say that multiple
| avenues for app installation destroys apples leverage
| over app makers. The tyranny of the default is very real.
| Facebook is not about to move to the epic store so it can
| violate your privacy more.
|
| Besides, there doesn't need to necessarily be a competing
| store. Even the ability to install from a website would
| be enough IMO. Apple can put up a scary message before
| you install a non app store app, and epic can side load
| their app. If you want the benefit of the app store, you
| can pay the 30%. I suspect most developers would.
| Additionally, you still have to get your app signed
| through apples developer program, so if they revoke your
| certificate, they could still destroy you.
|
| And I think we can let go of the idea that apple curates
| it's apps for safety and security. It's been shown
| repeatedly that they let scams through all the time,
| while scrutinizing and removing apps over tiny mistakes
| around phrasing of payment.
| ericmay wrote:
| > It's false to say that multiple avenues for app
| installation destroys apples leverage over app makers.
|
| Sorry, I just completely disagree. Google's Play Store or
| w/e it is on Android is the fox in the hen house. Google
| is one of the offenders that Apple is making disclose
| data collection practices! I don't think they situation
| is exactly comparable and it's different enough that the
| prior precedent _may_ not be applicable.
|
| > Apple can put up a scary message before you install a
| non app store app, and epic can side load their app.
|
| Yea until _that_ becomes anti-competitive. Besides, that
| makes the user experience bad. Why do any of this at all?
| If you 're sophisticated enough to want to side load
| apps, you're sophisticated enough to jailbreak your
| iPhone and get what you want.
|
| I can already see it. You see some app in the App Store -
| you download it thinking it's an app but it's just a
| message: "Want to download our app? Go to our website!".
| Then I get all these pop-up warnings, download some
| malware on accident, whatever. IMO (and I'll vote with my
| dollars at least) it's just a dumb experiment to run. I
| see 0 benefit in doing any of this. 0.
|
| > It's been shown repeatedly that they let scams through
| all the time
|
| Failures like this aren't indicative of overall policy so
| I don't really see the point here.
|
| (also hey there fellow Eric :) )
| ericwooley wrote:
| > Google's Play Store or w/e it is on Android is the fox
| in the hen house. Google is one of the offenders that
| Apple is making disclose data collection practices! I
| don't think they situation is exactly comparable and it's
| different enough that the prior precedent may not be
| applicable.
|
| You don't think that it's a a good comparison to compare
| the only other large scale play store which implements
| the exact behavior I'm talking about?
|
| And googles bad behaviors, and Google does have bad
| behaviors, is irrelevant to this conversation.
|
| > Yea until that becomes anti-competitive.
|
| How would that be anti competitive?
|
| > If you're sophisticated enough to want to side load
| apps, you're sophisticated enough to jailbreak your
| iPhone and get what you want.
|
| Jailbreaking your phone is a huge pita, even if you are
| technical, and it forces you to always be several
| versions behind. Not to mention very few companies will
| be making apps for jailbroken phones. This isn't a
| realistic alternative. If jailbreaking your phone were
| allowed by apple, then _maybe_ it would be a reasonable
| compromise.
|
| > Failures like this aren't indicative of overall policy
| so I don't really see the point here.
|
| It is very indicative of the over all policy. It's very
| clear that the app review process is a tool for stifling
| competition, and that apple is abusing it.
|
| --
|
| The big argument I see is that the app store provides
| value, so the 30 percent is justified. If that's true,
| let apps side load, and keep the 30 percent fee, and let
| people side load.
|
| If it's truly worth the 30 percent, very few apps would
| switch away from the app store. If it's not worth 30
| percent, then we have introduced a mechanism for
| competition and it's healthier for the whole ecosystem.
|
| > (also hey there fellow Eric :) )
|
| Spelled the same and everything
| ericmay wrote:
| > You don't think that it's a a good comparison to
| compare the only other large scale play store which
| implements the exact behavior I'm talking about?
|
| Well, I didn't it wasn't good, just that I wasn't sure
| it's comparable. Google is a software company, and has
| tons of apps (Youtube, Gmail, Maps, etc.) that are big-
| time heavy hitters that exist on both their App Store and
| the Apple one. And given that they own the Play Store and
| aren't inherently inclined to follow Apple's privacy
| rules, I think it's hard to draw an exact comparison
| between the two.
|
| > How would that be anti competitive?
|
| I think people would start to say it discourages users
| from participating in a free market or something along
| those lines. But I also don't think the Apple App Store
| is anti-competitive.
|
| > It is very indicative of the over all policy. It's very
| clear that the app review process is a tool for stifling
| competition, and that apple is abusing it
|
| Sorry, I don't have much to say here that's isn't us
| going back and forth with. I couldn't disagree more and
| it's unlikely we'll reach any consensus.
|
| > The big argument I see is that the app store provides
| value, so the 30 percent is justified.
|
| I think that's one argument, but it's not the only one.
|
| > If that's true, let apps side load, and keep the 30
| percent fee, and let people side load.
|
| > If it's truly worth the 30 percent, very few apps would
| switch away from the app store. If it's not worth 30
| percent, then we have introduced a mechanism for
| competition and it's healthier for the whole ecosystem.
|
| You'd have to convince me that, say, tracking users and
| avoiding Apple's privacy and security rules wouldn't be
| worth more for app makers. I think they're likely to
| change, to the detriment of users. So I'll personally
| oppose any changes here.
|
| TBH I've done a lot of thinking on this topic, I'm pretty
| passionate about it, and I think I've arrived at a
| conclusion that is just and fair (in my view) and I'm
| unlikely to change my opinion in really any way - more
| likely to double down on it. I want to bring that up just
| to let you know where I'm coming from here.
|
| Thanks
| jquery wrote:
| Just wanted to ditto everything you've said. I don't
| think people realize how _good_ we have it with Apple and
| how easily things could've gone in a completely different
| direction. Yes it's a benevolent dictatorship, but right
| now it's still benevolent. I get a lot of value out of
| the fact app makers have their oh-so-clever hands tied.
| simion314 wrote:
| And do you think that if Apple offers 2 iPhones , say the
| "American Dream" and "The communist pirate dream for EU"
| , and you buy the "safe one" for you and your family,
| then what are the downsides? If the "American dream "
| version is popular then FB will still be on it so you
| won't lose your FB access, you will still be protected
| from porn or apps that are not Political Correct and some
| EU "Communists" would have fun will their GPL programs
| and their inferior choices they had the freedom to chose.
|
| But if this to much for the Apple devs to implement they
| can stop selling in EU, focus more on China , they can
| increase the tax on that store a bit and not lose any
| money.
| ericmay wrote:
| Or if it bothers you so much just don't buy one. You
| don't speak for the entire E.U.
| simion314 wrote:
| >Or if it bothers you so much just don't buy one. You
| don't speak for the entire E.U.
|
| Ha ha, laws don't work like that. I am speaking my
| opinion and it seems I am not the only one that can see
| past the Apple giant PR. But if you are from EU you are
| free not to un lock your device or buy the US cooler
| version.
| simion314 wrote:
| This is FUD.
|
| iOS will have the sandbox, if some shitty app ask "Do you
| want me to open the microphone now?" the user can still
| say NO, if the app asks "Please give me access to
| location!" the user can still say No, or Apple could even
| be clever and offer the user the ability to give fake
| location data,
|
| From your point of view iOS users are so stupid that they
| shold not be allowed to use a OSX device or a browser(not
| sure if you know but browsers ahve access to camera, ,
| location if the user allows it so go unsintall your
| browser (I think you don't have the freedom to remove it
| , sorry for you)).
| ericmay wrote:
| Idk what FUD means.
|
| But long story short, I like things as they are and don't
| want them to change. If developers don't like that they
| can kick rocks. I'd rather have no apps and no App Store
| than to see things change, frankly.
|
| > From your point of view iOS users are so stupid that
| they
|
| No.. that's not my point of view or relevant _at all_ to
| anything I wrote.
|
| > shold not be allowed to use a OSX device or a browser
|
| Well, judging by all the requests I get to fix things on
| computers versus iPhones...
|
| > not sure if you know but browsers ahve access to camera
|
| Yes you have to give the browser permission.
| simion314 wrote:
| FUD = fear , uncertainty and doubt.
|
| >But long story short, I like things as they are and
| don't want them to change. If developers don't like that
| they can kick rocks. I'd rather have no apps and no App
| Store than to see things change, frankly.
|
| Who would force you to change? you could buy the US
| iPhone version with the diamond handcuffs.
|
| >Well, judging by all the requests I get to fix things on
| computers versus iPhones...
|
| Then good job to Apple PR and fanboys, the stories about
| Apple malware and viruses were burried very deep.
|
| >Yes you have to give the browser permission.
|
| So why this model will not work if you sideload an app?
| Do you need genius to check the menus of the app so you
| feel secure?
| ericmay wrote:
| > Who would force you to change? you could buy the US
| iPhone version with the diamond handcuffs.
|
| I'm not sure how up to speed you are with the current
| state of the discussion around this topic, but the gist
| of it is that if you make changes to the App Store, then
| Apple's work with respect to privacy, security, etc. go
| out the window because major apps that want to abuse
| these things will move to third party app stores. Apple
| loses the ability to collectively bargain on behalf of
| users.
|
| So, making the change almost surely will result in
| "forcing me to change". Maybe it won't, but I don't see a
| point in running that experiment.
|
| > Then good job to Apple PR and fanboys, the stories
| about Apple malware and viruses were burried very deep.
|
| Yea maybe they are. My own experience - nobody has ever
| had a problem with their iPhone. But PCs or even Macs?
| Yea I've had to do work. Almost always it's downloading
| and installing some thing they shouldn't have.
|
| > So why this model will not work if you sideload an app?
| Do you need genius to check the menus of the app so you
| feel secure?
|
| If you don't like iPhone and Apple so much why not just
| not use the products? I don't get this desire to change
| things that other people are quite happy with.
| simion314 wrote:
| >If you don't like iPhone and Apple so much why not just
| not use the products? I don't get this desire to change
| things that other people are quite happy with.
|
| If Apple does not like EU rules for fair competition,
| warranties and repaiar Apple should not do bussiness
| there instead of breaking the laws.
|
| People complaining about bad keyboards, bad video cards,
| bad batteries and even lawsuits forced Apple to not screw
| the users and recall bad products or offer free repair.
| If you like being screwed be my guest and do not use
| those limited"recall/repair" programs that complainers
| obtained (remember when Apple ass kissers would accuse
| people they put food int he keyboard because Apple is
| perfect)
|
| Btw you have the option to buy an US version of iOS
| device, with the US version of the store, and never would
| change. you can;t say that FB will ask US people to buy
| an EU version of the phone so for sure on that US version
| Apple can continue protecting you.
| Karunamon wrote:
| _Apple loses the ability to collectively bargain on
| behalf of users._
|
| Without being overly smug here: _Good._
|
| Apple have been terrible stewards of the platform.
| Arguably better than Google, but that's a bar so low a
| deep-bore drilling machine couldn't clear it. The app
| store is overrun with scams, the approval process is
| nonobjective and unreliable, and prohibits entire classes
| of useful software on shaky moralizing grounds.
|
| I don't want Apple to bargain on my behalf. I want apple
| to fuck off, get out of my way, and stop telling me what
| I can run on my hardware.
|
| _If you don 't like iPhone and Apple so much why not
| just not use the products?_
|
| If Apple doesn't like the EU's rules why not just stop
| doing business there?
| ericmay wrote:
| > If Apple doesn't like the EU's rules why not just stop
| doing business there?
|
| What rules? These are proposals for rules, and also
| lawsuits. There are arguments that have merit on both
| sides. But yea sure, if it was me and I were Tim Cook and
| had unlimited authority and the E.U. made Apple open up
| to 3rd party App Stores I'd pull the iPhone from Europe.
| Bad business decision most likely, but principled at
| least. Instead they're likely going to just do something
| else about it. There's always work arounds. Closing off
| APIs, charging gargantuan fees to be listed on the App
| Store for big players like Spotify, etc.
|
| There are _plenty_ of companies chomping at the bit to
| get on the App Store top lists and happy to pay a fee to
| do so.
|
| > don't want Apple to bargain on my behalf. I want apple
| to fuck off, get out of my way, and stop telling me what
| I can run on my hardware.
|
| I think Apple platforms aren't for you then. They're
| highly opinionated and always have been.
|
| > The app store is overrun with scams, the approval
| process is nonobjective and unreliable, and prohibits
| entire classes of useful software on shaky moralizing
| grounds.
|
| So the solution is third party app stores that are even
| worse?
| simion314 wrote:
| >Bad business decision most likely, but principled at
| least.
|
| Are you trolling? Apple and principles ? They are giving
| Chinese customers information to the government and do
| bussiness with Saudi Arabia that would execute all those
| gay Apple executives if they could, are this
| principles??? Or you mean "Ferengi principles"
| fouric wrote:
| > iOS will have the sandbox
|
| THIS. Permissions _must_ be enforced at the _operating
| system level_. Apple, Google, and others have repeatedly
| demonstrated that _large companies do a really bad job at
| policing their app stores_ - and the fact that the task
| is _intrinsically_ harder and _technically_ inferior to
| _building a better operating system_ doesn 't help.
|
| The _only_ correct solution to many privacy and security
| issues (such as microphone access) is OS-level sandboxing
| and permissions control, _not_ an un-scalable and error-
| prone attempt at auditing before publishing to an app
| store.
|
| (note that I said "many" privacy and security issues, not
| "all")
| nodamage wrote:
| It's not quite that simple. There are many APIs that are
| necessary for legitimate purposes that can also be
| abused. Many of the APIs used for device fingerprinting
| fall under this category. The contacts APIs are another
| good example (just because I want to load my contacts so
| I can send my friend a message doesn't mean I want you to
| exfiltrate my contacts to your server so you can build a
| shadow graph of my social network.)
| simonh wrote:
| Exactly, I like the fact that if Facebook want to be on
| my phone they have to meet Apple's security and privacy
| standards. That directly benefits me, and it's one of the
| reasons I buy iPhones. Forcing Apple to change their
| product to allow side loading and alternative stores
| takes that away from me.
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| The question really is do you think that it's fair to
| expect app developers to meet the criteria and then pay
| the Apple tax?
|
| To be clear, I'm not decided on my opinion yet, I can see
| merits on both sides of the argument.
| simion314 wrote:
| Maybe we need to consider users, they are the larger
| number of victims. Should information be hidden from
| them? Should the user not decide if the wants to be
| tracked? Should the user not be allowed to donate to a
| developer without giving Apple a big cut?
| simion314 wrote:
| The standards could be in the SDK and the sandbox. Like
| you don't allow location data or access to photos to any
| apo (not even Apple ones). So even if I sideload an app
| or start a Apple app I should get same prompts("Do you
| want to let this app ignore your firewall rules? This
| might be insecure The app dev is "Facebook/Apple/Unkown)
| .
|
| And if Apple does not like Facebook tracking people maybe
| they should lobby for anti-tracking laws. They should
| also not allow lootboxes, gems or other gaming related
| shit (to be consistent with their puritanical PR spin)
| simondotau wrote:
| You are eliding the distinction between rules that can be
| enforced by the API and rules that can only be enforced
| by pronouncement. Anyone can do the former. I buy an
| iPhone because Apple does a decent job of the latter.
|
| Now of course if Apple is forced to permit third party
| stores, they're going to be forced to make it _really
| easy_ to get on these stores. Epic, Google and Amazon are
| going to make sure of that. So this isn't going to be
| like obscure alt stores on Android that the nerdiest 2%
| tinker with, it's going to be a shitshow.
|
| If Google then makes Google Maps and Gmail exclusive for
| the _iOS Play Store_ , all bets are off and the biggest
| reason why I prefer the iPhone is destroyed. And I will
| be sad and angry that other people wilfully supported its
| destruction.
| simion314 wrote:
| >If Google then makes Google Maps and Gmail exclusive for
| the iOS Play Store, all bets are off and the biggest
| reason why I prefer the iPhone is destroyed. And I will
| be sad and angry that other people wilfully supported its
| destruction.
|
| So is fine if Apple does not put iMessages on other
| stores or let open source people to create a bridge to
| talk with iMessages.
|
| If there are many people like you say 50% that won't
| unlock the phone then Google and FB will put their apps
| on all stores because there are more users. But if you
| are just 1% then it is fair that the 99% should not
| suffer because you want unfair stuff because it
| advantages you.
| briandear wrote:
| Why does there need to be anti-tracking laws? What if
| some people want to be tracked in exchange for a cheaper
| product? Apple allows people that value that to buy that.
| simion314 wrote:
| The laws will be against hidden tracking, you can track
| but you need to be transparent about it and if you misuse
| the tracking you should pay.
| simonh wrote:
| Is the App Store really an obstacle to apps getting on
| the iOS platform? Is it artificially raising prices?
| That's what matters from a consumer interests
| perspective, are they losing out or are they getting
| ripped off. If the answer is no, there's no case to
| answer. The reason for companies to exist and develop and
| sell products isn't to benefit their competitors.
| thayne wrote:
| > Is the App Store really an obstacle to apps getting on
| the iOS platform?
|
| Yes. A tremendous amount of effort goes into playing the
| game of guessing what you need to do to pass the approval
| process. And I don't mean things like tracking. I mean
| things like removing any links to your website, because
| users could buy a subscription there instead of on
| through the app.
|
| > Is it artificially raising prices?
|
| Absolutely. That 30% has to come from somewhere. And
| since you aren't allowed to charge more for an app
| purchase than a subscription online, that means it raises
| the price for everyone. Not just people who use the app.
| eyesee wrote:
| If anything I think the App Store has helped to drive the
| purchase price of software to $0. This in turn has driven
| every software vendor to either a subscription pricing
| model or a (privacy-invasive) ad model.
|
| Open question on if this is net beneficial to consumers
| or developers, but it could also be considered an
| economic inevitability when MC = MR = 0.
| simion314 wrote:
| I think maybe the ads helped this more, and what helped
| that is probably some ad library the developer can drop
| in the application.
|
| What kind of free apps are there ?
|
| 1 some open source software that is compatible with iOS
| store license
|
| 2 trials or apps with pay to unlock stuff
|
| 3 free with ads
|
| So IMO even if you have 3 stores this will not change.
| But you could get finally GPL software and apps/games
| that target adults.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >Sure I understand that, but personally as an iPhone user
| I don't care.
|
| I suspect the law is not structured so as to take your
| personal interest into consideration.
|
| >I think the idea that competition in this area will
| benefit users is highly dubious.
|
| this seems a very American concept of anti-trust,
| benefiting consumers is only one part of what concerns
| European anti-trust, in this case the question is does
| Apple Music have an unfair advantage on the platform
| against other music services - the answer would appear to
| be yes, for actually two points -
|
| 1. because they don't have the pay the fee the other
| music services have to pay
|
| 2. because they are not artificially restricted from
| communicating alternative methods of subscribing to their
| customers (because they don't need to because they are
| Apple)
| f6v wrote:
| You also don't have to buy a subscription in the app, do
| you? You can pay on the web directly to Spotify and use the
| subscription in the app.
| xorcist wrote:
| Apple has blacklisted apps for allowing that. They're a
| bit selective in enforcing that rule, but that doesn't
| make the situation better.
| Macha wrote:
| A fact Spotify is not allowed inform you of, and is not
| allowed make the only way to buy a subscription
| ahiknsr wrote:
| > You also don't have to buy a subscription in the app,
| do you? You can pay on the web directly to Spotify and
| use the subscription in the app.
|
| Apple doesn't allow App developers to Inform users about
| Alternate payment options.
| seszett wrote:
| Spotify is forbidden to mention it in their app, though.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Thats a violation of freemarket
| lodovic wrote:
| Say you buy a can of Coke at Walmart. Would Coca-Cola be
| allowed to print on that can that it can be bought for
| less at 7-Eleven?
| thayne wrote:
| The way I've seen the rules inforced (though
| inconsistently) it would be more like walmart not letting
| Coke put their website on the can, because you can buy
| coke directly from the website.
| anoncake wrote:
| While the situation is better on Android, not using the
| Play Store isn't a real option in most cases. Alternative
| stores cannot provide auto updates.
| MiddleEndian wrote:
| >Alternative stores cannot provide auto updates.
|
| That sounds nice to me. Want me to update? Provide an
| appealing update! Although I am still not a fan of having
| any sort of app store in the first place.
| georgyo wrote:
| The bigger difference is that the play store does not
| mandate using Google as the payment processor for
| transactions and subscriptions. Spotify would have no
| reason to look for an alternative app distribution
| mechanism on Android.
| realusername wrote:
| > The bigger difference is that the play store does not
| mandate using Google as the payment processor for
| transactions and subscriptions.
|
| The rules have changed, they do now.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Google requires you to use them for payments, that's been
| policy for a while. (They do it because Apple proved you
| can get away with it)
| halostatue wrote:
| Fortnite was kicked out of the Google Play store for the
| very same violation of rules and consumer trust that they
| pulled with Apple. Epic are also suing Google under the
| same concocted story.
| mfost wrote:
| No they sue Google for a different reason althougher. On
| how they blocked OEMs from making a deal with Epic to
| include their store/launcher on phones (thus allowing it
| the same capabilities for autoupdates and the like than
| the Play Store)
| megatron4537 wrote:
| Is this 30%-15% only for Spotify subscribers that paid
| through Apple Pay or is this for all Spotify subscribers that
| use the iOS app?
| ericmay wrote:
| If you sign up for Spotify outside of the app then Apple
| sees 0 of that revenue. And yet they are then also hosting
| and distributing apps for these companies.
|
| I think they'll probably start charging companies like
| Spotify a banana amount of money to be on the App Store or
| on iOS at all if they lose these legal battles. I think the
| pull of the iPhone is far stronger than any app and there
| are many developers waiting for their chance to reach the
| iOS audience.
| withinboredom wrote:
| Hah, I'd rather just host my own infrastructure if
| they'll start charging for hosting... oh wait...
| ericmay wrote:
| What infrastructure would you host?
| defaultname wrote:
| Every major app that iOS missed would be a significant
| dollar amount of sales that Apple would lose. If Netflix
| or Spotify or PrimeVideo wasn't available on iOS, not
| only would that be a marketing disaster, it would yield
| sales consequences. This ignores the catastrophic
| regulatory consequences they are already poised to incur.
|
| Apple runs the app store for users (people like me who in
| aggregate have made it the most valuable company in the
| world), and it is simply bizarre seeing these claims like
| it's some enormous expense that they're doing because
| they're benevolent (which is quite clearly the foundation
| of your comment, given the claim that Apple could charge
| "banana" amounts just for being on the app store,
| contrary to reality where they're already under enormous
| scrutiny for claiming these fees as a payment processor).
|
| There is an argument that Apple could charge some fee for
| their expenses of operating the app repository. Those
| fees, to avoid the regulatory hammer, would be absolutely
| tiny compared to what they are currently getting from
| their take.
| ericmay wrote:
| > it is simply bizarre seeing these claims like it's some
| enormous expense that they're doing because they're
| benevolent.
|
| That's not a claim I've made in any way, shape, or form.
| Please don't misrepresent things I've written based on
| your own self-projections.
| defaultname wrote:
| Predicting that they're going to charge a "bananas"
| amount for "hosting and distributing apps" -- ostensibly
| on the basis of the cost of all of these "free" users
| (where free means paid enormous amounts for devices based
| upon this service) -- certainly does seem to make that
| claim.
| ericmay wrote:
| Well, I can tell you with certainty that wasn't the claim
| that was made.
|
| > ostensibly on the basis
|
| Is where you begin to separate from my comment.
|
| But in the spirit of good conversation, my point was that
| Apple will collect _some_ fee for companies to be on the
| App Store, especially the large ones (Facebook, Netflix,
| Spotify, etc.). They 're not going to just say well I
| guess we won't charge developers anymore. I think the
| idea with the percentage of revenue was to have the
| amount taken grow in proportion with the value of the
| user base and number of users using a particular app,
| especially if they might have discovered that app on the
| iOS platform (i.e. lead generation).
|
| If that goes away, there's no reason that I can see that
| Apple won't say, well we charged you X last year, we
| estimate that you're deriving Y amount of revenue from
| the App Store so we're going to charge an annual fee of Z
| to be on the App Store.
| sneak wrote:
| Market rates for payment processing are closer to a tenth of
| that amount.
| hajile wrote:
| That paints an even more anticompetitive problem.
|
| If you started a music streaming service, could you get those
| lower rates? If not, is there any way you coins compete?
| defaultname wrote:
| "The rest are ad supported and Apple gets 0% of the ad
| revenue."
|
| The vast bulk of the rest likely signed up elsewhere and
| aren't free users. I signed up online, as I imagine most
| people do for most services. I'm not sure if Spotify even had
| an app subscription at the time, though even if it did I
| wouldn't have used it.
|
| I signed up for Netflix, Skillshare, Prime, Disney+, etc, all
| on their own sites. Even my Microsoft Office apps I bought a
| multi-year subscription on some site (saving something like
| 40% over the app fees). There is zero value for me
| subscribing to things like that through Apple. Actually
| negative value.
|
| If it's some single-platform little app that needs a
| subscription to use the beautifier filter or something, sure,
| provide that "value".
|
| "there are 199 Spotify app users Apple is distributing the
| App to for which they get nothing"
|
| They have gotten hundreds of billions in purchases from
| consumers, all but the very first purchases predicated on a
| robust and healthy app ecosystem. Apple runs the app store
| for _me_ , the guy who buys their devices. They are certainly
| getting loads for it.
|
| It is perverse that Apple bars notifying users that they can
| subscribe elsewhere, and eventually that is going to be
| regulatory eliminated.
| jVinc wrote:
| > Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to
| 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!!
|
| This seems to be the case for all markets. I don't really see
| myself winning a case against wallmart if I complain they want
| a markup on sales of my product and that they are misusing
| their "monopoly" on "wallmart shelf space" by not allowing me
| decide to put my products in their store without their say, or
| without letting them earn money on the transactions that happen
| through their store.
| gcthomas wrote:
| Walmart is competing openly with the store down the street.
| If I have a iPhone I can't use another store -- it is a lock-
| in.
| simondotau wrote:
| If you walk into Walmart, you're not going to find a
| Target. And you're certainly not going to find a Target
| paying 0% commission to Walmart.
|
| There you go, another equally ridiculous Walmart analogy.
| cletus wrote:
| So Apple's ecosystem does two things:
|
| 1. it gatekeeps what's in the App Store. This is of course
| controversial but is a net positive for consumers (IMHO); and
|
| 2. It provides a convenient payments infrastructure.
|
| I certainly hope no government forces Apple to allow third-party
| App stores. Just look at what a mess this is on the PC where
| there are a million launchers (eg Steam, Epic, Ubisoft, Rockstar)
| and nearly all of them are terrible.
|
| (2) also has value, even for big companies. There are definitely
| people who buy things (including subscriptions) on Apple devices
| because of the ease of doing so. Remember that cut also does
| include credit card processing fees so that sets the floor at
| 1-2% not 0%. That's still a lot less than 30% of course. And I
| think this is particularly egregious for recurring charges like
| Spotify in this case.
|
| This is why I was utterly confused by Apple's move last year to
| lower the cut for small developers only. This is the complete
| reverse of what they should do. It's clear that the winds are
| blowing towards government intervention here so Apple should be
| looking to control the narrative and deciding what compromise
| looks like.
|
| If Apple had come out and said that if you process more than
| $10m/year then their cut was 10% of initial purchases and 5% of
| recurring charges do you honestly think that Spotify or Epic or
| anyone else would be suing them or seeking government
| intervention to anywhere the same degree?
|
| Apple (and Google) are just holding on too tight to the 30% cut
| and they're not reading the (antitrust) room.
| alickz wrote:
| > Just look at what a mess this is on the PC where there are a
| million launchers
|
| Which has resulted in some much needed competition for Steam,
| particularly around dev cuts.
|
| Also just look at macOS, would anyone really prefer to only be
| able to install mac apps from the Mac App Store?
|
| Would the benefits of forcing users and devs through the Mac
| App Store outweigh the benefits of users being able to install
| whichever software they wished?
| cletus wrote:
| Users sideloading apps on their phones is likely to be a
| benefit to like 5,000 people and an attack vector for 3
| billion.
|
| As for Steam, you don't have to use it as a game publisher,
| as in you could always sell physical media (up until the past
| few years) or a download. As a consumer I'll pretty much
| always prefer buying a game through Steam. I hate all these
| other launchers that you have to now use for like one title
| because they suck.
|
| This same "me too" philosophy is ruining online content
| distribution where once Netflix was so good. Just look at the
| difficulty in finding out if a given movie or TV show is on
| any of your services. There's really no good way to do that.
| I've seen websites that try but they also include Amazon,
| Google Play and iTunes where you can buy that content when
| all I'm interested in is where it streams for free. It just
| sucks.
|
| More is not always better.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| > an attack vector for 3 billion
|
| Apple can handle it. They could just put enough stringent
| protections at the OS layer against malicious apps. Not to
| mention, any sideloading feature would be well guarded from
| within the interface so that no one other than power users
| would actually find it and enable it.
|
| > This same "me too" philosophy is ruining online content
| distribution where once Netflix was so good.
|
| Ease of service does not justify monopoly.
|
| > Just look at the difficulty in finding out if a given
| movie or TV show is on any of your services.
|
| It is indeed annoying, but that's not so much an issue
| directly caused by competition between different streaming
| services, so much as the studios/networks hoarding their
| IP. Even if Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc. never existed, you'd
| still see efforts like HBO Max, Peacock from NBC, Paramount
| Plus from CBS, etc. to try to monopolize their own IP by
| keeping it off of Netflix.
| Siira wrote:
| > like 5,000 people
|
| Says you. Piracy and sanctions alone will make millions use
| these, not to mention any other uses.
| polskibus wrote:
| Apple could just stop offering own apps. Utility companies are
| often regulated similarly - in many countries you can be either
| an energy producer or grid, not both.
| cletus wrote:
| This same idea comes up with Google search results.
|
| For example, if you search for "mortgage calculator" you get
| a widget you can use directly. If you click on any of the
| links it takes forever to load (because it's loading 137
| different tracking cookies), you're prompted to sign up to
| their newsletter, there are ads, the calculator is spread
| across multiple pages (because, hey, that's more impressions)
| and so on.
|
| It's a terrible user experience.
|
| So my point is a blanket ban of "competing" is likely to be
| worse for the consumer.
|
| For this example, Apple has a lot of experience with music, a
| lot of deals in place and developed the iTunes ecosystem. I
| don't have an issue with them trying to sell a subscription
| music service. A blanket ban on this seems like an
| overreaction.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Why do people compare luxury phone products to utilities lol.
| Do people honestly believe access to electricity and to
| iPhones are in any way comparable?
| simion314 wrote:
| Because sometimes you have no choice then build a mobile
| app and you have to build it for what your customers use, I
| can't ask my customers to switch to some Linux phone or PC
| because I have the choice to build only Linux stuff.
|
| From the POV of users I would like to see soemthing to make
| it easy to escape the lockin, like to be able to keep your
| movies and apps.
| endisneigh wrote:
| The vast majority of businesses have no app presence. I
| honestly don't understand.
|
| In no way are Apple devices and electricity access
| comparable. Phone ecosystems come and go - energy access
| is forever.
| simion314 wrote:
| Why should a percentage of businesses be relevant?
|
| If I want to deliver food can I ask my customers to use a
| Linux PC because I only have a Linux app? Can you tell
| your customers that your website only works on Safari?
|
| As a company you have to implement what the customers
| want, not what you want. Apple controlling the market
| means you have to (even if you are not forced by a law of
| nature) make sure your webiste works on Apple devices and
| if customers want/need mobile apps (maybe because it
| needs access to native APIs or other shit that you can't
| do from a web page) you need to have an iOS and an
| Android app.
|
| Apple is not forced to sell in EU either, they will fight
| this but they are doomed to fail and I think the US is
| also locking into this, and you also have the right to
| repair movement that would hopefully also force Apple to
| do the right thing,
| endisneigh wrote:
| > If I want to deliver food can I ask my customers to use
| a Linux PC because I only have a Linux app? Can you tell
| your customers that your website only works on Safari?
|
| Sure why not?
|
| Businesses don't have to do anything. They can and do
| support things arbitrarily and customers choose which
| business to engage with based off those decisions.
|
| Apple and Google are following the same rules. Hopefully
| those rules change, but I doubt it.
| simion314 wrote:
| >Sure why not
|
| Are you trolling? or do not understand business?
| endisneigh wrote:
| I do understand business. You understand that customers
| are free to move on if they don't like a business'
| practices right? There are business's today whose
| websites only work on certain browsers, so I don't know
| what you're going on about to begin with.
| simion314 wrote:
| >You understand that customers are free to move on if
| they don't like a business'
|
| False. Not when there is a monopoly or the cost is too
| big(do you need examples? or definitions?)
|
| >There are business's today whose websites only work on
| certain browsers
|
| Sure, show me more then one excpetion of a company that
| made a web product from scratch in the latest 10 years
| and their product supports ONLY a browser with less then
| 50% market share.
|
| But if you REALLY think(and not trolling) that a real
| business like restaurant/gym/parking place/shop can
| support only Linux phones then stop replying , just buy a
| iPhone from US when the EU version will be unlock-able.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| During the pandemic many governments use phones to
| coordinate lockdowns
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| Protection of consumers is the common ground.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Would you say televisions and electricity are also
| comparable for the same reason?
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| Yes, if the electricity provider required 30% cut for any
| TV I hook up _except_ for the one they sell, I would like
| them to be stopped.
| endisneigh wrote:
| That's not really the analogous situation. More like
| Samsung takes a 30% cut on apps on its Tizen platform.
| Surely you'd just change TVs no? Or not buy it to begin
| with?
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| If only Samsung and Sony were making these TVs, and they
| both had these platforms, I'm screwed anyway, am I not?
| endisneigh wrote:
| How are you screwed, exactly? You can still watch tv, no?
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| The full value of iPhones is in the ecosystem of apps,
| not in the OS itself.
| simion314 wrote:
| Dude you can buy same game Cyberpunk on at least 3 different
| stores, what is wrong in the fact you have a choice?
|
| Sure you have some bad examples with some of EA games or other
| exclusives but only a retard would say "I wish only Steam
| existed because I love Valve screwing me so everyone should
| learn to love it")
|
| I don't blame Epic or EA either, why should they pay Valve a
| 30% tax when they can build a store and not throw money away.
| But I am against exclusives, EA or Epic should put their shit
| in all stores but on their own stores they could make things
| cheaper or offer other benefits.
| kwyjobojoe wrote:
| Choice is bad because Apple consumers prefer to be forced to
| only do things the Apple way (like when you couldn't transfer
| a file via Bluetooth between an ipad and iPhone because at
| the time Apple wanted you to use a computer, yet it worked
| fine transferring to an Android phone. Took me a while to
| figure that one out)
| swiley wrote:
| I'm tired of writing it but Apple's App Store _does not_
| prevent malware and scams.
|
| See my earlier comment:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26966785
| 300africans wrote:
| Many people support apple in questioning the business model of
| Facebook on cross app/site tracking. I think she this is my
| opinion that apple should not be allowed to put themselves
| without recourse between businesses and the customers. The
| customer should always have a choice.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| So, the EU will make a big fuss, lump Apple with a huge fine,
| which in the grand scheme of things amounts to a slap on the
| wrist, and then what? Apple will be forced to lower their fees,
| but i'm sure they'll come up with another creative way to fleece
| off app store vendors.
|
| Sigh. I wonder if they're not already selling information to
| Facebook after releasing ios 14.5...
| kwyjobojoe wrote:
| Force Apple to allow other billing systems?
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| Why not alternative stores?
| polskibus wrote:
| I hope that all market makers that compete in their own market
| get more scrutiny after that.
| willtim wrote:
| App makers complain about Apple's dominance, yet seem to put
| significantly more effort into iOS apps than Android apps.
| colinplamondon wrote:
| iOS customers are far higher income and spend more money -
| they're way more valuable. You get more revenue per user with
| way lower support costs. From a demographic standpoint it's a
| no-brainer.
| Spivak wrote:
| Hence why Apple thinks that they can get away with charging
| 30% just for access to the platform. I'm really having a hard
| time understanding the other side of this argument. Apple
| largely keeps to themselves and doesn't mess with other
| markets.
|
| Competition among products on the shelves of Kroger seems
| like such a silly thing.
| La1n wrote:
| Link to the press release:
|
| https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_...
| minikites wrote:
| It's nice to see government on the side of people, the US
| government could learn a lot of lessons from the EU and their
| consumer protections.
| georgyo wrote:
| > In response, Apple said the EU's case was the "opposite of fair
| competition," according to a statement cited by Reuters.
|
| So apple thinks that allowing any competition is the opposite of
| fair.
| zibzab wrote:
| Remember their response in the ebook price fixing lawsuit?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc.
| georgyo wrote:
| I was unaware of that case, interesting stuff.
| oblio wrote:
| No?
| wil421 wrote:
| Maybe this:
|
| >Apple asserted that it is entitled to a verdict in its
| favor since the evidence does not "tend to exclude" the
| possibility that Apple acted in a manner consistent with
| its lawful business interests.
| oblio wrote:
| The original comment had just the text, without the link.
| sebmellen wrote:
| Maybe I'm too cynical, but how will Apple get out of this? What's
| the trick they'll use this time?
|
| After all, this is only a "preliminary view."
| microtherion wrote:
| It's a "preliminary finding". It can, and presumably will, be
| appealed.
| arkitaip wrote:
| They might just increase their fees. Or increase their pricing
| on other products.
| simion314 wrote:
| They cut the 30% tax down in some cases(I am still waiting for
| the fanboys to admit that this would never had happened if not
| for the large number of investigations running).
|
| Next will probably give to EU guys a convoluted way to unlock
| you phone but will shame you for it, probably put a watermark
| on a screen that you are a communist or pedo if you use the
| unlock device feature.
|
| Apple needs a Microsoft moment, a moment where they realize
| what are their strengths and focus on that and stop with the
| FUD and anticompetitive bullshit.
| solarkraft wrote:
| > Next will probably give to EU guys a convoluted way to
| unlock you phone
|
| This is the end game. Jailbreaking should be a supported
| feature. What they'll actually do is most likely expanding
| features for side-loading with enterprise certificates,
| improving solutions like Alt Store.
| Jcowell wrote:
| I disagree with supported. I think jailbreaking is in good
| place right now. No company should be force to fix phones
| that we cause harm to due to breaking into, but companies
| should also not be allowed to claim that that alone is the
| reason a product is broken without evidence.
|
| I can't imagine being forced to support a misuse of a
| product I develop outside of the scope Of it's advertised
| intentions if it directly leads to the products
| deterioration.
| simion314 wrote:
| Mobile carriers were locking their devices and even if
| you owned the phone you had to pay some guy to unlock it
| for you to use it with other carriers(or buy a new
| phone). Unlocking the device was just a software thing,
| no risk to cause problems . Companies were forced to give
| you the code to unlock the device(if you own it) and now
| the devices are already unlocked(not sure if is a law or
| companies realized that it was a stupid idea to lock
| stuff by default if I buy it and then have to implement
| an unlock customer support line . And it makes sense, you
| just hate the company more if you feel they are malicious
| and lock you.
| spzb wrote:
| If I was Tim Apple, probably allow third party payment
| providers (from a list of Apple-approved providers that have to
| handle disputes, unsubs etc in an approved way). And then
| charge a per-download fee to apps which offer in-app
| subscriptions without using Apple's payment option.
| oblio wrote:
| Slightly more hidden anti competitive behavior is still that.
| spzb wrote:
| It would inevitably lead to claims that alternative app
| stores should be permitted but it solves the present
| problem and pushes the second issue a good few years into
| the future (given the speed that these inquiries move at)
| solarkraft wrote:
| For sure, but it seems like most law makers are easily
| distracted by some mirrors and a bit of smoke. I'm not sure
| the EU won't be, but that we've gotten this far provides
| some hope.
| nolok wrote:
| Margrethe Vestager (the european commissioner for
| competition since 2014) is not that kind of fool, if you
| look at her history since she got that job. And since
| 2019 she's also been named "President of the European
| Commission for A Europe Fit for the Digital Age" so I
| think this matter is not something she will ignore
| easily.
|
| She's one of the absolute best thing to happen to the EU,
| and has proven to be willing to do what it takes to
| protect competitivity on the market.
|
| On HN she's often seen in tech news and thus could appear
| to be "against US companies only" but far from it, eg in
| 2019 she blocked the giant merger of Alstom and Siemens
| trains divisions against the will of both the German and
| French government.
| mnd999 wrote:
| It's not clear to me from the article what remedy they're
| proposing. Seems like it could be any of:
|
| * Drop the 30% fee
|
| * Drop the 30% fee for apps the compete directly with Apple apps.
|
| * Allow users to install other app stores.
| moffatman wrote:
| Something which is unintuitive is that the 30% payment fee does
| not advantage Apple as much as it seems. Converting a customer
| to Apple Music from Spotify can't increase Apple's profit by
| more than what Spotify lost. You have to consider that the App
| Store's revenue will be reduced by that 30% cut if they are not
| charging that to the Apple Music department.
| kryptiskt wrote:
| I presume Apple could get out of the music business too. From a
| profit standpoint that would be the best alternative for them,
| there's no real money in it. That is, if the EU would let them
| get away with just doing that.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| They haven't proposed the remedy yet.
|
| I'd suggest -
|
| * Remove the requirement to use Apple for IAPs * Allow users to
| install software from third parties, including app stores. *
| Introduce an active choice ballot. * Force Apple to divest the
| App Store into a separate company that is forbidden from
| entering into exclusivity arrangements with hardware platforms.
| * Forbid clauses that require price fixing, or informing
| consumers of other purchase options.
| spzb wrote:
| I don't think they're proposing anything at this point but the
| obvious remedy would be to allow third party payment options.
| yarcob wrote:
| I think this would be the best solution.
|
| Apples only (real) reason for forbidding sideloading is
| because then they could no longer force people to use their
| payments.
|
| If developers were free to use 3rd party payment solutions,
| then Apple would probably be a lot more lenient towards side
| loading apps.
|
| I believe that Apple generally wants to build what's best for
| their customers, except when money is on the line.
| evgen wrote:
| The (real) reason to forbid sideloading is that it opens
| your customers up to the malware sewer that is Android. If
| sideloading is allowed it would take about 30 seconds for
| Facebook to create their own 'store' where the only product
| is Facebook apps with tracking turned on and data pilfering
| turned up to 11. You would see similar fly-by-night
| 'malware r' us' stores pop up pushing casinos, lotteries,
| and whatever other crap they can A/B test which shows that
| users with few technical skills can be tricked into
| using/installing.
|
| Happy to have 3rd party payment options as long as it
| prevents sideloading.
| simion314 wrote:
| The malware on Android is mostly FUD. But if the OS would
| be competent enough then this would not be a problem.
|
| OSX is not locked and there are not millions of daily
| victims, so maybe it is not impossible to have low
| malware problems and freedom.
| yarcob wrote:
| The security on iOS comes from extremely well working
| sandboxing, not from Apple's control.
|
| A lot of scam apps get through app review. From a
| security point of view app review is not effective at
| all.
|
| That's just a story Apple likes to tell to hide the fact
| that they want the power to block anything they don't
| like.
| mnd999 wrote:
| I think security is a valid consideration as well. The
| average non-technical iPhone user would not be hard to
| hoodwink into installing a 3rd party App Store full of
| malware. Agree, revenue is probably the primary driver.
| huhtenberg wrote:
| * Allow alternative payment options.
|
| The rest will follow.
|
| If supporting alt-monetized apps in AppStore will be too much
| for Apple, then they should allow AppStore alternatives or
| start charging hosting/processing fees.
|
| If paying through AppStore will be more expensive than paying
| in some other way, then Apple should lower the fees.
|
| Just needs some form of competitive pressure to get the ball
| rolling.
| jsnell wrote:
| Yes, this. Except they won't allow alternative payment forms
| for everything, but try to restrict it to as little as the
| commission lets them get away with.
| Spivak wrote:
| Would you be okay with allowing alternative payments methods
| if Apple still billed you 30% of your revenue rather than
| collecting it at the point of sale?
|
| Because if no then it _is_ about the fee and not the payment
| processing.
| huhtenberg wrote:
| Not sure I follow. What would justify this 30% cut in this
| case? The fact that they are _forcing_ all app installs to
| be done through the AppStore? A fair fraction of vendors
| don 't need that the exact same way they don't need
| payments to be funneled through Apple. It's Apple's choice.
| No reason why the vendors should be forced to pay for it.
| lawtalkinghuman wrote:
| Microsoft is an applicable precedent here - when it was found
| that they had breached competition law in using bundling with
| Windows as a way to gain unfair market dominance for Internet
| Explorer, the remedy was to require that Microsoft offer users
| a means to select and download competing browsers on first use.
| The Commission can then fine them a significant amount if they
| fail to comply with the decision.
|
| Of the options you've suggested, the second seems most likely.
|
| One potential solution that may also work is instead of not
| taking the 30% fee, to allow Spotify and others to take payment
| through another channel (e.g. by bouncing users to a web-based
| payment gateway) - the enforcement there just becomes an
| injunction to not enforce the app review rules that prevent
| affected apps from using third-party payment providers in
| addition to or as an alternative to payment through the App
| Store.
|
| The difficulty will be where they draw the line. A lot of third
| party services compete with built-in apps/OS features: for
| instance, Dropbox/iCloud Storage, Notes/Evernote, Office
| 365/Google Docs/iWork. The difference between Apple Music and
| Spotify (and presumably also Tidal and Deezer etc.) is really
| clear, but quite where you divide up these markets is a real
| tough issue in EU competition law. An Apple Music user could
| very easily be a Spotify user and vice versa, but not every
| iCloud user would necessarily be a Dropbox user.
| throw14082020 wrote:
| The difference between EU and Apple is EU makes laws, and Apple
| makes guidelines. Here are my definitions: Guidelines: Do not
| break these. If you break these, your business will be crushed,
| the app removed for the app store. Law: Break them when they make
| financial sense. For large corporations, it makes sense to break
| relevant laws. e.g. GDPR.
|
| In replying to zibzabs comment/ Unpopular opinion: Yes, they
| still did it because it makes financial sense. (see the
| definition of law above)
| sgift wrote:
| All this says is that the ramifications for breaking these laws
| are not big enough. I fully agree. More laws should state a
| percentage of global turnover as fine. Also, start sending
| managers to prison for this and you will see changes pretty
| fast.
| speedgoose wrote:
| I wish one of the outcome would be to allow better web browsers
| than Safari on iOS.
| wil421 wrote:
| It sounds like a good idea but I would like to point out how
| the largest Ad company makes Chrome.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| Noooooo. I don't want to live in another IE era.
| speedgoose wrote:
| Safari is the new IE already.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| No. But chrome is becoming the new IE.
| dmitriid wrote:
| You mean "allow other browser engines.
|
| There are exactly three browser _engines_ of any note: Safari
| 's, Chrome's and Firefox's.
|
| iOS allows other browsers and doesn't allow other engines. And
| considering things like this: https://webapicontroversy.com/
| I'm not entirely sure I want Chrome anywhere near my phone.
| simion314 wrote:
| >I'm not entirely sure I want Chrome anywhere near my phone
|
| There are more browsers that use Chromium engine and nobody
| forces you to install Google version. I understand the
| potential issue of a Chrome dominance but Apple could listen
| for actual developers want and implement those features then
| you will no longer be forced to use an inferior browser.
| dmitriid wrote:
| > but Apple could listen for actual developers want and
| implement those features
|
| Did you even visit the link? Developers may want the moon.
| And yet both Mozilla and Apple consider those (and not only
| those) _harmful_ for a bunch of reasons, the primary of
| which is privacy.
| simion314 wrote:
| Apple could be smart and implement what real developers
| need and not what advertisers want. But good performance,
| and better APIs would mean you could avoid using native
| apps.
| dmitriid wrote:
| Once again: real developers may want a lot of things.
| I've seen developers want bluetooth and location APIs in
| the browser. And yet, _both_ Apple _and_ Mozilla (note:
| _not just Apple_ ) consider these APIs harmful as
| currently presented and specified and haven't found/can't
| find a way to implement them in a non-harmful way.
|
| And these APIs are the most visible. There are many other
| APIs and features that don't make their way into WebKit
| not because Apple "doesn't listen to real developers",
| but because the specs are extremely poorly written, or
| contain known bugs, or can't be implemented efficiently,
| or...
|
| The scary thing is, these days Firefox devs are
| increasingly often on WebKit's side (because whatever
| your opinion of Apple is, WebKit devs want the same thing
| that Firefox devs want: a safer web web for people with
| properly implemented features). Whereas Chrome just plows
| through (because Google's raison d'etre is the Web, and
| Google wants to subsume and replace the web with all
| things Google).
| simion314 wrote:
| >and Google wants to subsume and replace the web with all
| things Google
|
| and Apple wants that web apps can't compete with native
| apps, like Apple will make sure a web based streaming app
| will not be usable.
|
| Why location API is not good in browser but microphone
| and camera is fine?
| agust wrote:
| I really wish this too. Unfortunately, I am not sure the
| anticompetitiveness of Apple's behaviour regarding web browser
| engines -- and its implication on the entire app industry --
| has been brought to the attention of EU lawmakers...
|
| For those not familiar with this issue, Apple is totally
| blocking browsers (like Firefox and Chrome) to use their own
| engine on iOS, preventing them to give web application access
| to native features, like push notification. Because of course,
| Apple won't add these features to their own engine (WebKit).
|
| That way, they are forcing app developers to develop native iOS
| apps, which have to go through their App Store to be installed
| on iOS. By doing so, they can take the 30% commission fee on
| in-app purchases, and lock developers/companies in, because
| apps developed for iOS are not usable outside of Apple devices,
| of course.
| ewindal wrote:
| I really hate this, too. iOS Firefox is the only browser that
| has auto-complete on URLs that I find usable, but it's an
| unstable piece of shit.
| finiteseries wrote:
| Web ( _Chrome_ ) developers often go on and on about this, but
| I have yet to hear a single layman user complain about their
| iOS version of Chrome missing the ability to have the random
| news websites they've followed from Facebook send them native
| notifications, take up the entire viewport, or be "installed"
| to their home screen.
| pornel wrote:
| To users it doesn't matter whether an app uses JS or Swift,
| only that it works smoothly and has all the features. It is
| in Apple's interest to keep web apps clunky, and forever less
| capable than their native platform.
|
| If "Add to Homescreen" wasn't added in the pre-AppStore era,
| I don't think it'd happen. This feature has clearly been
| mothballed. Homescreen web apps were given a second-rate
| build of WebKit that has been been consistently slower and
| buggier than standalone Safari (I don't know if they've fixed
| it recently. Homescreen webapps that I worked on all gave in
| to the AppStore eventually).
|
| Apple has the same fear as Microsoft had that powerful Web
| apps will make their native platform unnecessary. Microsoft
| made a mistake of abandoning Internet Explorer 6 entirely.
| Apple is smart enough to keep user-facing parts of their
| browser high quality, and only drag their feet on more
| advanced platform features. They forbid other browser
| _engines_ , which magically makes Safari appear as
| technically capable as every other iOS browser.
| agust wrote:
| Sure. Users don't even know it would be possible, and don't
| care about the tech anyway. What they care about however is
| how much they pay for apps, how much they pay for in-app
| purchases, and being able to switch freely from one platform
| to another.
|
| Well, Apple's behaviour is impacting all this by forcing
| companies to develop native apps instead of web apps. Web
| apps (could) work anywhere, and cost a fraction of the cost
| of native apps.
| finiteseries wrote:
| This is clear, but only replaces the web developer's
| perspective with the company's, not the layman user's.
|
| In-app purchases and App Store purchases in general are
| already scraping the bottom of the barrel, we're talking
| about the difference between $9.99 & <$7 at the higher end
| assuming everything works out. That absolutely matters, but
| much more to the sellers than the users.
|
| We can imagine the thousands of needlessly native apps with
| a platform mandated 30% surcharge being transported onto
| the open web and into user devices free of interference.
| Hardware accelerated IG like filters writing to local disk
| in the background at 60fps, DRM protected 4k streaming with
| cheaper monthly subs, hobbyist forum sites on the home
| screen with PMs and replies pushing notifications alongside
| FB, the dream.
|
| But Abuelita is going to experience the _millions_ of
| individual pages relying exclusively on advertising revenue
| already twisted and contorted into profitable positions
| being given the green light for Notifications, Geolocation,
| Bluetooth, NFC, Network Info, Ambient Light, Idleness,
| Proximity APIs etc while she's just trying to read about
| how Joe Biden is destroying the fabric of America.
| Leherenn wrote:
| I do. We have a device that creates its own Wi-Fi and serves
| a web app to interact with it. We have a lot of clients that
| would like to be notified when a new firmware is released for
| the device.
|
| Another recent one, a customer on iOS 12 did not understand
| why he couldn't save a file generated on the device to his
| phone. I told him it's not possible, but he can save it to
| iCloud (without a correct name though). I got told off about
| how bad we must be not to support such a basic feature. Don't
| ask me mate.
| kwyjobojoe wrote:
| I'd pay money to use real Firefox on my ipad and have access
| to a good ad blocker
| Siira wrote:
| I have also never known a single layman who complained about
| memory leaks. People don't complain about stuff they don't
| understand, but that doesn't mean the problems are not
| affecting them.
|
| Another problem is that small problems affecting a large
| number of people do not have much vocal support, while their
| costs are still enormous. (As compared to problems that
| affect a minority a lot.)
| jwitthuhn wrote:
| As a user I really value having a good ad blocker integrated
| with my mobile browser.
|
| Safari is okay at ad blocking but it can't do nearly as much
| as Firefox Mobile with uBlock, and Apple doesn't seem at all
| interested in improving it.
| tchalla wrote:
| The core issue here is Apple favours their own product over
| competitors as they control their store. In this case, the
| product happens to be Music [0].
|
| > The Commission is concerned that users of Apple devices pay
| significantly higher prices for their music subscription services
| or they are prevented from buying certain subscriptions directly
| in their apps.
|
| This doesn't seem to be a general issue about the 30/15% charge.
| It's specific to products (in this case Apple Music) on the App
| Store where Apple has a competitor. This was bound to happen the
| moment Apple started launched their "services" strategy.
|
| [0]
| https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_...
| biztos wrote:
| Would that not equally apply to video game console makers who
| also make video games? Which is all of them, right?
| dmitriid wrote:
| I wish they'd do something about Apple Arcade. The way it's
| aggressively promoted (slightly less aggressive now than at the
| beginning) would get any other developer permanently banned
| from the platform.
| hu3 wrote:
| I thought you were exaggerating but nope:
| https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1327979418954977283
|
| Apple shows ads for Arcade, TV and AppleCare inside iPhone
| settings.
|
| EU regulators are going to have a field day with this with
| regards to anti-competitive practices.
| dmitriid wrote:
| Oh god. Somehow I forgot about Apple TV+ :) I probably got
| fewer ads for it than for Arcade :)
| Isn0gud wrote:
| > "Once again, they want all the benefits of the App Store but
| don't think they should have to pay anything for that."
|
| lol , it's not like there is an alternative...
| Spivak wrote:
| I thinks what Apple is arguing is that the benefit is having
| access to, and the opportunity to sell to, users of iOS
| devices.
|
| If Target wants to charge for shelf space I don't see why Apple
| shouldn't be able to charge for the use of their platform in
| any capacity.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| This is very good news.
|
| Sadly, there is already quite some backlash, mostly coming from
| Apple aficionados. And I say "sadly" because it is always sad to
| see how people would try to defend companies and brands, against
| their own interests.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _And I say "sadly" because it is always sad to see how people
| would try to defend companies and brands, against their own
| interests._
|
| Many of them hold shares, or stand to buy shares, in AAPL.
| Siira wrote:
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/698866.The_Myth_of_the_R...
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| Looks interesting, thanks!
| leadingthenet wrote:
| You don't get to dictate to people what their own interests
| are, not matter how smug you feel about it.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| I think we may agree that, when Apple and Google do not
| subject their own services to the standards they use for the
| competition, thus giving themselves a certain advantage, such
| competition may be hurt and, eventually, it may also
| disappear. That would not be the first time, either.
|
| Then you may argue if it is in the public interest to let
| companies compete at all or not.
| abductee_hg wrote:
| well, the way I see it Apple does a better/less cutthroat job
| than spotify.
| vhold wrote:
| I think a lot of people are missing the important development
| here. This is not about having a monopoly in phones, or in the
| music industry. This is about a monopoly within the market Apple
| has created.
|
| > _Our preliminary finding is that Apple exercises considerable
| market power in the distribution of music streaming apps to
| owners of Apple devices. On that market, Apple has a monopoly_
| franczesko wrote:
| "Once again, they want all the benefits of the App Store but
| don't think they should have to pay anything for that."
|
| This is the biggest problem - Apple's narrative, that other
| companies' clients are theirs.
| trapped wrote:
| Why doesn't EU force European automakers with same laws?
|
| Users need to pay extra to even use freely provided Apple CarPlay
| on BMW.
|
| European Car makers have monopoly in the app ecosystem installed
| in the cars. Where is alternative App store for BMW, Benz, Audi,
| VW ?
| cblconfederate wrote:
| is there an app ecosystem in cars?
| trapped wrote:
| In car entertainment provided by car makers have app
| ecosystem and fully controlled by car makers.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Can third parties sell apps there?
| qwytw wrote:
| Are you implying that Apple should be punished for
| offering a more open platform than some other companies?
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Apple claims to have a market. Apparently bmw doesn't
| have one. (does it?)
| mmmmmbop wrote:
| The issue is that Apple is leveraging their dominant position
| to push a Spotify competitor. Apple Music is not subject to the
| 30% App Store fee, and so they can just simply undercut Spotify
| by 30%.
|
| Going with your analogy, is BMW trying to push an Apple CarPlay
| competitor?
| l8rpeace wrote:
| How's this different than physical retail?
| https://www.entrepreneur.com/answer/222356
| [deleted]
| ineedasername wrote:
| I wouldn't mind Apple taking a 30% cut if they at least allowed
| devs to mention that users can sign up directly through the app
| developer's web site.
|
| And also if they allowed alternate app stores. I'm find with have
| a (badly) curated walled garden with arbitrary & whimsically
| enforced rules if, like a PC, users had alternate channels for
| obtaining software.
| martimarkov wrote:
| I can empathise with both sides. 30% is too high and Apple have
| costs and want to make money.
|
| But my question is: if apple are to be running the App Store at
| cost are devs okay to pay for their apps? Let's say you have a
| free app but now you have to pay a fee for App Store maintenance
| and that would be on every download and every app update. Are
| developers actually ok with that? Is that a fee that the users
| will bear?
|
| Honestly not looking to pick a fight just asking on opinions.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| How does it work now for free apps?
| fraud wrote:
| Not an expert but i believe all they pay is the $100 apple
| developer fee every year to be able to publish apps... 30%
| seems to only be for apple payments like subscriptions and
| app purchases
| s_dev wrote:
| For digital goods. If you want to buy a coffee with your
| app you can as the coffee is not digital -- Apple will not
| take a 30% cut.
| newbie578 wrote:
| Great to hear this! Another win for the EU. Finally someone
| defends the right of the developers, and at least tries to put a
| stop to Apple and it's hug of death.
|
| Microsoft had the same issues, and it is only natural and fair
| Apple goes through the same process.
|
| The only thing that puzzles my brain is the people here STILL
| defending Apple and it's monopoly practices by implying
| everything is a free choice.
|
| If I offer you only two choices, you don't really have a lot of
| "free choices".
| cblconfederate wrote:
| It's crazy to me how nobody seems to have copied the lucrative
| app store model. Why isn't there a service that reviews websites
| and programs to give them a "trust" rating?
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| You can't bundle them with the OS like Apple does, so why would
| anyone use it?
| cblconfederate wrote:
| I mean , for other stuff, like desktop or web apps. Reviewed
| and checked to rigorous usability and safety standards. Apple
| claims that this service is worth 30% of a program's cost
| xondono wrote:
| Let's not act like this is some "principles" based discussion.
| The only reason for the EU getting into this is that spotify is
| european and Apple isn't
| dannyw wrote:
| If Apple was an EU company and Spotify was an US one, I think
| you'd get the same outcome by the DOJ.
| xondono wrote:
| Yes, that was implied in my comment
| simion314 wrote:
| There are laws that were created before the iPhone existed,
| like laws that were applied in US too in Microsoft case.
| badkitty99 wrote:
| Like many too-big-to-fail outfits, Apple and Google's products
| are so ubiquitous in our life. Since they both never actually
| have a finished software product, it is difficult (if not
| impossible) to even evaluate it. We're stuck waiting for their
| update, as the answer to any problem or question. They're Bill
| and Teding us with their ability to manufacture reality
| paulcole wrote:
| HN when government does something they like about tech: This was
| a no-brainer.
|
| HN when government does something they dislike about tech: Tech
| is too complex for government to understand.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| Apparently it's impossible to hold a nuanced position.
| swiley wrote:
| Apple has effectively become a psuedo government by dictating
| what software is legal.
| baq wrote:
| tech, maybe.
|
| monopolies, though... governments understand that part very,
| very well.
| simion314 wrote:
| Is not all of HN, and people from outside US are not that anti-
| regulation, anti-socialism like US citizens.
|
| But this is EU rule, so if you are from US it won't apply to
| you anyway.
| jamesrr39 wrote:
| maybe, who knows. GDPR for example got more companies making
| "download my data" options, even for users outside the EU.
| simion314 wrote:
| Nice of those companies that offered you the option, though
| I expect that they track you if you are from US with all
| those 100+ partners and not even inform you.
| La1n wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
| ObserverNeutral wrote:
| Oh c'mon ref...let them play a bit.
| florin_g wrote:
| Should Apple forbid any for-pay streaming service, yet charge for
| their own, would Apple still breach competition rules?
| kjjjjjjjjjjjjjj wrote:
| Why not google too? They do the same thing. How about Sony?
| Microsoft? They steal way more revenue from developers. Why does
| everyone have a hard on for taking down Apple?
| endisneigh wrote:
| I personally don't get it.
|
| iOS is a choice. Android is a choice. Neither is a choice. Back
| in the day, we had Palm, Blackberry, Windows Mobile among others
| to choose from.
|
| The decisions made by the respective companies affected adoption
| and now we're left with Android and iOS for now.
|
| People compare phone choice to things like electricity and water
| which makes no sense.
|
| Let's ignore Apple and Google specifically here. Is the argument
| that all platforms should accommodate all users and use cases for
| free? Is the argument that companies should have a gap on profit
| margins?
|
| Do we really want the government involved in all minutiae? Can't
| we just vote with our wallet. The top 1000 app developers could
| just figure something out and move to a new platform if the money
| issues are too much no?
|
| I'm happy to have a discussion on this with anyone who replies.
| tmotwu wrote:
| I used to think it was fair. Then I learned that Apple provides
| exceptions only to some Apps through some sketchy backroom
| process. [1] Apps that don't directly compete with their
| products. Enough exceptions to popular apps to minimize push
| back. If Apple applied this tax universally, with universal
| acceptance, then it would be a fair "users vote with their
| wallet" situation. Because a majority of popular apps would
| immediately refuse their changes and collectively remove
| themselves from their platform. Then we can decidedly vote with
| our wallets.
|
| [1] https://9to5mac.com/2020/09/02/developers-highlight-more-
| ano...
| endisneigh wrote:
| I agree completely that there should be no exceptions.
| chipgap98 wrote:
| A. This market is a duopoly so there is limited opportunity to
| vote with your wallet.
|
| B. Neither is not really a choice for most people.
|
| C. It is one thing if Apple wants to charge a percentage of
| revenue to use their app store. But they have made it against
| the rules to: allow side loading, allow alternative app stores,
| link to a web payment option in one of their apps, and even to
| mention that they charge 30% of the revenue for in app
| purchases. That is clearly anti competitive.
| endisneigh wrote:
| > A. This market is a duopoly so there is limited opportunity
| to vote with your wallet.
|
| This was not always the case. What's stopping a competitor
| from defeating both Apple and Google? Windows Mobile had a
| peak market share of about 42%, higher than what Apple has in
| the EU.
|
| My response to B is the same to A.
|
| Regarding C what is an acceptable percentage - how did you
| come up with that number? Apple has been pretty transparent
| about the rules - why buy if you don't like?
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| 42%? Was that on some random small market?
|
| Globally it peaked at 4%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usa
| ge_share_of_operating_syste...
| endisneigh wrote:
| https://bgr.com/general/apple-and-google-dominate-
| smartphone...
| ahiknsr wrote:
| > Apple has been pretty transparent about the rules
|
| I disagree. Apple doesn't let App developers to inform
| users about the 30% tax. How is that transparent?
| endisneigh wrote:
| It does, though
|
| https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-
| app-s...
|
| It's not a secret at all, lol.
| ahiknsr wrote:
| No. "Apple blocked Facebook from informing users that
| Apple would collect 30 percent of in-app purchases made
| through a planned new feature, Facebook tells Reuters.
| Apple said the update violated an App Store rule that
| doesn't let developers show "irrelevant" information to
| users"
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/28/21405140/apple-
| rejects-fa...
| endisneigh wrote:
| That's a related, but separate issue. My point is that
| app developers know about the fees. Apple doesn't hide
| them.
|
| The issue you're describing is more of whether Apple
| should allow App Store developers display messages to the
| end user of their apps saying that Apple is skimming off
| the top. Similar to how it would be if Apple said Visa
| will take 2% or whatever.
| chipgap98 wrote:
| But that's the problem. Smart phones have a high level of
| friction to change operating systems. The phones are
| expensive and there is a decent amount of platform lock
| in. If developers want to have a profitable business they
| pretty much need to build for iOS or Android.
|
| The developers are creating value for Apple by improving
| their app ecosystem but Apple is acting like they are
| doing the developers a favor.
| simion314 wrote:
| That makes sense for Apple but not for the Apple users,
| users pay more so users lose and Apple wins, this shit
| does not fly in other countries.
|
| For example for currency exchanges we had laws(in
| Romania) that you have to print in giant fonts all the
| fees/taxes. The law was created because the giant text
| was showing some values and the fees were hidden or
| printed in small fonts somewhere unreadable.
|
| IMO aa country could force Apple to print on their iPHone
| boxes something like (30% of your subscriptions or
| Farmwill gems go to Apple, buyer be aware that you can
| probably buy the subscriptions cheaper on the developer
| website but Apple won't allow them to show you the link
| because they are greedy)
| endisneigh wrote:
| If Apple users were harmed by this they would change
| platforms, no? Apple didn't always have phones, nor were
| they always a big presence in computing. Presumably
| they're doing something right, which is why people are
| buying their stuff.
| simion314 wrote:
| Can you move your apps,movies, contacts from iOS ?
|
| Can someone kept in the dark by App Store rules even know
| that he is screwed by Apple?
|
| If Apple is harmed by this can chose not to sell in EU.
| simion314 wrote:
| This would be correct only in a actual free market, now you
| have 2 players that split the market equally and are smart
| enough to know how to win in the prisoner dilemma game.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-30 23:01 UTC)