[HN Gopher] Dutch watchdog finds Apple App Store payment rules a...
___________________________________________________________________
Dutch watchdog finds Apple App Store payment rules anti-competitive
Author : d3nj4l
Score : 346 points
Date : 2021-10-07 12:28 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| dessant wrote:
| > The people said Apple has asked the Rotterdam District Court
| for an injunction to block publication of the ruling during its
| appeal.
|
| > A court spokesman confirmed the existence of the case to block
| publication, but could not say when a decision is expected. The
| proceedings are not open to the press or public.
| elliekelly wrote:
| > The proceedings are not open to the press or public.
|
| Can anyone explain the policy reason behind the secrecy?
| ArchOversight wrote:
| Most court proceedings in The Netherlands are not open to the
| public or press, mostly for the privacy and protection of
| those involved with the case.
|
| Unlike the US where court cases are publicized and
| disseminated widely with the charges, but never with the
| outcome of the court case.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I suspect that Apple is afraid that if the reasoning behind
| this became public that Apple's stock price would be strongly
| influenced and so they are trying to hide the information
| from the market. It will be interesting to see if there will
| be a net negative from the effect of the hiding by itself,
| after all now people are free to speculate and they might go
| further in their speculation than the actual ruling.
| solidangle wrote:
| Apple has filed a court case to block the publication of a
| report. Obviously the contents of the report will be
| discussed as part of the hearings. So if the hearings were
| public then the contents would become public as well, which
| would make the court case pointless. Hence the private
| hearings.
| burpee wrote:
| Not entirely illogical, if something is expected to generate
| a lot of media attention, the case may be kept private to
| prevent the 'court of public opinion' to influence the
| outcome. Everything is still documented and shared afterwards
| regardless of the outcome.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I find this absolutely incredible, that the workings of the
| court in a commercial case like this can be hidden from the
| press and the public. Disgusting that they would ask for this,
| and I sincerely hope that the court will reject that.
| mjburgess wrote:
| The flip side is that suppose the ruling is overturned and is
| based on faulty law.
|
| Then the courts have created a PR and possible big financial
| hit on a company improperly. Could apple then sue for
| damages?
| jacquesm wrote:
| A company that gets bad PR as the result of a court case
| might be able to get the ruling overturned but that does
| not trump the right of the public to know what transpires
| in the courts. And no, then Apple could not - and should
| not be able to - sue for damages because they are
| themselves recognizing the power of the courts as arbiters
| in these matters.
|
| Similarly: if the ruling is upheld Apple does not get to
| pay more because they - apparently improperly - asked for
| the previous ruling to be kept secret.
|
| Courts should operate in a transparent manner whenever
| possible otherwise the trust in the legal system will erode
| and that trumps the commercial interests of any single
| company, even one as large as Apple.
| avianlyric wrote:
| In the court's defence, these documents are rarely sealed
| forever. Usually they become public after the ruling has
| been made.
|
| If an appeal is being made, and current decision being
| temporary suspended, then there's no reason for the
| original decision to be public. The courts decide on
| matters of law, so the publics view on the original
| decision is irrelevant, and up to the parties involved to
| convince the appeal judge their interpretation of the law
| is correct.
|
| Once the matters been settled by the courts, it make
| sense to make everything public. But a no point during
| the process should or can public opinion influence the
| outcome.
| mjburgess wrote:
| I'm somewhat neutral on the issue. I agree, I also think
| that if a judge keeps it sealed for a short while, it's
| probably a reasonable thing to do.
| emn13 wrote:
| More likely, it's merely evidence it's a legally sound
| thing to do. That doesn't mean it's particularly
| reasonable, simply that it's not technically trivial to
| reject out of hand. It could equally be a symptom of
| regulatory capture; it's not like the judge gets to just
| do whatever they feel is fair (at least not without
| professional consequences).
| bogwog wrote:
| The Streisand effect never fails
| [deleted]
| tbjgolden wrote:
| Let's hope they don't take the incoming Apple bribes for a new
| office in Amsterdam or something
| [deleted]
| endisneigh wrote:
| they should make the rules broader, e.g. any industry where a
| single participant holds more than X% of the market must do
| things complying with A, B and C.
| r00fus wrote:
| Would you put that threshold at 40% because I doubt Apple holds
| that much of the market of all app stores.
| Jensson wrote:
| EU puts it right about there, yes. You can be found to be
| anti competitive in other ways, but 40% is already enough for
| the market dominance rules to apply to you.
|
| > According to case law, market shares of between 40 % and 55
| % indicate a dominant position on the market (Eberhard,
| 2006).
|
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/6422.
| ..
| r00fus wrote:
| Does Apple have 40% of the app store market? That's what
| I'd question. How do you define such a market?
| shadilay wrote:
| Revenue probably.
| r00fus wrote:
| That's not how you count it, right? Otherwise it simply
| leads to a race-to-the-bottom where an ad-supported
| product gets to bypass market regulation because they get
| their money in a different channel.
| clusterfish wrote:
| Of course. A single company holding 40% of the market is
| hugely powerful. But it's often hard to define what a
| "market" is - that is usually decided during litigation, I
| don't know if definingt that proactively is scalable.
| EastSmith wrote:
| 20% for X and you need to open sounds great.
| iruoy wrote:
| > ACM has not levied a fine against Apple, but demanded changes
| to the in-app payment system, the people said. The decision has
| not been seen by Reuters.
|
| What did they demand specifically?
| shmerl wrote:
| What's even more anti-competitive is their ban on alternative
| stores. Why is no one addressing this elephant in the room?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > They included a complaint from Match Group, owner of the
| popular dating service Tinder, which said Apple's rules were
| hindering it from direct communications with its customers about
| payments.
|
| As the Alien vs. Predator tagline said: whoever wins, we lose.
| 015a wrote:
| Yup. I fully understand the complaint from Match (and others,
| like Netflix). Apple's app store payment policies are obviously
| and blatantly anti-competitive.
|
| But if you've ever tried to cancel an AT&T internet line or New
| York Times subscription, you begin to understand Apple's
| position. Consumers oftentimes have no recourse; Apple's (and,
| similarly Google's) subscription framework is the first time in
| history many of these companies have experienced the
| powerlessness their users feel when dealing with recurring
| payments. They don't like giving up power.
|
| It should come as no surprise that the companies most vocal
| about the payments monopolies are the ones who want to abuse
| the freedom Governments will hand them, in the name of
| maintaining a healthy competitive landscape.
|
| I think a balance needs to be struck; Apple needs to have its
| power reigned in, and I think that takes the form of a forced
| reduction in revenue share to 10% max (Visa maintains a global
| network of hundreds of thousands of diverse swipe terminals at
| ~3%; if Apple can't maintain some servers at 10%, they're
| incompetent and deserve to be driven into bankruptcy by this
| totally reasonable legislation).
|
| I don't feel that allowing alternate payment methods /
| subscription frameworks would actually benefit users/consumers,
| across any length of time, in any fashion whatsoever. I think
| subscription/payment management needs to be delegated to user
| accounts outside of any control of the service providers taking
| payment, as its an intrinsic and irreducible conflict of
| interest. Maybe that means Visa or whoever should start a
| "subscription and payments portal" that service providers have
| to integrate with. I don't know. But the way we've done it for
| 20+ years doesn't work, and Apple's way is absolutely better;
| its just not the best it can be, right now.
| shadilay wrote:
| This is such a bizarre response. You recognize there's a
| problem with cancelling subscriptions and instead of to the
| government to regulate the markets (which is their job) and
| mandate easy cancelling of subscriptions, you want Apple to
| do it? Do you want a government run by a corporation?
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| For example, California has already passed laws to make
| cancelling subscriptions easier.
| emsy wrote:
| It didn't have to be that way. If Apple had sensible policies
| that stand the test of regulatory scrutiny this wouldn't
| happen. Now that lawmakers get involved I will expect the worst
| outcome for customers, or as you succinctly put it ,,we lose".
| halostatue wrote:
| From a purely consumer perspective, Apple's policies are
| eminently sensible. Allowing external IAP makes it harder if
| not impossible to enforce simple cancellation.
|
| If Apple allows external IAP, but _also_ requires strict
| dispute resolution and simple subscription cancellation, that
| would probably be deemed anticompetitive as well, even though
| it's thoroughly pro-consumer.
|
| The problem here is that the regulatory scrutiny is only on
| one dimension, not the full picture. And in the full picture,
| Apple's policies are eminently reasonable--if their fees are
| a bit high.
| jorams wrote:
| > If Apple allows external IAP, but _also_ requires strict
| dispute resolution and simple subscription cancellation,
| that would probably be deemed anticompetitive as well, even
| though it's thoroughly pro-consumer.
|
| Why would that be considered anticompetitive?
| halostatue wrote:
| I personally don't think that it would be. I also have
| very little problem with Apple's current stance on IAP
| and _who_ actually owns the customer relationship.
| (Quibbles can be made about percentages. If 30% is too
| high for Apple, maybe we should be taking a much closer
| look at a _lot_ of retailer relationships.)
|
| However, the same people who say that it's
| anticompetitive for Apple to control the payment flow are
| likely to say that _any_ impingement of Apple on the
| customer relationship is anticompetitive. These are the
| people who don't actually _care_ about the customer
| relationship, like the NYTimes subscription department,
| or the companies that bank on customers forgetting to
| cancel their subscription for months at a time or not
| wanting to spend time on the phone to fight over a
| $1.29/month subscription fee.
|
| IMO, antitrust/anticompetition investigations tend to be
| _far_ too limited in their scope (they look only at one
| or two aspects and not the big picture of what's
| happening). I remember a few years ago when Apple had
| worked with publishers to establish a new standard ebook
| contract for publishers and marketplaces. It was one that
| would have (slightly) raised the prices of ebooks, but
| replaced the unilaterally imposed contract that Amazon
| provided. Apple got in trouble over it, even the result
| would have been a _better_ and more _competitive_
| marketplace and not one controlled by Amazon.
|
| I have opinions on what should be done with the app
| stores that would _probably_ fix a lot of the issues, but
| any changes to the app stores need to look at whether it
| would be a _better_ situation for customers or just a
| more lucrative situation for publishers. And the customer
| impact would not just be measured on "choice", but on
| overall price/privacy impact.
|
| Measured by that, there's no question in my mind that
| Apple's doing a better job than people give them credit
| for.
| shagie wrote:
| > Allowing external IAP makes it harder if not impossible
| to enforce simple cancellation.
|
| Thus the looming changes: Apple requires account deletion
| within apps in AppStore starting January 31
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28776960
| emsy wrote:
| There's a lot of room for compromise between ,,you are not
| allowed to even mention external payment systems" and
| ,,everyone has their own IAP system".
| isaacfrond wrote:
| > The Dutch investigation into whether Apple's practices
| amounted to an abuse of a dominant market position was launched
| in 2019 but later reduced in scope to focus primarily on dating
| market apps.
|
| Apple might just remove dating apps from the app store for the
| Netherlands. Problem solved.
| emn13 wrote:
| I suspect your comment isn't entirely in good faith, but that
| might well be considered strong evidence of anti-competitive
| behavior.
| [deleted]
| echelon wrote:
| Do you lose with the web?
| huhtenberg wrote:
| We certainly didn't win.
| oblio wrote:
| It's the biggest repository of knowledge in history. It
| facilitates communication and trade on an unprecedented
| scale.
|
| Despite all the negative externalities that it also causes,
| I fail to see how they could outdo its positive aspects.
| oarsinsync wrote:
| > _It 's the biggest repository of knowledge in history_
|
| This is totally true. Unfortunately, it's also the
| biggest repository of misinformation in history as well.
|
| > _I fail to see how they could outdo its positive
| aspects_
|
| On a macro scale, you're likely correct. If you're one of
| the unlucky people that suffers a significant negative
| consequence, your view may differ.
| oblio wrote:
| > On a macro scale, you're likely correct. If you're one
| of the unlucky people that suffers a significant negative
| consequence, your view may differ.
|
| That could be said for anything, though. There isn't a
| thing on this planet that hasn't hurt anyone during its
| creation.
| tl wrote:
| We don't know yet. We live in a world where the web is seeing
| increased centralization on a variety of fronts with Google
| and Facebook among those leading the charge.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| Have you seen the web lately? I'll take the small, vetted,
| fan crafted internet of the late 90s over this SEO written
| content mill garbage mountain we have now.
| berkes wrote:
| But one does not remove the other. That web you so love is
| still there (well, except for GeoCities...) mostly. You can
| visit it. Subscribe to RSS. Watch funny dancing baby gifs,
| or under construction signs.
|
| It's just that all that other stuff came too. In addition
| to that web you love. Not pushing it away, but shadowing it
| in volume. Yet, there is no space shortage. The web is an
| infinite library.
|
| Not one that has to remove those seventies sci-fi books to
| make place for the new Harry Potter section. But one that
| can keep both.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > But one does not remove the other.
|
| As long as Google says so. And they haven't been open to
| new old-school sites, just to old ones.
| phero_cnstrcts wrote:
| You'd have to find it first. If the search engines don't
| promote it you'll never see it.
| berkes wrote:
| That web of the '90 did not have a search engine that
| promoted that web either.
|
| Well, there was altavista (and, ahh, the memories
| Astalavista.box.sk) and some other ad-loaded websites.
| netcan wrote:
| The frame, considering the overall context is kind of ridiculous:
| _Apple "requiring software developers to use its in-app payment
| system" is anticompetitive_
|
| Well shucks. Apple also controls who and what can be sold or
| distributed in the market, how it should be built. They control
| how much exposure apps get. Some of these controls are used more
| directly, or blatantly to "rig the market" than others... but
| these are just the current choices by Apple. It's not a rig. It's
| the OEM design. Apple rigging the app store market is like Apple
| penetrating icloud security. That's not a hack, it's a login.
|
| I can see a logic _within_ the frame. If courts force Apple to
| allow a competing system, it will put downward pressure on what
| are (imo) indisputably monopoly prices. That 's competition, in a
| neoclassical sense. There can be a big difference between no
| competition and some.
|
| OTOH, competitiveness _within_ Apples ' fully owned market seems
| like a silly frame to operate within. Competition between ice
| cream parlours within the walls of DisneyLand are at Mr Disney's
| discretion. They can decide all ice cream parlours will be
| subsidiaries, franchises or independants. They can set prices,
| ban ice cream, etc.
|
| Trying to deal with ice cream competitiveness in DisneyLand this
| way is a fool's errand. One court rules on a policy forcing
| Parlours to use Disney's insurance vendor, and price gouging.
| It's a random detail and maybe it does help out parlour owners
| lower costs. Disney have an infinite number of such options
| available though. A free market it'll never be.
| realusername wrote:
| Having competition in the mobile app market is more important
| for the global & local economy than "ice cream parlours at
| disneyland"...
| netcan wrote:
| sure. I wasn't arguing for equal importance, or equal need
| for policy-level decisions.
| y7 wrote:
| The regulator's antitrust case is probably much broader than
| IAPs, but the findings are not yet public.
| trothamel wrote:
| Part of the difference is that that nobody thinks you own
| Disneyland, but people think that they own their iPhone or
| iPad. This sort of ownership means that it should be possible
| to change your decisions about what to do with a device after
| the moment you bought it.
|
| I think most people would find it bad if a BMW branded car
| could only take gasoline/petrol purchased using a BMW credit
| card. Even if the terms of the BMW credit card were better than
| everything else when the vehicle was first purchased, the lock-
| in it creates would stop competition. And of course, if BMW
| could change the credit card terms - say, stop allowing
| purchases at your closest filling station, that would be worse.
|
| Just from a consumer's perspective, given the popularity of
| Fortnite, it's quite possible that there are some number of
| people who bought an iPhone just for the purpose of playing
| Fortnite, and had that use taken away from them. It feels wrong
| that Apple can take that away from them.
| threatofrain wrote:
| But if the sole act of forcing app makers to use Apple's
| generally more private and secure payment system is
| anticompetitive, then how does the consumer _choose_ Apple as
| the mediator of their relationships?
|
| Where is the consumer choice for that? I ask because I don't
| want 3rd parties selling insights from my financial data. Of
| all _choices_ that a consumer actually wants, it would be the
| ability to control the _apps_ (i.e., sideloading) running on
| their device, as opposed to have more control yielded to app
| makers.
| commoner wrote:
| Depends on the resolution. If a developer is able to use
| another payment processor alongside Apple's payment system,
| and set different price points to recover the respective
| fees, the buyer would be able to decide whether adding
| Apple as an intermediary is worth the price premium.
| Currently, the buyer does not have such a choice. They must
| involve Apple and pay the price premium if they want to
| make the purchase.
|
| Also, adding Apple as an intermediary increases the buyer's
| privacy exposure in some cases. If the buyer already has an
| account with the developer's service and makes a purchase
| that is linked to the account, interjecting Apple into the
| equation would reveal the purchase to both Apple and the
| developer, instead of just the developer.
| threatofrain wrote:
| First, the Dutch government position is that forcing apps
| to have Apple's payment system is anti-competitive... not
| that developers must include multiple payment systems.
| The customer isn't getting more choice here, the _app
| maker_ is getting more choice. Companies like PopEyes,
| who really want you to enter your credit card, will be
| getting the choice.
|
| Second, IAP is separate from Apple Pay. If you do
| payments through another payment ecosystem... Apple still
| gets a cut. Nobody gets to dodge a price premium. If you
| want to talk about price premium, we should really be
| talking about the IAP.
|
| Third, you _are_ getting more risk here. When you use
| Apple Pay, the vendor knows almost nothing about you. We
| 're talking about the likes of Target and PopEyes (who
| really wants your credit card info) vs Apple, who retains
| very little financial information [1]. How many apps have
| you paid for? How many businesses do you transact with?
| That's a lot of Targets.
|
| And fourth, I am concerned about whether Apple will be
| able to compel developers to have easy recurring payment
| cancellation in one place. Whether it's a business or a
| government doing this, being able to easily monitor and
| cancel recurring payments is a big _consumer_ win. Where
| is the _consumer_ choice for this?
|
| Finally, the marketplace is about the negotiation of
| leverage. You talk about customers choosing vendors... my
| family members aren't going to win in negotiations with
| any company. The choice will be _Walmart 's_ way or the
| highway. Where is the consumer choice to have Apple
| negotiate with Walmart on your behalf?
|
| [1]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203027
| commoner wrote:
| 1. Developers are not able to offer multiple payment
| systems for certain types of purchases when Apple forces
| apps to use Apple's payment system. By removing Apple's
| restriction, developers would be able to offer multiple
| payment systems and allow customers to have a choice
| between different payment systems. Apple's restriction
| prevents customers from having this choice, because it
| prevents developers from offering it.
|
| 2. We'll see when the Dutch situation is finalized. Epic
| v. Apple was filed in the Northern District of
| California, which is separate from the Netherlands.
|
| 3. You're missing my point. For instance, if you already
| have an Amazon account and you purchase an e-book to add
| to your Kindle collection, Amazon would get this purchase
| information no matter how you pay, since your e-book
| purchase is linked to your Amazon account. Amazon would
| already have your payment method (unless you haven't
| purchased any physical or digital items directly from
| them beforehand). Paying through Apple would only expose
| your purchase information to Apple in addition to Amazon,
| and at a price premium. It would not prevent Amazon from
| having the purchase information.
|
| 4. Payment processors such as PayPal also allow
| cancelling recurring subscriptions in one click from a
| centralized page. Apple's payment system is not unique in
| this regard.
|
| Developers should be able to offer multiple payment
| systems, so that customers can choose between them. Some
| customers do not want to use Apple's payment system for
| some of their purchases, and Apple's requirement deprives
| these customers of alternative options. Dutch regulators
| have found Apple's restriction to be anti-competitive.
| threatofrain wrote:
| 1 & 4. You haven't answered the question about what
| consumers are supposed to do when they _want_ Apple Pay,
| rather than having dozens of financial relationships with
| dozens of companies. In the free market, you negotiate
| with what leverage you have. Companies like Walmart,
| Target, and PopEyes are free to do as they wish.
|
| That PayPal offers you a place to cancel subscriptions
| does not mean that Target must offer you the option of
| your preferred payment vendor. In order to achieve this,
| perhaps you might throw around your weight to negotiate
| with Target and such? You don't get to compel the use of
| PayPal unless Target agrees.
|
| 2. The reason why companies must pay IAP is for legal
| reasons, not Apple Pay. Since we're talking about the
| Netherlands, we can just view Epic as an example of how
| Apple's legal strategy has played out across the ocean,
| or not talk about them at all.
|
| 3. I think you have a technical misunderstanding if you
| think paying with Apple Pay means that the vendor has
| your financial information. They don't. With Apple Pay,
| Target wouldn't have any credit card information to leak.
| You are more exposed to financial risk with the numerous
| financial relationships you have. The reason why some
| companies already have your credit card information is
| because you couldn't resist giving it to them, perhaps
| because Apple wasn't negotiating on your behalf.
| commoner wrote:
| 1. Sellers get to choose the payment methods they accept.
| Some sellers don't take cash, some don't take PayPal, and
| some don't take Apple Pay. If a seller doesn't offer the
| buyer's preferred payment option, the buyer can either
| either choose from the payment options the seller does
| accept, or shop elsewhere. Depending on how the antitrust
| situation is resolved, Apple may be able to require
| developers to offer Apple Pay, yet still allow developers
| to offer other payment options alongside it. Buyers are
| not entitled to use Apple Pay everywhere, just as they
| are not entitled to use cash, PayPal, or a particular
| credit card everywhere.
|
| 3. I'm not talking about Target, I'm talking about an
| e-book purchase on Amazon that gets added to the
| purchaser's Kindle collection. Amazon must know that the
| user purchased the e-book, since that is the only way the
| e-book gets added to their collection. If Amazon already
| has the buyer's payment information from a previous
| purchase, directly purchasing the e-book through Amazon
| would be strictly more private than purchasing it with
| Apple overseeing the transaction. Every purchase is a
| different situation, and in some situations, using Apple
| as an intermediary is worse for privacy than directly
| purchasing through the vendor. Not everyone prefers
| having Apple monitor all of their transactions.
| threatofrain wrote:
| > Sellers get to choose the payment methods they accept.
| Some sellers don't take cash, some don't take PayPal, and
| some don't take Apple Pay. If a seller doesn't offer the
| buyer's preferred payment option, the buyer can either
| either choose from the payment options the seller does
| accept, or shop elsewhere.
|
| This is precisely my point. Walmart's way or the highway.
| After all, the free market is a land of the negotiation
| of weight, and you don't weigh very much.
|
| > Buyers are not entitled to use Apple Pay everywhere,
| just as they are not entitled to use cash, PayPal, or a
| particular credit card everywhere.
|
| In the free market, you aren't entitled to anything you
| can't negotiate. Apple can do this for you. Apple has
| enough weight with the collection of customers behind
| them.
|
| > I'm not talking about Target, I'm talking about an
| e-book purchase on Amazon that gets added to the
| purchaser's Kindle collection. Amazon must know that the
| user purchased the e-book, since that is the only way the
| e-book gets added to their collection.
|
| A company doesn't have to know your financial data to
| know that you paid for a digital good. _I_ am talking
| about Target, except Target is just an example of a
| company that already had a financial leak scandal. I also
| talked about Amazon, since there 's enough room to talk
| about more than one company. My response was that you
| forked over your credit card information because Amazon
| had that power.
|
| As you say, you're not entitled to choose the terms of
| your relationship with Amazon. Your choices were only
| Amazon or... _not_ Amazon. I mean, not unless you can
| negotiate with Amazon. And then you have to do this for
| PopEyes and Target too, all while contemplating your
| entitlements as a customer.
|
| So I ask again, where is the consumer choice to have
| Apple intermediate relationships on your behalf?
| commoner wrote:
| Some banks and other services such as Privacy.com offer
| disposable credit card numbers to conceal your payment
| identity. These services work very well. You can ask
| Apple to offer this service, if you want Apple to
| intermediate for you. But as long as Apple does not offer
| a such a service, it is not the seller's obligation to
| cater to a buyer's preference to use Apple to pay for
| everything. An Apple user has no right to compel a
| developer to transact with Apple on unfavorable terms,
| and is therefore not entitled to the "choice" that you
| are describing.
|
| The Dutch antitrust regulator has determined that Apple
| is not allowed to force developers to exclusively use
| Apple's payment system. There is no antitrust principle
| that compels developers to offer Apple Pay or any
| specific payment option. But as I said before:
|
| > Depending on how the antitrust situation is resolved,
| Apple may be able to require developers to offer Apple
| Pay, yet still allow developers to offer other payment
| options alongside it.
|
| If that's not an option for Apple, then the burden is on
| Apple to offer a competitive payment processing solution
| to be accepted by both developers and users.
| threatofrain wrote:
| > An Apple user has no right to compel a developer to
| transact with Apple on unfavorable terms, and is
| therefore not entitled to the "choice" that you are
| describing.
|
| I am not talking about a customer's _right_ to compel a
| developer to choose private and safe methods for payment.
| I am talking about _leverage_ in a free marketplace. It
| 's not that you don't have the right... you don't even
| have the weight as an individual customer to step into a
| negotiating room for a conversation. Apple does.
|
| I am also far more sympathetic to consumer protection
| than whether companies should be able to choose Stripe or
| manage your financial information for their business
| benefit. This is the "unfavorable terms" you're talking
| about.
|
| > Depending on how the antitrust situation is resolved,
| Apple may be able to require developers to offer Apple
| Pay, yet still allow developers to offer other payment
| options alongside it.
|
| If this is the case then the conversation will be moot.
| But this is speculative, so I am arguing for the other
| side of your forward-looking statement.
| mjhagen wrote:
| I think your analogies aren't very fair:
|
| Disney: It's not the park or the device, it's about the
| experience, Apple wants to control that, just like Disney.
|
| BMW: You're allowed to put any brand of electricity in your
| iPhone's battery. I would've gone with the third party car
| stereo market.
| trothamel wrote:
| Sure, if you want. I think the point is that I own my iPad,
| and I don't own Disneyland, and that's a big difference.
| amelius wrote:
| Yes, Apple wants to have it both ways.
| amelius wrote:
| > Part of the difference is that that nobody thinks you own
| Disneyland, but people think that they own their iPhone or
| iPad. This sort of ownership means that it should be possible
| to change your decisions about what to do with a device after
| the moment you bought it.
|
| I think the main trouble with products like Apple's is that
| you end up in a monopolist-controlled market just after you
| have bought the product. See also e.g. Nescafe coffee where,
| after buying the coffee machine, you are limited to buying
| coffee from 1 vendor (this is not true anymore but it was
| true for a long time).
|
| If monopolies are forbidden, then so should a monopoly-after-
| you've-bought-a-product.
| dmos62 wrote:
| It is ridiculous if framed like that. A better interpretation
| is that this adresses an easy to address aspect of the anti-
| competitive phenomenon that is Apple app store - allow other
| payment processors. It _is_ a lot like coming to a house fire
| with a pack of bandages. Can 't hide the fact that noone seems
| willing to address the bigger problem.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| If people were forced to walk through Disneyland to get to work
| or live their daily lives, your analogy would be more apt.
| oauea wrote:
| Exactly, everything else you listed about Apple's behavior is
| also anticompetitive and will hopefully be addressed in the
| future. But lets start with payments.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| First principles arguments are crushed by emergent properties
| at scale. Disneyland has less than a hundred restaurants. The
| harm to society if Dinseyland has extra control over those
| restaurants is miniscule. The harm caused by Apple having
| monopolist control on the majority of mobile phone owner's
| entire software stack is exponentially larger.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| > the majority of mobile phone owner's
|
| In some circles, maybe, but not here in the Netherlands (+/-
| 60%). Worldwide, the majority of phone owners still run
| Android.
|
| This is one of the key arguments people use in Apple's
| defence, because the bigger their majority share, the quicker
| anti-monopoly laws would apply.
|
| I agree with your point, though. The Apple/Google duopoly
| hurts the general public to ensure the profit margins for
| these companies' shareholders. Those with neoliberal
| convictions might not agree with me, but I believe that the
| free market needs regulation to prevent problems like these.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| I don't find that convincing. There's billions of ios
| users. That certainly passes the bar of emergent effects of
| scale to properly view it as its own unique market. It
| doesn't matter if there's billions of other users on
| android.
| netcan wrote:
| I don't disagree with that. I'm not suggesting that harm is
| comparable, only structure. You can deal with DisneyLand ice
| cream by ignoring it. Apple, not necessarily.
|
| That said, if you were to deal with DisneyLand ice cream...
| horsawlarway wrote:
| I've said it before, but I'll throw it in here too -
|
| Apple is going to lose this fight in basically every market
| except the US.
|
| It's very clear that their behavior is rent-seeking. If their
| product (the app store) is genuinely better for users & companies
| - it should be able to out compete other products (alternative
| app stores) on the platform.
|
| Instead they arbitrarily prohibit any competition what-so-ever.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Apple will fight it as long as they can. Don't even blame them
| to be honest.
| tomtimtall wrote:
| > If their product (the app store) is genuinely better for
| users....
|
| Apple doesn't make and sell App Store. It makes and sells
| iPhones. And it's not "genuinely better" and they do not
| dominate the market however it's good enough that a lot of
| people are willing to pay a premium for that product.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| They sell AppStore licenses to developers and take a
| percentage of purchases within that store.
| enos_feedler wrote:
| If you look at from Apple's persepctive, why should it take
| competition on top of their platform to shake out what is best
| for the user if they believe they are doing right by the user
| themselves?
|
| The fundamental issue here is that developers, at scale, cannot
| be trusted. You can trust specific ones to do the right thing
| but you can't trust them all. Apple sees themselves as
| responsible for protecting all of their customers from this
| reality. Some call them "gatekeepers". The example here is
| sharing an email address with developers. There are other
| examples like "no background processes". Developers hate this
| becuase they see _themselves_ as trustworthy but the reality
| still stands: developers at scale cannot be trusted to do the
| right thing.
|
| Now let me add my opinion on this: Should we have a platform
| that allows consumers to make a single choice ie) choose Apple,
| and by proxy never needs to trust developers at scale?
| Absolutely. Many people, especially developers, would rather
| trade some developer flexibility (multiple payment processors)
| and push some responsibility onto Apple's users to continue
| making an opt-in choice for Apple. I choose them for my phone.
| I choose them again for in-app purchases. Continue making
| choices in support of Apple for each layer of the system. I am
| not really sure what this buys the consumer. What is Apple
| blocking from you by forcing you to make that choice once, and
| then being forced to "never trust developers at scale" for the
| remainder of being an iPhone customer? Is it blocking
| "innovation"? Some people think that. I don't see it. I see a
| company that pushes the hardware envelope with sensors,
| battery, operating system, etc, and works hard to give
| developers access to THOSE things. Maybe not a users email
| address, but is that really innovation anyway? I looked at this
| Paddle payment processor and they have some things like "pause
| subscription". Is pause really an innovation that is being
| blocked by only using Apple's system? Google has supported
| pause for a long time. Users want it, but to developers really
| want users pausing their subs? probably not.
| pg_1234 wrote:
| Look at it from the countries perspective, why should it let
| some foreign corporation dictate how transactions are
| performed on their platform (where their platform is all
| business in their national jurisdiction).
|
| The country's users are it's citizens, and it may act to
| ensure what it deems best for them. If Apple doesn't like
| that ... it can find another 'store'.
| enos_feedler wrote:
| Because a country has an interest in protecting the safety
| and security of its citizens, not choose winners and losers
| of a global market. And considering Apple's valuable brand
| is essentially built on safety and security it would be a
| bit strange to kick them or build rules that only they seem
| to breaking.
|
| If you want to look at "transaction" as the activity that a
| government should look closely at then I think there is a
| bigger thing to look at right now; people tossing their
| money into shitcoins. If governments aren't spending cycles
| looking carefully into the blockchain transactions of their
| citizens they shouldnt be spending too much time worrying
| about whether an iPhone user can choose to use their credit
| card with a different processor inside of apps
| shadilay wrote:
| If Europe forces Apple to lower its commission by say
| 25%, that goes directly into the pockets of European
| companies, individuals, and taxes. It's a huge economic
| benefit. Why should they care if it makes some American
| monopoly sad?
| zepto wrote:
| You may well be right that they are going to lose.
|
| Everything else, you are wrong about to the point of absurdity.
|
| Alternative app stores is means the _Facebook_ App Store*.
| Nobody can seriously pretend that Facebook competes on its
| merits.
| simonh wrote:
| Let's look at games consoles. The way the console manufacturer
| makes money is by operating a store and providing access to the
| platform to games publishers, they generally make a loss on the
| device. It would break the industry to demand that they must
| allow alternative app stores on their consoles, as those third
| party app stores would be parasitizing the work the console
| developer did designing, manufacturing, developing the OS and
| services, etc and subsidising the devices.
|
| Nintendo is unique in that they actually make some small amount
| of money on their devices. Does that mean they should be
| required to allow alternative stores on the Switch?
|
| Apple make a lot of money on their devices, but they still did
| all the work developing the product, maintaining the OS,
| supporting the ongoing costs of device services like iMessage
| and location services that they don't charge for. The App Store
| arguably provides recurring revenue to offset those costs,
| which alternate stores would not help support.
|
| Is it really fair to require manufacturers to allow third party
| app stores to free ride on all the work they've done?Maybe
| there is an argument that if a manufacturer makes enough money
| on the device they should allow third party app stores, but how
| much is it? At what point does it become ok to bar the device
| manufacturer from maintaining an exclusive app store?
| Orphis wrote:
| The problem is that you are comparing a device sold to play
| games to a general purpose device (music, videos, games,
| banking, productivity, healthcare, phone, modem...).
|
| While consumers generally don't have too many expectations
| from being able to do much more on a game console (though
| that is changing on the XBox), people expect a LOT more from
| their minicomputer in a phone shape. Hampering control on
| that device is detrimental to the consumer who paid already a
| LOT for that device.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > It would break the industry to demand that they must allow
| alternative app stores on their consoles, as those third
| party app stores would be parasitizing the work the console
| developer did designing, manufacturing, developing the OS and
| services, etc and subsidising the devices.
|
| This is a weird objection. It's like saying that if you ban
| robocalls, it will break the robocalling industry. Well,
| yeah, that's the point. That business model is abusive.
|
| It doesn't cause game consoles to not exist, they would just
| work differently. You would pay the actual cost for the
| hardware and less for games.
|
| The overall cost would plausibly be less because there is no
| need for any of this lock-in business anymore. Instead of
| buying a "PlayStation" for $300 you buy a copy of
| PlayStationOS for $50 and install it as a secondary OS on
| your Xbox or PC. Then a console costs more but you need a
| third as many of them, meanwhile all the games are cheaper
| because they're not paying a huge cut to a gatekeeper.
| Aaargh20318 wrote:
| > If their product (the app store) is genuinely better for
| users & companies - it should be able to out compete other
| products
|
| I don't think this is true. If there were multiple stores, then
| the one that is best for companies would win, not the on that
| is best for end-users. Users don't get a say in which store an
| app is published in.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Yes they do. If users like the app store more than competing
| stores companies will be faced with the choice of putting
| their app on the app store or losing customers to competitors
| that put their copycat app on the app store.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| So we should encourage copycat apps? This line of thinking
| doesn't really lead to a place that is productive for
| developers OR consumers...
| colinmhayes wrote:
| We don't need to. They already exist. Either way it won't
| matter because companies will see that putting their app
| on the app store for apples cut - 10% less while also
| telling users about the cheaper option is profit
| maximizing.
| clusterfish wrote:
| Users get a say in which apps they purchase. I've no idea
| what people are whining about saying cancelling app
| subscriptions is hard. Never ran into this, and if I ever do,
| worst case credit card chargeback would put the unscrupulous
| vendor in its place. It's not Apple's job to hold my hand.
| Aaargh20318 wrote:
| > Users get a say in which apps they purchase.
|
| You expect users to not get an app they want to buy just
| because they prefer a different app store ?
| Jensson wrote:
| Apple takes a cut since they give you visibility in their
| appstore. Are you saying that their argument is nonsense
| and that nobody finds apps they want to install in the
| appstore and instead people learn about apps in other
| ways? Then why should the app store take the huge 30%
| cut?
|
| And difficulty to install matters a great deal. If it is
| a few more clicks you will lose a ton of users because of
| it.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| Look at PC gaming for an example of how this choice is NOT
| in the hands of consumers. If a developer gets paid by Epic
| to have an Epic store exclusive, how does the consumer win
| here?
|
| I have to decide between getting a game (that I want to get
| and want to give my money to the developer for) at the time
| I want at the cost of using Epic's buggy and shady
| launcher.
|
| It isn't Apple's job to hold my hand, but I certainly
| appreciate them dealing with the hundreds of developers
| whose products I interact with, creating a "code of
| conduct" that I can trust and know developers will abide by
| (99.9% of the time)
| stale2002 wrote:
| > Look at PC gaming for an example of how this choice is
| NOT in the hands of consumers.
|
| This doesn't make any sense. It is already the case that
| if someone only publishes the app on android, and don't
| publish it on the iPhone, then you as a consumer can't
| buy it on the apple app store.
|
| Are you going to argue that your choice is being taken
| away, because a developer only put it on android? That is
| no different than if they put it on a different iPhone
| app store.
| 015a wrote:
| I think its a bit more complex than pure competition.
|
| Let's say we're living in a world where Apple's IAP framework
| has a 5% fee. This is roughly in-line with baseline credit card
| transaction processing fees, think Stripe or whatever, at 3-5%.
|
| Many apps would still choose to not use Apple's system, because
| of exactly what Match says: Its not a matter of cost, its a
| matter of power. Service providers want to control the billing
| relationship with their users; they don't want Apple to have
| any control, because Apple is traditionally very pro-Consumer,
| and they will delegate much of that power to the Consumer.
| Service providers don't want their users to have any power in
| the billing relationship.
|
| There are reasonable arguments why this is fine; say, for
| example, a service provider wants to offer some customer 20%
| off for the next three months, for whatever reason. This kind
| of setup is hard to model in the IAP framework; its very
| egalitarian.
|
| But, overwhelmingly, the problem is more-so when it comes to
| canceling subscriptions, and whenever Match or Netflix or
| whoever says "we want to be able to directly deal with
| consumers" you should delete every word they say and replace it
| with the words "apple makes canceling free trials and
| subscriptions too easy, and we want to make it hard." There's
| actually nothing else to it; the magnitude of the fee Apple
| charges is high (30%), and needs to be reduced, but that tax is
| dimes compared to the profit companies make from users paying
| for subscriptions they don't want or need.
|
| So; competition states, if their solution is genuinely better,
| companies will use it. Actually, this is false; companies don't
| give a shit about their users. They won't use it, even if its
| better for users, even if it were _free_ , because the solution
| is definitely not better for them, because money is power, and
| Apple's IAP framework delegates too much power to Apple (a
| third party) and the users. The competition argument is
| actually irrelevant, because the two solutions we're comparing
| (self-managed sub management vs Apple-managed) are actually not
| fungible in the same way Stripe is fungible with Square (or
| whoever). They carry fundamentally different externalities for
| both users and service providers.
| shkkmo wrote:
| Apple is only "pro-consumer" when the person paying for that
| stance isn't Apple. When Apple is footing the bill, they are
| quite happy to be as anti-consumer as they think they cam get
| away with.
|
| If Apple's approach to billing is something consumers value
| and are willing to pay for, then consumers will choose to
| keep using Apple payment methods. Perhaps some consumers
| would like to pay 25% less and are fine with disputing
| charges when a company makes it too hard to cancel?
|
| Also, Apple already enforces other rules when reviewing Apps,
| Apple could still force companies to allow easy cancelation
| without forcing them to use Apple for payments.
|
| Apples' insistence of using their payments would also be less
| egregious if they allowed alternative app stores. As it is,
| Apple's stance is bad for consumer choice.
| ksec wrote:
| >its a matter of _power_.
|
| Which is the argument I have been saying since the beginning.
| They are stepping over the line of those in power.
|
| And it doesn't help when this does not belong to those
| currently in power or they have no leverage to use it. When
| this happens, the only way to solve it would be no one has
| that power, hence opening up.
|
| Any other reasoning, monopoly or not are only there to sugar
| coat their argument.
|
| As with anything about power, it belongs to politics, and
| things get ugly in a hurry.
| Jensson wrote:
| > 5% fee. This is roughly in-line with baseline credit card
| transaction processing fees
|
| No it isn't, EU already went after credit card companies and
| forced them to lower their rates. I see no reason why EU
| wouldn't do the same for Apple and similar. Of course in USA
| you still pay those insane rates, but not everyone has to do
| it.
| ludjer wrote:
| > Apple is traditionally very pro-Consumer
|
| They are only pro consumer when it makes them more money.
| da_chicken wrote:
| Yeah, Apple only looks pro-Consumer because they're still
| in the business of selling software, hardware, and software
| services to consumers. Their competition is all funded by
| corporate advertising.
|
| It's not a matter of Apple being a positive force for
| consumers or customers. They're simply the most magnanimous
| blackguard.
| Jensson wrote:
| Apple's 30% cut is only from purchases and not from ads
| so it pushes all the apps you get on that platform
| towards ads. So even they themselves doesn't get a lot of
| money from ads, their policy greatly encourages ad based
| monetization.
| 015a wrote:
| Um, duh? Isn't that implied?
|
| Would you describe any company's actions under the light of
| "yeah they only did that because it lost money". That's not
| just something companies don't do; its illegal (for public
| companies).
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Hard disagree. IAP will still be super integrated into
| iPhone, so my guess is that, for the consumer, the steps to
| using it will be absolutely simple and easy. Going to another
| payment system will likely require at least a click or two
| more, and that friction alone will make most businesses stick
| with IAP, assuming the rates are comparable.
|
| It's really only the blockbuster apps (e.g. Fortnight) that
| will have the power to convince people to move to a different
| payments system, because in their case folks who actually
| want the app will be willing to tap through one or two extra
| steps.
| rainbowsloth wrote:
| As a consumer, I want ease of use and safety.
|
| I don't want to be bothered with a menu in-app on if I want
| to pay through Apple Pay or through PayPal or some other
| proprietary custom service. I just want to pay using the
| cards I have already added onto my phone's wallet. Who
| handles the transaction behinds the scene is of no importance
| to me. The important thing is that it is handled.
|
| I don't want the app to bounce me out into Safari where I
| login to another service just to pay. I don't want the app to
| open an in-app browser for me to enter my credit card
| information to pay.
|
| I want a standardized, system-level integrated payment screen
| like what iOS currently does. I want it to be standardized
| and system-level integrated because I don't want to have to
| think if the website or app is launching me to a phishing or
| scam page. I want this screen to tell me clearly how much I
| owe, who I owe it to, and let me choose how to pay for it by
| selecting one of the cards I've added to my wallet or an
| option to pay one-time with a card (that doesn't get saved to
| the wallet) ad hoc.
|
| I don't care if the payment goes through Apple Pay, or
| Stripe, or Walmart Pay, or whatever. If Walmart is insistent
| on processing payments through Walmart Pay, then I want to
| just simply scan my phone's NFC wallet and have Walmart Pay
| take money from the default credit card I have attached to my
| wallet app.
| robbedpeter wrote:
| Walled gardens are bad for consumers. Apple is the definitive
| walled garden on planet earth. They are litigious, anti-
| competitive, and use unethical supply chains at great human
| cost, but their marketing/propaganda is superb.
|
| Apple is the primary reason we have unreplaceable batteries,
| for example. That by itself is massively anti-consumer, but
| it's one among hundreds of inherently user hostile behaviors
| that Apple inflicts on the world.
|
| Other players in the market are constrained by Apple's design
| choices, because those choices often single-handedly drive
| economies of scale for device components.
|
| Apple is not pro consumer. Apple is ruthlessly oriented
| toward absolute control of perceptions and behaviors of
| customers within their walled garden so they can extract the
| maximum amount of money from their customers.
|
| Apple hides the externalities within their own domain and
| imposes market expectations on the rest of the world. Their
| exploitation of software patent and ip laws stifle innovation
| and competition, and they set the standards of corporate
| behavior for all the major players.
|
| Unless by "traditionally" you mean exactly the period of
| Apple's history when they were plucky underdogs... Apple
| hasn't been pro-consumer for a couple or three decades.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Do you honestly think that iPhone customers will be more
| satisfied with iPhones if iPhones are required to support
| third-party app stores and/or sideloading? I find it
| impossible to believe that this could make customers
| happier. It is almost certainly going to result in more
| malware and user tracking, more bugs, more fragmented
| processes for finding and paying for apps, more user-
| hostile in-app purchase and subscription behavior, etc.
| pg_bot wrote:
| Yes. For the simple reason that I own both a Mac and an
| iPhone. These devices are extremely similar in their
| capabilities, except I can download software directly on
| one, and the other is a captive market. There is a reason
| why the Mac App Store is a wasteland. Apple provides
| almost no value when it comes to distributing third party
| software. They only dominate on the iPhone because they
| are the only game in town.
| tshaddox wrote:
| The fact that you own both a Mac and an iPhone _supports_
| my claim, assuming that in both case you were relatively
| informed of all the alternatives and were free to choose.
| pg_bot wrote:
| I own about 4-5 computers and 3 phones. One of those
| computers is a Mac and one of the phones is an iPhone.
| The only claim I made was that I would be more satisfied
| if the iPhone could support third party stores or
| sideloading. I will continue to stand by that claim.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I don't dispute your prediction that you would be more
| satisfied if your iPhone could support third party stores
| or sideloading. My prediction is about customer
| satisfaction in aggregate.
| pg_bot wrote:
| I don't understand your logic here. Adding additional
| third party stores wouldn't affect the availability of
| Apps in the App Store if Apple is truly providing value
| to customers. If third party stores or sideloading is not
| valuable, most people would continue to use the App Store
| exclusively. Almost all developers would continue listing
| their App on the App Store as well. If third party app
| stores and sideloading do provide value, then consumers
| will use those methods to get their apps. I don't get why
| anyone would be less happy to get software directly from
| a vendor. If I am dissatisfied there is always an
| intermediary (bank / credit card company) to intervene on
| my behalf if an actor is behaving badly.
|
| Can you elaborate on why you believe people would be
| unhappy if this were the case? I truly don't understand
| the position.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Users will switch if they can get their apps somewhere
| cheaper. Most iPhone users are not Apple fan boys.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Yes, my prediction is that they will do this and that
| they will then be less satisfied with their iPhone.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I think more people would be more satisfied with their
| iPhone if Apple introduced a form of "Enter your Pin
| number to install $APP_NAME from $APP_REPOSITORY" system.
| That way, users would know outright that they're not
| getting software directly from Apple, and are forced to
| authenticate in order to confirm they want it.
|
| Then both sides win: you get to have your perfectly
| secure iPhone, and I get to have a device that actually
| does the things I want it to.
| tshaddox wrote:
| That is still very likely to result in a worse experience
| for iPhone users for all the reasons I listed. I don't
| think Apple's concern is whether they can use their UI to
| shift blame to its customers when they sideload software
| that makes them unhappy--they just want their customers
| to be happy.
| cronix wrote:
| Why are you allowed to install things on your mac from
| non-apple sources if this is the case? I didn't have to
| go to an Apple Mac App store to download VSC from MS. I
| did have to click a prompt informing me that this program
| was downloaded from the internet and could potentially be
| harmful to your device type message, do you really want
| to install it, though. Has the mac landscape gone to hell
| with worse experiences, more malware or "software that
| makes them unhappy" because people can and do install
| software from non official Apple sources? It's literally
| the same company. Why does one being a "phone" or "mobile
| device" change things?
| tshaddox wrote:
| Mac certainly has more malware than iPhones, yes!
| ARandumGuy wrote:
| If the iPhone is required to support apps outside of the
| App Store, that will probably result in a worse user
| experience for a lot of people. Despite that, I feel that
| it would be a net benefit to require non-App Store apps
| on the iPhone. The overall stifling of competition on a
| locked down ecosystem is worse then the inconvenience of
| installing a shady app.
|
| And it probably wouldn't be that bad anyway. A vast
| majority of people will still use the official App Store,
| like they do on Android. But a more open ecosystem will
| keep Apple honest, and give more power to the end user.
| Bud wrote:
| > Apple is the primary reason we have unreplaceable
| batteries, for example.
|
| This is a goofy fantasy. Apple, which is a minority player
| in this market, is forcing everyone else to make battery
| replacements difficult?
|
| No it's not. That's false, and doesn't pass the laugh test.
| Can we engage with the truth, instead? Is that too
| difficult?
|
| There are no "economies of scale" here. Phone batteries
| aren't a standardized part; every iPhone has a customized
| battery that fits into the odd-shaped space Apple is able
| to create in the design. Your economies of scale argument
| is therefore total nonsense.
| criddell wrote:
| > Apple is the definitive walled garden on planet earth.
|
| I think I would give that crown to Disney. Their parks are
| literally walled gardens where Disney controls every aspect
| and profits from every transaction.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| Apple does not inflict unreplaceable batteries, or lack of
| headphone jack, or no power brick withe their phone, or no
| headphones with phones, or fragile glass backs. They made
| their choice and the other companies followed along.
|
| I wish they hadn't done some of those choices myself,
| looking at you glass back.
|
| But Apple did not coerce Samsung to follow along, and I
| doubt that they made economies of scale issues for the rest
| of the phone market given their <20% market share.
|
| Samsung makes plenty of ads to take pot shots at Apple for
| these changes, and then a few months later they themselves
| follow suit.
|
| I just don't think enough people care about those features
| to vote with their wallet.
| threatofrain wrote:
| Also, IAP is separate from Apple Pay. This is a position from
| the Dutch government on whether Apple may compel app
| companies to support Apple Pay, and _not_ whether Apple gets
| its cut. Paying through Stripe does not translate to an
| ability to dodge the IAP, unless we 're talking about dodgy
| accounting.
|
| Neither is this a position that app vendors must support
| multiple platforms such as Apple Pay. This is a win for app
| makers like PopEyes who really want your credit card.
|
| This is not a win for consumers who want a _choice_ as to
| whether Apple intermediates their payment relationship with
| app companies.
| simion314 wrote:
| Super obvious solution, give the customer the choice. Example
| you can buy games for PC from the store you like, you want
| the game to be on your Steam library then you use Steam, you
| want DRM free you go to GOG , you want to support the indie
| dev you go to other site: Customer can chose in the majority
| of games with the exceptions of some big titles (but you can
| still find EA games on Steam for example).
|
| The only objection to user choice is that the users are
| stupid and need someone else to chose for them, my answer is
| Apple has the money to educate the users , they can put a
| giant ad on TV to tell users about their "virtues"
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| Yeah but this isn't a choice unless the developer allows
| for it (and if they do, they can use price discrimination
| to force users to their preferred platform -- which on each
| of the game stores, this price discrimination exists
| today). Lots of developers make their product EXCLUSIVE to
| a platform and then you don't have any choice but to abide
| by sometimes a scummier platform's rules.
|
| Apple has undoubtedly made managing payments in their
| mobile ecosystem easier for the end user to understand. It
| definitely limits some of the choices for developers, but
| given what I have seen and experience in the massive
| failure that is Epic's game store, I think it is not
| something most consumers will benefit from.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| >they can use price discrimination to force users to
| their preferred platform
|
| And that's why stores get to compete to BE their
| preferred platform. Software stores are middleman.
| They've got to compete for both users and developers.
|
| You can't say apps have to be on all stores at the same
| prices when stores charge different prices to be on them.
| Or have different requirements to be on the store. Or
| when stores straight up do not allow your app (Apple with
| Xbox Cloud Streaming)
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > So; competition states, if their solution is genuinely
| better, companies will use it. Actually, this is false;
| companies don't give a shit about their users.
|
| The users are part of the market too.
|
| A lot of people use direct withdrawal from a checking account
| to pay their mortgage. Because the mortgage lender doesn't
| have the same incentive as a subscription service to make it
| hard to cancel.
|
| So you do that for your mortgage, but would you do it for a
| subscription service you might want to cancel? Heck no.
| People use credit cards for that. Then if the service won't
| cancel your subscription you have a last resort the ability
| to dispute the charge with the credit card company.
|
| Apple makes it even easier but charges even more.
|
| But the choice is really important. Imagine if Apple was
| taking 30% of your mortgage payment and the bank had to pass
| that cost on to you. Even the 3% charged by credit card
| companies would be tens of dollars a month, for an ability to
| cancel which in that case isn't worth its cost.
|
| So people will choose based on what kind of business it is.
| If Netflix demands that you use ACH, people will balk. If
| Apple is providing enough value over the alternatives to
| justify their fees, people will demand it. And in some cases
| maybe they are -- customers might demand it for super scummy
| services they know they'd otherwise have trouble cancelling.
| So in open competition, the users demand it where it's
| needed. In the other cases it's not worth the cost.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Credit cards don't work like that in Europe. It's more like
| a debit card. You don't get the purchase warranty perks and
| chargebacks are highly restricted. They will sometimes
| charge back but you have to have real proof. It's not like
| the US.
|
| This is why credit cards are really uncommon in Europe.
| Most people just use their debit cards that are free and
| can also use the regular credit card systems (with the
| exception of the Netherlands which has a different system).
| A credit card really only makes sense here if you want to
| use its credit. And if you do there's cheaper options.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| So then there will be more demand on the part of users
| for Apple's "you can cancel easily" payment service in
| Europe, right? You still don't have to force people to
| use it.
| exoque wrote:
| Depends on the country, where I live there is no direct
| debit (Banks have just now begun to replace the old cards
| ) so most people use credit cards to buy stuff online.
| Maarten88 wrote:
| > ... a 5% fee. This is roughly in-line with baseline credit
| card transaction processing fees ...
|
| Dutch consumers mostly pay using IDeal, a payment standard
| created by all Dutch banks, that costs < 0.5% in fees to
| merchants. It has fewer consumer protections than what credit
| cards offer, for that there are consumer protection laws.
|
| These same consumer protection laws should make things like
| cancelling a subscription easy. Of course many companies fail
| to do so properly. One day I hope the government will enforce
| these like Apple protects their platform, and we'll end up
| having what we have now, just cheaper.
| soperj wrote:
| >Apple is traditionally very pro-Consumer
|
| Yes, that's why "you're holding it wrong" happened. That's
| why they didn't replace the CPU in their laptops for half a
| decade. Because they care about you.
| Bud wrote:
| How long do you think it's still going to be convincing to
| anyone with an IQ over 50 to talk about what Steve Jobs
| said about antenna issues on the iPhone 4? He's been dead
| for _over a decade now_. Get over it. And come up with an
| argument that at least comes from the last 10 years. That
| argument is an embarrassment.
| soperj wrote:
| That's why they're scanning your pictures. Because they
| care about you. Happier?
| Bud wrote:
| Not really, given that they are, um, not scanning any
| pictures. And even once they start, they will be scanning
| exactly zero of my pictures.
|
| Also, could we argue in good faith, and not tell lies,
| and not pretend that there's not a complex issue in play
| regarding the debate over scanning for child porn? That'd
| be a lot better. Thank you.
| tshaddox wrote:
| A much simpler way to put this is: What if I explicitly want
| a smartphone with a platform where all third-party software
| has to follow the platform's rules? iPhones will actively
| become worse for me if third party app stores are allowed.
|
| Or perhaps even more simply: How does making the iPhone
| platform _more_ like the Android platform somehow give
| customers _more_ choice?
| Jensson wrote:
| So what you are afraid of is that people would prefer
| alternative app stores? If they don't then you have nothing
| to worry about, as long as the Apple app store has such a
| huge market share companies will continue to support it.
|
| And if you are right and most Apple user really wants
| another app store and will flock to them causing companies
| to abandon the Apple app store then why should your opinion
| on this matter more than theirs?
|
| > Or perhaps even more simply: How does making the iPhone
| platform more like the Android platform somehow give
| customers more choice?
|
| You get just as much choice as before, you can choose Apple
| hardware and software just like then. Just that choosing
| Apple hardware and software no longer forces you to also
| choose their App store as your only way to access other
| software, so it also alters that choice a bit, but you
| still have as many choices as before. However just like
| android you will likely see that almost everyone chooses to
| use it anyway, so companies will still continue to support
| it. Your fears are totally unwarranted.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| Not parent, but I'm not afraid that people would prefer
| alternative app stores, I'm afraid that developers will
| hang shady incentives and dark patterns into getting
| users to prefer them...
|
| Look at the "choice" we got when Epic opened up their own
| game launcher/store. It created all these awful
| exclusives on those platforms and ultimately people still
| picked the terrible Epic experience (buggy launcher,
| crashes, etc.) just to get those games. That isn't
| consumer choice... that is developer choice by
| incentive/price discrimination/exclusivity.
| tshaddox wrote:
| No, I'm afraid that iPhone owners would have a
| significantly worse experience if iPhones allowed
| alternative app stores, full stop. I'm not concerned with
| deciding who to blame when users install bad software
| (and I don't think Apple is concerned with that either).
| I'm not arguing that my opinion matters more than anyone
| else's. I am just making an argument for my prediction
| that customer satisfaction would go down if this change
| happened.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > What if I explicitly want a smartphone with a platform
| where all third-party software has to follow the platform's
| rules?
|
| It is pretty simple. A user could be given the option to
| "lock down" their phone.
|
| That way, if you want your smartphone to only allow apps
| that follow the platform's rules, that would be your
| choice.
|
| What you wouldn't be able to do, is force other users to do
| what you want.
|
| That way, you get what you want for your phone, and others
| get what they want for their phone.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > It is pretty simple. A user could be given the option
| to "lock down" their phone.
|
| And I would argue that they have already made this choice
| by buying an iPhone. At this point it's one of the most
| obvious and significant differences between the two
| dominant smartphone platforms.
| Jensson wrote:
| > At this point it's one of the most obvious and
| significant differences between the two dominant
| smartphone platforms.
|
| Only to tech people, typical people see the messaging
| app, hardware and ecosystem integrations as the main
| features. Switching from apple to another phone isn't
| just buying new hardware but also giving up on the entire
| apple account and ecosystem.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > And I would argue that they have already made this
| choice by buying an iPhone
|
| Ok, and an alternative solution, which gives more people
| choice, is to allow people who buy an iPhone, and lock it
| down of their own free choice, and allow people who don't
| want their iPhone locked down to not lock it down.
|
| That way both groups get what they want. You would lock
| down your phone if you want, and other people, who don't
| want it locked down would be able to do that, both on an
| iPhone.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| So why does the US keep protecting these rent seekers? I have
| no idea why they do it. US courts literally said Apple is
| _entitled_ to other people 's money.
|
| Does copyright benefit anyone other than US companies? I wonder
| if other nations would accept such a thing if the US didn't ram
| it down their throats via trade agreements.
| cronix wrote:
| Those rent seekers pay the politicians rent.
| jacquesm wrote:
| So, let's just state what's at stake here: who 'owns' the
| customer relationship. Apple wants to own the relationship, they
| do not want anybody else to have direct contact with 'their'
| customers outside of their platform because it allows them to
| turn the whole thing into a gigantic toll road.
| nomercy400 wrote:
| That's not true: Their customers most definitely want to have
| contact outside of their platorm. Phone calls, googling,
| navigating, gaming, chat apps, social media, web browsing.
|
| If it were true, you would be restricted to facetiming only
| with other apple users, only make phone calls to other Apple
| users, only visit 'the Apple internet' with their Safari
| browser. Whatsapp? Youtube? Facebook? Instagram? Epic? No no,
| those are not owned by Apple, and not part of their 'platform'.
|
| Suddenly the 'customer relationship' isn't all that clear,
| hence the national watchdogs looking into anti-competitive
| behavior.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I think you misunderstood my argument. Customer here
| translates to 'the one who is in a billable relationship with
| a service provider'.
| shagie wrote:
| I believe that this ties in to the "if you create an account,
| you must be able to delete it" that came out the other day.
|
| If you're using Apple Pay, the subscription is managed by Apple
| - and deleting a subscription is rather low friction.
|
| With the "Apple can't mandate Apple Pay" that's currently in
| the winds (and yes, they'll eventually lose it everywhere), in
| order to maintain the iPhone customer experience, they're
| mandating that accounts (subscriptions likely) that are created
| must be able to be deleted easily too.
|
| _That_ is going to be a bit of a challenge to companies that
| want to have you set up an account, use their payment system,
| and then make it difficult to unsubscribe.
| criddell wrote:
| Many of the Apple's customers (including me) see that as a
| feature and not a problem. I like that I can subscribe to
| something without having to share my personal information with
| another company.
|
| I understand that I end up paying more than I would otherwise,
| but Apple doesn't really compete on price.
|
| Perhaps if I was in the EU I would feel differently because
| they have better data protections.
| travoc wrote:
| I wonder if you would feel differently if the 30% premium you
| were paying to Apple on every digital purchase were
| transparently shown on the transaction.
| criddell wrote:
| I'd be okay with that. I'd also be okay if regulators
| forced Apple to allow apps to use outside payment services
| where the price could be 30% less.
|
| I just hope that Apple would be allowed to say that if you
| are going to use outside payment providers, you must allow
| paying through Apple and the outside price can be no lower
| than 30% (or whatever Apple's cut is).
|
| I don't spend a lot through Apple each year. Maybe $200. If
| I'm paying 30% more than I would otherwise that means it's
| costing me something like sixteen cents per day and I'm
| okay with that.
|
| When I was younger, I used to focus a lot more on price.
| When Zappos came around it clicked for me that paying more
| can be smart if the service you get is better. I'll pay
| $0.16 every day if it means a few times per year I avoid a
| lot of bullshit.
| coz131 wrote:
| I don't get what do you mean by "you must allow paying
| through Apple and the price can no lower than 30% or
| whatever the cut".
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Essentially they must allow the user the option of Apple
| as a payment mechanism to ensure their feature is
| unbroken. The no lower part is that they can only
| discount up to whatever Apple's cut would be if they use
| their own payment mechanism. Related to the first point
| to prevent "soft disables" like setting Apple pay price
| at something dramatically worse that few would pay.
| Charging $13 through Apple and $10 through theirs ensures
| they get their $10 no matter the customer choice. Or they
| could call the volume worth the cut and charge $10 for
| both methods.
|
| Setting it worse opens up effectively a "soft disable"
| like Apple price at $1000 and their price at $1.
|
| If they for some reason decided to charge $1 through
| Apple and $1000 through their own that poor decision is
| no skin off Apple's nose.
| smoldesu wrote:
| That money isn't being taken from you though, it's being
| taken from the developer who made that app or service. No
| matter how you frame it, the developer sets their price
| and Apple scalps them accordingly. So just because _you_
| don 't care doesn't mean that the people who are trying
| to make a living off it shouldn't.
| Jensson wrote:
| It is ~43% premium. 100 / 70 ~= 1.429
| duped wrote:
| I agree with you, recently I chose not to purchase things
| from Etsy because the shops only supported PayPal and
| wouldn't let me checkout without an account.
|
| But that said, those shops should have a right to choose
| which payment processors are appropriate for their business.
| Let the market decide what is the best for the market.
| echelon wrote:
| > Many of the Apple's customers (including me) see that as a
| feature and not a problem.
|
| This is almost Orwellian. Imagine Standard Oil customers
| cheering the demise of the corner mom and pop.
|
| All of this while Apple collects a dossier on each of you
| that they'll willingly hand over to the FBI, FSB, or Chinese
| Ministry of State Surveillance.
|
| If none of that convinces you, then do me a favor. A thought
| experiment.
|
| Imagine an alternate history wherein we replace Apple with
| Microsoft. Imagine that the iPhone lost and became just a
| footnote or history and that Steve Ballmer's Microsoft
| ZunePhone Pro 10 won the market. That's what we all have in
| our pockets now.
|
| Would you be happy if Microsoft owned the customer
| relationship? Would you feel just as happy?
|
| Apple is immaterial in this. We don't need companies to be
| this powerful.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Is anyone being forced to use The ZunePhone Pro 10 or the
| iPhone? Android dominates worldwide with a staggering 70%+
| depending on who you ask.
|
| I do agree that companies shouldn't be so powerful tho
| hectormalot wrote:
| I think that's okay, I'm in the same position that I trust
| Apple more in handling this than the apps themselves. Eg I've
| read some interesting stories on how hard it is to cancel a
| NYTimes subscription.
|
| What is - on my opinion - problematic is that apple prohibits
| alternative payment options. Eg I'd be happy to see (8EUR per
| month with apple [pay now], 7EUR per month direct [register
| on our website], but even that's prohibited. That is Apple
| using its position as one of the 2 major phone offerings to
| prevent competition in a way that I consider monopolistic.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| So you also trust Apple better than yourself, because if
| you will ever find yourself needing an app that Apple
| blocks, well, you'll have to accept that it is in your
| 'best interests'.
| r00fus wrote:
| Have you ever tried to cancel a newspaper/gym membership?
| It's not easy. I want freedom from my subscriptions.
|
| "Freedom from" is a quite liberating concept.
| criddell wrote:
| Generally, it's true. If Apple blocked nothing, how many
| flashlight apps that also mine bitcoin would be
| installed?
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Do not forget that in some countries Apple also blocks
| apps that the current regime deems dangerous for it.
| Like, apps of the opposition news outlets, etc. Apple is
| quite content with taking your freedom away: if you
| needed it, you wouldn't have relinquished controls of
| YOUR phone for other people to decide what to run on it.
| criddell wrote:
| Google does this too. As I understand it, their choice is
| to remove the app or stop selling devices, software, and
| services in those countries. This is definitely something
| that tech companies could do better at. I wish they would
| choose the latter option just once.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| At the present moment, I can easily sideload any app on
| Android, I can even install a third-party appstore like
| F-droid (this freedom can be taken away by Google in
| three future, but still far it is available).
|
| Nothing even remotely similar is possible on non-
| jailbroken iPhone.
| howinteresting wrote:
| But even if Google removes it, you can just install the
| app on Android anyway.
| emn13 wrote:
| So first of all - just because the end-user wants Apple
| to check for actively malicious programs doesn't mean
| they assent to all forms of control. Secondly, even on
| the matter of software deemed malicious by Apple, I think
| it's questionable how reasonable it is for Apple to
| entirely remove the end-user from the decision making
| process.
|
| Even on really weakly policed platforms like windows,
| people still tend to leave virus scanners enabled; and on
| android similarly most people don't choose to expose
| themselves to unnecessary risk by sidestepping its store
| - at least as far as I know. Users regularly do really
| stupid things, so some level of external control is
| perhaps not unreasonable, but how much, and for what? And
| should Apple even get to be involved in _that_ decision?
| donarb wrote:
| So how can Apple make it easier to cancel a subscription if
| they don't have control over the payment method?
| mattnewton wrote:
| One way I'd like it to work, us that you can choose to
| sign up through Apple, and have the service pass their
| cut % along to you as a greater cost, or sign up without
| apple's system for presumably cheaper.
| emn13 wrote:
| By _allowing_ you to pay via an apple controlled payment
| method; or (less securely) by contractually obligating
| them to honor centralized cancellation requests.
|
| I'm almost positive many people would gladly pay extra -
| certainly temporarily - to be sure no untrustworthy third
| party gets direct access to their money. The question is
| merely whether apple gets to _force_ that when both end
| user and app developer would prefer otherwise, and if
| there are any conditions on such requirements by Apple.
| vanviegen wrote:
| That might make sense for dealing with a company I've never
| heard of before, from which I'm just installing an app from
| the App Store.
|
| But the way I see it, it doesn't make sense when dealing with
| companies I have a preexisting relationship with, like my
| phone provider, energy provider, kids' school, work serices,
| all kinds of online entertainment providers, etc, etc. I may
| want to be able to interact with them through _my_ phone, and
| there shouldn 't be any third party controlling and profiting
| from that interaction.
| Spivak wrote:
| And they don't. Apple charges 30% on digital goods. None of
| the things you listed count except entertainment providers
| in the case where you sign up on the iPhone in which case
| you didn't have a pre-existing relationship.
|
| "Are you using your iPhone app as a digital storefront for
| digital goods or services to be consumed on your phone? =>
| Apple gets a 30% commission"
| jsnell wrote:
| That's great! Given so many of Apple's customers prefer that,
| I'm sure the app makers will continue to accommodate you, and
| offer the two options at different prices. Since Apple being
| a middleman is so valuable to y'all, I'm sure you'll be happy
| to pay the 30% extra for that service.
| Spivak wrote:
| I see this argument a lot and it makes zero sense. If your
| customers are currently paying you $15 for your app why
| would you suddenly undercut yourself and start charging $10
| when you could keep charging $15 and pocket the extra $5?
|
| Maaaaybe competition would force you to drop prices but a
| lot of consumer software isn't fungible and doesn't really
| compete on price.
|
| Taking away Apple's 30% cut shouldn't be talked about as a
| pro-consumer move because it isn't. There's this pot of
| money that is either going to go to the app publisher or
| Apple. That's who the fight is really between.
| disiplus wrote:
| but it does not work like that. because you know that you
| would get a lot more customers if you cut your price
| 20-30% while keeping your profit margin. a smaller price
| is a great way to get customers on board and keep them,
| especially those that have only small benefit from your
| software. im paying for example for youtube netflix,
| evernote and so on although basic or none would be enough
| based on how little do i use them, but the price is low
| enough that it's ok for me. i used to privately use
| pirated version of MS office before it was this small
| monthly payment and so on.
| nicce wrote:
| > but it does not work like that. because you know that
| you would get a lot more customers if you cut your price
| 20-30% while keeping your profit margin.
|
| That is very situational and hard to predict. There is a
| whole discipline behind this statement for figuring out
| the right answer.
| jsnell wrote:
| Well, criddell's claim is that there are a lot of people
| who really prefer to use Apple's payment system rather
| than a third-party one, such that apps that don't support
| Apple Pay will lose their business.
|
| If those people really exist in large quantities (and I
| can believe they do!), the developer is losing business
| by not providing Apply Pay as an option. But that'd just
| lead every single customer to use Apple Pay, which is not
| what the developer wants. So you need to somehow give the
| people an incentive to choose your version, unless they
| really think that going through Apple is giving them a
| lot of value. Differential pricing seems like the most
| obvious way of doing that.
|
| > Maaaaybe competition would force you to drop prices but
| a lot of consumer software isn't fungible and doesn't
| really compete on price.
|
| That seems implausible. If you think that software prices
| don't matter at all, such that lowering prices does not
| increases sale, it'd follow that raising prices doesn't
| lower sales either. In that case, why hasn't the
| developer already raised prices?
| Spivak wrote:
| Lowering prices probably would increase sales, but the
| problem is that is might also lower net profit which is
| the thing you actually care about. If you're a SaaS app
| charging $6/mo and you have a 100k MAUs then congrats
| $600k gross revenue per month! You lower prices to $4/mo,
| your users rejoice, and your sales and marketing find all
| the people who wouldn't buy in at $6 but would at $4
| which happens to be 25k new users -- 25% growth! Amazing!
| Pop the Champagne! But now your gross revenue is $500k
| and you have more users to support.
| jsnell wrote:
| But we weren't talking of just changing the price and
| keeping everything else the same. We were talking of not
| having to pay Apple, and passing the savings along to the
| consumer. With your numbers, the revenue was not
| 600k/month to start with. Apple was taking 180k of that,
| leaving you with 420k/month. So you getting 500k and
| Apple getting nothing sounds like a pretty good deal.
| Jensson wrote:
| Most games have extremely tight margins. Taking away 30%
| of their revenue means that many of them fails and will
| never make another game or that their budget for the next
| game becomes significantly lower. Both of those hurts the
| consumers interests.
|
| If it was just 5% or so then sure it wouldn't be very
| noticeable, but just taking 30% outright is huge and will
| push many from being viable businesses to being forced to
| stop. The appstore isn't like steam which gets you a huge
| ecosystem of extra features for your games and tons of
| marketing. I'd pay extra to be able to add a game to
| steam even if I bought it elsewhere simply because steam
| adds so many other things.
| [deleted]
| r00fus wrote:
| They're free to do so for Android devices.
| fzil wrote:
| > I'm sure you'll be happy to pay the 30% extra for that
| service.
|
| if that's how things worked then we wouldn't be having all
| this commotion. Part of the reason why devs are going after
| apple is because they /can't/ charge more on iOS compared
| to other platforms and they /can't/ explicitly state that
| they have to pay 30% to apple.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Exactly. It's as if the mob is your 'businesspartner' and
| you can't tell your customers that you have to pay them
| off, nor can you tell them to come to your home after
| closing to buy it there for the real price.
| jsnell wrote:
| > Part of the reason why devs are going after apple is
| because they /can't/ charge more on iOS compared to other
| platforms
|
| That is not true. As a specific counter-example,
| subscribing to YouTube Premium via the iOS app costs
| extra compared to subscribing to it via the website or
| Android.
| Jensson wrote:
| Is that true in general or did Apple and Google make a
| special deal on this? Apple and Google are very friendly
| to each other so I see why Apple would let them do this.
| criddell wrote:
| You've been able to pass on the 30% fee to customers in
| the form of higher prices on iOS since 2011.
| fzil wrote:
| I see, I stand corrected then. I'll have to take a closer
| look at their store ToS.
| p_j_w wrote:
| >I understand that I end up paying more than I would
| otherwise, but Apple doesn't really compete on price.
|
| Don't they have rules that companies aren't allowed to charge
| a higher price for services on Apple devices than elsewhere?
| Seems to me they DO try to compete on price here. They want
| to have their cake and eat it too, and they absolutely should
| not be allowed to.
| criddell wrote:
| They did have that rule at the start but it was changed
| some time ago.
|
| If you subscribe to Spotify in iOS, it costs more than
| doing so over the web. I think this is ultimately going to
| be a huge problem for Apple because they directly compete
| with Spotfiy.
| chrisfinazzo wrote:
| Seeing all of the ancillary legal fallout from the Epic Games
| trial is convincing me that the EU learned the wrong lesson
| from the US' dealings with Microsoft in the 90's.
|
| The OEM model (at least for computing platforms) is how the
| world works. Fragmenting it helps no one, save for perhaps
| the software freedom crowd.
|
| They continue to fight the old war and at some point, it just
| might come back to bite them.
| chrisfinazzo wrote:
| Alas, downvotes. To those who disagree with me, what's the
| alternative? It just seems like the EU is fundamentally
| opposed to this model which would mean _any_ company is no
| longer in charge of their own destiny.
|
| "There's no advantage to being a platform owner? Eh, OK,
| let's just not bother trying then."
|
| It's a bad look.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Apple can still provide all of the OEM features if they
| really want, the obvious solution here is to give people
| the _option_ to install third-party things (eg. Please
| enter your PIN number to confirm a third-party
| installation) and then boom! You 're finished.
|
| It's quite obvious that the only reason Apple _hasn 't_
| added that feature is because they have no intention on
| losing their stranglehold on the App Store. Without sole
| propriety of software, Apple's value proposition starts
| to crumble. So, why should we let them keep it? What do
| we, as a society, gain from letting Apple be the richest
| company in the world? The answer is nothing, and
| eventually some day when they go under we'll come to the
| realization that it was all a zero-sum game anyways.
| [deleted]
| f6v wrote:
| I get that there's an anti-monopoly sentiment. And we've all
| heard the arguments many time. Let's not forget that mandatory
| cookie banners turned into a complete shit-show. They were
| supposed to benefit the users. But are they not just an annoying
| distraction?
|
| My point being, people might still use AppStore as they do. Just
| the whole government-mandated experience becomes much less
| convenient.
| berkes wrote:
| Thats a clear fallacy.
|
| Just because an entirely different government entity (the EC)
| enforced a practice that has different outcome than expected,
| does not, in any way, predict how this private entity (a local
| market-watch and local court) will work.
| ffritz wrote:
| I want to point out that if you want to release an app, be it for
| fun or otherwise, it's going to cost you 100$ per year to have
| Apple list it in the app store.
|
| One hundred dollars per year for the privilege of them judging
| your app and maybe even get it rejected.
|
| They made tinkering around so ridiculously unattractive, because
| every app needs a business model (unless you are okay with eating
| the 100$ every year).
|
| There need to be other stores or distribution methods.
| Desperately.
| clusterfish wrote:
| You also need to buy Apple hardware to develop iOS apps, and
| keep regularly updating it so that it supports latest versions
| of xcode and iOS, which is at least another $100/year.
| grishka wrote:
| Or you could install hackintosh on whatever hardware you
| already have, or run macOS in a VM.
| s_dev wrote:
| What offended me most about the $100 is that when Apple replied
| to 'Hey!' email they explicitly mentioned they had never
| charged Hey a penny for distributing their app on the App
| Store.
|
| They don't even consider the $100 Developer fee a real fee.
| ksec wrote:
| >I want to point out that if you want to release an app,
|
| I want to point out if you want to release a Safari _extension_
| , be it for fun or otherwise, it's going to cost you 100$ per
| year to have Apple list it in the app store.
|
| But in fairness Apple has made it clear that is $100 for using
| their API.
| sorry_outta_gas wrote:
| > They made tinkering around so ridiculously unattractive
|
| 100$ a understaement,just keepting them workable between ios
| and xcode releases is non-trivial.
|
| myself I have about a 4-5 pretty apps that were useful (to me
| and a few people at least) that just don't work anymore.. I
| could spend time fixing them but I'm time limited and don't use
| macos as my primary platform anymore
|
| the intentional short shelflive of software on that platform is
| just crazy to me; like I know Apple does it to have the store
| 'clean it self up' over time but that's insane there's piles of
| software that just dosen't exist anymore
|
| like what happens if an accident happens and a solo developer
| passes-away? their work is as if it never existed
| shadilay wrote:
| Android has the same problem where they drop apps that don't
| target an API version released in the last 5 years or
| something. After losing all the apps I bought on early
| versions of iOS and Android it really soured me on buying
| anything so I haven't bought an mobile app in years.
| Photoshop CS2 still works on Windows though!
| foepys wrote:
| I don't think Google drops then, just prohibits updates.
| Apps usually keep working but no guarantee for complex apps
| that depend on changing APIs (like the DnD change with
| Android 5 or so).
| ElectronShak wrote:
| duh..
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-07 23:01 UTC)