[HN Gopher] Developing a new app is unreasonable condition that ...
___________________________________________________________________
Developing a new app is unreasonable condition that Apple imposes
on dating apps
Author : keleftheriou
Score : 217 points
Date : 2022-02-14 17:18 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.acm.nl)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.acm.nl)
| tempnow987 wrote:
| Competition law has morphed so it's all about making sure
| BUSINESSES including absolute scum can get into walled gardens
| and make their money.
|
| The question of consumer benefit / preference etc has gone.
|
| Don't like apple's walled garden? Get an android phone!
|
| The reality is at least for some segment of the market, having
| apple throwing it weight around with these "wonderful" providers
| who would NEVER thing of doing a subscription dark pattern (haha
| - dating apps have a horrible history here) is appreciated?
| Desired?
|
| My question - the internet is subject to regulation, why don't
| these regulators focus on ANY of the absolute CRAP on the
| internet. Fake news stories, fake tech support, money scammers
| etc etc. Instead we are stuck with folks like scambaiters doing
| their thing (for free) and our billion dollar competition etc
| agencies sit on their butts.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Don't like apple's walled garden? Get an android phone!
|
| Great for customers who don't like it, not so useful if the
| question is "does Apple's walled garden prevent the creation of
| businesses that consumers would like to do business with if
| only they had the opportunity".
|
| I don't claim to know enough about _any_ marketplace or
| business landscape to answer the latter question, but that's
| what is being claimed here.
| Osiris wrote:
| What's your stance on regulation of crypto companies? People
| don't have to invest in crypto, they can do all kinds of other
| things with it.
| tempnow987 wrote:
| Good question. Plenty of opportunity -> starting with tons of
| low hanging fruit. There are tons of fake wallets, fake
| websites, folks exit scamming etc. All this should be
| prosecuted criminally.
|
| Secondly, you shouldn't be able to lie in a commercial
| context. Ignore the crypto itself. You claim you are 100%
| backed by US dollars? Someone should show up, check, and then
| bust you totally if needed.
|
| BTW - these laws apply in the real world. I sell you a bridge
| I don't own but claim I do, I should be busted.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Apple doesn't seem to take issue with getting children addicted
| to gambling as long as they get their 30% cut, I don't think we
| can rely on them as our moral touchstone in protecting us from
| evil businesses.
| tempnow987 wrote:
| I don't think you've used the web enough or other
| alternatives enough :)
|
| Signing up for a service online generally is fraught with
| unconcealable patterns.
|
| The web is filled with scams and rip-offs designed by many of
| the same folks calling for apple to open up. Seriously, many
| of the alliance or whatever have very unsavory histories.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Apple does a lot of very questionable stuff, but I'm still not
| convinced regulation is the solution here. It's still very easy
| to go with an Android variant that doesn't have some of these
| restrictions (though increasingly some Android phones are
| introducing their own annoyances).
|
| For example for the given article users of dating apps can
| already use different payment providers, provided they go with a
| different phone. If these types of grievances are so bad, why
| don't users switch? It's worth considering these questions. Apple
| does certainly try to incentivize you to go-all in with Apple
| Watch/Fitness+ integrations, AirPod, AirTag, etc.
|
| I believe Europe's general approach is just contributing to its
| brain drain. A large chunk of huge tech companies in the United
| States are founded by European nationals, not even children of
| immigrants. You cannot ignore that California alone has a larger
| tech industry than the entirety of Europe. It's not like
| Californians are smarter than Europeans, the difference is
| regulation.
|
| Personally I believe it's because Europe is way too stifling in
| its rules and regulations. In comparison the United States is
| just a far superior environment for innovation and starting tech
| companies in general.
|
| Resolve this problem, and then Europeans will just move over to a
| local national company and then the issue of Apple being anti
| competitive will be no longer relevant, as there will be
| competition.
|
| TLDR: Help foster strong competitive companies, stop wasting time
| trying to neuter Apple
| lukeschlather wrote:
| > It's still very easy to go with an Android variant
|
| "Very easy" to me would be that Apple provides support for an
| Android variant that runs on iPhones.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Dating apps cannot use alternate payment methods within their
| Google Play App and are subject to the same 30% fee.
|
| In order to avoid the fee, they would have to distribute the
| app through an alternative store or as an APK which has just as
| many if not more hoops than what regulators are objecting to
| here, although they do get to keep the last 27% compared to the
| Apple situation.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Apple may do whatever they please on their Appstore app.
|
| But they should stop trying to control a phone they SOLD to
| customer and allow unimpeded running any app the customer
| needs, including competing stores or directly installed apps.
| zamadatix wrote:
| There are far too many axes to weigh when switching
| products/providers every time a single point is handled poorly.
| Is it really reasonable for someone to make a choice on
| changing all of the things associated with their mobile phone
| based on whether or not dating apps are treated fairly?
| enragedcacti wrote:
| > Resolve this problem, and then Europeans will just move over
| to a local national company and then the issue of Apple being
| anti competitive will be no longer relevant, as there will be
| competition.
|
| If Microsoft wasn't able to successfully enter the smartphone
| space after spending billions and making a product many
| consumers loved, why should we expect the results to be
| different for new companies just by deregulating Europe?
|
| Network effects are the primary challenge to competing with
| Google and Apple, not regulatory restrictions.
| endisneigh wrote:
| I disagree - Spotify is biggest music service despite being
| the smallest company among its competitors.
|
| Network effects can be broken. It's not like Google and Apple
| are #1 in every area where they compete.
| parthdesai wrote:
| And ask spotify of how they feel about app store, apple and
| it's practices :)
|
| https://newsroom.spotify.com/2019-03-13/consumers-and-
| innova...
| endisneigh wrote:
| Seems like they're ok with it since they're still on iOS.
| jsnell wrote:
| Seems like Apple should be ok with obeying European
| regulations, since they're still operating here.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Agreed. The EU should honestly call their bluff then. If
| the citizens result then you have your answer to what the
| average person thinks of the situation.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Spotify doesn't have to sell you a phone and doesn't need
| thousands of developers (including Apple and Google) to
| build apps for that phone to make it a viable purchase
| option. Google famously refused to develop a YouTube app
| for Windows Phone and refused to allow Microsoft's home
| built app to connect to YouTube.
|
| Just because it's possible to compete in one product area
| doesn't mean its possible to compete in all of them. A
| smartphone experience is networks on networks on networks
| to the point that breaking in is next to impossible despite
| the fact that one of them is based on an open source OS.
| ejj28 wrote:
| Spotify also predates Apple Music and has always been more
| popular than Google's scattered offerings
| [deleted]
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > It's not like Google and Apple are #1 in every area where
| they compete.
|
| Google and Apple control the platform so they can kick you
| out or make your business unprofitable with shenanigans
| such as these.
| YmiYugy wrote:
| Spotify had a first mover advantage and is now using
| network effects of playlists and recommendation to keep
| their market share. If anything it's a testament to the
| power of Apple and Amazon that they were able to gain
| significant marketshare.
|
| Trying to directly compete with Apple and Google in the
| mobile OS market would be like trying to compete with
| Boing/Airbus or TSMC/Samsung, in that the capital
| requirements are so astronomical without extreme forms of
| subsidies and protectionism.
| dwaite wrote:
| > If Microsoft wasn't able to successfully enter the
| smartphone space after spending billions and making a product
| many consumers loved, why should we expect the results to be
| different for new companies just by deregulating Europe?
|
| Bluntly, it was two factors:
|
| 1. A network effect of developers - there was too much value
| in the other two platforms and supporting windows phone was
| priority #4 (after android, iOS, and the web)
|
| 2. Negative brand recognition. Consumers didn't find carrying
| a blue screen in their pocket attractive
|
| 3. Negative retailer reaction. The phones just weren't pushed
| in stores. If you didn't come in looking for a windows phone,
| you might not have even been shown it as an option.
| warning26 wrote:
| _> For example for the given article users of dating apps can
| already use different payment providers, provided they go with
| a different phone._
|
| That's right! Just throw out your iPhone, re-buy every app and
| any digital content you've ever bought for it, and switch to
| Android! It's easy!
|
| This is like arguing that Microsoft wasn't monopolistic in the
| 90s because Linux _existed_.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Are you arguing people can't easily switch between ios and
| android?
|
| Unless you're exclusively using first party apps, the vast
| majority are on both platforms.
|
| And speaking of Microsoft- Microsoft had a 80%+ market share
| and Apple obliterated them. Create a better experience and
| people will move
|
| Which technologies from Europe have been objectively superior
| and were killed off by Apple or Google due to abusing their
| position?
| kristiandupont wrote:
| It might be easy enough but it's not very helpful because
| it's a duopoly. I disagree with even more of Google's
| business practices than Apple's.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Fair enough, surely someone in Europe has made an
| alternative that can you move to then?
| ejj28 wrote:
| Like what? Blackberry OS and Windows Phone are dead.
| There aren't any feasible smartphone platforms out there
| besides iOS and Android, unless you think your average
| consumer should be buying a Pinephone or something (and I
| wouldn't consider that anywhere close to feasible
| anyways).
| endisneigh wrote:
| My point is that iOS didn't come with the earth - people
| moved to it and adopted it vs palm and windows mobile.
|
| Can you imagine people complaining for regulation on
| windows mobile rather than just moving to something that
| does what you want lol.
| ginko wrote:
| There was Nokia's MeeGo that failed in 2011 despite being
| far more polished. Even then iOS and Android were already
| too established.
|
| You're posting on a discussion board about the tech
| business. Surely you must understand what network effects
| are.
| withinboredom wrote:
| It cost me ~$400 in 2017 (just in software) to switch from
| Android to Apple. It's not easy.
| endisneigh wrote:
| In what way is was it not? Of course it's not _free_ but
| I don't see how it's not easy.
|
| Just download the new software and then you're done
| right?
| ejj28 wrote:
| Something isn't easy if it's expensive.
| lukeschlather wrote:
| Installing Windows on an Apple laptop is easy. There's no
| real reason it couldn't be easy to install Android on an
| iPhone. Apple has spent a lot of time building software
| controls to make it impossible, and sues people who try.
| It's really not asking that much of Apple here - they
| would save money if they stopped trying to make it
| artificially difficult to switch from iOS to Android.
|
| They could also pick up customers.
| withinboredom wrote:
| And buy a new phone, figure out why contacts didn't
| transfer correctly, take it to a store so they can use a
| special machine, etc... yeah, super "easy"
| ejj28 wrote:
| There's a lot more than just free apps to consider in this
| scenario.
|
| Paid apps will have to be re-purchased, your Airpods won't
| work as well, your Apple Watch won't work at all with
| Android, you won't be able to message your contacts who use
| iMessage without SMS, etc.
|
| iPhone owners tend to buy into the Apple ecosystem which
| ends up being a whole bunch of vendor lock in, and it
| becomes unreasonable to switch platforms. The ability to
| switch to Android certainly doesn't give Apple a free pass
| here.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Why would you expect proprietary tech to work with
| anything, though.
|
| That's what I don't get - people buy locked down stuff
| and then complain that it's locked down. There are plenty
| of alternatives that aren't locked down.
|
| By FairPhone, use Signal, use Webapps, etc.
|
| I don't get the defeatist mentality.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| The people I want to communicate with don't have Signal
| or any other messaging app. They have iMessage, which
| only allows you to communicate effectively with other
| apple devices.
| ejj28 wrote:
| The defeatist mentality from my perspective is arguing
| that we shouldn't try to make locked down stuff less
| locked down.
|
| And in many cases, you don't have a choice to use Signal
| or etc. What if all your contacts are using iMessage?
| Sure, most of them will have SMS, but that's not
| guaranteed. There will always be edge cases of users who
| are locked in due to situations outside of their control.
| Shouldn't we be trying to make things less locked down
| for them?
| endisneigh wrote:
| I'd agree with you if it weren't advertised as locked
| down.
|
| Take this site for example - it doesn't display Reddit
| posts or work with your Reddit account.
|
| It's not worth energy complaining to the administrators
| saying that it should work with your Reddit account.
|
| The same relationship exists with iMessage and signal
| OrsonSmelles wrote:
| >Are you arguing people can't easily switch between ios and
| android?
|
| I mean... yes? Even just affording a new handset could be
| prohibitive if you want a parity of hardware features. But
| also, we shouldn't underrate the barrier presented to
| nontechnical users by having to learn a new interface,
| especially when Apple banks so hard on its (superficial)
| reputation for Just Working. I think we all know some
| (especially, but not exclusively, older) people who have
| just attained a sense of bare competency at driving their
| iPhones and will invite you to pull that from their cold
| dead hands.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Globalisation is coming to an end, as pandemic has shown how
| countries have placed too much power on third parties.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > It's still very easy to go with an Android variant
|
| It's still not very common knowledge. Most people wouldn't even
| know this is happening; keep in mind that Apple's rules also
| prohibit you from mentioning that alternate payment options
| exist (even if those are on other platforms).
|
| Also, most people don't have the disposable cash to just throw
| away their iPhone and go buy an Android when encountering this
| issue. Frankly, it's still probably more rational to just pay
| the 30% tax than forego a significant chunk of value off the
| phone by buying a new Android replacement.
|
| Android also has its own problems (including with privacy, etc)
| which hopefully will be addressed at some point, but for now
| it's not a silver bullet, simply a different set of tradeoffs.
|
| I believe the role of a competition watchdog is to prevent
| anticompetitive practices that hurt consumers as a whole. I
| don't think it's far-fetched to strike down stupid rules that
| don't provide any value beyond allowing assholes to seek rent.
|
| > Personally I believe it's because Europe is way too stifling
| in its rules and regulations. In comparison the United States
| is just a far superior environment for innovation and starting
| tech companies in general.
|
| IMO, the US model allows a minority to legally screw the rest
| of the population and get rich off it, offloading the negative
| externalities onto society. This Apple rule is an example,
| albeit very small in the grand scheme of things when you
| consider what is possible and routinely done in the US.
|
| > Help foster strong competitive companies
|
| To a certain extent that's what the EU is doing here. Keep in
| mind that in the last couple decades a lot of business ideas &
| markets have been monopolized by US-based companies who are now
| using anti-competitive practices to prevent viable competition
| from emerging. The problem with the EU isn't primarily
| regulation (though it makes a lot of user-hostile business
| models impossible - a good thing in my book), it's the lack
| thereof that allowed US-based companies to monopolize many
| markets even in Europe.
| simion314 wrote:
| >You cannot ignore that California alone has a larger tech
| industry than the entirety of Europe. It's not like
| Californians are smarter than Europeans, the difference is
| regulation.
|
| The tech industry in US has so much money that is just burned
| on shitty products, so I am not a bit surprised if you start
| too many projects and also buy your way into the market you get
| on top. There are examples where big US companies bought
| competitors so it is clear that money is keeping this giants on
| top.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Why did this happen in the United States - California in
| particular - and not Europe?
| simion314 wrote:
| I could try to explain the history but I am not an expert
| in it, I would for sure hurt some feelings and obtain
| nothing from it.
|
| Sorry I won't reveal the actual reason and just tell you a
| reason that is not it.
|
| My point is that you can't blame GDPR or some "regulation"
| for the reason an european FB did not popped and rapidly
| increased 10 years ago. This is a lame excused used by
| anti-regulation dudes.
| concinds wrote:
| Many of these problems result from lack of regulation.
|
| Regulations are necessary to preserve free and open markets,
| prevent monopolies and protect competition.
|
| Two companies having total control over the app economy and
| taking 15-30% of revenues stifles innovation. Lack of antitrust
| enforcement stifles innovation. You're against antitrust
| enforcement, yet it would increase economic freedom, not reduce
| it, by allowing smaller companies to compete.
|
| You also want Europe to come up with its dominant search engine
| or mobile OS. There's no longer any chance of that happening,
| because of network effects. There is simply no way for any
| European company to come up with a superior OS, or superior
| social network, since they lack the network effects; since they
| can't have a superior product, they can never compete, and can
| never displace US incumbents.
|
| The only way Europe will have its own tech giants in _current
| markets_ (not in some new markets, like VR, that 's still
| perfectly possible) is if they do what China did: ban US tech,
| and aggressively fund alternatives. Both of which would be
| against your economic preferences. "Free markets" have certain
| benefits, but they won't achieve what you believe they will;
| actually quite the opposite.
| keleftheriou wrote:
| Earlier post that did not directly link to ACM's statement:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30334284
| anaisbetts wrote:
| I look forward to Apple incurring more anti-competitive
| regulation and bringing the entire industry with it so that two
| companies do not get to decide by fiat what software is and is
| not allowed to be written, and what businesses do and do not get
| to exist
| iqanq wrote:
| What two companies? Surely you don't mean Google, since you can
| install whatever you want on Android phones.
| echelon wrote:
| Let's be real: only 1% of users know how to install APKs.
|
| Both companies need to be made to support sandboxed web
| installs sans taxation.
| consp wrote:
| > only 1%
|
| I think you are even now overestimating that number.
| ericmay wrote:
| So there's not a market demand, there's just a tiny
| minority of special interest groups out there yelling about
| it.
| RIMR wrote:
| This is a little bit overdramatic, given that they only exert
| that kind of control over the frameworks that they wholly own
| and control.
|
| Nobody ever accused Microsoft or Sony of "getting to decide
| what games were allowed to be made" because they strictly
| controlled what works are allowed on their platforms. There are
| always other platforms one can publish on.
|
| The real problem is that consumers have accepted an
| Apple/Google duopoly over mobile computing, which isn't
| defeated by destroying the free choice of corporations, but by
| creating a viable competing alternative. This currently exists
| in the form of jailbreaking, the use of third-party app stores
| and sideloading. Ultimately it should take the form of a
| competing smartphone OS.
|
| Quite frankly, Linux is beginning to look more and more capable
| of breaking into this scene, and this will fundamentally turn
| the current broken system on its head when it happens. Android
| being open source and Unix-based only makes it easier since a
| ton of the foundations already exist.
| anaisbetts wrote:
| People make the game console comparison, but there are
| crucial differences that don't make these scenarios
| comparable - first, there is still a completely open, viable
| platform to write games for (PC), and much more importantly,
| I do not run my entire life through my game console, and a
| game console is not effectively a requirement for modern life
| like a phone is.
|
| Phones are ubiquitous, and the vast majority of businesses
| have a _Compelling Reason_ to have a presence on these
| devices. Allowing two companies to make any decision they
| want regarding what nearly every non-trivial business Can and
| Can Not Do, is the very definition of anti-competitiveness.
|
| When you are a monopoly and you can influence other
| businesses in such an overarching way, it is Extremely
| Appropriate that you have to follow a Different Set of Rules
| than other people, rules that are more closely regulated to
| ensure that you are not abusing your position
| ericmay wrote:
| At what point does something pass over from "essential" to
| non-essential? And why does being essential matter?
| clusterfish wrote:
| Essential - adjective - absolutely necessary; extremely
| important.
|
| Game consoles are not. Smartphones are. Obviously.
| RIMR wrote:
| There's literally nothing I can do with my phone that I
| can't do with a laptop. Most people here work in tech and
| know what I'm talking about. You could carry a laptop and
| a flip phone and be fine. There's literally nothing
| essential about a smartphone. It's just a luxury you've
| become inseparable from.
| clusterfish wrote:
| You can't carry your laptop in a pocket. And laptops are
| also "a luxury you've become inseparable from", doesn't
| make them any less essential.
|
| You'll need a stronger argument to claim that something
| that almost everyone uses despite significant cost isn't
| essential.
| [deleted]
| ericmay wrote:
| So cars are essential? What about grocery stores? Is
| gasoline essential?
|
| And to be clear when you say essential you mean for
| everyone alive right?
| ericmay wrote:
| I didn't ask what the definition of essential was. I
| asked at what point something crosses over to being
| essential, and why being essential matters here
| specifically.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Quite. Mobile is not some shiny new tech that deserves a
| special dispensation. It's now critical public
| infrastructure.
|
| The mobile duopoly is like having a duopoly on printing or
| paper manufacture.
|
| It would be crippling for businesses to have to pay a Paper
| Tax for all paper use, with a special surcharge for check
| or invoice printing, over and above the purchase cost of
| printer hardware.
|
| Mobile payments and app ecosystems are no different. There
| _might_ be a case if Apple was far more careful about app
| quality, curation, and security than it pretends to be.
|
| But realistically it's just not doing a good enough job
| with any of them to justify its cut.
| melony wrote:
| Legislate them into allowing sideloading until the day their
| market share drops below a quarter. Hell, I would be fine
| with letting Apple automatically wipe phones with sideloaded
| apps and revoking the user's warranty post legislation the
| moment their market share goes below the threshold. They can
| abuse their customers as much as they want, they just
| shouldn't be allowed to make the rest of the market
| unhealthy.
| Shoue wrote:
| > This is a little bit overdramatic, given that they only
| exert that kind of control over the frameworks that they
| wholly own and control.
|
| Would you be fine with being taxed for breathing if two or
| three companies hypothetically bought all the forests in your
| town or even state? After all, they own the things producing
| the oxygen you breathe, it only seems reasonable that you'd
| pay them.
|
| Sometimes, maybe it's not reasonable for companies to justify
| their bad behaviour simply because they "own" something.
|
| > Nobody ever accused Microsoft or Sony of "getting to decide
| what games were allowed to be made" because they strictly
| controlled what works are allowed on their platforms. There
| are always other platforms one can publish on.
|
| I often just see the "consoles aren't general purpose" cop-
| out here but I'd go further and say: we should -- we should
| accuse them of being anticompetitive too.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| > Nobody ever accused Microsoft or Sony of "getting to decide
| what games were allowed to be made" because they strictly
| controlled what works are allowed on their platforms. There
| are always other platforms one can publish on.
|
| Yeah because you could publish a game on tons of different
| platforms. There was competition. Sega, Nintendo, Atari,
| Sony, and that was just consoles, they too competed with
| Microsoft PC, then Microsoft XBox which was the same company
| but introduced additional competition nonetheless, and on top
| of all that, you could publish a game for Mac. And then there
| were the arcades, and gaming moreover competed with games
| that were electric but analog, like pinball and bowling. And
| that's excluding gambling. Another popular form of video
| games that didn't involve the companies I mentioned was
| watching a single viewer play a video game using a telephone
| as a controller and watching on a local TV channel, with
| thousands others watching the kid play, there were more
| platforms right there.
|
| There was competition, and it was culturally accepted that if
| you wanted to show something to the world, there were many
| ways to go about it, but you had to go through a publisher,
| or a distributor, something.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > consumers have accepted an Apple/Google duopoly over mobile
| computing
|
| Consumers don't have any choice. Apps are typically only
| available for iOS/Android. The difference with
| Xbox/PlayStation is that those aren't general purpose
| platform. Nobody needs an Xbox to access their bank or
| government functions. But people do (realistically) need to
| use smartphones. Regulation is absolutely appropriate here.
|
| My question to you would be: why not regulate? What concrete
| harm do you think it would cause?
| sigstoat wrote:
| > The difference with Xbox/PlayStation is that those aren't
| general purpose platform.
|
| they've been general purpose platforms for years.
|
| they just don't look like it because the manufacturers are
| even more restrictive with access than apple.
| zmk5 wrote:
| They may have the ability to be general purpose platforms
| but they are specifically marketed as gaming devices for
| gamers meanwhile smartphones are marketed to the general
| populace. The Xbox and PlayStation sell maybe 10 million
| consoles a year meanwhile the iPhone is 200+ million.
| nicoburns wrote:
| They're general purpose from a technical perspective
| (although really only from a hardware perspective - the
| software not so much), but they're not sold or marketed
| as general purpose devices. People purchasing an Xbox are
| primarily doing so to play games.
| FabHK wrote:
| But the bank and government apps that one realistically
| needs do not require in-App purchases or other
| subscriptions, of which Apple or Google take a 30% cut. Has
| there ever been a problem that such an app has not been
| approved? If not, what is the problem that regulation ought
| to address?
| Spivak wrote:
| I mean I don't think it's unreasonable for Apple to not want
| automatic upgrades to swap out the payment provider from one
| that's Apple supported to 3rd party.
|
| How should that even work with currently Apple managed
| subscriptions? Just cancel them all? Is Apple even allowed to
| require that their own payment system be present in addition
| under this ruling?
| kevingadd wrote:
| Apple already requires that you offer their login service if
| you offer any other ones, so I could see them imposing that
| requirement. But then you'd have to be able to compete with
| their option, like by offering lower prices, and they don't
| allow that.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| There's technically no way to "swap" the provider; you can't
| extract payment details from the Apple-provided subscription
| infrastructure (partly because there might not even be payment
| details - they might be using carrier billing or iTunes gift
| cards).
|
| However I don't see anything that suggests that's what they're
| trying to do - what I assume they're after (which would be very
| reasonable) is to offer direct card payments in addition to
| Apple's option (with the direct option priced cheaper to offset
| Apple's cut).
| ghostly_s wrote:
| That's not what the ruling stipulated-it just says the
| developer must be given the _option_ of presenting alternate
| payment providers. Presumably the court thinks the developers
| thus should be able to push an update that includes this
| additional functionality, whereas Apple 's bizarre efforts at
| [non-]compliance require apps with non-Apple payment option to
| be a separate SKU (which is not really "develop a separate app"
| as they've described it here, but certainly is a barrier Apple
| has chosen to erect in an attempt to undermine this ruling.)
| jdrc wrote:
| floodle wrote:
| I'm all for regulation, but this seems like an overreach.
| intrasight wrote:
| Online dating, like other industries, can always choose to
| deliver their services via a web browser. And now that iOS Safari
| is adding push notification, they have an alternative delivery
| path that has feature parity.
| the_snooze wrote:
| Yeah, it's weird that companies complain about app store
| restrictions, when browser-based services get around those
| restrictions completely. It's not like a website needs to go
| through app store approval.
|
| But I guess companies are just that desperate for device
| tracking information and regularly-collected location data.
| kristiandupont wrote:
| I complain about that because Apple has (deliberately, I
| suspect) crippled Safari PWA features, making it impossible
| to deliver a good experience through the channel. Now, they
| have recently made some small changes and I really, really
| hope that is a sign of them changing this strategy but I want
| to see it before I believe it.
| p_j_w wrote:
| Browser based apps are almost always inferior to a native
| program.
| warning26 wrote:
| Have you tried creating a messaging app that works in iOS
| Safari? Thanks to Safari's janky-AF scroll behavior, you can be
| sure that it's a terrible experience.
|
| Source: I work on a major tech company's web-based messaging
| product.
| pinephoneguy wrote:
| Also no push notifications which at this point is the only
| reason to bother with native iOS apps as everything else is
| off limits anyway.
| shagie wrote:
| If push notifications are an important value add, which go
| through Apple's servers is it reasonable for Apple to have
| companies that make money using there services subsidize
| the free ones?
|
| Alternatively, if everyone who is publishing free on Apple
| is using an alternate payment system, and Apple doesn't
| collect anything from those apps, would it be reasonable
| for Apple to have some sort of "Developer pays $10 for
| every 10k push messages from a free app?" and "Developer
| pays $0.25/month for each app on the App Store"?
|
| There's a question of "How does Apple pay for services?"
| Yes, it is currently quite profitable. If moving to a 3rd
| party payment processor with no associated fee causes the
| App Store to become unprofitable, what steps is Apple
| allowed to take to return it to a profit center?
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| They are an important value add only because iOS
| restricts background processes and forces developers to
| rely on push notifications.
|
| You may do without push notifications on Linux, or
| Windows, but on iOS certain classes of apps are
| impossible to implement without them.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| > Alternatively, if everyone who is publishing free on
| Apple is using an alternate payment system, and Apple
| doesn't collect anything from those apps, would it be
| reasonable for Apple to have some sort of "Developer pays
| $10 for every 10k push messages from a free app?" and
| "Developer pays $0.25/month for each app on the App
| Store"?
|
| I think this has been a missing piece of the conversation
| for the most part. Apple needs to pay for servers,
| upkeep, development, etc. and deserve to make (some)
| profit. Why is the conversation about whether Apple can
| charge 30% or 0% or somewhere in between per transaction
| rather than based on actual usages and costs associated
| with operating the platform?
|
| AWS offers similar features and technologies but we don't
| see them charging based on your product's revenue. Why
| should Apple?
|
| Price setting is obviously a problem though if Apple
| continues to be the only company allowed to provide a
| service like "App Review" or "10k push notifications".
| shagie wrote:
| Amazon sends a bill rather than having it be part of the
| "you're making money, we're taking a bit of it."
|
| https://smarthomestarter.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-
| create...
|
| > The determining factor of the pricing structure for
| creating Skills depends primarily on their complexity.
|
| > In other words, the more complicated the request being
| processed (and therefore, more cloud services required),
| the more it will cost to publish the Skill.
|
| With that model, free skills cost their developers money.
|
| ... Though, I'm _still_ going to point out -
| https://developer.amazon.com/en-US/docs/alexa/in-skill-
| purch...
|
| > Amazon pays developers 70% of the marketplace list
| price for all sales.
|
| So, not only do you pay to have AWS crunch your data, but
| if you're charing for that with some in skill purchase,
| Amazon is taking a 30% cut.
| extropy wrote:
| Fair question.
|
| If apple charged for the actual costs it would be a non
| issue.
|
| Instead they charge 10x the industry fees for credit card
| transactions and gives the rest for "free". And that puts
| any app that has considerable running costs at
| disadvantage.
|
| And gives competitive disadvantage to Apple's own
| products that get to pay for the actual costs.
| heleninboodler wrote:
| And I've led a very rich dating-app life with all push
| notifications turned off anyway. It's not healthy to be a
| slave to dating apps. I would 100% welcome web-based
| versions of them.
| verst wrote:
| Bumble, Tinder and OkCupid certainly still have web
| clients. Never tried any of these on mobile web though.
| heleninboodler wrote:
| Oh, nice. Back when I was using them, Bumble and Tinder
| definitely didn't, although I did find one kinda hacky
| Tinder web-based thing that was a result of reverse-
| engineering their APIs. Glad to hear they're making
| progress, and I hope they are mobile-friendly. It should
| be _very_ easy to implement the basic functionality on
| mobile. As pointed out, messaging will take a lot of
| work, but it 's doable.
|
| I wouldn't trust OKCupid to be able to do a decent mobile
| web UI, because they can't really be trusted to do either
| a regular web UI or a decent mobile app. :D Their entire
| UX was always just so full of jank and they were
| constantly tweaking it with the apparent goal of making
| nobody understand how anything works or is supposed to
| work.
| jdrc wrote:
| That seems like another shot in the foot though. Apple and
| google are gatekeepers of notifications. Email is still the
| most robust choice for infrequent notifications. I wish
| email had been extended to implement temporary
| notifications
| Invictus0 wrote:
| This is victim blaming
| jdrc wrote:
| the_gipsy wrote:
| > And now that iOS Safari is adding push notification
|
| Not there yet, and also a _decade_ late.
| stale2002 wrote:
| Or, instead of that, countries could use their full legal right
| to create laws, to force Apple to stop engaging in anti-
| competitive practices, and also fine them if they don't follow
| those fully legal laws.
| null_object wrote:
| This has somehow become the "Apple Tax" on HN.
|
| No-one is forced to create apps for the Apple platform.
| ummonk wrote:
| Apple's position here is correct.
|
| I as a non-Netherlands user don't want my apps pushing their own
| payment methods, so app providers should only be making separate
| apps with their own payment methods available to Netherlands-
| based users.
| mrsuprawsm wrote:
| Even if we accept your premise, the usual method of enforcing
| region-based separate is very crappy on Apple's platforms. I am
| a fairly big proponent of Apple products in the majority of
| cases, but this particular case is very shitty.
|
| Many apps are released only in a single country or a handful of
| countries.
|
| Many users create an Apple ID and thus an App Store account,
| and purchase apps, in their home country. They they move
| abroad. Their country of residence is not the same as the
| country that their Apple ID exists in.
|
| Apple does not offer a mechanism to move your Apple ID and App
| Store purchases between countries. You can move your Apple ID
| and lose access to your purchases, or keep your Apple ID in
| your (wrong) "original" country, but not both.
|
| This burns people who move between countries. In the case of
| this regulation, e.g. Tinder would release an app for the Dutch
| market... but expats would not realistically be able to use it,
| hence Apple would likely still be in breach of the
| regulations).
|
| In the more general case, many people are unable to access
| important iOS applications purely as a virtue of having moved
| countries. It's shitty.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Don't install such apps if you don't want them. But how
| indecent you must be to insist other people who want such apps
| to not have them?
| ummonk wrote:
| If they want such apps they can buy an Android. Or move to
| the Netherlands.
| ginko wrote:
| I'd prefer if Apple were forced to open iOS :)
| robgibbons wrote:
| I like how you turned a common Apple apologist's argument
| right on its head.
|
| If you don't like it, just don't buy it!
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| I want to buy the device, and do whatever I please with it.
| But apple lets users only rent their phones, and allows the
| use of rented devices only with severe restrictions, so
| I'll rather pass.
| simion314 wrote:
| >I as a non-Netherlands user don't want my apps pushing their
| own payment methods, so app providers should only be making
| separate apps with their own payment methods available to
| Netherlands-based users.
|
| === I am an Apple user similar as GNOME users ouyr brains can't
| handle options, even the idea that some user would chose
| something then me SEGFAULTS my brain for days.
|
| Not joking, this is about giving options, Apple fanboys could
| continue to pay with Apple and pay more. Why should some
| assholes decide that I should not pay with my bank account or
| with PayPal, I don't care that Net York times or other US
| companies are shit with canceling subscriptions.
| ummonk wrote:
| Yes, why are you buying an Apple if you want options?
| simion314 wrote:
| Probably because there is no law yet to force Apple to put
| on their boxes same warnings we have on cigarettes.
|
| "You don't own this device, Apple grants you the privilege
| of using it"
|
| "Purchases on this device will include a 30% cut that will
| be exfilterated to US so billionaires get a bigger yacht"
|
| "Information that can help you but cost Apple will not be
| shown to you, because information is power and Apple wants
| it"
|
| ...
| awinter-py wrote:
| > ACM is of the opinion that this condition hurts dating-app
| providers
|
| this reads so differently from american competition opinions,
| where the framework is designed around consumer protection
| not2b wrote:
| American antitrust laws were originally written to protect
| competitors as well as consumers, and to limit corporate power,
| but during the 80s the laws were re-interpreted (largely
| because of Robert Bork's writings) to greatly restrict
| antitrust enforcement.
| gruez wrote:
| >but during the 80s the laws were re-interpreted (largely
| because of Robert Bork's writings) to greatly restrict
| antitrust enforcement.
|
| It's because the old standard didn't make any sense either.
| The most ridiculous of which was United States v. Von's
| Grocery Co., which blocked a merger of two grocers in LA with
| a combined market share of 8%.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| I agree. In fact, "consumer welfare" is tantamount to
| repealing antitrust, and the growth of FAANG can be directly
| traced to this change in legal standard.
|
| _Literally every monopoly ever_ can be said to have a
| consumer welfare benefit. Competition is always at least a
| _little_ anti-consumer - you have to consider alternatives
| and multiple business relationships, and consumers have a
| risk of those alternatives being inferior or outright
| harmful.
|
| The problem is that nobody is ever purely a "consumer". There
| are no professional consumers whose entire life is just
| buying and using things[0]. "Consumer" is just a hat that
| people wear among many others. So whatever welfare consumers
| get from larger firms is mere compensation for welfare _lost_
| when those same people are either working for or operating
| the firms at the other end of the business. Even if someone
| isn 't both a user and developer on Apple platforms, they are
| indirectly impacted when those developers are harmed by
| Apple's misconduct, and have to compensate in other ways,
| such as charging more money across-the-board or skimping on
| other things. (e.g. not shipping an Android version of their
| app because App Store compliance is taking up too much
| developer time)
|
| [0] Though, the attitude I've gotten from some Apple users
| would imply that their entire life literally _is_ just buying
| things on their iPhone.
| FabHK wrote:
| > In fact, "consumer welfare" is tantamount to repealing
| antitrust, and the growth of FAANG can be directly traced
| to this change in legal standard. Literally every monopoly
| ever can be said to have a consumer welfare benefit.
|
| Eh? Not at all. The entire point (in classical economic
| theory) is that a monopoly, compared to perfect
| competition, reduces consumer surplus and arrogates a part
| of that to itself as rent (thereby reducing total social
| surplus).
| xdennis wrote:
| How so? The American system protects megacorps like Apple
| instead of giving consumers choice, like the EU is doing.
|
| How is forcing users to pay 30% for nothing helping them?
| RIMR wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that they were implying that it does not, but
| that the way this whole thing is framed, its Apple vs. App
| Developers, and the end users don't appear to be included in
| the decision making process.
| nps1 wrote:
| This is similar to Microsoft not allowed Chrome as default
| browser in Windows. Apple has to give in eventually.
| gruez wrote:
| >This is similar to Microsoft not allowed Chrome as default
| browser in Windows
|
| I don't ever recall microsoft preventing you from changing the
| default browser on windows. How do you think google chrome got
| started in the first place?
| not2b wrote:
| Apple really is asking for trouble here. First off, they say that
| in order to get out of the requirement that everyone give Apple
| 30% of income, they say that those using an alternative payment
| method still must give Apple 27% of income. Then they say that
| app developers have to produce an entirely new app. In effect
| they are trying to create a situation where it is irrational for
| any developer to try to escape their payment system, which is
| exactly what the courts have already ruled that they must allow.
|
| They are risking having the EU as a whole slap them down and
| impose tougher restrictions.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| This seems like not only a boneheaded move but also a very user
| hostile one. Not the one I would have expected Apple to do. The
| obvious approach imo is to require apps to offer Apple payment
| as an option, while optionally offering other payment options.
| That way users who like apple payment can always use it.
|
| Having apps that don't integrate with apple's payment system
| but still charges the huge revenue tax is both greedy and bad
| looking for apple, but throws the customer to the dogs.
| toyg wrote:
| _> Not the one I would have expected Apple to do_
|
| It's 2022 and people _still_ believe the fiction that Apple
| cares about users...?
|
| They care about one thing: the bottom line. Jobs was best
| buddy with Larry Ellison for a reason, and it's not
| admiration for Japanese architecture.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| I believe they care about appearing to care about users at
| least.
| granzymes wrote:
| > those using an alternative payment method still must give
| Apple 27% of income
|
| While 27% is higher than expected, everyone knew Apple would
| (and had the right to) impose a fee for alternative payment
| methods. There isn't a magic flag you can wave to avoid paying
| Apple if you are accepting payments in an iOS app.
|
| > app developers have to produce an entirely new app
|
| This is the part the Dutch court slapped down. The development
| concerns in the press release are overblown, though ("must
| develop a completely new app") since it's more like you must
| _submit_ a new app that uses the new entitlements.
| techdragon wrote:
| I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that a commonly
| agreed upon legal fiction has "rights". "We the people" are
| the ultimate arbiters of what companies can and cannot do, in
| this case the government of the Netherlands acting on behalf
| of the people of the Netherlands is going to say what Apple
| can and cannot do in the Netherlands.
|
| Apple has no "right to profit"... no company does. They are
| *allowed* to profit.
| gruez wrote:
| >I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that a commonly
| agreed upon legal fiction has "rights".
|
| He's not describing how things ought to be, just how it is
| right now, given the current laws. If you really want to
| boil things down, the "rights" you have (guaranteed by the
| constitution or whatever) are a "legal fiction" as well.
| The ultimate arbiters of what you can and can't do are the
| Men With Guns working for the government. They can go away
| the next day if there's a coup.
| smoldesu wrote:
| This is a pretty bad argument, because it conveniently
| omits that antitrust regulation is also extremely open-
| ended. Sure, Apple has the right to profit however they
| see fit. The government also has the option to smack them
| down however they please; just a few months ago the DOJ
| and SEC demanded that Apple started unloading their
| liquid cash or risk a lawsuit. Why? They simply made too
| much money. That's all it was.
|
| I think the simple explanation is this: if Apple
| continues to make money with the insane software margins
| they have today, they're going to face regulatory action.
| The cat is out of the bag, developers are pissed off, and
| more than half of the states in the US have come forward
| in opposition to Apple's monopoly over iOS app
| distribution. Just short of incorporating in another
| country, there's very little Apple can do to maintain
| their status quo without some kind of regulatory action
| coming down the pipes.
| granzymes wrote:
| > just a few months ago the DOJ and SEC demanded that
| Apple started unloading their liquid cash or risk a
| lawsuit
|
| What is this referring to?
| Mindwipe wrote:
| Incorporating in another country wouldn't do them much
| good either to be honest, unless they also intend to stop
| selling in the US and Europe.
| thegrimmest wrote:
| If we're talking about how things ought to be, I think the
| power that "we the people" can have over peaceful
| transactions between private entities ought to be much more
| limited than it is now. The sledgehammer of government
| intervention should simply _not be used_ to mediate
| private, voluntary interactions.
|
| Apple basically created the entire idea of a mobile app
| marketplace, transforming the entire industry with sheer
| innovation. They did this in an environment where they were
| not protected by regulation from market incumbents (anyone
| heard of RIM lately?) the way it is proposed to do now.
| Where is the justice in taking this thing that Apple has
| built, to all our benefit, and forcing our terms on it. The
| App Store is _Apple 's_. It should be allowed to charge
| whatever it wants, set whatever terms it pleases, and burn
| it to the ground if it sees fit. Seeing Apple's creation as
| somehow _collective_ when we have done nothing but queue to
| pay for the privilege of using it is monstrously entitled
| and unjust.
| piaste wrote:
| You speak of Apple as if it were an individual or a small
| company run by a tight group of friends.
|
| AAPL is not a courageous pioneer being oppressed by "The
| Man". AAPL is a trillion-dollar institution that by
| design exists _only_ to pursue profit and enrich its
| shareholders, the overwhelming majority of whom can take
| exactly zero credit for the innovations from which they
| profited. It _is_ "The Man".
| thegrimmest wrote:
| Apple was at one point in recent history a small company
| run out of a garage by a group of friends. At what point
| _exactly_ did it lose the rights it was entitled to then?
| If 3 dudes in a basement are entitled to sell goods
| /services on their own terms, then Apple should be as
| well. Where is the line? Apple is still a private
| company, not a public service, and the case I'm making is
| explicitly _against_ socializing its services simply
| because it is big,
|
| Instead I'm advocating that, in the interest of long-term
| (say 50-100 year) public good, we _maintain_ the
| relatively unregulated environment that allowed Apple to
| succeed in the first place, and tolerate the relatively
| small inefficiency that environment produces.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| I don't think Apple needs to be socialized to solve this
| problem, in fact saying that obfuscates a simple and
| practical solution. It should be illegal for a company to
| actively prevent you from running code on a device that
| you own.
|
| We need something like Right to Repair but for software,
| if I own a phone, I should be able to run whatever I want
| on it. You shouldn't be able to charge money for the
| privilege of installing my own software, just like an
| auto maker can't charge me for the privilege of repairing
| my own car. Companies will use all sorts of weasel words
| and scare tactics but at the end of the day it's simply
| anti-competitive.
| thegrimmest wrote:
| This is nice idea, but it falls flat. In this case
| Apple's advantage, the actual reason consumers prefer
| Apple's devices, is because they restrict what code can
| be run on them, in order to provide a safe, trustworthy,
| optimized user experience. Why do you want to rob Apple
| (and the market) of this advantage?
| Mindwipe wrote:
| Luckily virtually no country in the world agrees with
| you.
| thegrimmest wrote:
| Yes I agree - but the whole idea of "liberty" and the US
| declaration as originally intended does. Indeed most of
| the world is content with a high degree of
| authority/tyranny. That doesn't invalidate the concerns
| of those who wish to be free.
| Jensson wrote:
| Capitalism is beneficial as long as profits aligns with
| increasing productivity. However capitalism is harmful
| when profit incentives encourages creating bottlenecks.
| The appstore is currently a bottleneck and Apple has no
| incentives to fix it, removing their profit incentive
| from keeping that bottleneck around is good for everyone.
| If it really benefits the user to have everything running
| in the Appstore then it would still keep it there even if
| it had a 5% fee, just that Apple would no longer try to
| make everything go via the app store even when it doesn't
| make sense for it to.
| thegrimmest wrote:
| Yes and the way it's supposed to go is that a competitor
| creates their own devices that entice users away from
| Apple, just like Apple did with RIM. Why 5%? why not 4?
| Why not 6? Who are we to decide what Apple charges for
| Apple services? How do you know what it costs Apple to
| maintain the review process and to continue to innovate
| in mobile space? Why is it any of our collective concern
| what apple over/under charges for?
| Jensson wrote:
| > Who are we to decide what Apple charges for Apple
| services?
|
| The EU will create an investigation team to decide this,
| just like they did for VISA and Mastercard when they
| capped card transaction feed.
|
| > Why is it any of our collective concern what apple
| over/under charges for?
|
| Because unregulated capitalism doesn't work.
| thegrimmest wrote:
| What do you mean _doesn 't work_? Didn't it produce Apple
| to begin with? Where was the regulation on RIM in the
| late aughts?
|
| > _just like they did for VISA and Mastercard when they
| capped card transaction feed._
|
| And in so doing they _significantly increased the barrier
| to entry in the space_ , effectively cementing VISA and
| Mastercard into market dominance. This happens everywhere
| everything is regulated - incumbents shape the regulation
| so it's easy for them to comply with and difficult for
| new entrants, creating all sorts of disfunction.
|
| Let me ask, what is the cost of doing nothing here
| exactly? Why are you so certain that that cost is higher
| than the cost of intervention?
| Jensson wrote:
| > And in so doing they significantly increased the
| barrier to entry in the space, effectively cementing VISA
| and Mastercard into market dominance
|
| This isn't true, there are tons of alternatives to Visa
| and Mastercard in Europe today. Rather significantly
| reducing the profits and thus the warchest of these
| companies made it easier for small companies to compete,
| not harder. The same applies to appstores.
|
| > Let me ask, what is the cost of doing nothing here
| exactly?
|
| The cost is reduced innovation. Same with card fees. The
| future is electronic payments, they are much more
| efficient, anything that hampers that is hampering
| innovation. That includes card fees, or this tax on
| Appstore purchases. Many apps simply aren't feasible to
| make with such high fees, marketplace apps etc where you
| trade things with people for example.
|
| Not to mention that the Appstore tax encourages
| advertisements over purchasing apps, since you lose 30%
| of any purchases but you don't pay anything on ads,
| making the advertisements effectively 40% more profitable
| in comparison. You'd have a more sane monetization
| ecosystem for apps if the appstore tax got reduced.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| I.e. Capitalism is beneficial until it becomes Feudalism.
| Big tech companies are collecting rents instead of
| profits.
| JanSt wrote:
| I'm sure the fee will be slapped down later too. It gives
| Apple unfair competetive advantages in the industries it
| operates in. (e.g Apple Music vs Spotify)
| FabHK wrote:
| "Reader" apps, broadly construed, can already offer outside
| subscriptions. Apparently, Spotify does not pay a 30% fee
| to Apple, but only 15%, and that on less than 1% of its
| paid members, so only around 0.15%. That does not seem to
| constitute unfair competitive advantage.
|
| https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/apple-fires-back-spotify-
| pa...
| JanSt wrote:
| Well I've read that math many times and I don't
| understand the intention here.
|
| Of course the number is very low - Spotify did not allow
| subscriptions through apps for a long time (do they now?)
|
| Even if they have to pay 15% now (I don't know) that's
| still 15% of their margin (!). Apple is able to make much
| better offers because they don't have to pay that fee.
|
| The 0.15% is math meant to distract, just ask Spotify.
|
| https://newsroom.spotify.com/2019-03-13/consumers-and-
| innova...
| [deleted]
| muro wrote:
| There are multiple "simple magic flags" you can wave - e.g.
| monetize using ads or make a "reader" app where users have to
| subscribe elsewhere. Apple doesn't make you pay them 30% that
| way. I hope governments force them to not take 30% elsewhere
| too, because neither devs nor users can do it.
| HNSucksAss wrote:
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > There isn't a magic flag you can wave to avoid paying Apple
| for the use of their platform.
|
| If alternate App Stores and direct inatallation of IPA files
| off the browser was allowed, developers could have the
| ability to not even use any of Apple's plattform. Hell, I bet
| that a community-made FOSS SDK to create iOS apps would
| arrive. Then those devs wouldn't use or distribute any of
| Apple's IP while developing their apps (besides the Apple
| devices they already own and use for developement)
| KDTreeHipster wrote:
| Apple does allow installation of IPA from the browser.
| There are a few different ways you can do it, from
| generating a special URL to App Clips.
| https://developer.apple.com/app-clips/
|
| That's not the issue. The issue isn't the method of
| distribution. The issue is being able to get around Apple's
| sandboxing.
| keleftheriou wrote:
| When you say "The issue is being able to get around
| Apple's sandboxing", what do you mean exactly? Any
| examples?
| firloop wrote:
| > First off, they say that in order to get out of the
| requirement that everyone give Apple 30% of income, they say
| that those using an alternative payment method still must give
| Apple 27% of income.
|
| That's not exactly the trade here - Apple is letting people use
| alternative payment providers, which does carry a lot of
| benefits besides not paying the fee, including better customer
| management and support
| ummonk wrote:
| > which does carry a lot of benefits besides not paying the
| fee, including better customer management and support
|
| And most importantly, making it really difficult for the user
| to cancel the subscription
| JanSt wrote:
| New EU legislation makes it mandatory to add a prominent
| button to cancel your subscription! It's not allowed to
| force you to give a call or, in Germany, even login.
|
| https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/211006-new-two-
| click...
| chihuahua wrote:
| That article seems to say that it's sufficient to
| identify (but not authenticate) yourself as the
| subscriber who wants to cancel. So anyone can cancel any
| other subscribers they want? OK, German lawmakers,
| whatever you say...
|
| > If sufficient data to identify the subscription to be
| cancelled
|
| > is entered by the consumer, the submission of the form
| will itself
|
| > be a valid cancellation, the effect of which cannot be
| made subject
|
| > to further steps such as logins or second factor (e.g.,
| email, app)
|
| > confirmations.
| Someone wrote:
| I think the right pattern would be to send a mail
|
| _"we got a request to cancel your subscription. We did
| that, but if it wasn't you who made that request, or you
| accidentally unsubscribed, click here to revert that
| cancellation within X days"_.
| chihuahua wrote:
| And if you're unlucky, you're going to get one of these
| every day for every one of your subscriptions. All it
| takes is someone who doesn't like you and who knows your
| email.
| lozenge wrote:
| Not necessarily, one example of an alternative payment
| method which allows users to cancel subscriptions is
| PayPal.
|
| While there are probably some companies that would like to
| make subscriptions difficult to cancel, I don't believe
| this is true of dating apps.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Which can be resolved by a consumer awareness campaign
| around card disputes & chargebacks. You can dispute any
| transaction even on a debit card if the merchant is being
| uncooperative or you haven't received the goods/services
| promised.
| FabHK wrote:
| > chargebacks.
|
| > You can dispute any transaction even on a debit card if
| the merchant is being uncooperative or you haven't
| received the goods/services promised.
|
| You can? In the Netherlands? Which is what this is about?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Yes you can, worldwide with a Visa, MasterCard or Amex.
| Most of these card networks have consumer-friendly rules
| that merchants have to abide by if they want to process
| payments.
|
| Each country can have its own laws on top of that (such
| as Section 75 protection in the UK for _credit cards_
| only) but the basic dispute scheme is managed by the card
| networks.
| melony wrote:
| Those payment networks are another relic that needs to be
| gotten rid of.
| ThunderSizzle wrote:
| Perhaps, but there are several advantages those payment
| networks provide me:
|
| 1) Security. I'm not using my money when I use a credit
| card. If someone stole a credit card, my bank account is
| not at risk in the same way if I lost a debit card or a
| check.
|
| 2) Fraud protection. On top of not using my own money, if
| someone does spend with a credit card, I'm protected much
| better than if it was my own money. Disputes and fraud on
| bank-issued debit cards tie up my money, meaning I can't
| pay my bills. Fraud and disputes on credit cards tie up
| some of my credit, and is not interest-bearing while it's
| under review.
|
| 3) Grace period. I basically have 45-60 days from when I
| purchase something to when I have to pay the statement
| balance that charge is part of. This gives me 45-60 days
| of cash that _if I needed to use_, I could. Granted, that
| would typically be in an emergency-type situation. That
| means if I have a flat tire, and my rent is due, and I
| didn't happen to have the cash ready that second, I don't
| need to make a decision (yet) or get a payday loan. I can
| figure out what to do over the next 45 days while not
| missing rent.
|
| 4) Interest. While almost every credit card out there has
| predatory interests, you can get low-interest credit
| cards, which can help in a tight squeeze. While it might
| be worse than a personal loan (depending), other options,
| such as a payday loan or even lay-away, are very much
| worse.
|
| 5) Cashback & rewards. I can easily get 4% cash back
| average for purchases I make, without paying any more or
| facing any inconvenience. Sometimes you run into a 3%
| credit charge, which I'm okay with if I'm getting similar
| cash back or the above protections.
|
| If you can figure out a system that gives me all that and
| can be used nearly everywhere, then I'm all ears. But any
| new system needs to address the above.
| melony wrote:
| The issue is not what they can provide, just like the
| issue is not what Apple brings to the table. The problem
| is that both are too big and overwhelming dominance poses
| risks of anti-trust/deplatforming depending on which side
| you believe in.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| The fraud is only a problem because of an ancient model
| where snooping on a bunch of numbers printed on a card
| can be used to verify any random transaction.
|
| Cashback is only a thing because those payment providers
| are taxing all transactions in the US to an unreasonable
| level, which just raises overall prices. Great business
| model though, take 5% to give back 3% and the customer is
| happy about that.
| ummonk wrote:
| The key statement there is "if" - you have to try to
| contact the merchant first before you issue the
| chargeback. And even a successful chargeback doesn't
| prevent the merchant from reporting the missed payments
| on your credit record or sending it to collections.
|
| In contrast, with Apple Pay it's a quick subscription
| cancellation via one simple interface.
| keleftheriou wrote:
| Apple Pay != Apple in-app purchases
|
| Regardless, Apple could still mandate use of their own
| payment system alongside optional 3rd-party systems, and
| let all options compete on their merits - ease of
| cancellation being one of them.
| Tagbert wrote:
| One problem app developers now have is that they can't
| refund any purchases even if they agree that it is
| justified. They tell customers that only Apple can do that
| and customers tend to not believe them but that is how
| Apple set it up.
| samb1729 wrote:
| I'd speculate that not paying the 30% Apple Tax is basically
| the whole point for most businesses that care about it.
| JanSt wrote:
| They also added a bunch of requirements. Example (besides
| what was already mentioned): You have to report every single
| transaction to them. Apple is making it practically
| impossible AND they put a 27% fee on top. This behaviour
| might really come hunt them. The EU is already set to add
| gatekeeper legislation. Apple's behaviour might lead to even
| stricter regulation or forcing them to split the app store
| off into a new company. They don't even try to mask what they
| are doing. A big middle finger to the EU regulators.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| They will take the fine, deduct it from their huge profit, and
| carry on. The EU will be happy to pocket the fine, they need
| the money. It worked in the past, what new thing could make it
| go wrong for Apple?
| neximo64 wrote:
| If they didn't have the 27%, I would basically set up a
| business for a US app and boost my revenue 40% simply by
| cutting out Apple.
| qq66 wrote:
| I think these 200 IQ tech CEOs have lost their minds and don't
| realize that their power is like that of an ant next to a lion
| when compared to the power of the 89 IQ politicians that run
| governments. Except for Satya Nadella they are all headed for a
| massive beatdown.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| > Except for Satya Nadella
|
| In the case of Microsoft, did they only open up their store
| to alternate payment systems because they don't have much to
| lose?
| wlesieutre wrote:
| If they tried to impose the rules that Apple does, both
| third party developers would leave their store.
|
| Which to be fair has also been a problem for Apple in the
| Mac App Store.
| xwdv wrote:
| Precisely, they wish they had the leverage to enforce
| revenue splits from alternative payment systems.
| winternett wrote:
| The subtext to all of the changes mega corps are making is
| that they are slaves to their investment pipelines and now
| that profits are not showing growth, they're turning towards
| even more unreasonable tactics of squeezing money out of
| exactly what makes them an ecosystem... They're milking their
| user base, they're milking developers, they're milking
| everyone to stay on top.
|
| Only companies that start to really evaluate how they can
| free themselves from the pipeline of dependency will survive.
| It means going back to browser-based apps and services, not
| in creating apps that need to be deployed through gatekeeping
| app stores.
| EGreg wrote:
| Yes! I have been speaking about this for a long while now.
| I felt I was a lone voice from among various left-
| libertarians here and there who criticize capitalism.
|
| The model of VCs buying shares and then selling them to
| Wall St. in an IPO leads to exactly this, across the board:
| Closed source software Siloed data Limited
| interoperability Extracting rents
|
| That last one is an economic term that requires a power
| imbalance to occur. Apple is just one of many Big Tech
| companies and, frankly, it is far more pro-consumer and
| pro-producer than say, Facebook and Google.
|
| The proliferation of ads on YouTube, the increasing
| attempts at surveillance capitalism, all point to
| diminishing returns from the ads. The system of funding
| "public utilities" privately and then dumping it on Wall St
| is eating itself. When something becomes that big, it
| should be turned into an open source project, and monetized
| using utility tokens.
|
| Open source, science, wikipedia, in the end unlock way more
| wealth than their closed counterparts based on the profit
| motive, private ownership and recouping investment.
|
| Take DisneyWorld for example. It is owned by Disney Coep
| which is owned by shareholders, who want DisneyWorld to
| extract profits at the expense of both its customers and
| vendors. Disney Dollars are the utility tokens that
| customers buy, while the vendors need to unionize to get
| $15 an hour minimum wage (or get Bernie to help LOL). The
| wall street shareholders are almost just a parasite class,
| who are just trying to push the company to give them
| profits ar the expense of its customers (eg Uber riders)
| and vendors (eg Uber drivers).
|
| There is a reason co-operative housing complexes in the USA
| don't need rent control imposed by the city: the tenants
| ARE the landlord, so the prices of eg Mitchell-Lama housing
| in NYC is 2-5x smaller than its neighboring landlord-owned
| building.
|
| Private property works for small scales. For larger scales,
| open source gift economies work way better. Wikipedia is
| far bigger than Britannica, etc. We need the same
| approaches for news -- and, I would argue, all public
| discourse.
|
| Corporations have co-opted many idealistic movements,
| including women's liberation, and freedom of speech. We the
| people are being told what to argue about -- deplatforming
| -- rather than discuss how people got a platform in the
| first place.
|
| Having an unfiltered megaphone to tweet to 5 million people
| at 3am doesn't help society, it hurts and divides it.
| Whether it's Donald Trump or Elon Musk, the fart tweets
| don't add much value to society but they can surely move
| markets and drive the population nuts, too.
|
| Science has peer review in journals, Open Source has review
| of pull requests, Wikipedia has talk pages, before
| publishing. And notice how much more balanced wikinews is,
| than the for-profit corporations that had to become
| clickbaity outlets that can only afford to report one side
| of a story, to pander to their readers (yes even the
| NYTimes and CNN have had to do this, forced by the market
| competition).
|
| Having an audience is a form of capital, which is why
| Republican arguments about Citizens United make sense:
| money and "speech" in favor of candidates are both very
| effective because the "speech" is really a top-down
| centralized ORGANIZATION where some owners set the agenda
| and the peons have to parrot it or get fired:
|
| Please see the Sinclair script here and the solution for
| freedom of speech:
|
| https://rational.app/
|
| Corporatism hijacking women's liberation movements:
|
| https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=286
|
| Corporations and government keeping us all distracted:
|
| https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=362
| ballenf wrote:
| If we assume they considered this angle, I think there's an
| even more interesting inference to be drawn: that they're
| only move is to extend and delay and pray that something in
| the landscape changes. Or, at the least, that they collect
| their rents for as long as possible.
|
| Not to mention that Apple would probably just close The
| Netherlands appstore before fully implementing the change.
| unilynx wrote:
| Discriminating between EU countries might get them dragged
| before the courts even faster.
| kobalsky wrote:
| are those 89 IQ politicians incorruptible?
| oceanplexian wrote:
| Depends on what region we're talking about. In the EU, it
| does seem like politicians have the upper hand, but in the
| US, neither of our two major political parties (Democrat and
| Republican) have taken any concrete steps to regulate the
| tech giants despite a bunch of rhetoric. There are several
| reasons:
|
| - A non-trivial number of lawmakers are holding stock
| investments in tech
|
| - Good luck getting re-elected if said regulation affects
| growth and crashes the economy
|
| - Good luck getting re-elected if you get on the wrong side
| of the largest advertising companies in the world. What are
| they going to do, run campaign ads in the newspaper?
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| > In the EU, it does seem like politicians have the upper
| hand, but in the US, neither of our two major political
| parties (Democrat and Republican)
|
| I don't think in the EU the politicians have "the upper
| hand", they work exactly as in the US. The difference is
| that all those digital giants pay taxes (and employ people
| who do so) mostly in the US, so you can't touch em. EU
| politicians are free to impose restrictions since we don't
| have this industry on our side of the lawn.
| natch wrote:
| Isn't it just that they are required to use a new bundle ID?
| Essentially the developer workload imposed here would be changing
| a single string in a single file (the project's Info.plist file).
|
| To be sure there are other challenges raised by this for the
| developer. For example any app specific storage would need to be
| migrated to the other app, something for which there are
| mechanisms in the Apple ecosystem as long as the two App IDs in
| question come from the same developer. If they don't, then the
| developer would have to cook up their own solution for that.
|
| Also marketing would be an issue. For example the review history
| for one app would not be migrated to the other App ID unless
| Apple provides a way to do this (which I would not expect unless
| they are forced).
|
| In short, while it's not zero impact, it's also not quite as bad
| as the scare headline makes it sound.
| btown wrote:
| I hadn't even thought about review history, but that's _huge_ -
| because it gives Apple a justification for putting Tinder
| Direct lower than Tinder in all search results, simply because
| it doesn 't have a history of reviews!
| dang wrote:
| Past related threads. Others?
|
| _Distributing Dating Apps in the Netherlands_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30206559 - Feb 2022 (17
| comments)
|
| _Apple will charge 27% commission for alternative payment
| systems in Netherlands_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204604 - Feb 2022 (878
| comments)
|
| _Apple 's Plan for Third-Party In-App Payments Insufficient,
| Says Dutch Regulator_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30058113 - Jan 2022 (6
| comments)
|
| _Apple complies with Dutch ruling, lets dating apps use other
| payment systems_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29945797
| - Jan 2022 (61 comments)
|
| _Dutch watchdog finds Apple App Store payment rules anti-
| competitive_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28785349 -
| Oct 2021 (236 comments)
|
| More distantly related:
|
| _Netherlands ACM launches investigation into abuse by Apple in
| its App Store_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19664584 -
| April 2019 (117 comments)
|
| _Apple in Dutch antitrust spotlight for allegedly promoting own
| apps_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19640924 - April
| 2019 (7 comments)
| bgorman wrote:
| It seems like Apple is really tempting fate here. These onerous
| and anti-competitive rules will surely invite more regulation.
| Guest42 wrote:
| Agreed. It seems as though they've adopted a never-surrender
| mindset and will continue down the current path regardless of
| circumstances.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| I think this is going to be a wake-up call, not just for
| Apple but big tech in general. They're used to the US where
| regulators, when they even exist, can trivially be worked
| around with lobbying or a half-assed, bad-faith "solution"
| like this one. It seems like this kind of strategy no longer
| works in the EU.
| realusername wrote:
| They dig their own grave, they have way too much market
| power while simultaneously reducing as much as they can the
| taxes they provide in the EU, their contempt is the cherry
| on top. I don't even see anything which could make them not
| get hammered.
| chasil wrote:
| There should be an F-Droid for Apple, that only accepts
| contributions in the form of source code.
|
| Both Apple and Google should be compelled to admit
| anything from F-Droid into their relevant app stores, at
| whatever price the developer sets.
|
| When an app developer is proscribed, this option will
| allow access to mobile platforms that Apple or Google
| would otherwise revoke and ban.
|
| There is enough attention on this issue now to force this
| to happen.
|
| https://nypost.com/2022/01/31/googles-online-ad-business-
| wou...
| toyg wrote:
| I reckon Cook has accepted that the party will end soon; and
| so they will milk the market for as much as they can, until
| the very last day.
|
| That's the only explanation that respects his intelligence.
| criddell wrote:
| I really don't understand their strategy here.
|
| I was listening to the ATP podcast. All three hosts are big
| fans of Apple, they use and promote Apple products, and make
| all or some of their living selling apps. They all think Apple
| is making a huge mistake here.
|
| Is there anybody who thinks Apple's recent moves are going to
| be good for them long term? When even your biggest fans think
| you are being petulant and foolish, maybe it's time to
| reevaluate?
| rosndo wrote:
| > I was listening to the ATP podcast. All three hosts are big
| fans of Apple, they use and promote Apple products, _and make
| all or some of their living selling apps._ They all think
| Apple is making a huge mistake here.
|
| Hmmm...
| criddell wrote:
| There's more than one way to interpret that. As people who
| have made significant investments in the platform, they
| want it to stay strong and fear that Apple's inflexibility
| will ultimately hurt the platform. They are thinking about
| years into the future rather than the next quarter or two.
|
| They were fans of Apple before they ever started building
| in the ecosystem.
| rosndo wrote:
| > There's more than one way to interpret that
|
| Sure, but there's also the really obvious interpretation.
|
| These are people who will immediately earn more if the
| apple tax is reduced.
| criddell wrote:
| It may be an obvious interpretation, but it isn't very
| charitable.
|
| Are you trying to make the argument that Apple's rules
| make sense and those who want to see change likely have a
| conflict of interest? If so, then you may be the person I
| didn't think existed. Do you think Apple's doing the
| right thing?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > When even your biggest fans think you are being petulant
| and foolish, maybe it's time to reevaluate?
|
| Has there ever been a situation where a public company has
| valued consumer trust or goodwill?
|
| To me it seems like it only matters when consumers actually
| have a choice and you need to convince them to give you money
| - once you've locked them in (because of contracts or anti-
| competitive practices), it doesn't really matter and you can
| (and should) milk them out of every dollar until you can't
| (as in competition or regulation disrupts the status-quo).
| criddell wrote:
| Apple's fight right now is with regulators. You might get
| away with screwing consumers when your competitors are as
| bad or worse than you, but governments are a different
| thing all together.
|
| Did the lawyers inside Apple really expect their changes to
| satisfy EU-based regulators? Do they think this will just
| go away?
|
| Nobody seems to think Apple is being smart right now.
| Usually you can find at least some supporters from their
| fan base, but not this time.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| This is typical "big tech" that is used to getting away with
| anything with the worst-case scenario being a slap on the
| wrist, way after the damage was caused and money was earned -
| very common in the US.
|
| It seems like EU regulators are starting to wake up (both this
| and the recent GDPR developments) and are able to see straight
| through the bullshit and recognize bad-faith behavior.
| Vespasian wrote:
| In Europe, big tech pays very little taxes, provides very few
| jobs and exfiltrates mountains of personal data to foreign
| intelligence services.
|
| It's politically very easy to bring out the big guns here for
| European politicians.
|
| At least the US government can be brought to the negotiation
| table if it turns out to be a problem.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > It's politically very easy to bring out the big guns here
| for European politicians.
|
| If this results in a more competitive environment where
| we're less stalked & screwed by big tech then why not? The
| enemy of my enemy is my friend.
| [deleted]
| wdb wrote:
| Can you upload the app with the new entitlement using the
| existing app id specially for the Dutch appstore? I think that
| would be reasonable to expect
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Probably? but another rule states that you can't have the
| entitlement and IAP in the same app, so the end result would be
| Apple taking away user's choice between IAP or external and
| forcing the developer to decide for all of their customers.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| There doesn't have to be entitlements or anything - it is not a
| technical problem and doesn't require a technical solution.
| Apple can just tell its app reviewers to skip the "alternate
| payment methods" issue when reviewing apps covered by this
| ruling.
| ben_w wrote:
| Why do entitlements exist on the App Store?
|
| I never understood them, and therefore they're totally a
| Chesterton's Fence to me.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Entitlements are a permission system, equivalent to
| Android's own. Your app lists what device access it needs
| and it only gets what it asks for and no more. Apple also
| uses them to audit or gate off device access to certain
| things - i.e. if your app requests the network extensions
| entitlement, then App Review is going to be asking why your
| app needs to be able to MITM all device traffic.
|
| Apple appears to be using entitlements entirely to flag
| that an app is using third-party payments, which is kind of
| a hack as there is no way for iOS to prohibit you from
| offering them to begin with. But this is the standard way
| of asking Apple for extra permissions, so I can see why
| they're using it. The separate app thing is there
| specifically so that Apple can technically enforce that
| apps _only_ get third-party payments in the Netherlands and
| nowhere else.
|
| The alternative would be for app developers to check for
| themselves if they're in the Netherlands and only offer
| third-party payments if that check succeeds. But there's no
| (easy) way for Apple to verify that your app is compliant;
| app developers could totally Volkswagen them. Or at least
| this is the pretext Apple will use to justify making
| compliance as friction-filled as possible.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Entitlements are part of code-signing and allow access to
| restricted software or hardware features - they're checked
| at runtime before granting access.
|
| They make zero sense when it comes to stupid policy like
| this though.
| ummonk wrote:
| I assume the system is built so that app ID only has one
| current version, rather than region-specific versions. And
| rightly so - it would be really confusing behavior if the
| version of an app I have depends on which country I happened to
| be in when I downloaded it.
| sprite wrote:
| Apple also doesn't allow new dating apps, with some exceptions
| (unique, high quality experience, which seems like a judgement
| call you would have a hard time arguing with App Review):
|
| https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
|
| 4.3 Spam Don't create multiple Bundle IDs of the same app. If
| your app has different versions for specific locations, sports
| teams, universities, etc., consider submitting a single app and
| provide the variations using in-app purchase. Also avoid piling
| on to a category that is already saturated; the App Store has
| enough fart, burp, flashlight, fortune telling, dating, drinking
| games, and Kama Sutra apps, etc. already. We will reject these
| apps unless they provide a unique, high-quality experience.
| Spamming the store may lead to your removal from the Apple
| Developer Program.
| jiux wrote:
| dating app Founder here.
|
| adding to sprite's comment, they still allow new dating apps
| that match their guidelines.
| Someone wrote:
| So, iOS is supposed to start supporting alternative payment
| providers, so that apps can start using them without those apps
| seeing any update, but only for dating apps, and only in the
| Netherlands?
|
| Would it have to work if a user installs multiple dating apps,
| and picks different payment providers for each of them, changes
| them a few times a month, etc?
|
| How would users configure payment providers (presumably in iOS
| settings, as the apps can't be changed)?
|
| I don't see how iOS could come preloaded with every payment
| provider on the planet (if only because new ones can pop up every
| minute), so should it download and run code that processes the
| user's money, or would Apple be allowed to restrict what payment
| providers can do so that iOS can configure them based on a few
| items (say an icon, a descriptive text, a background image, and
| some info on how to make a payment)?
|
| I can see solutions here, but not ones that can be implemented in
| a few weeks time. Implementing such a feature takes time, even if
| you can throw money at it.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Payment is easy, you can use regular old webviews to handle
| payment. You don't need native payment providers to be
| supported at all. The Dutch iDeal system easily integrates into
| apps as well through banking apps. Callback URLs are well
| supported and any app can register protocol handlers for them
| to receive confirmation of payment (which the app then must
| verify through a backend API call, to prevent abuse, of
| course). This is all quite trivial to implement, and requires
| no work from Apple at all.
|
| The specificity is because of the nature of the lawsuit. A
| bunch of dating apps decided to join forces and sue Apple in
| the Netherlands. The judge ruled against Apple, so Apple has to
| allow the dating apps (and probably the entire dating category)
| to use alternate payment options.
|
| Sure, going by the law Apple should probably allow all apps in
| Europe to use alternate payment options, but Apple is making
| more money than the noncompliance fines. They're trying to
| bleed anyone enforcing the law dry by pretending to do what was
| asked but in the most detestable, childish, and stubborn way
| possible.
|
| I hope the judge will add a couple of zeroes to these fines
| because another fifty million is nothing but the cost of
| business for a company like Apple.
| Sandvich wrote:
| All Apple has to do is what they already do with "Sign in with
| Apple". Just require everyone who uses third-party payment to
| also offer Apple's services.
|
| That one little step would avoid the regulation they're going to
| be hit with.
| [deleted]
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Apple should be wristslapped for forcing developers to use
| their sign in method, too.
| jamesgeck0 wrote:
| The difference is that Apple's sign in is beneficial for non-
| technically savvy users, as it both allows using an anonymous
| email alias and alleviates the need for password creation.
| Those are both reasonable privacy and security trade-offs for
| a tiny bit of (generally reversible) ecosystem lock-in.
| clusterfish wrote:
| Tiny bit? Try and migrate dozens of app accounts to a non-
| Apple email, as a non-technical user. Disregarding the
| sheer amount of work, such users won't even know how to
| send emails from the private addresses they signed up with,
| making it hard for app developers to identify them. It's
| always about control and lock-in with Apple.
| duped wrote:
| As a user I'm a huge fan of it. It's how I use a lot of
| services these days without tying them to an email account.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| I'm not a fan of _any_ coercion. If their solution is good,
| people will use it voluntary, like all other social auth
| buttons.
| louwrentius wrote:
| Apple seems to be dying to get regulated with childish behavior
| like this. And I 'm all-in on the ecosystem, but the behavior of
| apple is getting worse.
| vincentmarle wrote:
| > Apple must therefore pay another 5 million euros. The total of
| all penalty payments currently stands at 20 million euros.
|
| I wonder at which point Apple will start caring about these
| fines.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| When the fines are equal or higher than the money they
| currently make from these anti-competitive practices.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-14 23:01 UTC)