[HN Gopher] Telegram CEO Accuses Apple of Crushing Entrepreneurs
___________________________________________________________________
Telegram CEO Accuses Apple of Crushing Entrepreneurs
Author : firstSpeaker
Score : 54 points
Date : 2022-10-29 20:01 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.macrumors.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.macrumors.com)
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| There will be no super-apps in North America because Apple will
| not allow it.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Android is available in North America and Apple has no control
| over it whatsoever.
| candiodari wrote:
| Apple delivers to Google some double digit percentage of
| search revenue ... Apple has a LOT of control over it. Not
| 100% perhaps, but a lot. I realise this comes from a
| different business line, but between the same 2 companies ...
| Apple can make Google lose A LOT of money if they wanted to.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Apple also gets billions of dollars for that search traffic
| from Google (they're not doing it as a nice favor), and
| they're already working on their own search engine. The
| argument that Apple has any control over Google because of
| search traffic hardly holds water at this point.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Apple charges a high rent, but would lowering that rent somehow
| make an app a "super-app"?
| NayamAmarshe wrote:
| Does Durov really call himself a 'CEO'?
| bdcravens wrote:
| Is he not? Telegram is an LLC, and he is head.
| autotune wrote:
| You can establish a LLC for about $500 online and update your
| LinkedIn to reflect your new position as CEO fyi.
| kybernetyk wrote:
| yes, and?
| autotune wrote:
| The point is, it is not like it is some grand undertaking
| to go through. Literally anyone can found a company and
| become its CEO.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Seems to me that's more of a problem with those that
| convey an inflated meaning to CEO than those using the
| title.
| vetinari wrote:
| Yes, It means that the barriers for entry are low and
| innovative people knowing something can easily found a
| company. That's a good thing.
| autotune wrote:
| 100 percent agree on that.
| kepler1 wrote:
| Funny how quickly a company that invents something that enabled
| people to do things never before possible, gets accused of
| crushing people's dreams like it's a human rights violation, all
| based on a percentage.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| tl;dr: whinging about Apple's 30% commission
| boo-ga-ga wrote:
| The issue is not the commission itself, but the absence of
| alternative ways to install and pay for apps.
| philjohn wrote:
| It's a ridiculous cut, whichever way you look at it. Modern day
| rent seeking.
| bdcravens wrote:
| What would be fair?
| Ferrotin wrote:
| No restrictions on what software people can run on their
| devices.
| bdcravens wrote:
| In that case, Apple's 30% would be fair then?
|
| It seems like most proposals from companies actually
| making money on the platform (as opposed to folks like
| you and I in the cheap seats) are to keep the experience
| the same for the users, with the same amount of value,
| only charge less.
| candiodari wrote:
| Okay. I wrote the driver for network equipment you very
| likely used to get this post to ycombinator. The same
| driver you used to order that Apple app store
| fitness/note taking/goal/... app.
|
| Where's my 30%? Because the value I provided was critical
| to that transaction, to that experience, to the value
| provided. Others could have provided that value, but
| didn't.
|
| I can make the same argument you make. But I'm not a
| trillion dollar company. That's the real difference.
| Ferrotin wrote:
| No, that's just a start. I don't care about "fair" --
| there isn't really such a concept at play here. The fact
| that Apple's reaching through Telegram into the third
| parties using the communications platform is really lame.
| It's not just a direct relationship between Apple and an
| app. It is recursively affecting how two people who
| aren't Apple or Telegram are able to conduct themselves.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| An open market with more than one or two players.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Fair enough, but the topic was whether Apple was charging
| too much. Are you suggesting that if Apple opened up
| their platform to additional app stores or allowed
| sideloading, the 15% or 30% would be fair?
| pixl97 wrote:
| Yes.
|
| See that's the thing about actual competition is a price
| can be determined by the market, especially in the case
| that you have many players rather than a duopoly. In my
| case Apple could charge whatever they wanted, 30%, fine.
| But me the app maker could go to the A+ store and pay 10%
| instead.
| flax wrote:
| Yes. Take Google for example with exactly this approach.
| You can elect to put your apps on the play store with
| commission, or you can put them somewhere else under
| other terms.
|
| Stores can then actually compete on merit.
| fazfq wrote:
| It's an open market, isn't it? You are free to start a
| competitor. Back in the day I tried Windows Phone. It
| failed because it sucked. That can probably be
| extrapolated to the rest of competitors.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Did WP actually suck, or did it suck because there were
| no apps on it?
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Utility pricing is regulated because the barrier to entry
| and cost of switching for consumers is far too high to
| realistically expect competitors to enter.
|
| Don't like your 1000/month gas bill? Well then you can
| sell your house and move to the neighborhood next door.
|
| Same principle with the mobile market at this point.
|
| Some states allow choosing the electricity provider
| separate from the utility providers themselves (creating
| a competitive market).
|
| In the same way, we should be able to choose between
| competing implementations within the walls of the mobile
| platforms.
|
| Absolute control of a platform that impacts a huge
| percentage of society will not be something that's
| accepted in the longer term
| kybernetyk wrote:
| 8%
| TheMode wrote:
| Private companies having a direct say in what products are
| allowed to exist is a big issue by itself. At the very
| least they should only charge what it costs them and run
| the app store as non-profit.
|
| Obviously this is wishful thinking, but given how
| smartphones are a mandatory part of our social life, stores
| being a public service would make much more sense.
| newsclues wrote:
| If we are going to make a stink about "rent seeking" should
| we start with mobile apps or landlords?
|
| Personally as someone that pays 50%+ of my monthly income for
| my government subsidized apartment, I don't think mobile apps
| should be the priority.
| [deleted]
| bdcravens wrote:
| What then would be a fair commission? Credit card processing
| starts around 2-3% (though I'm sure Apple has negotiated a rate
| well below that, but it's not free). Hosting has value, as does
| marketing/discoverability (though apps like Telegram are big
| enough that it's diminished)
| grishka wrote:
| Zero. Apple tries really hard to pretend they own the
| relationship between the user and the app developer, when in
| reality they do nothing to deserve it. Most app developers,
| Telegram included, treat the app store as a nuisance, pain-in-
| the-butt of an obstacle they have to clear to have presence on
| iOS devices. It provides negative value to them. All the
| discovery features are irrelevant to them. They do their own
| marketing and could as well have done their own distribution if
| Apple allowed sideloading.
| tootie wrote:
| They own the app store. The don't allow competing stores or
| side loading. They own the app certification and charge a fee
| for it. They don't license any software or permit VMs. They
| broke Flash and keep their browser a generation behind so
| anyone trying to deliver a good user experience needs a
| native app. They block data collection because it hurts
| Google. They've been anticompetitive for years and everyone
| just accepts it. They're as bad or worse than Google or
| Amazon but coast on their brand halo to get away with it.
| hammock wrote:
| Apple created the platform in which the apps run, and without
| which (or an alternative platform, which can and do exist)
| the apps could not exist. That has to count for something
| slimsag wrote:
| Would you be OK with Chrome blocking all websites that do
| not use Google as a payment processor, and them taking a
| 30% cut? They built the platform where websites run, and
| other platforms exist..
| kybernetyk wrote:
| that platform is nothing magic. it's just a general purpose
| computing device for your pocket.
| grishka wrote:
| iPhones already cost money. That certainly covers all the
| R&D that went into them. Then there's also the $99/year for
| the developer account.
| hammock wrote:
| Historically mobile phone hardware is a loss leader for
| the platform products that they afford access to. Just
| look at cell service providers giving them away for free,
| or at Amazon Fire Phone.
| grishka wrote:
| > Just look at cell service providers giving them away
| for free
|
| In North America which is in a different universe in this
| regard compared to the rest of the world. Where I'm from,
| carriers sell SIM cards and that's it. Postpaid plans
| aren't a thing. You buy your phone separately in an
| electronics store, for full price. This applies to
| iPhones as well.
| gwd wrote:
| > That certainly covers all the R&D that went into them.
|
| Ref?
|
| On the contrary, it's likely that getting rid of the
| Apple Tax would mean needing to significantly reduce
| development and maintenance of the software.
|
| Think also of how the incentives work: If Apple is paid
| only when people buy a new phone, that adds pressure to
| shorten the lifespan of the software on the phone. If
| Apple is paid on an ongoing basis as the phone is used,
| this pressure is reduced, leading to longer-life phones.
| grishka wrote:
| iOS is already feature-complete and has been for quite
| some time. No one would be especially sad if it stopped
| updating except for security patches, new hardware
| features, and bug fixes.
| tootie wrote:
| Proof is in the pudding. They have like a 40% profit
| margin. They are not just keeping pace with the cost of
| innovation. They are charging the absolute maximum the
| market will allow and squeezing suppliers for every
| nickel because no one can stop them.
| goldcd wrote:
| Yes, this. If I was to switch from Android to Apple, I'd
| first re-buy the apps I currently own. I wouldn't be rebuying
| them because Apple had brokered the interaction in some way -
| I'd just be using the single option I have to get the apps I
| want onto the phone in my hand. There might be some new
| smart-phone user out there that buys apps based solely on
| recommendations from the store, but this is a minority (and
| maybe an argument for allowing paid promotion of apps, like
| everywhere else).
|
| Stepping back to the point, I'm guessing 99%+ of Telegram
| users decided to use Telegram for reasons outside of the App
| Store. Seems ridiculous that Apple has any claim to the
| income those apps generate.
|
| Maybe if US or EU wanted to fix this (without forcing apple
| to allow 3rd party installs), a solution might be to just get
| rid of 'free' apps. Say every app costs $1 to install (if
| kept for 12 months) and 10c a year to provide updates - and
| then it's up to the app dev to cover the costs to Apple if
| they want it to be "free" to the user.
| dvngnt_ wrote:
| that's a much worse idea especially for hobby or open
| source applications
| cas8 wrote:
| It's not entirely about the %. The problem is that there's no
| alternative. I have no real problem with someone like Google
| with the Play Store or Valve with Steam giving developers the
| option of shipping on their platforms for a commission like
| 30%, because you don't need the Play Store to install apps nor
| Steam to install video games. In those cases it can actually be
| a decision about whether or not the hosting/visibility/platform
| is _worth_ the cut. But in Apple's case there is no decision to
| be made. You can't opt out. That's why you see so much more
| flak thrown at Apple for this commission than you do other
| platform providers.
| bdcravens wrote:
| The question I've asked others is if they open it up, then
| 30% is fair? It seems to me that is what you're suggesting.
| Gigachad wrote:
| I think so. If apps could do their own payment processing
| and still decide to use the apple one, it means it was a
| fair deal. Rather than it being forced on them.
|
| The problem is large companies bundle too much market power
| together. If you want to avoid paying App Store fees
| currently you have to pull off a Herculean effort no
| company in existence is capable of.
| nanidin wrote:
| If they open it up, market forces (via competition) will
| determine what is fair. That equilibrium would probably be
| below 30% if serious competition occurs.
|
| But yes, it would be fair for Apple to ask for 30% because
| others are free to offer the same service for less, and you
| as a consumer of that service have a choice between them -
| which will eventually force Apple to bring its commission
| down.
| bdcravens wrote:
| That hasn't been the case with Android.
|
| Of course, I think most money comes from IAPs, not app
| downloads. The issue then is whether Apple would be
| forced to open the payment APIs, or if apps would need to
| implement a separate solution.
| kybernetyk wrote:
| >Hosting has value
|
| Roughly $10 a month.
|
| >as does marketing/discoverability
|
| None of which the app store provides for you.
| philjohn wrote:
| Telegram are the ones hosting the posts in this case.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Most apps have an API they use. Apple hosts the binaries to
| be installed, and hosts the payment APIs if they are use IAP.
| Perhaps it could be argued that each service that Apple
| provides should be billed separately.
| saghm wrote:
| This ignores the point that companies are required to use
| the App store to host the app and do payments though; I
| think plenty of companies would prefer to distribute the
| app and process payments externally to avoid the fee, but
| it's not feasible to provide apps to users any other way,
| and any external payment options are both not allowed to be
| communicated to users within the apps and not allowed to
| cost less than they do from within the app (making it
| impossible to pass the 30% on to users). Taking a cut of
| payments facilitated by your platform is a business model;
| forcing people to use your platform and then insisting on
| payment for your work is a protection racket.
| bdcravens wrote:
| So open platform, and Apple can charge whatever they
| want?
| redeeman wrote:
| yes, allow installs outside of appstores, and allow
| people to make their own appstores, and yes, apple can
| charge what they want?
| modeless wrote:
| A fair commission is what the market decides after users are
| allowed to install whatever app store they want.
| ferrocarraiges wrote:
| We don't know, but the Market would figure out if it were
| possible for other app-hosting platforms to compete.
|
| Some would try to woo developers by taking less of a cut, and
| unprofitable ones would go out of business. Eventually, an
| equilibrium would be reached.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Does telegram even have a web app? If they wanted they could
| circumvent apple entirely. They could also just remove their
| stuff from the App Store and focus on android without Play.
| riedel wrote:
| https://web.telegram.org
| cglong wrote:
| Link to original statement: https://t.me/durov/190
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-29 23:01 UTC)